You don’t have to call it belief if that makes you uncomfortable.
It’s a world view. And, like other world views, it has normal, functional people who buy into it, and nutty fanatics who buy into it. It has people who use power wisely, and people who use power dangerously, at the expense of others.
The concerning thing is that some people who hold atheism as a world view think this makes them immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, but that’s far from true. But, of course, it’s common to pick flaws in other world views and think your own shit doesn’t stink.
I think you may be conflating things a bit. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, it doesn’t automatically come with a particular worldview. Worldviews are much more broad, as the name would imply. They encompass a set of values and assumptions about life. Atheism doesn’t prescribe how someone views politics, morality, or society. Those are shaped by other philosophies like humanism or existentialism.
I agree that no one is immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, and atheists can certainly fall prey to the same human errors and biases that affect any group. However, attributing those flaws to atheism itself misses the point. The fact that individuals with different beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, have varying behaviors doesn’t stem from atheism as a ‘worldview’—it’s part of the complex nature of human society.
Criticism of specific worldviews is valid, but atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods doesn’t operate on the same level as belief systems that come with doctrines and tenets.
Perhaps (as i mentioned before) or can be called merely a fundamental aspect of a world view, as in “an atheistic world view”.
I suppose I so tend to say “an atheistic world view” or “a theistic world view” when talking about the matter. That indicates more that it’s a fundamental characteristic of the world view, when compared to other world views, and not necessarily the world view itself.
By nature of the subject (gods being, in general, vast entities fundamental to the structure of the world), atheism is at least a fundamental aspect of an atheistic world view. That is, like magical unicorns, one couldn’t simply drop a god into an atheistic world view and have the people who hold that world view accept it without some serious issues.
I think being non-unicornian is also a fundamental facet of most atheistic world views.
Of course, ”non-unicornian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. A somewhat better term might be “non-fantastical world views,” but whatever.
Using Wikipedia’s article on atheism, I concede that atheism in the broadest sense is not a world view. But atheism in any narrower sense is a world view, at least inasmuch as theism is.
However, the term “atheistic world view” is perfectly valid, as it references any one of the set of world views that have atheism as a general state or facet.
It is a position you hold until a belief system provides sufficient evidence for you to form and hold a belief.
Gnostic atheism is a specific form which nobody actually holds to, which says that there positively is no god and this is known to be a fact. Any reasonable person would admit you can’t know this. And so virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists.
Being an agnostic atheist does not mean you are “on the fence” or “undecided” or “accepting of all beliefs equally.” It means you are intellectually honest that you cannot prove the non-existence of a god any more than you can prove there isn’t a planet in the universe where it rains lemonade. But until you have a firm reason to believe that some god exists, you’re going to proceed as if they don’t, because that’s the conclusion, however perpetually provisional, that best matches the evidence.
Atheism is a belief. Just sayin.
Calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair color. Or like saying ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby
You don’t have to call it belief if that makes you uncomfortable.
It’s a world view. And, like other world views, it has normal, functional people who buy into it, and nutty fanatics who buy into it. It has people who use power wisely, and people who use power dangerously, at the expense of others.
The concerning thing is that some people who hold atheism as a world view think this makes them immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, but that’s far from true. But, of course, it’s common to pick flaws in other world views and think your own shit doesn’t stink.
I think you may be conflating things a bit. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, it doesn’t automatically come with a particular worldview. Worldviews are much more broad, as the name would imply. They encompass a set of values and assumptions about life. Atheism doesn’t prescribe how someone views politics, morality, or society. Those are shaped by other philosophies like humanism or existentialism.
I agree that no one is immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, and atheists can certainly fall prey to the same human errors and biases that affect any group. However, attributing those flaws to atheism itself misses the point. The fact that individuals with different beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, have varying behaviors doesn’t stem from atheism as a ‘worldview’—it’s part of the complex nature of human society.
Criticism of specific worldviews is valid, but atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods doesn’t operate on the same level as belief systems that come with doctrines and tenets.
Perhaps (as i mentioned before) or can be called merely a fundamental aspect of a world view, as in “an atheistic world view”.
I suppose I so tend to say “an atheistic world view” or “a theistic world view” when talking about the matter. That indicates more that it’s a fundamental characteristic of the world view, when compared to other world views, and not necessarily the world view itself.
By nature of the subject (gods being, in general, vast entities fundamental to the structure of the world), atheism is at least a fundamental aspect of an atheistic world view. That is, like magical unicorns, one couldn’t simply drop a god into an atheistic world view and have the people who hold that world view accept it without some serious issues.
I think being non-unicornian is also a fundamental facet of most atheistic world views.
Of course, ”non-unicornian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. A somewhat better term might be “non-fantastical world views,” but whatever.
Negation and Plato’s Beard
Using Wikipedia’s article on atheism, I concede that atheism in the broadest sense is not a world view. But atheism in any narrower sense is a world view, at least inasmuch as theism is.
However, the term “atheistic world view” is perfectly valid, as it references any one of the set of world views that have atheism as a general state or facet.
Not collecting stamps, I like that.
What belief is being held?
All gods are myths
All religions are lies
All faith - including that in the above two things - is delusion.
I mean, you’re shooting your own messenger, but I hear ya.
“What drink would you like?”
“I’ll take a nice tall glass of the absence of water please.”
“You mean that you don’t want a drink?”
“No, the drink I’m requesting and the one I intend to drink the absence of water. Its my favourite drink.”
"So, like a coke or something.’
"No, thats the presence of coke. I want to drink the absence of water…
What do you mean by ‘I’m being ridiculous’?"
It is a position you hold until a belief system provides sufficient evidence for you to form and hold a belief.
Gnostic atheism is a specific form which nobody actually holds to, which says that there positively is no god and this is known to be a fact. Any reasonable person would admit you can’t know this. And so virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists.
Being an agnostic atheist does not mean you are “on the fence” or “undecided” or “accepting of all beliefs equally.” It means you are intellectually honest that you cannot prove the non-existence of a god any more than you can prove there isn’t a planet in the universe where it rains lemonade. But until you have a firm reason to believe that some god exists, you’re going to proceed as if they don’t, because that’s the conclusion, however perpetually provisional, that best matches the evidence.
It’s a non-belief.
Then it’s a good thing belief isn’t mentioned in the image.