Grizzly

Hi all,

This thread might get better play in Misc Religious Discussions.

Grizzly

Vorkosigan

I’ve always been a little intrigued by the concept of supernatural atheism. Certainly it still doesn’t fall into my cliché of standard atheism, however I’ll accept it as someone else’s definition. Certainly the majority of Buddhists I’ve come across would deny vehemently that they are atheistic.

Move somewhere Buddhist. As the Dalai Lama says, Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Atheists lack a belief in gods. How would you class an ESPer who does not believe in god?

To rephrase, theists differ on almost everything, except their belief in some form of god(s).

To follow that reasoning, then neither is theism a worldview.

Absolutely correct. Theism is a descriptive term that is used to indicate whether a belief system has a specific characteristic; namely, belief in gods. Specific forms of theism, Christianity, Chinese Folk Religion or Kikuyu religious beliefs, may qualify as worldviews according to the dictionary definitions you presented.

Vorkosigan

echidna

But the Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all Buddhism. I was under the impression that this was akin to the Pope speaking for all Christianity. In the many flavours of Buddhism there are many which embrace polytheism and spirit belief, as well as those which embrace atheism. But I don’t understand how you can categorically claim that all Buddhism is atheistic.

If atheism embraces spirit-belief, I’m most intrigued. This would seem quite an area of overlap with theism, in that one is left with a torrid debate as to the technical differences between spirits and gods.

Similarly specific forms of atheism may qualify as worldviews, if only when the noun is completely defined can it be described as a worldview.

Then I acknowledge Geotheo’s semantic error was the omission of “your” , hence “I would rather discuss the serious problems of *your* atheism as a worldview”. If they are only talking about the atheistic aspects (which presumably they are), the sentence seems valid.

As such “theistic religion” is still the rhetorical equivalent of “atheistic worldview”.

Ed

Hello Starboy. Well, besides not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe, it doesn't provide a rational basis for morality or an objective basis for propositional communication. These are just a few of the problems, there are many more.

Vorkosigan

In the many flavours of Buddhism there are many which embrace polytheism and spirit belief, as well as those which embrace atheism. But I don’t understand how you can categorically claim that all Buddhism is atheistic.

I did not mean to. Definitely some forms of Buddhism have god-beliefs. My bad.

If atheism embraces spirit-belief, I’m most intrigued. This would seem quite an area of overlap with theism, in that one is left with a torrid debate as to the technical differences between spirits and gods.

Well, sure, but if spirits can be construed as gods, you make Christianity into polytheism. Which it is already.

Anyway, you never answered my question. What about the atheist who embraces ESP? We have them aboard here, you know.

Similarly specific forms of atheism may qualify as worldviews, if only when the noun is completely defined can it be described as a worldview.

The complete definition is: lacking belief in gods. Your position is like saying "lacking belief in unicorns" is a worldview.

As such “theistic religion” is still the rhetorical equivalent of “atheistic worldview”.

Certainly; they are both narrow descriptive terms, describing one component of certain worldviews or beliefs.

Ed expostulates:
Hello Starboy. Well, besides not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe, it doesn't provide a rational basis for morality or an objective basis for propositional communication. These are just a few of the problems, there are many more.

Yes, that's right. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't provide anything else (nor does it claim to); the holder of that view has to provide those another way.

Vorkosigan

nyx

Hi Ed,

I can't wait for your rational explanation for the existence of the universe. Assuming this involves a creator, and all things created must have one, who or what created the creator?

Nyx

echidna

Apologies, I thought your point was so obvious I didn’t reply. I think I’d acknowledge that atheists are quite permitted to believe in ESP, reincarnation, crop circles and leprechauns as they so choose.

I’m poor at terminology but I’d class an ESPing atheist as a metaphysical / supernatural (and non-skeptical) atheist I suppose.

RogerLeeCooke

Hello, Ed, it's been sometimes since we crossed swords. I hope you are well. If you remember me from past encounters, you'll know that I see no difficulties at all here. Morality isn't objective, and anyone who says it "must" be objective is arguing in a circle. The notion that propositional communication is impossible without God is a variant of what CS Lewis thought was his haymaker punch against atheism: if God didn't create our brains, then all our thoughts are unreliable. It is one of philosophy's most glaring non sequiturs, but Lewis believed it. Again, I think he believed that partial confidence in what we are saying isn't acceptable---a normative proposition---so he invoked God to get absolute confidence, even though it is, as he would admit, impossible to know God's thoughts. But it's curious that he thought we couldn't live with a small measure of uncertainty about what we are saying. The idea that we might learn a little at a time and never have perfect knowledge seemed to be ruled out by some unspoken major premise that he never could get clearly down onto paper.

NOGO

"not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe"

Does anybody have a rational explanation for the existance of the universe?

Morality is like language, it is man-made.

The Admiral

Ed;

" Well, besides not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe,".

Why is anyone of any belief required to have a rational explanation for the existence of the universe? I think the universe simply has always existed. No need to postulate the existence of a creator. I don't know, and i think that that is as rational an explanation as anyone has a right to expect.

The Admiral