Does atheism have a philosophy?

[Landry]

In talking to atheists I commonly hear that atheism is not a philosophy and that it has no philosophy. I have my own thoughts concerning this claim but wouldn't mind some input from anyone that cares to comment.

[Habitat]

If jumping to unwarranted conclusions is a philosophy, that would be it.

[Imaginarynumber1]

It is just the disbelief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. Any philosophy that an atheist expounds to you is their own and is independent of their atheism, which (so many people do not seem to grasp) is nothing but a term for someone who believes in no god(s).

Edited February 28, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Rlyeh]

It's simple, no deities.

[Beckys_Mom]

If jumping to unwarranted conclusions is a philosophy, that would be it. (snip)

Not all atheists do .. just like not all religious do... Anyone can do it..

In talking to atheists I commonly hear that atheism is not a philosophy and that it has no philosophy. I have my own thoughts concerning this claim but wouldn't mind some input from anyone that cares to comment.

I do not know how a non belief in gods can be seen as a philosophy.. ... Some atheists lean on science, but see that is a personal choice and interest that anyone can have, it has nothing to do with atheism... All atheism will be is a lack of belief in Gods

Edited February 28, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[+Paranoid Android]

I would argue that atheism is a philosophy just as much as theism is a philosophy - that is, not at all. Our belief in god or disbelief in god is irrelevant to the values, ideals, beliefs, and attitudes we hold to life the universe and everything. A theist simply states "god exists". They then add their own philosophical views about the universe as to how that impacts the way they live. An atheist does not accept the existence of deity. Using that premise they then use that to construct their philosophical approach to the universe. Their approach to the existence of god or not is quite separate to their philosophy.

That would be my approach to the question, at least

~ PA

[danbell06]

I'm athiest and i believe that we are here because thats the way it is, no big bang, nothing to do with aliens, or God.

I don't believe in God, and dont believe in Satan, i do however believe that after life something other than nothingness is awaiting, "on the other side."

This is my opinion and that is what i will always believe until something happens to prove that we were created from the hands of God, which will never happen. The bible, to me, is just a book of writings which probably had a few chinese whisper's thrown in for good measure.

Edited February 28, 2012 by danbell06

[Essan]

I am quite sure that all atheists have philosophies. Strange question. Just because you do not believe in a deity doesn't mean you have no concept of morals or logic or existence

I would argue that athiests are likely to be much more philosphical than those who ascribe to a religion - simply because the later are constrained by their religion whereas, obviously, atheists are not and thus can consider all things.

How many of the great philosophers were staunchly religious? How many were not?

Edit: indeed, it is because of my philosophies that I rejected, at an early age, religion as illogical and, in this day and age, immoral and even unethical.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Essan

[Doug1029]

In talking to atheists I commonly hear that atheism is not a philosophy and that it has no philosophy. I have my own thoughts concerning this claim but wouldn't mind some input from anyone that cares to comment.

The "The Philsophy of Humanism" by Corliss Lamont.

Doug

[Landry]

It is just the disbelief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. Any philosophy that an atheist expounds to you is their own and is independent of their atheism, which (so many people do not seem to grasp) is nothing but a term for someone who believes in no god(s).

I guess that I do have some reservations about atheists not being able to rely on a philosophy as a system for determining the truth value of a given claim, most notably the claim that God exists. A person can claim that something can stand alone simply as a definition or term, but what does that definition or term really mean in terms of truth value? A belief has to have some underpinning or basis for it to have value.

Wikipedia: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

If I'm understanding this correctly then an atheist can have nothing to say about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, or language as an atheist. An atheist would have to put on a different hat to discuss just about anything.

Don't take this the wrong way, I have friends who claim to be atheists. I just don't get that it really means much especially if you try to pin down what they mean when they use the word deity or god.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Landry

[Magicjax]

I look at it this way. If there was a room full of atheist the only guaranteed thing they'll all agree on is they don't believe a god exists. Every other topic is defined by the indavidual.

[CakeOrDeath]

Certainly not believing in a diety would amount to "part" of the individual's overall philosophy, but not much beyond that.

I do think everyone has a "personal philosophy" it's just sort of your core feelings relating to life in general, one's outlook I guess.

Obviously one's spiritual belief or lack thereof will shape other areas of their outlook?

[Arbenol]

An atheist would have to put on a different hat to discuss just about anything.

To stretch your analogy a bit, atheists aren't wearing any hat to begin with. Your comment illuminates your preconceived notion that atheism is a philosophy. In fairness to some, it is. To others it can be as rabid as any religious ideology. But to most, it really is as simple as not believing in any deity.

[aquatus1]

I would argue that atheism is a philosophy just as much as theism is a philosophy - that is, not at all.

This here I would agree with completely. I would add that a philosophy is more than merely an opinion. A philosophy is a way of interpreting life and nature. A philosophy is a way that one views the world around them. To many theists, their religious beliefs directly affect their perception of the world around them, however it is important to differentiate between the religious aspect and the philosophical aspect. The beliefs which deal with a person's relationship with a higher power are consider religious. The ones which deal with their perception of life are philosophical.

Like everything that involves humans, there is overlap and grey area. The thing to take away from it, however, is that at a minimum, philosophy and religion are not simple beliefs; philosophy and religion are behaviours. Atheism and theism are just beliefs. Philosophies and religions may be based on them, but they, by themselves, are not philosophies or religions.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I guess that I do have some reservations about atheists not being able to rely on a philosophy as a system for determining the truth value of a given claim, most notably the claim that God exists. A person can claim that something can stand alone simply as a definition or term, but what does that definition or term really mean in terms of truth value? A belief has to have some underpinning or basis for it to have value.

Wikipedia: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

If I'm understanding this correctly then an atheist can have nothing to say about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, or language as an atheist. An atheist would have to put on a different hat to discuss just about anything.

Don't take this the wrong way, I have friends who claim to be atheists. I just don't get that it really means much especially if you try to pin down what they mean when they use the word deity or god.

Anything they have to say about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind or language, as you put it, would simply not be defined by the pretext of a religious belief. Everyone has their individual 'philosophies' as it were. Atheists just don't base theirs off of religious belief. Living on this planet grants one more than enough experiences to comment on them.

So maybe an atheist puts on a different hat to discuss different things. No one is any different. People behave differently in different situations and around different people. You're just an amalgamation of different yous. That's just part of this neat thing we call being human.

I don't need a set christian (or any other religious) framework by which to define myself or measure myself against. I have my life for that. I can argue that Mozart is clearly superior to Beethoven, or that antibiotic overuse is putting us more at risk, or that the earth revolves around the sun. I'm not an atheist. That's just a word. I'm a person, who thinks and feels and experiences, just like everyone else. I have different ideas than others, i argue, I get into fights. I am no better nor am I any worse. So why would I need to rely on anything as a system for determining the truth or value of a given claim? Things don't need to be so black and white. Atheist, theist. Who really gives a **EDIT**? So I don't believe in a god, so what? Does that change anything else about me? No. It's one thing among thousands that I disagree with other people about. We're all just human being wandering around on this rock and no of us are going to get out of this alive anyway.

Edit; I may have been rambling a bit, but I don't really care, I'm just acknowledging that fact.

**Profanity filters are there for a reason.**

Edited February 29, 2012 by aquatus1

[Landry]

To suggest that the belief holder holds a particular belief without having come to it through the auspices of a philosophy or guiding principle seems unreasonable to me. (How can you trust the belief to be true or have meaning?)To artificially separate the personal philosophy /guiding principle, i.e. the methodology and criteria used to establish a rationale for holding the belief to be true, from the belief itself, also seems unreasonable. That's just me.

[eight bits]

Welcome aboard, Landry.

Of course, we have had the occasional thread here at UM about what atheists might have in common. The answer is not much. Like the other broadbrush groupings, theists and agnostics, all that unites atheists is their answer to a single question. There are a thousand roads to no.

What philosophy do all or most theists have in common? To all appearances, there are a thousand roads to yes, too. Theists have killed one another over the differences in their paths. Perhaps if atheists are ever comparably numerous, we'll see whether they follow suit.

You might come at the question from a different angle, asking what philosophies or philosophical propositions have few theists or agnostics as adherents. Some netz-atheists are as dead set against that more modest inquiry as they are against the idea that they would have anything nontrivial truly in common. That's a sure sign that it's a good question.

Atheists clearly do have beliefs and philosophical opinions, and some of those beliefs and opinions are not held independently of their answer to the question of God. But a single philosophy embraced by all atheists? Not a chance, IMO.

[aquatus1]

To suggest that the belief holder holds a particular belief without having come to it through the auspices of a philosophy or guiding principle seems unreasonable to me. (How can you trust the belief to be true or have meaning?)

Are you under the impression that beliefs have to be logical or even reasonable to exist? There is no support for that. Beliefs simply are. They get created for the most tenuous of reasons.

To artificially separate the personal philosophy /guiding principle, i.e. the methodology and criteria used to establish a rationale for holding the belief to be true, from the belief itself, also seems unreasonable. That's just me.

You're thinking of it backwards. People do not come up with a reason to believe in something. First they believe, then they justify their beliefs with some sort of reason or behaviour.

[Landry]

Welcome aboard, Landry.

Of course, we have had the occasional thread here at UM about what atheists might have in common. The answer is not much. Like the other broadbrush groupings, theists and agnostics, all that unites atheists is their answer to a single question. There are a thousand roads to no.

What philosophy do all or most theists have in common? To all appearances, there are a thousand roads to yes, too. Theists have killed one another over the differences in their paths. Perhaps if atheists are ever comparably numerous, we'll see whether they follow suit.

You might come at the question from a different angle, asking what philosophies or philosophical propositions have few theists or agnostics as adherents. Some netz-atheists are as dead set against that more modest inquiry as they are against the idea that they would have anything nontrivial truly in common. That's a sure sign that it's a good question.

Atheists clearly do have beliefs and philosophical opinions, and some of those beliefs and opinions are not held independently of their answer to the question of God. But a single philosophy embraced by all atheists? Not a chance, IMO.

Thanks for the welcome.

I've talked to quite a few atheists, and I agree with your main points based on what I've learned. I've talked to a self proclaimed atheist who said he was a Gnostic atheist. Yep. There's also a notable You Tube atheist who has this, "The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies" posted on his channel page. Interestingly, a "self inquiring sentient universe", sounds like a likely definition for an immanent god. So given that, I don't doubt that a multiplicity of fragmentary philosophies lurk in the individual atheistic psyche. They're just people.

My main interest is specifically the answer to why so many atheists would want to claim that atheism doesn't have a philosophy.

Speaking for myself I like the idea of having a philosophy or guiding principle that I can cite as the foundation of a particular belief. Anyways interesting feedback from everyone ... appreciated.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Landry

[Landry]

Are you under the impression that beliefs have to be logical or even reasonable to exist? There is no support for that. Beliefs simply are. They get created for the most tenuous of reasons.

You're thinking of it backwards. People do not come up with a reason to believe in something. First they believe, then they justify their beliefs with some sort of reason or behaviour.

I agree with you 100 percent on all counts! (except the part about me thinking about it backwards) I wasn't expecting someone to come right out and say it.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Landry

[eight bits]

Landry

Thank you for befriending .

My main interest is specifically the answer to why so many atheists would want to claim that atheism doesn't have a philosophy.

I'm sure that some atheists want to claim it for no deeper reason than that it's true. On the other hand, there are some atheists who are emotionally invested in this issue, and that investment does call for an explanation.

As near as I can make out, it is bound up in what you quoted from the YouTuber,

"... lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies"

Meaning, of course, that the boon of winning the writer's approval is lost on those who disagree with the writer about a matter of personal opinion.

Your writer belongs to a segment of the atheist community who insist that there is something wrong with those who hold a different opinion about the question of God than they do. In your example, the contrary opinion is "intellectually vacuous" and those who hold it exhbit medical symptoms, "paranoid fantasies." Ouch.

Clearly, then, this writer will reliably take offense if you point out that his or her point of view shares similar foundations with the contrary point of view. The ideas that yes and no can be equally rational beliefs when the matter is uncertain, and that both views on the question of God are equally beliefs about religious subject matter are provocative.

Speaking for myself I like the idea of having a philosophy or guiding principle that I can cite as the foundation of a particular belief.

I think that's also true of many atheists. It's just that there isn't any one philosophy or guiding principle that typical atheists share.

Also, the invested crowd will object to any suggestion that their opinion about the best answer to the question of God is a "particular belief." Only theists have beliefs about religious subject matter, after all. Everybody knows that.

Bald isn't a hair color! Anarchism isn't a political opinion!

[zenfahr]

My main interest is specifically the answer to why so many atheists would want to claim that atheism doesn't have a philosophy.

Speaking for myself I like the idea of having a philosophy or guiding principle that I can cite as the foundation of a particular belief. Anyways interesting feedback from everyone ... appreciated.

Not sure how you are defining a philosophy. A philosophy is not needed for something not to believed in. For instance, I accept that the Easter bunny is not real... there is not ritual, no guiding precepts for me not to believe in it him her. As for how the atheist would run his life is solely based on what moral upbringing he had, how time has been treating him, and bits of philosophy from here and there that heard that ring true to him. I think you will find that this question is very open to interpretation.