Atheism is a fine position to have, AtheiSTS are just really bad at presenting it lately. I think it’s become too pedestrian. It used to be that if somebody bothered to say “I’m an atheist”, it was almost certain that they knew their shit. Not so much anymore.
Firstly, if atheism is a religion, someone fucked up. Either there’s a bunch of atheists out there who are trying to make a religion out of nothing or there’s a critic of atheism that’s making up fairy tales.
So you want me to identify one legitimate complaint? I think there are many legitimate complaints. Groups complain about other groups and sometimes those complaints are legit.
Look - Christianity is metaphysics and I’ll complain about metaphysics all day long.
But most of what you hear and read are socio-political complaints. They’re not really “philosophical”. A materialist like myself can find many legit complaints about any metaphysics, but “religion has held back civilization” isn’t one of them. Anyone who knows even a little about Western Civilization would never make that claim and would surely say instead that Christianity is so much a part of Western Civ that you can’t even conceive of religion as holding back the march of progress. In many was, it was the progress itself.
Atheism is like homosexuality. We try to make it the most important thing about a thinker when it is, by itself, not even interesting. It’s what you do with it that counts.
Is that because it’s not possible to finish that sentence, or others like it, in a satisfactorily philosophical way? Or is it because it’s beside the point, for an atheist? Or both, and if so does one override the other?
What follows from that assumption, for the atheist philosopher?
Matty - It’s besides the point because it’s not possible to answer in a satisfactory way.
What follows from the assumption can vary but has limits. The point is that atheism is a good starting point but Sweet Jesus! you gotta get past it.
Theism is not about whether or not a god exists.
Theism is about choosing a god.
Unless the whole free will thing is not wanted.
Some people are not done choosing.
They can wait for a god that never arrives.
The christian god, contrary to scripture, is a god of the dead.
Everyone goes to him and is judged, just like in a similar Egyptian idea.
People want more. They don’t accept their mortality.
Since ‘God’ is said to use prophets, people can come forward and claim to be prophets.
If the bible said god detests prophets, the whole ball would be rolling
in a very different direction.
Sometimes simpler and more false ideas are easier to use,
and therefor more popular.
I’m sure Faust would want a helpful, handy God.
So, he’s not against theism or a god in that way.
He’s just not having a God-presence.
There’s no handy helpful god to talk to.
There’s just silence, and war, and death,
and birth. In this way, I think Faust’s atheism
is a so-far so-good position. Waiting for God
to make a move, but not expecting one either.
Can’t jump off a house and expect God
to catch you.
I do Dan.
Are you serious?
If you go into a cage of lions, can you be sure God will protect you?
Yes, Dan.
Well, I hope you find some meds then. Good meds.
Thanks for your concern!
Oh really?
[size=85]Hmmm… (fresh meat… 
)[/size]
What are your basic complaints against “metaphysics” (and please elaborate on your use of the term)?
I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.
~Musashi Miyamoto
Ding ding ding.
To imply nothing was before life is ridiculous due to the idea of time/change. How can that which does not exist… change?
In order for something to change it must exist first.
No. You will die, depending on the lion.
Religion and gods are not for everyone. Some of us are left handed, some right handed, some crave something that makes another puke. We have similarities and identicals but, we all have differences. Some need gods some do not. All should respect each other’s needs.
Does that mean that it’s philosophically unproductive to discuss the reasons why it’s not possible to answer those questions in a satisfactory way? I’m intrigued, too, by what makes an answer philosophically satisfactory, but that’s probably a whole new thread, and likely one you’ve already started here before.
I get the sense that your radical atheism in this sense is of a piece with your opposition to metaphysics more broadly. That may be a rather trivial observation, perhaps, but for me it raises interesting questions. If I find the idea of God unnecessary and unhelpful then that probably applies to everything that could be called a first principle.
Need for what? Fear?
Fear, direction, security, absolutes, positive. , etc , etc. I don’t see any one answer. There is too many beliefs within beliefs. Some are fanatic just as atheists can be and some are pretty damned laid back just as atheists can be. Then you get the middles of both. One answer does not fit all.
matty - it means that no matter how much atheist propaganda I read, and it’s been a lot, it never goes anywhere. I don’t think my atheism is radical at all. It pretty much boils down to this - I don’t think there is a god. Any god, anywhere. But I think what you say is correct, if I get you right. I think that metaphysics is error, is born of error and leads to error. Theism is just a particular case of metaphysics.
Religion is politics. Politics is necessary. But it’s not philosophy. Fighting over whether or not there is a god is almost always (I’ll add that qualifier, sure) politics. It’s just not philosophy. Or usually very interesting.
It’s funny - I now work for a politician. maybe I came back here to purge all the politics. I don’t hate it, but I think politics can cloud your mind.
James - Take “being”, for instance. Waste of time. As soon as you contemplate it, you lapse into error. What is “being”? It’s nothing. No investigation into “being” has ever, so far as I know, born fruit. You’d do better to contemplate your navel. At least your navel exists.
Dan~ I would love a helpful, handy god. Who wouldn’t?