We are all atheists...?

[sandwiches]

www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/03/30/american-humanist-association-unveils-richard-dawkins-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+paliban%2FRDkF+%28Secular+News+Daily%29


“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in,” reads Dawkins’ quote in the ad. “Some of us just go one god further.”
“People don’t realize how common it is to reject the principles of other faiths,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “Dawkins illuminates this point, drawing attention to this universal truth that many choose to disregard out of ignorance or pure convenience.”

Does this slogan (by Dawkins) actually have any merit to it? What does it say, if anything? I just get the impression that it's meant to be considered a pithy brilliant point? But I don't quite see why. Am I missing some genuine logic ?

[captainzman]

We are all anarchists about most governments that have ever existed. Some of us just go one government further.

We are all bachelors about most women out there. Some of us just take bachelorhood one step further.

The argument only works if you conflate rejecting all deities other than God with believing in God. It sounds like a nice slogan but it's a poor argument. Then again, most slogans disguise poor arguments.

[Mike D]

As far as I can see, it is not an argument, but is a slogan with implied (but unstated) assumptions and conclusions, along the lines of:

- all gods are equally likely and with as much (or little) rational basis

- therefore your disbelief in Baldur is the same as my disbelief in the Christian god

The question then becomes, does it sound as impressive if you state the assumptions and conclusions? I would say not...

[noons]

I would say that it makes a tacit assumption that the jump from one religious view to another is the same as the jump from any religious view to atheism, which clearly is not the case.

I know that I am generalizing most world religions right now but bear with me, most religions have a common "core element" to them, and one can reject other religious and theistic views without rejecting the theistic core element common to all of them. Deists do just that - they believe in the core element of most religions while rejecting their tenets. Atheists reject the core element altogether.

And I know that I unfairly lumped all world religions together and ignored some very important differences, but so does the original statement as well.

[Deleted]

There's no merit to it. Atheism is a universally quantifying statement: there is no God of any kind. My disbelief in the Greek or Egyptian pantheon doesn't make me any closer to atheism. I firmly believe in God, and that makes me a theist like any other.

[himself]

I've used that atheist/anarchist analogy before. The response was "You are comparing atheism to anarchism!!??", the postmodern generation being so ill-educated in the use of analogic.

Beside which, one may disbelieve in specific gods for very different reasons.

[eckadimmock]

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in,”

Just like we're vegetarians about most animals.

[noons]

Oooh! I got another one.

We're all moral nihilists when it comes to other people's ethics.

[timoneill]

Mar 30, 2011 13:21:06 GMT sandwiches said:

www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/03/30/american-humanist-association-unveils-richard-dawkins-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+paliban%2FRDkF+%28Secular+News+Daily%29


“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in,” reads Dawkins’ quote in the ad. “Some of us just go one god further.”
“People don’t realize how common it is to reject the principles of other faiths,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “Dawkins illuminates this point, drawing attention to this universal truth that many choose to disregard out of ignorance or pure convenience.”

Does this slogan (by Dawkins) actually have any merit to it? What does it say, if anything? I just get the impression that it's meant to be considered a pithy brilliant point? But I don't quite see why. Am I missing some genuine logic ?

I use this one all the time. And it strikes me that just about everyone above has totally misunderstood the point of this observation. Understandable I suppose - the very mention of the Beast Dawkins brings out the Angry Theist in even the milder believers.

This isn't an "argument" and it's not saying "You don't believe in all those other gods and so it makes no sense for you to believe in your God". It's simply pointing out that unbelief in gods is a very ordinary and commonplace thing that most people share (except for some New Agers perhaps, who seem capable of beliving in everything and anything all at the same time).

So I make this same observation when I'm confronted by people who seem incredulous about the very concept of having no belief in God and ask me "But how can you not believe?" So I reply by noting that like me, they have a similar lack of belief in thousands of gods and point out that my lack of belief in theirs is no different to their lack of belief in Baal or Thor.

I don't go on to say "Therefore you should no more believe in your Yahweh than you do in Baal and Thor" because that doesn't follow at all. But noting their lack of belief in gods that other people, past and present, were/are highly convinced did/do exist does have the affect of emphasising that conviction in belief is a pretty common coin and doesn't actually necessarily correlate with truth.

Those believers in Zeus were just as devout and convinced as the believers here. So are the millions of believers in Ganesha.

Now the angry theists on this board can show their pettiness and insecurity by stripping some more of my karma for daring to disagree with them out loud. We atheists really should learn that we must be silent.

[eckadimmock]

I think your response, Tim, has an assumption that Christians (or members of other faiths) see their religion as 100% right and all others as 100% wrong. That's not true for me, at least. As they say in social sciences "all models are wrong, but some models are useful". Religions are mental models for the interpretation of spiritual experiences. They certainly anthropomorphise God and should we ever end up in heaven I expect that most of us will find that we only had a fraction of the truth.

Disbelief in particular gods may not be strange, but disbelief in any god (or heaven or similar concept) is I suspect unusual, and reliance on the kind of extreme materialism that Dawkins preaches largely limited to wealthy societies that can place faith in the cargo cult of technology.

(and so as not to be petty I have added to your karma)

[unkleE]

Mar 31, 2011 22:13:26 GMT timoneill said:

I don't go on to say "Therefore you should no more believe in your Yahweh than you do in Baal and Thor" because that doesn't follow at all.

I think this is the key, Tim. Many do go on to say this, as if it follows logically. I think the way you have set this out clarifies that there are two arguments often put together as one.

[captainzman]

This isn't an "argument" and it's not saying "You don't believe in all those other gods and so it makes no sense for you to believe in your God". It's simply pointing out that unbelief in gods is a very ordinary and commonplace thing that most people share (except for some New Agers perhaps, who seem capable of beliving in everything and anything all at the same time).

I recognize that it's not being used as an argument in this case, but multiple people have used it against me as an argument.

But even as a slogan, it doesn't make sense. I'm not an atheist towards other gods. Yes, I don't believe in them, and in that sense I share that atheist's stance towards them, but that doesn't make me an atheist any more than a person who believes in Thor but doesn't believe in Zeus. The equivocation of terms is one of the reasons that this bothers me. Replace "atheist" with "non-believer" and I wouldn't be so bothered by it.

I make this same observation when I'm confronted by people who seem incredulous about the very concept of having no belief in God and ask me "But how can you not believe?" So I reply by noting that like me, they have a similar lack of belief in thousands of gods and point out that my lack of belief in theirs is no different to their lack of belief in Baal or Thor.

Leaving aside modern pagan reinterpretations about the gods, my reasons for believing in God are different for the reasons that a person would believe in Thor because the arguments for theism as opposed to polytheism are different. Now, the atheist doesn't believe in either, but he's also responding to different arguments as well. It's the way a person gets to atheism that concerns me in this case, not the end result.

Now, we can step back and take a look at this, and we could say something along the lines both say that the evidence for Thor is lacking, and we'd disagree on the evidence for God. Most atheists would say that they arrives at their conclusions about God and Zeus for the same reason- lack of evidence.

Fine. We could say is that theists and atheists are both kinds of evidentialists, and that atheists disagree with theists on the evidence for God, but that's not a very catchy slogan.

[timoneill]

Mar 31, 2011 23:38:30 GMT eckadimmock said:

I think your response, Tim, has an assumption that Christians (or members of other faiths) see their religion as 100% right and all others as 100% wrong.

No, actually. It simply assumes, reasonably, that if someone has a belief in God (in any meaningful sense of the words "belief" and "God") they think their idea of divinity is more right than all others. And my response stands.

Disbelief in particular gods may not be strange, but disbelief in any god (or heaven or similar concept) is I suspect unusual

Getting less and less unusual all the time if the census and poll results in recent decades are any indication.

and reliance on the kind of extreme materialism that Dawkins preaches largely limited to wealthy societies that can place faith in the cargo cult of technology.

Or those societies with access to sufficient levels of education.

(and so as not to be petty I have added to your karma)

But, true to form, one of those who seek to imitate Christ have seen fit to take it off again. I seem to be a threat to some here.

[timoneill]

Mar 31, 2011 23:51:33 GMT unkleE said:

Mar 31, 2011 22:13:26 GMT timoneill said:

I don't go on to say "Therefore you should no more believe in your Yahweh than you do in Baal and Thor" because that doesn't follow at all.

I think this is the key, Tim. Many do go on to say this, as if it follows logically. I think the way you have set this out clarifies that there are two arguments often put together as one.

Can you link to an example of those who go on to say this? I can't say I've seen it. When I see this observation made I see it used as I set it out above.

[timoneill]

Apr 1, 2011 0:03:59 GMT captainzman said:

This isn't an "argument" and it's not saying "You don't believe in all those other gods and so it makes no sense for you to believe in your God". It's simply pointing out that unbelief in gods is a very ordinary and commonplace thing that most people share (except for some New Agers perhaps, who seem capable of beliving in everything and anything all at the same time).

I recognize that it's not being used as an argument in this case, but multiple people have used it against me as an argument.

But even as a slogan, it doesn't make sense. I'm not an atheist towards other gods. Yes, I don't believe in them, and in that sense I share that atheist's stance towards them, but that doesn't make me an atheist any more than a person who believes in Thor but doesn't believe in Zeus. The equivocation of terms is one of the reasons that this bothers me. Replace "atheist" with "non-believer" and I wouldn't be so bothered by it.

You are every bit an atheist when it comes to Thor - you are without a belief in Thor. Just as I am without a belief in Yahweh (and all the rest of the gods humans have dreamed up). And the guy who believes in Thor but doesn't believe in Zeus is an atheist when it comes to Zeus.

Leaving aside modern pagan reinterpretations about the gods, my reasons for believing in God are different for the reasons that a person would believe in Thor because the arguments for theism as opposed to polytheism are different.

Then try Ahura Mazda then. The point remains.

Now, the atheist doesn't believe in either, but he's also responding to different arguments as well.

Yes. So? The non-belief is the key to analogy here, nothing else.

Fine. We could say is that theists and atheists are both kinds of evidentialists, and that atheists disagree with theists on the evidence for God, but that's not a very catchy slogan.

No, it isn't. And all the slogan is doing is making a point about non-belief - we all have a lack of belief in all kinds of things (including all kinds of deities), so a lack of belief in this particular god is not such a strange or unreasonable idea.