"Atheism" Is Neither a Worldview Nor A Failing
[First Draft]
Neither definition of "Atheism" is a worldview.
Definition 1:
[also known as "Lacktheism"]
A person whom is capable of understanding the concept of a Magic Person(s) In Sky ... does not perceive their to be any Magic Person(s) In Sky.
This includes Christians who are presently experiencing a "crisis of faith";
having lost confidence in the idea.
It also includes children and adults whom have not yet been introduced to the idea of it (via other humans. The only way that idea ever spreads).
~Not perceiving~ the existence of such entities ...
is not a "worldview".
Identically,
~not perceiving~ the existence of the Eternal King Of The Leprechauns
is also not a "worldview".
----
Definition 2:
The philosophical position.
The odds are so unlikely, given all we know,
of any Magic People In Sky,
that they have concluded there aren't any.
Most people whom hold to this view
reduce it down to "there are no gods";
with the same confidence that even Christians say "there are no faeries" or "Zeus isn't real".
Most of those people file it away in their brain as "problem solved".
However,
they will openly admit they are:
a.) fine with
and
b.) always available for
new evidence which might change their mind.
This definition of "atheism" is also not a worldview.
It's merely one small element
in someone's much larger worldview.
This is no more impactful on their larger worldview
than any other superstition they may not have.
So if someone's worldview includes the idea there are no Bad Luck consequences to opening an umbrella indoors, or breaking a mirror, or crossing a black cat's path, ...
They'll feel untroubled by such things;
whenever it comes up.
But that's the extent of the impact of not having such superstitions.
It doesn't tell them what they aught to think, feel, say, or do;
-same as how antitheism doesn't tell anyone those things.
This is why the only thing all antitheists have in common (which they do not share with any theists) is:
they feel pretty sure no such Beings exist.
That's all.
It's like how everyone who is "pretty sure there is no King of the Leprechauns" ...
doesn't let that belief impact their view on the value of gold, rainbows, or short Irishmen.
It's not a worldview.
-----
3.
Bonus definition (my own):
[a more nuanced view
which cuts through all the bullshit]
There are definitely not any Supernatural Persons.
"Supernatural" isn't even a concept.
Thus, there's nothing being proposed there to really even consider.
And yet, ...
For the sake of argument,
we can entertain the more general hypothetical:
Our Universe requires
and thus "must have"
some intelligent, preexisting creator/designer(s).
That's the basic idea being proposed by the Theistically-religious.
And yet,
that is a preposition that all professional philosophers (except a small fringe of fundamentalists) reject.
Who else rejects it?
~ 95% of currently leading cosmologists, physicists, and biologists.
Why?
Because they understand their own fields
far better
than the grifters @ "Answers in Genesis", the "Discovery Institute", etc..
What about the remaining ~5% of elite scientists?
They believe in some such Being;
but admit science has not proven it.
Meanwhile,
every year,
the % of scientists who think science reveals a Creator/Designer ... declines.
So the basic idea of it
is becoming less and less "seen",
in the light of progress.
---
---
Next,
presented for your consideration,
Neil DeGrasse Tyson quotes and agrees with Galileo (a Christian)
about how Bibles were wrong about cosmology.
He also explains one reason (out of many reasons)
why it's bad idea (doomed to failure) when people try to mix religion and government.
It destabilizes government, as an enterprise,
in the same way it interrupts science;
except for when religion (or "faith") is kept entirely separate.
But that WOULDN'T be the case,
if any such faith system were truly led by a perfect-everything being.
That just is the case;
because those religions are not led by any such Being.
So when Christians cite science to support their Bible, they have misunderstood:
cosmology,
general physics,
general human history,
geological history,
their own religion's history,
their own Bible,
human psychology,
human sociology,
human evolution,
religious evolution,
societal evolution,
and the true nature of the "relationship" they have with the "God" they've imagined.
Interestingly, the STOICS were ahead of the game, here.
Because they realized from the start that the Yahweh-ists were wrong about the cosmos,
wrong about nature,
and wrong about "God".
Case in point:
"God", as a literal proportion,
is never ever actually "supernatural".
It's natural.
Again, the Stoics realized this.
The only meaningful "God" hypotheses in existence
are the natural "God" hypotheses.
The idea of "God vs Naturalism" is nonsensical.
Agnostic Atheists,
Gnostic Atheists (aka "anti-theists"),
Agnostic Christian (aka "faith-based Christians")
and Gnostic Christians,
are all limited to Naturalism;
- whether they realize it or not.
Meanwhile,
convincing me that any Universe-Creator(s) exist
would not establish that I have a "God".
Consider:
The SUN exists.
Some people have worshipped the Sun.
If such a person came to me and said "I worship the Sun. My God exists",
I'd grant it.
I really would.
I'd say "I agree. Your God exists. I can see it in the sky.".
But here's the thing:
The Sun is not my "God".
In other words, I don't have that sort of relationship with the Sun.
They do.
So the thing which is a god to them ... exists.
They have that relationship with a factually-existing thing.
But I do not.
It's the same with any proposed idea of a universe-creator.
If someone convinces me that there IS (at least) one,
then:
I'll say
"neat;
but it's still not my "God";
for the same reason the Sun is not my God.
I would not have that relationship to it.
And the reason I would definitely NOT have that relationship to it ...
is the same reason the Sun is not my God.
I would not be ~that level of awe-struck~.
I would see limits and faults in it.
And I know I would see limits and faults in it, because:
I have already examined the general idea of a literal "God";
along with every specific version on the table.
I found serious limits and faults.
It's pretty easy to see, if you're being honest with yourself.
So I would not be impressed enough to fall to my knees with an extremely reverent regard.
Therefore, it would still not be a "God" to me.
***
Meanwhile,
it is not a ~moral character failing~ on my part
that I don't feel what someone else feels about it.
****
Nor would it make sense for a Universe-Creator to take offense at anyone whom simply doesn't perceive, assume, seek, find, realize, care, or whom just doesn't feel all that impressed.
If an intelligent Universe-Creator exists,
those entities are hidden.
It would be like seeing the objects in a Magic Eye Book.
This is, of course, just assuming anyone is really seeing them.
So then some people can allegedly see it
and some people just can't see it.
Color-blind
isn't a moral character failing.
God-blind isn't either.
So then,
any religious narrative
which proposes an entity
which damns the unsighted ...
is automatically an unjust religion
proposing an unjust "God".
Therefore,
the claim that they see a fully "JUST" Creator ...
is automatically self-debunking.
--
take it so damn personally
(even to the point of speaking from a position of ugly emotional disgust and condemnation)
@ people who don't "see" a "God".
?
This video explains why:
Now, all of these considerations are elements of my own personal worldview.
But my lack of belief in a "Creator" is exactly like my lack of belief in Leprechauns.
My desire to own my own life
is a far more important consideration in my worldview.
But me being ~unimpressed~ at the idea of a creator, ... isn't really a choice.
Nor is it a failing.
And yet,
what I actually am impressed by
is how far ~out of their way~ Christian literal-ists go
to be so impressively wrong
so impressively often.
Comments
Post a Comment