Popular Atheist Philosophies?

Settled then?

 

Lightheartedness sells well I suppose.

 

Is"I have no idea" a philosophy? If so ,that's mine.

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

christian atheists

though im not sure those guys really count as atheists.

 

You're correct that atheism has no common beliefs, other than non-belief in God. But many of the atheists I know follow definite belief systems, whether or not they're aware of it or admit it. Most tend to be naturalists, believing in the natural order of the universe, discoverable through science. Writers like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins show considerable awe and reverence toward the universe and its laws. Others may be humanists, believing that humans are the measure of all things, that humans are masters of their own destiny and that human achievements are to be admired. Of course humanism and naturalism are compatible and are often combined. Related to these are atheist existentialists like Sartre and Heiddeger who reject the notion that we must fit into a pre-established divine scheme of things and preach that we can define ourselves by our choices. This point of view can actually be hostile to science, because it views science as suggesting that humans aren't in control of their own destiny. Others accept atheism as part of broader ideologies about collectivism (e.g., Marxism-Lenninism) or individualism (e.g., Ayn Rand's Objectivism). But there are also lots of atheists who just don't believe in God.

 

represent!!

 

My philosophy: I believe in a higher power, that higher power is the natural working of things. The Universe is run by complete chaos. Out of complete chaos comes some order, we are that order. However, as with all ordered systems, entropy wants to return us to complete chaos.

Whether or not we succumb to entropy depends on whether or not we evolve quickly enough.

When I die, the matter that makes up my body will break it's bonds down, release energy into the soil, blah blah blah. That's all there is to it in my book.

Now, disclaimer because we're all ignorant and blind fools. If there is a god, I doubt it's petty enough to have ever created something like hell. Believers and non-believers alike will be welcome. One of the reasons that I don't believe in a god is we attribute them with human emotions like jealousy, rage, anger, and hatred. Does that sound like an all-knowing/all-loving/all-forgiving god to you?

That being said, gods do not fit into my mind at all because they are not necessary. Everything around us is explainable via logic. Supernatural is never required, even if we don't currently understand it.

 

if we take love and beauty for instance some atheists probably still hold love and beauty as spiritual phenomena. I think they ultimately attribute it to a working of the mind though as where a theist may attribute it to the divine. I don't think one can necessarily define love and beauty across the board for all atheists and I don't think I can speak for all atheists. It wouldn't surprise me if some atheists and some theists had closer beliefs on some of these concepts than like a liberal theist and a fundamental theist.

For instance many theists have arranged marriages so how does that change one's perception of love? I think the more liberal theist and atheist who get to choose their love would have a closer definition to each other than one who is in an arranged relationship.

 

I don't understand how one can project the experience of a subjective manifestation like love onto something else.

That would be like trying to describe a taste without using association.
this "attribute love to divine" confuses me.

A rose by any other name i think.
Also, I find myself having to trust in the consistency of being human.
We can agree on what a bike is because we can point at it, just like we can agree on what love is by learning when and where this feeling takes place, and then recognizing the difference when experiencing it, but this is semantics....

We have to constantly trust each other because we cant communicate the subjective quality of conscious experience.

 

I didn't really follow that part in bold but I think you are essentially agreeing with me, although maybe you possibly have not followed the whole debate. I was responding to a point that love and beauty is defined or somehow felt differently from an atheist than from a theist, which I don't really feel is true at all. So that example of arranged marriage to me is more different than someone who is an atheist and someone who is a theist 'naturally' falling in love.

 

Yeah i was hopping around the subject alot but il break it down....

I don't understand the difference between attributing love to mind or god if the experience is the same.

I cant agree that love cannot be defined, because we are talking about it, but i know what you mean and I'll explain why (because I'm bored...).

The misleading aspect of explaining the experience of love is that you are not merely supposed to be knowledgeable about it but to actually know all the physical facts.

If two people say the word love, and they both mean different things, either one of them or neither of them are talking about love.

:a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

It goes along the lines of locus of control. Some people have an internal locus of control, some have an external locus of control. An analogy would be like say one year an NFL player wins the MVP and in his award speech he attributes his success to his hard practice effort, his strict diet, and his exercise regime (internal). Then the following year a different MVP can attribute his success to his mom raising him right, his great coaches he had growing up, and his teammates. (external)

Well I personally don't think love can be truly defined, but in this instance I was referring more to the concept that one atheists definition of love could vary greatly from another's definition. I'm sure the same would be the same for theists especially if we consider a christian's definition of love and a muslim's or something like that.

So you think if a mother or father says to a 6 year old child that they love him/her and the child responds back that one of them is not talking about love? Do you think the parents have the same meaning as the child ?

 

You mean some people believe they have an external controller, Because both situations cant be correct.

The above proposition is not the case with your analogy in which two different state of minds are evident, the product of both of them is that he is MVP, and both of them actually happened in the life of the NFL player.

Fortunately, the burden of proof arises when propositions like god are constructed.

This is because the universe is more simple without a creator, or whatever else someone might want to propose. And while this doesnt subtract from the possibilities of what actually IS, it doesnt make much since to multiply entities unnecessarily.

love is a word that connotes a subjective quality of conscious experience. Thus, the instance in which you propose it is relevant to the actual experience.

Its why some people say "I love you like a brother". Because simply saying i love you could easily be misunderstood.

I'm not convinced that love, in both cases, arent the same thing. Rather, saying "i love you like a brother" is meant to express specific qualities of the person that invoke the feeling of love, even though saying it both ways would mean the same thing to the speaker.

To answer your question without the bulk: I'm not sure the connection between the feeling and the word is yet made by a 6 year old. But the feeling is the same.