@TheMiddleWay True.

@TheMiddleWay facepalm never mind.

@TheMiddleWay Depends on how you use the term

the study of the nature and meaning of the universe and of human life
philosophy of something the philosophy of science

a particular set or system of beliefs resulting from the search for knowledge about life and the universe
Buddhist/Eastern/Hindu philosophy
the philosophy of Aristotle

a set of beliefs or an attitude to life that guides somebody’s behaviour
philosophy of something Her philosophy of life is to take every opportunity that presents itself.
a furniture-maker's design philosophy

@TheMiddleWay Atheism isn't a philosophy, its the lack of Theism, and only needed as a word at all because most of the world is Theist.

I think that whole issue is people conflating a persons world view, with a personal philosophy. This takes place because religion offers both a philosophy and a world view as one thing. So to people raised in the culture, or worse indoctrinated into the religion, those two things appear as one.
Thus if a theist has a "philosophy of life" presented via theor religious ideas and beliefs, so too then must Atheists have a worldview and philosophy.

THAT is true, we all do have worldviews and philosophies, but they are not from Atheism.

Since atheism does not present a "Philosophy of life", non believers take theirs from other sources, most often Philosophy, Psychology, and Science. Like science itself, which changes its views due to new evidence, the worldviews of Atheists are likely to shift over time as they learn new things and grow as humans.
Unlike the religious, an Atheist is not bound to some core Dogma which is indisputable, rather if the evidence shows them they are in the wrong, they are FREE to change both how they look at an issue and what they do about it.

Persoanlly I live by Ethics, Tempered with Empathy. It has worked for me for decades now.

@TheMiddleWay "I think this is only true when Atheism is not organized as organized as Theism. "
Point taken, but what organizations are you talking about? None are religious and most are either purely Social or Purely Political or a blend of those.

And most of us are not involved in those either . . .

"Organized Atheism does the same though! "
No it does not, rather the individual people have similar worldviews based on other things. Other things, like seperation of Church and State, or being allowed to run for political office, or not being killed for failing to believe bring them together in a political alliance because they are a hated Minority. That is self preservation.

" If you go to the American Atheist website, they have a creed"
Absolutely, a political Creed and Agenda, they are a political organization. That is political activism, not religion.

What your talking about is Ideology. Some Atheists adopt a political Ideology.

"when evidence that their religion is wrong and not working, they will change religion or opt out of it all together"
Opting out is difficult for many and impossible for some. It also leaves strong psychological damage and that is why Recoving From Religion exists.
Most people bend their religion to suit the Dogma they accepted along the way, As Jesus said "Let he who has ears to hear, hear . . ."
Thus they selectivly listen and obey, but their world view was formed via the religion. If a Particular sect, or even faith seems wrong, we tend to keep the overarching belief in God, and modify our understanding of that base notion. That is both how people shift from sect to sect and how sects evolve. That is also slow, few Christians realize the Rapture was invented by a single pastor in the 1800's.

"much liek a theist can change their position on ideas and still remain a theist"
No, an Atheist has no set Dogma, no belief in God as the underpinning. So when a Theist changes their understanding of God, they still believe.
An Atheist who changed his position on God belief would no onger be an atheist. Their ideology can shift, and does shift, but it is not affected or influenced by a God belief, because we lack that.

I was raised a theist (Puritin--rebranded in the great awakening Congregationalist). I completely believed in God as a child. Everyone did, so I did. As a believing child with magical thinking that belief lead me to study the God thing, as what could possibly be of more import?
That very quickly led to the rev at my home telling my mom I was a seeker and would find, but Sunday School was not for me, I could attend adult services and direct my questions to him. Fallout for asking how collecting foreskins was a good thing as David had to collect 200 for his Dowry cost, and God was fine with that?

So I saw the humanity in Revs and Pastor, but I struggled with the God idea for 15 more years. Studied world religions, gradually evolved from a Xtian, to a deist, to an Agnostic Atheist, to an Ignostic, where I have been since 88. Its a deep and difficult psychological loop, and some people never find their way out.

@TheMiddleWay "about a research project you've been working for 20 years"
"the woman you love but wrongs you."
Both truly diffucult life issues, but not the same as cultural and childhood indoctrination. Those begin long before the age of reason, so they creat psychological loops people think in, without awareness they do so.

For instance, When I see a sunset which is beautiful, I see science principals everywhere in the beauty of that sunset. Oft this knowledge is depressing as pollution can make beautiful snsets.

BUT, when I was a beliver, I saw it like God was being Vincent Van Gogh with reality in real time. I never even thoought to question WHY I assumed this, rather my whole mind sought to understand HOW God accomplished this. It took me years of study and personal experience before I ever asked myself that question, and I was digging at that problem since age 9, age 25 was the first time I asked myself why, and all I had was "because I was told so as a wee child, by my mother, in whom I had complete trust and a biological evolution to believe what she says, as she feeds me.

Its hard to grasp a betrayl, and a horrid experience, but it was not entrenched psychologicaly like religious thinking was. I have been married and divorced twice, both sucked ass, both were betrayals, neither took anywhere near the time to work through psychologically.

This is backwards ""absence of evidence as evidence of absence"
"Abscence of evidence is NOT evidence of abscence" However "abscence of evidence IS evidence of an unproven assertion" and hence a good reason not to believe without adequate evidence.

"you can't prove a negative".
This depends on how its being used.
For instance if you make an unfalsifiable claim, Like "Zeus created the world", the negative for such could never be proven, but the impetus is not on disproving an assertion, but on the person asserting to prove their assertion. No believer can do that in any empirical fashion.

"but roman catholic"
"Oh, I'm a roman Cathlic, and have been since before I was Born . . "
I studied in the Jesuit Monestary in upstate NY and in the Trappist monastery in KY, back in the mid 80's before the internet.

@TheMiddleWay IAtheism alone is insufficient on which to build a philosophy of life. It be a part of a more complete philosophy. To me it is simply an important fact.

@TheMiddleWay and your point is?

@TheMiddleWay Who is us? and it opens another line of discussion, that’s all.

Why would that be a problem?

@TheMiddleWay That isn’t what I said! The only person to respond in a negative manner is yourself and one person has liked the post.

Two others have suggested the argument is based on semantics.

Sound like you want to shut the discussion down so it only goes your way.

@TheMiddleWay Where did I say it was useless?

So to respond, for this discussion you will need to define what you mean by philosophy. If you are referring to the stock ‘love of wisdom’ -

Theism is philosophy in some contexts because theism considers the existence of ‘theo’ or a god. Is Is this the result of a search? Is this the result of didactic transmission? Either way wisdom has been discovered or imparted. Is the discovered wisdom ‘loved’? Who knows that is for the individual to decide.

The same process with atheism and science.

Alternatively, philosophy is a process rather than a position. In which case the love of discovery is the same as philosophy.

Ergo, semantics are at play here. If one places ‘philosophy’ in a philosophy shaped box, one misses other aspects of philosophical exploration which, in itself, would be ‘unphilosophical’.

To say something is philosophical, by its very expression, alludes to there being things which are NOT philosophical.

Is this a philosophical discussion worthy of exploring?

I don’t know. It’s your thread!

@Geoffrey51 I’m just a spectator here, but I am following your reasoning (I think) and agree!

@TheMiddleWay I wasn’t saying the post didn’t matter. My comment referred to the labelling as being irrelevant.

Phlogiston is or was not BS but an important stage in the establishment of the truth theory of burning

@TheMiddleWay "You are conflating science with philosophy: the former demands it; the latter doesn't need it."
Philosophy should have SOMETHING to decrease the number of words it produces.

Precisely!!!!