Atheism belief/not a belief derail from P&CE

[Devil Ledbetter]

'Believe, just dont force others to agree with your beliefs' sorta thing, including Atheism (which of course, is a belief...:)).No, atheism is not a belief. It is a non-belief.

[crunchyblanket]

No, atheism is not a belief. It is a non-belief.

Devil got there first. But yes. Atheism is lack of belief.

[Paul]

No, atheism is not a belief. It is a non-belief.

Devil got there first. But yes. Atheism is lack of belief.
once one throws in 'theism' it's all belief.

A rock has non-beliefs and a lack of belief. (i believe)

But humans have beliefs, though different words are used to describe that term.
But certainly in the area of 'theism' they are known as beliefs.

Which, besides the semantics, is pretty important when separating beliefs from state. Because the danger is that Atheist can claim 'well, our viewpoint is not actually a belief, therefore our viewpoint can be excused from the state/ belief separation scenario

but as i say, in the area of theism, all are beliefs.



As a side note, it ties in with the proof issues regarding the existence or otherwise of God. (ie unprovable either way)

[Devil Ledbetter]

once one throws in 'theism' it's all belief.Wrong again. You're a writer; go look up what the prefix "A" means.

A rock has non-beliefs and a lack of belief. (i believe)

But humans have beliefs, though different words are used to describe that term.
But certainly in the area of 'theism' they are known as beliefs.Atheism is not an area of theism, nor is it in the area of theism. It literally means without theism.

The absence of something cannot also be a form of that same something. It's like saying "She doesn't have cancer, which in itself is just another form of cancer."


Which, besides the semantics, is pretty important when separating beliefs from state. Because the danger is that Atheist can claim 'well, our viewpoint is not actually a belief, therefore our viewpoint can be excused from the state/ belief separation scenario

but as i say, in the area of theism, all are beliefs.It's not actually a belief.

State institutionalized atheism foisted upon the citizens violates of freedom of religion. I have yet to hear of any atheists calling for state institutionalized atheism. I have only heard them calling for state neutrality on religion.

As a side note, it ties in with the proof issues regarding the existence or otherwise of God. (ie unprovable either way)Again, no. Atheists make no extraordinary claims; the burden of proving the nonexistence of God does not lie with them.

[muravyets]

You can prove someone is free of cancer at any given time in their life. You can do that by subjecting the patient to a thorough round of tests that will determine the lack of of cancer anywhere in her body and the good health of all of her organs at the time of testing.

Kindly show me the battery of tests that cover the entirety of infinite existence and consciousness by which it is possible to prove that there is no god existing anywhere at a given time.

It is not possible to prove the negative that there is no god because there are no tools for doing so, thus if atheism states categorically that there is no god, atheism is acting on belief.

ETA: Note: I am not saying that atheism is a religion. Religion and belief are not inextricable and a belief can be secular.

[Devil Ledbetter]

You can prove someone is free of cancer at any given time in their life. You can do that by subjecting the patient to a thorough round of tests that will determine the lack of signs of cancer anywhere in her body.You missed my point. Entirely. What I said was:

The absence of something cannot also be a form of that same something. It's like saying "She doesn't have cancer, which in itself is just another form of cancer." As you can see this has absolutely nothing to do with proving the absence of cancer. :rolleyes:

Kindly show me the battery of tests that cover the entirety of infinite existence and consciousness by which it is possible to prove that there is no god existing anywhere at a given time.You know that I can't. Just as I can't prove there aren't invisible purple unicorns dancing around in my backyard. Doesn't mean I feel a need to remain "open" to the possibility of their existence though. For all practical purposes, and for the purpose of simplifying my life down to what actually matters, I'm going to carry on without concern for whether or not those unicorns exist.

I'm not going to leave food out to them, pay rent to them or pretend to rub them for good luck.

It is not possible to prove the negative that there is no god because there are no tools for doing so, thus if atheism states categorically that there is no god, atheism is acting on belief.Atheism does not state categorically that there is no god. The atheist states that she does not believe in god. It's really that simple.

[muravyets]

You missed my point. Entirely. What I said was:
As you can see this has absolutely nothing to do with proving the absence of cancer. :rolleyes:

You know that I can't. Just as I can't prove there aren't invisible purple unicorns dancing around in my backyard. Doesn't mean I feel a need to remain "open" to the possibility of their existence though. For all practical purposes, and for the purpose of simplifying my life down to what actually matters, I'm going to carry on without concern for whether or not those unicorns exist.

I'm not going to leave food out to them, pay rent to them or pretend to rub them for good luck.

Atheism does not state categorically that there is no god. The atheist states that she does not believe in god. It's really that simple.
I read your original statement as a comment on the erroneous argument that atheism is a religion.

Your comment about that was predicated on the initial statement "she doesn't have cancer", which is a declaration which in the context I took to be equivalent to "there is no god." I would like to point out especially that your analogy did not say "I don't believe she has cancer." It said, "She doesn't have cancer." In context, surely that would be analogous to "there is no god," not "I don't believe in God." So did I really miss your point? Or perhaps was it not articulated well?

Second point, I, for one, am not asking you to remain open to anything you don't believe in. I am not an atheist myself, but neither am I an evangelist. Can't stand evangelism, personally, but that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is you will never get any argument from me about your refusal to pretend to believe things you don't, and I will always defend your right not to believe against anyone who would attempt to force you into conformity with their beliefs, such as by legislating religion into the law. However, I would appreciate from some quarters a little of the same courtesy in return in terms of tolerance for my right to believe as I wish.

Finally, regardless of what atheism might state if it had a mouth to speak with, I don't think any attempt to claim there are no atheists who state there is no god will be successful.

[Williebee]

Does no one have a dictionary handy? Oh wait:

From Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism), online.

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Disbelieving (disbelief being the act of disbelieving)

Definition of DISBELIEVE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieving)

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

Doctrine: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine?show=0&t=1318115154)

Definition of DOCTRINE

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma

So, if you go with "disbelief", an atheist does not belief, or withholds a belief.

If you go with doctrine, the Atheist may do because of a principle based upon a system of belief.


So, is atheism based upon a belief? Well, maybe. Maybe not.

And was that really the point of the OP or overall discussion?

:)

[Devil Ledbetter]

Your comment about that was predicated on the initial statement "she doesn't have cancer", which is a declaration which in the context I took to be equivalent to "there is no god." I would like to point out especially that your analogy did not say "I don't believe she has cancer." It said, "She doesn't have cancer." In context, surely that would be analogous to "there is no god," not "I don't believe in God." So did I really miss your point? Or perhaps was it not articulated well?You've really so totally missed my point. And no, I don't think it was an issue with my articulation.

It wasn't about proving or disproving God (or cancer). It was about Paul's claim that the absence of theism was in fact another form of theism. Saying "The absence of theism is a type of theism" is as illogical as saying "The absence of cancer is a type of cancer."

Not having cancer isn't a form of cancer, and not believing in god is not a belief.

If this still doesn't make sense, I'm afraid I can't help you.

...I will always defend your right not to believe against anyone who would attempt to force you into conformity with their beliefs, such as by legislating religion into the law. However, I would appreciate from some quarters a little of the same courtesy in return in terms of tolerance for my right to believe as I wish.Did I show intolerance for belief? I certainly never intended to, and I'm not sure what I said that could be construed as intolerance for belief, or any attempt at forcing others to conform to my nonbelief.

Finally, regardless of what atheism might state if it had a mouth to speak with, I don't think any attempt to claim there are no atheists who state there is no god will be successful.Let me put it this way: as far as I am concerned, there is no god.

[Devil Ledbetter]

On the atheist side of things, if you don't believe in a higher power, there is a danger of believing you are the highest power. That the ultimate right or wrong is nothing more than might makes right. As an atheist, I couldn't disagree with this more. Have you any reference for this, say, any atheist doctrine declaring that might is the only right?

Plenty of atheists however believe have personal ethics that are very important and won't let those ethics be overruled by what someone says God wants.

The fact is, people who are bad to each other may use God as a reason, but behind it they are just bad people.I agree here. Bad people are bad. Religion can be an excuse, having a bad day can be an excuse, being ill-raised can be an excuse, and I suppose even atheism could be an excuse. Bad people are usually pretty good at excusing themselves.


Really, like muravyets says in another post, nobody really knows. We all believe what we believe. But even those that don't believe, it's based on faith. Sorry, Vince, but not believing in something isn't based on faith. It takes faith to believe in the existence of something we can't prove. It does not take any faith at all to disbelief in the existence of something no one can prove. Hence my unicorn analogy. Do you need faith to disbelief there are invisible unicorns prancing about in my backyard? Or do you just dismiss it? Because when it comes to gods, I'm a dismisser and that doesn't require faith at all.

Williebee's post has a solid definition of atheism. Check it out.

What we really need to do is learn to respect each other and each other's beliefs or non beliefs.I've said this at AW before and I'll say it again. I respect people, not beliefs.

I respect you Vince, and Muravyets too.

[muravyets]

You've really so totally missed my point. And no, I don't think it was an issue with my articulation.

It wasn't about proving or disproving God (or cancer). It was about Paul's claim that the absence of theism was in fact another form of theism. Saying "The absence of theism is a type of theism" is as illogical as saying "The absence of cancer is a type of cancer."

Not having cancer isn't a form of cancer, and not believing in god is not a belief.

If this still doesn't make sense, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Well, in return I think you are missing my point, which is that by your own choices of words, as well as the wording of many other atheists from time to time, the concept of atheism does indeed include the declaration that there is no god, and not just the absence of a concept of god in a person's mind. So if we go by what we hear atheists saying, then there is an assumption behind an assertion, i.e. that there's no such thing as a god. Clearly, that must be a matter of belief.

Now, you may argue that a lack of belief does not imply the existence of an alternative belief, and that is certainly possible. However, it seems that according to American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/), there is indeed a belief behind atheism, namely that there is no god:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. Link to full text (http://www.atheists.org/atheism).

Further, according to Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/), an umbrella group of atheist and other secularist organizations, atheism involves a belief that there are no deities:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. Link to full text (http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism).

So my point, namely that atheism is a system of belief (but not a religion), stands because it seems that the general understanding of atheism among atheists is that there is no god. That is a declaration made without proof, and therefore, a belief.

Second, there is another point that is perhaps being missed -- Paul's statement that atheism is a theism does not necessarily suggest that atheism is a religion. Rather, it suggests that any system of thought ending in the suffix "theism" is a system of belief and/or intellectual inquiry on the subject of theos, i.e. deities. In such a reading, "theism" is separated from any assumption of belief. Granted this is not the normal usage, but if you can split hairs over whether not believing there's a god is different from believing there's no god, surely Paul can playfully tweak the usage of "theism."*

ETA: Paul's point, then, may be understood as being that any system of thought which draws conclusions on the subject of "god" or "deity" is dealing with something about which nothing can be proven. Thus, any conclusions anyone reaches on that subject is a matter of belief, rather than knowledge. /ETA

Did I show intolerance for belief? I certainly never intended to, and I'm not sure what I said that could be construed as intolerance for belief, or any attempt at forcing others to conform to my nonbelief. No, you didn't. I was referring to comments from other atheists, both in forum threads and in published sources from time to time. I do that sometimes -- refer to things beyond just myself and the person I'm talking with in order to keep a topical conversation broad rather than personal.

Let me put it this way: as far as I am concerned, there is no god.And I respect your belief. :tongue



* Also, of course, in "atheism," "theism" is not a suffix, but like I said, I think he was playfully tweaking the word for the sake of making a point.

[Don]

absence of belief <> belief of absence

[Devil Ledbetter]

Well, in return I think you are missing my point, which is that by your own choices of words, as well as the wording of many other atheists from time to time, the concept of atheism does indeed include the declaration that there is no god, and not just the absence of a concept of god in a person's mind. Clearly, that must be a matter of belief. Ugh. Atheism is still not a belief. The absence of belief is not a belief. (Hmm, just as the absence of cancer is not a cancer.)

It doesn't matter how many times or how stridently god believers declare that lack of belief in god is a belief, it is still not a belief.

It's a non-belief.

[Vince524]

As an atheist, I couldn't disagree with this more. Have you any reference for this, say, any atheist doctrine declaring that might is the only right?

Is there an atheist doctrine? I’m not familiar with atheist doctrines, or even that there was any. However, we all have heard of people who have that doctrine. My point isn’t that if you are an atheist, that you must believe Might Makes right. But a person who believes in God believes that in the end God will judge us all by our actions. Even things we have done that no one ever knew we did. Now many people will either ignore this, or again find ways to delude themselves that they are justified for whatever they do. No matter how heinous. However, for an atheist, they may not even feel the need to answer to that higher authority.

As the other point I made that it isn’t atheism that makes a person good or bad, a person who is bad will simply use the might makes right and there is no greater judgment to justify their actions. It wasn’t meant as a sleight towards atheists.

The fact is that we all have our own moral codes and however we got there, through a belief in God or not, that is what makes us a good or bad person.


I agree here. Bad people are bad. Religion can be an excuse, having a bad day can be an excuse, being ill-raised can be an excuse, and I suppose even atheism could be an excuse. Bad people are usually pretty good at excusing themselves.


Sure. Or one could say that people need those moral codes. However they come to them.




Sorry, Vince, but not believing in something isn't based on faith. It takes faith to believe in the existence of something we can't prove. It does not take any faith at all to disbelief in the existence of something no one can prove. Hence my unicorn analogy. Do you need faith to disbelief there are invisible unicorns prancing about in my backyard? Or do you just dismiss it? Because when it comes to gods, I'm a dismisser and that doesn't require faith at all.

Williebee's post has a solid definite on of atheism. Check it out.
I've said this at AW before and I'll say it again. I respect people, not beliefs.


I don’t think the Unicorns are a good analogy and here’s why.

What reason do I have to believe that Unicorns really do exist?

None really.

With God, there are plenty of reasons to believe. Our mere existence can be seen as a sign of God.

No one can fully explain the universe, or how it began, or what happens in the end.

I suppose a better analogy would be about intelligent life in outer space.

Some people believe they exist, some even believe they have visited us. Some believe that they don’t or even can’t exist.

But there really is no definitive answer. Maybe in the case of atheism, faith isn’t the right word like it is for people who believe in God. I’m not sure what the right word for it would be. You don’t believe in a God, but you can’t really 100% know there isn’t a God.



I respect you Vince, and Muravyets too.

As I do you. My respect for a person isn’t as much based on their beliefs but on how they act on those beliefs and most of all, how they treat other people.

I also think that in the end, that will matter more than anything else.

[muravyets]

For some of us, atheism is what is left when one can no longer persuade himself or herself that there is any conceivable basis for belief in a "God." For some, that is part of the logical progression of loss of any conceivable basis for belief in an "Easter Bunny," "Tooth Fairy," or "Santa Claus."

Strange how unsettling that is to believers in invisible beings.

--Ken
It's so sweet how you clearly didn't intend to imply that religious people are childish. It just came out that way.

But whatever might be the case for some, the case for organized representatives of atheism seems to be that atheism is the belief that there is no god, i.e. atheism is a belief system.

Strange how unsettling that is to some believers in something they cannot prove either.

[muravyets]

Ugh. Atheism is still not a belief. The absence of belief is not a belief. (Hmm, just as the absence of cancer is not a cancer.)

It doesn't matter how many times or how stridently god believers declare that lack of belief in god is a belief, it is still not a belief.

It's a non-belief.
Keep on believing that if it makes you happy, but unless you can prove the negative you insist upon then your position is no more knowledge than religious positions are. By your own acknowledgement earlier in the thread, you cannot know for a fact that there is no god, thus if, as far as you are concerned, there is no god, that is something you believe to be true, not something you know. Thus your decision to discount the existence of god(s) is based on your belief that the claims for them are not true.

I have to say that I'm finding it somewhat amazing that some people seem unable to separate the meaning of the words "believe" and "belief" from a religious context. I wonder, when someone asks "Where is Peru?" and someone else answers "I believe it's in South America," does that sound like a religious discussion? Or if someone says "conservative beliefs in free enterprise often come up in opposition to liberal beliefs in social justice," does that sound like a discussion of a religious conflict? Of course not, obviously. Just because someone says "X is a matter of belief, not facts" that does not imply that X is religious in nature or like a religion.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

I'd tried to write something about this never ending semantics debate over whether or not atheism is a "belief system," but I'm too tired and I'm getting confused, so I'd rather not embarrass myself trying.

Just one thing I'd like to observe in that vein: I had a long and painful discussion with someone who tried to convince me I was an atheist, based on what I told him about my own beliefs, which I'm not going to share here because it was plenty un-fun the first time around, and it really upset me because I suck at debating and can never form good arguments when I'm emotionally involved--and I tend to get emotionally involved when the subject is as personal as spirituality. It strikes me as similar to try to convince an atheist that their atheism is, in fact, a "belief." I imagine it's about as un-fun for them as that conversation was for me. Just throwing that out there.

[muravyets]

I don’t think the Unicorns are a good analogy and here’s why.

What reason do I have to believe that Unicorns really do exist?

None really.

With God, there are plenty of reasons to believe. ...
I agree with your points on this.

Some people believe because they trust those who told them whatever it is they believe. Others merely profess a belief without really testing themselves on it because joining the church, temple, etc., is part of their social conditioning.

But still others have personal experiences which they interpret as being an experience of something they understand as "the divine." Their own experience is their reason for believing in it. It is emphatically NOT a reason for anyone else to believe in it, but it is their reason.

Similarly, those who have experiences of things they perceive as unicorns, or Bigfoot, etc., will believe those creatures exist, even if they cannot prove it to anyone else.

Now some may argue that the believers are merely misinterpreting natural phenomena, but unless we can directly share their experience and their thoughts about it (and to do that, one would have to first believe in psychic powers ;)), then we cannot know exactly what it is they are interpreting as divine, and so we cannot say for certain their understanding of their experience is wrong.

So my position is that, while it is valid to say to a religious person, "Your experiences of god mean nothing to me, so I'm not going to base a belief of mine on what you say," it is not valid to say "Your experiences of god are false," because we cannot really know what their experiences were.

That's the way I see it, at least.

[Toothpaste]

Why is it every single time a thread is started anywhere on this forum with atheism mentioned, atheists find themselves defending why they are atheists? Being interrogated about every little word use, and being told that actually, no, they are wrong in what they consider atheism to be.

Atheism wasn't the subject of this thread, the subject was is America turning atheist, and I'd answer no. At least from all that I've observed about the States, I can't see it happening any time soon.

[Vince524]

Why is it every single time a thread is started anywhere on this forum with atheism mentioned, atheists find themselves defending why they are atheists? Being interrogated about every little word use, and being told that actually, no, they are wrong in what they consider atheism to be.

Atheism wasn't the subject of this thread, the subject was is America turning atheist, and I'd answer no. At least from all that I've observed about the States, I can't see it happening any time soon.

I don't think anyone feel you should have to defend how or what you believe.

However, I think if you read back, several people have felt the need to defend their belief.

Funny how that is. Religion, or lack thereof, is a very personal thing. That's why when people discuss it, it's important to be very sensitive and choose their words carefully.

[muravyets]

Look, nobody is demanding atheists defend why they are atheists. At least I'm not, and I think the record of my posts herein back that up.

And yes, I can certainly see how it would be irritating to the max when people tell atheists that atheism is really a religion anyway, because it frikkin' is not a religion. The claim that it is a religion is, basically, in my opinion, a snotty little attempt to (a) claim that religion is the default mindset and (b) get on atheists' nerves.

But what gets on my nerves -- and in the interest of letting air back into the thread, I'll leave my argument at this, if folks want -- is what I perceive as a defensive hackle-raising against the word "belief" as if there's something wrong with believing something, as if there's nothing non-religious that a person can believe in, etc. I simply do not understand why to say something is a belief is seen as pejorative. To me, it is simply an accurate description of the basis of the position.

I see atheism as a perfectly valid conclusion to reach, among many other valid conclusions, on the subject of deities and divinity, existence thereof. But it is not based on fact because there are no facts on this subject, except the facts of individual people's personal life experiences, which of course are not valid as evidence meant to persuade. I sincerely fail to see why that observation is seen as an attack.

[Toothpaste]

I don't think anyone feel you should have to defend how or what you believe.

However, I think if you read back, several people have felt the need to defend their belief.

Funny how that is. Religion, or lack thereof, is a very personal thing. That's why when people discuss it, it's important to be very sensitive and choose their words carefully.

I agree.

But I still maintain that threads here that have atheism mentioned but the topic isn't the definition of what it is (especially in the sub forum that is for atheists themselves), inevitably someone will come along asking why someone is an atheist, or correcting the way an atheist chooses to explain in response etc. You don't tend to see people asking "Why are you Christian/Jewish/Muslim?"

Now that doesn't mean that religious people don't have their own issues to contend with any time religion is mentioned but isn't the subject of a thread too. Religious people for some reason tend to have to defend why not all religious people are fanatics/stupid. And that is equally frustrating.

But it still gets really frustrating that people have to explain why they are what they are over and over.


ETA: muravyets, I understand your point, but it's the absolutism with which you say it isn't a fact that is part of the problem. Atheists truly think it IS a fact that there is no god. Agnostics are the ones who don't see it as fact. But Atheists? For them it's pretty much a certainty. I get that might drive you batty, but that's what they think. And so when you keep insisting it isn't a fact, then you are basically telling them what they think is wrong. And yes, that could be seen as an attack, even though you don't mean it as such. It's an agree to disagree situation, you see.

[muravyets]

I agree.

But I still maintain that threads here that have atheism mentioned but the topic isn't the definition of what it is (especially in the sub forum that is for atheists themselves), inevitably someone will come along asking why someone is an atheist, or correcting the way an atheist chooses to explain in response etc. You don't tend to see people asking "Why are you Christian/Jew/Muslim?"

Now that doesn't mean that religious people don't have their own issues to contend with any time religion is mentioned but isn't the subject of a thread too. Religious people for some reason tend to have to defend why not all religious people are fanatics/stupid. And that is equally frustrating.

But it still gets really frustrating that people have to explain why they are what they are over and over.


ETA: muravyets, I understand your point, but it's the absolutism with which you say it isn't a fact that is part of the problem. Atheists truly think it IS a fact that there is no god. Agnostics are the ones who don't see it as fact. But Atheists? For them it's pretty much a certainty. I get that might drive you batty, but that's what they think. And so when you keep insisting it isn't a fact, then you are basically telling them what they think is wrong. And yes, that could be seen as an attack, even though you don't mean it as such. It's an agree to disagree situation, you see.
I completely agree, especially with the "agree to disagree" part.

However, I think if you check through the thread again, you'll notice there was a context in which this came up this time. In the course of varying points being answered, atheism somehow got represented as both not asserting its premise as a fact and not being a belief-based system. I was trying to resolve what I perceived as that logical inconsistency, while at the same time expressing my own opinion about the problem of thinking about deities and explaining why I conclude that all thoughts on deities are belief-based, and not factual. Of course, I recognize that people who hold beliefs do actually believe them and view them as facts -- hell, I believe what I believe -- but logically, when we analyze our own positions, we must admit when we are not working with facts. I mean, surely, right? Isn't that the rational approach?

I did go to some effort to make it clear that I am definitely not saying anyone's beliefs are wrong, though, because how would I know? So if I say outright I'm not challenging the validity of someone's view and even that I consider their view valid and reasonable, and they still think I'm saying their view is wrong, I guess there's nothing I can do about that. If indeed that's what's happening.

Oh, well.

[SPMiller]

I lack belief in gods in the same way I lack belief in yetis. Some people think they exist, but I don't take them seriously. Also, I don't think most the preceding discussion has much to do with demonstrating that atheism is on the rise in the US (which it is) or discussing the consequences of that trend (which will be culturally pervasive).

[Charles Farley]

I believe in myself . . .and thats all there is to it

[Devil Ledbetter]

And yes, I can certainly see how it would be irritating to the max when people tell atheists that atheism is really a religion belief anyway, because it frikkin' is not a religionbelief . The claim that it is a religion belief is, basically, in my opinion, a snotty little attempt to (a) claim that religion belief is the default mindset and (b) get on atheists' nerves.Fixed it for ya. Except I wouldn't call your assertions snotty, just misguided.


But what gets on my nerves -- and in the interest of letting air back into the thread, I'll leave my argument at this, if folks want -- is what I perceive as a defensive hackle-raising against the word "belief" as if there's something wrong with believing something, as if there's nothing non-religious that a person can believe in, etc. I simply do not understand why to say something is a belief is seen as pejorative.
I don't think belief is a pejorative term and I've never said as much here. I have beliefs. I believe I will have a second cup of coffee this morning. I believe I am addicted to AW. I believe I will finish my novel. I believe my husband loves me.

I can't scientifically prove any of this at the moment, but I'm confident a lot of it will bear out.

Not believing in something is not, in itself, a belief. Every time you insist it is, you are dictating the nature of atheism. I think that's what Toothepaste was trying to point out to you.

The problem with a thread like this is one of worldview, I think (I believe). Those who insist atheism is a belief probably see God as the default worldview. To them, not believing in God requires an active form of unprovable "belief" that God does not, in fact, exist. (This is glaringly apparent every time the argument "But you can't PROVE God doesn't exist!" is trotted out.)

But that is not based on the reality of atheism; it's based on a God-believer apply her perspective to a non-believer.


I don’t think the Unicorns are a good analogy and here’s why.

What reason do I have to believe that Unicorns really do exist?

None really.

With God, there are plenty of reasons to believe. Our mere existence can be seen as a sign of God.

No one can fully explain the universe, or how it began, or what happens in the end.I agree, Vince. Unicorns are not a perfect analogy. But I'm okay with that because they still apply to the point I was making: Not believing in unicorns is not an active belief. I will explain why, for me, not believing in God isn't an active belief.

Unlike God believers, I don't have "plenty of reasons to believe in God." Just because God believers attribute our very existence to God, doesn't mean I do, or deep down wonder if I should. I really don't. I have a naturalist worldview. I have a pretty solid understanding of evolution for a layman and do not see humans as the "highest" animal or "more evolved" than other contemporary creatures. I see us as a type of ape. And I see this planet's conditions as a result of universal mathematical odds rather than the hand of a deity.

Yes, the universe is an amazing and mysterious place. No, I can't explain how the universe got here. To me, deciding the answer is "It was God" is no more satisfactory than "Gee, I dunno." Or even "Gee, I dunno, but I don't think it was an all powerful, intelligent deity with a personal interest in me who is going to let me live forever as a spirit."

That doesn't take belief, and it doesn't require proof.

It just takes an "I really don't think."


ETA: And just to go back on track ... I don't think America is increasingly atheist. Perhaps Americans are less engaged in organized religious communities and rituals, but I don't see them becoming atheist. If anything, the ease of long distance communication has led to more beliefs. I'm hearing more about various Eastern religions, pseudo-sciences, take-offs on traditional religions (angels, etc.) and such than ever before.

[Don]

I see atheism as a perfectly valid conclusion to reach, among many other valid conclusions, on the subject of deities and divinity, existence thereof. But it is not based on fact because there are no facts on this subject, except the facts of individual people's personal life experiences, which of course are not valid as evidence meant to persuade. I sincerely fail to see why that observation is seen as an attack.
You just explained it yourself. Atheism is not a belief that there is no god, it's more of a refusal to dispute facts not in evidence.

If I may paraphrase, there's no individual judicial finding of 'no god.' There's no court case because there are no facts to be disputed.

The presumption that Atheists have weighed the evidence and found it lacking is just that. There is no evidence to weigh, as you just said yourself.

It's like you're saying Atheists judge "No" when what they're actually saying is there is no basis for bringing the case to court.

If I have no facts to base a judgement on, I don't make a judgement. I go on to other issues where I do have facts and can reasonably make decisions based on those facts.

"I do not believe in god" is not the same as "I believe there is no god." The second presupposes judgements entered into the record that the first does not.

[Maxinquaye]

I see atheism as a perfectly valid conclusion to reach, among many other valid conclusions, on the subject of deities and divinity, existence thereof. But it is not based on fact because there are no facts on this subject, except the facts of individual people's personal life experiences, which of course are not valid as evidence meant to persuade. I sincerely fail to see why that observation is seen as an attack.

No, it's not a conclusion to be reached. Atheists do not start with a belief in god, and then move away from belief based upon some arbitrary factoid that there is no god. Believing in a god is not a default position that you move away from.

There is nothing to conclude, nothing to prove, and nothing to judge.

[ResearchGuy]

. . . Believing in a god is not a default position that you move away from.
. . .
It was for me. I started with a typical Sunday-school, church-attending upbringing. Decades of reading and study and thinking moved me in a different direction.

An anecdote. In graduate school, I had occasional visits from Jehovah's Witnesses. I did not share their beliefs, but they were pleasant folks, and I was happy to have them in my home to chat from time to time. Then one day, the woman (there were two who visited, a man and a woman, not related as far as I know, but sharing visiting duties) came to the door. I greeted her with the usual hope that she was doing well. She emotionally confided that her high-school-age son, in a case of mistaken identity, had been beaten to within an inch of his life. "We just thank Jehovah that he is going to live," she said.

That was the point where I realized it was all a crock. If there were a God who cared one whit about that young man, the beating would never have happened. Yet she did not grasp that. So over the years I have noted, again and again and again, reports of church bus crashes and similar incidents in which the true believers express their gratitude for the "miracle" that little Suzie (for example) still has some of her eyesight and might be able to walk again some day. Do a Google search on "church bus" crash maimed killed and pick out the pertinent ones for starters (skipping those about casino bus crashes and the like).

One of my back-of-the-drawer projects is a compilation of such stories, accompanied by an overview of the mythological sources of and influences on Christianity. (There is an abundant literature on that topic, including, to cite one book, A World Full of Gods (http://www.amazon.com/World-Full-Gods-Strange-Christianity/dp/0452282616).)

BTW, as for the arc from believer to non-believer, also see the works of Bart D. Ehrman, especially God's Problem (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/B001FOR5CG/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_6).

--Ken

[crunchyblanket]

but logically, when we analyze our own positions, we must admit when we are not working with facts. I mean, surely, right? Isn't that the rational approach?The thing is - and I can't speak for all atheists here - I am working with facts. The facts are that the world exists, and I exist. Those are the only real facts. Attributing a cause to those facts is where belief and faith comes in - so you can accurately say that I 'believe' in the Big Bang theory, for example, in the same way that people 'believe' god created the world. God is a theory like any other, and dismissing that theory is not belief, it's simply rejecting something that cannot be said to be a fact.

To put it another way - you would not say that someone who rejects the existence, say, Thor or Zeus 'believes' they do not exist. To an atheist, belief in Thor is the same as belief in the Christian god, or any other god for that matter.

From this link (http://www.999ideas.com/atheism-not-a-belief.html):

It is true that some atheists (a small minority) think they can "prove" "God" doesn't exist. Their attempts have nothing to do with atheism, however, anymore than a belief in Vishnu by some god-believers shows that theism is a belief in Vishnu only. The atheistic stance, if their is such a thing, is simply that "you have not proved your case, therefore I don't believe in your god."
In any debate, the burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim, of course. You say something is true, so you are the one who must demonstrate its truth. A typical atheist makes no claim about God, and he has no obligation to prove the non-existence of a god.


In other words, for atheists, god is merely a concept that has no relevance to their life, and therefore there is nothing to 'disbelief' - god just 'is not'.

[Maxinquaye]

It was for me. I started with a typical Sunday-school, church-attending upbringing. Decades of reading and study and thinking moved me in a different direction.


But you were first educated into theism and then back into atheism. I never received religious schooling. "Religion is an opium for the masses" as my parents probably would describe it.

I never received instruction in what to believe. It just was.

[Vince524]

I don't think belief is a pejorative term and I've never said as much here. I have beliefs. I believe I will have a second cup of coffee this morning. I believe I am addicted to AW. I believe I will finish my novel. I believe my husband loves me.



Ok, don't look at this as a counter argument, as much as a clarification and looking for clarification.

They way I see it, people call fall under a few different categories when it comes to the belief of God.

1) I believe in God (Or Gods) and then it's a matter of what and how and all that. Think of different religions as sub categories.

2) I believe there is no God. This, to me is an atheist. It is the same as saying that I believe there are no leprechauns at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold. It's not that you don't know if there is or isn't a little man waiting to be mugged, you really believe there isn't.

3) People who neither believe or don't believe. You don't believe there is a God, but you don't presume that there isn't one. You don't know. You're open to the idea. I'm not sure what that would be called.

Would you say you fall under 2 or 3? Or am I still missing something.

[ResearchGuy]

But you were first educated into theism and then back into atheism. I never received religious schooling. "Religion is an opium for the masses" as my parents probably would describe it.

I never received instruction in what to believe. It just was.
I was not "educated into atheism." I read, thought, and learned (books on the origins of Christianity read in my 20s and beyond were influential, although it took many years for the implications to fully develop in my mind), and figured it out for myself. And obviously NOT "back into atheism," as I started as a typical Sunday-school attending, churchgoing kid in a typical Protestant family in a typically religious community, baptized at age 13 (typical for that denomination).

--Ken

Edited to add: one of the first real eye-openers was Shirley Jackson Case's The evolution of early Christianity: a genetic study of first-century Christianity in relation to its religious environment. That really got me started on many years of thinking and further reading. Meanwhile, an upbringing in Sunday school was of great value in providing familiarity with core myths and concepts of Western civilization (Biblical myths and allusions are pervasive in literature, of course) and in facilitating at least some patience with the occasionally obligatory exposures to religion at weddings, funerals, and the like. (I do object to prayers as part of meetings of NON-religious organizations, such as service clubs, but I just wait them out.)

[crunchyblanket]

2) I believe there is no God. This, to me is an atheist. It is the same as saying that I believe there are no leprechauns at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold. It's not that you don't know if there is or isn't a little man waiting to be mugged, you really believe there isn't.

It's not that I believe there isn't a god. It's that god, in my life, is an artificial concept created by other human beings. It's a theory that lacks the evidence to make it believable (imo). So, to me, there's nothing to disbelieve - I'm just at the default, which is a world without the human concept of god.

[ResearchGuy]

. . . 3) People who neither believe or don't believe. You don't believe there is a God, but you don't presume that there isn't one. You don't know. You're open to the idea. I'm not sure what that would be called. . . .
Agnostic.

--Ken

[muravyets]

The thing is - and I can't speak for all atheists here - I am working with facts. The facts are that the world exists, and I exist. Those are the only real facts. Attributing a cause to those facts is where belief and faith comes in - so you can accurately say that I 'believe' in the Big Bang theory, for example, in the same way that people 'believe' god created the world. God is a theory like any other, and dismissing that theory is not belief, it's simply rejecting something that cannot be said to be a fact.

To put it another way - you would not say that someone who rejects the existence, say, Thor or Zeus 'believes' they do not exist. To an atheist, belief in Thor is the same as belief in the Christian god, or any other god for that matter.

From this link (http://www.999ideas.com/atheism-not-a-belief.html):

It is true that some atheists (a small minority) think they can "prove" "God" doesn't exist. Their attempts have nothing to do with atheism, however, anymore than a belief in Vishnu by some god-believers shows that theism is a belief in Vishnu only. The atheistic stance, if their is such a thing, is simply that "you have not proved your case, therefore I don't believe in your god."
In any debate, the burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim, of course. You say something is true, so you are the one who must demonstrate its truth. A typical atheist makes no claim about God, and he has no obligation to prove the non-existence of a god.


In other words, for atheists, god is merely a concept that has no relevance to their life, and therefore there is nothing to 'disbelief' - god just 'is not'.
I was going to dive in to argue the points again, but I think I shouldn't, actually. If you take a look at the arguments I have presented already, I think you'll see that most of your points, while valid in themselves, have already been argued and that there is nothing new or additional in this to make me alter my conclusion as they have been previously stated.

[Devil Ledbetter]

2) I believe there is no God. This, to me is an atheist. It is the same as saying that I believe there are no leprechauns at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold. It's not that you don't know if there is or isn't a little man waiting to be mugged, you really believe there isn't.I don't "believe there is no god." For the buzillionth time, this doesn't require belief. It is, for the buzillion time, the absence of belief.

3) People who neither believe or don't believe. You don't believe there is a God, but you don't presume that there isn't one. You don't know. You're open to the idea. I'm not sure what that would be called.

Would you say you fall under 2 or 3? Or am I still missing something.No. I am not "open to the idea." Why would I be? Are you open to the idea that the sun god, Rah, exists? Just because we now have a scientific explanation for the sun, doesn't preclude the existence of Rah.

If not, then your disbelief in Rah is in fact a belief, by your own definition. You must either actively reject Rah (which you can't prove, therefore it's a belief) or you must remain open to the possibility that Rah exists (be agnostic as to Rah.)

I presume there is no Rah just as I presume there are no other gods. This does not require belief. This is atheism.

Just because I don't have a scientific explanation for something doesn't make it "a belief in the nonexistence of" someone else's pet explanation.

ETA: I guess I am what you would call a practical atheist. As far as I'm concerned, for all intents and purposes, there is no God. Just as, as far as you're concerned, for all intents and purposes, there is no Rah.

Investigating Rah or providing arguments for why there is no Rah or seriously considering the reasoning of Rah believers or proving Rah doesn't exist probably doesn't interest you.

[Paul]

all interesting stuff. some great posts.

the reason why I purposely used the term 'belief' in relation to the statement of Atheist is quite specific.

Some of the statements regarding Atheism are quite correct, but there is to my mind another, more significant issue.

To me, there is always the danger of absolutism when stating position, and the issue with Atheism is in the use of language (examples which exist on this thread)

The standard use of language implies that Atheism is NOT a statement of belief, but is in fact simply a state of being, or state of awareness - in short, that it is neutral, it is self contained, independent of all else, it has no relationship to anything but itself (eg, it's not a rejection of the default position of God exists).


For me, this can lead down a dangerous road. the same road of an absolutist. (an absolutist being one who believes their viewpoint to be absolutely true, at all times, in all circumstances.)

For me, this can lead to the fascism, dictatorship etc.


But on the wider picture my point is that EVERYTHING is a statement of belief. EVERYTHING.

If we were to state that EVERYTHING was a statement of belief, then all 'beliefs' are equal.

Of course, those that dont stand the test of time/ experience, tend to die off.

in time. sometimes, lots and lots of time.

;)

[muravyets]

It's not that I believe there isn't a god. It's that god, in my life, is an artificial concept created by other human beings. It's a theory that lacks the evidence to make it believable (imo). So, to me, there's nothing to disbelieve - I'm just at the default, which is a world without the human concept of god.
If you mean that a concept without god(s) is the default for all people, rather than just yourself, then that requires one to assume one knows how all human minds work. It is almost certainly true that any given form of imagined deity is an artificial construct that is taught to people by other people. But I don't see how anyone can possibly know that no human being would ever develop a notion of "higher" beings or "supernatural" beings or forces, etc., unless someone else told them to. I mean, how did the first religions start then? Who came down from on high, as it were, if you'll pardon the expression, to teach people to believe something they wouldn't naturally come to believe?

My own view is that different kinds of views of life are hardwired into human brains and are related to different ways of processing and understanding incoming data. Some people are naturally inclined towards the atheist end of the spectrum and some towards the religious or spiritual end of the spectrum, with huge individual variation between extremes. Even within the parameters of cultural and social conditioning, there have always been and will always be people who believe in gods, spirits, etc., and people who don't. I do not think there is one default natural setting.

Now whether these different ways of viewing life, the universe and everything are referring to different parts of it all or the same parts, is not for me to say. My argument has been based on my view that it is not for anyone to say.

[crunchyblanket]

The standard use of language implies that Atheism is NOT a statement of belief, but is in fact simply a state of being, or state of awareness - in short, that it is neutral, it is self contained, independent of all else, it has no relationship to anything but itself (eg, it's not a rejection of the default position of God exists). That's precisely what I'm saying. Atheism, for me, is the default position. God is a human concept. You must understand, I'm not saying that to ridicule - I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a human concept. It's just that I have no concept of god in which to disbelieve.

I don't quite understand how atheism, of the type I described above, leads to fascism. I'm quite content for others to believe in god. It seems a strange concept to me, but my complete lack of belief does not mean I won't allow anyone else to believe. I think this is true of most atheists.


I was going to dive in to argue the points again, but I think I shouldn't, actually. If you take a look at the arguments I have presented already, I think you'll see that most of your points, while valid in themselves, have already been argued and that there is nothing new or additional in this to make me alter my conclusion as they have been previously stated. All right, then with respect, let me ask you another question. Is someone who rejects the existence of Thor exercising a belief?

If you mean that a concept without god(s) is the default for all people, rather than just yourself, then that requires one to assume one knows how all human minds work

I can't speak for anyone else and would never presume to try. I'm just explaining that for me, and I suspect for many other atheists, it's not an issue of belief because my default setting is one which lacks the concept of a god or gods. Not even as a child did I believe a god existed, despite being raised in a religious family setting.

[Paul]

That's precisely what I'm saying. Atheism, for me, is the default position.God is a human concept.

The problem with that language 'default' position, is that it implies absolute position, ie the original position of human consciousness.

also, all human concepts are, well, human concepts.

You must understand, I'm not saying that to ridicule - I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a human concept. Me neither. :)

I don't quite understand how atheism, of the type I described above, leads to fascism.

I'm not saying Atheism leads to fascism, Crunchy, I'm saying absolutism leads to fascism.

I'm saying all beliefs are equal and the language used to express that it very important. hence, my statement that Atheism is a belief.






:)

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'm not saying Atheism leads to fascism, Crunchy, I'm saying absolutism leads to fascism.

I'm saying all beliefs are equal and the language used to express that it very important. hence, my statement that Atheism is a belief.
Why is it absolutism? As an atheist, I am not proclaiming to know beyond a shadow of any doubt that there is absolutely no god, and no one should be allowed to believe such things. That's silly.

I'm just saying that for me, for all practical purposes, gods are irrelevant and not something I concern myself with. (Same as unicorns in my backyard, and Rah).

It would be every bit as absolutist for someone to hold a belief in a particular god, would it not? Because I don't hear them saying "Gee, I'm remaining open to the possibility that my God doesn't exist and all this worship is a waste of my limited conscious existence."

Do you?

Why hold atheism to a higher standard?

[muravyets]

No, it's not a conclusion to be reached. Atheists do not start with a belief in god, and then move away from belief based upon some arbitrary factoid that there is no god. Believing in a god is not a default position that you move away from.

There is nothing to conclude, nothing to prove, and nothing to judge.
If you note my post about my ideas concerning the wiring of people's minds, I hope my response will make sense:

Of course, athiests relate to their beliefs as you say. Many religious people relate to their beliefs the same way, if they analyze them at all rather than just go along with whatever their social norm is. A person who is naturally atheistic is never really going to believe what they might be told by a religious family or society. Religious views of life simply won't make sense to them, won't have the ring of truth.

Likewise, a naturally religiously or spiritually inclined person raised in an atheistic family and/or society will very likely adopt religion or a spiritual lifestyle at some point anyway, because, depending on how atheism is presented to them, it may never make sense to them either. Not have that ring of truth. Not jibe with how they experience life and the world, just like religion does not jibe with how an atheistic mind experiences life and the world.

Both viewpoints arise from the same source, the way our minds process our experiences, and so both are natural to those who are following their own impulses and both feel and are experienced as totally real and true and factual to each person.

But for me, personally, it is possible to look at myself as if from the outside and see dispassionately how my ideas are constructed. And that is how I can say that, while I believe as I do based on my own personal experiences, I have to admit the limits of my own knowledge. I have to admit that there is no absolute guarantee that I'm right.

My interpretation of my experiences makes sense to me, it covers an acceptable number of bases in explaining things, it provides a context for attitudes that arise naturally from my mind and my life, and most important to me personally, it does not contradict any detail of observable, testable reality. But objectively, I have to admit there are other possible explanations for my experiences. There is a chance I'm wrong. But it does not feel wrong, and so I choose to go with this particular belief system even while acknowledging that it might not be true. I do not follow a belief system that I was raised in or educated into. I followed my own impulses to find a system that reflected my experiences.

I am a naturally spiritually inclined person, so that is where my impulses took me, without any direction from anyone else. For a naturally atheistic person, no-god is the default. For a naturally religious person, yes-god is the default. For a person like me yes-spirits and meh-god(s) is the default.

So I'm not saying that atheism is not a natural default mind-setting, and I am not challenging the statements of atheists as to the natural, all-encompassing nature of their world-view. I'm just saying, it's not the only default out there and even in this, atheism is not so different from theism.

[crunchyblanket]

Why is it absolutism? As an atheist, I am not proclaiming to know beyond a shadow of any doubt that there is absolutely no god, and no one should be allowed to believe such things. That's silly.

I'm just saying that for me, for all practical purposes, gods are irrelevant and not something I concern myself with. (Same as unicorns in my backyard, and Rah).

It would be every bit as absolutist for someone to hold a belief in a particular god, would it not? Because I don't hear them saying "Gee, I'm remaining open to the possibility that my God doesn't exist and all this worship is a waste of my limited conscious existence."


^ this, all of it.

[Paul]

Why is it absolutism? As an atheist, I am not proclaiming to know beyond a shadow of any doubt that there is absolutely no god, and no one should be allowed to believe such things.That's silly.

I'm just saying that for me, for all practical purposes, gods are irrelevant and not something I concern myself with. (Same as unicorns in my backyard, and Rah).

It would be every bit as absolutist for someone to hold a belief in a particular god, would it not? Because I don't hear them saying "Gee, I'm remaining open to the possibility that my God doesn't exist and all this worship is a waste of my limited conscious existence."

Do you?

Why hold atheism to a higher standard?
re: bold bit, yes- if they dismiss all other beliefs and regard their own as absolute

A higher standard? My point is all should be held in the same standard. yup, including Atheism.

those who claim an absolute understanding of existence and reality are equally in danger of becoming fascist, regardless of their stance (or as i refer to it, belief)

and that is in essence, my point

[Maxinquaye]

Likewise, a naturally religiously or spiritually inclined person raised in an atheistic family and/or society will very likely adopt religion or a spiritual lifestyle at some point anyway, because, depending on how atheism is presented to them, it may never make sense to them either. Not have that ring of truth. Not jibe with how they experience life and the world, just like religion does not jibe with how an atheistic mind experiences life and the world.


I'll only answer this point as it seems the discussion is going arund in circles.

Religion is not the same thing as spirituality. Denying atheists spirituality is denying them humanity. Religion is a codified dogma that may be based in some sort of spirituality. But spirituality does not require belief in the paranormal.

If you have a child that receives no religious instruction at all, the child will not grow up to be religious since religiosity is a learned behaviour, not an instinctive one.

[muravyets]

That's precisely what I'm saying. Atheism, for me, is the default position. God is a human concept. You must understand, I'm not saying that to ridicule - I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a human concept. It's just that I have no concept of god in which to disbelieve.

I don't quite understand how atheism, of the type I described above, leads to fascism. I'm quite content for others to believe in god. It seems a strange concept to me, but my complete lack of belief does not mean I won't allow anyone else to believe. I think this is true of most atheists.
I'm not speaking for Paul, but I read his post as meaning that absolutism as a mindset leads to bad things such as fascism, not that atheism leads there. I might be wrong, but that's how I understood him.

All right, then with respect, let me ask you another question. Is someone who rejects the existence of Thor exercising a belief?
Yes. That's just another way to put exactly what I said.


I can't speak for anyone else and would never presume to try. I'm just explaining that for me, and I suspect for many other atheists, it's not an issue of belief because my default setting is one which lacks the concept of a god or gods. Not even as a child did I believe a god existed, despite being raised in a religious family setting.
Cool. And I would never ever presume to question your world-view or any conclusions, beliefs, assumptions, etc., based on it. What you're saying about yourself illustrates precisely what I was saying about different minds being naturally inclined in different directions when it comes to matters like this.

My own life took, perhaps, a similar path. I was raised in a community with plenty of default social settings of church attendance, but in a family utterly devoid any religious habits whatsoever in which questions of religion or spiritual belief never even came up. So whether I participated in social church/religious activities -- like children's activities at a church or such like -- they meant nothing to me and had no follow-up at home. Nor did I have any problems with not participating in such activities. But regardless of this lack of religious education, I still naturally felt an impulse towards a concept of spirituality and spiritual entities, and eventually, this needed to be expressed in my life. None of the local churches did the trick - the God of Abraham seems entirely irrelevant to me, whether he exists or not. Atheism just seemed to require me to ignore too much of my experience. Wicca - not happening for me. Buddhism - I really like the philosophy, but the practice seemed way too worried about fate and morals and anxiety about life -- though Zen opened up some possibilities. And Zen led me to Shinto and animism, and bingo -- that's what I'd been on about, so to speak.

These various ways of thinking arise out of different mindsets and experiences, but they are still none of them unique. We are all types, ultimately. You may be a naturally atheist type. I am a naturally animist type. Now it's possible of course that it's all just navel-gazing, that we're really not talking about anything but ourselves. But if the tendency towards or away from religious thinking/experience is like other human tendencies and individual variations in senses, personality, physical ability, etc., then it is possible we are talking about real things, just different parts of them.

To me it is just as possible that human beings are wired differently to sense different aspects of reality to varying degrees as it is that human beings are wired differently to make up different kinds of stories.

[Paul]

just a small (honest) extra note on belief and absolutism

technically a belief system tends to state' this is it, this is the way is, all other beliefs are wrong'

(there may be exceptions, but that would be the usual approach)

however, not all members of that particular belief might hold such a viewpoint, even though as members, they are supposed to.
Albedo mentioned the approach of most people - using the term 'secular Christianity' or something like that. and that thankfully seems to be the case for most people. (otherwise, there'd be little community in most states)


so really it's the 'absolutists' in those belief systems that have me tossing n turning of a night.

[muravyets]

I'll only answer this point as it seems the discussion is going arund in circles.

Religion is not the same thing as spirituality. Denying atheists spirituality is denying them humanity. Religion is a codified dogma that may be based in some sort of spirituality. But spirituality does not require belief in the paranormal.

If you have a child that receives no religious instruction at all, the child will not grow up to be religious since religiosity is a learned behaviour, not an instinctive one.
First I apologize for the impression that I was denying atheists spirituality. What I was actually trying to do was be inclusive by accounting for all kinds of atheist including those who reject spirituality as a concept. I did not intend to imply that all atheists are non-spiritual. Also, just for the record, I do not think that a person rejecting spirituality is losing their humanity.

Second, I need to stay out of the question of paranormal or supernatural things, because I always get into trouble when I declare my view that there is no such thing as paranormal or supernatural anything, even though I believe in the existence of spirits and gods. It's just that to me, if a thing exists then it's normal and natural, not para- or super-. I only use para- and super- to describe phenomena that are not understood, by which I mean I'm describing their state of being not-understood things. That always turns into a huge argument for some reason.

Finally, if you view some of my previous posts, you will see a life story that directly contradicts your assumption that a child raised without religious instruction will grow up atheist. I also earlier posed the rhetorical question of how the first religions or religion at all could have come into existence in the first place if no one raised without religious conditioning would develop religious thinking. Natural atheism is not a foregone conclusion.

[kuwisdelu]

In science and logic, the default hypothesis is always to assume the lack of something until there is sufficient significant evidence of that something's existence.

[Paul]

In science and logic, the default hypothesis is always to assume the lack of something until there is sufficient significant evidence of that something's existence.
:)
true.

As Einstein said 'truth is what stands the test of experience'

but in truth, science and logic are often left playing moving chairs.


anyway, for me, the issue is in underlying assumptions that beliefs are anything more than that. beliefs. and EVERYTHING is ultimately a belief. nothing more.


'reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one' A. Einstein

[Romantic Heretic]

Atheists and believers are two sides of the same thing, faith. One side says there is a God, the other says there isn't. Neither stance can be proven or disproven.

It's a matter of faith.

[Torgo]

Atheists and believers are two sides of the same thing, faith. One side says there is a God, the other says there isn't. Neither stance can be proven or disproven.

It's a matter of faith.

Occam's razor applies, though.

God could totally prove his own existence, but apparently chooses not to for no good reason that I can see (he wasn't nearly so shy in the Old Testament.)

[Opty]

Atheists and believers are two sides of the same thing, faith. ....It's a matter of faith.
It has become clear that some people here either don't know what the definition of "faith" is or they're trying to redefine the term to fit their argument.

Simply put, "faith" is belief in something that is not based on observable proof.

Atheists do not believe in God because there is no observable proof of His existence. Christians believe in God despite this lack of evidence.

That belief despite a lack of evidence is the definition of "faith."

The lack of belief in God due to the lack of evidence is not based on "faith."

Saying that a non-belief in God is also a type of "faith" is ludicrous. Going back to Devil Ledbetter's earlier posts, it's as nonsensical as saying that "A lack of faith is faith."

One side says there is a God, the other says there isn't. Neither stance can be proven or disproven.
Not so. An experiment could be set up mimicking Gideon's multiple requests from God for a sign. In Judges 6:36-40, Gideon asks God for three signs involving a fleece and the ground with the "sign" involving one or both of them being wet.

Each time, according to the Bible, God answered Gideon through these requested signs.

This procedure could easily be replicated. I'm pretty sure that if we set this up and asked God to give us a sign of His existence, nothing would happen. The atheist would take this absence of evidence as confirmation of the null. The Christian would likely rationalize this result in such a way as to not contradict their beliefs.

And, for Christians, that's the beauty of faith. It relies on doxastic logic. Nothing need be proved. "Possibilities," no matter how unlikely, are treated as evidence or possible evidence, therefore they cannot ever be ruled out. In essence, there is no such thing as the null position (except in reference to "other" religions' beliefs).

The atheistic side basically has concluded that there is no God because there is no observable evidence to prove His existence. The atheist's position is the null position. It is not looking to prove anything. On the contrary, it states that God's existence hasn't been proven. This stance will only be "disproved" when the Christian side can come up with some observable evidence confirming His existence.

The atheist doesn't need to "prove" that there isn't a God because the atheist doesn't believe in God. It is up to the Christian to prove His existence through observable evidence. Since he/she cannot, yet continues to believe anyway, this belief in God's existence is based on faith.

[kuwisdelu]

Atheists do not believe in God because there is no observable proof of His existence. Christians believe in God despite this lack of evidence.

That belief despite a lack of evidence is the definition of "faith."

The lack of belief in God due to the lack of evidence is not based on "faith."

Yup. As I mentioned, pre-merge, in science and logic, the null hypothesis (that is, the assumption that there is nothing there) is the assumption until there is sufficient and significant evidence of the alternative hypothesis (that there is something there).

Asserting that the null hypothesis is true without evidence may be faith, sure. But assuming the null hypothesis while there is no sufficient and significant evidence in favor of there alternative hypothesis? That's not faith. It's just standard protocol.

If someone has evaluated the evidence for themselves and found sufficient and significant evidence for the existence of a god? Okay, that's cool. Of course, that's not faith anymore; it's a conclusion based on evidence. And ultimately, it seems to me if one goes shopping for religions and decides to practice the one that makes most sense to one, it seems to me that something besides faith must go into that decision.

I suppose I'm saying I have a pretty deeply-rooted aversion to the concept of "pure" faith. I suppose the fact that the default position in science and logic is to assume the absence of something could be argued to be based in faith, but always assuming the alternative would come with a large set of problems and contradictions. For example, if one takes the default position in believing in the traditional Christian god in the "I am the only God" manner and everything associated with it, based on faith rather than a rational decision, then it would be logically consistent to take the default position of believing in every other god based, as well, on the assumption that the alternative hypotheses of all "somethings" exists is correct. That seems to lead to contradictions to me.

As I said, I'm fine with religion. If one has weighed the alleged evidence and decided to believe in a certain deity, that's cool with me, even if I disagree with his or her evaluation of the evidence in question. I guess my problem is, in fact, with this "faith" idea. If one weighs evidence and makes a decision that one religion makes more sense or feels more right than another, isn't that a decision that ultimately isn't based on faith, and rather some kind of reasoning?

One the one hand, this seems to fly in the face of certain religions' aspirations of faith as some kind of golden standard. On the other hand, I think that — regardless of whether a population ends up atheist or agnostic or religious — a population that actually goes through such a critical thinking process in their beliefs will be far better off than one that doesn't. And note that in this context, I do see a differentiation between "belief" and "faith." Or rather it seems to me that too often the word "faith" is used to connote "belief in something regardless of evidence, with no basis in reason." (I don't think that's right. It just seems to me that that's how it's often used, so I've adopted that usage in this post.)

[backslashbaby]

The discussion is getting very interesting, imho.

A question on the role of scientific thought in this matter: Why is scientific thought necessarily put in a hierarchy above other schemas to form belief systems?

There seems to be a faith (if you will) in logic as the only way to come to a conclusion about the topic in atheism. That should be called something, no? A belief? Faith? I don't know if calling it 'the default' is fair given human's social history. It's actually fairly recent.

I'm pretty Jungian when it comes to spirituality, so I don't think I can agree that spiritual things need to be viewed only through the lens of logic. I don't agree that that's the default position. But I support folks' rights to think that, of course.

[Torgo]

A question on the role of scientific thought in this matter: Why is scientific thought necessarily put in a hierarchy above other schemas to form belief systems?

There seems to be a faith (if you will) in logic as the only way to come to a conclusion about the topic in atheism. That should be called something, no? A belief? Faith? I don't know if calling it 'the default' is fair given human's social history. It's actually fairly recent.

'Science' probably not the right word; I'd say 'empiricism'. We're all logical and empirical about most aspects of our lives. It's not really possible for us to 'come to a conclusion' about anything unless we apply logic to it, for starters.

Also, I'd argue that faith is about believing something when you don't have empirical justification. Whereas the utility of logic is proven every second of every day; there's lots of justification for believing that it works.

[Don]

It has become clear that some people here either don't know what the definition of "faith" is or they're trying to redefine the term to fit their argument.

Simply put, "faith" is belief in something that is not based on observable proof.

Atheists do not believe in God because there is no observable proof of His existence. Christians believe in God despite this lack of evidence.

That belief despite a lack of evidence is the definition of "faith."

The lack of belief in God due to the lack of evidence is not based on "faith."

Saying that a non-belief in God is also a type of "faith" is ludicrous. Going back to Devil Ledbetter's earlier posts, it's as nonsensical as saying that "A lack of faith is faith."

Thank you for making this so crystal clear that it may well be impossible for anybody to pretend they don't 'get it' this time around. I'm not holding my breath, though.

A question on the role of scientific thought in this matter: Why is scientific thought necessarily put in a hierarchy above other schemas to form belief systems?

Because logic works, consistently and accurately enough to survive day-by-day by undertaking logical actions. 2+2 is always 4, regardless of what the clergy or the politicans proclaim. Sacrificing a goat is not nearly so predictable as far as the results, and survival by purely mystical means has been rumored but never documented. Eat or die, no matter how much you believe otherwise.

And 'faith vs. speeding train' has always failed, to the best of my knowledge.

When people start overriding the laws of physics through prayer, I'll have to reexamine my worldview.

[Paul]

just a final clarification of my particular use of the word 'belief'.

In terms of absolute truth, of saying 'this is the case beyond all doubt' I say all is belief. Everything. EVERYTHING. (for the fourth time in caps. :))

So that includes, 'evidence', 'fact', 'reproducible fact', 'experimental evidence' etc.

if science has shown us anything, it's that 2+2 does not always equal 4, or it might have last year, but not this year, and as for next year...? who knows.


in short, it's the declaration of an 'absolutist' position. be it subtle, or be it direct.

all is unknowable except in the collective (and possiblly universal, but i dont know) or individual subjective.

Reality is transient.

albeit cool.



Hmmm. i see a movie idea unfolding... the mattice? the mattress? it's a coming....:D)

[robeiae]

I'm pretty sure that if we set this up and asked God to give us a sign of His existence, nothing would happen.Give me a sign of Your existgence, God. Make Haskins use capital letters in his next post.

The atheist doesn't need to "prove" that there isn't a God because the atheist doesn't believe in God. It is up to the Christian to prove His existence through observable evidence. Since he/she cannot, yet continues to believe anyway, this belief in God's existence is based on faith.
Agree. That's all there is to say, imo.

[Paul]

oh and also, same goes for the idea (belief) of 'lack of evidence'

it sounds logical, reasonable, but it's an assertation, like anything else.
and constitutes a belief, like anything else.

[Torgo]

@Paul

if science has shown us anything, it's that 2+2 does not always equal 4, or it might have last year, but not this year, and as for next year...? who knows.

Do you mean that? Because I can't see how it could be true. Surely mathematical truth is as incontrovertible as anything could be. Squares can't be triangular, for example; that seems a priori.

[Don]

oh and also, same goes for the idea (belief) of 'lack of evidence'

it sounds logical, reasonable, but it's an assertation, like anything else.
and constitutes a belief, like anything else.
Believe that oncoming lorry is made of whipped cream.

Now step off the curb.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[Paul]

Believe that bus is made of butter.

Now step off the curb.
dunno. is the curb made of toast?

[Paul]

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3.html)

Albert. E. ;)

[Torgo]

I just wish people didn't feel superior to others based on their faiths, or their scientism. Somebody's wrong, and it could be you. If we all just lived with that tacit assumption, i.e. I could be wrong about pretty much everything, what a paradise we could share...

I'm a philosopher by training, and I'd never say that I couldn't be wrong about everything (Descartes gave us that with his Evil Demon.) Indeed the default position of science is that we don't know stuff. Because I'm very careful about committing myself to any kind of belief, I insist on lots of compelling evidence.

[Torgo]

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3.html)

Albert. E. ;)

Don't believe it!

[Paul]

Don't believe it!
:D

[crunchyblanket]

oh and also, same goes for the idea (belief) of 'lack of evidence'

it sounds logical, reasonable, but it's an assertation, like anything else.
and constitutes a belief, like anything else.

I don't get this. Either there's evidence for something or there isn't. The significance of the evidence may well be subject to belief, but evidence itself is a solid concept.

[Paul]

I don't get this. Either there's evidence for something or there isn't. The significance of the evidence may well be subject to belief, but evidence itself is a solid concept.
Describe non-existence.



as a side note, em,...why exactly is the blanket crunchy?

[Vince524]

Describe non-existence.



My ability to resist seconds at dinner time.

[Paul]

My ability to resist seconds at dinner time.
he he.

[crunchyblanket]

Describe non-existence.



as a side note, em,...why exactly is the blanket crunchy?

I don't understand the question, or its significance. Non-existence is self explanatory. Now the philosophy of non-existence is something else entirely - does the absence of something mean it's not there, or we just haven't discovered it yet? But that would be a digression ;)


There are many reasons for a crunchy blanket. Lack of fabric softener, made from an unsuitable materials, overabundance of crumbs...

[Paul]

I don't understand the question, or its significance. Non-existence is self explanatory. Now the philosophy of non-existence is something else entirely - does the absence of something mean it's not there, or we just haven't discovered it yet? But that would be a digression ;)

a digression? it well may be centre stage...

There are many reasons for a crunchy blanket. Lack of fabric softener, made from an unsuitable materials, overabundance of crumbs...

Phew. that's ok then


Re 'evidence' without getting into an eternal discussion (lol) evidence, like reality, as mr E put it, is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

ETA Back later, the toaster just called. as least I believe it did.

[Don]

I don't get this. Either there's evidence for something or there isn't. The significance of the evidence may well be subject to belief, but evidence itself is a solid concept.
Not if you don't believe in it. :rolleyes:

I'd like to meet one person who lives to the standard of their non-belief in reality.

Oh, wait... they're all dead!

[SPMiller]

Seems like this thread is doomed to move in only one direction. No surprise. Gotta love these perpetual arguments about semantics.

[Paul]

Not if you don't believe in it. :rolleyes:

I'd like to meet one person who lives to the standard of their non-belief in reality.

Oh, wait... they're all dead!

lol.
hey, did you just redneck this thread? :D

no, that'd be crazy. of course I live by the 'rules' of reality. I just dont accept them to be true. ;)

[Paul]

Seems like this thread is doomed to move in only one direction. No surprise. Gotta love these perpetual arguments about semantics.
nope. for me it's about the dangers of subscribing to an absolute reality and the language to prop up that concept, be it form the left or right, etc.

semantics underpin all political actions.

bfn

[Maxx]

Not if you don't believe in it. :rolleyes:

I'd like to meet one person who lives to the standard of their non-belief in reality.

Oh, wait... they're all dead!

Quite true. It's the paradox of weak beliefs (such as "I can walk across the room without running into invisible things.") versus "strong" beliefs (such as "An all-powerful, all-loving being wants to wait until I'm dead to beat me up. Or so He has been hinting for thousands of years.")

[Maxx]

lol.
hey, did you just redneck this thread? :D

no, that'd be crazy. of course I live by the 'rules' of reality. I just dont accept them to be true. ;)

Well, "you" might not, but whatever entity is steering your body around the kitchen does.

[veinglory]

You need a reasonable amount of ceritutde just to get on with living life. Each person decides whether they need to follow the doctrine of a religion or not, based on their best guess of how the world works. There is not much point just thinking and doing nothing based on the lack of absolute certainty.

[Diana Hignutt]

Not if you don't believe in it. :rolleyes:

I'd like to meet one person who lives to the standard of their non-belief in reality.

!

We've met before...

I live my life in a constant state of non-belief in what you call reality.

And, so far, I'm still alive...

[muravyets]

You need a reasonable amount of ceritutde just to get on with living life. Each person decides whether they need to follow the doctrine of a religion or not, based on their best guess of how the world works. There is not much point just thinking and doing nothing based on the lack of absolute certainty.
True, which is why I said we shouldn't go ahead and draw conclusions. But that doesn't make it logically valid to claim one's views about an unprovable proposition are factual and certain when one is talking to other people. By all means, let us go through our lives, solid in our reasonable beliefs. But when it comes to talking to other people about those beliefs? No, I'm sorry. For each of us, our certainty means absolutely nothing to anyone but us.

[Don]

We've met before...

I live my life in a constant state of non-belief in what you call reality.

And, so far, I'm still alive...
No, you don't. You don't eat rat poison, because you believe the warnings on the can are true. You don't walk out in front of speeding trains or trucks, because you know your non-belief is no match for tons of steel. You eat food every day because you know failing to do so will result in sickness or death. You use a computer and a telephone because they work consistently, and thought projection has a more iffy record of success.

Hell, you breathe because you know it will keep you alive.

How's that rejecting reality?

[veinglory]

I would believe you live without assumptions only if you don't do anything. Action requires millions of assumptions from 'gravity will hold me down' and 'the sun will come up tomorrow' to 'if I do this God will/will not smite me with lightning and/or cancer'.

[Paul]

I would believe you live without assumptions only if you don't do anything. Action requires millions of assumptions from 'gravity will hold me down' and 'the sun will come up tomorrow' to 'if I do this God will/will not smite me with lightning and/or cancer'.
'assumptions, all is assumptions'

* from the Bk of Paul (the desert wanderings)


did i say wanderings?


:D

More anon. (if thread still open that is)

[Don]

I would believe you live without assumptions only if you don't do anything. Action requires millions of assumptions from 'gravity will hold me down' and 'the sun will come up tomorrow' to 'if I do this God will/will not smite me with lightning and/or cancer'.
So in your mind, the assumption that the law of gravity will continue to work, or that the earth will continue to revolve around the sun and rotate, is on an equal par with the assumption that "if I do this God will/will not smite me with lightning and/or cancer?"

[Williebee]

MOD NOTE:
Threads merged.

PLEASE NOTE: The discussion moved is about what atheism is, and what is/is not a belief.

As always, the cardinal rule applies. This is NOT a place to insult someone's belief or non-belief in any religion or lack there of.

Just a personal note? We all know that words have meanings. Mastering working with those definitions, even as they change in global perception, even as they fall away due to public ennui, it's what makes us solid communicators. And what helps us to find our personal truths.