Is Atheism a Belief System? (split from the Political Views thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sickening

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
52
Jesus of Nazareth was by all accounts a devout Jew, if one with a few wacky notions about the proper way to practice that devotion. "Dethroning old god" wasn't really part of the program, at least not in so many words. Jupiter and Isis and that crew had to go because they were incompatible with Christianity, not because they were "old" and needed to be improved upon.

Dethroning the old gods of Rome was the program. The notions about spreading the words of god, the "become the salt of the world" thing was the program. It is mentioned inside the Christian bible.

I don't think you know what atheism means as a word, let alone what it's about in a broader sociological context.

That's where you're wrong, atheism is a belief system. There has to be a concept of God in order for one to be aware and realize that there is no God.

You will if you have an incompetent meteorologist or something really catastrophic happens.

Have a look at the OP for my weather thread ("Oh the weather outside is..."). Nobody expected the wind storm we got that day. Trees were uprooted, cars and roofs were smashed, some animals died, and thank goodness nobody died when roofs and siding were blown or ripped off some buildings (including the nursing home where my dad lives).

The thing I might have expected that day was hail; there were hail clouds in the sky, but we didn't get any here. Still, hail can wreck crops in mere minutes.

But as I understand it, the point was made that the Weather Network is a very useful thing that people should pay attention to. As it turns out, my province has implemented some kind of alert system for disasters. It's supposed to let everyone with a cell phone know, and in my case - since I don't own a cell phone but do have the Weather Network as a pinned tab on my computer - when they tested the alert system the other day, I noticed it on that tab.

Since I don't own a cell phone, don't listen to the radio, and rarely watch TV, this is a useful thing to have because I am online for most of the day.


You really think atheism is some new thing that nobody ever heard of until recently? There were people centuries and even millennia ago who didn't believe in gods. Mind you they couldn't say so openly for fear of dire punishments inflicted on anyone who didn't follow the "true religion" or whatever the "state" demanded people worship in that time or place.

I'm not sure why you refer to Christianity as an "organization." There are more varieties of Christianity than I - or most people, probably - know about. Some are more organized than others, and while some openly promote bigotry, not all of them do.

No, I'm not saying that it is a recent fads. However, as an organized belief system, atheism is only surfaced during the 20th century. Christianity is an organization, an institution, a church. They are all similar whether it was Methodist, Calvinist or any other Christian branches, they all inherited traditions from the Catholics nevertheless.

How would you know? What do you know about any of this that makes you confident of such a claim?

It's completely rational because we've correctly categorized the issue as financial crises and depression economics. The solution to the problem is consistent.

The worst case event had multiple precedents and the GFC had the same triggering margin call only a magnitude worse. The GFC was not the second worst ever economic crisis by almost any measure. Not even close. Economic theory provided a correct response to both. Ignoramuses in politics/banking/academia made both worse.

I am with you, it is more irrational and extremely ignorant to not learn from history as it was what you call it, a research data.
 
That's where you're wrong, atheism is a belief system. There has to be a concept of God in order for one to be aware and realize that there is no God.
Oh, groovy. This argument again. :rolleyes:

No, it is not a "belief system." It's a lack of belief. Yes, I acknowledge that most people in the world believe (or may have believed) in at least one supernatural being, if not more, and it may surprise people in this thread to know that in some of the stories I write, some of my characters do have a profound faith in their gods and whatever belief system is associated with them. I'm working on such a story now. But that doesn't mean I share those beliefs. I don't worship anything.

No, I'm not saying that it is a recent fads. However, as an organized belief system, atheism is only surfaced during the 20th century. Christianity is an organization, an institution, a church. They are all similar whether it was Methodist, Calvinist or any other Christian branches, they all inherited traditions from the Catholics nevertheless.
What?! May I suggest you take a look at the second sentence in red in my sig? The relevant part of that here is "Never assume that you know... what I believe."

You're making a hell of an assumption here. I don't go to "atheist church." There is no atheist hierarchy with one supreme leader and everyone else is of lesser rank. I don't go doorknocking to "spread the good word" about what I don't believe in (last week some Christian doorknocker had the effrontery to harass several people in the building, wanting to be let in so they could go doorknocking at the suites here; complaints to the manager resulted in his promise to make sure the "No Soliciting" sign was replaced as such people are definitely not welcome here).

Several years ago I was accused right, left, and center of being some sort of "disciple" of Richard Dawkins, when I hadn't even heard of him, much less read any of his books. Well, now I have heard of him, I've watched some of his videos (he and Lawrence Krauss make a good team), and I finally did buy one of his books (haven't read it yet; I also have a Lawrence Krauss book called The Physics of Star Trek). However, I wouldn't consider myself a "disciple" of either of them.

Some atheists organize in social groups and political groups. Some engage in charitable activities, but it's amazing how they were told point-blank by a cancer charity that money donated by atheists would not be welcome because it would displease some of the Christian groups participating in the fund raiser. And then people turn around and claim that atheists never give to charity. :rolleyes:

I don't participate in atheist-only social groups or political groups. I give to charity what and when I can, and not one penny has ever gone to any political organization. I respect the politicians who leave their religion (whatever it might be) at home and don't bring it into the legislatures and parliaments with them.

Well, sure. What I'm talking about is real ruin, i.e. something you can't come back from. That's very unlikely to happen.
Being killed or having your home or business destroyed does happen, and death is something that qualifies as something you can't come back from.

I was referring to future forecasts, not immediate ones. You should never stake something important on them being right three days from now.
Aren't all forecasts intended to say what will happen in the future? I don't disagree about staking important things on weather forecasts being right three days from now. We have a saying here: "If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes."

We have to plan things with the assumption that forecasts will be mostly right, however. Otherwise, nothing will get done.
 
I don't worship anything.

And yet you are the most aggressive proselytizer I personally have ever encountered. Amazing contradiction that.

The thing that is hilarious about the atheist is that they accept a belief without proof, then aggressively deride people who accept a belief without proof.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is a belief system like off is a TV channel.

Atheism is more like CNN is to Fox News, because the TV is your conscious mind. You may choose to believe one, both or none of them at all.

A lack of belief would be agnosticism. Atheism (which I think is reasonably defined as the belief that Gods don't or probably exist) is tied to explicit claims about the nature of the universe, such as naturalism or Darwinian evolution. It's not clear to me how one could be an atheist while rejecting either of those, unless they're a Buddhist or some New Age-y thing.

Thank you :thumbsup:


Oh, groovy. This argument again. :rolleyes:

No, it is not a "belief system." It's a lack of belief. Yes, I acknowledge that most people in the world believe (or may have believed) in at least one supernatural being, if not more, and it may surprise people in this thread to know that in some of the stories I write, some of my characters do have a profound faith in their gods and whatever belief system is associated with them. I'm working on such a story now. But that doesn't mean I share those beliefs. I don't worship anything.


What?! May I suggest you take a look at the second sentence in red in my sig? The relevant part of that here is "Never assume that you know... what I believe."

You're making a hell of an assumption here. I don't go to "atheist church." There is no atheist hierarchy with one supreme leader and everyone else is of lesser rank. I don't go doorknocking to "spread the good word" about what I don't believe in (last week some Christian doorknocker had the effrontery to harass several people in the building, wanting to be let in so they could go doorknocking at the suites here; complaints to the manager resulted in his promise to make sure the "No Soliciting" sign was replaced as such people are definitely not welcome here).

Several years ago I was accused right, left, and center of being some sort of "disciple" of Richard Dawkins, when I hadn't even heard of him, much less read any of his books. Well, now I have heard of him, I've watched some of his videos (he and Lawrence Krauss make a good team), and I finally did buy one of his books (haven't read it yet; I also have a Lawrence Krauss book called The Physics of Star Trek). However, I wouldn't consider myself a "disciple" of either of them.

Some atheists organize in social groups and political groups. Some engage in charitable activities, but it's amazing how they were told point-blank by a cancer charity that money donated by atheists would not be welcome because it would displease some of the Christian groups participating in the fund raiser. And then people turn around and claim that atheists never give to charity. :rolleyes:

I don't participate in atheist-only social groups or political groups. I give to charity what and when I can, and not one penny has ever gone to any political organization. I respect the politicians who leave their religion (whatever it might be) at home and don't bring it into the legislatures and parliaments with them.

That is where you are exactly wrong, atheism is still a belief, because it believes on the non existence of any supreme being. Agnosticism, as what Mouthwash posted previously is the word to describe of the lack of belief on the argumentation of the existence of God itself.

Organized belief doesn't necesarilly need a hierarchy, holy texts or even one place to stay to congregate, it only needs a community that believe on the same idea on the existence of any supreme being. You may have forgotten on hundreds of numbers organized indigenous beliefs that still exists in Asia and maybe in some parts of Africa and America. Numerous numbers of them was formed as a community and they all doesn't have religious leaders, place of congregation or any meetings of any kinds. This is why atheism is still a belief system.
 
Last edited:
A lack of belief would be agnosticism. Atheism (which I think is reasonably defined as the belief that Gods don't or probably exist) is tied to explicit claims about the nature of the universe, such as naturalism or Darwinian evolution. It's not clear to me how one could be an atheist while rejecting either of those, unless they're a Buddhist or some New Age-y thing.
Easy. It is possible to reject the existence of gods whilst saying I don't know how the world is created or if we have a purpose. No belief in anything else is necessary to be an atheist, a rationalist is prepared to admit there are things they don't know or understand. There are atheist belief systems like Humanism but not all atheists subscribe to one of them.
 
Easy. It is possible to reject the existence of gods whilst saying I don't know how the world is created or if we have a purpose. No belief in anything else is necessary to be an atheist, a rationalist is prepared to admit there are things they don't know or understand. There are atheist belief systems like Humanism but not all atheists subscribe to one of them.

And what's the difference? You are claiming a belief, for which there is no proof. Limiting the scope of the belief doesn't change that, it just makes it less likely to show up as a difference with others and cause conflicts. Admittedly, there is value in that. Comparably, the quiet believers in a god or gods are less objectionable than a radical creationist turned social media star. But that doesn't change the fact that all of them are belief systems founded on faith in something that is accepted despite being beyond proof.
 
All this "atheism" and "belief" is just an attempt at muddying the water by deliberately playing on the two nuances of what "belief" means, one being closer to "what one think" ("I believe she said it differently") and the other being about "faith" ("I believe in God").
Atheism is an opinion about the absence of gods. It's not about faith. As such, trying to paint it as faith is just being of, well, bad faith.
 
All this "atheism" and "belief" is just an attempt at muddying the water by deliberately playing on the two nuances of what "belief" means, one being closer to "what one think" ("I believe she said it differently") and the other being about "faith" ("I believe in God").
Atheism is an opinion about the absence of gods. It's not about faith. As such, trying to paint it as faith is just being of, well, bad faith.

As long as it is recognized as an opinion by the person holding it that is correct. As soon as they stop treating it as opinion then they have taken it on faith.
 
And what's the difference? You are claiming a belief, for which there is no proof. Limiting the scope of the belief doesn't change that, it just makes it less likely to show up as a difference with others and cause conflicts. Admittedly, there is value in that. Comparably, the quiet believers in a god or gods are less objectionable than a radical creationist turned social media star. But that doesn't change the fact that all of them are belief systems founded on faith in something that is accepted despite being beyond proof.

I'm looking at the evidence and making a judgement based on that. No faith involved. If new evidence comes to light I like to think I'd look at it again taking the new evidence into account. The religious believe in absolute truth, no amount of evidence can affect what they believe. Thats the difference.
 
I'm looking at the evidence and making a judgement based on that. No faith involved. If new evidence comes to light I like to think I'd look at it again taking the new evidence into account. The religious believe in absolute truth, no amount of evidence can affect what they believe. Thats the difference.

Please provide all your accumulated evidence that there is no god.
 
Atheism is more like CNN is to Fox News, because the TV is your conscious mind. You may choose to believe one, both or none of them at all.
Or you can just keep the TV turned off and think for yourself.

That is where you are exactly wrong, atheism is still a belief, because it believes on the non existence of any supreme being. Agnosticism, as what Mouthwash posted previously is the word to describe of the lack of belief on the argumentation of the existence of God itself.
I'm having deja vu here. It's like the time when Oprah insisted to an atheist guest that she was so religious because she was capable of feeling awe. Oprah doesn't think atheists are capable of that, and no matter how much the guest tried to explain it, Oprah clung to her notion and rudely told the guest that she was wrong.

I was an atheist before I even knew there was a word to describe my situation. It wasn't until my late teens that I learned that there was a word to describe my lack of belief in gods or the supernatural, and later still that I realized it wasn't something I should have to hide like it's some really bad thing (I live in a "bible belt" region of Canada and the City Clerk and my colleagues once got really irritated when I refused to swear on a bible as the final step in becoming a census taker/election worker).

Organized belief doesn't necesarilly need a hierarchy, holy texts or even one place to stay to congregate, it only needs a community that believe on the same idea on the existence of any supreme being. You may have forgotten on hundreds of numbers organized indigenous beliefs that still exists in Asia and maybe in some parts of Africa and America. Numerous numbers of them was formed as a community and they all doesn't have religious leaders, place of congregation or any meetings of any kinds. This is why atheism is still a belief system.
So if there are many people who happen to share some thought that they think is true, that makes it a belief, which in turn makes it a religion? Wow. So there's a religion about gravity and everyone on the planet (or most; there's no accounting for those who think that a scientific theory is just somebody's half-baked idea) belongs to the religion of gravity?
 
So if there are many people who happen to share some thought that they think is true, that makes it a belief, which in turn makes it a religion?

Nope. It's when many people (atheists) share a thought that they think is true despite there being no evidence to prove it (there is no god) that said thought becomes a belief. When they then construct a dogma around it and establish a "we are better because we believe than you because you don't" difference engine to apply to their fellow humans that it becomes a religion.

@Broken_Erika that was laugh out loud funny. Thanks.
 
Please provide all your accumulated evidence that there is no god.

Lack of any evidence for there being a god. Better explanations than god for all the things he/it/they were invented to explain.
 
Lack of any evidence for there being a god. Better explanations than god for all the things he/it/they were invented to explain.

Lack of evidence for there being a god or gods is a perfectly good support for not believing there is a god. It is not in any way relevant to supporting an opinion that there is no god.

Your second statement is very similar to the first, though the introduction of the value judgement "better" makes it even less convincing.
 
Nope. It's when many people (atheists) share a thought that they think is true despite there being no evidence to prove it (there is no god) that said thought becomes a belief. When they then construct a dogma around it and establish a "we are better because we believe than you because you don't" difference engine to apply to their fellow humans that it becomes a religion.
There's no evidence for the lost single sock dimension, yet there are plenty of people who believe there's some mysterious place where lost socks go.

I guess that makes lost socks a religion, by your reasoning.

""we are better because we believe than you because you don't""... you have that backwards, if you're trying to make atheism out to be a religion (which it isn't). At no time have I ever gone doorknocking, insisting that believers need to be saved and Carl Sagan is the way.
 
There's no evidence for the lost single sock dimension, yet there are plenty of people who believe there's some mysterious place where lost socks go.

I guess that makes lost socks a religion, by your reasoning.

""we are better because we believe than you because you don't""... you have that backwards, if you're trying to make atheism out to be a religion (which it isn't). At no time have I ever gone doorknocking, insisting that believers need to be saved and Carl Sagan is the way.

LOL...key knocking is vastly different than door knocking in your dogma, apparently. I'm always glad to see you participating in this discussion, since you are such a perfect example.
 
(I live in a "bible belt" region of Canada and the City Clerk and my colleagues once got really irritated when I refused to swear on a bible as the final step in becoming a census taker/election worker)

Can you elaborate on this? Why did you, an atheist, refuse to swear on a bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom