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

[TheMeInTeam]

When someone tells a story about you and it later turns out that the story never happened, this doesn't prove you don't exist.

You can't prove unfalsifiable claims exist or don't exist. That doesn't mean one unfalsifiable claim should be held as particularly more valid than another.

 

[stinkubus]

Lexicus beating me to the punch time and time again!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Incidentally, this is sort of what @stinkubus is getting at with his point about a God who didn't actually do anything and doesn't interact. If god is reduced to "empty concept" status because god doesn't actually do, explain, or say anything (ie, if god is unfalsifiable) then there is no sense arguing about he/she/it at all; it is essentially accepting the validity of @TheMeInTeam's nonsense-word argument. As well argue about fleelshnabs as a non-falsifiable god.

Alternative submitted with no promise of proof:

Consider a god that does interact, just not in the way @stinkubus seems to insist upon. Say, for example, the depiction of god in Bruce Almighty. He hits you square in the head, picks you up by your shirtfront and shakes you until your teeth feel loose, claims credit for creating everything you know to exist and anything else you will ever find along the way, and then sets you back on your pins and sends you on your way. That god did, and explained, and said. There'd still not be much point in arguing about it, because we'd all say you were a nut and you'd still continue to believe in that god. But that doesn't negate his existence.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're not seriously suggesting that courts are a good way of determining facts? Let alone what ethics we should derive from them.

Are they not the way we determine the contested ises we use to then take contested action, take no action, or hold action in abeyance? All the way up to and including killing other humans? Certainly not the only method we use, but a method we use when we consider something particularly important, collectively. It's the method we use when we determine which enculturations we will enforce.

But we're leaving the original point about the language, and it's managing to get more banal, not less, isn't it? Or is the tangent more interesting. Happy to oblige a bit if you find it so.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There'd still not be much point in arguing about it, because we'd all say you were a nut and you'd still continue to believe in that god. But that doesn't negate his existence.

That god had testable consequences in empirical reality (in the context of the story). It went far beyond perceived experience, measurable things happened as a direct result of his actions.

You see very few people in our reality make falsifiable claims, almost as if they themselves don't anticipate seeing the influence of their purported belief in a measurable fashion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That god had testable consequences in empirical reality (in the context of the story). It went far beyond perceived experience, measurable things happened as a direct result of his actions.

You see very few people in our reality make falsifiable claims, almost as if they themselves don't anticipate seeing the influence of their purported belief in a measurable fashion.

By "in the story" you mean in the movie. You don't mean that measurable things happened in the hypothetical story about getting picked up by the shirtfront and rattled, I presume.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In what measure of existence would a rock believe in a deity?

"Believe" might be too strong a word. And rather than take a thread on atheism too far astray, I will offer up that rocks could be a physical manifestation of a universal consciousness and while limited in its capabilities, could still be an active participant in an illusion that the physical universe is the final reality. In discussion like this, where one begins and with what assumptions determines where one ends up.

 

[uppi]

If someone told a story about "you" but the "you" in the story bore no resemblance to the "real" you and did a bunch of things that the real you never did, we might be fully justified in questioning whether the story was actually about "you" at all.

Sure. Still doesn't tell much about the existence or non-existence of the real person.

You can't prove unfalsifiable claims exist or don't exist. That doesn't mean one unfalsifiable claim should be held as particularly more valid than another.

There are and need to be other methods to rank claims than falsifiability. But back to the point: If you make one falsified claim, your credibility is hurt, but it doesn't mean that all claims you ever made are false.

 

[Lexicus]

Sure. Still doesn't tell much about the existence or non-existence of the real person.

I mean, I don't disagree. The way I see it I have no more reason to believe that the character Yahweh has a historical, actually-existing counterpart than to believe that there is a historical Harry Potter out there somewhere. Less reason actually because Yahweh is even more fantastical and unbelievable than Harry.

 

[civvver]

It tells us the Judeo-Christian God can't exist because it supposedly created the universe in seven days, not billions of years. If some deity did manage to create the universe in a manner that is consistent with the Big Bang then it CANNOT be the Christian God!

Not all christians believe god created the universe in seven days.

The bible is not a historical scientific document. If it was we'd still be doing stuff like stoning adulterers and cutting off limbs that cause us to sin.

Just as tim is harping on one specific type of atheist you are harping on one specific type of creationist.

 

[brennan]

Are they not the way we determine the contested ises we use to then take contested action, take no action, or hold action in abeyance? All the way up to and including killing other humans?

No. They only determine what 'is' in a small minority of cases. And even in those cases, the implications of what is decided - the 'ought' - are all decided elsewhere and by other means.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not all christians believe god created the universe in seven days.

The bible is not a historical scientific document. If it was we'd still be doing stuff like stoning adulterers and cutting off limbs that cause us to sin.

Just as tim is harping on one specific type of atheist you are harping on one specific type of creationist.

Well, yeah, but at least I admit it.

 

[Farm Boy]

No. They only determine what 'is' in a small minority of cases. And even in those cases, the implications of what is decided - the 'ought' - are all decided elsewhere and by other means.

Ok. So you said, "No." But then said "Yes, in the situations before them." Then in support of the "No," you then continue that courts do not decree the action to be taken on the facts they determine, undertaken by others than the court. Gotcha. Should have picked a different example regarding the language, but I don't think it would have gone any differently.

 

[brennan]

I can't help but feel that you're straining to interpret my reply in a manner that suits you.

By and large we don't go to a court to determine truth, we have better methods. Courts are a social methodology used in a specific (and small) category of 'is' cases. They are extremely fallible, not to mention that your society in particular is famed mostly for institutionalising the bypassing of the actual system of truth determination in preference for favouring the influence of money and exploiting the vulnerability of the accused.

 

[Farm Boy]

The level of extra stuff you feel compelled to throw into a specific example of language usage, including societal "oughts" themselves, is in itself pretty compelling. Much obliged.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

...not to mention that your society in particular is famed mostly for institutionalising the bypassing of the actual system of truth determination in preference for favouring the influence of money and exploiting the vulnerability of the accused.

It's not as if we invented that.

 

[cardgame]

Atheism is the existing state of affairs? For whom, exactly? Not mankind as a whole, who have believed in spirits, gods or a singular higher power ever since they have had the ability to look up at the stars and wonder why they are here, and certainly not the modern population, who identify as religious in their billions.

Atheism is the existing state of affairs for every human being on this planet - until they are dragged to a church or temple by their parents.

I think "status quo" as used in this context is a wiggle word for Truth, intended to settle rightness of thought. Taken like this, things that are then not atheism are constructs upon that Truth, or perversions of Truth. Which is exactly the follow up in the rest of the post, no?

That's a very uncharitable interpretation.

"But Tim, inculcation isn't indoctrination when I do it since it's True. Let's simply call it being educated."

And this is flatly nonsense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

By "in the story" you mean in the movie. You don't mean that measurable things happened in the hypothetical story about getting picked up by the shirtfront and rattled, I presume.

That *is* measurable, to be fair, albeit not easily. However, in that movie a regular human was given access to miraculous godly powers...and used them liberally. The god put some constraints in place, but said actions were still *very* measurable.

Needless to say, if this happened in physical reality there would be a detectable effect even if the guy himself couldn't tell people he had god powers. Those supernatural happenings had to come from somewhere. As it's a fantasy the movie doesn't delve too deeply into the specifics of how these miracles are made to manifest, but needless to say short of some global memory manipulation conjecture we have no such things happening in our measured reality.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not as if we invented that.

It isn't even relevant past showing off an ought value judgement being conflated for an is.

Atheism is the existing state of affairs for every human being on this planet - until they are dragged to a church or temple by their parents.



That's a very uncharitable interpretation.

The sentence preceding belies the second. It's not a personal attack, but you definitely have that position staked out there near as I can tell.

And this is flatly nonsense.

Stay groovy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That *is* measurable, to be fair, albeit not easily. However, in that movie a regular human was given access to miraculous godly powers...and used them liberally. The god put some constraints in place, but said actions were still *very* measurable.

Needless to say, if this happened in physical reality there would be a detectable effect even if the guy himself couldn't tell people he had god powers. Those supernatural happenings had to come from somewhere. As it's a fantasy the movie doesn't delve too deeply into the specifics of how these miracles are made to manifest, but needless to say short of some global memory manipulation conjecture we have no such things happening in our measured reality.

To be clear, I only threw in the movie to provide a sort of visual cue. The point of my post was in the hypothetical shaking part. While I suppose you might add, "look at these wrinkles in my shirt" to the claim that god shook you around and told you stuff, I think you are still going to be dismissed as a nut...except by the rest of the people sitting quietly and fingering their shirtfronts, of course.