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

[Timsup2nothin]

The difference is between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in god X, but does not feel they know that X does not exist. This could also be called weak atheism. A gnostic atheist on the other hand lacks a belief in X, but also feels he knows that X does not exist. This could be called strong atheism. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have gnostic and agnostic theists.

To me the most sensible position is ignosticism, which witholds judgement on the existance of god(s) until a sufficient definition of "god(s)" is presented, which can be judged on some grounds.

That's one that ends with a wrinkled shirt*, despite no formal definitions or grounds of judgement declared.


*warning, this will only make sense if you've been following along

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Here's a theory...children are born seeking god, that's why they treat their parents like they found it and are disappointed in them later.

Children are born with the need for food, warmth, diaper changes, and cuddles. In other words, they are born seeking "Mom" - like any mammal. It's silly to equate that with a divine character who lives in the sky and has temper tantrums and inconsistently applies his own rules.

@AmazonQueen Keyknocking is the on line equivalent of what Valka calls doorknocking...cold call proselytizing. In @Valka D'Ur's case proselytizing for her particularly aggressive version of atheism.

Stop it. I do not care what you believe for your religion, or if you even have one. My statements have been consistently expressing that you (generic "you") have your beliefs, but do not tell me the bible is a valid scientific source, and keep your beliefs out of the science classes, courts, laws, and hospitals, do not allow teachers to penalize students if they disagree with the teacher's religion, and stay off my doorstep. If I want to find religion, there's a church just behind the apartment building where I live, or I do know people in town who would be happy to convert me.

I don't belong to any atheist websites. I don't march all over the neighborhood, Sagan and Dawkins books in hand, engaging in doorknocking. If someone wishes me "Merry Christmas," I reply in kind. If someone says, "God bless you," I say thank you (not sure if that's the response they're expecting, but it's polite).

So would you just knock off the obsessive accusations that I'm "proselytizing"? I'm not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do not care what you believe for your religion, or if you even have one.

See, here's the key point. When you say "if you even have one" I would expect the vast majority of people to pause and wonder for a moment, then conclude that they really don't know whether I do or don't. Because I don't proselytize. There may be an occasional slip, and I will generally respond privately if asked, but for the most part I assume people aren't interested if they don't ask.

On the other hand, you have injected your non-god into such a diversity of topics that I can't begin to keep track of them all. Most recently with throwing your anecdote about how you martyred yourself for the non-god at whatever totally unrelated event you dredged up into the "how have your politics changed" thread and set off this discussion. I suspect there is no one lurking in any corner of the internet who would not say "oh, yeah, the rabid atheist" at mention of your name. I am sure there's no one here that isn't well aware of it.

So if you want the accusations to stop, here's a pro tip...stop doing what you don't like having pointed out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thing is, why do you assume there will be "people expected to believe the story when told about it"? Would you tell anyone if it was you? To what possible end?

Here's the thing, because it's pretty clear what you are sliding towards on the "what occurred and what was his mental state at the time." This is a seemingly unrelated anecdote coming up here, but you're a smart guy and will be able to follow the connection at the end if you are patient. Or maybe even if you want to skip the long anecdote.

Spoiler :

I knew this guy who was grossly arrogant. He was also, unfortunately, really frickin' smart. One of those *took naps in class but still heard enough, and since he retained basically everything he heard he got straight As* guys. His people had sufficient money so they sent him to college, where he continued to take naps and get straight As, after, of course, taking the SATs and getting higher scores than anyone he knew. Football fan that on Monday would 'discuss' Sunday's games play by play, and of course could point out every error made by coaches, players, or even the announcers, and back up his assertions by quoting stats from prior seasons off the top of his head.

Pretty close to universally despised throughout life, then dropped out of school and joined the navy...where he encountered a bunch of people more or less like himself. Most of us were college dropouts of the ran out of money or just got board sorts. We all got maximum marks on the military's entrance test, then we all passed a test that was only given to people who got that top mark. We all then went to some sort of navy trade school where we were required to finish in the top two thirds of the class to stay in our program, which sounds easy enough until you realize that more than two thirds of the people in the class are in our program so a couple losses are guaranteed...more if someone slipped through the net and got in the class from a different program. Then if we got through that we got sent to our own program school, which had an attrition rate for that very seldom dipped below fifty percent. To say he was among the better minds the navy could find is not a falsifiable claim. Yet he was still arrogant to the point where shooting him out a torpedo tube was a common fantasy discussion, because he had no doubt that he was far and away the smartest of us.

Then this navy campus rep came to the boat, and a handful of guys decided to take the opportunity to get a degree before they got out, including this guy. Most, of course, blew it off before they really got started, but this guy and one other guy got as far as signing up for a bunch of 'college level examination program' tests. Sit for a three hour exam, get six credits of the basic core requirements out of the way...if you pass. Accredited universities don't skip the registration fees on those core curriculum courses just because you show up, the tests aren't easy. The navy campus rep proctors the tests and has the room for six hours, and guys from all over the base, different ships, whatever are there...like twenty guys. So these two guys, arrogant and his pal, walk in having signed up for four tests.

The rep has said that if they have the time after two they can take a third, she'll time them individually rather than making them use the two three hour blocks and still have two tests for the next testing cycle. Of course Mr Arrogant and his sidekick blow through all four of their tests, with plenty of time to spare, and the proctor basically shakes her head assuming they have wasted their time and effort. Much to Mr Arrogant's satisfaction, he gets to point out that he waited almost fifteen minutes for the sidekick to finish. Then they come back to the boat. In telling the rest of the guys about how easy it was and how getting a degree is gonna be a breeze, a little tension pops up between our arrogant pair. They decide nothing will settle their differences like a bet, though the sidekick doesn't really express much interest.

Terms of the bet as laid down by Mr Arrogant: each test has two subsection scores and a final score; three scores per test, twelve overall. Whoever gets the most high scores wins, loser buys three fifths of winner's choice, they drink one together and each have one to dispose of at their leisure. Since they actually live off base in the same apartment complex this is just a question of who buys liquor they would likely have drunk anyway, so it's obvious this is just a brag bet, not a stakes bet. The sidekick sort of half heartedly pointed out that there could be a tie and suggested maybe using total score as a tiebreaker, and Mr Arrogant scoffed and said that if by some outrageous shocking turn there was a tie he'd call it a loss...in fact he'd spot the sidekick two points. Most of us forget all about the bet long before the scores come in, so most of us never figured out what happened to Mr Arrogant. A lot of people thought the sidekick, who was really his only friend, might have lost patience with him and actually beat him up. But the truth is that getting beat up wouldn't have had any impact on him, probably. And there was definitely an impact. Mr Arrogant actually became a very decent human being, had lots of friends, got married, and by all indications lived happily ever after.

What changed the course of Mr Arrogant's life was the sidekick beat him across the board, twelve to nothing. By wide margins. At a contest of his own devising.

The point is that "picked up and shaken by the shirt" might be what one person says is 'the demonstration beyond which I cannot pass unmarked.' For someone else it may take more, and for someone else it may take less. Maybe there are stipulations, like 'and it can't be when I'm drunk or tripping on LSD.' That's probably a good one for most people, actually. But the thing is if you yourself determine the threshold of the demonstration required and that demonstration comes along you won't be able to ignore it. You also might not feel any need to tell anyone about it either...but you'll probably develop a wary eye for wrinkled shirts.

The story is pretty interesting, but still draws inspiration from testable, physical reality. In fact not only is it trivial for Mr. Arrogant's defeat to be experimentally verified, it was to an extent he couldn't reasonably deny. It's not a strong parallel for "god picks you up and shakes you" or "I had this experience I can't explain/reproduce".

Sure, people will draw the line of evidence needed to convince them/change their mind at different points, and sometimes that evidence is shaky/does not fit constrained anticipation. There's still a reason things consistently verified in physical reality are given weight over arbitrary interpretations/assertions, however. That reason is evidence.

Note that I would fall under "weak" atheism per the earlier distinction. I don't believe god exists, similarly to how I don't believe unicorns and such exist. I can't definitively prove they don't, and hesitate to set anything at probabilities of 0% or 100% because doing so suggests that no amount of evidence would change my mind.

If I woke up tomorrow and a god reached through a magic portal, pointed and laughed as he repeatedly inverts/reverts gravity on me I would in fact update my beliefs about physical reality. Setting 0% implies I wouldn't.

I just don't see any reason to privilege one unfalsifiable claim over another/haven't been presented a convincing one.

 

[Estebonrober]

Time to step into the breach.

You do exist. You are the unicorn/faerie. Your lack of faith is unsettling. Weak or strong athiest you must embrace the impossibility of your own existence. Considering the anthropic tuning and all.

There ya go, have fun. I know you guys were looking for someone to actually say something contrary at some point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The story is pretty interesting, but still draws inspiration from testable, physical reality. In fact not only is it trivial for Mr. Arrogant's defeat to be experimentally verified, it was to an extent he couldn't reasonably deny. It's not a strong parallel for "god picks you up and shakes you" or "I had this experience I can't explain/reproduce".

Sure, people will draw the line of evidence needed to convince them/change their mind at different points, and sometimes that evidence is shaky/does not fit constrained anticipation. There's still a reason things consistently verified in physical reality are given weight over arbitrary interpretations/assertions, however. That reason is evidence.

You seem to have missed the point. Let me try to clarify how the story serves as analogy not example.

In regards to god you get to establish your own line. It applies only to you. Totally operating in hypotheticals out of the blue, let's say you are in a high stakes Yahtzee game and the only way you can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is to roll three natural Yahtzees in a row. And you do. Maybe you write off this one in two billion event as coincidence, or maybe that crosses your line and you thank god for intervention. That's up to you. It isn't expected to convince anyone else but you. There are undoubtedly people who would walk away from any effort you made to use that to convince them just shaking their heads and muttering "well, ya play enough Yahtzee things like that are bound to happen." There are even more people who would just dismiss you as a liar. But the question is how you see it.

In reference to the story there, I can tell you that Mr Arrogant and his sidekick had given Mr Arrogant plenty of opportunities to see that his sidekick was tolerating his self perception of superiority, not agreeing it existed...but only when he set his own line was he forced to accept the reality. What is your personal line of coincidence? The line beyond which things are just too weird for you to mutter and walk away? Two billion to one? More? Less?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Time to step into the breach.

You do exist. You are the unicorn/faerie. Your lack of faith is unsettling. Weak or strong athiest you must embrace the impossibility of your own existence. Considering the anthropic tuning and all.

There ya go, have fun. I know you guys were looking for someone to actually say something contrary at some point.

Wait, there's a unicorn fairy? So, if I stick a dead unicorn under my pillow how much do I get?

 

[Farm Boy]

3-5?

Permits permits permits.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sometimes we need a button for "really like, laugh out loud funny."

 

[Valka D'Ur]

See, here's the key point. When you say "if you even have one" I would expect the vast majority of people to pause and wonder for a moment, then conclude that they really don't know whether I do or don't. Because I don't proselytize. There may be an occasional slip, and I will generally respond privately if asked, but for the most part I assume people aren't interested if they don't ask.

That's not what I said. I said I don't care if you have one. That's not the same as saying I don't know if you have one.

In my experience, people who obsessively harass me as you do are indeed people who are believers who just can't stop themselves. Sometimes all it took was a casual conversation at a bus stop when a fellow college student asked what my major was. I said, "Anthropology" and she spent the next 20 minutes lecturing me about how I was going to hell and I really needed to change my major and think about all the horrible things I was being taught and what she assumed I believed.

On the other hand, you have injected your non-god into such a diversity of topics that I can't begin to keep track of them all. Most recently with throwing your anecdote about how you martyred yourself for the non-god at whatever totally unrelated event you dredged up into the "how have your politics changed" thread and set off this discussion. I suspect there is no one lurking in any corner of the internet who would not say "oh, yeah, the rabid atheist" at mention of your name. I am sure there's no one here that isn't well aware of it.

What is a 'non-god'? What does that look like? Your terms make no sense.

What "martyr" activity did I supposedly engage in? If you mean the census/election worker job, it's not being a martyr to stand up for what I have a legal right to have. It didn't impact the lives of anyone other than my colleagues who chose to be offended and the City Clerk who had his assumptions challenged in a polite and quiet way. I said not one word about atheism or religion or what I think of swearing on a bible. I just stated that I wanted to make an affirmation instead. I'm not responsible for how the others reacted, which was over the top ridiculous.

And keep in mind that your country and my country have different histories regarding politics and religion. There are issues that have happened here and issues that are going on currently that means a discussion about politics does involve issues of religion (or lack thereof).

As for the rest of your comment... took a poll of the entire internet, did you? I might salute your dedication to this ongoing project of harassment and mockery, but I wish you would use your remaining lifespan for something more productive. The fact is that you happen to be wrong, and I have a variety of usernames and belong to sites where religion/atheism has never come up as a topic and I've never been tempted to introduce it.

So if you want the accusations to stop, here's a pro tip...stop doing what you don't like having pointed out.

Or you could just stop making them. You've been told repeatedly that they're not true, and you've continued to act like you were witness to the things I've related about my own life and keep making statements that are not true. At least admit that I've never challenged your veracity over the things you've said about your life, and if you say something happened a certain way, I accept it. I deserve the same consideration from you.

 

[warpus]

To me the most sensible position is ignosticism, which witholds judgement on the existance of god(s) until a sufficient definition of "god(s)" is presented, which can be judged on some grounds.

A very reasonable position, IMO!

I find weak atheism more reasonable simply because the claim in this case is rather extraordinary. Therefore extraordinary evidence would be required to convince me of the claim. However, not only is there no extraordinary evidence present, but there is zero evidence whatsoever. There is virtually no reason to think that the claim is true, so IMO the most sensible thing to do is to "chuck it out as probably false" until the situation changes.

Essentially I approach this the same way as any other extraordinary claim that has 0 evidence whatsoever behind it, nor any reason to think that it might be true. I am trying to think of one that wouldn't be offensive to believers, because it is not my intent to insult here.

"The universe is contained in a petridish sitting on a table" << An extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to back it up. I could be agnostic or ignostic about it, saying that "we just don't know yet" or "You need to define the petridish more precisely first".

But IMO it's more reasonable to just say: "Looks like it's probably not true, until the situation changes and we can make another assessment of this claim that has some basis maybe"

Having said all that, I completely agree with you that the ignostic position has merit. I just find my position more reasonable, simply because ignosticism would lead me to be an ignostic about an infinite number of varying claims. Rabbits orbit Pluto. The Universe was created by aliens from another dimension. The first humans were put on Earth by a higher power.

This quickly spins out of control as you imagine more and more such claims. Far easier to discard them all for now as "probably not true" until somebody digs up some evidence that warrants further investigation and/or reassessment.

 

[sophie]

That sentence made no sense. Not believing something exists is by definition equivalent to believing it does not exist. They are identical claims just worded differently. It's like saying 1+2=3 vs 2=3-1.

Not Guilty != Innocent

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In my experience, people who obsessively harass me as you do are indeed people who are believers who just can't stop themselves. Sometimes all it took was a casual conversation at a bus stop when a fellow college student asked what my major was. I said, "Anthropology" and she spent the next 20 minutes lecturing me about how I was going to hell and I really needed to change my major and think about all the horrible things I was being taught and what she assumed I believed.

No matter where you go, you are there. Isn't it amazing how at the bus stop, at your door, on line, wherever you go people who seem to be getting along just fine turn into these mad ravers when they run into you? Take a hint.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Enough already. If you cannot post in the same thread as someone without arguing with them incessantly, then perhaps you should not post in that thread at all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not Guilty != Innocent

That was concise. I was trying to think of a simple way to point out the difference there, but it seems so obvious to me that I was having trouble with it. Discussion of the obvious usually occludes more than illuminates.

 

[Lexicus]

Not Guilty != Innocent

No one is really trying to establish the non-existence of gods beyond a reasonable doubt. Or put another way, nodding at @metalhead, courtroom logic belongs in the courtroom. Does it really make sense to distinguish between "I am certain leprechauns don't exist" and "you have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that leprechauns exist"?

@thread at large:

I think a useful addition to the discussion is IGTHEISM:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No one is really trying to establish the non-existence of gods beyond a reasonable doubt.

See, I don't really agree with that "no one." There are plenty of people, including some here, who are pretending that the non-existence of god not only should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they act as if it has been done, so that anyone who disagrees with their steadfast belief in the non-god is definitely flawed.

 

[Lexicus]

See, I don't really agree with that "no one." There are plenty of people, including some here, who are pretending that the non-existence of god not only should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they act as if it has been done, so that anyone who disagrees with their steadfast belief in the non-god is definitely flawed.

Well, as I stated, when we move from god in the abstract to any god that is actually the subject of a human religious tradition, I basically take the position that they've been ruled out beyond reasonable doubt. I don't really have fire in my belly about this topic anymore though, there are much more important disagreements to have with people. I'm far more concerned with people who believe in the efficient market hypothesis than with people who believe in god.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, as I stated, when we move from god in the abstract to any god that is actually the subject of a human religious tradition, I basically take the position that they've been ruled out beyond reasonable doubt. I don't really have fire in my belly about this topic anymore though, there are much more important disagreements to have with people. I'm far more concerned with people who believe in the efficient market hypothesis than with people who believe in god.

Yeah, I mostly argue against their perception of their god than against the existence of their god. Just because the followers describe their god as a flying zebra and you know there are no flying zebras that doesn't mean the god isn't there, it might just mean that the followers don't know anything about zebras either.

 

[metalhead]

@thread at large:

I think a useful addition to the discussion is IGTHEISM:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

The simplest definition of what a god is, is a being that exists outside the laws of our universe, who interacts in some way with our universe. Gods are typically conceived as having powers, or causing natural phenomena, or creating/destroying worlds, or having omniscience and/or omnipotence. But more to the point, they do meaningful stuff in our universe, meaningful enough to be worth paying attention to.

Perhaps it is a useful definition mostly because it allows atheists and theists to rectify their beliefs, but I think it also captures the popular conception of what a "god" is.