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

[TheMeInTeam]

The interesting thing I'm getting from this conversation is how many people are committed to the idea that in order for them to believe something they have to be able to prove it to others. Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as so strange.

Is it that strange? If I can't prove it to others, what basis have I to accept it as proven to myself? Why should I believe something that doesn't hold up to future experience in reality, that doesn't accurately constrain even my own anticipation?

If it does accurately constrain anticipation, it can likely be proven to others. I hold in reserve the ability to change my mind if Morgan Freeman god starts asking me to do stuff, inflicts physical consequences on me, swears me to secrecy by force, and yet still provides an accurate future model of causal reality where his demands are part of them. It hasn't happened and I don't expect it to ever happen, but I would update beliefs in such a scenario.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is it that strange? If I can't prove it to others, what basis have I to accept it as proven to myself? Why should I believe something that doesn't hold up to future experience in reality, that doesn't accurately constrain even my own anticipation?

If it does accurately constrain anticipation, it can likely be proven to others. I hold in reserve the ability to change my mind if Morgan Freeman god starts asking me to do stuff, inflicts physical consequences on me, swears me to secrecy by force, and yet still provides an accurate future model of causal reality where his demands are part of them. It hasn't happened and I don't expect it to ever happen, but I would update beliefs in such a scenario.

You can't even prove to me that you exist. But I certainly don't hold it against you that you believe that you do.

So I flip from this conversation to my e-mail, and in my inbox I find "Welcome to the ministry." Turns out it's just an ad for a computer game.

"My life has been an endless string of small coincidences, which eventually in their sheer number became far to large to ignore." - Anonymous Old Guy

 

[Akka]

"Don't understand how it's rude" is another way of saying "not offended by." Why do I have to be as easily offended as you? Given my history in regards to how I react when I'm offended it's probably best that I'm not easily offended. Given the state of the world, filled with people brimming with anger over their lifetime of perceived slights maybe more like me, less like you would be good for us all.

Man, you've been by far the most agressive and offended person on this whole thread. Casting yourself at the example to follow to get tolerance and peace is hardly a good advice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Man, you've been by far the most agressive and offended person on this whole thread. Casting yourself at the example to follow to get tolerance and peace is hardly a good advice.

I've been offended? Man, what would I do without you to tell me these things?

 

[AmazonQueen]

No argument from me there, though maybe some room for exploration in the area of children's education. You might also note that the axe I am constantly grinding with the gnostic atheists is about their smug demand for acknowledgement that they have "the truth" on their side.

You are probably protected in the US with a secular constitution. We've got faith schools funded by the state, a religious element in school assemblies, religious education as a required part of every schools timetable (and every RE teacher I've ever met has been a committed Christian probably because noone else wants to teach it).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can't even prove to me that you exist. But I certainly don't hold it against you that you believe that you do.

That depends on how you define "exist". As you're interacting with me in some capacity in reality in a reproducible way, I do meet that definition.

Whether I exist beyond that is a guess, but for most people it will be a pretty educated/trend-based guess. Maybe I'm the most sophisticated forum bot ever designed. Maybe I'm something else entirely.

You are probably protected in the US with a secular constitution.

Somewhat. While you're not going to get mandated religious teaching in schools, you can still get other teaching that isn't consistent with evidence. Practical application of critical thinking was pretty limited even in my school days, and it appears to have either stayed about the same or gotten worse (not very meaningful regardless since it was already weak).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are probably protected in the US with a secular constitution. We've got faith schools funded by the state, a religious element in school assemblies, religious education as a required part of every schools timetable (and every RE teacher I've ever met has been a committed Christian probably because noone else wants to teach it).

The constitution is probably part of it. I think for me, mostly, I just don't put much stock in religious education. For all the dramatics that the followers of the non-god are constantly on about, the whole "people are being indoctrinated at an early age and will go on to establish a theocracy" bit always strikes me as sky is falling nonsense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That depends on how you define "exist".

Indeed, it does, doesn't it?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Indoctrination has more useful motivations/applications than "establishing a theocracy". The people teaching in such a context want useful followers, not people that are indoctrinated to turn on them. Have to get the incentives right.

Indeed, it does, doesn't it?

Careful with this, lest we get into the trap of obfuscating definitions more generally and concluding that anything/everything is god etc and wind up with no meaningful predictive difference between purported atheism or ANY religious belief.

The observation (verifiable by 3rd parties) of me posting here is evidence that some entity exists and is posting on the forum. Whether that entity is human, an algorithm, program, or robot is up for debate, though most sane priors would give these different likelihoods.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The constitution is probably part of it. I think for me, mostly, I just don't put much stock in religious education. For all the dramatics that the followers of the non-god are constantly on about, the whole "people are being indoctrinated at an early age and will go on to establish a theocracy" bit always strikes me as sky is falling nonsense.

Well its true it didn't work on me.In fact despite being a Christian then I used to enjoy baiting one of our RE teachers
Thats why I have no sympathy with people complaining about CS Lewis or Phillip Pullman writing novels with a Christian/atheist message.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indoctrination has more useful motivations/applications than "establishing a theocracy". The people teaching in such a context want useful followers, not people that are indoctrinated to turn on them. Have to get the incentives right.

While referring to a slightly different part of the sky, this is still the same nonsense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While referring to a slightly different part of the sky, this is still the same nonsense.

To clarify, I'm not asserting that indoctrination in such an organized fashion actually occurs (disorganized indoctrination on a wide array of sometimes competing topics is routinely attempted). I'm just saying if it did occur, it would be more reasonable to expect indoctrination consistent with the incentives of the people presently deciding what gets taught.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well its true it didn't work on me.In fact despite being a Christian then I used to enjoy baiting one of our RE teachers
Thats why I have no sympathy with people complaining about CS Lewis or Phillip Pullman writing novels with a Christian/atheist message.

I look at it from this perspective...say I have committed to yoga, and my kids are going to this school that is "infested" with Christian teachings. What is my concern? That the teachers will have more influence on the spiritual journey of my children than I will? If so, shame on me.

I feel much the same way about the devout followers of the non-god. If their faith can't stand a little competition, shame on them.

To clarify, I'm not asserting that indoctrination in such an organized fashion actually occurs (disorganized indoctrination on a wide array of sometimes competing topics is routinely attempted). I'm just saying if it did occur, it would be more reasonable to expect indoctrination consistent with the incentives of the people presently deciding what gets taught.

This seems very similar to the fairies and unicorns bit. "Well, if I don't get antagonistic when you mention god, next thing you know there'll be people claiming there are unicorns!" Well, no, there probably won't.

Now we're looking at schools as these fantastic indoctrination machines, well, no, fade to potential indoctrination machines. Keep fading, because the reality is that schools by and large can barely get across the benefits of not shoving crayons up your nose.

 

[stinkubus]

Dude there is TONS of conventional wisdom about American history that is flat out bogus, and that is the result of what is taught in schools. There are only so many textbook makers.

The idea that schools indoctrinate children only make me think, "LDO." Otherwise what's the point?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dude there is TONS of conventional wisdom about American history that is flat out bogus, and that is the result of what is taught in schools. There are only so many textbook makers.

I don't think of history and wisdom in the same sentence very often. "Flat out bogus" applies sometimes to a perceived fact, and I personally have long since abandoned wasting time on history in terms of facts; American history or otherwise. As to whether these erroneous "facts" are a "result of what is taught in schools," maybe, in some cases.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I feel much the same way about the devout followers of the non-god. If their faith can't stand a little competition, shame on them.

At least make it a fair competition then. Take away the various tax breaks and other legal advantages religions get over other beliefs, atheist, political, lifestyle whatever.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

At least make it a fair competition then. Take away the various tax breaks and other legal advantages religions get over other beliefs, atheist, political, lifestyle whatever.

Charities get tax breaks. Wealthy people with good accountants get even bigger tax breaks. Poor people get tax breaks. Big families get tax breaks. Having given myself the ultimate tax break I tend not to be terribly concerned about any breaks someone else might get. I guess it's hard for me to see much significant tilt since I have no dog in the fight, but I just can't rouse any real excitement over the lack of fairness proffered to various competing beliefs.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's because there isn't particularly a problem there - as structured so far by the conversation. Atheists want to go out and form a non-profit? Boom. There they go, they got one. Those enormous hospitals that rake in money hand over fist(yay era of hospital expansion/takeover/consolidation) often don't pay taxes*, whether or not they were started or are affiliated with an existent church. The Baptists down the way are almost certainly small fry. Small fry, insofar as they may actually donate useful time and useful small quantities of cash around their community, that we could sorely use more of.

*Which is increasingly more commonly problematic for local government entities than are churches. Hospitals in the modern economy generate tons of economic activity, thus making the areas they occupy (often) some of the most valuable economic real estate available, which is then tax exempt. This has been an issue with churches before, but those tend to be primarily valuable when they are of vast cultural value, something that occurs less frenquently in otherwise struggling areas.

 

[metalhead]

You know who else gets tax exemptions? Universities. The largest landowner in the city of Philadelphia is UPenn. They pay no property taxes whatsoever.

People calling for churches to be taxed maybe don't realize this, but churches don't make money these days. Hospitals and universities in cities occupy large tracts of extremely valuable land, bring in tons of revenue, and pay no taxes.

I'm fine if you want to do away with tax exemptions, but at least apply it fairly. Targeting a specific type of tax exempt entity, the one with by far the least ability to pay in most cases, isn't a sincerely thought out policy stance. It's simply open hostility to the existence of churches, usually with absolutely zero regard for either what those churches do, or whether they could even afford to pay the tax bill.

Some of those churches - and I'll give you one guess as to which city population would have the most closures - would probably not be able to stay open. Many churches can barely afford to keep the lights on and pay staff, and some can't really even afford those things. Taking people's churches away hurts them. It's not progressive or good to hurt people to make a stupid point about religion.

 

[bernie14]

Dude there is TONS of conventional wisdom about American history that is flat out bogus, and that is the result of what is taught in schools. There are only so many textbook makers.

The idea that schools indoctrinate children only make me think, "LDO." Otherwise what's the point?

What is LDO?