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

[AmazonQueen]

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.

I can't prove god doesn't exist anymore than I can prove that there aren't faeries at the bottom of my garden or that homeopathic medicine doesn't work. Perhaps I'm being closeminded but I think the appropriate response to that is

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Can you elaborate on this? Why did you, an atheist, refuse to swear on a bible?

Because it means nothing to me. It's like swearing on a comic book or store flyer or the phone book. I don't mind promising to keep the information I learn about residents or electors confidential or to do the job I was hired for to the best of my ability while respecting all the rules and laws associated with it (anything learned while conducting the census can't even be revealed to the RCMP, to the annoyance of a cop who asked me about the residents of one house I'd just left as he was pulling up; I told him to contact City Hall and talk to my supervisor).

Why should I swear on a book I don't believe in, or bring in a supernatural being I regard as made-up by humans? It would be essentially lying if I were to do so.

I take my own word seriously, and am glad that there's an option to affirm and sign a piece of paper, rather than swear on the book used by a religion I don't believe in.

The reaction in that room when the City Clerk asked if there was anyone who objected to swearing on a bible and I put up my hand was a collective "GASP!" of disapproval, and the City Clerk hadn't seriously expected anyone to decline to swear on a bible.

It only took an extra 2-3 minutes on his part to get that done for me, but you'd think I'd said something terrible, the way people reacted.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't prove god doesn't exist anymore than I can prove that there aren't faeries at the bottom of my garden or that homeopathic medicine doesn't work.

And yet you make statements like "The religious believe in absolute truth, no amount of evidence can affect what they believe." Someone who believes there is a god has an opposing belief to yours. Neither of you can offer any evidence in support of your belief. You outright acknowledge that you not only have no proof, but that as a negative your belief is logically beyond any possibility of proof. And yet you dismiss those of the opposing belief as the absolutists. It certainly appears that you are religious.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Because it means nothing to me. It's like swearing on a comic book or store flyer or the phone book. I don't mind promising to keep the information I learn about residents or electors confidential or to do the job I was hired for to the best of my ability while respecting all the rules and laws associated with it (anything learned while conducting the census can't even be revealed to the RCMP, to the annoyance of a cop who asked me about the residents of one house I'd just left as he was pulling up; I told him to contact City Hall and talk to my supervisor).

Why should I swear on a book I don't believe in, or bring in a supernatural being I regard as made-up by humans? It would be essentially lying if I were to do so.

I take my own word seriously, and am glad that there's an option to affirm and sign a piece of paper, rather than swear on the book used by a religion I don't believe in.

The reaction in that room when the City Clerk asked if there was anyone who objected to swearing on a bible and I put up my hand was a collective "GASP!" of disapproval, and the City Clerk hadn't seriously expected anyone to decline to swear on a bible.

It only took an extra 2-3 minutes on his part to get that done for me, but you'd think I'd said something terrible, the way people reacted.

When I worked for C&E we were unofficially advised to swear on the Bible if we were witnesses in a court case as credibility suffers if you don't. You'd think people would respect the integrity of someone who would rather not take an oath that is meaningless to them but apparently not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because it means nothing to me.

The obvious question is, if it is "meaningless" then why did you feel driven to make a gigantic stink about it?

I knew this would be good.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And yet you make statements like "The religious believe in absolute truth, no amount of evidence can affect what they believe." Someone who believes there is a god has an opposing belief to yours. Neither of you can offer any evidence in support of your belief. You outright acknowledge that you not only have no proof, but that as a negative your belief is logically beyond any possibility of proof. And yet you dismiss those of the opposing belief as the absolutists. It certainly appears that you are religious.

No, if there was a god there would be evidence to support their existence. Science can't prove something doesn't exist, it can only disprove what is claimed as evidence of it existing.
Do you believe in fairies? prove to me that they don't exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, if there was a god there would be evidence to support their existence. Science can't prove something doesn't exist, it can only disprove what is claimed as evidence of it existing.
Do you believe in fairies? prove to me that they don't exist.

This nonsense about fairies continues down the path of proving that a negative cannot be proven. There is no way to logically prove a negative. I knew that coming in. I already stipulated to that, since it supports my point not yours.

Now, back at "if there was a god there would be evidence to support their existence." Care to prove that? If someone believes there is a god based on their own experience, which is not the same as yours, can you justify an assumption that your experience is a better indicator of reality than theirs?

 

[Tristan_C]

Because it means nothing to me. It's like swearing on a comic book or store flyer or the phone book.

If you're just a hunk of meat and the book is a hunk of fiber, then the underlying logic of atheism provides you with no basis for assigning meaning or importance to refusing.

But you did refuse, so you must have either an irrational, faith-based moral foundation telling you that, despite being a mere hunk of meat, it's wrong to lie; or, you have a territorial instinct whose interests were best served by having a standoff in this little Canadian Bible Belt. I don't think that choice especially admirable, either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you're just a hunk of meat and the book is a hunk of fiber, then the underlying logic of atheism provides you with no basis for assigning meaning or importance to refusing.

But you did refuse, so you must have either an irrational, faith-based moral foundation telling you that, despite being a mere hunk of meat, it's wrong to lie;

Even with the moral foundation of "it is wrong to lie," how does the book that is supposedly meaningless play into it? Is there some moral foundation that says "it's wrong to lie, but putting your hand on a book you don't believe in is like crossing your fingers" and that makes it okay so suddenly your oath is invalidated?

I think it is pretty obvious that the entire stink resulted not from being an atheist, but from an unrestrained desire to make a stink about it. Aggressive proselytizing by a zealot.

 

[AdrienIer]

Is it better to be aggressively proselytizing by forcing everyone to swear on the bible ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is it better to be aggressively proselytizing by forcing everyone to swear on the bible ?

Nope. I'd probably have asked for a Koran, because I think it makes that point far more effectively. However, note from the report that there was no such forcing being done.

 

[AdrienIer]

You're suggesting that not swearing on a bible is "making a stink about it", so you're trying to apply social pressure towards making it mandatory. It's one way to force people into it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're suggesting that not swearing on a bible is "making a stink about it", so you're trying to apply social pressure towards making it mandatory. It's one way to force people into it.

No, I'm pointing out that by her own report Valka thought there was a reason to make a stink about it...which I basically agree there is because no religion should be cited by a government official. If someone wants to reinforce their word with a demonstration of their faith, whatever that faith may be, fine, but the official should never suggest that. However her reported justification for the stink being "everyone must kowtow to my non-god" invalidates her position, in my opinion. She doesn't fight for religious freedom, she demands agreement with her religion.

 

[Tristan_C]

Even with the moral foundation of "it is wrong to lie," how does the book that is supposedly meaningless play into it? Is there some moral foundation that says "it's wrong to lie, but putting your hand on a book you don't believe in is like crossing your fingers" and that makes it okay so suddenly your oath is invalidated?

I think it is pretty obvious that the entire stink resulted not from being an atheist, but from an unrestrained desire to make a stink about it. Aggressive proselytizing by a zealot.

Yes, in my post I basically call out this "unrestrained desire to make a stink about it" as a territorial instinct. Evolution has supplied us with a ferocious instinct to protect seemingly insubstantial things. That instantaneous sense of alarm we feel at having to submit to another's ideas or desires can be explained by Darwin's theories. But there is as yet no science behind the art of justifying things morally. I wanted to see if he could make some sort of moral case here, seeing as he feels an irrational evolution-imposed aversion to lying.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, in my post I basically call out this "unrestrained desire to make a stink about it" as a territorial instinct. Evolution has supplied us with a ferocious instinct to protect seemingly insubstantial things. That instantaneous sense of alarm we feel at having to submit to another's ideas or desires can be explained by Darwin's theories. But there is as yet no science behind the art of justifying things morally. I wanted to see if he could make some sort of moral case here, seeing as he feels an irrational evolution-imposed aversion to lying.

I see it less as territorial instinct than as a desire for affirmation. Religious zeal is almost always a need for agreement. Faith in some belief that cannot be proven by the usual means will usually feel slippery, and that makes the need for others to profess similar beliefs a powerful motivator.

 

[AmazonQueen]

This nonsense about fairies continues down the path of proving that a negative cannot be proven. There is no way to logically prove a negative. I knew that coming in. I already stipulated to that, since it supports my point not yours.

Now, back at "if there was a god there would be evidence to support their existence." Care to prove that? If someone believes there is a god based on their own experience, which is not the same as yours, can you justify an assumption that your experience is a better indicator of reality than theirs?

Where did I say my belief is based on my experience? It is based on the lack of evidence for the existence of god/gods, the same reason as I don't believe in fairies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where did I say my belief is based on my experience? It is based on the lack of evidence for the existence of god/gods, the same reason as I don't believe in fairies.

I didn't say that yours was. I asked how, if someone else had a belief based on personal experience, your lack of similar experience made your opinion more valid than theirs?

The repetitious references to fairies isn't really accomplishing anything here, by the way. While no one I've ever met claims any personal experience that supports a belief in fairies on their part, there are plenty of people who have a belief in god that is supported by their personal experience. You are perfectly within your rights to say that without such experience of your own your opinion suffices for you, but unless you can present some reason that your opinion should carry more weight than theirs, or your experience is somehow more valid, you aren't making an argument you are just demanding acknowledgement that you are "right."

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Now that this discussion has been moved out its parent thread, it is no longer of RD status, but do not take that as a licence to flame each other or ignite new arguments. If you cannot discuss sensitive matters responsibly, you are highly recommended not to post in those threads.

 

[Akka]

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.

That's just moving the wordplay from "belief" to "opinion" without changing anything on the difference of nature.
The "belief/opinion" on which atheism is based is about "informed conclusion" : there is no concrete evidence and no reason to think it exists, so it doesn't exist until further notice.
The "belief/opinion" on which "believing in God" is based is about "personal faith" : it's about deeply believing that something without evidence exists. That's the entire point of "faith", that you dispense with concrete evidence.

Comparing both shows the fundamental confusion in two different concepts, and is most often used deliberately, precisely in order to pretend that atheism is just another religious belief, while it's actually the refusal of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's just moving the wordplay from "belief" to "opinion" without changing anything on the difference of nature.
The "belief/opinion" on which atheism is based is about "informed conclusion" : there is no concrete evidence and no reason to think it exists, so it doesn't exist until further notice.
The "belief/opinion" on which "believing in God" is based is about "personal faith" : it's about deeply believing that something without evidence exists. That's the entire point of "faith", that you dispense with concrete evidence.

Comparing both shows the fundamental confusion in two different concepts, and is most often used deliberately, precisely in order to pretend that atheism is just another religious belief, while it's actually the refusal of it.

Since you've apparently skipped the rest of the discussion, I'll bring you up to speed with the same question: if someone else believes in god based on their personal experience, which you do not share, what makes their experience less valid than yours? Or, put another way, their conclusion "less informed"?