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

[TheMeInTeam]

Atheism does not naturally "follow from science" unless you believe the scientific method is the only way to verify knowledge about the world, which itself is a philosophical axiom rather than a provable statement.

The scientific method is not the only approach to verify knowledge about the world. You don't necessarily have to have a hypothesis at all for example.

Atheism *does* follow as a natural consequence of updating beliefs based on empirical evidence, however (soft atheism per earlier in the thread, not hard). Adding an extra detail like "god" which does not alter anticipated experience at all is equally useless as any other unfalsifiable claim and has no basis for receiving more consideration as a result.

There's a reason we expect the sun to appear to rise tomorrow morning, but not that the world will permanently and irreversibly turn a shade of pink tomorrow instead. A useful belief constrains anticipation...you expect something in reality to look/be different depending on whether it is true.

Any hypothetical where god physically influences the world makes god part of empirical reality in some capacity, and is at least in principle falsifiable. So long as we're not operating in falsifiable claims, god is only one possibility among an inconceivably enormous number of arbitrary unfalsifiable explanations, with no reason to elevate it over the others...

I'm figuring Magneto wouldn't have described it as a "come to Jesus moment," but he is notoriously unpredictable.

Given some of his portrayals he would totally use that line in some contexts, especially given motivations for saving someone he knows is religious.

More likely than not the words would be ironic coming from Magneto, but your initial scenario didn't specify that wasn't the case.

 

[metalhead]

Adding an extra detail like "god" which does not alter anticipated experience at all is equally useless as any other unfalsifiable claim and has no basis for receiving more consideration as a result

Except for the fact that it's a belief shared by billions of people worldwide, that is. It may be useless in explaining natural phenomena of our physical universe, but surely the concept itself is informative with regards to stuff like the interaction of human consciousness with our physical universe.

One's consciousness and one's beliefs is of course going to alter one's anticipated experience with the physical universe. We can't divorce our present experience from what we import from our beliefs and our past experiences. This might not matter in objectively quantifying things about the universe, but objective quantification is hardly the only useful way of describing "reality."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Except for the fact that it's a belief shared by billions of people worldwide, that is. It may be useless in explaining natural phenomena of our physical universe, but surely the concept itself is informative with regards to stuff like the interaction of human consciousness with our physical universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

There might be some use in determining the way the brain works in formulating beliefs w/o evidence, but still doesn't allow the concept of "god" to constrain anticipated experience. At that point you're doing neuroscience, though it could be useful.

This might not matter in objectively quantifying things about the universe, but objective quantification is hardly the only useful way of describing "reality."

If someone goes nuts and does mass violence because god told him to, that's evidence of a brain/cognitive abnormality, not evidence of god. Same for good deeds. "god" works equally well as any other hallucinogenic substitute in these cases. The person's brain/mental state constrains anticipation, but there's still no actual god influencing physical reality to the best of our ability to detect.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There might be a god who exists outside the rules of reality as we know them with a plan that doesn't make sense to us isn't actually an argument for belief. Its an argument that we should stop using our intelligence, stop using logic and evidence because there might be something we don't know yet. If you applied this to any area of thought or life except religion you'd be very foolish but somehow its good to do with religion?

What am I supposed to be "arguing for" now? It's really hard to keep up with who is assigning me what positions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I pointed that the hypothetical is pointless because it's ridiculously exagerated and aimed at ridiculing the skeptic PoV -

LOL...just because you feel like your point of view is being threatened don't get mad at me. Maybe you are just too emotionally invested in your point of view to participate in a civil conversation here. If so, there is an obvious solution.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What am I supposed to be "arguing for" now? It's really hard to keep up with who is assigning me what positions.

I really don't know what you are arguing for. I'm surprised you think thats our fault rather than yours.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really don't know what you are arguing for. I'm surprised you think thats our fault rather than yours.

I don't think it's anyone's fault. I'm not arguing for anything, and haven't been. I don't know how that is a fault. I'm arguing against the slavish devotion and righteousness that some people display towards their atheist belief system, which I find laughably similar to the things they describe as abhorrent in mostly hypothetical theists, but I don't really argue for anything in conversations on this topic.

 

[metalhead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'm not arguing that that makes it true, so I don't see how that applies.

I'm saying that the fact that the concept of god was invented and has since been shared across diverse human populations over a long part of recorded human history makes it interesting. Makes it useful in trying to discern how human beings interact with the universe, which is rather useful for all sorts of reasons.

If someone goes nuts and does mass violence because god told him to, that's evidence of a brain/cognitive abnormality, not evidence of god. Same for good deeds. "god" works equally well as any other hallucinogenic substitute in these cases. The person's brain/mental state constrains anticipation, but there's still no actual god influencing physical reality to the best of our ability to detect.

So? What does that matter? It doesn't make the concept any less useful or important in the study of human behavior, or in human interaction with the physical universe.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't think it's anyone's fault. I'm not arguing for anything, and haven't been. I don't know how that is a fault. I'm arguing against the slavish devotion and righteousness that some people display towards their atheist belief system, which I find laughably similar to the things they describe as abhorrent in mostly hypothetical theists, but I don't really argue for anything in conversations on this topic.

But there isn't any atheist belief system. In this conversation you've been arguing against TMIT, myself and Valkur Dur for the most part. We are not people who would normally agree about anything.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But there isn't any atheist belief system. In this conversation you've been arguing against TMIT, myself and Valkur Dur for the most part. We are not people who would normally agree about anything.

In this conversation I've been instructed that there are different sorts of atheists. Most atheists, like most theists, treat the matter as a sidelight. They aren't terribly committed to their beliefs in outward ways, whatever those beliefs might be. They don't proselytize. They don't fly into a rage when they encounter someone who doesn't share their beliefs. They don't try to co-opt the rule of law into supporting their particular theocracy or atheocracy, as the case may be. I have in fact been guilty of lumping all atheists together more than is warranted, so I apologize to those agnostic atheists who may have taken a look at this and gone on about their business.

I have been arguing against the other type of atheists. The ones who are so committed in their worship that the idea that someone else might be a theist drives them into a flurry of defenses for their belief system...up to and including the "how dare you call my belief system a belief system just because it has all the traits of a belief system" argument that I find so deliciously hilarious. The usual "only the followers of the non-god understand science" arguments are too trite to be really enjoyable at this point, but that one makes them worthwhile...like plowing through a bland dinner in hopes of a tasty dessert.

 

[brennan]

The ones who are so committed in their worship that the idea that someone else might be a theist drives them into a flurry of defenses for their belief system

Irony.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Irony.

Expound? By and large my beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation here. No one has challenged them. They hardly even get mentioned. Those who want to impose their beliefs on me seem to have no real interest at all in any beliefs I might have. I argue pretty nastily when people try to impose their beliefs on me, but arguing nastily is what I generally do, so I don't see the connection.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not arguing that that makes it true, so I don't see how that applies.

I'm saying that the fact that the concept of god was invented and has since been shared across diverse human populations over a long part of recorded human history makes it interesting. Makes it useful in trying to discern how human beings interact with the universe, which is rather useful for all sorts of reasons.

So? What does that matter? It doesn't make the concept any less useful or important in the study of human behavior, or in human interaction with the physical universe.

Introducing "god" into it is an arbitrary convolution of the study of human behavior. A trace of "why do people believe in things w/o evidence" could be useful, so you can answer questions like "what makes you think god exists" down to the precise details of how neurons fire. It's a bit tangential to the thread topic, but I don't deny that could potentially yield useful information on how human beings operate.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In this conversation I've been instructed that there are different sorts of atheists. Most atheists, like most theists, treat the matter as a sidelight. They aren't terribly committed to their beliefs in outward ways, whatever those beliefs might be. They don't proselytize. They don't fly into a rage when they encounter someone who doesn't share their beliefs. They don't try to co-opt the rule of law into supporting their particular theocracy or atheocracy, as the case may be. I have in fact been guilty of lumping all atheists together more than is warranted, so I apologize to those agnostic atheists who may have taken a look at this and gone on about their business.

I have been arguing against the other type of atheists. The ones who are so committed in their worship that the idea that someone else might be a theist drives them into a flurry of defenses for their belief system...up to and including the "how dare you call my belief system a belief system just because it has all the traits of a belief system" argument that I find so deliciously hilarious. The usual "only the followers of the non-god understand science" arguments are too trite to be really enjoyable at this point, but that one makes them worthwhile...like plowing through a bland dinner in hopes of a tasty dessert.

The thing is the other type of atheists in as much as they exist at all aren't actually a serious threat. Theists are getting schools to promote Creationism in the US and UK. they are affecting our laws on abortion and LGBT rights , what do you care what atheists believe or preach, at their most extreme they won't change anything for you, just maybe make change the way you think.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Introducing "god" into it is an arbitrary convolution of the study of human behavior. A trace of "why do people believe in things w/o evidence" could be useful, so you can answer questions like "what makes you think god exists" down to the precise details of how neurons fire. It's a bit tangential to the thread topic, but I don't deny that could potentially yield useful information on how human beings operate.

Thing is, you keep falling into the "without evidence" trap. The evidence may not be of a form that can be handed off from person to person, but assuming that all believers are misguided clowns believing without evidence is grossly biasing your results...if you are actually seeking useful information.

 

[AmazonQueen]

This should be good.

Easy, to do so would be dishonest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The thing is the other type of atheists in as much as they exist at all aren't actually a serious threat. Theists are getting schools to promote Creationism in the US and UK. they are affecting our laws on abortion and LGBT rights , what do you care what atheists believe or preach, at their most extreme they won't change anything for you, just maybe make change the way you think.

Scale back a bit. This thread didn't arise out of "wow, schools and laws and governments are in danger from the fanatical followers of the non-god!" It arose out of just one of our local fanatics dropping the non-god bomb into a totally unrelated conversation. Just a conversation, not a parliamentary debate about the rights of LGBTQ or women. In that regard it was the equivalent to having a discussion about...I dunno, picking winners in this weekend's football pool, and having someone out of the blue claim that god told them the Falcons would win by twenty points.

But that's the thing about the fanatics of the non-god...they think that because their belief system doesn't feature a god that the normal limits of social interaction don't apply to them. They can bomb the non-god into any conversation, any time, and say "well, it's just science," or whatever other excuse crosses their closed little minds. So I tend to pry at those closed little minds just like I would pry at the closed little mind of someone who says they are betting on the Falcons because whatever god they are referring to told them to.

 

[El_Machinae]

I get that the rats care about the consequences as related to them. The point was that the entire purpose of the experiment is completely over their heads. It is as much beyond their reasoning as it is beyond their moral judgement.

Sure. Ineffable. I get it.

My inability to explain to the rats is a function of the fundamental rules of the universe. I am constrained by fundamental laws, and so are they.

It's okay to posit a god that is incapable of communicating with his creation, I guess. It's an alternative theory to the idea that she is simply unwilling to

 

[AmazonQueen]

Scale back a bit. This thread didn't arise out of "wow, schools and laws and governments are in danger from the fanatical followers of the non-god!" It arose out of just one of our local fanatics dropping the non-god bomb into a totally unrelated conversation. Just a conversation, not a parliamentary debate about the rights of LGBTQ or women. In that regard it was the equivalent to having a discussion about...I dunno, picking winners in this weekend's football pool, and having someone out of the blue claim that god told them the Falcons would win by twenty points.

But that's the thing about the fanatics of the non-god...they think that because their belief system doesn't feature a god that the normal limits of social interaction don't apply to them. They can bomb the non-god into any conversation, any time, and say "well, it's just science," or whatever other excuse crosses their closed little minds. So I tend to pry at those closed little minds just like I would pry at the closed little mind of someone who says they are betting on the Falcons because whatever god they are referring to told them to.

Yeh, sure, its just a conversation. What happens in the real world doesn't matter.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure. Ineffable. I get it.

My inability to explain to the rats is a function of the fundamental rules of the universe. I am constrained by fundamental laws, and so are they.

It's okay to posit a god that is incapable of communicating with his creation, I guess. It's an alternative theory to the idea that she is simply unwilling to

Ahhhh...but you do in fact communicate with the rats. You aren't explaining the experiment to them or qualifying them as experts in neuroscience, but there are certainly some points being made. You are a long long way from clear, not necessarily by intent, but you aren't totally ineffable either.