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

[Birdjaguar]

The truth is that our Reality is shaped by forces known and unknown and that the living and non living things of this world are influenced by those forces. We are all living under the same sign. Personal beliefs, assumptions and positions on the matter are just that, personal beliefs, assumptions and positions on the matter. Exercises of our egos.

Evidence of God? You best begin with a definition.

 

[cardgame]

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"?

Your position here is, frankly, absurd. You are rejecting the entire Enlightenment and Empiric Reasoning. You would have us all believing that unicorns and leprechauns are real or, at the very least, "not any less valid or less informed" than normal beliefs, simply because they are a negative that cannot be proven. I don't need to prove a negative in order to know that it doesn't exist - Russel's Teapot has already done that for me. There is no reason to be agnostic about certainties.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Your position here is, frankly, absurd. You are rejecting the entire Enlightenment and Empiric Reasoning. You would have us all believing that unicorns and leprechauns are real or, at the very least, "not any less valid or less informed" than normal beliefs.

Are you saying that scientific evidence is the only source of what is true?

 

[Estebonrober]

Faith does not require evidence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Faith does not require evidence.

Certainly not of the scientific sort.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your position here is, frankly, absurd. You are rejecting the entire Enlightenment and Empiric Reasoning. You would have us all believing that unicorns and leprechauns are real or, at the very least, "not any less valid or less informed" than normal beliefs, simply because they are a negative that cannot be proven. I don't need to prove a negative in order to know that it doesn't exist - Russel's Teapot has already done that for me. There is no reason to be agnostic about certainties.

Really? Near as I can make out my own beliefs haven't even been addressed...yet you find them absurd. That's a particularly interesting result.

I do find it amusing how you have substituted leprechauns and unicorns for fairies as if that somehow makes a difference. Once again, using things that no one claims any experience of as a means to invalidate something that people do claim to have experience of isn't really convincing.

 

[cardgame]

It's your position that's absurd, not your beliefs, which haven't even been posted unless I missed them.

I'm sorry that my literally flawless analogy of "things that exist in popular mythos/culture despite their devastatingly complete lack of evidence" isn't convincing to you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's your position that's absurd, not your beliefs, which haven't even been posted unless I missed them.

I'm sorry that my literally flawless analogy of "things that exist in popular mythos/culture despite their devastatingly complete lack of evidence" isn't convincing to you.

It isn't flawless. Not even close. And since I already pointed out why there doesn't seem to be any point doing it again. But in retrospect I suppose I will.

Please provide exactly what culture holds that leprechauns actually exist. Find me one person who will argue based on personal experience that unicorns exist. You are arguing against NO ONE.

I can find plenty of people who will provide testimony regarding their experience of god. You have yet to explain why their personal experience should be irrelevant to ME, much less to themselves.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

Oh, FFS, I did nothing of the sort. I raised my hand and said, "I would like to make an affirmation, please." I said it very calmly and courteously. The others in the room were the ones having fits about it. It took less than 3 minutes for the affirmation to be done.

Not once did I demand that anyone in that room agree with me about anything other than my right - guaranteed by the Charter - to refuse to swear on any "holy book" or be penalized for this refusal.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's true, so should I change the term old gods into ruling or reigning gods ? The point of my argumentation is the dynamic of the power struggle between existing religion and the new religion, I just don't have the exact words to describe it in English.

Consider that the Christian struggle against established religion began in Israel, where their God already prevailed, just not in a form they much liked. Religious innovation was not clearly a question of gods, but of who gods were approached or engaged with.

Consider also that, as I said, Rome was not a stranger to religious innovation. The imperial cult, the most powerful and ubiquitous in the empire, was itself an innovation of the imperial era, and indeed a site of innovation, the deification of individual emperors being superseded by the cult of Sol Invictus in the third century. It's much more realistic to imagine Christianity as one element in a dynamic religious world than as representing some great epochal shift.

Weren't most of these gods pretty old, just not to the Romans?

That depends how far we're prepared to identify the Isis worshiped in Rome with the Isis worshiped in Egypt, I suppose. At any rate, any metric which finds the Christian God to be "new" must surely identify the Romanised Isis or Mithras as "new", while any metric that identifies these adopted Eastern gods as "old" must surely identify Yahewh as "old".

 

[Yeekim]

Donald Trump wins U.S. election in astonishing victory

That is, actually, convincing evidence there is a God.
A malevolent one, or at least one with a sick sense of humor.
Nothing like this could happen without divine intervention.

 

[Yeekim]

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.

The lack of evidence for the existence of faeries pertains only to planet Earth.
Depending on how you define God, the existence of Universe could be viewed as insurmountable proof of its existence.

 

[Akka]

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"?

Reading is hard ?

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.

Personal experiences are important for forming a, well, personal opinion about something. They are worth little when it comes to concrete evidences, especially for anything that is about belief considering how our brains have built-in functions which are all about "how to make the whole thing runs despite whatever happens outside".
That's the entire point of the post, and you seem to happily stroll past it without getting it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Reading is hard ?

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.

Personal experiences are important for forming a, well, personal opinion about something. They are worth little when it comes to concrete evidences, especially for anything that is about belief considering how our brains have built-in functions which are all about "how to make the whole thing runs despite whatever happens outside".
That's the entire point of the post, and you seem to happily stroll past it without getting it.

Okay, so trying again.

Let's use a sociopath for an example. This individual, for whatever reason, is incapable of feeling a particular set of emotions. They could very easily reach an "informed conclusion" that these emotions don't exist. The only "evidence" that can be presented on the matter is, after all, just reported personal experiences from other people and thus not "concrete." Yet even the sociopath will usually accept that such emotions do in fact exist. While they have no concrete evidence, or experience of their own, the commonality of experience as widely reported is not ignored out of hand.

Similarly, you operate from the assumption that people who believe in god are "dispensing with concrete evidence." Yet in many cases they are actually basing their belief on personal experience. Their personal experience may not be concrete evidence to you, and there is no reason that it should be. But depending upon who they are their personal experience may be evidence to me, or to someone else. And again, a commonality of experience as widely reported is not usually something that should be ignored out of hand.

Which brings us back to the atheist proselytizer. They also have no evidence to support their position. In fact, with surprising regularity they will happily acknowledge that their chosen position, as a negative, is logically beyond proof...using the fact that it is beyond proof to cheerfully account for the fact that they have no proof but believe in the correctness of their position anyway, and insist most strenuously that their position be adopted by all...except those who are "too stupid," of course...or find reading hard maybe.

 

[cardgame]

That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Atheism is the status quo.

Now we take a stroll through human history and a coherent narrative emerges: mankind needs to explain the inexplicable, and does so through religion, ala the "god of the gaps". There is now assembled sociological evidence against religion as truth.

Yet in many cases they are actually basing their belief on personal experience

I had a bowl of cereal today. It used the very last of the bag of cereal and the very last drops of my milk. Truly, god exists and was looking out for me today.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Agreed. That's why I am so dismissive towards atheists.

 

[cardgame]

You're just contrarian.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're just contrarian.

Define please, as relates to your usage.

 

[Hygro]

Valka swore valka swore I'm telllllllling.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I had a bowl of cereal today. It used the very last of the bag of cereal and the very last drops of my milk. Truly, god exists and was looking out for me today.

Thanks for sharing. If that's the experience upon which you are basing belief in god, then you are an idiot. Since I know you aren't an idiot I assume that you are making a wildly speculative assumption about what I mean when I say that people have personal experiences that support their belief in god. That indicates that you are being dismissive, which is certainly not unreasonable since I am always dismissive towards atheists and it is effectively just responding in kind. But I have to wonder what your point is.