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

[Akka]

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.

Personal experiences do exist. Atheis (usually) recognize that believers have these experiences.
What these experiences don't prove is that they exist outside the person (and in fact they don't, because by definition they are personal).
If I'm suffering from some sort of mental condition that makes me see everyone with a fairy above their head, I have the personal experience supporting that fairies fly above people's heads, from my own PoV it's very much real, but it doesn't mean it's factually true.

(in fact, a sociopath who would consider that his lack of emotion prove that they exist for nobody, would fit the believer situation better, as someone who project his own feeling as some universal truth, despite the actual evidence proving that it's just his personal experience)

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.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using "concrete evidence", but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You're simply saying that other's experiences resonate with you. The only concrete evidence is that these feelings exist, which no one denied. It doesn't provide any concrete evidence about God existing or not.

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.

I suppose his point is that "personal experience" can be entirely constructed by our own mind (and as such meaningless), as the brain is apt to detect pattern and often to create them from nothing (probably because to survive, it's better to have false positives than to miss real ones).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I suppose his point is that "personal experience" can be entirely constructed by our own mind (and as such meaningless), as the brain is apt to detect pattern and often to create them from nothing (probably because to survive, it's better to have false positives than to miss real ones).

The interesting thing is the assumption that all such experiences that do not fit the pre-existing world view are dismissed as meaningless, through an "example" chosen not from any real report of experience, but for its obvious absurdity. This is what makes atheists so easy to dismiss. They operate from a pretense that their position is "the logical one," but they refuse to deal with opposition as it exists.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, you keep using "concrete evidence", but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You're simply saying that other's experiences resonate with you. The only concrete evidence is that these feelings exist, which no one denied. It doesn't provide any concrete evidence about God existing or not.

I'm working really hard here to stay tongue in cheek regarding your repeated references to how you have such a greater command of English than I have, but only because I'm interested in what you have to say otherwise. If you could, at least briefly, set aside the usual atheist's pretense that anyone disagreeing with you must just be stupid that would be great.

Meanwhile, no, I didn't say that "other's experiences resonate." I didn't say it simply, or any other way. I suggested that someone you might dismiss may be someone that I, or someone else, would consider to be a credible witness. I suspect that this is a result of a few too many nonsense 'examples' like Cardgame's milk, and not enough listening to actual people seriously describing actual experiences. Comforting, I'm sure, but hardly useful.

 

[cardgame]

That was not a strawman, but a real and very widespread attitude of modern shallow American Christianity. But no, clearly "actual experiences" exist... which is why you're mentioning some of them. Any of them?

Okay, I'll try again. A doctor saves a woman's life. She wakes up from surgery and starts thanking God for his Divine Intervention, despite the fact that it was the doctor who did all the work.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That was not a strawman, but a real and very widespread attitude of modern shallow American Christianity.

Once again, please provide proof. Since it is so widespread it should be easy. Since I consider you to be honest and credible we don't even need a recording device. There are plenty of churches that include open testimony as part of their service schedule. You go hang out in churches until you hear someone stand up and testify about their cereal and milk running out at the same time, then report back.

Now, to be a bit serious...I submit that this assigned position is far more widely assigned, as a method of dismissal, than it is actually practiced. And yes, I am very aware that just like the fairies morphed into leprechauns and then unicorns you could do a similar slide into various other "nonsense testimony" that you project as "this must be what you mean by experiences." But to what end?

By the way, I've heard a whole lot of people thanking god...for doctors. I'm sure that atheists would prefer to think that the "example" you provided is what people who believe in god actually do, but that's not how I've seen things go and once again I'm wondering if you have ever heard anyone actually describe any sort of personal experiences. My sense is that you haven't, since I don't know many people who would bother, but there are zealots on every side.

 

[cardgame]

I grew up in and still live in the Bible Belt, but sure, I've never heard Christians describe any sort of personal experiences.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That was not a strawman, but a real and very widespread attitude of modern shallow American Christianity. But no, clearly "actual experiences" exist... which is why you're mentioning some of them. Any of them?

Okay, I'll try again. A doctor saves a woman's life. She wakes up from surgery and starts thanking God for his Divine Intervention, despite the fact that it was the doctor who did all the work.

That I can relate to real life.
My brother-in-law became an evangelical Christian after my sister almost died in childbirth. Hes convinced his prayers that day were answered. Shes more inclined to thank the NHS.
Can't prove that god didn't intervene but its certain that without modern medical treatment she would have died.

 

[Lexicus]

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".

That's fair.

 

[Akka]

The interesting thing is the assumption that all such experiences that do not fit the pre-existing world view are dismissed as meaningless, through an "example" chosen not from any real report of experience, but for its obvious absurdity. This is what makes atheists so easy to dismiss. They operate from a pretense that their position is "the logical one," but they refuse to deal with opposition as it exists.

That doesn't address at all the point made, attacks a point that has not been made (so, a strawman) and sounds more like wanting to have a pretext to claim that "atheists are so easy to dismiss".
I'm pretty sure that if it's so easy, you can do better.

I'm working really hard here to stay tongue in cheek regarding your repeated references to how you have such a greater command of English than I have, but only because I'm interested in what you have to say otherwise. If you could, at least briefly, set aside the usual atheist's pretense that anyone disagreeing with you must just be stupid that would be great.

Man, you openly admit you act smug toward atheists, it's hard to complain about their behaviour after that.
Also, I'm pointing that personal experiences are, by essence, personal, and as such subject to all human's failing about perception and so can't be considered hard proof. That's not really groundbreaking, cognitive biases are well-known and pretty powerful and obviously should be taken into account when speaking about proving facts.

That's also the reason science requires repeatable experiences and not just "I did it, trust me". Again, nothing groundbreaking, so why do you seem suddenly so vexed by this ?

Meanwhile, no, I didn't say that "other's experiences resonate." I didn't say it simply, or any other way. I suggested that someone you might dismiss may be someone that I, or someone else, would consider to be a credible witness. I suspect that this is a result of a few too many nonsense 'examples' like Cardgame's milk, and not enough listening to actual people seriously describing actual experiences. Comforting, I'm sure, but hardly useful.

As said above, personal experiences are not hard proof, ESPECIALLY when it's about something that is as symbolic as spirituality. It's not about finding someone reliable or honest or stopping to dismiss others or whatever. It's about the nature of the evidence.
I already had people explain me their personal experiences. Most of the time, I found it was examples of the anthropic principle (what Cardgame was caricaturing), and other times it was some sort of spiritual experience. I'm not denying what they felt, I'm denying it's an evidence. The difference seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Zelig]

Inanimate objects are atheist.

 

[Arakhor]

Atheism is the status quo.

Atheism is the existing state of affairs? For whom, exactly? Not mankind as a whole, who have believed in spirits, gods or a singular higher power ever since they have had the ability to look up at the stars and wonder why they are here, and certainly not the modern population, who identify as religious in their billions.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think "status quo" as used in this context is a wiggle word for Truth, intended to settle rightness of thought. Taken like this, things that are then not atheism are constructs upon that Truth, or perversions of Truth. Which is exactly the follow up in the rest of the post, no?

 

[Arakhor]

Insisting on your personal religious beliefs as objective truth is never the most agreeable thing in the world.

 

[Farm Boy]

Which is why clever wiggles wiggle when they slide from is to ought to make ought is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Insisting on your personal religious beliefs as objective truth is never the most agreeable thing in the world.

But remember, Atheism isn't a personal religious belief. Despite being impossible to prove, it's a scientific fact. And besides science being their sole purview, only they understand simple English so they are impervious to any dispute.

 

[Lexicus]

It makes more sense if you read it as "default" and indeed, I've never heard anyone make a serious claim that babies are born believing in fictional characters such as gods.

 

[rah]

Some people look at the world and see all the grandeur and use it as proof of God.
Other people look at all the evil in the world and use it as proof that God doesn't exist.

While I believe there must be something greater than man, I don't believe he's anything like any of the myths that man have created.
How could we possibly know?

So I'm probably closer to an atheist, maybe not. But I don't care what others are or what they think of my belief.
I've sworn on a bible in court before. I wouldn't want to make fun of others beliefs or be a pain in the butt.

I don't think of it as a system because I don't assign it any other attributes.

But I do agree that it seems some here are using it to project some type of superiority over others that don't agree.

 

[Arakhor]

It makes more sense if you read it as "default" and indeed, I've never heard anyone make a serious claim that babies are born believing in fictional characters such as gods.

But then you're cheating, by using atheism to mean both "having no opinion or knowledge of any gods" and "actively disbelieving in the existence of higher powers", without specifying which you mean, especially when the latter meaning is by far the more common one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It makes more sense if you read it as "default" and indeed, I've never heard anyone make a serious claim that babies are born believing in fictional characters such as gods.

Have you asked many?

Babies, that is.

 

[Arakhor]

While I believe there must be something greater than man, I don't believe he's anything like any of the myths that man have created. How could we possibly know?

That sounds like textbook agnosticism to me.

Have you asked many?

Babies, that is.

In as much as we can be sure of anything, babies are no more cognisant of divine beings than they are of anything else when first born.

 

[Farm Boy]

"But Tim, inculcation isn't indoctrination when I do it since it's True. Let's simply call it being educated."