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

[Birdjaguar]

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).

Is there anything that isn't constructed in our own minds? You want to dismiss religious experiences in one's mind as meaningless, but are you willing to dismiss all the other mind based experiences as equally meaningless. Can you even objectively separate what you experience into fact and fiction? To even begin to try and do so, you have to settle on some set of unproven assumptions. Many atheists assume that a rational step by step process is the only path to discovering what is in fact true. For some things that has a ring of truth to it. But it is also a severe limiter and confines one's thinking. For those people who need fences, it is an excellent way to live one's life. Flatland can be a happy place.

Inanimate objects are atheist.

Perhaps, it all depends upon how you view the nature of existence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Flatland can be a happy place.

Flatland has been on my mind a lot lately.

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.

Divine beings might be the ONLY thing they are cognizant of. Consider the possibility that it takes time for newly arrived consciousness to recognize the limitations of "objective reality."

 

[Arakhor]

I couldn't even begin to render an authoritative view on that one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

The old man in the sky is not the only definition of god and Christianity is not the only religion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I couldn't even begin to render an authoritative view on that one.

Me neither. Hence "might" and "possibility."

 

[Akka]

Is there anything that isn't constructed in our own minds?

Strictly speaking, no, but I'm pretty sure everyone is able to understand the point of differenciating an evidence that can be reproduced and detected by external means, and one which is happening entirely inside one's mind.

I mean, we could go on a large tangent about the philosophical aspects of Matrix and the like, but we're ALREADY making large détour compared to the initial point (which was that "atheism is not a religious belief, it's the absence of religious belief"), so I'm not really willing to bother with this one on top of that, especially as we all know, as said, the difference.

You want to dismiss religious experiences in one's mind as meaningless

Actually I repeatedly said "not acceptable as a hard proof".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Strictly speaking, no, but I'm pretty sure everyone is able to understand the point of differenciating an evidence that can be reproduced and detected by external means, and one which is happening entirely inside one's mind.

I mean, we could go on a large tangent about the philosophical aspects of Matrix and the like, but we're ALREADY making large détour compared to the initial point (which was that "atheism is not a religious belief, it's the absence of religious belief"), so I'm not really willing to bother with this one on top of that, especially as we all know, as said, the difference.

Actually I repeatedly said "not acceptable as a hard proof".

In post #81 above I quoted you and you did use the word meaningless.
As I said, I do not have a problem with people limiting their experiences.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I often wonder if ordinary atheists are as embarrassed about their proselytizing zealots as most theists are about theirs?

 

[metalhead]

Seeing as how we do not yet understand whether or how other realities or parallel universes might intrude on our own, I'd hesitate to make any absolutist statements about what it means when there is a shared experience that can't be reproduced and observed/measured within the confines of our current reality and its laws. And I'm saying that as a pretty staunch empiricist. And agnostic.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

The only definition of atheism I use is the first one here. The second one I regard as a conceptual sleight-of-hand to shift the burden of proof away from theists, where it belongs.

The old man in the sky is not the only definition of god and Christianity is not the only religion.

Right, hence my use of the plural.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Seeing as how we do not yet understand whether or how other realities or parallel universes might intrude on our own, I'd hesitate to make any absolutist statements about what it means when there is a shared experience that can't be reproduced and observed/measured within the confines of our current reality and its laws. And I'm saying that as a pretty staunch empiricist. And agnostic.

It's that kind of thinking that has moved us forward as a global civilization and improved life all across the world. Keep at it, but don't fall into the trap of thinking your useful, self imposed fences are in fact the only fences possible.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I chafe a little at the (seemingly recent) understanding of "atheism" as an affirmative claim that there is no God, but not enough to get riled about it. The idea that atheism is a "belief system" is also a bizarre mischaracterization, but again, I'm not interested in defending any definition of atheism. I'm happy to not call myself an atheist, just to avoid these false assumptions. I think my inability/unwillingness to have a defined belief system can be frustrating for people who like to put a label on what other people believe, but that's their problem. I do think, in general, that the burden of evidence is on the claimant, and that the chances that a claim is true and untrue are not equal in the absence of any evidence. In the specific case of whether or not God exists, as the idea of God has been generally outlined to me,the available evidence would seem to point to there not being a God.

Unfortunately, the existence of God isn't just an idle philosophical question. In this country, where we supposedly value freedom of religion, we're constantly besieged by people who want to impose their belief in God on everyone else. I suppose at times I may be mistaken for a militant atheist, just because I'm sometimes forced to man the barricades in defense of religious liberty (ironically, it's almost always religious people who don't really believe in freedom of religion).

 

[Farm Boy]

I often wonder if ordinary atheists are as embarrassed about their proselytizing zealots as most theists are about theirs?

I dunno. Some evangelizers are pretty grand. Then there's (many) Evangelicals.

 

[Akka]

In post #81 above I quoted you and you did use the word meaningless.
As I said, I do not have a problem with people limiting their experiences.

What I actually said is that if it's something that is entirely constructed in one's own mind, it is meaningless. For the rest of personal experiences, they just objectively fail the scientific method test.

I often wonder if ordinary atheists are as embarrassed about their proselytizing zealots as most theists are about theirs?

Funny how you label as "proselytizing" the simple fact of defining atheism. It (as does the rest of this discussion) show more about you than about them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The only definition of atheism I use is the first one here.

I personally tend far more towards the second definition there. The first definition is a better fit for "agnostic."

I dunno. Some evangelizers are pretty grand. Then there's (many) Evangelicals.

Yeah, I've met some very interesting evangelists.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I dunno. Some evangelizers are pretty grand. Then there's (many) Evangelicals.

I agree.


Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Funny how you label as "proselytizing" the simple fact of defining atheism. It (as does the rest of this discussion) show more about you than about them.

Sure man.

I'm intrigued how you shift between "us" and "them" when you refer to atheists. Can you explain why?

 

[brennan]

Atheism is a philosophical position in which it has been concluded that there is no evidence that a deity or deities exist, and/or that such an entity is impossible.

It is not a 'lack of belief' (which is a terrible definition.)

A 'belief system' requires something to believe in, a category that excludes atheism.

 

[Lexicus]

I personally tend far more towards the second definition there. The first definition is a better fit for "agnostic."

Agnosticism actually means the belief that ultimate knowledge about god is impossible. It's not an intermediate state between theism and atheism.

 

[uppi]

Strictly speaking, no, but I'm pretty sure everyone is able to understand the point of differenciating an evidence that can be reproduced and detected by external means, and one which is happening entirely inside one's mind.

Detection by external means is a concept on extremely shaky grounds. Belief that such a thing exists is the foundation of a belief system.