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

[Lexicus]

I think their drive to proselytize is inextricably linked to their horrible politics.

I don't know if that's true. The drive to proselytize is going to be there if you see a difference between "is" and "ought," pretty much. Speaking as an apostate from New Atheism, I will say that the drive made (or seemed to make) a lot more sense in the milieu of the 2000s.

if atheists acutally lacked specific beliefs related to their atheism

"Beliefs related to their atheism" is not quite the same thing as arguing that atheism itself constitutes a belief system.

 

[uppi]

Essentially impossible. I would go further and say that the assertion that all events are mental events is trivial to prove. Without a subject to experience it, it is nonsensical to speak of anything.

I wouldn't go that far. I think it could make sense to talk about an objective reality without the need for subjects and we don't have enough evidence to rule that out.

It has made belief in a deterministic reality difficult. You can still happily believe in an objective one.

Believe? Yes, well you can believe in anything. Happily? I don't think so if you really thought about it. If you believe in an indeterministic objective reality, you need to answer the question how does an objective reality arise from the potential multiple future realities. And if you try to answer that question, you go down the rabbit hole of trying to interpret quantum mechanics. Realistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are incredibly awkward. If you throw away the need for one objective reality, everything suddenly becomes much cleaner.

I am somewhat of a realist myself, but I certainly don't feel happy about it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This thread is proof that god is a narcissist and loves being the topic of conversation.

 

[stinkubus]

Please provide all your accumulated evidence that there is no god.

If General Relativity is true then the Big Bang must also be true. This discovery is what made Stephen Hawking famous. Seeing as how there's tons of experimental evidence to confirm the precepts of General Relativity we have no reason to doubt the Big Bang which means the creation myths of ~every religion must be false.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If General Relativity is true then the Big Bang must also be true. This discovery is what made Stephen Hawking famous. Seeing as how there's tons of experimental evidence to confirm the precepts of General Relativity we have no reason to doubt the Big Bang which means the creation myths of ~every religion must be false.

What exactly do "the creation myths of ~every religion" have to do with the existence of god?

 

[Birdjaguar]

If General Relativity is true then the Big Bang must also be true. This discovery is what made Stephen Hawking famous. Seeing as how there's tons of experimental evidence to confirm the precepts of General Relativity we have no reason to doubt the Big Bang which means the creation myths of ~every religion must be false.

"Every" is a strong statement.

 

[stinkubus]

It would mean that all of the currently practiced religions on Earth are false. This leaves me wondering just what the point of a supreme being that refuses to reveal itself to its creation would be?

"Every" is a strong statement.

I'm currently unaware of any religion which teaches that the Big Bang is true.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It would mean that all of the currently practiced religions on Earth are false. This leaves me wondering just what the point of a supreme being that refuses to reveal itself to its creation would be?

False? Maybe, if they are structurally dependent on their supposed "creation myth." But there still doesn't appear to be any connection to the existence of god in your statements. I'm fairly easy to convince that "religion X" almost certainly does not accurately convey everything that god was trying to convey to the founder of religion X. That doesn't require me to make the leap to "so there wasn't any god trying to convey anything in the first place."

 

[Lexicus]

I'm currently unaware of any religion which teaches that the Big Bang is true.

The "Big Bang" was formulated by a Catholic priest and was at one point considered an important proof of religion's accuracy. At the time the "orthodox" belief among physicists was in a steady-state universe, which really would disprove every creation myth as a steady-state universe would have had no moment of creation at all!

 

[Akka]

It requires the belief that there is an objective external reality which can be detected instead of everyone having their own reality of what they perceive. Physics has made belief in an objective reality quite difficult.

When folks talk about how what goes on in our heads is meaningless, it seems appropriate. And as Uppi has put on the table, objective reality may be a thing of the past and not really real.

I thought I already treated this one.

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.

 

[stinkubus]

If a "God" can't or didn't do any of the things its followers claim I'm content to call it a false god.

 

[brennan]

I am somewhat of a realist myself, but I certainly don't feel happy about it.

Have you read "Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch"?

 

[Lexicus]

I thought I already treated this one.

You, as so often, "treated" it by simply brushing it aside, which you may interpret as being some kind of authoritative dismissal, but the rest of us sure don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If a "God" can't or didn't do any of the things its followers claim I'm content to call it a false god.

Wouldn't it be at least as accurate to assume mistaken followers?

 

[Akka]

You, as so often, "treated" it by simply brushing it aside, which you may interpret as being some kind of authoritative dismissal, but the rest of us sure don't.

I brushed it aside because it's going far outside the original context. It's a whole another discussion, one that I'm not interested in to sign up at the moment, especially as I feel it's simply a disingenuous attempt to drown the original point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You, as so often, "treated" it by simply brushing it aside, which you may interpret as being some kind of authoritative dismissal, but the rest of us sure don't.

Well, technically I also consider it an authoritative dismissal. It's just that the nominal authority has been long since recognized as not knowing anything about the subject and therefore has no valid claim to authority. Wake me up if he ever demonstrates, in any way, that his dismissals should be received with anything beyond mockery.

 

[El_Machinae]

This thread is proof that god is a narcissist and loves being the topic of conversation.

Also evidence that god doesn't mind the least bit about being lied about.

 

[stinkubus]

Wouldn't it be at least as accurate to assume mistaken followers?

Let's do that then. AORN we are left with a "God" which didn't create the universe and chooses not to reveal itself to humanity in an accurate or honest way.

Why should *anyone* care if such a thing exists in the first place?

 

[Zelig]

"Areligious" is a terribly clunky term. I'm not going to start using that when "atheist" is perfectly fine, and doesn't bother my spellchecker.

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

In what measure of existence would a rock believe in a deity?

 

[Lexicus]

"Areligious" is a terribly clunky term. I'm not going to start using that when "atheist" is perfectly fine, and doesn't bother my spellchecker.

Irreligious