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

[TheMeInTeam]

Atheism is not a "belief system". It is a particular belief you arrive at when practicing rationality. Atheists don't believe in god for the same reasons they don't believe that fugnagglesachswatches should meaningfully influence decision making. Reasonably, both should be given similar weight (almost none).

You can't prove fugnagglesachswatches don't exist, enough people might proclaim belief in fugnagglesachswatches, morality is derived from fugnagglesachswatches and without it you can't know right/wrong, fugnagglesachswatches builds a sense of community, and so forth. Functionally identical arguments to the most common stuff you see with typically practiced religions.

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"?

One person has actively formed beliefs in the absence of evidence. The other may or may not have, but isn't asserting fugnagglesachswatches exist without any variance in anticipated experience whatsoever.

I see no reason to privilege one blind guess over another. I do see sound basis for refusing to accept a blind guess without any evidence at all, given the purported possibility space.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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?

There are some really gigantic leaps in there.

The leap from "humans don't grasp an explanation of the creation of the universe" to "god chooses not to explain" can be significantly shortened by "humans are simple minded dolts, comparatively speaking." That seems pretty easy to support, so concluding "god didn't create the universe" instead fails spectacularly on reasonable doubt. I have a pretty abstract "creation myth" of my own, provided by god. Do I consider such an abstraction to be definitive, and demand that other people spread it as gospel? No, but I don't need to in order to accept it for myself, especially considering my limited perspective. When my kids were small I, and they, were quite satisfied with "sunshine makes trees grow." That doesn't mean I was trying to hide the principles of photosynthesis from them.

Atheism is not a "belief system". It is a particular belief you arrive at when practicing rationality. Atheists don't believe in god for the same reasons they don't believe that fugnagglesachswatches should meaningfully influence decision making. Reasonably, both should be given similar weight (almost none).

You can't prove fugnagglesachswatches don't exist, enough people might proclaim believe in fugnagglesachswatches, morality is derived from fugnagglesachswatches and without it you can't know right/wrong, fugnagglesachswatches builds a sense of community, and so forth. Functionally identical arguments to the most common stuff you see with typically practiced religions.

Out of curiosity, was stretching from unicorns to a really long made up word supposed to improve this tired argument more than substituting unicorns for fairies improved it? I mean, as long as we are talking about functionally identical arguments and stuff commonly practiced by religions...

 

[brennan]

I have a pretty abstract "creation myth" of my own, provided by god. Do I consider such an abstraction to be definitive, and demand that other people spread it as gospel? No, but I don't need to in order to accept it for myself

What standard of proof are you setting here?

 

[civvver]

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?



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!

Catholic's believe in the big bang, synonymous with in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. There was nothing, then suddenly, bang, everything. Catholic's also do not believe in literal interpretation of the bible and thus view genesis as a creation mythology, a story used to convey spiritual truth, not literal scientific facts.

Unfortunately it seems most people's exposure to Christians is the southern baptist, brow beating with bibles, try to outlaw teaching evolution and sex ed in schools, style.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not a belief system, it's a rejection of one.

A rejection is an affirmative position. Indifference, disinterest, or different interest is not. "I'm concerned about this stuff here but not really influenced by that stuff there" is not "That stuff there is not." It does dress up nice though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What standard of proof are you setting here?

None? That's sort of the reason that I don't require anyone else to accept my particular abstraction.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are some really gigantic leaps in there.

The leap from "humans don't grasp an explanation of the creation of the universe" to "god chooses not to explain" can be significantly shortened by "humans are simple minded dolts, comparatively speaking."

That's just circular. Under which definition of god is "god chooses not to explain" NOT the same statement as "humans are dolts"?

Chosing to make us dolts is the same as choosing to not explain.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's just circular. Under which definition of god is "god chooses not to explain" NOT the same statement as "humans are dolts"?

Chosing to make us dolts is the same as choosing to not explain.

That would be why I included the part about kids, trees, and photosynthesis. I was going more for triangular than circular.

 

[El_Machinae]

That would be why I included the part about kids, trees, and photosynthesis. I was going more for triangular than circular.

You weren't capable of creating a new life that could understand photosynthesis. Concomitantly, you were not capable of explaining photosynthesis to one of your creations. In both ways, the weakness is on you, since you brought the kids into existence. You knowingly created ignorance. In your defense, you're constrained by natural forces.

A rejection and substitution(or not) is an affirmative position. Indifference, disinterest, or different interest is not. "I'm concerned about this stuff here but not really influenced by that stuff there" is not "That stuff there is not." It does dress up nice though.

Sure, and then we conclude that my model of coffee vanishing is a belief that the Wendigo doesn't exist. I mean, sure, I'll agree to that if it speeds up the conversation to something important. But I find it to be a banal conclusion to insist on.

 

[Farm Boy]

As if we weren't long past banal by the time we started talking here. I mean, if only I could jack off for as long as I could when I was 14!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Out of curiosity, was stretching from unicorns to a really long made up word supposed to improve this tired argument more than substituting unicorns for fairies improved it? I mean, as long as we are talking about functionally identical arguments and stuff commonly practiced by religions...

I wanted to make sure I was pasting something completely meaningless, since fairies and unicorns and whatnot have actual imagery and sometimes stories/expectations regarding them. At least when I read "unicorns" I get an immediate mental image of the creatures from HOMM 3 or 5 and that's followed by recalled experiences and the occasional expletive. I suppose given literature "god" is in a similar boat there, but in terms of measuring physical reality god, unicorns, and fugnagglesachswatches carry the same anticipated experiences/testable consequences. You can freely substitute them for each other, right down to emotions/"personal experiences" (with no testable consequences).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, and then we conclude that my model of coffee vanishing is a belief that the Wendigo doesn't exist. I mean, sure, I'll agree to that if it speeds up the conversation to something important. But I find it to be a banal conclusion to insist on.

You seem to have sidestepped the thread, which is fine, I just want to point it out.

To put what you are saying into the context of the thread, what we actually have is a handful of what @Lexicus has taught me are properly called gnostic atheists, who are saying the equivalent of "I know it is me that drank the coffee, so there is no god you fools!" For may part, I'm mostly expressing puzzlement about how they came to be so convinced that their coffee is so profound and what gives them the authority to dismiss three quarters or so of the world's population.

 

[brennan]

A rejection is an affirmative position.

No is yes?

 

[Farm Boy]

Affirmed better for your grammar?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm mostly expressing puzzlement about how they came to be so convinced that their coffee is so profound and what gives them the authority to dismiss three quarters or so of the world's population.

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

 

[brennan]

Not really. You're still pretending that a negation is a positive statement. You won't be the first and you won't be the last, but it still makes no sense. The idea of an affirmation implies its opposite, but you are trying to claim they are the same thing. It maketh no sense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You can freely substitute them for each other, right down to emotions/"personal experiences" (with no testable consequences).

Which brings your tired argument to the same tired response.

I can (and boy do I appreciate you giving me permission there, oh knowing authority figure) freely make such substitutions, but still no one does. There aren't people relating personal experiences with fairies, or unicorns, or your strange sandwiches. Your argument is comparable to three guys standing around a heavy object, two of them debating whether they can lift it when the third one says "no you couldn't lift a three hundred foot diameter popcorn kernel." It's true, and we can then run a huge gamut of substitutions using other fantastic objects, but what does it have to do with the question at hand?

 

[Farm Boy]

"That is not" is a positive statement. An affirmed rejection of something is a new position, not a declination to take a position.

 

[uppi]

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

I have now. How exactly do you think it is relevant to the discussion?

It is an incredible failure of the referee system that such a sloppy paper is published in a reputable journal. But I guess that is not your point.

 

[brennan]

If I don't think x exists, then when someone opines that it does and I disagree, my position is entirely unchanged, except that I now know about this thing someone else believes in. No affirmation has taken place.