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

[Timsup2nothin]

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

"Having no opinion on or knowledge of" and "acknowledging that knowledge of is impossible" seem very closely related. Atheism seems like an active course, related to neither of those.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not a belief system, it's a rejection of one. Being a 'skeptic' is a belief system. Or having a parsimonious model is a belief system. As well, keep in mind, if you boil things down enough, we're all solipsistic anyway, so any conversation that gets too close to that becomes a waste of time.

Here's how atheism rears it's head.

There's a proposal for the model 'God'. The person then says "what attributes does God have?" The God-model is then proposed to have characteristics X, Y, Z. The skeptic then looks at the claims, and then decides that there's not sufficient evidence to accept the claims. That's it. Belief rejected.

Some people argue for God based on first principles: Imagine an entity that is so powerful it must exist, or somesuch. It's not a belief that rejects the logic, it's just logic.

Some people argue for God from evidence proposed: the skeptic then tests it against their own parsimonious model. I then believe that the evidence for the God is superior to my (false) parsimonious model.

You can call my parsimonious model an 'atheist belief system', but it's just nonsense. "How did my coffee cup get empty while I was typing?" requires a parsimonious model. It includes no gods, no unicorns, no ghosts, time-traveling T-Rexes, or Steven King monster. Please note: I actually have conceptions (models) of all of those, but it's not like we call my coffee-disappearing model an aWendigo model of coffee vanishing. It doesn't include any pets or loved ones on first glance, but it actually does (I'm drinking coffee as part of my day, which includes family visits later). But if the armchair philosopher then says "oh, see that means that you believe that your loved ones exist", I just refer to the fourth sentence

Eventually a person will propose a god that exists as an 'invisible' in my parsimonious model: sure, I am agnostic on that specific model. Meh. And then they'll try to pretend that the god exists from first principles. Then we're back to my fourth paragraph.

 

[Akka]

Sure man.

You are welcome to check my initial post.
You made it about a battle between atheists and theists, and constantly tried to switch to "atheists are arrogants" and other attacks, but that wasn't the subject.

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

I never hid the fact that I'm atheist, so if you wanted to corner me into something, it seems you're just projecting (you, on the other hand, try very hard to never explicitely say you're theist).
I didn't pay attention to the supposed shift, but I suppose it might simply the unconscious different ways of speaking (well, writing) depending on the virtual situation at hand.

Detection by external means is a concept on extremely shaky grounds.

How so ?

 

[uppi]

It's not a belief system, it's a rejection of one. Being a 'skeptic' is a belief system. Or having a parsimonious model is a belief system. As well, keep in mind, if you boil things down enough, we're all solipsistic anyway, so any conversation that gets too close to that becomes a waste of time.

If you argue like that, Christianity isn't a belief system either. Which I am fine with, but I think there are different opinions on what constitutes a belief system.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Technically, and that may mean scientifically, everything is entirely constructed in our minds. The "objective" reality of a glow worn is not the same as mine. My point is that the scientific method of determining objective reality has its own assumptions and limitations. Within those assumptions and limitations, it works well.

 

[brennan]

Gosh, do we have to have the silly conversation about things science allegedly cannot know as well?

 

[uppi]

How so ?

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.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I never hid the fact that I'm atheist, so if you wanted to corner me into something, it seems you're just projecting (you, on the other hand, try very hard to never explicitely say you're theist).
I didn't pay attention to the supposed shift, but I suppose it might simply the unconscious different ways of speaking (well, writing) depending on the virtual situation at hand.

Actually, I was just curious. It sort of relates to the question about whether the typical atheist is as embarrassed by evangelical atheists like you as the typical theist is by the nominally Christian evangelicals.

 

[Lexicus]

"Having no opinion on or knowledge of" and "acknowledging that knowledge of is impossible" seem very closely related. Atheism seems like an active course, related to neither of those.

Not at all. It's possible to be an agnostic theist, and it's possible to be a gnostic atheist. Indeed, the New Atheists from whom you appear to be getting your idea of atheism are mostly gnostic atheists; that is, they believe it is possible to know about god and that the idea has been disproved. It's undoubtedly not a coincidence that most of them not only lack any philosophical training, they actively disdain the entire endeavor of philosophy as most of them seriously believe science has rendered it obsolete.

In any case I have seen people (theists) on the internet actually argue that God requires us to take Him on faith, and that He has intentionally made it impossible to "know" whether He exists or not because we are supposed to have faith in Him. OTOH I believe it was a fairly mainstream position three or four centuries ago that it was easy to logically deduce the existence of God from the available physical (and other) evidence.

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.

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.

It sort of relates to the question about whether the typical atheist is as embarrassed by evangelical atheists like you as the typical theist is by the better known evangelicals.

Speaking for myself I am certainly embarassed by Dawkins and his ilk, though less because they "proselytize" and more because they don't know anything about philosophy or history and have horrible politics as a consequence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gosh, do we have to have the silly conversation about things science allegedly cannot know as well?

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.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

Thanks. It's always amusing when a church of science zealot is confronted by actual science.

 

[brennan]

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.

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

 

[Lexicus]

Thanks. It's always amusing when a church of science zealot is confronted by actual science.

I am looking forward to the publication of Jordan Peterson's latest paper, Quantum Electrodynamics Is A Trojan Horse For Neo-Marxist Postmodernism

 

[El_Machinae]

If you argue like that, Christianity isn't a belief system either. Which I am fine with, but I think there are different opinions on what constitutes a belief system.

Right. Well, acknowledging that there will be 7 billion christianities...

Christianity would be the parsimonious model for the Christian. Hopefully, then, the Christian is testing their model with the world that they see. And evidence that works against their model will cause the model to shift, or the evidence to be rejected.

I am apostate, and so I would acknowledge that my atheism includes displacing my younger Christian model. I have rejected a Christian belief, sure. But not all atheists are apostate

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not at all. It's possible to be an agnostic theist, and it's possible to be a gnostic atheist. Indeed, the New Atheists from whom you appear to be getting your idea of atheism are mostly gnostic atheists; that is, they believe it is possible to know about god and that the idea has been disproved. It's undoubtedly not a coincidence that most of them not only lack any philosophical training, they actively disdain the entire endeavor of philosophy as most of them seriously believe science has rendered it obsolete.

In any case I have seen people (theists) on the internet actually argue that God requires us to take Him on faith, and that He has intentionally made it impossible to "know" whether He exists or not because we are supposed to have faith in Him. OTOH I believe it was a fairly mainstream position three or four centuries ago that it was easy to logically deduce the existence of God from the available physical (and other) evidence.

That was clear, and useful. You're right, I use "atheist" when what I am referring to is "gnostic atheist." I think my very recently coined term, "evangelical atheist" might catch on though, so I might keep using that.

Speaking for myself I am certainly embarassed by Dawkins and his ilk, though less because they "proselytize" and more because they don't know anything about philosophy or history and have horrible politics as a consequence.

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

 

[metalhead]

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

I consider agnosticism to be more neutral than that. I consider myself an agnostic purely on the basis that we have, as yet, to obtain any knowledge with regard to the existence of a deity. I don't hold that such knowledge itself cannot exist, because that's a conclusion that relies on the logical fallacy that not having such knowledge now precludes its existence in the future.

I think atheism can have a system or structure of beliefs around it. I think often atheists have constructed such perhaps without even realizing it. But atheism doesn't necessarily entail a belief system, nor do I think most atheists are particularly interested in one.

I do, however, find some amusement in the fact that this thread seems very active on the topic of atheists and their beliefs or lack thereof, when if atheists acutally lacked specific beliefs related to their atheism, this thread would have warranted a post or 2 and then died a quick death

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I consider agnosticism to be more neutral than that. I consider myself an agnostic purely on the basis that we have, as yet, to obtain any knowledge with regard to the existence of a deity. I don't hold that such knowledge itself cannot exist, because that's a conclusion that relies on the logical fallacy that not having such knowledge now precludes its existence in the future.

I think atheism can have a system or structure of beliefs around it. I think often atheists have constructed such perhaps without even realizing it. But atheism doesn't necessarily entail a belief system, nor do I think most atheists are particularly interested in one.

I do, however, find some amusement in the fact that this thread seems very active on the topic of atheists and their beliefs or lack thereof, when if atheists actually lacked specific beliefs related to their atheism, this thread would have warranted a post or 2 and then died a quick death

Bolded for amusement value. As previously noted:

LOL...key knocking is vastly different than door knocking in your dogma, apparently. I'm always glad to see you participating in this discussion, since you are such a perfect example.

Without the evangelical atheists to take up the cause of defending their belief system by insisting it isn't one, the atheists who really don't have one could just quietly go about their business along with the rest of us.

 

[brennan]

I think the evidence on CFC that posters will not bicker endlessly about things of zero importance is... scant.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the evidence on CFC that posters will not bicker endlessly about things of zero importance is... scant.

Naturally, I disagree. Take you, for example. There are plenty of things I couldn't lure you into bickering about, and several that I have. In the absence of other explanation, those several have non-zero importance to you.

 

[brennan]

As a counter example. You regularly post about things you profess to care nothing about and still manage to be a stubborn old mule.