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

[Timsup2nothin]

Still waiting for a definition of "key-knocking."

Try thinking instead of waiting...or ask someone you don't have on ignore. I'm pretty sure that there is no one participating in the thread that didn't understand it.

 

[Hygro]

I spent a few years as an atheist in my mid-late 20s with waning beliefs leading to it.

Better than believing that a man-lord lives in the sky dishing out favors and punishments. Better people over all on the side of atheists. It's good we're seeing a turn toward atheism worldwide. It's good that we have people who can experience faith-power without attributing it to a complicated lore. It's definitely good all knowledge is on the table and not blasphemy good lord.

Now excuse me while I go chill with the folks who know a thing or two about God and The Glory.

 

[timtofly]

The difference is that atheists far less frequently than theists have a belief system that centers on the belief in the non-existence of god.

Theists frequently have their religious beliefs at the center of their system of beliefs about the reality of our universe (and beyond). Atheists typically do not. I think that is the important distinction here. "Atheism" doesn't purport to describe anything about the nature or purpose of our existence, though it can color some beliefs on those topics. It merely precludes certain possibilities, or at least calls them into question.

Some atheists, of course, do make the cause of atheism their animating principle in life. But usually when religious folks bring this up, it's in an attempt to try to say that "atheism" is a religion and therefore atheists are hypocrites for criticizing or looking down on theists. Which is dishonest, to say the least.

There cannot be that many true athiest who do not. There are probably fewer theist who do. Being a theist does not prove there is a God. Or that would be the only proof and evidence needed. But even the usage of the word athiest is the basis of a personal belief system. If we accept that all humans are athiest, until they are not, at what point do we not have a personal belief system? If we have evidence and experience that changes us from athiest to non-athiest is that the point we have a personal belief system? What if we do know and then loose faith in our belief system, what was the knowledge we had? That would be starting out not having one, then having one, and then loosing it. Then the question would be did we ever have one to begin with which is the default claim being made. What if we start out with knowledge and then it is changed by experience or the evidence being taught to us by others, and we loose such knowledge altogether?

Shouldn't it be the opposite? If you have evidence, you do not need faith.

If existence is more than material and physical, then no. One person cannot contain all knowledge. That is why faith is needed. If there is no spiritual side to existence would we even need faith and to an extent mysticism in our vocabulary? Faith is the evidence we do not have, but we do not need all the knowledge to exist either. Faith and belief would not exist in our minds if they were not needed. We also extend belief and faith in the knowledge that others have as a mechanism to create a smooth and working society.

The argument has been: can we replace all the unknown with knowledge. If you accept that, are you deceiving yourself and discriminating on which past claims you are willing to accept? Who is making the judgment call, when one stops believing or even flat out makes the claim that God does not exist, when we know we do not have all the knowledge available in the universe? Can we say that one had never believed? If the question is not applicable, because we are allegedly a blank state at birth with nothing, and then we start receiving knowledge, I do not accept that. I am not sure we can specify at what time we can or cannot have knowledge. The point has always been what do we do with knowledge. Because we are capable of thinking on our own we but heads with others and even our own experiences. We form our opinions and make judgment calls that we may or may not have to live up to. What we get from others, information wise, either forms us or it does not, but we cannot complain, even if we disagree with the knowledge presented to us. Even if humans are totally corrupt and are considered evil, we cannot eradicate that knowledge in totality. Religion does not make knowledge any less wrong or right. Religion is just another form of culture we pass down from generation to generation via flawed humans with a limited knowledge base.

The point about morality and ethics is because we have the knowledge of good and evil. If we did not have that knowledge morality and ethics would not exist either. If the universe has to have a set of laws why would that rule out humans not also be bound by laws that could not change. If we could not change what we do, would that not make having the knowledge of good and evil pointless? We cannot be forced to do both at the same time. We could be forced to know and experience either all the time. If everything was always good there would be no need for change and by extension evolution itself. If laws help correct the evil, but only evil happened what are laws for? If we had knowledge of good and evil and that knowledge was unnecessary, why have it? If the universe itself did not need good or evil to function what point would humans have for knowing good and evil? The only reason I can see is that it gave humans the power to choose their own outcome in their existence in the universe, even if it seemed unnecessary in the totality of the universe. The universe lives and dies on unchangeable laws. Is not the knowledge of good and evil an important deviation from the rest of the universe? If the universe was not bound by laws and just chaotic and by extension evil, would that not invalidate science and place it in the same category as ethics and philosophy?

 

[warpus]

There are two types of atheism. Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism.

1. Strong/positive Atheism ---> I believe that God doesn't exist

2. Weak/negative Atheism ---> I don't believe that God exists

Wikipedia does a much better job describing this than me:

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

So you see, this is very easy:

Strong Atheism IS a belief system

Weak atheism IS NOT a belief system

I am personally not a strong atheist, but am a weak atheist and agnostic. Please do not lump me with the moron strong atheists who attend churches and worship the fact that god doesn't exist. THANK YOU

 

[Broken_Erika]

Relevant:

 

[warpus]

The question is if atheism is a belief system.

It's like asking of religion prohibits the eating of pork. Some do, many don't.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Try thinking instead of waiting...

You're the one who trotted out a word and have been asked twice to define it. Since you declined to do so, I'm just going to assume you made it up.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're the one who trotted out a word and have been asked twice to define it. Since you declined to do so, I'm just going to assume you made it up.

Good call.

 

[timtofly]

The question is if atheism is a belief system.

It's like asking of religion prohibits the eating of pork. Some do, many don't.

Is not eating pork a religious belief system, or more a cultural thing? A lot of religious people are vegetarians but not all vegetarians are religious. While I am not sure if taboo on eating pork came first or was instituted as some religious act. I would speculate that not eating pork may have been a cultural item before it was a requirement of some religion. I would also point out that God was around before all religions as well. So just because all religions claim to have a "handle" on God, I doubt that is true.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's absolutely a historical document. Just as Ab Urbe Condita is a historical document and Beowulf is a historical document and the Ramayana and Mahabharata are historical documents. Yes there are components of the story which are obviously mythological or allegorical, but that is true of a great many of the historical documents we have coming out of the antique period. There are scholars of a great many historical periods that would absolutely kill for as detailed a historical record as we have in the Bible. Germanic studies comes prominently to mind, for obvious reasons.

Hell, people make fun of the bits that just go "and Zachobliah begat Hoziahjeff", but there are periods of British history were king-lists are one of the only documentary source available, and historians are glad to have it. Even just getting a king-list as coherent as these parts of the Old Testament would be a god-send, no pun-intended.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyone else notice that the best puns are always feigned accidents?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Try thinking instead of waiting...or ask someone you don't have on ignore. I'm pretty sure that there is no one participating in the thread that didn't understand it.

Never heard of it. Google doesn't bring up anything for it either.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: I should note that talking about people's ignore lists, whether your own or not, is not acceptable behaviour at CFC.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Never heard of it. Google doesn't bring up anything for it either.

That's why Tim wants you (and Valka) to puzzle it out. If you get board with other things you're working on, just spare it a minute or two of your thought.

 

[metalhead]

There cannot be that many true athiest who do not. There are probably fewer theist who do. Being a theist does not prove there is a God. Or that would be the only proof and evidence needed. But even the usage of the word athiest is the basis of a personal belief system. If we accept that all humans are athiest, until they are not, at what point do we not have a personal belief system?

Why would we posit that all humans are atheist to start? That might be something some atheists believe, but I don't think you can apply that across all atheists.

It seems more like you're imposing a system of beliefs, than observing one which actually exists. Theists believe god exists. They aren't saying there is any particular proof of such, but they are saying that the universe is one in which god conclusively exists. "Proof" is irrelevant. They aren't ascribing a belief to something provable.

Is not eating pork a religious belief system, or more a cultural thing? A lot of religious people are vegetarians but not all vegetarians are religious. While I am not sure if taboo on eating pork came first or was instituted as some religious act. I would speculate that not eating pork may have been a cultural item before it was a requirement of some religion. I would also point out that God was around before all religions as well. So just because all religions claim to have a "handle" on God, I doubt that is true.

My speculation on this is that religions adopted rules about eating various things for safety. Improperly cooked pork could easily kill a person back then. So, you slap the imprimatur of the god(s) on a rule against eating pork, and it keeps people from eating it and dying a painful death. There wasn't an FDA back then, so you needed some way to propagate food safety rules. Religion was a good way to do that.

That's why it never made sense to me that these rules persist to the present day, where there is no actual, practical reason for them. I mean it's cool if one decides for oneself that their personal expression of Hinduism includes the belief that animals are sacred and they don't eat meat. But as formal religious rules that have some form of punishment for their violation, it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Akka]

Why would we posit that all humans are atheist to start?

The fact that the overwhelming majority of people tend to follow the religion they were taught tend to imply that they are acquired, not innate.

So lack of religion would be the "default" state (I'll let you chose if "atheism" is the right word, this thread seems to indicate that people will put whatever they fancy in the word anyway).

 

[Lexicus]

Why would we posit that all humans are atheist to start?

For the same reason we posit that humans don't know how to do calculus or cook a turkey or..ya know...talk, to start.

 

[warpus]

Is not eating pork a religious belief system, or more a cultural thing?

Isn't it a cultural thing driven by beliefs in the supernatural? God told them to not eat pork, and so they don't.

My point had nothing to do with this being a belief though.. I was just pointing out that grouping all atheists together and asking this question doesn't make sense

 

[metalhead]

The fact that the overwhelming majority of people tend to follow the religion they were taught tend to imply that they are acquired, not innate.

So lack of religion would be the "default" state (I'll let you chose if "atheism" is the right word, this thread seems to indicate that people will put whatever they fancy in the word anyway).

Religion is acquired, sure. But one is not born with the capability of understanding the concept of "god" at all.

In a technical sense, children are born "atheist," in that absent any exposure to the subject, they will have no knowledge or belief regarding the subject of god, but that will be purely the result of ignorance, the way all of us are ignorant to things we have never had any exposure to.

But that's not really the same as being "atheist" in the sense that we're talking about, if for no other reason than it'd be extraordinary, at least in Western society, to be able to make it even to an age of self-awareness without some exposure to the concept of "god." Its maybe easier in places where the dominant religion is atheistic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Here's a theory...children are born seeking god, that's why they treat their parents like they found it and are disappointed in them later.

@AmazonQueen Keyknocking is the on line equivalent of what Valka calls doorknocking...cold call proselytizing. In @Valka D'Ur's case proselytizing for her particularly aggressive version of atheism.