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

[Lexicus]

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.

I'll bring this back up from a couple of pages ago, no one responded to this post then so here it is again:

I am genuinely curious, for those who agree with Farm Boy here (I know he won't respond to me but maybe someone else will):

I think we can agree there are any number of gods that we all don't even know about. All of us are atheists here in this thread, the only difference is degree - the monotheists among us are atheists with respect to all the gods humans have dreamt up over the millennia, except one. Many of these gods you don't believe in because you've never even heard of them! Indeed I would hazard a guess that only a tiny fraction of all the gods humans have thought of have made it into the historical record, and of those that have made it into the record most of us are only aware of a relative handful.

Anyway, my relationship with these gods I've never even heard of seems to bear a lot of resemblance to what @Timsup2nothin describes as a "truly" lacking-in-positive-belief atheism: out of sight, out of mind. Don't care.

So let's say I learn about one of these gods I didn't know about. Maybe I pick up a book of old myths, or maybe I'm an archaeologist doing fieldwork and I discover a "new" god that no one has known about for thousands of years.

What about my position has fundamentally changed? Is merely being made aware of a "new" god grounds to say that now I must be engaging in a positive mental act of denial to continue to sustain my non-belief in its existence?

 

[AmazonQueen]

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.

Thanks
Don't think talking about it in a discussion forum is really as aggressively intrusive as approaching someone on the street or visiting their home myself.

 

[brennan]

brought up in reference to your assertion that an untruth cannot be affirmed.

Ah, your bizarre posts were a rebuttal of something stupid I didn't say. It all makes sense now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thanks
Don't think talking about it in a discussion forum is really as aggressively intrusive as approaching someone on the street or visiting their home myself.

I think that knocking on someone's door can certainly be done aggressively, but very seldom is. In previous anecdotes Valka has told us about all the door knockers that have knocked on who knows how many doors before hers and at her door turned into raving maniacs that had to be restrained by the local constables. I've always assumed that the difference lies inside the door, not outside.

 

[Farm Boy]

Pleasant, this far in at repeating myself to have found words that were useful at working as intended.

Success!

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I can only speak for my self, but I was raised without anyone trying to make me religious so I just newer became religious. Which makes me what you might call an innate atheist. And from my perspective atheism is the lack of any belief system at all. You just look at life as it is as opposed to having a colored lens over it. That's it.

Basically the way I understand it believers just have this thing where they hold a certain set of things to be true and it gives them motivation to act certain ways and see the world a certain way. And I just don't.

 

[warpus]

I think that knocking on someone's door can certainly be done aggressively, but very seldom is.

Anyone who knocks on my door and says: "Here is my thing! Look at it! I want you to embrace it!" is being rude. That's just my own personal opinion. I would not call it aggressive unless it was done before 10am though, although we'd probably disagree on what "aggressive" really means

And from my perspective atheism is the lack of any belief system at all.

You can have a belief system and be an atheist! Your belief system could be centered around something other than god or a lack of god. It could be centered around something else.

You could also be a strong atheist who truly 100% believes that gods don't exist, someone who meets with other similar atheists, have established a church within which they spread their message, meet on a regular basis, and have a tax free status.

It sounds like you're a weak atheist like me. We simply don't believe that gods exist. Note how it differs from those who claim that gods do not exist. They differ from our type of atheism.

If I am wrong about the type of atheist you are, my apologies.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can only speak for my self, but I was raised without anyone trying to make me religious so I just newer became religious. Which makes me what you might call an innate atheist. And from my perspective atheism is the lack of any belief system at all. You just look at life as it is as opposed to having a colored lens over it. That's it.

Basically the way I understand it believers just have this thing where they hold a certain set of things to be true and it gives them motivation to act certain ways and see the world a certain way. And I just don't.

The interesting thing about colored lenses is that if you wear them all the time, you are unable to observe the tint. Works with lenses that flip everything upside down too, if you always wear them.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

You can have a belief system and be an atheist! Your belief system could be centered around something other than god or a lack of god. It could be centered around something else.

Sure, stuff like ideologies qualify as well. And causes. Causes can be toxic cult spawning things too. But I just happen to really have none of that. And I newer did. From my perspective some people just really desperately want to latch onto something greater than them self for some reason. And I just don't.

You could also be a strong atheist who truly 100% believes that gods don't exist, someone who meets with other similar atheists, have established a church within which they spread their message, meet on a regular basis, and have a tax free status.

What people do to get out of taxes is their thing and has nothing to do with beliefs or lack there off, other than the belief in taxes.

It sounds like you're a weak atheist like me. We simply don't believe that gods exist. Note how it differs from those who claim that gods do not exist. They differ from our type of atheism.

That sentence made no sense. Not believing something exists is by definition equivalent to believing it does not exist. They are identical claims just worded differently. It's like saying 1+2=3 vs 2=3-1.

 

[warpus]

That sentence made no sense. Not believing something exists is by definition equivalent to believing it does not exist. They are identical claims just worded differently. It's like saying 1+2=3 vs 2=3-1.

No, they are not equivalent statements. Wikipedia explains it better 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.
---

The "explicit assertion" part is the difference between them. Also see my post here.

 

[Traitorfish]

You could also be a strong atheist who truly 100% believes that gods don't exist, someone who meets with other similar atheists, have established a church within which they spread their message, meet on a regular basis, and have a tax free status.

i mean, kinda.

 

[metalhead]

Sure, stuff like ideologies qualify as well. And causes. Causes can be toxic cult spawning things too. But I just happen to really have none of that. And I newer did. From my perspective some people just really desperately want to latch onto something greater than them self for some reason. And I just don't.

Smug self-superiority is also a belief system.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

No, they are not equivalent statements. Wikipedia explains it better than me:

Yes they are. At least according to every existing definition of how logic operates. A statement can either be true or false, must be one of the two and can only be one of them exclusively.

The differences you outline are not differences of belief or lack there off but of behavior based on the same. Like how you have religious people hell bent on converting others by force if necessary and those that just want to worship in peace. But they are not differences in logic.

Your views on an issue are separate to how you chose to express them.

Smug self-superiority is also a belief system.

I would not call my self superior. My lack of experience with strong beliefs leaves me with no reasonable way of assessing whose life style is preferable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

From my perspective some people just really desperately want to latch onto something greater than them self for some reason. And I just don't.

From my perspective some people just refuse to consider the possibility that they are the greatest thing ever.

But that doesn't mean they are smugly superior.

Oh.

Wait.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

From my perspective some people just refuse to consider the possibility that they are the greatest thing ever.

But that doesn't mean they are smugly superior.

Oh.

Wait.

I am not sure where you people got any superiority out of that. It was a matter of fact observation on human behavior and nothing more. It's not like I said they were wrong to do it. If anything there is probably some benefit to them that they derive from it else they wouldn't be doing it. I just observed that I don't and therefore I don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am not sure where you people got any superiority out of that. It was a matter of fact observation on human behavior and nothing more. It's not like I said they were wrong to do it. If anything there is probably some benefit to them that they derive from it else they wouldn't be doing it. I just observed that I don't and therefore I don't.

Human behavior in general? Or just among those desperate humans you are so clearly better than? You know, the ones that do things "for some reason," which is usually used as a cover phrase for "for no reason at all that can be discerned by an actual reasoning person like myself." Not that I'm suggesting that you consciously called yourself superior, but maybe you would benefit from a little self examination there.

Or perhaps just some rephrasing, but in any event that's where "us people" got what we got.

 

[bernie14]

Smug self-superiority is also a belief system.

I'm going to use my day of mourning to mourn the thousands of lives lost to AIDS while this guy did absolutely nothing to help, if that's OK.

Edit....protecting much???


Moderator Action: Posting nothing but smilies or quotes is considered spam. Don't do this. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

Yes they are. At least according to every existing definition of how logic operates.

Did you look at the wikipedia article I linked? You are wrong.

I am going to side with wikipedia and all the logic professors I've ever had over you on this one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oops wrong thread Wait, I thought that we should all be celebrating George's reunification with his wife and daughter? They are probably having a nice sit down lunch on one of heaven's many patios.

 

[Peuri]

Yes they are. At least according to every existing definition of how logic operates. A statement can either be true or false, must be one of the two and can only be one of them exclusively.

The differences you outline are not differences of belief or lack there off but of behavior based on the same. Like how you have religious people hell bent on converting others by force if necessary and those that just want to worship in peace. But they are not differences in logic.

Your views on an issue are separate to how you chose to express them.

The difference is between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in god X, but does not feel they know that X does not exist. This could also be called weak atheism. A gnostic atheist on the other hand lacks a belief in X, but also feels he knows that X does not exist. This could be called strong atheism. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have gnostic and agnostic theists.

To me the most sensible position is ignosticism, which witholds judgement on the existance of god(s) until a sufficient definition of "god(s)" is presented, which can be judged on some grounds.