If you say so.
The introductory line of the statement, taken out of context, is pretty much irrelevant to everything.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is atheism a belief?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism
The introductory line of the statement, taken out of context, is pretty much irrelevant to everything.
The only god is not a quantity.
"Only" implies a quantity (of one).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it matters if you care about being justified in your beliefs.
Yes. And rationality is when you only accept those things as true which can be sufficiently supported by evidence.
All claims have a burden of proof.
You can't say that you believe whatever about this dragon, without implying a claim that is being believed.
Making a claim implies a belief in said claim.
Expressing a belief requires a claim that is being believed.
In both cases, there is a burden of proof on said claim.
You can't calculate probabilities without objective evidence to inform the parameters of the calculation.
The probability of an undetectable, undemonstrable, unverifiable thing, is -for all we know-, exactly zero.
My point exactly.
There is no reason to believe such claims. There is much reason to NOT believe such claims.
Augustus
…
You don't believe there is sufficient evidence to justify the belief you are not about to be eaten by an invisible dragon?
'Rationalists' often seem to forget we live in a world we have a great deal of experience of and instead like to try to isolate things and pretend they only exist in some theoretical vacuum. I can very easily calculate the probabilities as 'extremely unlikely' which is all I need to do.
If you don't react to the possibility of an invisible dragon that is about to eat you then you believe there is no invisible dragon that is about to eat you.
You don't have a 'burden of proof' as to why you are not running/cowering/putting on a suit of plate armour and grabbing a lance.
This is the difference between a textbook abstraction and the real-world.
So why do you have a problem with the idea that it is perfectly rational to believe the hungry invisible dragon doesn't exist then?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You don't believe there is sufficient evidence to justify the belief you are not about to be eaten by an invisible dragon?
The evidence pro and contra this claim is pretty much the same: none.
So here comes the difference between positive and negative claims.
There not being any evidence of such a dragon is consistent with there not being any such dragon.
Obviously if there is no such dragon, you'ld expect not to find evidence for such a dragon.
Evidence of there not being such a dragon? Is there even any logical evidence one could come up with in support of such a negative claim? Not really.
So what you do, is put the burden of proof on the positive claim and recognise the negative claim as rather useless. Existance is what requires demonstration - and what can logically have demonstration.
So the onus, is on the one claiming/believing such a dragon exists.
You could not, because you have no way of making a calculation to address probabilities of unknown and undetectable things. You simply do not have the required variable values. You can't even define what the variables are nore why they play a role in anything.
No, not at all.
Expressing disbelief of a claim (ie: being unvoncinced of the truth of the claim) in no way means that you'll believe another claim or the opposite claim.
Every heared of the gumball machine analogy?
Suppose there's a giant gumball machine. There's no way you have access to the gumballs. It's impossible to count them.
Some guys comes up and says "I believe there is an even amount of gumballs, do you agree?"
I say no, I don't agree that your claim is correct. I don't commit to the belief that there is an even amount of gumballs in the machine.
Does that mean that I WILL or DO believe that there's an odd number in there?
No.
It just means that I am unconvinced of the claim that there is an even number.
Same thing with the dragon.
Not believing the claim that there is such a dragon doesn't mean that one will accept the claim that there is no such dragon.
At best, I can say "there doesn't seem to be one or any reason to think there is one". But my entire reasoning for saying that, is based on the fact that I am not aware of any evidence for the claim that there IS such a dragon.
Because the burden of proof is on the positive claim. Which in this case is the claim that there IS such a dragon.
Non-existance is assumed until existance is demonstrated, basically.
Living your life as if no such dragons are following you or eating people, is kind of the null hypothesis....
When there is no reason to believe something, don't believe it.
And not believing that such dragons exist, defaults one to behaviour consistent with living in a universe where no such dragons exist.
You again turned it around.
I said: there is reason NOT to believe such claims. "such claims" being, claims saying that such dragons DO exist.
I did not say that there is reason to positivevely believe the claim that there are NO such dragons.
Remember the gumball analogy?
Disbelief of claim x, does not imply belief in claim "not x".
Augustus
…
The world is not a series of neatly sandboxed vignettes that we treat independently of each other evaluating every single situation purely on the basis of that which may directly deduced from the available evidence of this particular vignette.
We have a whole host of real-world information that shows being publicly eaten by invisible dragons is not a common occurrence.
We consistently choose to use all such experiential information in evaluation of probabilities and base many beliefs on these probabilities, even when we are not certain or can't objectively prove it.
This is how we have survived as a species.
I understand the grammatical difference, I just reject the idea that it is anything other than textbook grammatical quibbling based on a misunderstanding of what makes it reasonable to hold a belief and a strange desire to avoid some hypothetical burden of proof.
There is no cognitive difference between your position and mine, when someone tells you you're about to be eaten by an invisible dragon, your brain isn't functioning differently because later on you insist "I don't believe it exists" while I say "I believe it doesn't exist".
By the time your 'rational' brain has even fired itself up you have made your choice on whether you believe there may be a dragon, or if you believe there is no dragon and responded accordingly.
Your brain rejects the idea there is a dragon as your brain is dealing with a positive reality.
Once you have rejected the idea that there is a dragon, the rest is just grammatical quibbling.
- There's an invisible dragon behind you! "No there isn't, don't be daft"
- There's an invisible dragon behind you!
"Of couuuuuuurse there is. Waaah, help, save me from the terrifying dragon, I'm sooooooo scared. It's so fierce."- There's an invisible dragon behind you! "I do not believe you when you tell me that there is a dragon behind me, but l would like to state clearly for the record that I would not go as far as saying I believe there is not a dragon behind me lest someone claim I'm irrational".
^This. The world is positive; not-believing in a thing is rejecting it; and if otherwise is what they are teaching in school these days, then it's no wonder the world is so mixed up....
Your brain rejects the idea there is a dragon as your brain is dealing with a positive reality.
Once you have rejected the idea that there is a dragon, the rest is just grammatical quibbling.
- There's an invisible dragon behind you! "No there isn't, don't be daft"
- There's an invisible dragon behind you!
- There's an invisible dragon behind you! "I do not believe you when you tell me that there is a dragon behind me, but l would like to state clearly for the record that I would not go as far as saying I believe there is not a dragon behind me lest someone claim I'm irrational".
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is atheism a belief?
There is no Scientific justification (justification from Science) to accept "Atheism" (Skepticism/Agnosticism) without a positive argument. Science, as I understand, only deals what had already got created, is being created or will be created (by G-d).
If not, then please quote from Science in this connection. Right, please?
The truthful Religion also doesn't support "Atheism" (Skepticism/Agnosticism). Right, please?
Regards
_____________
[14:11]قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’
https://www.alislam.org/quran/14:11
There is no Scientific justification (justification from Science) to accept "Atheism" (Skepticism/Agnosticism) without a positive argument. Science, as I understand, only deals what had already got created, is being created or will be created (by G-d).
If not, then please quote from Science in this connection. Right, please?
The truthful Religion also doesn't support "Atheism" (Skepticism/Agnosticism). Right, please?
Regards
_____________
[14:11]قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’
https://www.alislam.org/quran/14:11
Hi, @adrian009
Sorry if you and @9-10ths_Penguin have followed on with this subject matter. I looked at it and did not find the follow-on.
It is certainly common enough. And except for very localized circunstances, such as the Quakers, it is also clandestine and explicitly branded as a mistaken stance, which is time and again rebuffed by anyone with standing or authority within nearly all Christian groups.
True enough. Those groups exist. But they are very much the exception, and that is very easy to understand.
It would be interesting to develop this observation. What exactly explains the existence of nominally Christian atheists, of various degrees of clandestinity? What does it mean to be a Christian atheist, and what should it mean? Should Christian atheism exist at all, and if so, why? How stable is it, and how stable should it be?
The Quakers seem to have a very clear take on these matters (and an admirable one, far as I can see). The UU seem to have a significantly different take, albeit still a laudable one.
Most Christians however seem to treat the presence of atheists in their midst as a problem to be solved or circunvented, and nothing more. Atheists are generally seem as somehow "ilegitimate" in Christian circles, obviously because the doctrine does not allow for acknowledging atheism as a legitimate faith stance.
Even the expression "no faith" hints at how strongly biased towards theism the Bahai Faith is, however.
Precisely.
No, I can't in good faith say that they are. Instead, they look to me like indications of how ill prepared to deal with the simple fact of the existence of sincere atheists Christianity is.
It should not be necessary, even for a moment, for atheists to be clandestine in any faith - particularly one that has universalist goals, such as Christianity, Islaam, or the Bahai Faith.
The lack of proper tools for full integration and full acceptance of atheists is a glaring hole in all those faiths, and puts their ability to fulfill - or even understand the consequences of - their own parameters to doubt.
Sorry if you and @9-10ths_Penguin have followed on with this subject matter. I looked at it and did not find the follow-on.
It is certainly common enough. And except for very localized circunstances, such as the Quakers, it is also clandestine and explicitly branded as a mistaken stance, which is time and again rebuffed by anyone with standing or authority within nearly all Christian groups.
True enough. Those groups exist. But they are very much the exception, and that is very easy to understand.
It would be interesting to develop this observation. What exactly explains the existence of nominally Christian atheists, of various degrees of clandestinity? What does it mean to be a Christian atheist, and what should it mean? Should Christian atheism exist at all, and if so, why? How stable is it, and how stable should it be?
The Quakers seem to have a very clear take on these matters (and an admirable one, far as I can see). The UU seem to have a significantly different take, albeit still a laudable one.
Most Christians however seem to treat the presence of atheists in their midst as a problem to be solved or circunvented, and nothing more. Atheists are generally seem as somehow "ilegitimate" in Christian circles, obviously because the doctrine does not allow for acknowledging atheism as a legitimate faith stance.
Even the expression "no faith" hints at how strongly biased towards theism the Bahai Faith is, however.
Precisely.
No, I can't in good faith say that they are. Instead, they look to me like indications of how ill prepared to deal with the simple fact of the existence of sincere atheists Christianity is.
It should not be necessary, even for a moment, for atheists to be clandestine in any faith - particularly one that has universalist goals, such as Christianity, Islaam, or the Bahai Faith.
The lack of proper tools for full integration and full acceptance of atheists is a glaring hole in all those faiths, and puts their ability to fulfill - or even understand the consequences of - their own parameters to doubt.
Wrong, @paarsurrey
There is not and there can never be, in the past, present of future, any need for justification for atheism (or for that matter, skepticism or agnosticism). All three stances are inherently legitimate.
There is no need for logical justification, both because atheism is a non-claim and because even the positive claims (theism and positive or "strong" atheism) are of an aesthetical nature, not a logical one.
All that is needed, or reasonable to ask, for one to be an atheist is a sincere statement that one does not believe in the existence of gods.
All that is needed, or reasonable to ask, for one to be a theist is a sincere statement that one believes in the existence of at least one god.
That is really all that there is to it.
Science does not connect to these matters in any way. Nor does science connect to any god, nor to the idea that there might hypothetically be a creator god of some sort.
As a matter of fact, one would be hard pressed to even propose means for science to meddle into such a highly speculative matter. That is simply not how things work.
As for "truthful religion not supporting atheism", well, that could not be more wrong, or less moral a statement, if you specificallly wanted it to be.
Where I live the mainstream Protestant churches such as Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist entertain a broad range of theologies from conservative to liberal. So while I agree it will be tough if not unbearable being an atheist Christian in some churches, other churches wouldn’t make an issue of it.
The Baha’i Faith sees God as an unknowable essence. We also believe let deeds not words be your adorning. We don’t go around policing each other’s theological stance about the nature of God.
We had one of our Assembly members resign from the Baha’i Faith a while back. He had been a Baha’i for 20 years but had been an atheist. He had thought if he was a Baha’i at some stage belief in God would eventuate. It never did. The catalyst to resigning was when he experienced failure in his business venture. Ironically he felt let down by God (if He did exist) so decided to resign.
I think there’s Baha’is and Christians who are OK about having atheists in our midst. Others will struggle. It doesn’t have to be a big deal and its just part of the journey.
Do you think that can be seen as a good thing?
Because, sincerely, I do not think that I do. People should not have to settle for making their beliefs clandestine. Particularly when it comes to atheism, which by rights should not be an issue at all.
A policy of avoiding the issue is IMO no favor to the rights of atheists who happen to be surrounded by Christians.
But neither do you acknowledge atheism as a legitimate stance for the would-be Bahai, do you?
I am sorry for him. He should not have had to struggle for no purpose.
I hope that you understand if I wonder what exactly is meant by the apparent contradiction of the same person being at once an atheist who never in 20 years attained belief in God's existence and somehow nevertheless felt let down by God.
That doesn't entirely add up... but I did not particularly expect it to, either. Narratives that rely on god-belief do not tend to be very logically sound, IMO.
I wonder how his history might have been different were the Bahai Faith not so insistent on theism.
I will have to ask you to consider how that looks quite insufficient from my perspective. Your wording attempts to be positive, but at the end of the day what you are telling me is that Bahais and Christians are not always intolerant towards atheists.
That is probably better than always being intolerant, but not a whole lot better. Both Bahais, Christians and Atheists deserve the achievement of a more enlightened understanding with less need and less acceptance of clandestinity of legitimate stances such as atheism.
Last edited:
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I think atheists have faith. Since science has proven silly superstitions to be false over the last 200 years it's does not take much imagination to just interpolate and say the existence of God is also a silly superstition. You have to admit it's seems very unlikely slitting a goats throat is going to gain someone favor with God.
The Baha’i Faith and Christianity are religions with core beliefs and practices. People are free to join and leave both faiths (there are exceptions for some Christian denominations) provided they have a basic understanding of those core beliefs and practices and are somewhat aligned. As Muhammad said “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. However joining a faith and then actively trying to change it into something it isn’t is a very different issue.
I really felt sorry for the atheist who was a member of our community. He didn’t try to change the Baha’i Faith to suit his personal beliefs. No one in our community had any idea he was an atheist. In the end it was the irreconcilable position of being an atheist in a theist religion that caused him to leave. No one tried to push him out because no one knew. I doubt if any of us would have encouraged him to leave had we have known. I could be wrong.
Personally, if my beliefs and values fundamentally changed that I no longer believed in God or that Bahá’u’lláh was His Manifestation for this day I too would leave. One of my closest associates is an ex-Baha’i. Its fine to leave if its not the right choice. Its another to shun people who have different beliefs or no longer believe as we do.
Life changes and we should too. As I have come to understand both Buddhism and Hinduism, atheism is a better accepted position than Christianity and Islam. However Christianity is the religion of my ancestors and what I grew up with. The Baha’i Faith for me is a natural extension of Christianity. As well as encouraging fellowship with peoples of all faiths I would hope we don’t discriminate against atheists. Claiming we do because we have theist beliefs...I don’t know @LuisDantas
Theism is fine. But when joined with the Abrahamic expectations that it is all-out _wrong_ not to be a theist, there is a problem.
@ Luis, as well ... My MIL was a private atheist, to us, and perhaps some close friends. I know a few others who are private about it. There are many reasons some go to church:
- to support their spouse
- to go somewhere to socialise
- to assist with the community services aspect, like providing lunches at funerals
But in all those cases had they stepped forward and admitted it to the people who ran the place - the church board, or the pastors, there indeed would have been an issue, and a rather large one at that. That's why they keep it a secret.
There are many atheists attending the Hindu temple I go to, for many of the same reasons, but if they did come forward, there would be no issues at all. Very few people would think it was any of their business.