Why Atheism is a Belief System

[mikkel_the_dane]

And here we go again.

With only reason, logic AND(strong logical and) evidence, you can't do a life in practice.
The falsification of it is simple.
99+% of all humans do so regardless of religion or not.
So what is it, that makes some people believe that they are that special?

Well, it is psychology in western terms. Not that everything is psychology, but rather than IFF there are humans, there are psychology.
We all have it and we do it differently in a limited sense with individual variation. Because of the variation in nature and nurture, we in effect all do it with some limited variations.
And one of them is:
Someone: I am right for all human life, because I am in effect so special for me and my special group of "we".
Me: I hope it works for you. I don't believe in your version of right anymore.
Someone: That is meaningless.
Me: No, it is meaningless to you, but not me. That is the psychology of it.

The rest goes on for page after page and if taken to its end, it ends here to this effect.
Someone: You don't really have a life at all.
Me: But I am still here, so maybe there is something missing in your model of the landscape.
Someone: "To the effect of a lot of emotions - YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!"
Me: But I am still here.

After many years of this from some people regardless of religion or not, I figured out, that even if I am not really there, it is a persistent illusion, what seems to work.

Peace

 

[Samael_Khan]

Absolutely! My son is a devout atheist. He just plain doesn't believe and doesn't think he needs to. His life is simply his life. Nothing happens for a reason. Things just happen. I applaud him for his beliefs. He is true to himself. I am not an atheist but I was and I understand why people are.

Ah.. you fell into the trap by saying "I applaud him for his beliefs". You should say "I applaud him for his non-belief."

Its cool that you are open minded like that. People have their own journey to walk and it is logical that one only believes what is proven to be true. Not that various beliefs can not be true. But it is good for him to put a limitation on how to come to conclusions otherwise a person can end up believing anything.

 

[blü 2]

Ha ha. My duty is to remind “You Art That”.

Sweden? Or the keyboard?

 

[atanu]

Sweden? Or the keyboard?

Both and more.

 

[blü 2]

Both and more.

Norway yet! Yahoo!

 

[Willamena]

“Yes,” he continued, warming to his theme, “I don’t have to provide evidence for my non-belief in Atlantis, El Dorado, or Shangri-La and nor do I need to do so for my non-belief in Sweden. You see I’m not making a claim of any kind—quite the opposite: I’m claiming nothing, I’m merely rejecting one of your beliefs—your belief in Sweden.”
Why Atheism Is a Belief System | Zacharias Trust | RZIM Europe

Thoughts?

These people who believe negations exist are irrational. If you posit "no Sweden," that does indeed carry the burden.

 

[Willamena]

Not believing something is the opposite of belief.

Sometimes, such as when the negation is eliminative. Most times, though, believing something else is the opposite of a belief, such as the view that the sun rounds the earth and the view that the earth rounds the sun.

One could say that the atheist has no belief in god, but one could equally say that the atheist believes in no god. They mean essentially the same thing, since a belief has no ontological permanence (it is not a "thing," per se, just a statement of the relation between mind and the world).

But the problem isn't one of ontology, but grammar--specifically, how to use negation in a sentence. If one believes in a positive world, which is to say a world for which everything can be posited, and so carry the burden of proof, then it is an abuse to give credence something which cannot bear the burden, simply because of a refusal to posit it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most people that lack the belief in a god is due to science.

I am not seeing that, myself.

While there is a lot of "god-of-the-gaps" stuff going around, that is a feature of that form of god-belief, not of science.

God, quite simply, is not something that science deals with - not even with avoidance. The very concept is quite literally immaterial to science.

There is no scientific evidence for a God.

Of course not. The concept of God is just too vague and too undefined for the idea of evidencing it scientifically to make any sense.

There is a book written by men claiming to be of a gods word but even that has no evidence to support it.

Actually there are several, and none ever ranked particularly high on the pile of evidence of existence of deities.

As one would expect; to the extent that the existence of such evidence makes any rational sense, one could hardly expect it to take the form of words in a book.

It simply comes down to faith, believing in something that has no evidence. That in itself is harmful IMO because people put their faith in stories and myths instead of reality.

What do you see as better alternatives?

 

[Willamena]

That could actually be considered quite deep. Anything could be truth or a lie. I would say that if the majority of professional people proclaim something as the truth, then it should be. However, that is not even true.

Indeed, truth isn't determined by a majority vote. The liar's paradox exists to demonstrate adequately that truth exists despite lies.

 

[Willamena]

Because they do not believe in Mother Goose either. And there is really not much required to explain why people do not believe in Mother Goose. So, since Gods and Mother Goose have the same evidence, there is not much to explain why people do not believe in Gods, either.

Ciao

- viole

Lol, you just said that the analogy doesn't work, and then you use it.

 

[Willamena]

Ah.. you fell into the trap by saying "I applaud him for his beliefs". You should say "I applaud him for his non-belief."

Its cool that you are open minded like that. People have their own journey to walk and it is logical that one only believes what is proven to be true. Not that various beliefs can not be true. But it is good for him to put a limitation on how to come to conclusions otherwise a person can end up believing anything.

No, actually, "I applaud him for his beliefs," refers to his non-belief in this case. In English, it's not proper to posit a negation. In the same way, I would applaud him for his stance on smoking were he a non-smoker.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism still isn't a belief system, though. A belief system is much more than a simple negation.

 

[SugarOcean]

“I don’t believe that Sweden exists,” my friend suddenly declared from across the coffee shop table. He took a sip of espresso and stared intently at me, clearly awaiting a response. I paused, my cinnamon roll halfway to my mouth, as I digested what he’d just said.


“Pardon?”


“I don’t believe that Sweden exists,” he repeated. “I think it’s just a political conspiracy, designed to motivate other European citizens to work harder. All that talk of the best health care system, the highest standard of living, of tall and beautiful people. It sounds like a myth and I’m not buying it. I don’t believe in Sweden.”


I stared at my friend silently for a moment, allowing the sounds of the coffee shop to drift over us as I pondered. In the background, the radio began playing ‘Dancing Queen’ by Abba.


“What do you mean, ‘You don’t believe in Sweden’?” I finally replied. “That’s insane. If Sweden doesn’t exist, how do you explain IKEA furniture, or the Swedish chef on The Muppet Show, or what glues Norway to Finland? That’s a staggering claim! What’s your evidence?”


“What do you mean ‘evidence’?” he asked.


“Evidence,” I said. “You must have more than just a hunch but some pretty impressive evidence for your belief. I know Sweden only has 9.5 million inhabitants, but you can’t simply deny outright that it exists!”


“Aha,” said my friend sagely, “I see your confusion. You think that my denial of Sweden is a belief. But it’s simply a non-belief and so I don’t need to give evidence for it.”


“Come again?” I said.


“Yes,” he continued, warming to his theme, “I don’t have to provide evidence for my non-belief in Atlantis, El Dorado, or Shangri-La and nor do I need to do so for my non-belief in Sweden. You see I’m not making a claim of any kind—quite the opposite: I’m claiming nothing, I’m merely rejecting one of your beliefs—your belief in Sweden.”
Why Atheism Is a Belief System | Zacharias Trust | RZIM Europe

Thoughts?

Atheism is a belief system though atheists will claim it is absence of belief. However , they believe , contrary to nature, humans, humans being akin to apes in large percentage of DNA and yet unique in having a larynx so as to speak, unlike apes, that regardless of all that exists there is no evidence that anything labeled creator or god exists.
Meanwhile, those who cleave to science don't realize that science has no concrete answer for first cause. And while religion is faith, that science that tries to explain first cause holds to theory only.
There is no God! Skepticism isn't proof.

And would a court decision help your statement? An atheist brought a case against officials during his incarceration. He claimed his religious freedom under the 1st was being abridged.
He won.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-1914.
Decided: August 19, 2005
FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism still isn't a belief system, though. A belief system is much more than a simple negation.

Yes, that is correct. But in practice nobody lives on a simple negation alone.

So how some people use it in connection with other elements have not to do with atheism per se, but sometimes you will see some use atheism as a positive - it is rational - and others as a negative - it is irrational.
When that happens, we always move beyond more than a simple negation.

 

[columbus]

However , they believe , contrary to nature, humans, humans being akin to apes in large percentage of DNA and yet unique in having a larynx so as to speak, unlike apes, that regardless of all that exists there is no evidence that anything labeled creator or god exists.

This has nothing to do with atheism.
Most theists recognize basic science such as this. Some don't, but most do.

Meanwhile, those who cleave to science don't realize that science has no concrete answer for first cause.

Neither does theism.
Making up a fictional character, that's changeable and irrational, and pretending to have a concrete answer isn't the same as having a concrete answer.
Tom

 

[SugarOcean]

This has nothing to do with atheism.
Most theists recognize basic science such as this. Some don't, but most do.

Not your atheism.

Neither does theism.
Making up a fictional character, that's changeable and irrational, and pretending to have a concrete answer isn't the same as having a concrete answer.
Tom

All these years slugging against the faithful and you don't know the first thing about religion.

 

[ChristineM]

Great story



stvdv definition:
Theism: belief AND "lack of scientific proof" in the existence of God or gods
Atheism: disbelief or "lack of belief" AND "lack of scientific proof" in the existence of God or gods
(I would rather say "without belief" ... "lack of belief" gives me a feeling that Atheist might kind of "lack" something. "Without" feels empowering)

Facts:
Some Theists: Like to shove "their own belief" through the throat of the Atheist,
Some Theists: Like to shove "Atheism also is a belief" through the throat of the Atheist

At least these Theists and Atheists have one thing in common "lack of scientific proof"
At least these Theists and Atheists have one thing in common "lack of experience of God"

I rather avoid Theists who enjoy "shoving things through the throat of others" because:
These Theists: "lack proof + "lack respect" + "lack compassion" + "lack empathy" + "lack common sense" + "lack discrimination (of right/wrong)"

These Theists: "LACK LOVE" ... isn't that something?

I will stick with the dictionary definition, one does not need scientific proof although there are some who consider the 100% lack of any evidence, scientific of otherwise to be important.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sometimes, such as when the negation is eliminative. Most times, though, believing something else is the opposite of a belief, such as the view that the sun rounds the earth and the view that the earth rounds the sun.

One could say that the atheist has no belief in god, but one could equally say that the atheist believes in no god. They mean essentially the same thing, since a belief has no ontological permanence (it is not a "thing," per se, just a statement of the relation between mind and the world).

But the problem isn't one of ontology, but grammar--specifically, how to use negation in a sentence. If one believes in a positive world, which is to say a world for which everything can be posited, and so carry the burden of proof, then it is an abuse to give credence something which cannot bear the burden, simply because of a refusal to posit it.

Let me rephrase my statement : "Not believing something is the opposite in believing in that thing/concept" not necessary not having belief. So it isn't that Atheist do not have a belief, but that they do not have a belief in a God.

I understand your point though. Someone could be said to not believe in one thing yet believe in something else so then they would have a belief.

Your last statement: "If one believes in a positive world, which is to say a world for which everything can be posited, and so carry the burden of proof, then it is an abuse to give credence something which cannot bear the burden, simply because of a refusal to posit it."

This is what a MUCH better way of explaining the problem.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No, actually, "I applaud him for his beliefs," refers to his non-belief in this case. In English, it's not proper to posit a negation. In the same way, I would applaud him for his stance on smoking were he a non-smoker.

Wouldn't this be the relation?

"I would applaud him for his stance on smoking" = "I applaud him for his viewpoints" or "I applaud him for his stance on belief"

It seems a bit tricky to say "I applaud him for his beliefs" because it can be ambiguous, as if he has a belief in a God.

 

[columbus]

Not your atheism.

Could you clarify this?
I don't understand what you mean.

For what it's worth, I'm not really an atheist. But my beliefs about religion, especially revealed religion, are so nearly identical to atheism that distinguishing between them is usually more trouble than it's worth.

All these years slugging against the faithful and you don't know the first thing about religion.

You obviously don't know much about me.

I only slug against the faithful when they're doing something wrong.
Tom