Why Atheism is a Belief System

[Willamena]

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.

That I applaud him for his stance on smoking says that I share and support his belief that smoking is bad. That I applaud someone on their belief says that I share and support what they believe, be it that there is a god or that there isn't.

If they are going to turn it on its head to say that they have no stance, no belief, no viewpoint, then I literally have nothing to applaud. Then, it's certainly not atheism that I am applauding.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That I applaud him for his stance on smoking says that I share and support his belief that smoking is bad. That I applaud someone on their belief says that I share and support what they believe, be it that there is a god or that there isn't.

If they are going to turn it on its head to say that they have no stance, no belief, no viewpoint, then I literally have nothing to applaud. Then, it's certainly not atheism that I am applauding.

Aren't they then phrasing what the want to say wrong?

 

[Willamena]

Aren't they then phrasing what the want to say wrong?

Some are.

Some have actually argued for the wrong-saying (wrong-thinking).

 

[ArtieE]

An atheist is exactly what the name says a = against, or opposite, theist = one who believes in God/gods.

Nonsense. a- = not, without. anti- is against, opposite. Prefixes | Vocabulary | EnglishClub

 

[ArtieE]

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

Nonsense of course since having no belief in god does not require one to believe in no god.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, now! I live a very fulfilled and satisfying life as a non-stamp collecting enthusiast!

You also don't collect engines.
This makes you sort of a renaissance man gal.

As for my "atheist belief system".....
I don't observe evidence for gods.
So I don't believe in any of them.

 

[atanu]

It is quite obvious where the problem is. There is, de-facto, evidence that Sweden exists. ..

So, there is no symmetry between the two cases (Sweden vs. Apollo, Pinocchio, Jesus, etc.). And the analogy breaks.

That is the point, however. There can be no analogy between Sweden and God, the former being objectively identifiable and the latter being the very subject.

The point runs deeper than you could realise. You correctly say "So, there is no symmetry between the two cases (Sweden vs. Apollo, Pinocchio, Jesus, etc.). And the analogy breaks.". Despite such category difference you demand objective proof of God.

All scripture teach something to the effect “Be still and know I am god”. Although god is not objectively knowable, it is the subject itself. And although most Christians obfuscate this teaching, some Christians know this as same as Upanishadic “That You Art” and Quran’s “Allah is the seer. Allah is the knower.”

It is fault of none other but of the foolish ego self that cannot still it’s own chatter to see its deeper source that runs through all ego-selves.

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.
- viole

Kindly see the error that you again commit here.

...

 

[stvdv]

Thoughts?

For me it is very simple

If someone declares "I believe in God" then the word "God" is created and defined
If Atheist then claims "I disbelieve (lack belief) in God" is just funny
You might as well say "I believe not in God(s)"

If you have a problem with that, then just be silent
After a while the word "God" disappears from mind
And then you really "lack belief in God"

Whatever you focus on and give energy ... "belief in God" (or not) makes it stronger
You might end up creating "God" for yourself in the end
You don't want to do that to yourself, or do you?

 

[atanu]

Nonsense of course since having no belief in god does not require one to believe in no god.

Those who have considered a proposition (belief in God) can have only one of these following three positions:

"I do believe".
"I do not believe".
"I am undecided".​

To say I have lack of belief in God is meaningless (as for a baby or for a stone).

The expression ‘negation of belief in God’ ('t') will be meaningful if we know what it is for 't' to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for 't' to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of 't'. In the cognition negation of 't', t is the counter-positive of the negation of 't'.

 

[atanu]

“I don’t believe that Sweden exists,” ...
“I don’t believe that Sweden 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.”
....
Thoughts?

The following, IMO, is crucial and can apply to any similar denial of belief and subsequent denial to provide evidence thereof.

“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.”​

Apparently it is very obvious that Sweden is objectively knowable but God is not and thus the narrator is committing a mistake by comparing it with 'no belief' of atheism. But it is not so. In the present case too, denial of Sweden being a so-called 'no belief' frees the denier from giving any evidence for denial of Sweden, even as some atheists shrug off the need to provide evidence for their lack of belief in deity.

 

[ArtieE]

Those who have considered a proposition (belief in God) can have only one of these following three positions:

"I do believe".
"I do not believe".
"I am undecided".
​

"I do believe God exists"
"I do believe God doesn't exist"
"I have neither beliefs I am undecided"
​

To say I have lack of belief in God is meaningless (as for a baby or for a stone).

Obviously one who is undecided lacks those two other beliefs.

 

[atanu]

"I do believe god exists"
"I do believe god doesn't exist"
"I have neither beliefs I am undecided"​

​

We have discussed this before.The third (red) statement should be "I neither believe nor disbelieve".

 

[ArtieE]

some atheists shrug off the need to provide evidence for their lack of belief in deity.

Why would atheists need to provide evidence for their lack of belief in deity? The definition of the term atheist is "lacking belief in deities".

 

[viole]

That is the point, however. There can be no analogy between Sweden and God, the former being objectively identifiable and the latter being the very subject.

The point runs deeper than you could realise. You correctly say "So, there is no symmetry between the two cases (Sweden vs. Apollo, Pinocchio, Jesus, etc.). And the analogy breaks.". Despite such category difference you demand objective proof of God.

All scripture teach something to the effect “Be still and know I am god”. Although god is not objectively knowable, it is the subject itself. And although most Christians obfuscate this teaching, some Christians know this as same as Upanishadic “That You Art” and Quran’s “Allah is the seer. Allah is the knower.”

It is fault of none other but of the foolish ego self that cannot still it’s own chatter to see its deeper source that runs through all ego-selves.



Kindly see the error that you again commit here.

...

And what error is that? Of course I demand at least a shred of evidence of God. As for Mother Goose, or any possible figment of human imagination. Pending that, i am justified to disbelief them, all equally, without providing any counter evidence of them.

Saying it is unknowable, does not help. Too easy. Everybody can do that. I could declare Mother Goose unknowable, yet that would not be enough to dismiss any belief in Mother Goose without evidence. Including dismissing the claim that it is unknowable.

In other words: you are complicating, or declaring deep, something which is very simple and not deep at all. At best, it is a deepity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

​

We have discussed this before.The third (red) statement should be "I neither believe nor disbelieve".

Nonsense. What I wrote is 100% correct. Your sentence is meaningless as "to not believe in the existence of God" and "to disbelieve in the existence of God" say the same thing and doesn't describe the person who believes God doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would atheists need to provide evidence for their lack of belief in deity? The definition of the term atheist is "lacking belief in deities".

But those, who connect a lack of belief in deity with reason, logic and/or evidence in some form, do have to, no matter what they claim with reason, logic and/or evidence.
Now some atheists at least of the kind on the Internet do seem to connect a lack of belief in deity with reason, logic and/or evidence in some form.
I have no beef with atheists. The fun starts with reason, logic and/or evidence. I claim none for my belief in God in an objective sense, yet then I am told that it is "wrong", because of with reason, logic and/or evidence...

You know what follows with ...

 

[ArtieE]

But those, who connect a lack of belief in deity with reason, logic and/or evidence in some form, do have to, no matter what they claim with reason, logic and/or evidence.
Now some atheists at least of the kind on the Internet do seem to connect a lack of belief in deity with reason, logic and/or evidence in some form.
I have no beef with atheists. The fun starts with reason, logic and/or evidence. I claim none for my belief in God in an objective sense, yet then I am told that it is "wrong", because of with reason, logic and/or evidence...

You know what follows with ...

Are you now perhaps talking about atheists who are also rationalists? Then you might say that atheists who are also rationalists should be able to explain why they are atheists using reason, logic and evidence.

 

[atanu]

Why would atheists need to provide evidence for their lack of belief in deity? The definition of the term atheist is "lacking belief in deities".

Same as the Sweden denier in OP?

 

[atanu]

Nonsense. What I wrote is 100% correct. Your sentence is meaningless as "to not believe in the existence of God" and "to disbelieve in the existence of God" say the same thing and doesn't describe the person who believes God doesn't exist.

Nonsense. I did not say ‘to not believe and to disbelieve ‘. Please read correctly, at least.

The correct statement for a sentient being to say is “I neither believe nor disbelieve.”

Lack of belief is true for stones or babies or trees.

 

[Willamena]

"I do believe God exists"
"I do believe God doesn't exist"
"I have neither beliefs I am undecided"
​

Obviously one who is undecided lacks those two other beliefs.

Existence isn't a predicate.