Why Atheism is a Belief System

[ArtieE]

Yes. I agree. For us, the universe is evidence of the brahman of the nature of truth-knowledge-infinity.



A wave can see only the surface of the ocean.

Waves can't see...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wilful confusion cannot be removed. With good faith I will try only once more. Brahman is the subject “I” in your awareness “I am this”.

You can realise this “I” as the most intimate — more intimate than an apple on your palm. Be still and know that I am God.

So is Brahman objectively provable or not?

 

[ArtieE]

Wilful confusion cannot be removed. With good faith I will try only once more. Brahman is the subject “I” in your awareness “I am this”.

You can realise this “I” as the most intimate — more intimate than an apple on your palm. Be still and know that I am God.

Are you now confusing Brahman with God? "There is no meaningful correlation between the God of the Bible and any of the millions of Hindu gods, nor can God be identified with Brahman, the ultimate, divine essence of the universe in Hindu thought. They are not only different in name, but also in their core characteristics." Do Christians and Hindus worship the same God? | CARM.org Get a grip and at least pick one or the other. Let's see if we can remove your "wilful confusion".

 

[atanu]

So is Brahman objectively provable or not?

Do you experience orgasm objectively?

 

[atanu]

Waves can't see...

Yes. Metaphorically similar is the case of humans who insist “I am this body”.

 

[atanu]

Are you now confusing Brahman with God? "There is no meaningful correlation between the God of the Bible and any of the millions of Hindu gods, nor can God be identified with Brahman, the ultimate, divine essence of the universe in Hindu thought. They are not only different in name, but also in their core characteristics." Do Christians and Hindus worship the same God? | CARM.org Get a grip and at least pick one or the other. Let's see if we can remove your "wilful confusion".

Truth is not two.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you experience orgasm objectively?

We can measure orgasms objectively. https://io9.gizmodo.com/seven-mostly-scientific-devices-for-measuring-sexual-5214130

 

[ArtieE]

Truth is not two.

Why should we take you seriously when you don't even understand the difference between God and Brahman?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you experience orgasm objectively?

Yes, orgasms objectively exist. Not only can we measure and detect them, we have a thorough knowledge and understanding of what causes them and why.

So, is Brahman objectively provable or not?

 

[atanu]

Yes, orgasms objectively exist. Not only can we measure and detect them, we have a thorough knowledge and understanding of what causes them and why.

So, is Brahman objectively provable or not?

True. But can one who has never experienced orgasm in self, know what an orgasm is by looking at a third person or at records of neural correlates?

Similarly, samadhi, the (very rare) non dual realisation of brahman, is to be known by self in self. It is absolutely subjective and it is totally transforming.

...

 

[Nakosis]

The "burden" referred to is supporting statements.

The only fact involved is that I have chosen not to believe in a God. That is based on my opinion that man cannot rely on personal experiences for knowledge about God. For me, belief is based on choice and opinion, nothing else.

 

[Nakosis]

I am sincerely curious -- why does it matter so much to you that atheism should be "a belief system?" Can you write me one or two sentences that say something like, "if atheism isn't a belief system, I …?

Beyond that, however, is there anybody here who thinks that you, or I, or anyone else, couldn't just get on a boat or plane and go visit Sweden? And once there, with all the signs in Swedish saying "Welcome to Sweden" (or "Välkommen till Sverige"), at least get a sense that perhaps, indeed, Sweden does exist? And having done that, what's left for "belief" to do?

On the other hand, I have yet to discover who can do the same thing with God -- you know, like "here, let me introduce you to God...pull back the curtain and … what? It always, always, without any exceptions whatever, comes down to this: you either believe in God or you don't...no further information will be provided, thank you for visiting.

Do you believe in the gods of the Olympian pantheon: Zeus and Hera, Apollo and the rest? Why or why not? And would you call your disbelief (if you have it) a "belief system?" Why? What do you have to do about not believing that Zeus is the head god? How should you govern your behaviours as a consequence of this particular lack of belief? Because that's what belief's are all about -- they inform our thoughts and behaviours.

You believe in a deity, and you believe that deity has certain requirements of you, and you feel constrained to behave I such and such a way as a consequence. But if I do not believe in that deity, and see no requirements laid upon me, then there's nothing to inform my actions. If you believed the world was flat, and that sailing to far east would lead you to drop off the edge, you'd soon feel that you had better stop sailing. If I believe no such thing, why would I bother to stop, if I still think there are interesting things to see ahead?

If you'd like to read the entire link, it provide 6 reasons that atheism should be seen as a belief system. While personally I don't care whether people choose to see it as a belief system or not I suppose I saw it as a interesting discussion on what a belief system is.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, but the casualness of a belief really isn't a factor. You are proposing that we change the definition of belief systems from being those things that we DO believe in to those things that we DON'T believe in. Now we can certainly start doing so, but I'm asking why would we? What would we accomplish by it?

I disagree, if a belief is not causal, it's not much of a belief...

Your belief system is the invisible force behind your behavior.
Belief Systems: what they are and how they affect you

I would say it's part of a person's belief system. There are a number of beliefs each individual has that causes a person to act. Then then so is Christianity.

It would like is we decided that from now on when someone asks you to name your favorite flavor of ice cream, instead of simply stating what your favorite is, you must instead list all of the flavors that are NOT your favorite. Now we CAN start doing that, but why would we? What would it accomplish, other than forcing people to take FAR longer to answer a simple question?

No, not really. That's why causality is important. Unless you really hate a particular flavor, listing all of the non-causal flavors is not particularly important. If Atheism is not causal, and I'm sure there may be many it is not causal for, there'd probably be little reason to identify with it.

 

[atanu]

Why should we take you seriously when you don't even understand the difference between God and Brahman?

This from a person who lacks belief about God?

Ha ha.

 

[ArtieE]

This from a person who lacks belief about God?

Ha ha.

Lacks belief about God? Do you mean lack belief in the existence of God?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you'd like to read the entire link, it provide 6 reasons that atheism should be seen as a belief system. While personally I don't care whether people choose to see it as a belief system or not I suppose I saw it as a interesting discussion on what a belief system is.

I did read it, and it is chock full of sophistry, invalid arguments, and changes of meaning.

For example, he begins by saying atheism is the statement "I don't believe in God." He goes on, in his second argument (that this statement must be "either true or false") to change the statement to "there is no God." That is, unfortunately for his argument, a very different statement. I do not make any such claim, nor do most atheists. When I say "I don't believe in God," that statement is true, because as it happens, I don't. If I were to say "there is no God," I couldn't begin to state with certainty that it is true or false. On the evidence I have been presented with so far, there doesn't seem to be anything on which to base a claim there is a God, but that's another matter.

Another perfectly invalid argument is headed "beliefs lead to actions." With that, by the way, I agree. Beliefs do indeed inform our actions. But rather than show what "actions" atheism might lead to (like prayer, religious service attendance, ritual behaviours and the like) he claims that it leads to "reading skeptical websites and editing Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately for his argument, what causes those things is not atheism. Those are merely a reaction to what is being touted as "truth" by others, and with faced with such "truth" claims, the intelligent person will usually make the effort to check them out.

Sorry, but when you finally realize that not collecting stamps is not some sort of hobby, and not playing football is some sort of sport, then you will see that not believing in God is not some sort of belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, not really. That's why causality is important. Unless you really hate a particular flavor, listing all of the non-causal flavors is not particularly important. If Atheism is not causal, and I'm sure there may be many it is not causal for, there'd probably be little reason to identify with it.

PRECISECLY!!!!

The only reason we identify as "atheist" is we are constantly surrounded by people making claims for which they can provide no evidence. If they weren't doing that, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. I don't identify as "anti-Santa" for exactly that reason.

 

[Nakosis]

I did read it, and it is chock full of sophistry, invalid arguments, and changes of meaning.

For example, he begins by saying atheism is the statement "I don't believe in God." He goes on, in his second argument (that this statement must be "either true or false") to change the statement to "there is no God." That is, unfortunately for his argument, a very different statement. I do not make any such claim, nor do most atheists. When I say "I don't believe in God," that statement is true, because as it happens, I don't. If I were to say "there is no God," I couldn't begin to state with certainty that it is true or false. On the evidence I have been presented with so far, there doesn't seem to be anything on which to base a claim there is a God, but that's another matter.

How about there is no God justifiable of belief? Would that be a valid statement for you? If so, it would seem something a person could defend a justifiable basis for. Certainly one could choose not to belief without a reason for. However I suspect most atheists do have a reason for their non-belief. That reason should be defensible, I'd think. For example choosing not to believe in Sweden, ok. No defense given for that reason, no reason given. One could be an atheist for no reason but most I think do have a reason for choosing to be an atheist. One should normally be capable of defending the reasons they have for their choices.

Another perfectly invalid argument is headed "beliefs lead to actions." With that, by the way, I agree. Beliefs do indeed inform our actions. But rather than show what "actions" atheism might lead to (like prayer, religious service attendance, ritual behaviours and the like) he claims that it leads to "reading skeptical websites and editing Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately for his argument, what causes those things is not atheism. Those are merely a reaction to what is being touted as "truth" by others, and with faced with such "truth" claims, the intelligent person will usually make the effort to check them out.

Maybe skeptic would be a better term? like Atheist/Skeptic? It's probably assumed by many that atheism includes skepticism. It may not be true for all but maybe most? Skepticism leads to those actions. Religious claims just get caught in the net. If one wants to claim pure atheism fine though I'd think most atheists on the RF are of the skeptic type.

Sorry, but when you finally realize that not collecting stamps is not some sort of hobby, and not playing football is some sort of sport, then you will see that not believing in God is not some sort of belief.

I don't post on stamp collecting forums nor football forums. I don't go there and state I don't believe in stamp collecting nor football.

Would responding to religious clams on a forum be a type of hobby/activity one might engage in? Why would one do so unless their intent was to support or challenge such a claim? What would be causal for those responses?

 

[Neutral Name]

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.

LOL, you are absolutely right.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about there is no God justifiable of belief? Would that be a valid statement for you? If so, it would seem something a person could defend a justifiable basis for. Certainly one could choose not to belief without a reason for. However I suspect most atheists do have a reason for their non-belief. That reason should be defensible, I'd think. For example choosing not to believe in Sweden, ok. No defense given for that reason, no reason given. One could be an atheist for no reason but most I think do have a reason for choosing to be an atheist. One should normally be capable of defending the reasons they have for their choices.

All right, let's test that. We'll try a few beliefs.

In parts of southern and eastern Africa, people who are albino are frequently hunted for their body parts, which are believed to be able to magically produce riches, power, success or sexual conquest when use in magic/rituals. Do you believe this, or not? If the answer is not, can you give me an actual reason for not believing it?

In parts of China, Vietnam and other areas of Asia, it is believed that bear bile is a useful medicine, used for curing liver, heart and other ailments. Thousands of bears are killed, or even worse, kept cruelly in small cages in which they can't even turn around, and their bile is surgically extracted, often clumsily, leading to great distress and death. If you don't believe in harvesting bear bile for health reasons, can you provide an actual reason for not believing?

I admit, it might be perfectly sensible for you say, in both those cases, "I don't believe because there's simply no evidence that body parts of albino humans, or the gallbladders of bears, do anything like some people believe they do." And that would be a perfectly reasonable answer.

And it's the same answer atheists give for non-belief in the gods described (so far) by every religion that we are aware of. We've seen no evidence that any of them does anything like they are supposed to do, and therefore we simply withhold belief.

Is that so strange?

Maybe skeptic would be a better term? like Atheist/Skeptic? It's probably assumed by many that atheism includes skepticism. It may not be true for all but maybe most? Skepticism leads to those actions. Religious claims just get caught in the net. If one wants to claim pure atheism fine though I'd think most atheists on the RF are of the skeptic type.

What will changing the nomenclature do? Someone who believes in a god (theos), is termed an theist. Someone who does not hold that belief is called an atheist (not-theist). Isn't that quite enough?

Please try to understand...I am not skeptical about God, I don't believe, period. There's really nothing more to say.

I don't post on stamp collecting forums nor football forums. I don't go there and state I don't believe in stamp collecting nor football.

Would responding to religious clams on a forum be a type of hobby/activity one might engage in? Why would one do so unless their intent was to support or challenge such a claim? What would be causal for those responses?

Have you considered that every atheist here is also a human being, trying to live and succeed in a world filled with other human beings with all sorts of beliefs? Have you also considered that a desire to understand things is a natural part of the human condition. That's what makes scientists, philosophers, and yes, even theologians.

More than that, all the atheists you know on RF live in a world in which religion, God, is thrust down their throats. It's on the money, you know. It's on every corner in every small town in America, in churches large and small (and mosques, and temples, and so on). You've seen it mentioned on this forum that an atheist is pretty much unelectable in an American election, and is among the most hated people by a large percentage of the population, for no other reason than for what they believe in their heart of hearts. God is claimed as the very reason for some acts of government that affect people's very lives, and thus, isn't it wise of the atheist to understand where this is coming from, so that he can do what he can to counter it, when it works against his own best interests?



But I turn it back to you. You have such a very, very small task to convert me. Give me just one, small, irrefutable fact that demonstrates the existence of God without any other possible explanation (the way I can do with gravity or electricity), and I will instantly revise my views. How easy is that?