Why Atheism is a Belief System

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

Yes.

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.
...

So, it's not objective at all and therefore nothing can be said to provide any valid, objective reason to indicate their existence.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Sure, the first, I choose not to accept supernatural explanations as justifications for belief. The second, I'm neutral wrt holistic medicine. I think there maybe a psychological effect on patients. However I am also against animal cruelty for any reason. So I'd be against it because of that regardless of it having any kind of beneficial effect.

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.

So, no problem giving reasons for our disbelief in "something".

Is that so strange?

Defending a choice not to believe in something. Not at all. Saying anyone else needs to accept our lack of belief not needing defense in a discussion is non-productive.

What will changing the nomenclature do?

Find common ground for the discussion.

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?

As far as definitions go.

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

Kind of why I suggested adding "skeptic" to differentiate between the atheist who happens to be skeptic and the atheist who isn't a skeptic. If you are not skeptical of say Christianity, it'd be nice to know upfront if you choose to involve yourself in a discussion.

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.

Seems to me also true of theists. Not sure how this consideration would change anything.

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?

Seems a good reason to be able to defend one's lack of belief.

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?

I've no interest in converting you or anyone to any belief. I do have an interest in getting people to question the views they hold, especially those they don't think to question. In this case, why not consider atheism a belief? I suspect the general thinking is because a belief has to be defended. Personally I don't see a problem with that.

You certainly seem smart enough and capable enough to defend atheism.

My point is there is no point in arguing that atheism is not a belief. Don't see any benefit in it other than using it as an excuse to not defend one's position.

 

[Riju]

QUOTE="Evangelicalhumanist, post: 6210558, member: 47768"]PRECISECLY!!!!

The only reason we identify as "atheist" is we are constantly surrounded by people making claims for which they can provide no evidence.[/QUOTE]

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.
.

You seem to be contradicting yourself in above two texts.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure, the first, I choose not to accept supernatural explanations as justifications for belief. The second, I'm neutral wrt holistic medicine. I think there maybe a psychological effect on patients. However I am also against animal cruelty for any reason. So I'd be against it because of that regardless of it having any kind of beneficial effect.



So, no problem giving reasons for our disbelief in "something".



Defending a choice not to believe in something. Not at all. Saying anyone else needs to accept our lack of belief not needing defense in a discussion is non-productive.



Find common ground for the discussion.



As far as definitions go.



Kind of why I suggested adding "skeptic" to differentiate between the atheist who happens to be skeptic and the atheist who isn't a skeptic. If you are not skeptical of say Christianity, it'd be nice to know upfront if you choose to involve yourself in a discussion.



Seems to me also true of theists. Not sure how this consideration would change anything.



Seems a good reason to be able to defend one's lack of belief.



I've no interest in converting you or anyone to any belief. I do have an interest in getting people to question the views they hold, especially those they don't think to question. In this case, why not consider atheism a belief? I suspect the general thinking is because a belief has to be defended. Personally I don't see a problem with that.

You certainly seem smart enough and capable enough to defend atheism.

My point is there is no point in arguing that atheism is not a belief. Don't see any benefit in it other than using it as an excuse to not defend one's position.

I'm only going to address the bit I highlighted. For some reason, it is impossible to get through the "belief is all there is" mindset of those for whom religion is so important. "In this case, why not consider atheism a belief?" That's what you said. Okay, then why not consider not masturbating a kind of sexual self-gratification? Why not consider not smoking a kind of addiction?

I asked you before, why you find this so important. You were, I think, dishonest with me, because you said it wasn't...yet, everything you write says it is. Why is that?

 

[Riju]

Yes.


So, it's not objective at all and therefore nothing can be said to provide any valid, objective reason to indicate their existence.

Yes for orgasm but no for non dual experience? Why?

 

[Nakosis]

I'm only going to address the bit I highlighted. For some reason, it is impossible to get through the "belief is all there is" mindset of those for whom religion is so important. "In this case, why not consider atheism a belief?" That's what you said. Okay, then why not consider not masturbating a kind of sexual self-gratification? Why not consider not smoking a kind of addiction?

I asked you before, why you find this so important. You were, I think, dishonest with me, because you said it wasn't...yet, everything you write says it is. Why is that?

It's not important to me whether someone else wants to consider atheism a belief. So I'm trying to understand why this debate between atheists and theists is important to them.

So I'm willing to consider there is some importance here. I just don't really see the problem yet.

 

[atanu]

Yes.

Yes? You mean neural correlates of orgasm is equal to subjective experience of orgasm?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes for orgasm but no for non dual experience? Why?

Because orgasms are objectively verifiable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes? You mean neural correlates of orgasm is equal to subjective experience of orgasm?

The experience of an orgasm has an objective basis as we understand how it occurs and why it occurs. This can be relayed accurately, even to someone who has never experienced one. The two aren't the same, but there is a significant difference between saying "I had an experience which I attribute to a physical process that we thoroughly understand" and "I had an experience which I attribute to a subjective entity that I have no reason to believe exists".

 

[ArtieE]

My point is there is no point in arguing that atheism is not a belief. Don't see any benefit in it other than using it as an excuse to not defend one's position.

The point in arguing that atheism is not a belief is that people who are claiming that atheism is a belief are unwittingly or even wittingly spreading false information and misrepresent atheism and atheists in general.

 

[atanu]

The experience of an orgasm has an objective basis as we understand how it occurs and why it occurs. This can be relayed accurately, even to someone who has never experienced one. The two aren't the same, but there is a significant difference between saying "I had an experience which I attribute to a physical process that we thoroughly understand" and "I had an experience which I attribute to a subjective entity that I have no reason to believe exists".

You did not answer me. Are neural correlates of orgasm equal to subjective experience of orgasm? Is it ever possible to acquire that experience by learning the so-called physical mechanism? It is a different matter that no amount of explanation can replicate a qualitative experience, of an orgasm and of the Samadhi, although for both these cases neural correlates have been recorded.

In genuine earnestness and with due regards I repeat for the last time that realisation of self-brahman-non dual reality is a subjective experience that no neural correlate can convey to another who has not had the same experience. OTOH, similar experience of seekers across time and space does indicate the truth of the transformative nature of the experience. I note that the experience is of the non dual reality, which conventionally has come to be called god across cultures.
...

 

[ArtieE]

In genuine earnestness and with due regards I repeat for the last time that realisation of self-brahman-non dual reality is a subjective experience that no neural correlate can convey to another who has not had the same experience. OTOH, similar experience of seekers across time and space does indicate the truth of the transformative nature of the experience. I note that the experience is of the non dual reality, which conventionally has come to be called god across cultures.
...

Religious experiences can be symptoms of injury or disease of the brain such as temporal lobe epilepsy caused by tumors. Please I urge everybody who suddenly get religious experiences or get hyper-religious please seek medical help.
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy & Religious Experiences | Study.com
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505007004362
Finding God in a seizure: the link between temporal lobe epilepsy and mysticism

 

[ArtieE]

In genuine earnestness and with due regards I repeat for the last time that realisation of self-brahman-non dual reality is a subjective experience that no neural correlate can convey to another who has not had the same experience. OTOH, similar experience of seekers across time and space does indicate the truth of the transformative nature of the experience.

Getting abducted by aliens also seem to be subjective experiences that no neural correlate can convey to another who has not had the same experience. Similar experiences across time and space does indicate the truth of the transformative nature of the experience. Alien abductees certainly seem to see it as a pretty transformative experience. Are we therefore meant to believe that people are getting abducted by aliens with only their subjective experiences to base our belief on? No matter how many say so?

 

[Nakosis]

The point in arguing that atheism is not a belief is that people who are claiming that atheism is a belief are unwittingly or even wittingly spreading false information and misrepresent atheism and atheists in general.

I thought about it, it's be a while since I got into it. I was in agreement with the idea that atheism not being a belief in the past. Maybe following the herd.

I think the point was not about whether or not atheism was a belief but proving or disproving the existence of God.

If one is going to assume a belief, one should be able to justify their reason for that belief. i.e. in order to justify theism one is asked to prove God. In response, theists saying atheism is also a belief, said a atheist needed to then disprove God to justify their belief.

The common atheist responses were, atheism is not a belief so no justification is necessary and one cannot disprove a negative. One can only prove a positive claim leaving the "burden of proof" pretty one sided.

Belief doesn't require proof. Otherwise it would be more than a belief. While one can perhaps justify their personal reasons for being a theist/atheist, none of it really amounts to proof.

Some theists however do attempt to prove God via an argument. Most atheists realize God cannot be disproven so never make that argument.

So I don't see accepting atheism as a belief a problem since a belief doesn't require proof and doesn't inherently make the claim there is no God.

I see atheism as a choice to not believe in a God for whatever reasons an individual feels justifies making that choice.

 

[ArtieE]

I see atheism as a choice to not believe in a God for whatever reasons an individual feels justifies making that choice.

Atheism is not making the choice of believing in the existence of God for for example a lack of a reason to, it is not a choice to not believe in God. Please note the enormous difference there is between not making a choice and making a choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheism is not making the choice of believing in the existence of God for for example a lack of a reason to, it is not a choice to not believe in God. Please note the enormous difference there is between not making a choice and making a choice.

Speaking for yourself of course. For me, it was a choice.

I accept however there are probably people who don't have enough self awareness to actually make a choice whether to believe in God or not, but there are people that do. I can only speak from my own experience.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

QUOTE="Evangelicalhumanist, post: 6210558, member: 47768"]PRECISECLY!!!!

The only reason we identify as "atheist" is we are constantly surrounded by people making claims for which they can provide no evidence.

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.

You seem to be contradicting yourself in above two texts.

No, I am not. If you read carefully, you will see that the two statements in question are about different subjects.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not important to me whether someone else wants to consider atheism a belief. So I'm trying to understand why this debate between atheists and theists is important to them.

So I'm willing to consider there is some importance here. I just don't really see the problem yet.

It's because you ended the post I was answering with, "My point is there is no point in arguing that atheism is not a belief. Don't see any benefit in it other than using it as an excuse to not defend one's position."

So, since you have decided, against every argument I can make, that not believing is a kind of believing, then I insist you also agree that not drinking is a kind of drinking, not eating is a kind of eating, and not murdering is a kind of murder. If you believe all that, then you are by your own beliefs a kind of murderer, just as you clam that I am a kind of believer.

 

[ArtieE]

Speaking for yourself of course. For me, it was a choice.

If you were a theist first you chose to become a strong atheist. If you were not a theist first you were a (weak) atheist who chose to become a strong atheist.

I accept however there are probably people who don't have enough self awareness to actually make a choice whether to believe in God or not, but there are people that do.

How condescending. You think you are better than others and have more "self awareness" just because you have made a choice between believing in the existence or non-existence of God?

 

[Nakosis]

It's because you ended the post I was answering with, "My point is there is no point in arguing that atheism is not a belief. Don't see any benefit in it other than using it as an excuse to not defend one's position."

So, since you have decided, against every argument I can make, that not believing is a kind of believing, then I insist you also agree that not drinking is a kind of drinking, not eating is a kind of eating, and not murdering is a kind of murder. If you believe all that, then you are by your own beliefs a kind of murderer, just as you clam that I am a kind of believer.

I haven't decided anything for you. My point/my argument is that I don't see a point in claiming atheism is not a belief. I'm looking for a counter argument. i.e. debate which I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong about.

So I'm not insisting you agree on anything. I am simply looking for a convincing argument that shows I am wrong.