Is Atheism a belief system in itself?

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

This may be a failure of your imagination...

You really should work on eradicating the patronising superiority that somehow managed to weasel itself into your post.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You really should work on eradicating the patronising superiority that somehow managed to weasel itself into your post.

One could say the same to you Fanny.

There is little more patronizing than simply responding to posts with an arrogant line like "I'm not convinced" as if the ability to convince you of something is some how a standard to be used to measure the validity, worthiness or accuracy of a point

If you are going to play that game expect equally glib replies :rolleyes:

Dades

Personally I though rockbeer's post quite genuine.

If someone cannot grasp the idea that atheism is not a belief system, then they are either trying not to, or making up their own definitions of both.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You really should work on eradicating the patronising superiority that somehow managed to weasel itself into your post.

Thanks, I'm always glad to receive self-help tips from Internet strangers.

Now how about addressing the point.

iUseVi

rockbeer wrote: »

Thanks, I'm always glad to receive self-help tips from Internet strangers.

Now how about addressing the point.

LOL, yeah we sometimes get around to addressing points. But only if there's time left...

marco_polo

Dades wrote: »

Personally I though rockbeer's post quite genuine.

If someone cannot grasp the idea that atheism is not a belief system, then they are either trying not to, or making up their own definitions of both.

I think it is just wishful thinking on the part of some religious believers, who like to convince themselves that atheists and agnostics struggle daily to supress some overwhelming natural urge to believe in God.

Zillah

rockbeer wrote: »

Thanks, I'm always glad to receive self-help tips from Internet strangers.

Now how about addressing the point.

I like you, you're mean.

rockbeer

Zillah wrote: »

I like you, you're mean.

Only when meaned to!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

One could say the same to you Fanny.

There is little more patronizing than simply responding to posts with an arrogant line like "I'm not convinced" as if the ability to convince you of something is some how a standard to be used to measure the validity, worthiness or accuracy of a point

If you are going to play that game expect equally glib replies :rolleyes:

It depends upon how you choose to read my response. My 'glib' post wasn't intended to be delivered in an arrogant fashion, I simply don't agree with you. I had partly typed up a reply you your question last night, but it was late and I didn't get a chance to finish it. You didn't give me a chance to reply before you chastised me.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I had partly typed up a reply you your question last night, but it was late and I didn't get a chance to finish it. You didn't give me a chance to reply before you chastised me.

I didn't chastise you for your post, I "chastised" you for giving out about rockbeer's post (which I though wasn't that bad at all).

As I said, if you post short glib posts expect a response in a similar fashion. Rockbeer's comment about you lacking imagination was certainly no more patronizing that your comment about, alas, not being convinced.

Saying you had a more detailed explanation as to why you are not convinced, that you just haven't got around to posting yet, is all very well but the rest of us can only work of what you actually post.

Fanny Cradock

So my comment is now no longer 'fair enough'?

I took exception to someone labelling those who 'adhere to belief systems' as being limited in imagination. Though possibly too strongly worded, I stick by my decision to challenge this opinion.

You seem to be quite put out because I didn't write a few more lines in my post. Again, it seems like you have viewed my comment in a manner that it wasn't intended. Would it have taken a :pac: at the end of my post for you to realise that it was tongue in cheek? I have seen you post similar one line rejoinders before and I've never take them to be 'glib'. Indeed, one of your posts here opened with such jibe directed at me.

Sh1t storm in a tea cup, that's all this is.


So moving on...

"Wicknight, I really don't have much interest in debating the subject in any great depth. Last time that happened there was little in the way of understanding from either side. But I'll give it a post or two and see what happens.

After further consideration of the thread I will concede that atheism is not a belief system, much like theism isn't a belief system, either. Surely a system is comprised of a series or a group of elements. In both cases - theism and atheism - there is simply a single proposition regarding the (non)existence of a deity(s). I would, however, argue that both are beliefs. Now, assuming you don't already disagree with my assertions (and I would be surprised if you didn't), I will go on to contend that atheism, like theism, is often a strong driving force in the lives of people. This driving force, IMO, can then lead people to form or adopt belief systems which are very much grounded in their original belief."

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So my comment is now no longer 'fair enough'?

Your comment was always fair enough as far as I'm concerned. if you want to be glib I don't really care, but giving out about others doing the same is rather silly

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I took exception to someone labelling those who 'adhere to belief systems' as being limited in imagination.

I think the point was more that people who can't understand that atheism isn't a belief system may do so due to them lacking imagination, preventing them from viewing the world without a supernatural belief system or turning to a concept of a higher authority.

Although I suspect Rockbeer himself was being a little tongue in cheek, expecting his post to be perceived as some what provocative, thus matching your glibness with a bit of shake up.

Clearly he was right

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem to be quite put out because I didn't write a few more lines in my post.

I'm not put out at all, as I said if the posts people have written on this matter don't "convince" you then that is fair enough. If you don't get it I simply shrug.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sh1t storm in a tea cup, that's all this is.

The only person who appears to be making a fuss Fanny is you, being insulted by Rockbeers post.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After further consideration of the thread I will concede that atheism is not a belief system
...Surely a system is comprised of a series or a group of elements. In both cases - theism and atheism - there is simply a single proposition regarding the (non)existence of a deity(s).
...I would, however, argue that both are beliefs.
...I will go on to contend that atheism, like theism, is often a strong driving force in the lives of people.

So really you were convinced. Wonderful, moving on

eoin5

At any point in time you either believe or disbelieve in the existance of a god. If youre not sure its a no for the time being. This makes everyone a theist or an atheist. In order to be a theist a belief is necessary whereas to be an atheist all that is required is to never hear of god and to never feel the need to invent him/her. If you call that a belief then its the same as someone who disbelieves in walking rainbows because he/she hasnt heard of them.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful, moving on

'Fair enough'

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After further consideration of the thread I will concede that atheism is not a belief system, much like theism isn't a belief system, either. Surely a system is comprised of a series or a group of elements. In both cases - theism and atheism - there is simply a single proposition regarding the (non)existence of a deity(s). I would, however, argue that both are beliefs. Now, assuming you don't already disagree with my assertions (and I would be surprised if you didn't), I will go on to contend that atheism, like theism, is often a strong driving force in the lives of people. This driving force, IMO, can then lead people to form or adopt belief systems which are very much grounded in their original belief.[/I]"

Jimitime wrote:

atheism is a belief, but not a belief system. however, an individual atheist may have a system that comes from atheisms basic tenet

Snap:)

rockbeer

Once and for all, atheism is not a belief.

It is the absence of belief.

But hey guys, why listen to us, we're just the ones who don't have the belief, you go ahead and believe whatever makes you feel better about yourselves.

Dades

Just to fuel the flames some more...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After further consideration of the thread I will concede that atheism is not a belief system, much like theism isn't a belief system, either.

I would have thought the layman's definition of a 'theist' would be someone who believes in the god(s) of a particular religion. Which would imply they were subject to a belief system.

A deist, or some such would be the only 'believer' I can think of that would not be associated with some form of religious regulation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I will go on to contend that atheism, like theism, is often a strong driving force in the lives of people.

That's true but still somewhat unspecific. Atheism isn't technically the driving force - you'll find it's something like secularism, anti-theism or humanism.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This driving force, IMO, can then lead people to form or adopt belief systems which are very much grounded in their original belief."

What you are really saying, is that the absence of a religious belief system, may lead people to finding a non-religious belief system. Not exactly profound!

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

Once and for all, atheism is not a belief.

It is the absence of belief.

But hey guys, why listen to us, we're just the ones who don't have the belief, you go ahead and believe whatever makes you feel better about yourselves.

It doesn't make me feel better about myself, and I have listened to all of you. I just don't conclude that atheism is not a belief. Its a belief that gods or divine beings don't exist. Why exactly are you so adamant on distancing the word atheism from belief?

rockbeer

Because belief in god is not a reasonable proposition.

The phrase "atheism is a belief" implies that it is.

i.e. it suggests that I don't believe in something which it is reasonable to believe in.

If I believe there is no Taj Mahal, you mark me down as a loony... the suggestion that I believe there is no god carries something of the same implication. There is at least a reasonable probability there is a god but I believe there isn't.

I don't believe there's a 14 foot red dragon living in my attic. Is that a belief?

I will accept that atheism is a belief when you acknowledge that believing in god is no more reasonable than believing in my red dragon.

Edit: Actually I'll give you a break here JimiTime, I'll drop the bit about reasonableness and accept that atheism is a belief when you accept that not believing in my red dragon is a belief. Just acknowledge that "smokey" is exactly as likely to exist as god and we'll call it quits

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't make me feel better about myself, and I have listened to all of you. I just don't conclude that atheism is not a belief. Its a belief that gods or divine beings don't exist. Why exactly are you so adamant on distancing the word atheism from belief?

I see where you are coming from JimiTime. There's a load of different meanings for the word "belief". I AM NOT going to get into semantics again, but do you mean believe as in "think to be true"? Because in that case I think you are 100% correct, I don't see how you could not be.

I think some of the people are protesting because they think the word "belief" implies some sort of non-evidential thinking; which they so abhor. That's my take, anyhow.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't make me feel better about myself, and I have listened to all of you. I just don't conclude that atheism is not a belief. Its a belief that gods or divine beings don't exist. Why exactly are you so adamant on distancing the word atheism from belief?

I guess its because in way its somewhat disarming when xtians use the whole "atheism takes a greater leap of faith than theism". It really winds up those of us who imagine a better world without the boundaries of organised belief. Atheists, of all those who believe or don't believe, have the least faith or do the least jumping with it we just accept the reality of existence as far as I see it. That doesn't mean I'm no an idealist in other realms of thought but I find it far more acceptable to be faithless in my interpretation of the nature of existence.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't make me feel better about myself, and I have listened to all of you. I just don't conclude that atheism is not a belief. Its a belief that gods or divine beings don't exist. Why exactly are you so adamant on distancing the word atheism from belief?

Personally, because it is inaccurate.

You have to look at what is actually going on here.

My beliefs don't include the "belief" that God doesn't exist. God doesn't exist is a conclusion of a set of my beliefs, but that isn't really the same thing.

What I believe is that human being invented the concept of gods and goddesses as part of a quite human process of viewing the natural world around us in terms of human-like agents that make things happen for human-like reasons. This sums up your God, and other systems of gods, quite nicely in my opinion

The conclusion of that belief is that what you believe is real isn't.

So what is the difference between than and "atheists don't believe God exists"?

Well other atheists may have other beliefs that are quite different to my reasons above.

Atheism is a rejection of theist belief, but it is a bit in accurate to say it describes a belief in of itself, because a person can have different reasons, different beliefs, for why they reject theist belief.

As has been often said, atheism is a belief in the same way not playing tennis is a sport. The grouping of everyone who doesn't play tennis doesn't actually tell you much about what they do like to do, or even why they don't play tennis.

Malari

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I guess its because in way its somewhat disarming when xtians use the whole "atheism takes a greater leap of faith than theism".

I think believers are not just amazed by happy atheists, they are ANNOYED by them. They have to explain them in some way that makes sense in their own belief system.

CerebralCortex

Malari wrote: »

I think believers are not just amazed by happy atheists, they are ANNOYED by them. They have to explain them in some way that makes sense in their own belief system.

I agree totally. I am a happy atheist. Now I just wish I was happy sigh.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Now I just wish I was happy sigh.

Didn't you know? Sometimes wishing something makes it true!

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Didn't you know? Sometimes wishing something makes it true!

You're mean.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

Didn't you know? Sometimes wishing something makes it true!

Or wishing something would be such an efficient method of getting something that it is often forgotten that it doesn't work!

PDN

Malari wrote: »

I think believers are not just amazed by happy atheists, they are ANNOYED by them. They have to explain them in some way that makes sense in their own belief system.

I don't think so. I'd much rather chat with a happy atheist than a miserable sod of an atheist any day of the week. I would like more atheists to be happy.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I don't think so. I'd much rather chat with a happy atheist than a miserable sod of an atheist any day of the week. I would like more atheists to be happy.

I'd certainly characterize most of the atheists I know as happy people. Weirdly, though, I do know a few religious people who tell us that we don't know something called "true happiness" unless we're religious. This silliness seems to infect catholics more than protestants in my experience, so your unfamiliarity with it is understandable.

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

I'd certainly characterize most of the atheists I know as happy people. Weirdly, though, I do know a few religious people who tell us that we don't know something called "true happiness" unless we're religious. This silliness seems to infect catholics more than protestants in my experience, so your unfamiliarity with it is understandable.

Pick any random religious trait and you will probably run into more Catholics who display it in Ireland than protestants. There is a reason for that.