Is Atheism a belief system in itself?

Malari

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.

But the point is that my personal happiness isn't derived from atheism, it is incidental. Whereas happiness is something that believers often attribute to having god in their lives.

CerebralCortex

Malari wrote: »

But the point is that my personal happiness isn't derived from atheism, it is incidental. Whereas happiness is something that believers often attribute to having god in their lives.

Thats what I wanted to say.

robindch

SDooM wrote: »

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.

Aye, there is. But I've been around protestants long enough to notice that not a single one of them has produced that particular gem

Malari

Ah, got in before you! Normally I'm too late seeing posts and left thinking "yeah, that's what I mean!"

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

Aye, there is. But I've been around protestants long enough to notice that not a single one of them has produced that particular gem

In general, I noticed that they are on average alot more solemn and private about their religion tbf (I used to go out with a protestant priest daughter, as it happens.)

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

Aye, there is. But I've been around protestants long enough to notice that not a single one of them has produced that particular gem

The evangelicals I know are just as bad as the catholics. Interesting thing is they don't seem any happier than any other people. I wonder why.

rockbeer

iUseVi wrote: »

The evangelicals I know are just as bad as the catholics. Interesting thing is they don't seem any happier than any other people. I wonder why.

They just haven't found atheism yet

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

Once and for all, atheism is not a belief.

It is the absence of belief.

I see atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deities. It is a definite statement and one which proceeds in the absence of (probably unattainable) proof. It is a form of faith, to my mind. Agnosticism is the un-faith, the actual absence of consideration for that which cannot be measured. Rather than stating "God does not exist", an agnostic (at least in my version) considers the existence of supernatural beings to simply be of negligible likelihood and thus an irrelevant consideration for day-to-day life.

As to atheism exhibiting a distinct "system" of belief, I think that it is too simple a core belief to allow for the existence of such a system. And too individual to a given atheist.

eoin5

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I see atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deities. It is a definite statement and one which proceeds in the absence of (probably unattainable) proof. It is a form of faith, to my mind. Agnosticism is the un-faith, the actual absence of consideration for that which cannot be measured. Rather than stating "God does not exist", an agnostic (at least in my version) considers the existence of supernatural beings to simply be of negligible likelihood and thus an irrelevant consideration for day-to-day life.

As to atheism exhibiting a distinct "system" of belief, I think that it is too simple a core belief to allow for the existence of such a system. And too individual to a given atheist.

Your version of an agnostic is also an atheist. You either believe that a god exists or you dont. Its not really about believing in the possibility of god existing.

To be an atheist you have to a lot less than stating "God does not exist", in fact you dont have to do anything at all. As I've said before its the very same as most peoples non-belief in walking rainbows.

rockbeer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I see atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deities. It is a definite statement and one which proceeds in the absence of (probably unattainable) proof. It is a form of faith, to my mind. Agnosticism is the un-faith, the actual absence of consideration for that which cannot be measured. Rather than stating "God does not exist", an agnostic (at least in my version) considers the existence of supernatural beings to simply be of negligible likelihood and thus an irrelevant consideration for day-to-day life.

As to atheism exhibiting a distinct "system" of belief, I think that it is too simple a core belief to allow for the existence of such a system. And too individual to a given atheist.

Interesting, but I have to disagree. As I say, I regard the whole proposition of the existence of god/gods as a false one, in which context belief is an irrelevance. Since there's no evidence and since one cannot perceive said entities it's no more meaningful to ask whether one believes in them as in anything else one cannot perceive. (The fact that some people do apparently believe in things that cannot be perceived is also irrelevant.) Either come up with a meaningful experiment to test the hypothesis or forget about it.

Agnosticism on the other hand seems to acknowledge the validity of the proposition by saying the answer is unknown or unknowable. I know what you're saying (I think), but your definition of agnosticism is more-or-less the one I would apply to atheism

I think you certainly have your definition of atheism wrong. I know of no atheist who would definitively say "God does not exist". No one on this thread has said anything so categorical - we all seem to acknowledge the possibility, however remote. It's just that there's no good reason to imagine that god does exist.

Seems to me we're saying the same thing but calling it by different names.

robindch

iUseVi wrote: »

The evangelicals I know are just as bad as the catholics.

hmm.. perhaps I should be more specific! Casually, "protestants" are CofE and CofI for me as there are quite a few in my extended family. I don't know many people from other protestant variations, and the few that I do know have frequently tried to "evangelize" me by means of tedious lectures on the merits of creationism as understood from Kent Hovind's jail cell and the working mouth of the bearded buffoon from Kentucky.

In my experience, these fine people do seem happier than most, but it often seems to be the kind of happiness that you see when you tell a kid that they're going to a candy shop. It seems unconvincingly naïve. Other people's experience might well be different

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

Interesting, but I have to disagree. As I say, I regard the whole proposition of the existence of god/gods as a false one, in which context belief is an irrelevance. Since there's no evidence and since one cannot perceive said entities it's no more meaningful to ask whether one believes in them as in anything else one cannot perceive. (The fact that some people do apparently believe in things that cannot be perceived is also irrelevant.) Either come up with a meaningful experiment to test the hypothesis or forget about it.

Agnosticism on the other hand seems to acknowledge the validity of the proposition by saying the answer is unknown or unknowable. I know what you're saying (I think), but your definition of agnosticism is more-or-less the one I would apply to atheism

I think you certainly have your definition of atheism wrong. I know of no atheist who would definitively say "God does not exist". No one on this thread has said anything so categorical - we all seem to acknowledge the possibility, however remote. It's just that there's no good reason to imagine that god does exist.

Seems to me we're saying the same thing but calling it by different names.

Perhaps, but I personally know a number of Atheists for whom Atheism is an explicit denial of the existence of gods. One published definition of the philosophy that I have read is "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief."

Naturally I fully accept that there may be alternative definitions of the term, but at any rate I would consider the above version of Atheism to be "a belief", albeit a belief in the non-existence of certain things.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

hmm.. perhaps I should be more specific! Casually, "protestants" are CofE and CofI for me as there are quite a few in my extended family. I don't know many people from other protestant variations, and the few that I do know have frequently tried to "evangelize" me by means of tedious lectures on the merits of creationism as understood from Kent Hovind's jail cell and the working mouth of the bearded buffoon from Kentucky.

In my experience, these fine people do seem happier than most, but it often seems to be the kind of happiness that you see when you tell a kid that they're going to a candy shop. It seems unconvincingly naïve. Other people's experience might well be different

Not sure officially what counts as protestant or not. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot.

Yeah, I have a few evangelicals amongst my direct relations. Hell, I used to be one! (I've even been to a Kent Hovind speech, I'll never forget that one.)

I really don't think evangelicals are any different from any other people; be they catholic, jew, muslim, asupradimensionaltic(yeah, that's made up), atheist or whatever. Sometimes they are happy, sometimes they are sad. Sometimes they cry, sometimes they laugh. But since they claim, to have "the Joy of the Lord", I would expect more from them. And honestly I don't see it. But then I wouldn't expect to, as I don't believe their God exists, and they are mammal the same as the rest of us, blah blah blah.:D

rockbeer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One published definition of the philosophy that I have read is "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief."

If you don't mind me saying, I think that's a little simplistic. Have a look at this from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or "God" is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.

(Emphasis mine)

This is much more about rejection/suspension of belief than positive disbelief.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I'd say it includes several beliefs. Such as that through scientific progression, one day we may disprove God, many atheists I know have expressed that one, and it is nothing more than a belief. It's also a belief that there is nothing after this life, this is it.

Atheism or other secular outlooks also do have beliefs surely? Perhaps not theistic beliefs, but they are beliefs none the less.

I'd agree with JimiTime that I would say that atheism does require a certain set of beliefs.

robindch

iUseVi wrote: »

they are mammals, the same as the rest of us

Yep, that's about the height of it. Still and all, it'd be interesting to see one of them admit that like us atheists, they aren't much different from all the other mammals either

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it includes several beliefs. Such as that through scientific progression, one day we may disprove God, many atheists I know have expressed that one, and it is nothing more than a belief. It's also a belief that there is nothing after this life, this is it.

Atheism or other secular outlooks also do have beliefs surely? Perhaps not theistic beliefs, but they are beliefs none the less.

I'd agree with JimiTime that I would say that atheism does require a certain set of beliefs.

Well of course you would you and Jim are like peas in pod or christians in a ....... oops better not go to far might get banned.

rockbeer

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it includes several beliefs. Such as that through scientific progression, one day we may disprove God, many atheists I know have expressed that one, and it is nothing more than a belief.

But it isn't required to believe this to be an atheist. That some atheists may also believe it to be true is coincidental. Not all do.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's also a belief that there is nothing after this life, this is it.

Why do you need to believe in god to believe in an afterlife? That seems like a very limited outlook. Most atheists probably don't believe in an afterlife for the same reasons they don't believe in god i.e. there's not a shred of evidence for it, but the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism or other secular outlooks also do have beliefs surely? Perhaps not theistic beliefs, but they are beliefs none the less.
I'd agree with JimiTime that I would say that atheism does require a certain set of beliefs.

None of the ones you've proposed are necessary to be an atheist. Can you suggest any others?

Do you mind me asking, have you actually read the thread? This stuff was all covered a few pages back.

AtomicHorror

rockbeer wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying, I think that's a little simplistic.

It is simplistic, but I suspect it is also one widely-accepted form of Atheism. As for the definition you provide, that sounds more like what I would consider to be agnosticism- so perhaps my definition of that philosophy is inaccurate. I don't challenge the validity of Britannica (though I hear it's less accurate on average than Wikipedia). The definition I provided is from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the accuracy of which I can't vouch for) and written by William Rowe. So I guess the presence of belief in Atheism is dependent on definitions of atheism.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course you would you and Jim are like peas in pod or christians in a .......

...public forum? I thought so.

rockbeer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It is simplistic, but I suspect it is also one widely-accepted form of Atheism. As for the definition you provide, that sounds more like what I would consider to be agnosticism- so perhaps my definition of that philosophy is inaccurate. I don't challenge the validity of Britannica (though I hear it's less accurate on average than Wikipedia). The definition I provided is from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the accuracy of which I can't vouch for) and written by William Rowe. So I guess the presence of belief in Atheism is dependent on definitions of atheism.

It's also worth mentioning as Wicknight did before that there are greatly differing levels of certainty depending on what exactly we're talking about. I would claim a very high degree of positive disbelief in any of the gods currently described or worshipped by humans. This position, however, isn't strictly one of belief as it's is supported by a compelling amount of historical, psychological and anthropological evidence, to the extent that we can be virtually certain that, for example, the christian god of the bible or Shiva don't exist as actual entities. Belief in these beings can be confidently described as delusional, on a par with santa and unicorns.

There is a much greater degree of doubt whether some as-yet-undefined godlike entity exists, but this is a reflection of the vague and abstract nature of such a concept. My feeling about such an entity would be closer to your definition of "suspended belief" based on a complete absence of any form of evidence either in favour or against. Such an entity would be much more 'unknowable' in the traditional agnostic sense.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

Yep, that's about the height of it. Still and all, it'd be interesting to see one of them admit that like us atheists, they aren't much different from all the other mammals either

Yup. :cool: Brand-spanking new article you and others might be interested in:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it includes several beliefs. Such as that through scientific progression, one day we may disprove God, many atheists I know have expressed that one

That is certain not a belief I hold, such a belief would demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what science is

Jakkass wrote: »

It's also a belief that there is nothing after this life, this is it.

That would be my current belief, but it is not a requirement to be an atheist. Plenty of atheists believe in an after life. I certain hope there is more after death, but I have no reason to believe there is.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism or other secular outlooks also do have beliefs surely? Perhaps not theistic beliefs, but they are beliefs none the less.

Secularism does, it is a belief in the benefit of a secular society or state, where personal religious belief (or lack of) is treated equally as a private matter.

Atheism don't have a set of beliefs

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd agree with JimiTime that I would say that atheism does require a certain set of beliefs.

Such as?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd agree with JimiTime that I would say that atheism does require a certain set of beliefs.

I don't think I said that. I said that each atheist believes in its basic tenet, 'gods or divine beings don't exist'. So in that way, its a belief, but not a belief system. However, each individual atheist usually has a belief system that is rooted in this basic tenet. The word atheism has a very simple definition as far as I can see. Through discussion here, I'd say it means different things to different people. Its very individual. Depending on the ateist you ask, it can mean different things to them. Precisely though, its simply the belief that 'gods and devine beings don't exist', everything else is dressing. Thats my observation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think I said that. I said that each atheist believes in its basic tenet, 'gods or divine beings don't exist'. So in that way, its a belief, but not a belief system. However, each individual atheist usually has a belief system that is rooted in this basic tenet.

A slight correction, my belief system is not "root" on the tenet that gods are human inventions and don't exist. That has very little do with what I believe in terms of morality and ethics.

It would be like saying my love for baseball is rooted in me not liking rugby.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

A slight correction, my belief system is not "root" on the tenet that gods are human inventions and don't exist. That has very little do with what I believe in terms of morality and ethics.

It would be like saying my love for baseball is rooted in me not liking rugby.

I didn't say morality or ethics had to be part of such a system.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

I said that each atheist believes in its basic tenet, 'gods or divine beings don't exist'. So in that way, its a belief, but not a belief system. However, each individual atheist usually has a belief system that is rooted in this basic tenet.

I'd turn this around, at least in my own case, and say that my lack of belief in gods or divine beings is the result of the fact that their existence is incompatible with many other things that the evidence satisfies me are true. So if you like, my unbelief in gods is rooted in what you choose to call my 'belief system', rather than the other way round.

To clarify this further- I don't start from the abstract question 'do gods exist?'. The question really isn't that important to me in fact. I'd even guess that this core question is far more central on the whole to religious people than atheists.

It would be truer to say that I deduce an answer to the question of whether the gods humans have invented exist, almost as a side effect, from the answers I've found to other questions about humanity, society, science and history that I find far more compelling. The bigger question of whether some as-yet unidentified power exists beyond our universe remains unanswered.

calahans

Atheism could not be called a belief system in itself. Most atheists start with the null hypothesis that there is no God and are still waiting for it to fail. Once the proof comes about, most will then believe.

Dades

calahans wrote: »

Once the proof comes about, most will then believe.

Most would believe I'm sure, if the evidence was convincing enough. There will of course always be people (on both sides) who will believe what they want regardless of evidence.

I'm less sure new evidence will be forthcoming than you, I suspect.

sink

Deities are hypothetical. A belief is taking a hypothesis as fact or the only possible answer. Therefore people who think the god hypothesis is fact or the only answer have belief.

It is incorrect to say that not having a hypothesis is a hypothesis in itself. Also it is equally incorrect to say that thinking many different hypotheses no matter how implausible could equally be true is a form of belief.

It seems to almost all atheists either have no hypothesis or think that there are so many equally implausible hypotheses but potentially true that they reject them all until further proof emerges. I have never met an atheist who believes in the hypothesis that no deity exists. Therefore until I see such evidence that such an atheist exists, I put forward my hypothesis that atheists do not believe as a working theory.