Is Atheism a belief system in itself?

robindch

sink wrote: »

A belief is taking a hypothesis as fact or the only possible answer.

A belief is an assertion of the truth of some particular hypothesis, colloquially in the absence of convincing evidence of its truth.

sink wrote: »

I have never met an atheist who believes in the hypothesis that no deity exists.

Well, I assert that the christian deity does not exist, since the christian deity as understood by christians, contains unsupportable internal contradictions. As a working hypothesis -- a strong suspicion if you like -- I don't believe that any other deity exists either.

Sorted?

sink

robindch wrote: »

A belief is an assertion of the truth of some particular hypothesis, colloquially in the absence of convincing evidence of its truth.Well, I assert that the christian deity does not exist, since the christian deity as understood by christians, contains unsupportable internal contradictions. As a working hypothesis -- a strong suspicion if you like -- I don't believe that any other deity exists either.

Sorted?

Since you acknowledge that belief does not require convincing evidence. And you believe that no deity exists. I withdraw my theory that atheists do not have belief as you clearly do believe.

sink

I would add that atheism itself does not require belief, as I myself have none and would consider myself an atheist. I simply reject all hypotheses as the truth until evidence emerges to disprove/prove them. I do think the existence of any deity proposed by any religion that humans have created is impossible due to their inherent contradictions.

sink

I actually have few firm beliefs. My only beliefs would be the foundations of my existence such as I exist, you exist and the universe exists. Everything else is based on a level of plausibility, such as gravity and evolution. I accept these as the best working theories available and so adopt them into my understanding of the world.

calahans

sink wrote: »

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.

We have no evidence, which can be tested in any manner, that there is a God. Atheists take the point of view that there is no God until it is proven.

If a religious person wishes to make an atheist believe they need to provide testable evidence. The job is for religion to prove not atheists to disprove. We have to start from the point of view that all is possible and nothing is proved. From that point believers in God need to prove his existance. Religious people start, not at nothing, but with the idea that there is a God, which for most atheists is an assumption too far.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

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

I assure you that morality and ethics are part of my belief system :pac:

How many belief systems do you think I have?

The belief that God is an imaginary being is a small part of by beliefs. Very few of my other beliefs stem from that belief.

nozzferrahhtoo

This debate is one I have seen often. Atheism as a belief. It comes up for two main reasons. The first is the biggest one, a total confusion as to the meaning of the word atheism. The second is the more annoying one, the need of theists to apply labels so they dont have to deal with what you are saying, but instead can deal with the label and all the perceived things that come with it. But back to the first...

When one does not subscribe to a god then one can be in one of 2 states. The first is that they believe for sure there is no god(s). THIS is a belief. We have no evidence either way at present so to hold any definite conclusions on the point is a belief. Simple as that.

The second state to be in is one that just doesn’t believe it. The example someone gave here of time travel is perfect. If someone said they could time travel you wouldn’t believe them until they proved it, but you don’t go around actively disbelieving in time travel either.

The problem is we only have one word for both of these states. “Atheism”. The etymology of the word shows that its original meaning was that of someone who actively believes there is no god. There never was a word for not believing either way.

The most common mistake is to leap on the word “Agnostic” for this. However Huxley coined this word to describe, not the undecided, but people who actively believe that there is no way of knowing either way so why try. This is also a belief. We do not know what the science of the future will bring. If you did youd be a rich man. So to conclude what we can, or cant, discover is a belief.

So now we have three states and just two words. Look at some dictionaries or Wiki and you’ll find the people (who have realised that agnostic means something else) try to get around this by defining “Strong” and “Weak” atheism. Some people call it intrinsic and extrinsic atheism.

For me I prefer to do it like this:

Agnostic: Like Huxley said it’s the BELIEF that we can never know.
Atheist: The BELIEF that there is no god.
Me: I cant be defined by what I DON’T believe. Im not an a-anything. No one calls me an a-astrologer. Or an a-racist. Or an a-timetravelist. You simply have to find something that I do actively support or believe in and define me by that. I reject the term atheist except sometimes as a term of convenience during conversation.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agnostic: Like Huxley said it’s the BELIEF that we can never know.
Atheist: The BELIEF that there is no god.
Me: I cant be defined by what I DON’T believe. Im not an a-anything. No one calls me an a-astrologer. Or an a-racist. Or an a-timetravelist. You simply have to find something that I do actively support or believe in and define me by that. I reject the term atheist except sometimes as a term of convenience during conversation.

that was my point on the other atheist/faith thread. Most Atheists are not atheists by its definition, but use the word as a convenient way of identifying their position. What i have learned is that one must inquire from any individual 'atheist', what their belief actually is. It changes from person to person.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

What i have learned is that one must inquire from any individual 'atheist', what their belief actually is. It changes from person to person.

Well said. In a recent interview Dawkins was asked why atheists dont seize more political power in the US. His answer was perfect. He refferred to a quote that organising atheists is like herding cats. With a certain theism or a certain ideaology you know what people beleive or think and hence you can arrange and organise them into a movement. Atheists dont beleive anything set down in stone. They are connected ONLY by a lack of beleif. They could, after this, be anything from republican to conservative, philosopher to nihilist, militant to pacifist. There is no way to organise them except possibly under the flag of secular agendas.

Micheal Shermer in a debate put it well too. He doesnt answer to the term atheist because people have assigned so many beleifs, ideas and notions to the term that it doesnt describe him. He walks into a debate, people start listening to his points, they then label him atheist and then can start attacking positions he never espoused, attacking instead all the set pieces people have pre prepared against atheism. Its a low tactic. But labels are only created in debates to do this. When an opponents are too strong for you, attack an idea instead of what that person says. It would be funny if it wasnt so successful in the US.

calahans

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This debate is one I have seen often. Atheism as a belief. It comes up for two main reasons. The first is the biggest one, a total confusion as to the meaning of the word atheism. The second is the more annoying one, the need of theists to apply labels so they dont have to deal with what you are saying, but instead can deal with the label and all the perceived things that come with it. But back to the first...

When one does not subscribe to a god then one can be in one of 2 states. The first is that they believe for sure there is no god(s). THIS is a belief. We have no evidence either way at present so to hold any definite conclusions on the point is a belief. Simple as that.

The second state to be in is one that just doesn’t believe it. The example someone gave here of time travel is perfect. If someone said they could time travel you wouldn’t believe them until they proved it, but you don’t go around actively disbelieving in time travel either.

The problem is we only have one word for both of these states. “Atheism”. The etymology of the word shows that its original meaning was that of someone who actively believes there is no god. There never was a word for not believing either way.

The most common mistake is to leap on the word “Agnostic” for this. However Huxley coined this word to describe, not the undecided, but people who actively believe that there is no way of knowing either way so why try. This is also a belief. We do not know what the science of the future will bring. If you did youd be a rich man. So to conclude what we can, or cant, discover is a belief.

So now we have three states and just two words. Look at some dictionaries or Wiki and you’ll find the people (who have realised that agnostic means something else) try to get around this by defining “Strong” and “Weak” atheism. Some people call it intrinsic and extrinsic atheism.

For me I prefer to do it like this:

Agnostic: Like Huxley said it’s the BELIEF that we can never know.
Atheist: The BELIEF that there is no god.
Me: I cant be defined by what I DON’T believe. Im not an a-anything. No one calls me an a-astrologer. Or an a-racist. Or an a-timetravelist. You simply have to find something that I do actively support or believe in and define me by that. I reject the term atheist except sometimes as a term of convenience during conversation.

Thats a fair point. I suppose it comes down to the fact of whether your belief is based on faith (no evidence) or a body of scientific knowledge i.e. that time travel is not currently possible (althought is theoretically possible)