Atheistic Beliefs?

Black Swan

If you are an atheist, is there something you believe in? If so, what?

Rev Hellfire

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you are an atheist, is there something you believe in? If so, what?

You believe there are no gods. That's it, nothing else.

Rational thought. Does that count?

oshead

Yeah, I believe in rational thinking.

Dave OS

Black Swan

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Rational thought. Does that count?

oshead wrote: »

Yeah, I believe in rational thinking.

If you believe that rational thought has value, I would think so. Max Weber addressed this in his instrumentally-rational/value-rational paradigm?

Blue_Lagoon

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you believe that rational thought has value, I would think so. Max Weber addressed this in his instrumentally-rational/value-rational paradigm?

I've only a Wikipedia level of knowledge about Weber so I certainly wouldn't be able to comment on any of his work as I don't know much about it.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Rational thought. Does that count?

Unless atheists actually have a monopoly on rational thought in reality surely not?

See the problem with atheism is that people keep defining it in different ways and as such it is difficult to find a clear definition.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

See the problem with atheism is that people keep defining it in different ways and as such it is difficult to find a clear definition.

It has a relatively simple definition: An atheist doesn't believe in any god(s); they don't believe in any supernatural being that holds dominion over the universe or humans; nor do they believe that an intelligent being created the universe. They believe that the universe, and everything in it, came about by natural processes.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

See the problem with atheism is that people keep defining it in different ways and as such it is difficult to find a clear definition.

Found one:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58546977&postcount=2

Black Swan

The original OP was not intended to treat atheism as a belief system, so I apologise for any confusion that may have occurred, especially with the thread title; rather, what do persons who claim to be atheists believe in?

Perhaps it would be useful to simply define concept "belief" first, as any cognitive content held as true, which may or may not have been directly experienced by the person who claims to be an atheist; e.g., you may believe in rational thought as the best way to view the world, but may not have personally tested every aspect of that world through the use of rational thought?

Does this make sense?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

They believe that the universe, and everything in it, came about by natural processes.

This works methinks. If Jammy claims to be an atheist, this is what he believes in.

Atheism has been often cast in a negative light, especially by its critics, as not believing in something (God or whatever). But they do believe in something surely, and this can be stated in the positive?

MackDeToaster

Well, my understanding of my being atheistic means simply that I lack a belief in any deities. Other than that I'm 99.99% certain that the reality I perceive around me is objective. After that I don't really see how this can be answered, my opinions and beliefs are subjective e.g. motorbikes are good fun, curry chips are yummy, ad infinitum

CDfm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you are an atheist, is there something you believe in? If so, what?

That must be an Oxymoron -surely an atheist cant have beliefs?

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

See the problem with atheism is that people keep defining it in different ways and as such it is difficult to find a clear definition.

So it's a bit like theism then...

Black Swan

CDfm wrote: »

That must be an Oxymoron -surely an atheist cant have beliefs?

So you contend that atheists cannot believe in anything?

But does something termed as a belief necessarily have to be interpreted in a theological sense, per se? To reiterate from an earlier post, can a belief also be defined as...

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Perhaps it would be useful to simply define concept "belief" first, as any cognitive content held as true, which may or may not have been directly experienced by the person who claims to be an atheist; e.g., you may believe in rational thought as the best way to view the world, but may not have personally tested every aspect of that world through the use of rational thought?

Blue_Lagoon

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Perhaps it would be useful to simply define concept "belief" first, as any cognitive content held as true, which may or may not have been directly experienced by the person who claims to be an atheist; e.g., you may believe in rational thought as the best way to view the world, but may not have personally tested every aspect of that world through the use of rational thought?

Does this make sense?

Yes, that makes sense, I think. I personally like to view everything through the filter of rational thought, and examine all things with rational thought. Of course, I haven't tested all aspects of life with it, and all aspects of life can't be tested with it as of yet. But I aim to test all I can with it! I also believe things that have been tested rationally by others, i.e. I believe Relativity to be true (leaving all experimental evidence aside), not only because I have tested it rationally myself, but because it has been rationally tested by others who I believe have/had the ability to test it rationally.

In essence, all things I believe in have to be able to be empirically tested and/or have a grounding in rational logic. That's my fundamental disagreement and problem with all things supernatural: That they're outside the realm of testability.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Atheism has been often cast in a negative light, especially by its critics, as not believing in something (God or whatever). But they do believe in something surely, and this can be stated in the positive?

No doubt they have been cast in negative light, but that doesn't bother me personally. They simply don't believe in anything.

I'll outline my own personal beliefs, and I can only talk for myself here, as atheists aren't a group in the same way Christians are, I.e. Atheists can't all be classified to have the same specific beliefs. I, personally, don't believe in anything supernatural, paranormal, whatever you want to call it. I don't believe in any deity. I believe that all things can be explained through the method of science, and I believe all things have an explanation through science. That's my brief explanation of my own belief system, if you'd like a more detailed version I'd be more than happy to provide it.

If I haven't misinterpreted your questions, I think those are relevant answers!

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You believe there are no gods. That's it, nothing else.

There was I thinking it was "You don't believe there are gods", my mistake.

CDfm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So you contend that atheists cannot believe in anything?

Atheists dont believe there are Gods.

Theists believe there are.

Otherwise their universe is the same. They have the same likes and dislikes and dilemmas as everyone else. They go to bed believing the sun will rise in the morning. Hope they win the lottery,

They believe urinating in sinks is wrong if they need to wash their hands-I know this is a sweeping generalisation but I hope its true

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

So it's a bit like theism then...

See theism is only of different explanations due to the fact that theism makes up different ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and so on.

However atheism is different. Atheism by definition should be just a disbelief right? However people start with ideas that atheists believe in reason? However how is this the case when atheism is merely a disbelief. It just seems that some people are attaching things onto atheism that aren't a part of atheism at all.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

However atheism is different. Atheism by definition should be just a disbelief right? However people start with ideas that atheists believe in reason? However how is this the case when atheism is merely a disbelief. It just seems that some people are attaching things onto atheism that aren't a part of atheism at all.

I think when most atheists say they believe in things like reason, logic and rational thinking, they're making a subtle digg at theism (irrational belief etc.). That's all. They're not attaching alternative/extra meanings to atheism.

CDfm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I think when most atheists say they believe in things like reason, logic and rational thinking, they're making a subtle digg at theism (irrational belief etc.). That's all. They're not attaching alternative/extra meanings to atheism.

There is a debate amongst scientists about Weber and they refer to his stuff on sociology and empiracal studies as "pseudo science" .

Some criticisms of Weber are that its impossible to be truly objective or unbiased. Someone (I cant remember who) posted a link to an American Nobel Laureate on You Tube speaking about social studies using scientific language and methods as being inherently flawed. Some things cant be scientifically tested.

I hope this jogs someones memory and they post the link.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, that makes sense, I think. I personally like to view everything through the filter of rational thought, and examine all things with rational thought. Of course, I haven't tested all aspects of life with it, and all aspects of life can't be tested with it as of yet.

What exactly do you mean by rational thought? What does everyone else mean? It is one of those phrases that people use just for its positive connotations rather than actually having a clear idea of what it means.

In essence, all things I believe in have to be able to be empirically tested and/or have a grounding in rational logic. That's my fundamental disagreement and problem with all things supernatural: That they're outside the realm of testability.

I believe that all things can be explained through the method of science, and I believe all things have an explanation through science.

"If you can't kick it, you can't count it."

So you are a naturalist: nothing exists except physical matter. Teleology (purpose) is a delusion, etc, etc.

Are intellectual disciplines that are not science, such as the arts, theology and to some degree philosophy (which science came from), merely entertainment? Are they incapable of bringing truths that are not based on science to our attention? Because when you say "all things" that is what you are implying.

clairem

Hey everyone. First time posting on this forum. I suppose I believe I've been brought up well enough to know the difference between right and wrong and don't need a religion to be my moral compass or whatever . I've never believed in god as I've always questioned everything, even as a young kid. I'm a good person and I'm proud of being an atheist and always have been :-) Love this forum - it's great to hear from like minded people.

Húrin

clairem wrote: »

Hey everyone. First time posting on this forum. I suppose I believe I've been brought up well enough to know the difference between right and wrong and don't need a religion to be my moral compass or whatever . I've never believed in god as I've always questioned everything, even as a young kid.

It seems that in some peoples' eyes, being an atheist actually consitutes evidence that they "question everything". Maybe in the 1950s, but not now. I find this kind of statement pretty fishy given that most of the people in my generation in my culture (early 20s, Dublin, middle class) are atheists by default. Th fact that you have never changed your belief does not add weight to your claim to have questioned everything.

Did you ever consider the absurdity of saying that there is a real right and wrong, but that there is no God?

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by rational thought? What does everyone else mean? It is one of those phrases that people use just for its positive connotations rather than actually having a clear idea of what it means.

Well, I mean it in a very ambiguous way. Rational thought, to me, is looking at everything from a logical perspective. Looking to see do things make sense, to see can a certain idea or concept be linked to others that you've already concluded do make sense. Not looking at things from an emotional perspective, or not using only emotions to make decisions. Seeing can you arrive at a certain conclusion logically. And, I suppose, not relying on faith. I know that's very vague, but it's the best I can do without getting into a long, and personal, post.

Húrin wrote: »

So you are a naturalist: nothing exists except physical matter. Teleology (purpose) is a delusion, etc, etc.

I didn't really say that. I just said that I prefer things to be able to be empirically tested (which I know isn't always the case), and to have a grounding in logic and reason.

Húrin wrote: »

Are intellectual disciplines that are not science, such as the arts, theology and to some degree philosophy (which science came from), merely entertainment? Are they incapable of bringing truths that are not based on science to our attention? Because when you say "all things" that is what you are implying.

No, of course they're not for entertainment. I didn't say that. I said I like things to be grounded in logic and reason, if some idea has a chain of logic and thought leading to it, and I can conclude that that chain is logical, then I've no problem believing it. And I've no doubt that disciplines such as philosophy are grounded in thought and logic.

My only problems are disciplines which draw in supernatural elements, so in that sense I wouldn't respect theology in the same way I would science or philosophy. As I can't see a chain of reasoning in religious concepts and ideas that satisfy me, personally.

I know what I've said is very vague, but, if you've any more problems with what I've said I'll try to elaborate more.

Húrin

clairem wrote: »

I'm a good person

This is another problematic and self-righteous statement. Nobody always does good and never does bad. Where do you draw your "good person" line? Who doesn't make the grade? And who are you to say? I think it's more realistic to conclude that none of us are good people, or at least to conclude that we're all a mix of good and evil.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

See theism is only of different explanations due to the fact that theism makes up different ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and so on.

However atheism is different. Atheism by definition should be just a disbelief right? However people start with ideas that atheists believe in reason? However how is this the case when atheism is merely a disbelief. It just seems that some people are attaching things onto atheism that aren't a part of atheism at all.

How many variations of Christianity are there? I'll bet every single contributor over next door has a different slant on how they see their relationship with JC. Just like every atheist sees their opinion as more or less important in their day to day lives.

Besides I'm a dyed in the wool atheist and I'm the most un-reasonable and irrational person you'll find in a days walk. Really! I believe there is no God...

sukikettle

Statements like Claire's tend to make me heave. They are contradictory and self glorifying

sukikettle

Studio you sound like a proud parent who has just given birth to yourself. The cooing is undeniable

studiorat

Thanks Suki. From a headbanger like yourself I'll take it as a compliment. Now if you would like to trade insults I'll have a look in in the morning. If you are here to preach as usual I'll leave you to it...

Dades

Suki, your judging of other posters here only relects badly on you and your belief own system.

seanybiker

sukikettle wrote: »

Statements like Claire's tend to make me heave. They are contradictory and self glorifying

How is it contradictory by saying she doesn't believe in god. I dont see how saying you dont beleive in god is self glorifying either. Someone asked a question and she answered it.
From reading the boards over the last while it seems to me thats its the belivers that think they are higher up than us non believers.
I dont beleive in god, nothing contradictory about that or self glorifying about it. Read the bible and then come back with the contractions you find in the whole thing.
I have no problem with people having beliefs, each to their own, just seems that people with belifs look down on us athiests as lower class people.

Said it already , each tot heir own. I'm not gonna write up why I dont belive because you will be one of those one's who says, sher someone else said that before why are ya jumping on the bandwagon, why cant people just accept people dont believe in some lad from 2000 years ago.

sukikettle

I regard aethiests as headbangers and preachy too.Now funny that but I rather be persecuted for God than Satan

Dades

Rest assured you are a headbanger to many here.

sukikettle

Claire deemed herself good...by whose standards and morals please. Who sets the bar in the non-believing kingdom and what keeps you in check if not the ten commandments by which you are morally set to whether you want to be or not

sukikettle

sukikettle wrote: »

I regard aethiests as headbangers and preachy too.Now funny that but I rather be persecuted for God than Satan

I wish I could see what Zeus has to say about this! What'll happen when you die and confront him? For him to say that you never worshipped him and that you're going to be eternally damned?

eoin5

Jakkass wrote: »

See theism is only of different explanations due to the fact that theism makes up different ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and so on.

Sorry to nitpick but Buddhism is a bit different, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism . Buddhism largely denies a perfect creator god who can intervene in our lives, which seems to me to be to be the only sensible way of describing the theistic god.

sukikettle

Dades you don't know me any more than I know you...and being a Christian is not something for you to spit so much venom at. Don't forget you'll be wrong and I'll be right one day

sukikettle

Jammy don't make me giggle

sukikettle

sukikettle wrote: »

Jammy don't make me giggle

Don't dare deny the existance of Zeus suki.

sukikettle

Suki devours last jammydodger from the top layer of a tin of Fox's

sukikettle

Jammy are you talking about the greek washing powder Zeus...I've seen it. It is excellent at removing egg but not sin

sukikettle

sukikettle wrote: »

Suki devours last jammydodger from the top layer of a tin of Fox's

Ah but they're not made by Fox's:p

sukikettle wrote: »

Jammy are you talking about the greek washing powder Zeus...I've seen it. It is excellent at removing egg but not sin

We will see come judgement day suki, we will see.

drkpower

These discussions never fail to amaze me....... Everybody seems to be so convinced as to, essentially, the presence or absence of God (in one shape or another.

For thos e who believe, they must harbour some genuine concerns that there is no God given the lack of any real scientific evidence for His existence. All historical/anecdotal evidence for His existence is, being generous, doubtful. For most reasonable people, believing in something so fundamentally is fundamentally counter-intuitive.

For those who do not, how do you explain that, over the course of modern history, to the present day, the vast majority of the human population has believed in a God/Power/Spirit/Supreme Being/Whatever of some kind - these beliefs have often developed entirely independently of each other and have persisted and are incorporated into the constitutions/similar alternative of almost all modern states. The only alternative explanation is a mass delusion experienced by the earth's population which includes the majority of the scholars/scientists/philosophers etc of this and any order age.

cocoa

As it was discussed earlier in the thread... Personally, I'll always stick to the most basic and linguistic definition of Atheism, it means without theism, without the belief in a deity or deities. It is important to note that this leaves room for two distinct types of Atheists, often referred to as weak and strong atheists, those who do not believe god exists, and those who believe god does not exist.

Personally, I feel weak atheist is synonymous with agnostic and will always use the term agnostic myself to avoid confusion, but it's not wrong to use the term atheist to describe someone who merely doesn't care either way and doesn't actively believe a god does or does not exist.

Having said that, it should be clear that atheism is indeed a lack of belief and cannot be described as a positive belief in something else. There is no common denominator amongst atheist, no common belief or approach to life. Newborn babies are atheists, as are, one might reasonably assume, most of the animal kingdom.

Personally, I'm an agnostic, as far as I'm concerned we have no way of knowing if a god or gods does or does not exist, I don't think it affects me, I don't care about it and I would never deny that it's all possible, merely that it is pointless to discuss it.

Oh and I like rational thought too, but I wouldn't describe it as an approach or something to believe in, it's just something you do, hopefully most of the time. I like to think rationally, as by my definition anyway, it leads to the results I desired.

sukikettle

Fox's do make them.In fact there are several 'jammydodgers' but only one God. I prefer the ones with cream...the true jammydodgers are stubborn and sticky and don't melt very well. It would take something a little hotter than tea eh Jam?

sukikettle

I don't read posts longer than 2-3 lines. It's too late for all that

sukikettle

We are three dimensional. If God were 10 then there is no way we'd see Him even though he'd be all around us. Just like if you dipped your finger into a two dimensional world all that person would see is a circle. Get my point?

drkpower

dont we have 4 dimensions..........?

so God could be fingering all of us right now? wow, thats deep........

cocoa

@ sukikettle:

please stop making several posts one after the other, think before you post or if you must, use edit. It would be appreciated.

Also, it would be nice if you could stop going way off topic, actually read what other posters said, made a coherent reply to this, instead of just rambling pointlessly, and ignoring anyone who does make the effort to organise their thoughts so everyone can understand and enjoy the discussion.

Seriously, this could be a nice interesting discussion, as far as I can tell all you're doing is being childish.

sukikettle

Dark I said 10 so that covers 4 and Cocoa lighten up

Rev Hellfire

eoin5 wrote: »

Sorry to nitpick but Buddhism is a bit different, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism . Buddhism largely denies a perfect creator god who can intervene in our lives, which seems to me to be to be the only sensible way of describing the theistic god.

Sorry to nitpick about you nitpicking
But buddhism is agnostic on the subject, added to which the supernatural is very present in its beliefs and goals. A quick google on brahma and sakka will show the idea of gods is very present in eastern Buddhism, though the gods are note the same as the form given by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.