Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

TheDude wrote: Atheism is a belief.
Doubt exists only when there is a subject to be doubted and a doubter willing to doubt. When a subject, in this case God/Gods, is doubted, it is made subject to inquiry. Agnostics stop at doubting, and don't go into further inquiry to determine whether the claim "God(s) exist" is true or false. Atheists, however, pursue inquiry until they come to the conclusion that there are no Gods, erasing previously held beliefs and doubts and replacing them with a new belief.
And by belief I'm referring to any piece of information which is not verifiable to absolute certainty. For example, it is a fact that something exists (cogito ergo sum) but almost everything else is a belief. I believe that there is a lamp in this room with me, since I see it and have interacted with it, but I may be subject to an illusion or some other deception, and so the existence of the lamp is not absolutely certain. As a result, I can only say that I believe the lamp is there or that I believe there is no lamp there. If someone is atheist, it is because they have followed the pattern from belief to doubt to inquiry and back to belief. So I think atheism is a belief.

Your confusing atheism with what an atheist may believe.

I am probably going to offend people....

Atheism, from what I have witnessed, is anti-Christianity. God, in monotheistic religions, is the “creator” and source of all moral authority. The Supreme Being. But mankind has many “Gods” that it worships and sees as their moral authority, creator and/or source of power. Money is what many worship, even though they claim to worship something else or nothing. They believe in the happiness, power and ability for it to create in their lives. Their moral compass is centered on money and the gathering and use of it. For some it is power, or fame, science or whatever.

The truly arrogant believe in their own abilities to do and provide the same for themselves. :ohmy:

Even if someone said to me that they do not believe in anything and just go through life with no fate assigned to them, all alone and having no control over anything I would ask them if they thought that luck played a role in their existence? And if they said there were no such thing as luck then I might, might believe they are the only Atheist on Earth. All other people should probably take a good long hard look at themselves and their lives and come up with a name for the religion that they actually practice… Money-ist, Power-ist, Fame-ist, Collecting Crap-ist, Hate-ist, Self-Importance-ist…

I do not blame Atheist for predominately being anti-Christian. That particular religion has done quite a bit over its course to tarnish its name. And has had a negative effect on people and their lives all throughout its history. But, then again, they should probably call themselves what they actually are… Anti-Christian-ist.

Your not wrong to draw a conclusion from your experiences, and I'm sure there are many people who fit your view, but I would be wary of applying it absolutely.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I am probably going to offend people....

Atheism, from what I have witnessed, is anti-Christianity. God, in monotheistic religions, is the “creator” and source of all moral authority. The Supreme Being. But mankind has many “Gods” that it worships and sees as their moral authority, creator and/or source of power. Money is what many worship, even though they claim to worship something else or nothing. They believe in the happiness, power and ability for it to create in their lives. Their moral compass is centered on money and the gathering and use of it. For some it is power, or fame, science or whatever.

The truly arrogant believe in their own abilities to do and provide the same for themselves. :ohmy:

Even if someone said to me that they do not believe in anything and just go through life with no fate assigned to them, all alone and having no control over anything I would ask them if they thought that luck played a role in their existence? And if they said there were no such thing as luck then I might, might believe they are the only Atheist on Earth. All other people should probably take a good long hard look at themselves and their lives and come up with a name for the religion that they actually practice… Money-ist, Power-ist, Fame-ist, Collecting Crap-ist, Hate-ist, Self-Importance-ist…

I do not blame Atheist for predominately being anti-Christian. That particular religion has done quite a bit over its course to tarnish its name. And has had a negative effect on people and their lives all throughout its history. But, then again, they should probably call themselves what they actually are… Anti-Christian-ist.

There is such thing as secular morality. The lack of belief in God/gods doesn't automatically mean belief in destructive social practices.

Also, Christianity isn't the only theist belief structure out there. It's not all about you, you know?

Thank you Rugadd.
I am always wary of how I apply things and always open to new information to help me better find a more complete view. I have found that even Logic-ist and Science-ist fit in to this broad view. It is not a bad thing to know what people dedicate their lives to or what they believe. It may not always be what they thought, but that is also part of self-discovery… discovering.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I am probably going to offend people....

Atheism, from what I have witnessed, is anti-Christianity. God, in monotheistic religions, is the “creator” and source of all moral authority. The Supreme Being. But mankind has many “Gods” that it worships and sees as their moral authority, creator and/or source of power. Money is what many worship, even though they claim to worship something else or nothing. They believe in the happiness, power and ability for it to create in their lives. Their moral compass is centered on money and the gathering and use of it. For some it is power, or fame, science or whatever.

The truly arrogant believe in their own abilities to do and provide the same for themselves. :ohmy:

Even if someone said to me that they do not believe in anything and just go through life with no fate assigned to them, all alone and having no control over anything I would ask them if they thought that luck played a role in their existence? And if they said there were no such thing as luck then I might, might believe they are the only Atheist on Earth. All other people should probably take a good long hard look at themselves and their lives and come up with a name for the religion that they actually practice… Money-ist, Power-ist, Fame-ist, Collecting Crap-ist, Hate-ist, Self-Importance-ist…

I do not blame Atheist for predominately being anti-Christian. That particular religion has done quite a bit over its course to tarnish its name. And has had a negative effect on people and their lives all throughout its history. But, then again, they should probably call themselves what they actually are… Anti-Christian-ist.

Yet another way to look at it, sure, if you think of the universe in terms of gods. Just semantics, as far as I'm concerned. A god for one can be called a focus for another. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's some kind or religion.

On the note about being anti-Christian, I wouldn't go so far as that, but merely anti-take-this-in-your-face-ism. There are atheists who do go out of their way, for whatever reason (there are many), to push others out of their beliefs. That isn't okay and it's just as bigoted and intolerant as a Fundie knocking on my door to tell me I'm going to hell. Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

Luthien wrote: Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Why would you want to convince another person that they are wrong?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Thank you Rugadd.
I am always wary of how I apply things and always open to new information to help me better find a more complete view. I have found that even Logic-ist and Science-ist fit in to this broad view. It is not a bad thing to know what people dedicate their lives to or what they believe. It may not always be what they thought, but that is also part of self-discovery… discovering.

For the record, I love religion. It is a wonderful way to sublimate life, something I feel everyone should do.

I do so here, with this community.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

So you don't trust your fellow man to have morals outside of an organized religion? It must be a very frightening world you live in!

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Luthien wrote: Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Why would you want to convince another person that they are wrong?

My honest understanding of how it works is that both parties have a view theat they think is the correct view. They state why they think that way, then counter each other's points, then reach an understanding of what is wrong or right. That's my understanding of it, at least. In any regard, both are trying to convince the other why the other person is wrong. It's just a way of saying, "proofing one's logic," or finding the flaws in a point or argument. I think it helps to find a better, more solid foundation for one's conclusion.

Miss_Leah wrote: There is such thing as secular morality.

only if you ignore the historical evolution of [our ideas on] morality

religious history and the history of morality are fundamentally intertwined; it is only now that we have modern, complex societies, which most definitely have sprung from our religious foundations and origins, that anyone can even conceive of the idea that religion and morality are or could be independent from each other

Miss_Leah wrote: The lack of belief in God/gods doesn't automatically mean belief in destructive social practices.

true, and i dont think its necessary to believe in God or Gods, per se, in order to want to be moral

but

in theory, the belief in "higher powers" places one in a context which he or she cannot ever hope to rise above

secular ethics mean nothing to the person who can dominate the secular world with impunity, because the underlying principle of secular ethics is that "things work better for all of us when we get along and treat each other well"

if i have the ability to wipe out 99.9999% of the earth, and totally dominate the remaining few, i have transcended the foundational constraints of modern, secular ethics

you can make the case that someone who would actually do this is not going to be swayed by fear of god either, but thats not anything you could prove and is not necessarily as reasonable as it might seem at first

supposing that someone does in fact really believe in God, it is easy to accept the possibility that such a person would restrain his or herself as a consequence of this belief

Miss_Leah wrote: It's not all about you, you know?

well, from over here it sure looks like i am the one who is dreaming this funny dream

My. Will you look at how fast this topic grew? Who knew? (don't answer that. )

:laugh:

Miss_Leah wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

So you don't trust your fellow man to have morals outside of an organized religion? It must be a very frightening world you live in!

I did not say that. I said, "Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time" and that it, "changes with time and each passing generation."

An example is that a hundred years ago it was completely acceptable that a sixteen year old girl was wed to an older guy and that is not acceptable now.

Nor did I say that religion is the only place to obtain moral authority. As most religions have changed their own doctrine at some point to encorporate activities that would normally be outside the moral path previously laid down. And there again, it was man, secular decisions, that made those changes and told others it was backed by religion. Where most religions have strict laws that are not subjective.

As to trusting my fellow man…

I trust people to be exactly what they are. For each person that is different. So you could say that I trust my fellow man completely.

To say "There are no Gods" is a belief. But this is not atheism. Since you can never prove there are no Gods it becomes a belief and could possibly even be construed as a worldview.

But to say "I don't accept the existence of a God because there is no evidence to support it" is a position on a single issue. Its not a belief and its not a world view. This is the default stance on any single issue. If I say I have an invisible purple unicorn in my garage, your default position is to not believe me unless I can prove to you that I, in fact, do have an invisible purple unicorn in my garage. This is the premise that not only Atheism but any logical process operates under. An atheist takes the default option of disbelief in the claim that a God exists, not that no Gods exist no matter what.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

I think plenty of Humanists would disagree with you!

But therein lies an answer to the question. Most of the atheists I know are secular humanists in terms of their 'beliefs', morals and ethics.

I’m sure they would. :laugh:

And we could debate it until we were blue in the face. :silly: But, the only way I could think to prove one way or the other is to wait a couple of hundred years and see what course was taken and how things turned out. :woohoo:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: To say "There are no Gods" is a belief. But this is not atheism. Since you can never prove there are no Gods it becomes a belief and could possibly even be construed as a worldview.

But to say "I don't accept the existence of a God because there is no evidence to support it" is a position on a single issue. Its not a belief and its not a world view.

well, this is where it might get tricky

having a view on what the origins of the world are (or are not) is a really good step in the direction of developing a world view

i agree with the distinction between "not being convinced" and "believing" but even that distinction makes for the basis of a world view

you can have a world view based on belief that there is a god

you can have a world view based on the belief that there is no god

both of those obviously make for the foundation of a world-view

and i think you can also construct a kind of world view that begins with the understanding that you do not know for sure if there is a god or not, although i guess thats the one with the most room for personalization

I tend to see it things being in 'strengths of' belief, as a function of our capacity to perceive our environment and therefore populate it in the past, present and future with thoughts. Viewing thoughts as isolated events external to anything except themselves, then they exist entirely of models which represent those things external (to the thoughts) and therefore integrally have with the attribute of accuracy.

So, the act of awareness itself in our body and environment are heavily reinforced beliefs that our perceptions are accurate, else we would have little confidence or capability to interact with the world. But when it comes to the question of something which cannot be proven, even if only experienced (like a dream) rarely, then we end up having a requirement to artificially reinforce that belief to maintain it. This is where for me the definition of religions comes into play, it is the system of reinforcing a belief to facilitate participation with it.

So the question about atheism, I tend to think it depends on what level of analysis one wants to focus on. I feel most comfortable viewing it as a belief system insofar as all perception is belief in our capacity to perceive. I feel most comfortable viewing it as a belief if someone chooses to say they do not believe in God/Goddess/s. But I do not think it is a belief if the person has never considered the question and therefore does not have a position on it.... but once the question is asked of them
:silly:
Measures of things