Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

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

Wow, this thread really did take off. I guess that's understandable seeing as how most of us are here for religious/spiritual reasons anyway.

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. 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.

That's a very comprehensive comparison of the two kind of atheism. I agree with what someone said about Christians always trying to convert atheists. One of the two people I like to watch on periscope is Matt Cawthorn, a former Lutheran turned atheist. He's very knowledgeable and friendly in his approach to the beliefs of others. I highly recommend him if you're into periscope. He always has Christians on there trying to convince him that he's wrong. It really is quite entertaining.

I have experienced unexplainable phenomena at various times in my life as well as visions (drug induced and sleepy dream variety) where I communicated with being that are not of this world. I cannot explain most of what I've seen, let alone prove that it was real. Scientifically speaking, I would say that none of it actually happened, but that doesn't mean that it isn't real in some sense. It's real to me and that's why I believe in it. All belief is subjective. Did we really lands on the moon? How do you know? Faith. Did the Egyptians build the pyramids or find them? Are all the hieroglyphics factual? Faith. Does God exist? Faith is required to answer all these questions. As such, agnostic is the only valid "default belief" as I see it. Atheism is just another way of dealing with the concept of God by saying, "nope."

Edan, when you don't care if there is a god or not it's called "Apatheism". Welcome to the flock of DGAF.

Atheism is absolutely a system of belief since it cannot stand alone with evidence and proof. You can neither prove the existence or non-existence of a deity with 100% certainty.

But you certainly CAN not care one way or the other. hahaha

Oh, and nobody "ran" Mahogany off; she wasn't a martyr. She tucked tail and ran all on her own.

Did nobody from the second wave of these posts read the first waves discussion?

rugadd wrote: Did nobody from the second wave of these posts read the first waves discussion?

I can only speak for myself, but I skipped most of it. I might have made it to page two? Not meaning any disrespect by the lengthy and well-reasoned responses that people gave, but I got places to go and things to do, so I addressed the points that I wanted to address and left it at that.

rugadd wrote: Did nobody from the second wave of these posts read the first waves discussion?

I did!!!! :laugh:

rugadd wrote: Did nobody from the second wave of these posts read the first waves discussion?

Does it matter? Stop trying to control me man!

Atheists may believe many 'things', a deity may not be one of them.

I do not feel atheism is a belief any more then I feel one can have a belief about something they have no knowledge of. They simply see no evidence that it exists. That is not a statement of for or against the existence its simply a statement of what they can see or not see. To say that I do not see something is to not say it is not there its simply to say I cannot see it. Just my own perspective. However there are hard core people that call themselves atheist that say its impossible to have a god/s but I think they might be better termed anti-theist. Further there are atheist ( a much more common group) that say its unlikely. Which is stating a belief in odds based on their knowledge of the moment. But in my own opinion the term atheist in and of itself is not a belief for or against anything.

Alan wrote: Atheists may believe many 'things', a deity may not be one of them.

any other time i would probably have been like "whatever" but i just finished english comp (today) and this sentence is funny as hell to me right now

---

actually, i guess hell isnt funny

then again, it IS an atheism thread lol

:silly:

---

Edit
i know, i know, if i just finished english comp i should be better at english lol
luckily, my prof doesnt know my screen name

@Luthien, Rugadd
What I mean is that the fundamental stance of an atheist is either the belief in no gods or the lack of belief in any gods, but that the difference between the two definitions is ultimately purely semantic.
All opinions, all accepted knowledge with exception to certain undoubtable things (e.g. "Doubting exists"), are beliefs. The existence of your favorite movie series is a belief ("I believe that Star Wars exists"). Similarly, saying that you don't believe in something is really the same as expressing a belief in the nonexistence of something. "I don't believe in unicorns" really means "I hold a belief (by having an opinion on this matter) that no unicorns exist." As long as an opinion is held, it's a belief.

Supposing someone didn't know anything about religion and also didn't believe in any Gods, not knowing what a God is in the first place, then there would be an atheist who would not believe in God but also not hold any specific belief. This only possible through complete ignorance to the subject, I think.

As for agnostic atheists, I don't really see the point, personally. There is major doubt, but there is no real belief involved. I see it more as "I am in the process of deciding between theism and atheism and I am leaning towards atheism" than "I am an agnostic atheist". But I would say pretty much the same thing about agnosticism in general, too.

It should be noted that I base most of what I say here on The Fixation of Belief by Charles Peirce .