Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

Actually, this was a good read. I'm bowing out too. I feel I've grown, learned something new, and stances are getting circular.

I love this Temple.

yeah i believe i am done aswell , good discussion , good points , much to think about

CableSteele wrote: 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."

I would agree with you that no belief is absolute. Just as you experience visions or dreams or whatever that are personal to you, each of us has our own personal beliefs based on our own personal experiences. In this reality we can never "know" anything with absolute certainty. But we must start somewhere and so we start with the assumption that reality exists in some form. We must also assume that we can learn something about this reality. Once we can accept those premises we can move forward in our search for "truth". This will not be an absolute truth since we can never absolutely know this reality exists but it can be an objective truth based on consensus. In that search we also develop our subjective truths such as your personal experiences with visions.

So not only can we have subjective truth we can also have objective truth. It is objectively true that we landed on the moon. This comes from the evidence we have to examine that this event happened in this reality. Keep in mind this is not an absolute truth but an objective truth. Within the construct of this reality, which we have assumed exists, we can examine the rockets and talk to the astronauts and see the video and hear the comms. If need be we could even go to the moon and see the lunar landers still there. This is all evidence that we did land on the moon. It is an objective truth that is accepted by consensus through the evidence which is overwhelming and to not accept those facts is a failure in logic and reasoning.

However when it comes to a God or Gods, that may or may not be transcendent, this can never be the case. There is no evidence to examine outside our personal experience. Short of a God manifesting in physical reality and providing evidence that he created the universe, the belief in a God will always be a subjective belief. Some will come to believe that a God or Gods exist because their personal experience have convinced them of that. Since there is no external/physical evidence to examine and no comparisons to be made that could lead to consensus, this becomes an act or leap of Faith. In this leap they come to trust this God or Gods and have faith that it is a just or fair or loving or benevolent God and cares for the things it has created, namely us, and only does things in our best interests.

Others will not be so willing to take this leap of faith and instead never accept the conclusion that supernatural forces governs our natural universe or that we could be subject to their whims. Their subjective experiences say this makes no sense. Instead the search for a reality that is as close to absolute truth as possible is their goal. Those that pursue this path will never find absolute truth because of the above assumptions but they strive to get the best objective truth that is as close as possible to absolute truth. Often times this automatically excludes the consideration of a God or Gods because if one existed then nothing could ever be objectively proven. Other times they are eliminated through deduction. At any time a God or God could change whatever it wanted and so our entire universe would make no sense. In effect we could never learn anything about our reality.

I think this is the difference between Theist and Atheist.

Atheism is an explicit belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. It may bring with it any of a series of perspectives on the universe. It is not a belief system. It is a single belief.

It does not represent a hole or absence. If I may generalize, the atheist says this (more or less):

"There is no evidence to suggest that there is a supreme being. There is a wealth of evidence and a pile of logical proofs suggesting a supreme being does not exist. To whit, I do not believe in one."

That part, at least, is quite simple. The social consequences of that conclusions of that are where things get complicated.

Now, another question.

Other than an arguing point, a relatively pointless one, what value does it have to label atheism a belief, or not?

Surely the only time this type of question comes about is in regards to one who believes in a deity, or something of the like meeting an atheist and the arguing point is, "Well, even you believe in something!" as if this is little more than misdirection.

Certainly here, it has taken its own life, but from another thread apparently, so I am wondering, what has been gained ultimately?

Khaos wrote: Now, another question.

Other than an arguing point, a relatively pointless one, what value does it have to label atheism a belief, or not?

Surely the only time this type of question comes about is in regards to one who believes in a deity, or something of the like meeting an atheist and the arguing point is, "Well, even you believe in something!" as if this is little more than misdirection.

Certainly here, it has taken its own life, but from another thread apparently, so I am wondering, what has been gained ultimately?

Hence my post on page two:

Goken wrote:

Rugadd wrote: Let's start by defining the term as found in a common dictionary.

atheism (noun)
1. the doctrine or BELIEF that there is no God.
2. disBELIEF in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

What I find interesting about these two definitions of the same thing is that one seems to support one side of the argument and the other supports the other side. Definition 1 states that it is a belief in the absence of a god and definition 2 states that it is the absence of a belief in a god.

That begs the question, does whether it's a belief or not actually matter or is it simply semantic?

It is an interesting question. Does the label really change anything? The length of this discussion seems to imply that to some it does, to others maybe not. I do believe that it is a semantic issue more than anything, but, similar to how I treat transgender people, I like to know what people prefer to be called so that I may do so accordingly.

Goken wrote: It is an interesting question. Does the label really change anything? The length of this discussion seems to imply that to some it does, to others maybe not. I do believe that it is a semantic issue more than anything, but, similar to how I treat transgender people, I like to know what people prefer to be called so that I may do so accordingly.

The two definitions are actually quite different. That is what I was trying to convey in my first post.

The first is a claim that there is no God
The second is a rejection of claims that there is a God.

The first definition is a belief while the second is not but I think you will find those that claim Atheism under either definition. As to why it matters, we could ask the same thing about any thread on this board. It matters because it matters. Its another form of our individual attempts to get as close to objective truth as possible. How else do we do this other than through the discourse of discussion and debate?

It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

Being that they are different types of belief and do not cancel each other out... I disbelieve in the belief in God is not the same as I disbelieve in my belief. The later being at the same level of analysis. It's just one the problems of being smart enough to know we don't know things for sure but not smart enough to know how smart we are!! We nest things to build 'order' and then confused about how it all relates. At least that is my excuse...

Khaos wrote: Certainly here, it has taken its own life, but from another thread apparently, so I am wondering, what has been gained ultimately?

Other then exercising critical thinking.... I dunno, entertainment maybe!!!?

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Same dif to me :ohmy: :pinch: