Atheism

[Muncey]

The problem with treating it as a belief system for me is it puts it on an equal ground as religion, which it isn't. Like I said we have no need to claim non-conspiracy theorists, non-ghost believers, non-vampire believers ect ect are belief systems why is atheism?

Not believing in a God should be treated the same as not believing in dragons or anything supernatural/mystical but instead because its seen as a belief system its blown out of proportion to the point where people spend their lives dedicated to this rejection of an idea. Is anybody dedicating themselves to debunking father christmas? Nope, and we don't have a name for those non-believers either.. but because Religion is so big, influential, powerful.. the same basic rejection of nonsense is treated totally different, to the point it itself is seen as a "belief system".

[faultier]

Treating the rejection of an idea as a belief system is misleading imo, we have conspiracy theorists, people who believe in ghosts/UFOs ect. we don't require a name for everybody who doesn't believe in that nonsense, because the rejection of those ideas aren't a belief system.. they're just the belief that its nonsense.

but one could argue that the way you worded that sentence sounds like you presume that conspiracy theories are nonsense, when objectively you cannot undisputably disprove said conspiracy theories/ existence of ghosts and UFOS anymore than conspiracy theorists can undisputably prove the validity of their claims.
not unlike atheists who cannot undisputably disprove the existence of god and yet presume the validity of their opinion? doesn't that qualify as a belief?

or are we talking about agnostics?

[Muncey]

Treating the rejection of an idea as a belief system is misleading imo, we have conspiracy theorists, people who believe in ghosts/UFOs ect. we don't require a name for everybody who doesn't believe in that nonsense, because the rejection of those ideas aren't a belief system.. they're just the belief that its nonsense.

but one could argue that the way you worded that sentence sounds like you presume that conspiracy theories are nonsense, when objectively you cannot undisputably disprove said conspiracy theories/ existence of ghosts and UFOS anymore than conspiracy theorists can undisputably prove the validity of their claims.
not unlike atheists who cannot undisputably disprove the existence of god and yet presume the validity of their opinion? doesn't that qualify as a belief?

or are we talking about agnostics?

That's a typical theistic argument that we cannot fundamentally prove anything, but that's such a weak argument. We understand that probably this laptop in front of me exists, we know that me claiming I can fly to the moon and back might not be true. Could you prove I couldn't? No, not really.. I mean you could say it'd break all known physical laws but hey, brush those a side cause you can't be absolutely certain they're right. Basically you cannot indisputably prove or disprove anything, anybody who argues in such a way would instantly be removed from any serious discussion.

I guess I get your point, true atheism would probably be a belief system.. I claim to be an atheist because I reject every man made God, basically all the known Gods thus far. However by some definitions I could be considered agnostic because I don't reject the idea that a creator is possible, just very unlikely and I personally don't think there is. So depends how you want to define atheism.

[ultraspatial]

The problem with treating it as a belief system for me is it puts it on an equal ground as religion, which it isn't. Like I said we have no need to claim non-conspiracy theorists, non-ghost believers, non-vampire believers ect ect are belief systems why is atheism?

Not believing in a God should be treated the same as not believing in dragons or anything supernatural/mystical but instead because its seen as a belief system its blown out of proportion to the point where people spend their lives dedicated to this rejection of an idea. Is anybody dedicating themselves to debunking father christmas? Nope, and we don't have a name for those non-believers either.. but because Religion is so big, influential, powerful.. the same basic rejection of nonsense is treated totally different, to the point it itself is seen as a "belief system".

i somewhat agree - like i said, my idea of true atheism is closer to apatheism

but if you spend a big chunk of your time arguing with people that theism/deism is stupid, going around in different countries to tell people off, writing extensively on the matter etc, it's like religion and should be treated as such. at least imo

[rickyarbino]

Treating the rejection of an idea as a belief system is misleading imo, we have conspiracy theorists, people who believe in ghosts/UFOs ect. we don't require a name for everybody who doesn't believe in that nonsense, because the rejection of those ideas aren't a belief system.. they're just the belief that its nonsense.

but one could argue that the way you worded that sentence sounds like you presume that conspiracy theories are nonsense, when objectively you cannot undisputably disprove said conspiracy theories/ existence of ghosts and UFOS anymore than conspiracy theorists can undisputably prove the validity of their claims.
not unlike atheists who cannot undisputably disprove the existence of god and yet presume the validity of their opinion? doesn't that qualify as a belief?

or are we talking about agnostics?

That's a typical theistic argument that we cannot fundamentally prove anything, but that's such a weak argument. We understand that probably this laptop in front of me exists, we know that me claiming I can fly to the moon and back might not be true. Could you prove I couldn't? No, not really.. I mean you could say it'd break all known physical laws but hey, brush those a side cause you can't be absolutely certain they're right. Basically you cannot indisputably prove or disprove anything, anybody who argues in such a way would instantly be removed from any serious discussion.

I guess I get your point, true atheism would probably be a belief system.. I claim to be an atheist because I reject every man made God, basically all the known Gods thus far. However by some definitions I could be considered agnostic because I don't reject the idea that a creator is possible, just very unlikely and I personally don't think there is. So depends how you want to define atheism.

Are you being facetious? Nobody here is arguing that atheists cannot fundamentally prove anything, we are acknowledging that fact and arguing the religiousness of atheism. Even the definition of your atheism is inappropriate, no religion claims to have invented their gods, they claim to have discovered some truth about the universe where there is one, or many, creators of it; as does atheism.
In your example of flying, it isn't my responsibility to prove that you cannot support your claim, it is your responsibility to defend it. The way to do this is to conduct a demonstration of your ability to fly; if you do you can, if you don't you can't.

[Muncey]

but if you spend a big chunk of your time arguing with people that theism/deism is stupid, going around in different countries to tell people off, writing extensively on the matter etc, it's like religion and should be treated as such. at least imo

Yeah I agree, I think those people should be called anti-theist instead of atheist.. I just don't think the rejection of a God deserves to be held up as a belief system. I guess it becomes a belief system, as you said, when people take their belief really, really seriously.. whereas most atheists don't they just don't believe in a God.

[ultraspatial]

yeah, that's probably a better term for the new "reclaimed" atheism

back to the original point that satanism = atheism tho, it depends on what branch of satanism you are looking at.
if you take laveyan satanism then yeah, you're somewhat right. they're atheists but just use satan symbolically and their rituals are a mockery of christiany.
orthodox satanism/luciferianism is a totally different thing tho.

[Muncey]

Are you being facetious? Nobody here is arguing that atheists cannot fundamentally prove anything, we are acknowledging that fact and arguing the religiousness of atheism. Even the definition of your atheism is inappropriate, no religion claims to have invented their gods, they claim to have discovered some truth about the universe where there is one, or many, creators of it; as does atheism.
In your example of flying, it isn't my responsibility to prove that you cannot support your claim, it is your responsibility to defend it. The way to do this is to conduct a demonstration of your ability to fly; if you do you can, if you don't you can't.

You said atheism makes claims it fundamentally cannot support?

I didn't say religion claims to have invented their Gods, I said they have. It is my claim that they invented it, not theirs. Atheism has never claimed to have discovered some truth about the world, just that someone elses claims about truth are wrong. Thats basically my point, one claims to have discovered truth and the other simply says "na, you didn't." Although, again, you can choose to see those things as the same thing.. they both claim to reveal truth, they're both very different.

Exactly, it is my responsibility to defend it.. something religion doesn't do. You cannot be said to have a belief system about my inability to fly just as I don't think atheists should have a belief system about the non-existence of a God.

[Muncey]

luciferianism

Wow, is that a real thing?

[rickyarbino]

but if you spend a big chunk of your time arguing with people that theism/deism is stupid, going around in different countries to tell people off, writing extensively on the matter etc, it's like religion and should be treated as such. at least imo

Yeah I agree, I think those people should be called anti-theist instead of atheist.. I just don't think the rejection of a God deserves to be held up as a belief system. I guess it becomes a belief system, as you said, when people take their belief really, really seriously.. whereas most atheists don't they just don't believe in a God.

yeah, that's probably a better term for the new "reclaimed" atheism

back to the original point that satanism = atheism tho, it depends on what branch of satanism you are looking at.
if you take laveyan satanism then yeah, you're somewhat right. they're atheists but just use satan symbolically and their rituals are a mockery of christiany.
orthodox satanism/luciferianism is a totally different thing tho.

Though if you look at it conceptually I think the similarity is greater. Satan is more or less that which opposes god. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that most atheists use science to support their beliefs, with that being said you can look at Atheism as Scientific Satanism, because science itself assumes that christian gospel is not necessarily true, furthermore scientific reality differs quite radically from christian reality.

On responsibility in supporting arguments, Muncey, what is it about atheism that keeps it out of the "form" of belief systems?

[Muncey]

On responsibility in supporting arguments, Muncey, what is it about atheism that keeps it out of the "form" of belief systems?

Its simplicity. On a very fundamental level its just the rejection of someones idea, that cannot and has not been proved. I don't think that deserves to be labelled as a belief system.. as I said in response to ultra though I will concede atheism, taken too seriously and almost defended in a scientific manner, is a belief system.

Although even then it isn't an argument about atheism being right, its theism being wrong. For example, if we still didn't know how the planets/suns orbit and someone claimed the Sun goes round the Earth, that to me is a belief system (like religion), the rejection and rejection alone of that idea is not a belief system (like atheism) going further and explaining alternatives such as the Sun goes round the Earth would be back to a belief system. A more correct one may be, but one nonetheless. See how the rejection, and rejection alone, does nothing to try and answer the original question.

I guess the lines blur because so many atheists try not to just reject the idea but prove why science is right. Then yeah its a belief system because you reject and provide an alternative.. the rejection alone isn't a belief system imo.

[rickyarbino]

Are you being facetious? Nobody here is arguing that atheists cannot fundamentally prove anything, we are acknowledging that fact and arguing the religiousness of atheism. Even the definition of your atheism is inappropriate, no religion claims to have invented their gods, they claim to have discovered some truth about the universe where there is one, or many, creators of it; as does atheism.
In your example of flying, it isn't my responsibility to prove that you cannot support your claim, it is your responsibility to defend it. The way to do this is to conduct a demonstration of your ability to fly; if you do you can, if you don't you can't.

You said atheism makes claims it fundamentally cannot support?

I didn't say religion claims to have invented their Gods, I said they have. It is my claim that they invented it, not theirs. Atheism has never claimed to have discovered some truth about the world, just that someone elses claims about truth are wrong. Thats basically my point, one claims to have discovered truth and the other simply says "na, you didn't." Although, again, you can choose to see those things as the same thing.. they both claim to reveal truth, they're both very different.

Exactly, it is my responsibility to defend it.. something religion doesn't do. You cannot be said to have a belief system about my inability to fly just as I don't think atheists should have a belief system about the non-existence of a God.

Once again, that wasn't an argument, it was a premise of an argument. I'll lay it out more simply:

1) To believe in some fact is to take it as a truth without evidence.
2) A belief system is a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs that support one another.
3) Atheism says that god does not exist but it does not actively prove it.

Therefore:

4) Atheism is a belief system.

I actually didn't say you said religion claims to have invented their gods, I was merely pointing out a natural conclusion of one of the statements you used earlier. But again, I think we aren't communicating particularly well, I'll give it another shot though. Atheism claims to have discovered some truth about the universe because it suggests that theism's notion of a universe with a creator is false, (in an atheist's eyes)this literally means that it is true that we live in a universe without a divine creator. Youzimme?

Finally, it's a belief system because it takes a statement that one group treats as a first principle and treats it as a falsehood. Really, the fact that christianity doesn't go to great lengths to prove itself doesn't mean that atheism should not have to. The fact I can disagree with you about this should be proof enough imo.

[ultraspatial]

Though if you look at it conceptually I think the similarity is greater. Satan is more or less that which opposes god. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that most atheists use science to support their beliefs, with that being said you can look at Atheism as Scientific Satanism, because science itself assumes that christian gospel is not necessarily true, furthermore scientific reality differs quite radically from christian reality.

wot

atheism does not oppose god per se. it rejects its existence in whatever form.
atheistic satanism is more focused on celebrating free will and individuality than on arguing about the existence of deities.
even some forms of theistic satanism don't oppose god. you get more gnostic-indebted branches who view god and satan as being one and the same

[Muncey]

1) To believe in some fact is to take it as a truth without evidence.
2) A belief system is a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs that support one another.
3) Atheism says that god does not exist but it does not actively prove it.

Therefore:

4) Atheism is a belief system.

Remember when you thought I was being facetious? This is why.. I wasn't being facetious.. those steps do not follow.

1) To believe in some fact is to take it as a truth without evidence.
2) A belief system is a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs that support one another.
3) You say that I cannot fly but don't actively try and prove it.

Therefore:

4) My inability to fly is a belief system.

I assume you disagree with the conclusion? If you do, either my example is just a comical one that doesn't require any further explanation or your "logical" steps do not work.

Atheism claims to have discovered some truth about the universe because it suggests that theism's notion of a universe with a creator is false, (in an atheist's eyes)this literally means that it is true that we live in a universe without a divine creator. Youzimme?

See my previous reply, atheism doesn't claim to have discovered anything, it rejects anothers claim to discovery.. which is entirely different and you keep treating it exactly the same which is where the confusion is.

[rickyarbino]

Though if you look at it conceptually I think the similarity is greater. Satan is more or less that which opposes god. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that most atheists use science to support their beliefs, with that being said you can look at Atheism as Scientific Satanism, because science itself assumes that christian gospel is not necessarily true, furthermore scientific reality differs quite radically from christian reality.

wot

atheism does not oppose god per se. it rejects its existence in whatever form.

Forgive me, I didn't realize there was any observable difference here between rejecting something's existence in whatever form and opposing it.

[scspkr99]

See my previous reply, atheism doesn't claim to have discovered anything, it rejects anothers claim to discovery.. which is entirely different and you keep treating it exactly the same which is where the confusion is.

I am closer to your side in this discussion but I think you are in danger of talking passed each other. It seems that atheism can take more than one form. Consider the following propositions.

A) There is a god
B) There is no god,

Atheists can either withhold assent from A) and in this case the atheist is not making an actual claim and is, as per you, merely failing to assent to the claim that theists are bound to assent to. It is in its simplest terms the lack of a belief in God.

Atheists can also assent to B) in this case the atheist is making an actual claim and we can hold that claim is a part of a belief system in a way that it is not appropriate to hold those that merely withhold assent from A)

[rickyarbino]

1) To believe in some fact is to take it as a truth without evidence.
2) A belief system is a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs that support one another.
3) Atheism says that god does not exist but it does not actively prove it.

Therefore:

4) Atheism is a belief system.

Remember when you thought I was being facetious? This is why.. I wasn't being facetious.. those steps do not follow.

1) To believe in some fact is to take it as a truth without evidence.
2) A belief system is a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs that support one another.
3) You say that I cannot fly but don't actively try and prove it.

Therefore:

4) My inability to fly is a belief system.

I assume you disagree with the conclusion? If you do, either my example is just a comical one that doesn't require any further explanation or your "logical" steps do not work.

Atheism claims to have discovered some truth about the universe because it suggests that theism's notion of a universe with a creator is false, (in an atheist's eyes)this literally means that it is true that we live in a universe without a divine creator. Youzimme?

See my previous reply, atheism doesn't claim to have discovered anything, it rejects anothers claim to discovery.. which is entirely different and you keep treating it exactly the same which is where the confusion is.

Your argument doesn't work because Believing you can fly is a single belief and not a potentially complex arrangement of supportive beliefs. Really, your conclusion would be more like "I believe I can fly". Really, the second premise doesn't factor into the deduction for you.

Well if you want to be so bloody formal then religion doesn't either, but you don't call me out on that do you...
The point is that because there was a point in time inwhich theistic religions didn't exist yet, their coming into existence is reflective of some discovery within society, much like Pythagoras discovered that A^(2)+B^(2)=C^(2), the assumption was that it always had been true within the confinements of the universe, even before the belief was held by any individuals. In that sense the same can be said of atheism since there was a point in time before anybody would have said that a god could not exist, namely the time before anybody had made the claim that a god could, did, or does, exist, and the statement "god does not exist" theoretically holds true for all points in time.

[rickyarbino]

See my previous reply, atheism doesn't claim to have discovered anything, it rejects anothers claim to discovery.. which is entirely different and you keep treating it exactly the same which is where the confusion is.

I am closer to your side in this discussion but I think you are in danger of talking passed each other. It seems that atheism can take more than one form. Consider the following propositions.

A) There is a god
B) There is no god,

Atheists can either withhold assent from A) and in this case the atheist is not making an actual claim and is, as per you, merely failing to assent to the claim that theists are bound to assent to. It is in its simplest terms the lack of a belief in God.

Atheists can also assent to B) in this case the atheist is making an actual claim and we can hold that claim is a part of a belief system in a way that it is not appropriate to hold those that merely withhold assent from A)

Is it possible to withhold assent from a claim without granting assent to its opposite claim though? You couldn't theoretically do both, and which of the two would an atheist grant his/her assent to?

Without delving into that, I would like to present the following argument:
1) All people who regard themselves as atheists identify with the claim that god does not exist
2) No atheist person, as of yet, has the means to provide a proof of statement #1

Therefore
3) Atheism is not founded on any real fact and is believed by those who adhere to it.



I get the impression that Muncey thinks I'm raining on atheism by calling it a belief system, but I'm really not and it really just is, purely as a consequence of what it is.

[scspkr99]

You can't claim both p and ~p but there is nothing preventing an atheist from withholding assent from both propositions and remaining consistent.

[ultraspatial]

Though if you look at it conceptually I think the similarity is greater. Satan is more or less that which opposes god. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that most atheists use science to support their beliefs, with that being said you can look at Atheism as Scientific Satanism, because science itself assumes that christian gospel is not necessarily true, furthermore scientific reality differs quite radically from christian reality.

wot

atheism does not oppose god per se. it rejects its existence in whatever form.

Forgive me, I didn't realize there was any observable difference here between rejecting something's existence in whatever form and opposing it.

in this case there is cause being a satanist doesn't necessarily imply that you reject the idea of (a) god. christians don't reject the devil's existence. they just oppose him/her/it by worshiping god. same thing with theistic satanists.