|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 12:31:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 4, 2019 13:48:39 GMT
If we take theists at their word, then theism is simply a belief in God requiring nothing further, then they aren’t really saying anything at all.
No one is able to show evidence for or against the existence of Jehovah, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Yeti, Santa Clause, or that teacup that is orbiting Mars.
Pot/kettle: Isn’t that exactly what you are doing?
For the same reason that theists spend all that time and energy with various groups, in activities, and writing books about something for which they have no first hand knowledge. Everything theists say is either (A) fabricated from thin air, or (B) their own interpretation of what someone else said.
Cody, I've flown from one side of this world to the other; I've seen a lot of strange stuff. But I've never seen anything to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Yahweh controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. Anyway, it's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2019 13:55:44 GMT
Of course it is a belief system just like not believing in unicorns is belief system. Because unlike my previous example of unicorns, you don't have an entire segment of believers trying to influence society or make rules to appease the hypothetical unicorn. Plus most atheists don't write books or edit Wikipedia or write angry blogs. That's a minority of atheists. That's because atheists have not been presented with evidence of a Creator. Well that's what the few atheists that have written books, write blogs and discuss on internet forums try to do. Not always successful though.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 4, 2019 14:01:34 GMT
Yeah, in the same way being unemployed is a job and not jogging is exercise. Antitheism (which is a belief) is not the same thing as atheism, which is what the author is trying to equate. Just a dishonest bait and switch.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 4, 2019 14:08:46 GMT
A puzzler? The author really finds that a puzzler? You, Cody, find it a puzzler? When theism has had such a major and profound impact on mankind's history for thousands of years, how could it be puzzling that people would write books arguing that theism's influence has been, on the whole, an unhealthy one.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 4, 2019 14:35:31 GMT
no. just as reality based thinking isn't a belief system. or astronomy or calculus.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 14:43:50 GMT
Even if we assume that atheists are claiming God doesn't exist (most don't), that's still not a belief system. You can't have a system built around the claim that one thing doesn't exist. Atheists can believe in all kinds of other crazy things that aren't God. They can base their beliefs around ghosts or spirits or Gaia or quantum energy or any of the thousands of atheist philosophies out there. Beyond that, the basic flaw in "the burden is on you to show God doesn't exist" was pointed out by Bertrand Russell nearly a half-century ago: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot:
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 4, 2019 14:50:05 GMT
Its a lack of belief.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 4, 2019 14:55:39 GMT
ballet boys bequest bombastic ballpark birthday bash
headline, the bronx new york:
ten thousand squealing underage male ballerinas were last seen papering the streets of manhattan island in anticipation of the fourteenth annual ballet boys bequest bombastic ballpark birthday bash.
an event now so popular that even bought and sold steel workers' union officials were having to bribe their still in high school kids with new cars to obtain tickets to this night with the stars.
where a once sacred baseball diamond was now transformed into a glitter-soaked rikers island complete with crouton salads served up smothered in a thousand island that suspiciously resembled dad's underwear after a wild night of unbridled who cares but no one commented or stared because dads finally realized that when their sons fall madly in love with each other freedom becomes a ladder transfigured into a sweeping stair and it really doesn't matter where they end up.
sjw 12/04/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the truth setting everyone free.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 4, 2019 17:43:57 GMT
If it wasn't a belief system, you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic.
Ergo, they prove it is a belief system. Sorry about the facts. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 4, 2019 17:51:44 GMT
If it wasn't a belief system, you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic. Ergo, they prove it is a belief system. Sorry about the facts. It is what it is. A lack of belief in God is not contingent on an assertion that it does not exist. Neither is a strong, sceptical suspicion about something a 'belief'. Nor does one have to have a belief that God does not exist in order to take part in discussions - or agnostics for one thing would need to pack up and leave. Sorry about these facts.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 4, 2019 18:57:58 GMT
If it wasn't a belief system, you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic. Ergo, they prove it is a belief system. Sorry about the facts. It is what it is. A lack of belief in God is not contingent on an assertion that it does not exist. Neither is a strong, sceptical suspicion about something a 'belief'. Nor does one have to have a belief that God does not exist in order to take part in discussions - or agnostics for one thing would need to pack up and leave. Sorry about these facts. More incoherent babbling from Film Flaneur. Agnostics are not Atheists. So why are you babbling about something I didn't say? Are you illiterate? Is someone reading the words to you? That person needs to explain to you what is said. Agnostics have no belief. That is defined. Atheists do. That is defined. Sorry about the facts. Perhaps when you graduate the sixth grade, you will be able to speak with adults. I strongly encourage you to attend classes and graduate.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 19:14:29 GMT
If it wasn't a belief system, you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic.
Ergo, they prove it is a belief system. Sorry about the facts. It is what it is. That's a delicious transition right there.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 4, 2019 19:31:08 GMT
More incoherent babbling from Film Flaneur. An insult is not an argument. " Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism Atheism is not capitalised btw, and there's a reason for that. But go on... Because you said " If [atheism] wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic. Ergo, they prove it is a belief system". My point is that the only belief that agnostics hold is that that the existence of God, is unknown or unknowable. But they can still appear on discussion boards such as these without a belief that god doesn't exist, just the same as soft atheists do, without being illogical. And as a soft atheist myself I can assure you that I make no assertions about the purported deliberate supernatural. I ought to know best what I think, and I can certainly remember what I have written. QED. Look back and see what I just told you about the ad hominem fallacy. What is defined more is a well known distinction between soft (or negative) and hard (or positive) atheism. Soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Strong atheism is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. This now-standard distinction has been discussed here before. I am sorry you missed it. www.atheismuk.com/resources/varieties-of-atheism/Sorry about the facts. Still with the insults eh? LOL What is it with those who take issue with atheists on this board that they reach so readily for invective? However since I did two terms back in the 80's as a grad student under Antony Flew, the progenitor of this now-widely accepted distinction of types of atheism I feel I have enough classes in this area under my belt, but thanks anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 1:22:38 GMT
There is an idea going around that theists alone hold the burden of proof, not atheists. “If you want to make the positive claim that God exists,” they say, “you must prove that claim true or false.” We might then wonder, “Aren’t atheists making a positive claim that God doesn’t exist?” By saying, “I believe there is no God,” aren’t they, too, tasked with proving their claim true or false? The answer, according to them, is no. They would say theirs is not a belief, but a “lack or absence of belief.”[1] In his book, God Is Not Great, the late Christopher Hitchens explains, “Our belief is not a belief.”[2] So, what exactly are atheists saying? The source doesn't seem to grasp that there are different types of atheism. There are indeed atheists who make a positive claim that god doesn't exist. And yes, they have just as much of a burden of proof. Others (who are most, as far as I know) indeed subscribe to the "lack of belief" position. No, this doesn't follow. They are, for instance, saying that the evidence which has been put forward for god is insufficient. When somebody claims that "there is a good rational reason to believe in the existence of at least one god", I say "I don't think that is the case." And if you try and provide reasons, I say "I don't think those reasons are good." These are statements which the weak atheist can and does make.
Why would it matter if it is convenient or not? This sounds like mere jealousy.
They do. And if one were being unkind, one could say that he source has just debunked its own claim - it seems that atheism as a lack of belief can indeed lead to actions. Are they, though? I have to wonder, is there any evidence that atheism led to those things? If atheists do a thing, does that automatically mean that they did it because they are atheists? It seems to me that one can have all sorts of reasons for reading sceptical websites, editing wikipedia articles, writing angry blogs, frequenting atheist discussion forums, and posting snarky anti-religious remarks on Twitter. Personally I do none of those things (I do post in an atheist subforum, this one), but I'm a pretty solid atheist. Seems like he needs to rethink this. A desire to convince others that they are wrong to believe, a desire to socialise with others who are of like mind, a desire to test their own position regarding religion and god by exposing themselves to contrary views, pure intellectual curiosity... seriously, there are many reasons why people do things. This line of argument isn't even weak, it's just silly. Ah, but which came first? I am a skeptic. But my atheism did not cause me to become a skeptic - my skepticism caused me to become an atheist. For me at least, atheism isn't a cause of things about me nearly so much as it is a result of things about me. But the source doesn't seem to understand that this could be so. Wait, what? Religious people don't claim that there could be a creator, they claim that there is a creator. That's kind of a big difference to just brush past.I find this to be borderline dishonest, and it makes me wonder about the source. Again, he assumes motivations without any evidence. His thinking seems to be that an atheist dismisses "evidence that there could be a creator" because "they don't believe in god". But again, he has it backwards - atheists in most cases don't believe in god because attempts to give them evidence of one universally fail. I've been an atheist for 35 years or more now. In that time I have never, not ever, not once, been given "evidence of god" that stands up to scrutiny. It's never even close. I don't think this evidence is poor because I don't believe in god, rather I don't believe in god because the evidence is so poor.Absolutely! And as soon as somebody comes up with some, I'll develop a belief in god. (I suspect the source wouldn't like how that played out, though, since 'believing' is a very different thing than 'worshipping'.)
Simple - belief in god's existence is not rational because you cannot do what this article seems to think you can - you cannot provide me with a single solid rational reason to believe in god.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Dec 5, 2019 6:09:47 GMT
No, atheism is not a belief system, but there are many belief systems that include atheism -- materialism and naturalism, for instance.
By the same token, I would argue that theism is not a belief system either. It's a key component of many belief systems such as Christianity and Hinduism, but theism by itself is just a single belief, not a belief system.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 5, 2019 10:28:06 GMT
If it wasn't a belief system, you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic. Ergo, they prove it is a belief system. Sorry about the facts. It is what it is. Actually the facts say that atheism is not a belief system. Sorry about that. That's not to say that atheists don't have belief systems. In fact a lot of them do. There is quite a few atheists that probably identify themselves with secular humanism. Secular humanism on the other hand, is a belief system. But atheism in itself is not. Some atheists might be nihilists, secular humanists or LaVeyan satanists etc... If I have an emotional response to the claim that vaccines cause autism that doesn't make accepting the scientific consensus on vaccination a belief system.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 5, 2019 18:09:23 GMT
More incoherent babbling from Film Flaneur. An insult is not an argument. " Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism Atheism is not capitalised btw, and there's a reason for that. But go on... Because you said " If [atheism] wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have all these posters posting such emotionally defensive responses that have no basis in logic. Ergo, they prove it is a belief system". My point is that the only belief that agnostics hold is that that the existence of God, is unknown or unknowable. But they can still appear on discussion boards such as these without a belief that god doesn't exist, just the same as soft atheists do, without being illogical. And as a soft atheist myself I can assure you that I make no assertions about the purported deliberate supernatural. I ought to know best what I think, and I can certainly remember what I have written. QED. Look back and see what I just told you about the ad hominem fallacy. What is defined more is a well known distinction between soft (or negative) and hard (or positive) atheism. Soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Strong atheism is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. This now-standard distinction has been discussed here before. I am sorry you missed it. www.atheismuk.com/resources/varieties-of-atheism/Sorry about the facts. Still with the insults eh? LOL What is it with those who take issue with atheists on this board that they reach so readily for invective? However since I did two terms back in the 80's as a grad student under Antony Flew, the progenitor of this now-widely accepted distinction of types of atheism I feel I have enough classes in this area under my belt, but thanks anyway. Amazing how someone can babble so incoherently and believe he can communicate. You begin the insults, then whine when reality is tossed back at you. I just can't find any way to sympathize with your self righteousness. You can whine and shout all you want, but there is no such thing as an Agnostic Atheist, by definition. One can lean towards theism or atheism, but the definitions are clear cut for both being belief systems. One believes there is the cognitive supernatural force, and one believes there isn't. The agnostic "doesn't know". It doesn't matter how many maniacs you cite who want to change definitions of terms, because those maniacs are, by definition, demon possessed control freaks, whose only purpose can be to divide people with poor communication. They're the leading cause of hate in this world by virtue of deliberately and intentionally voiding the communication process older people have learned. They are undeniably out of control to demons and undeniably insistent on age discrimination, among other types of discrimination. This is not opinion. It's defined by their determination to make a new language that only their mobs can understand. You certainly adhere to the fundamentalist view that the good God devised Babel to divide people. To me, the tower of Babel more than indicates Gnosticism and Dualism at work, being the work of a sinister force that means to cause distress and division. As long as you and your sick heroes keep trying to provide poor communication in order to divide human beings and cause trouble where there otherwise would be none, as long as you keep worshiping the Donald Trumps of this existence, as long as you fail to research and understand what is objective in History, you and your fellow "sixth grade minded masses" will be doomed to repeat the worst of History. That's why I don't feel bad if you are insulted. Your sick heroes will keep changing definitions until anyone born before 1960 will be deemed incapable of functioning in your private Khmer Rouge. And if you don't know that, you don't even have the education of a fifth grader. Sorry about the facts. But go ahead and whine some more about how you and your sick heroes want to change the Dictionary and divide people and keep people from communicating. Only your fellow mobsters will be able to understand your incoherent babbling any way.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 5, 2019 18:16:01 GMT
Atheism can form part of a belief system, but is not a belief system in and of itself.
Atheism is to belief systems what enjoying steak is to a cooking course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 19:55:30 GMT
This has been brought up before. Even though an atheist will claim it is a lack of belief, they still have to hold the notion of theist belief in order to refute that belief, Holding the idea of a belief isn't holding a belief, though. I mean, I don't believe that Superman exists. But I do have the idea of Superman in my head. But it would take an idiot to think that this means I believe in Superman.
|
|