Atheism is a belief system?

[anthonyjfuchs]

thomastwo wrote

If a large group of those who didn't subscribe to magazines didn't do it for the same, perhaps philosophical, reason I think it would be OK to describe the outcome as a result of a belief.

Okay. But that wouldn't mean that their lack of magazine subscriptions was, itself, a subscription to a magazine.

Perhaps you need it worded differently. How about: "atheism is the magazine that someone who doesn't subscribe to any magazines gets delivered to their mailbox."

[nkb]

thomastwo wrote

I quite like Cosmo myself.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

thomastwo wrote

You can define an aCosmopolitan as somebody who doesn't subscribe to Cosmopolitan, but it's clear that you actually extend the definition implicitly to include the concept of it providing use. That would define a belief of a group of aCosmopolitans I think.

No, I don't extend the definition at all. An aCosmopolitan is someone who doesn't subscribe to Cosmo, pure and simple.

The reasons for it can be many. But, just because a large part of those people have the same reason for not doing so (for example, because it is not something they find useful), doesn't make it a belief (unless you want to use such a generic and vague definition for belief that it becomes pointless).

You're really stretching here.

[thomastwo]

I'm not trying to stretch, just trying to explain why atheists look like a group with a common belief system to many.

[thomastwo]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Okay. But that wouldn't mean that their lack of magazine subscriptions was, itself, a subscription to a magazine.

Perhaps you need it worded differently. How about: "atheism is the magazine that someone who doesn't subscribe to any magazines gets delivered to their mailbox."

I actually agree that atheism isn't a religion. But it does seem to have some common beliefs that underpin the conclusion. Still, I've said that before elsewhere and don't expect you all to accept the argument. When I'm in a cynical mood I think it's because you don't want to accept the onus of providing back-up and evidence for your philosophical assumptions.

[anthonyjfuchs]

thomastwo wrote

I'm not trying to stretch, just trying to explain why atheists look like a group with a common belief system to many.

Ignorance.

thomastwo wrote

I actually agree that atheism isn't a religion.

You don't have to agree. But it's nice to see that you acknowledge one correct fact.

But it does seem to have some common beliefs that underpin the conclusion.

No, atheists have some common beliefs. But they are not beliefs that regard the supernatural. They may share economic beliefs, or political beliefs, or entertainment beliefs. They may, in fact, share such beliefs with Christians, or with Muslims, or with Hindus. But atheism, itself, is not a belief. It is a word that describes the absence of a particular type of belief, that being of the supernatural flavor.

...you don't want to accept the onus of providing back-up and evidence for your philosophical assumptions.

My philosophical assumption is that claims should be supported by evidence before I will accept them.

What kind of evidence do you want me to provide to back up this assumption?

[thomastwo]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Ignorance.

Flippant but I see where you are coming from at least.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

You don't have to agree. But it's nice to see that you acknowledge one correct fact.

I suspect agreement depends on how one defines religion. So, I wouldn't agree that it's a fact.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

No, atheists have some common beliefs. But they are not beliefs that regard the supernatural. They may share economic beliefs, or political beliefs, or entertainment beliefs. They may, in fact, share such beliefs with Christians, or with Muslims, or with Hindus. But atheism, itself, is not a belief. It is a word that describes the absence of a particular type of belief, that being of the supernatural flavor.

It seems to me that there are a group of atheists who share a group of common assumptions or beliefs that start to look like a worldview from the outside looking in. Of course each of those beliefs may be shared by those not in the group, and some of those beliefs may not be held by all of the group. After all, the Tea Party is recognizable as a distinct group and has the properties I describe.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

My philosophical assumption is that claims should be supported by evidence before I will accept them.

I suspect you, and other western atheists, also have assumptions about what is acceptable as evidence. This starts down the road towards a group with a common set of beliefs, in my view.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

What kind of evidence do you want me to provide to back up this assumption?

Perhaps you might start by thinking about why you don't believe the opposite to be true?

[West491]

thomastwo wrote

It seems to me that there are a group of atheists who share a group of common assumptions or beliefs that start to look like a worldview from the outside looking in. Of course each of those beliefs may be shared by those not in the group, and some of those beliefs may not be held by all of the group.

No doubt, some atheists have similar views on different issues. However, the only thing that all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god(s). But what is it that you feel all atheists agree on other than this? I'm dying to know.

thomastwo wrote

I suspect you, and other western atheists, also have assumptions about what is acceptable as evidence. This starts down the road towards a group with a common set of beliefs, in my view.

'Evidence' must be verifiable and demonstrable. This is a requirement for rational people, not atheists.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Flippant but I see where you are coming from at least.

Are you saying that flippance is an attribute of atheism? Or do you mean "irreverence" towards religion? That would be more precise.

Of course, many theists share that irreverence when it comes to the religions of others. I mean, Christians are no more reverent towards Islam and Hinduism than many of us are. Does that mean we atheists share a religion with Christians because we, like you, share a non-belief in and lack of reverence towards Islam and Hinduism?

thomastwo wrote

I suspect agreement depends on how one defines religion. So, I wouldn't agree that it's a fact.

Many dictionaries define religion as:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

What is thomastwo's definition of religion that would make it is appropriate to also include the irreligious amongst those adhering to a religion? And who else shares thomastwo's definition of religion?

thomastwo wrote

It seems to me that there are a group of atheists who share a group of common assumptions or beliefs that start to look like a worldview from the outside looking in. Of course each of those beliefs may be shared by those not in the group, and some of those beliefs may not be held by all of the group. After all, the Tea Party is recognizable as a distinct group and has the properties I describe.

But is the Tea Party a religion to you? If so, what makes it a religion?

And what are these assumptions that atheists are supposed share? You don't say. Why not? What do you contend is our common worldview? Is it that we don't believe in the existence of Allah? Well, neither do you. Do you and we share a religion then? Muslims don't believe your Jesus was a supernatural entity and neither do we. So, are we also closet Muslims?

thomastwo wrote

I suspect you, and other western atheists, also have assumptions about what is acceptable as evidence.

And I suspect you share the same assumptions as we do, so long as they are not applied to your specific religion. Otherwise, I don't think you and we have any argument over what constitutes evidence.

thomastwo wrote

This starts down the road towards a group with a common set of beliefs, in my view.

How so, if you and we don't have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes evidence?

thomastwo wrote

Perhaps you might start by thinking about why you don't believe the opposite to be true?

We already know why we reject your claims. It is because of a lack of evidence for them. Now tell us how are we supposed to produce evidence to refute your claims when your claims are lacking evidence to support them?

This should be interesting if you actually have an answer.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

There can be no faith without doubt, by definition. If there was no doubt, there would be no need for faith.

Faith implies doubt and/or inadequate knowledge but its effect on the faithful is to deny that doubt or lack of information. Doubt and questioning is seen as a weakness in one's faith that is so strong it is taken as a substitute for valid information.

We see people under the shield of faith deny that any information at all could change their belief in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

Isn't the distinction between those who accept the supernatural (even if they can't agree on how to define it or the form it takes) and those who don't accept it rather more than a trivial matter of number?

It might, except that every item in that number contradicts all the rest. You speak of "the supernatural" but everyone who believes in a supernatural believes in a different supernatural from everyone else. That carries through to the ten thousand-plus greater and lesser gods, including Jehovah, YHWH and Allah, three distinct different and incompatible gods.

Three different "One True Gods" would have been sufficient to my argument but the ten thousand figure is far from trivial. It makes the question of which god statistically significant.

A sincere and good believer in god should expect to have chosen the wrong god and, for that misdirected belief, go to some other one true god's hell-equivalent just on the probability of making the wrong choice.

One in ten thousand is not good odds when there are no discernible characteristics on which to base an informed choice from among the various gods. In fact, we very probably do not even know the name or anything about the real one true god.

With all those gods, all you have to go by is propaganda. None of the gods shows any attributes that are beyond the imagination of (ancient and very stupid) man to have produced.

The huge number of equally valid gods is strong evidence that man makes god, not the reverse.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

If a large group of those who didn't subscribe to magazines didn't do it for the same, perhaps philosophical, reason I think it would be OK to describe the outcome as a result of a belief.

Perhaps, but the outcome itself would still not be a belief; it would still be a non-subscription.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

I'm not trying to stretch, just trying to explain why atheists look like a group with a common belief system to many.

Only to people who are unaware of the meaning of atheism. The cure is not to explain to us how we appear to others, it is to explain to them why they are wrong.

In the case of atheism, I think a key concept to get across to those folks who think atheism is a kind of belief, that it is possible to be moral and to function quite well without any theistic belief system at all.

[Sternwallow]

thomastwo wrote

I actually agree that atheism isn't a religion. But it does seem to have some common beliefs that underpin the conclusion. Still, I've said that before elsewhere and don't expect you all to accept the argument. When I'm in a cynical mood I think it's because you don't want to accept the onus of providing back-up and evidence for your philosophical assumptions.

The one philosophical assumption is that reality can be perceived as being regular and thus, in principle, discoverable and understandable. That implies that whatever we have collected as knowledge is the ultimate basis for whatever further knowledge can be obtained.

That the natural laws have not been verifiably broken even once in some 11.4 Billion years (light-radius of the observable universe) is strong evidence against the miracles that many people cite in support of religious/supernatural/superstitious notions.

The proposition that nothing should be accepted as real which has no supporting real evidence might be considered an assumption by some but others know that rational thought is not possible about the world if that regularity is not true.

[nkb]

thomastwo wrote

I'm not trying to stretch, just trying to explain why atheists look like a group with a common belief system to many.

To people who can't fathom not having a belief system. Other people's misconceptions aren't my fault.

Most religious people can't understand having morals without religion, so they see atheists as either immoral or amoral. Is that a valid view in your opinion?

[dogpet]

Isn't religionism in the semi intelligent, (not Thomas), a forced suspension of disbelief because they know we need it.
Dirty bastards for duping poor Thomas.