atheism is a (religious position)

[Valjean]

I agree with your principle, in general, but I personally would refrain with equating atheism as a religion, as you did, but regarding it more as a belief system.

How is non-belief a belief system? How is atheism any sort of system at all?
Is your lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns a belief system?

In other words, and diametrically in contention as to what atheists claim, it is a system based on faith. That is, the evidence has compelled them to conclude that a spiritual and transcendent entity does not exist, either within or without the universe.

No! Haven't you been reading our posts? Atheism does not claim a transcendental entity does not exist!

Atheists simply lack a belief in such an entity. Me, I don't claim God doesn't exist. I don't know whether He exists. I am not 'compelled to' atheism by any evidence. I lack evidence.
All I claim is that I don't have sufficient, objective evidence to decide for sure, so I'm deferring belief pending further evidence.

"A system based on faith? First, there's no system. Second, there's no belief to have faith in. Atheists believe nothing. Faith is a kind of belief.

Whereas theists find the same evidence to be conclusive that the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God is as real as everything created on this planet.

They do, and any logician could point out why this conclusion is invalid.
Q: what is this 'same evidence' you're referring to? Serious question.

Atheists like to believe that they're not applying faith in their convictions, both because the say that 'if one cannot see it, then it's not there'

No, that's not what we say.We have no convictions to have any faith in.

We do say, though, that if there's no objective evidence for something, it's indistinguishable from not there, and can logically be treated as if it's not there.

...- nothing else to consider. And, two, because they have a defective understanding of the meaning of faith. Faith is not credulity, credulity is credulity. Faith is an acquired understanding of what has not been seen or transpired yet, based on events or evidences that have been witnessed. Faith is wisdom - projecting either what is, or what will occur derived from your acquired insights.

"Events or evidences that have been witnessed" need more than just witnessing. Anyone can make such a claim, and thousands do. Every religion makes different claims of events and evidence. Random people claim to have witnessed all kinds of unlikely things every day.
To be epistemically useful, a claim must be objectively verifiable and verified. It should be testable and predictive.

The way "faith" is actually used in philosophic or ontological discourse is: "unevidenced or poorly evidenced belief," as distinguished from knowledge. This is the sense we atheists on RF have been using it.

 

[PureX]

I agree. Truth is discerned by correct assessment of objective evidence. Personal opinion and feelings don't matter.
We skeptics are using critical thinking, reason and logic -- exactly what you seem to be calling for.

"Correct assessment of the evidence" is a gigantic open doorway to bias.

We never get to know the truth. The best we can do is relative truthfulness. That's an honest (skeptical) assessment of what appears to be the truth, to us. Understanding this is how we are able to remain open to the different experiences or truth, of others. Not understanding this is how we remain closed, why we auto-defend, and then learn nothing.

The debates usually involve not egos, but critical thinkers pointing out factual or logical errors in the believers' reasoning.

That's mostly BS. They are auto-defending because that's what the ego does. Keep in mind that the "critical" mind is is just another word for a biased mind.

Theism is an assertion of fact.

Facts are bits of information that are true relative to some other facts. But untrue relative to yet other facts. Facts are not truth. They are only bits of limited, relative truthfulness. Theism is a truth claim. That is a claim about what us universally true. Our job, if we are being open-minded, is to find out how this can be so. Not to figure out how to convince ourselves that it is not so.

Either it's evidenced, in which case it falls within the purview of science; or it's not evidenced, in which case it's unfalsifiable and "not even wrong." It's a metaphysical black hole.

This is all just a bias working hard to maintain it's self-righteousness. And you are never going to see through that so long as you keep playing into it.

Apparently you believe there exists an appropriate tool for investigating the metaphysical realm. What tool is that, and how does it validate or invalidate a proposition? How would its conclusions be tested?

I am not looking to validate or invalidate other people's experience and understanding of truth. I am looking to expand my own. I am looking for ways of incorporating theirs into mine. Their "evidence" helps me to do that. It helps me to understand what they experience as they understand it. I'm not trying to reject their understanding. I'm trying to incorporate it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's useless because it's without objective evidence.
Your objections are on a level of abstraction incompatible with this discussion. my points are on a simple, mathematical level, you're bringing in metaphysics.

No, I am bringing in first person subjective qualitative evaluation. Useless is such a case, because that it is useless is without objective evidence.

In effect you don't seem aware that useless is not objective.

 

[Valjean]

"Correct assessment of the evidence" is a gigantic open doorway to bias.

Which is why we try to apply a formal system of assessment designed to eliminate bias.

We never get to know the truth. The best we can do is relative truthfulness. That's an honest (skeptical) assessment of what appears to be the truth, to us. Understanding this is how we are able to remain open to the different experiences or truth, of others. Not understanding this is how we remain closed, why we auto-defend, and then learn nothing.

Is truth based on experiences, or personal appearance, or does it exist independently?

That's mostly BS. They are auto-defending because that's what the ego does. Keep in mind that the "critical" mind is is just another word for a biased mind.

Which is why we apply formal, algebraic, epistemic systems to the analysis

Facts are bits of information that are true relative to some other facts. But untrue relative to yet other facts. Facts are not truth. They are only bits of limited, relative truthfulness. Theism is a truth claim. That is a claim about what us universally true. Our job, if we are being open-minded, is to find out how this can be so. Not to figure out how to convince ourselves that it is not so.

So there is no objective truth; no reality? It's all relative and subjective?
So why bother thinking at all? All of science, epistemology and research is useless.
Isn't looking for flaws a legitimate way to depurate a system?

 

[Valjean]

No, I am bringing in first person subjective qualitative evaluation. Useless is such a case, because that it is useless is without objective evidence.

In effect you don't seem aware that useless is not objective.

Subjective is useful to the subject. Objective is useful universally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Subjective is useful to the subject. Objective is useful universally.

Yeah, but objective and evidence is not universally useful, because it has a limit. It is only subjectively useful in some cases.
If the universe is in the strong sense objective, then I can't subjectively choose to think, act and write: No!
It is that simple.

 

[PureX]

Which is why we try to apply a formal system of assessment designed to eliminate bias.

Is truth based on experiences, or personal appearance, or does it exist independently?

The answer is both.

The truth is what is, and that includes whatever we think it is. But we don't have access to it beyond our own limited selves. We only have access to what "is" looks and feels like, to us. Leaving us with a very incomplete picture of "the truth". But, because we each have a somewhat different incomplete picture of 'what is', if we share them with each other we can expand our own limited picture, at least somewhat.

So when we seek only to attack and "falsify" other people's experience and understanding of 'what is' (the truth), we are denying ourselves that expanded view of it just so we can maintain the illusion that our view of truth is the 'right' one and any opposing view must therefor be shown wrong. And that's what I call 'ego-boxing'. Because that sort of thing is the goal of the ego.

So there is no objective truth; no reality? It's all relative and subjective?

It's both. The problem is that we can't tell the difference because we are both the subject and the object.

So why bother thinking at all? All of science, epistemology and research is useless.
Isn't looking for flaws a legitimate way to depurate a system?

The tools are just tools. They help us do stuff. That's useful so long as we don't misuse them. Our egos drive us to misuse them and then lie to ourselves about it.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with your principle, in general, but I personally would refrain with equating atheism as a religion, as you did, but regarding it more as a belief system.

Neither atheism nor theism are belief systems or religions. They simply define philosophical positions with respect to the existence of deities, powerful supernatural beings that are usually thought of as disembodied spirits with immense powers, wisdom, knowledge, and benevolent preoccupation with human beings. For something to qualify as a religion, that usually means that it comes with some kind of doctrine--a belief or set of beliefs taught by a religious establishment or community. A religion is a belief system. Atheism and theism are not.

In other words, and diametrically in contention as to what atheists claim, it is a system based on faith. That is, the evidence has compelled them to conclude that a spiritual and transcendent entity does not exist, either within or without the universe. Whereas theists find the same evidence to be conclusive that the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God is as real as everything created on this planet.

You talk about "evidence", but that isn't really what most people associate with faith. Faith can simply be a strong belief or sense of loyalty or reliance that does not depend on evidence for its maintenance. Evidence is what people require in the absence of faith. Neither atheism nor theism require faith. They can just be beliefs based on the preponderance of evidence that their adherents think they can produce.

Atheists like to believe that they're not applying faith in their convictions, both because the say that 'if one cannot see it, then it's not there' - nothing else to consider. And, two, because they have a defective understanding of the meaning of faith.

Bear in mind that it is normal to disbelieve in the existence of things for which there is little or no evidence. Theists are not the slightest bit different from atheists in that respect. Usually, what theists and atheists argue over is whether evidence exists to maintain their beliefs and, if so, whether it is reasonable evidence. It is true that atheists like to fall back on an argument from Occam's Razor--that God is an "unnecessary hypothesis" when it comes to explaining the reality we find ourselves in. Since atheism does not require an existential claim, it is fair to ask theists to supply one. That's why there are so many arguments in this forum over the need for evidence!

Faith is not credulity, credulity is credulity. Faith is an acquired understanding of what has not been seen or transpired yet, based on events or evidences that have been witnessed. Faith is wisdom - projecting either what is, or what will occur derived from your acquired insights.

You must realize that faith can sometimes be wrong and lead people astray--for example, faith in false gods or incorrect religious doctrines. Therefore, it cannot be defined as "acquired understanding" or "wisdom" or "insight", since is also encompasses a failure to understand, be wise, or have insight. What you mean is that faith in the truth is all of those things, except that you can't really know what is true without evidence, can you? Well, maybe you think you can, but I certainly don't.

Maybe it would make more sense to define faith in terms of a presumption of understanding, wisdom, and insight. People of religious faith certainly presume to know the truth without a requirement of evidence to sustain it.

 

[Valjean]

The answer is both.

The truth is what is, and that includes whatever we think it is. But we don't have access to it beyond our own limited selves. We only have access to what "is" looks and feels like, to us. Leaving us with a very incomplete picture of "the truth". But, because we each have a somewhat different incomplete picture of 'what is', if we share them with each other we can expand our own limited picture, at least somewhat.

The truth is not "what we think." It exists independent of us.
For thousands of years people interpreted reality by their personal whims and thoughts. Knowledge and technology stagnated.
Then we developed a methodology for investigating and testing reality. This, combined with a formal system of thinking and evaluating ideas, has advanced human knowledge more in a couple hundred years than subjective speculation and religion did in a couple thousand.

Science, reason and logic work. They're productive. But they can be complicated, and many are not taught how to use them, in school. Religion continues to impede them and advocate feelings and intuition.

So when we seek only to attack and "falsify" other people's experience and understanding of 'what is' (the truth), we are denying ourselves that expanded view of it just so we can maintain the illusion that our view of truth is the 'right' one and any opposing view must therefor be shown wrong. And that's what I call 'ego-boxing'. Because that sort of thing is the goal of the ego.

Sorry if you feel oppressed. If you don't want your ideas analyzed or criticized, don't post them in a Religious Debate thread, or find a rational way to defend them.

Some of us care about truth, and want to understand reality, whether we like it or not. Some of us invite criticism, and appreciate our critics' assistance in clarifying our understanding. This desire for critical analysis is what propelled the aforementioned scientific revolution.

It's both. The problem is that we can't tell the difference because we are both the subject and the object.

The tools are just tools. They help us do stuff. That's useful so long as we don't misuse them. Our egos drive us to misuse them and then lie to ourselves about it.

They're not misused. You just find them annoying, if not threatening.

 

[Valjean]

Neither atheism nor theism are belief systems or religions. They simply define philosophical positions with respect to the existence of deities, powerful supernatural beings that are usually thought of as disembodied spirits with immense powers, wisdom, knowledge, and benevolent preoccupation with human beings. For something to qualify as a religion, that usually means that it comes with some kind of doctrine--a belief or set of beliefs taught by a religious establishment or community. A religion is a belief system. Atheism and theism are not.




You talk about "evidence", but that isn't really what most people associate with faith. Faith can simply be a strong belief or sense of loyalty or reliance that does not depend on evidence for its maintenance. Evidence is what people require in the absence of faith. Neither atheism nor theism require faith. They can just be beliefs based on the preponderance of evidence that their adherents think they can produce.

How does theism, with a clear lack-of-evidence problem, not require faith?

Bear in mind that it is normal to disbelieve in the existence of things for which there is little or no evidence. Theists are not the slightest bit different from atheists in that respect. Usually, what theists and atheists argue over is whether evidence exists to maintain their beliefs and, if so, whether it is reasonable evidence. It is true that atheists like to fall back on an argument from Occam's Razor--that God is an "unnecessary hypothesis" when it comes to explaining the reality we find ourselves in. Since atheism does not require an existential claim, it is fair to ask theists to supply one. That's why there are so many arguments in this forum over the need for evidence!

I find atheists different inasmuch as our skepticism is not evidence dependent. It is, as you say, the normal disbelief of things poorly evidenced.

You must realize that faith can sometimes be wrong and lead people astray--for example, faith in false gods or incorrect religious doctrines. Therefore, it cannot be defined as "acquired understanding" or "wisdom" or "insight", since is also encompasses a failure to understand, be wise, or have insight. What you mean is that faith in the truth is all of those things, except that you can't really know what is true without evidence, can you? Well, maybe you think you can, but I certainly don't.

Maybe it would make more sense to define faith in terms of a presumption of understanding, wisdom, and insight. People of religious faith certainly presume to know the truth without a requirement of evidence to sustain it.

Good points.

 

[Copernicus]

How does theism, with a clear lack-of-evidence problem, not require faith?

It does require faith, but theists are normal people and feel a need to maintain their faith. So it is inevitable that they come up with reasons to justify their faith. After all, they engage in all sorts of behavior to demonstrate it--personal sacrifices, self-deprivation, mutual encouragement to "keep the faith", prayer, and arguments with people who question their faith (atheists, apostates, and evangelists for alternative doctrines). They tell others and themselves that the evidence they have is actually better than that possessed by those challenging them--theodicy argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, ontological argument, scholasticism, and moral argument. As an atheist, I find all of those arguments unconvincing, so I feel confident in the assertion that they have no reasonable evidence. Nevertheless, they find their arguments convincing, so they believe they have reasonable evidence. The question is not over lack of evidence but whether the evidence they claim is reasonable.

I find atheists different inasmuch as our skepticism is not evidence dependent. It is, as you say, the normal disbelief of things poorly evidenced.

I hesitate to agree fully with you on that point. Disbelief of an existential claim is normal in the absence of any proof, but we believe in the existence of all sorts of things that we lack direct evidence for. I might believe that I have money in my bank account, even though it may be possible that the account has been emptied out unbeknownst to me (by hook or by crook). Still, I think I possess reasonable evidence of the existence of that money. If I go to the bank with my bankbook and demand cash, but they said the account was emptied, I would be within my rights to ask for proof of the account balance's nonexistence. Do you see where I'm going with this? In arguments with theists that believe they have met their burden of proof to their own satisfaction, they feel the same right to place the burden of proof on me. Telling them that they have the burden of proof is just spitting in the wind. So I tend not to use burden of proof as sufficient justification for my atheism, even though I feel the burden of proof is very much on theists.

 

[F1fan]

"Correct assessment of the evidence" is a gigantic open doorway to bias.

Really? So if you are arrested for a murder you didn't do and the crime lab tests the blood evidence, do you think their correct assessment of the blood evidence will be biased if it clears you?

We never get to know the truth. The best we can do is relative truthfulness. That's an honest (skeptical) assessment of what appears to be the truth, to us. Understanding this is how we are able to remain open to the different experiences or truth, of others. Not understanding this is how we remain closed, why we auto-defend, and then learn nothing.

Yes, theists prefer to murkiness of uncertainty. Of course, that would mean your belief in a God is also uncertain and murky. Is that how you believe?

That's mostly BS. They are auto-defending because that's what the ego does.

Oh the irony.

Keep in mind that the "critical" mind is is just another word for a biased mind.

Based on what facts? Or is it just your biased attitude towards critical thinking that don't support your beliefs in religion?

Facts are bits of information that are true relative to some other facts. But untrue relative to yet other facts. Facts are not truth. They are only bits of limited, relative truthfulness. Theism is a truth claim. That is a claim about what us universally true. Our job, if we are being open-minded, is to find out how this can be so. Not to figure out how to convince ourselves that it is not so.

There's no evidence for religious concepts. You are begging for them to be considered as equal and valid as facts.

This is all just a bias working hard to maintain it's self-righteousness. And you are never going to see through that so long as you keep playing into it.

You talk alot about bias as if critical thinkers are being biased for following the rules of logic. But you ignore your own. It's like George Santos co-sponsoring a bill that aims to go after those who cheated unemployment insurance, like he did. I suggest you avoid bringing up bias until you get a handle on yours.

I am not looking to validate or invalidate other people's experience and understanding of truth. I am looking to expand my own. I am looking for ways of incorporating theirs into mine. Their "evidence" helps me to do that. It helps me to understand what they experience as they understand it. I'm not trying to reject their understanding. I'm trying to incorporate it.

You are conflating "personal truth" for what is demonstrably true. These can overlap, but not when it includes theism.

 

[PureX]

The truth is not "what we think." It exists independent of us.

No, it doesn't. We (and what we think) is also part of the truth; i.e., of 'what is'.

 

[PureX]

Really? So if you are arrested for a murder you didn't do and the crime lab tests the blood evidence, do you think their correct assessment of the blood evidence will be biased if it clears you?

I think science is not philosophy, and philosophy is not science. And I think you think everything is science. Which is why you fail to understand most of what I post.

I also think that "objective reality" cannot logically be separated from our subjective experience and interpretation of it. Which you also fail to recognize or understand. Which is also why you fail to understand most of what I post.

And there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[DNB]

How is non-belief a belief system? How is atheism any sort of system at all?
Is your lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns a belief system?

Obviously? I believe that something does not exist, based on evidence - they left no pink fecal matter.

No! Haven't you been reading our posts? Atheism does not claim a transcendental entity does not exist!

Atheists simply lack a belief in such an entity. Me, I don't claim God doesn't exist. I don't know whether He exists. I am not 'compelled to' atheism by any evidence. I lack evidence.
All I claim is that I don't have sufficient, objective evidence to decide for sure, so I'm deferring belief pending further evidence.

"A system based on faith? First, there's no system. Second, there's no belief to have faith in. Atheists believe nothing. Faith is a kind of belief.

How in the world can you say '...I don't believe in...', and not call it a belief system?

They do, and any logician could point out why this conclusion is invalid.
Q: what is this 'same evidence' you're referring to? Serious question.

The universe, humans, all creatures, anthropology, human altruism and wickedness, etc...
Evidence available to, and imposed upon, all humans.

No, that's not what we say.We have no convictions to have any faith in.

We do say, though, that if there's no objective evidence for something, it's indistinguishable from not there, and can logically be treated as if it's not there.
"Events or evidences that have been witnessed" need more than just witnessing. Anyone can make such a claim, and thousands do. Every religion makes different claims of events and evidence. Random people claim to have witnessed all kinds of unlikely things every day.
To be epistemically useful, a claim must be objectively verifiable and verified. It should be testable and predictive.

The problem is the atheist's idea of objective evidence - you don't perceive what the theist perceives.

The way "faith" is actually used in philosophic or ontological discourse is: "unevidenced or poorly evidenced belief," as distinguished from knowledge. This is the sense we atheists on RF have been using it.

That is not the sense that theist understand it to mean, or apply it.
Again, every human employs faith: we hire people based on faith, we make agreements and contracts based on faith, we loan money based on faith, get in the car with other people based on faith, etc...
Faith is wisdom in the theological sense.

 

[DNB]

Neither atheism nor theism are belief systems or religions. They simply define philosophical positions with respect to the existence of deities, powerful supernatural beings that are usually thought of as disembodied spirits with immense powers, wisdom, knowledge, and benevolent preoccupation with human beings. For something to qualify as a religion, that usually means that it comes with some kind of doctrine--a belief or set of beliefs taught by a religious establishment or community. A religion is a belief system. Atheism and theism are not.




You talk about "evidence", but that isn't really what most people associate with faith. Faith can simply be a strong belief or sense of loyalty or reliance that does not depend on evidence for its maintenance. Evidence is what people require in the absence of faith. Neither atheism nor theism require faith. They can just be beliefs based on the preponderance of evidence that their adherents think they can produce.




Bear in mind that it is normal to disbelieve in the existence of things for which there is little or no evidence. Theists are not the slightest bit different from atheists in that respect. Usually, what theists and atheists argue over is whether evidence exists to maintain their beliefs and, if so, whether it is reasonable evidence. It is true that atheists like to fall back on an argument from Occam's Razor--that God is an "unnecessary hypothesis" when it comes to explaining the reality we find ourselves in. Since atheism does not require an existential claim, it is fair to ask theists to supply one. That's why there are so many arguments in this forum over the need for evidence!



You must realize that faith can sometimes be wrong and lead people astray--for example, faith in false gods or incorrect religious doctrines. Therefore, it cannot be defined as "acquired understanding" or "wisdom" or "insight", since is also encompasses a failure to understand, be wise, or have insight. What you mean is that faith in the truth is all of those things, except that you can't really know what is true without evidence, can you? Well, maybe you think you can, but I certainly don't.

Maybe it would make more sense to define faith in terms of a presumption of understanding, wisdom, and insight. People of religious faith certainly presume to know the truth without a requirement of evidence to sustain it.

Faith is wisdom, and equally the lack of. Two people witnessing the exact same event, will walk away having two different conclusions as to what just occurred, and why. The wisest between them both, will be more accurate in their assessment. Both will apply faith in determining what will happen next. The wisest will be the more successful.

I am a theist base on tangible evidence, and only naivete will cause someone to say otherwise of me, or any other theist.
The existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a transcendent architect and designer.
Human nature demands the existence of a spiritual source, that has endowed mankind with their definitive spiritual dimension.

 

[Willamena]

"I believe that what you believe about God is false!" is a belief about God. But almost no atheist will admit it, anymore. And that's sad. Because that is a logically defensible position, if they would admit to it being their position, and then give some thought to it.

Does this speak to education about epistemology?

 

[blü 2]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

What about us igtheists, who argue that the notion of a real god, one with objective existence, is incoherent, meaningless?

Imaginary gods, of course, are probably as numerous as (other) characters in fiction, but I accept that, like those characters, they exist as concepts, ideas, things imagined in individual brains ─ just not in reality ie the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

 

[Copernicus]

Faith is wisdom, and equally the lack of. Two people witnessing the exact same event, will walk away having two different conclusions as to what just occurred, and why. The wisest between them both, will be more accurate in their assessment. Both will apply faith in determining what will happen next. The wisest will be the more successful.

You seem to be struggling to shoehorn the concept of wisdom into the meaning of "faith" by saying that wise people are better at connecting it to some event they experience. That doesn't mean that "faith is wisdom". Being good at interpreting experiences might be part of the general meaning of "wisdom", however. It still remains true that unwise people of deep religious faith can be bad at interpreting events and a lot of other things, as well. The same goes for unwise people that lack religious faith.

I am a theist base on tangible evidence, and only naivete will cause someone to say otherwise of me, or any other theist.

I'm not making any judgments there, especially since I have no idea what "tangible evidence" you are talking about.

The existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a transcendent architect and designer.

No, it doesn't.

Human nature demands the existence of a spiritual source, that has endowed mankind with their definitive spiritual dimension.

Human nature demands nothing of the sort.

You probably aren't surprised that I disagree with your bald assertions. After all, I'm an atheist. Nor should you be surprised that bald assertions merit only bald denials.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The truth is not "what we think." It exists independent of us.
...

Yeah, but the problem is that you can't point to it, just as you can't point to God.
You are doing philosophy and I just do that differently. But your model gets you the absurd result that I can't do it differently, yet you are reading it now. Go figure.