Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[PureX]

No... based on the ability to express the reality to anyone/everyone in at least some fashion. There is a huge difference.

No, there really isn't any difference at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning you have to have the right beliefs. At the top of the list is belief in One God. It extends from there. And again, your reply is disengenuous, as you already know this.

No, Christianity is a huge range of beliefs. There is no "orthodoxy". But that is a view claimed by some extremists. And you should be aware that claims, especially unsubstantiated claims of "disengenuous" or other claims that imply that one is being dishonest do break forum rules. He may not be your type of Christian, but you are not any more qualified to deny that someone is a Christian than I am.

 

[Sheldon]

He was basically a non-religious person.

The one thing he never ever claimed in his life, ironic that eh?

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

"Once again the songs of the Fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
- Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the ***s, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

It's dubious he wanted an autonomous church or religion of any kind, despite the shameful concordat the Vatican signed with the Nazi party. However that would be true of most dictators who assume absolute power. There seems some disagreement between historians to the extent of his sincerity because he undoubtedly used religion, as of course most political leaders do, Donald trump was pretty shameless in exploiting it for example.

His anti-Semitism of course can only be viewed as a religious persecution, derived from the centuries of anti-Semitism practised and encouraged by European Christian churches.

many historians seem to agree he wanted a kind of protestant Christianity, that he could reform and control in line with Nazis ideology.

 

[Sheldon]

No, there really isn't any difference at all.

Between unevidenced subjective anecdotal claims, and objective reality?

That's a silly claim....

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes I think we got that, how so though?

I'm confused as to why you're confused. He blatantly stated that atheism is a belief, which puts him squarely in the category of believers I was talking about in #500. Not sure what I'm missing here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Go into any church and you will find a reality shared and corroborated by nearly everyone there. That's a pretty good definition of a religion, in fact. And if numbers are your determinant, the theists have it hands down. So as right as you think that reality paradigm of yours is, it doesn't stand on the merits that you, yourself, just ascribed to it.

Not even close. Take that crap OUTSIDE the church and what happens? Your claims are competing in a space within which no competitors can claim superiority! I'm not making an appeal to "numbers" - it is an appeal to "all." If not everyone can be described the reality or a demonstration of the reality made to everyone, then it doesn't qualify as what I was referencing when I mentioned "corroboration."

Easy examples - gravity. Someone denies gravity here on Earth, so you drop an apple on their head. What do they have to say now? Gravity doesn't work "only inside a church." Do you see?

How about the idea that 2 objects plus 2 more objects yields 4 objects? Let's let someone show us how their competing idea holds up as they try to count the results of putting 2 and 2 distinct (agreed-upon) objects together. Also works inside or outside of church, believe it or not!

How about we ask someone to draw a triangle whose inner angle measurements do not sum to 180 degrees (PI) if they are skeptical of this, or have another model to propose to us? No church required here, but you could prove the sum of PI bit within a church as well as you could without!

I hold a rock up, you tell me you don't believe in the rock, and I then place it in your hand and ask if you can feel it. You tell me that you cannot, and so I drop it on your foot. This also works outside of a church as well as inside.

Clearly they do, as you are here and expending so much energy on it.

So, does it really seem to you that I am here trying to "solve" the big, existential problems of the universe? Seriously? I had no idea that was what I was doing. I mean - can you tell me which posts did that for you, specifically? This could be amazing!!!!

And as you are clearly bothered by the fact that the majority of your fellow humans are perceiving reality differently than you are. This bothers you.

Yes, yes it does. When they insist that they are getting signals from some ethereal, unknowable realm, and then when they describe them to me, I'm like - "Oh! You mean coincidence?" and then they look at me funny and say "NO!" That's exactly the kind of shenanigans that do, indeed upset me. Or like when you insist that its all fine and dandy that everyone just believe as they please and run around saying whatever they want to anyone they want, and imply through this that no one should try and stop anyone from convincing others of any fanciful thing that they may want to try and convince anyone of - yes, I get upset by that crap. ESPECIALLY when you then go on to admit (which you have a few times now) that no one can truly validate or know these things.

Angers you, even, judging by your posts.

Yes, it angers me, just as I explained above. And? Ah... *begin Hulk voice* "You don't like me when I'm angry!" Do you? Haha... I think that's the crux of it here.

You don't understand it and you won't understand it as long as you keep condemning it in advance of that understanding.

Oh, believe me, I have read, and read and read... asked questions and listened to hours upon hours of description and justification... to no avail. It's all nothingness dressed up as somethingness, as far as I am able to tell. None of it describes reality. It all nods at various things that people generally accept - like "murder is wrong" and such... but that's just to keep up appearances. Again - as far as I can tell. It's to make sure there is enough cogent, useful information there so that the rest might get a free pass from much scrutiny. Which is crappy. Crappy of the authors, crappy of the purveyors, crappy all around.

I'm not a 'believer'. And I'm not religious. But I do at least understand how and why so many people are. And I can appreciate it to the extend that it deserved to be appreciated. It took me a while to let go of my bias against religion and to figure it out. But I got there, eventually, and I'm glad I did.

Well I'm not "glad you did." You say a lot of dumb stuff I hope I am NEVER caught saying. Seriously. I am not even just trying to insult you. You say terrible, unsupportable things all the damn time, PureX. It's ridiculous.

No, actually you don't, as I pointed out, above. You just 'believe' you do, and refuse to doubt this belief. Churches are full of people who have built their reality on their shared experiences. And their experience of reality then confirms their conceptualizations of it just as yours do. Because that's how it is for we humans. We live in the world that we think is the world; however we understand it.

No no no... you have it all wrong... again. This isn't a case of me and my friend deciding that we can talk to butterflies, and so we go around doing this and reporting to one another what this butterfly said or that one, and give demonstrations to the town about how we can talk to butterflies, and in our "shared experience" we are really talking to butterflies or something because "that's how it works." Nope. That's not how it works. You're either able to inform someone HOW IT IS that you are able to talk to butterflies, or it is as good as that you aren't doing it. That, or you can specifically evidence that you really ARE communicating to butterflies TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BIASED TOWARD YOUR "CAUSE" by getting random butterflies you are presented with to do something like perform various tasks at your command consistently and without fail. You don't get to just say "I can communicate with butterflies" and then that becomes some part of "reality" for EVERYONE. NO!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

That's everyone's core principal. The problem is that what you detect, witness, and how you rationalize it is all based on the reality paradigm that you already hold to be sacrosanct. And you're angrily dismissing as "crap" anything that doesn't comply with that paradigm. So you're stuck there, imprisoned by your own unrelenting bias. You don't have to agree with theism or religion to understand them, and make peace with them. But you do have to understand them.And yoy can't do that from behind that wall of self-righteousness.

You call it "Self-righteousness" only so that you can dismiss me easily as being some pompous windbag driven only by his own ego. I'm appealing to a more serious form of "reality" - one that consists of what can be demonstrated to be reality for all observers in play. The less serious forms of "reality" are those that are present only within the purview of a given individual or set of individuals. And, when I see actual harm being propagated, like people being willing to believe just about anything they are told concerning conspiracy theories, or who is "guilty" without any evidence being brought to bear - well hell... I want to try and put a stop to that crap! Why wouldn't everyone want to?

It sounds a lot like YOUR methodology, though, doesn't it.

You mean by this, that I am the one who tries to push my beliefs on others, and when they don't react the way I'd like them to, then I fly off the handle? is that what you're getting at? Please tell me which belief I have tried to push onto you, specifically? All I am doing is trying to get people to view their own beliefs through the lens they use to dismiss everyone else's in this realm THAT EVEN YOU ADMIT they are incapable of providing actual validation for (if you want a post # with this exact statement from you, let me know, bucko).

Well that's sure a fool's errand! You can't make anyone understand anything. You can't even make yourself understand. Force is useless in the face of ignorance. The only thing that works is honesty, humility, and curiosity. And you can only develop these within yourself. No one else.

Call it what you will. In the same way you can't "know whether or not God exists" you can't literally know "what the best methods of getting on in the world" are. So you do you, and I will do me. Masturbation is the only thing that works. And you can only perform these things upon yourself. No one else. (that was me, trying to sound like you - how did I do?)

My! Now if you only had a mirror! Welcome to the human condition!

Because I am to be seen propagating "beliefs that contain elements of completely dubious or unknowable nature?" Which one(s) specifically? Show me the mirror.

 

[stevecanuck]

I'm actually interested to know as well, Steve. You made what I thought was the brilliant post #500 in this thread, and now seem to be willing to accept what I view as nothing more than a demeaning caricature of stereotyped atheism as your personal modus operandi. It's just interesting is all.

Sorry. Did I respond to you? I'll check back to see.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm curious why this question was asked. Is there some confusion by theists that some humans approach religious ideas objectively, and free of the social and cultural pressure to adopt religious norms?

I can't speak for theists, as I don't self-identify as one, nor do I view ultimate Reality strictly in those terms (though I don't exclude that or atheistic perspective either - they are all just perspectives). I did self identify as an atheist for some time, and I knew the reasons why I did, which was because what was defined to me as God according to religion, was something I did not believe in as the truth at that time. Do you consider yourself an atheist for similar reasons? Because you don't believe what is called God by them?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm confused as to why you're confused. He blatantly stated that atheism is a belief, which puts him squarely in the category of believers I was talking about in #500. Not sure what I'm missing here.

My apologies, I posted that before you clarified your position, and I have since responded to that post. Sorry for the confusion...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sorry. Did I respond to you? I'll check back to see.

Oh... I aw the reply you made to @Sheldon. I got where you're coming from!

 

[Windwalker]

Which god, humans have created literally thousands?

The one you have in mind when you say you don't believe in God. That one.

A great saying I heard once goes, "The God we don't believe in doesn't exist". That's very true on many levels, if you think about it awhile. So which one is the one out of the thousands that you have in mind when you say you're an atheist? Surely you must have something in mind to say you don't believe in God when you say that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning that you are Christian if you have the right set of beliefs.

You seriously think that all Christians have a single set of beliefs? That's not even true for the theistic Christians.

At the top of this list is the belief in One God.

So you don't think that, say, Mormons are Christians?

I believe your remark to be entirely disenguous. What I stated above is common knowledge.

Just because you aren't willing to challenge your assumptions doesn't make those assumptions "common knowledge."

As unwilling as you may be to acknowledge it, people like John Shelby Spong exist (or existed - apparently he passed away in September) and are members of their Christian communities.

 

[Augustus]

Could you quote a post where you think this has been said please?

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll...

Do you accept atheism is not a belief, or do you lie it is?

You're demonstrably wrong, as I and other atheists have explained unequivocally this is not the case for them, again 23 said so in the poll,

It's odd I extend you, and everyone the courtesy of accepting you know what you think and believe, but you refuse to extend others the same courtesy.

What you fail to grasp is that you don't do this in the slightest.

If you did you'd accept that I think a belief is an attitude towards a proposition and that I also think it is impossible to not have an attitude towards a proposition you can comprehend. You would understand why this means I reject your assumption that you can withhold belief from a proposition. You'd understand how this means disbelief, as an attitude towards a proposition, is thus a form of belief.

You would understand I think that, as atheists can comprehend the proposition god exists, they necessarily hold a belief regarding it and that it is this disbelief in god's existence that makes them an atheist. You would understand why, based on these contingencies, atheism is indeed a belief (this doesn't require you to agree of course).

You would find it perfectly easy to understand that it is not 'demonstrably wrong', 'lying' or 'telling other people what they think', but a combination of a well established, albeit mildly technical, definition of belief combined with a theory of language comprehension supported by numerous scientific studies (such as this).

You might understand why it is very naive to consider anything that is dependent on numerous debated philosophical and scientific contingencies 'unequivocal'.

You would understand why it is very easy to accept that people know what they think, yet also not hold what they think to be true as you have different preferences regarding language and theories of cognition.

You might understand that all of this relies on fairly mainstream science and philosophy. You would understand that, contingent on this mainstream science and philosophy, the 'common usage' definition does indeed relate to a belief.

But you don't, so you just repeat the same fallacies and misrepresentations.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The one you have in mind when you say you don't believe in God. That one.

A great saying I heard once goes, "The God we don't believe in doesn't exist". That's very true on many levels, if you think about it awhile. So which one is the one out of the thousands that you have in mind when you say you're an atheist? Surely you must have something in mind to say you don't believe in God when you say that.

I know you didn't ask me... but my answer would be "all of them." All the thousands. I believe in none of them. I mean, evidence of a thing needs to be presented for me to even be aware of that thing in the first place, let alone "believe" in it. And I absolutely love your quote - because in my case, that means that none of them exist!

Look at it this way - let's say you said "I don't believe in fairy tale creatures" as a general statement when I state that I believe in at least one fairy tale creature, and then I came back at you with "Which fairy tale creature did you have in mind when you say you don't believe in them?" That series of statements and question is exactly as relevant as your setup about God/gods. You have an idea what someone would consider a "fairy tale creature" and to say you don't believe that any of them exist is not some crazy leap of the imagination, and you wouldn't consider yourself "intellectually remiss" or any such thing by making that statement, would you?

And let's say I provides you a list, after you make that statement, and it goes like this:

1. Unicorns
2. Fairies
3. Leprechauns
4. Vampires
5. Griffins
6. Manticores
7. Baggledeguppits

You hit that last one, and you say, "Hold up - what's a Baggledeguppit?"
And I reply, "Well, it's a penguin that lives in the Falklan Islands."
"Why isn't it just called a penguin, and why is it on this list of what are supposed to be fairy tale creatures?" you ask.
And then I say "Ha! I told you fairy tale creatures are real!"

That's how the "god" conversation tends to go, I have found, when people are trying to frame it up like you are. Like it literally matters "which god." Generally, the atheist is talking about the supernatural, omnipotent or super-powerful being from some alternate realm, or who watches over our realm intently, or is some being (thinking, distinct, and cognizant) supposedly woven into the fabric of everything. All those ideas are particularly ARBITRARY. And, in the end, if you define God as "everything in existence" then I am going to ask "Why not just call it everything?" - which is exactly the same as asking why a penguin would be on a list of fairy tale creatures. Do you see?

 

[lukethethird]

Well, if you also don't believe in god(s), then you're also an atheist.

Yes, but I consider myself a skeptic because there are a lot of things I am skeptical of besides invisible gods.

 

[oldbadger]

Do you seriously not understand how nonsensical this question is? Are you asking how certain I am that I don't believe in God? Because that is literally the only head or tail I can make of your question. And if that is the crux of it, then wow... you must not have read my other posts. Because I am so sure that I do not believe any of the goofball claims of a God or multiple gods... I mean... there isn't even a strong enough word to represent it. Several exclamatory expletives could be in order... but that might detract from the seriousness of the idea that not one iota of my being even contains the hint of belief toward any claim that has ever been presented to me about any god.

However... if you are instead asking "How sure are you that there is no God?" - then I can see why you are one of the votes for "I lie that atheism is a belief." I don't have to believe, positively, that "God does not exist" in order to not believe a claim laid in front of me. And, to be sure, theists do this sort of thing themselves all the freaking time about one another's claims - so it should be entirely familiar to them - disbelieving various claims while not entirely discounting them nor telling their fellow theist that they positively believe that thing NOT to be the case. But as soon as the disbelief goes against gods altogether, they throw their arms up in the air and start screaming like banshees.

The question was simple, uncomplicated, short and sweet.
Your answer was hot air, shouting, casting at theists, ....... It wasn't the answer of a confident person imo.

I tell you, I detect a distinct wobble about answers like that. Nobody should feel frightened about asking simple questions, but you seem to think a person should be set about for seeking answers.

I don't think that's any good.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The question was simple, uncomplicated, short and sweet.
Your answer was hot air, shouting, casting at theists, ....... It wasn't the answer of a confident person imo.

I tell you, I detect a distinct wobble about answers like that. Nobody should feel frightened about asking simple questions, but you seem to think a person should be set about for seeking answers.

I don't think that's any good.

Let's keep it simple then: Your question displayed a distinct lack of understanding of my position.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But you don't, so you just repeat the same fallacies and misrepresentations.

You can lead a horse to water...

So, Augustus, regale us with your infinite wisdom on all matters bibliographical - what, pray tell, is the word one could use to describe the state of informing someone that you don't believe them, while simultaneously NOT taking the position that whatever they have presented to you is false?

Again, I would point to my earlier example. I offer to sell you a bridge for which you are interested, proceed to present you terrible evidence that I own the bridge, and you end up not believing that I own the bridge, however you do not specifically inform me by saying "You don't own this bridge." You don't make that positive claim. Instead, you inform me with: "What you have provided is not good enough, I thereby cannot trust that you own this bridge." - in other words, you don't believe my claim - even as you are NOT (again, NOT) telling me that my ownership of the bridge is a false quantity in the equation.

In that scenario, do you truly "believe that I do not own the bridge?" Do you? Or are you only "not convinced that I do own the bridge"? There is some difference there, obviously - since you do not positively hold the position that I don't own the bridge - you may not have been convinced of that either! "Unsure" either way seems to fit, I suppose... but again, you are willing to inform me that you do not believe my claim to the bridge, and need further convincing.

What's the word you would use to describe that situation? Please, oh most magnanimous Augustus... *AVM then bows and touches his head to the dirty carpet below*

 

[Windwalker]

I know you didn't ask me... but my answer would be "all of them." All the thousands. I believe in none of them. I mean, evidence of a thing needs to be presented for me to even be aware of that thing in the first place, let alone "believe" in it. And I absolutely love your quote - because in my case, that means that none of them exist!

It is a great quote, isn't it? There are many layers to it, if you think about it. I believe it was a quote from Robert Kegan. It has to do with meaning-making. If you don't believe in a particular view of God, then it doesn't exist in your world of meaning-making. On the other hand if you do, then it does.

So to those who believe in that God, whether objectively real or not, that God does exist because that belief creates meaning. It has a certain objective reality because it creates actual meaning. We create God, and God creates us because of that, sort of thing. If we don't believe in that God, then that process doesn't happen, God "doesn't exist" to us. It doesn't have that function.

And so forth. At least that's how I hear it.

Generally, the atheist is talking about the supernatural, omnipotent or super-powerful being from some alternate realm, or who watches over our realm intently, or is some being (thinking, distinct, and cognizant) supposedly woven into the fabric of everything.

Great! You've just identified what it is that atheists don't believe. So, you consider yourself an atheist because you believe that doesn't exist, correct? Atheism means believing what you just described is not real, right?

 

[Windwalker]

You can lead a horse to water...

Or my favorite quote, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

I swear, it's all motivated by an allergy to the word "believe". "I'm not religious, damnit!" It feels too close to home?