Does Atheism provide peace of mind to its adherents?

[JustWondering]

Atheism's position is very fragile, they just ask others to give evidences while they don't have any evidences to show to others themselves. They have inner-contradictions to start with.
Regards

Most religions positions are very fragile. Adherents demand and expect to have their religions taken seriously but when asked to provide evidence or even a good argument to support their religions they have NOTHING but unsubstantiated claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff14.html

the etymology alone describe it as such

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=ism&allowed_in_frame=0

Except the prefix "A-" means "without", making the etymological origin of the word "without God belief".

without god doesn't imply without belief.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheism&allowed_in_frame=0

But "without God belief" certainly does imply "without belief", since that is literally what it means.

 

[JustWondering]

If you have a blind-faith in Atheism then don't ask others to provide evidences.
Regards

Atheists don't blindly believe in the existence of invisible fantasy beings. Since you have yet to prove the existence of your god you should be the last one throwing stones anyway.

 

[icehorse]

They were already "lost sheep". We just provide them with shepherds and turn them into useful "sheep" for society.

And if indeed that's a common goal of the modern religious practitioner, it only deepens my disdain for religion.

 

[icehorse]

Atheism's position is very fragile, they just ask others to give evidences while they don't have any evidences to show to others themselves. They have inner-contradictions to start with.
Regards

In general there is no need to defend the non-existence of a thing. For example, if I were to claim that some elephants can fly, would you say that it's your responsibility to prove that there are no flying elephants?

 

[Fool]

I agree. But atheism isn't one - it may be a part of one, but atheism in and of itself does not constitute a belief system.


You've not really addressed my point. Saying "People have belief systems" does not mean "X is a belief system".

you have a negative opinion of the word belief, atheism is a philosophy, a belief system that the individual identifies from. saying i'm atheist, or i'd don't believe in god(s) is not saying i don't have beliefs. beliefs can be negative/positive.

an atheist identifies from the premise that there is no god, and then constructs his/her world view, a theist identifies from the premise that there is a god, or something divine, and constructs his/her world view.

one theists belief system is not going match another theists world view, or belief system, 100% anymore than one atheists philosophy is going to match another atheists.
belief systems are subjective and are how the identifier observes and interacts with her/his world.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/philosophy?s=t

 

[Fool]

In general there is no need to defend the non-existence of a thing. For example, if I were to claim that some elephants can fly, would you say that it's your responsibility to prove that there are no flying elephants?

there is no need to change common language either and try to perform gymnastics with an ism is.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/-ism

 

[Scott C.]

While that's true, we might argue that your point of view isn't broad enough to be interesting to debate. In other words, both debaters have to agree on the topic. From what I can gather so far, your argument is that Christians don't take their scripture too literally and/or too seriously. While I'd agree that that's often the case, I disagree that that's always the case. Further, I'd argue that a substantial slice of Christians take the scripture more literally than you're acknowledging.

I consider myself to have a fairly literal and conservative interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure what I'm saying that makes you feel otherwise.

 

[Scott C.]

What is your excuse for those with great insight into Christianity who take the same opinion?

I don't make excuses for Christians who interpret Christianity differently than I. From what I understand by the word "mean", I don't see God that way.

People can be quite insightful into a belief system that is not true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

you have a negative opinion of the word belief,

No I don't. Belief simply means "a proposition that you accept as being true". Atheism isn't one of them, that's all.

atheism is a philosophy,

It's not that either. A philosophy cannot be entirely comprised on a single position on a single subject. That's like saying not liking cheese is a philosophy.

a belief system that the individual identifies from.

And nor is it a belief system. A belief system should consist of more than just a single position on a single subject.

saying i'm atheist, or i'd don't believe in god(s) is not saying i don't have beliefs. beliefs can be negative/positive.

I agree. In fact I've said repeatedly that being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have *any* beliefs.

an atheist identifies from the premise that there is no god, and then constructs his/her world view,

There's no assumption beforehand necessary. That's like saying "an anti-thargnargoth identifies from the premise that there is no thargnargoth, then constructs his/her worldview". It's not that a lack of God is what the worldview is built from, it's that God's existence doesn't factor INTO the worldview.

one theists belief system is not going match another theists world view, or belief system, 100% anymore than one atheists philosophy is going to match another atheists.
belief systems are subjective and are how the identifier observes and interacts with her/his world.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/philosophy?s=t

I fail to see what this has to do with anything I've said.

 

[ArtieE]

an atheist identifies from the premise that there is no god, and then constructs his/her world view

I don't understand how that works. I don't believe in fairies either, but I don't ever remember having constructed my worldview based on that. And I don't believe in leprechauns either, but I've never based any worldview on that. How is that supposed to work?

 

[Fool]

No I don't. Belief simply means "a proposition that you accept as being true". Atheism isn't one of them, that's all.


It's not that either. A philosophy cannot be entirely comprised on a single position on a single subject. That's like saying not liking cheese is a philosophy.


And nor is it a belief system. A belief system should consist of more than just a single position on a single subject.


I agree. In fact I've said repeatedly that being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have *any* beliefs.


There's no assumption beforehand necessary. That's like saying "an anti-thargnargoth identifies from the premise that there is no thargnargoth, then constructs his/her worldview". It's not that a lack of God is what the worldview is built from, it's that God's existence doesn't factor INTO the worldview.


I fail to see what this has to do with anything I've said.

this is all subjective opinion. thank you. morals and ethics are subjective. science does not make moral judgements regarding observed behaviors. they just report the facts. they don't judge them as moral/immoral.

also, a belief system is not set in concrete. as an individual matures psychologically, she/he will augment his/her belief system having tested their beliefs in real world scenarios.

 

[Fool]

I don't understand how that works. I don't believe in fairies either, but I don't ever remember having constructed my worldview based on that. And I don't believe in leprechauns either, but I've never based any worldview on that. How is that supposed to work?

no doubt you don't believe in fairies. you can't test what you don't believe in either. a hypothesis/belief is necessary in order to test for. no one goes looking for what they have no desire to know.no one dates someone they find unattractive, or undesirable. there is no cause; so there is no effect.

the higgs boson particle might have been found by accident, but unlikely, had someone not someone taken the initiative to search for what they believed existed. it starts from an idea, a belief, and then is observed. it's not observed and then an idea is generated. a question tends to lead to more questions.

 

[Fool]

https://books.google.com/books?id=ds8ZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531&dq=atheism+as+a+belief+system+psychology&source=bl&ots=F8NRY2Gypt&sig=aIyE0BhttRETEtHTMMoNNH84KoQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEzfToyM3KAhUEl4MKHeiQATwQ6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q=atheism as a belief system psychology&f=false


a belief that is unrealized is of no conscious value
a hypothesis that is unrealized is of no conscious value
a faith without works is of no conscious value

 

[ArtieE]

no doubt you don't believe in fairies. you can't test what you don't believe in either. a hypothesis/belief is necessary in order to test for. no one goes looking for.

You said and I quote: "an atheist identifies from the premise that there is no god, and then constructs his/her world view". I don't believe in fairies either. Does that mean that I identify from the premise that there are no fairies, and then construct my worldview from that? I really don't see how that would work.

 

[Fool]

You said and I quote: "an atheist identifies from the premise that there is no god, and then constructs his/her world view". I don't believe in fairies either. Does that mean that I identify from the premise that there are no fairies, and then construct my worldview from that? I really don't see how that would work.

what you don't believe in only contrasts to what you do believe in.

it's called a process of elimination. anything left remaining is possible; unless you prefer to take the stance that anything else is impossible. basically you're implying that atheists believe in nothing. that is untrue. they have faith in science, even temporal findings. organized science does not work from such absolutes. they work from an evolving understanding using hypothesis from previous experience that still contains unknowns and then they test them against what is known.


without belief, hypothesis, an idea, or thought, there is no effect, no action, no realization

 

[Fool]

here we see science implying that a belief is being overturned.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/

 

[ArtieE]

what you don't believe in only contrasts to what you do believe in.

I have no idea what you mean so let's make this simple. I don't believe gods exist, and if that is a belief SYSTEM then let's use points:

1. I don't believe gods exist.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Can you fill out four beliefs I must have?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

this is all subjective opinion.

The definitions of words is largely not subjective, no. You can't make a series of claims and then resort to "That's all just subjective opinion" when presented with information that contradicts you.

thank you. morals and ethics are subjective. science does not make moral judgements regarding observed behaviors. they just report the facts. they don't judge them as moral/immoral.

also, a belief system is not set in concrete. as an individual matures psychologically, she/he will augment his/her belief system having tested their beliefs in real world scenarios.

Nothing you say here has any relevance to anything that I wrote. Are you responding to the correct post?

 

[Ouroboros]

here we see science implying that a belief is being overturned.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/

Cool. I have to send the link to my son. His girlfriend is studying physics at Berkley right now, so she might know who the professor is.

--edit
Wait, this is from 2009. Why haven't there been more news about this...?