Is Aleprechaunism a Belief System?

[Thermos aquaticus]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself? Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

 

[Windwalker]

No. It is not a belief system. A simple belief that leprechauns do not exist does not qualify as a system of belief. That would require multiple intersecting beliefs that create a system of thought as a whole.

 

[`mud]

It depends on what mushrooms one eats while running around the trees !

 

[icehorse]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself? Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

This is a fantastic OP!

So to take this one step further, if 95% of the people believed in leprechauns, then it would seem that many leprechaunists would believe that somehow aleprechaunists lack of belief would magically transform into a new belief system - very odd.

 

[exchemist]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself? Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

No it is not a belief system, and nor is atheism, which of course is your point. It can be argued that atheism is a belief, but not a belief system. That would be ridiculous.

 

[SalixIncendium]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself?

A belief? Yes.

A belief system? No.

Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

No. Nor does it for scientifically informed Leprechaunists...

...at least the Leprechaunists I know.​

 

[Audie]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself? Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

Only if the existence or non existence of said lil green
guys is the most fundamental question in the universe-
and you bother to think about it / them.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A belief? Yes.

How is a lack of belief in Tom's rather outlandish claim a belief?

 

[Audie]

How is a lack of belief in Tom's rather outlandish claim a belief?

check dictionary

be·lief

1. 
   an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
   "his belief in the value of hard work"
2. 2.
   trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

Not a belief.

 

[`mud]

I think Sue's right.....thunderstorms ??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only on March 17.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How is a lack of belief in Tom's rather outlandish claim a belief?

Is one of these statements less true than the other?

Sue believes leprechauns do not exist.
Sue lacks belief in the existence of leprechauns.

 

[Twilight Hue]

John: Invisible leprechauns run around trees and cause thunderstorms.

Sue: I don't believe you.

Sue is an Aleprechaunist. She dares to not believe in leprechauns. So is her disbelief in John's claim about leprechauns a belief system in itself? Does your own Aleprechanism inform your views on the age of the universe or how thunderstorms form?

I would peg Sue as just just merely responding, effectively placing the burden of validating the truth of the matter with John.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Is one of these statements less true than the other?

Sue believes leprechauns do not exist.
Sue lacks belief in the existence of leprechauns.

Sue never said that leprechauns do not exist. She said that she didn't believe Tom's claims. Not believing is not a belief.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sue never said that leprechauns do not exist. She said that she didn't believe Tom's claims. Not believing is not a belief.

I'll stipulate that she never said leprechauns don't exist if you stipulate that her statement that she doesn't believe Tom's claims in no way expresses any indication that she thinks leprechauns do or do not exist.

Given these stipulations, how can she possibly be an Aleprechaunist? Based on the information presented in your OP, she may still believe:

• Leprechauns exist, but are not invisible.
• Leprechauns do not run around trees, but do cause thunderstorms.
• Leprechauns run around trees, but do not cause thunderstorms.
• Leprechauns do not run around trees and do not cause thunderstorms
• Leprechauns do not exist.
• Nothing is known or can be known about the existence of Leprechauns.

Until you present further information, all of these possibilities regarding Sue's beliefs exist.

 

[`mud]

OK...You convinced me...Sue's full of crap and Tom is a leprechaun.

 

[Quintessence]

If this weren't an apples and gears analogy I might find it interesting. But since it is, I don't. I am quite tired of seeing stuff like this. I suppose it'll never stop, so I'd better get used to it. *sigh*

Sorry, that was unproductive. I'll take a stab at some theism 101 and try to articulate why comparisons like this annoy the crap out of me. Let's move beyond superficial thinking about theism, theology, and ways of life inspired by them called religions.

Acceptance of god(s) is different from something like accepting leprechauns because of the meaningfulness and implications that acceptance has to one's overall worldview or belief system. Accepting gods is an anchor, pillar, or cornerstone of a worldview; it's of central importance, and it informs many other aspects of a belief system. It has a systemic impact, in other words. The same cannot be said of accepting leprechauns. It's not a cornerstone, it doesn't have a systemic impact on someone's way of life or view of the world. Suggesting otherwise is making an apples and gears comparison.

Because acceptance of gods has broad consequences in someone's overall belief system (typically framed within some overarching theology or religion), that is why some take the perspective that the absence of a theistic cornerstone is also a belief system - it has equally broad consequences. There's something to that idea, though I think it could be articulated a bit better. The ideological consequences are systemic for both theism and atheism. Well, they are if either of them are taken seriously by their holders, at any rate. Not every theist is particularly serious about their theism - for them it isn't a cornerstone and the impact on their worldview is less systemic. The same is going to be true for non-theists.

Long and short of it, the thing to look at is the impact of an idea in someone's worldview. It does not make much sense to use an analogy where the relative impacts are dissimilar. But agenda-driven rhetoric frequently doesn't make much sense.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I'll stipulate that she never said leprechauns don't exist if you stipulate that her statement that she doesn't believe Tom's claims in no way expresses any indication that she thinks leprechauns do or do not exist.

Given these stipulations, how can she possibly be an Aleprechaunist?

She doesn't believe in the existence of leperchauns.

 

[SalixIncendium]

She doesn't believe in the existence of leperchauns.

Therefore, she believes leprechauns do not exist.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Therefore, she believes leprechauns do not exist.

That doesn't follow from the previous statement.