On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[Seth]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

No, I don't lump them together at all. There are only two types of small-a atheists: Persons, including children, who have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concepts whatsoever; and persons who are mentally incapable of processing thoughts about theistic concepts (implicit atheists).

Everyone else, meaning anyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and has given such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusion whatsoever, cannot be "atheist." They must either be a theist or an atheist. The distinction is subtle but important. Being "atheist" means "having no belief about theism" whereas being "an atheist" is a status, a position taken on the subject of whether or not theistic claims are valid.

Spot on. I said the same thing on page 1:

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

1) You're dead.
2) You're too stupid/ignorant to consider such beliefs.
3) You have a biased [scientific/empirical] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the existence of a/any God.
4) You find logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such Deity.

... Yet, [4] prohibits [3] from being the reason why you fail to have a/any belief in deities.

For me/us, this is simple and obvious. There are some smart atheists here, so I can only assume that the failure on their part to acknowledge that atheism is a belief system is a 'political' choice.

Exactly. They know if they admit that they are religious believers their agenda of bashing other religious believers will crumble from beneath them, so they refuse to admit it. Their religion is based almost entirely on an obvious bias and antipathy towards, primarily, Christianity. This is, in my opinion, mostly because as a group they are quite "liberal" in their political beliefs and they object to the moral strictures of Christianity that interfere with their own hedonistic desires in some way, from Sunday closing laws to "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (in the US), to a religious moral objection to some personal freedom they wish to exercise that is either a law or that suffers social opprobrium in a religious society.

In that way, Atheists are very Libertarian in not wanting OTHER religions to infringe on their religious liberties and freedoms, and there's nothing wrong with that stance. I'm the same. Not being a theist, I also object when theistic morality is used as the excuse for imposing rules on individuals. This is not to say that just because a rule is imposed that also happens to be part of a theistic practice, like "thou shalt not kill" that it's inclusion in religious dogma makes it inherently objectionable. What's objectionable is when theistic dogma is forced on unbelievers by force on the presumption that because "God says so" it's permissible to infringe on the free exercise of rights by others.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

No, I don't lump them together at all. There are only two types of small-a atheists: Persons, including children, who have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concepts whatsoever; and persons who are mentally incapable of processing thoughts about theistic concepts (implicit atheists).

Everyone else, meaning anyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and has given such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusion whatsoever, cannot be "atheist." They must either be a theist or an atheist. The distinction is subtle but important. Being "atheist" means "having no belief about theism" whereas being "an atheist" is a status, a position taken on the subject of whether or not theistic claims are valid.

Spot on. I said the same thing on page 1:

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

1) You're dead.
2) You're too stupid/ignorant to consider such beliefs.
3) You have a biased [scientific/empirical] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the existence of a/any God.
4) You find logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such Deity.

... Yet, [4] prohibits [3] from being the reason why you fail to have a/any belief in deities.

For me/us, this is simple and obvious. There are some smart atheists here, so I can only assume that the failure on their part to acknowledge that atheism is a belief system is a 'political' choice.

Exactly. They know if they admit that they are religious believers their agenda of bashing other religious believers will crumble from beneath them, so they refuse to admit it. Their religion is based almost entirely on an obvious bias and antipathy towards, primarily, Christianity. This is, in my opinion, mostly because as a group they are quite "liberal" in their political beliefs and they object to the moral strictures of Christianity that interfere with their own hedonistic desires in some way, from Sunday closing laws to "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (in the US), to a religious moral objection to some personal freedom they wish to exercise that is either a law or that suffers social opprobrium in a religious society.

In that way, Atheists are very Libertarian in not wanting OTHER religions to infringe on their religious liberties and freedoms, and there's nothing wrong with that stance. I'm the same. Not being a theist, I also object when theistic morality is used as the excuse for imposing rules on individuals. This is not to say that just because a rule is imposed that also happens to be part of a theistic practice, like "thou shalt not kill" that it's inclusion in religious dogma makes it inherently objectionable. What's objectionable is when theistic dogma is forced on unbelievers by force on the presumption that because "God says so" it's permissible to infringe on the free exercise of rights by others.

Get a fucking room and wank each other silly with your pet definitions and incapacity to consider that we don't all conform to them! Blinkered, the both of you!

[Svartalf]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

[laklak]

[jamest]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

Reality? Have you given any thought to what that is, for you? Descartes knew, and so have many others. The truth is that your entire reality is reducible to a series of personal experiences. At least, that's the foundation of what you can know about reality. This world that you believe in exists entirely within your mind. You cannot prove that it has an existence of its own, beyond that. To believe in a world existing independently of the mind/experience, is to give life to something for which there cannot ever be any proof. Therefore, you'd be wise not to describe the world as your 'reality', because the only reality you can be sure of is that of oneself... whatever that may be. From that point, your atheism has nowhere to go. It is kaput.

[jamest]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

[piscator]

I too think the "Scientific" bit is a conflation of terms. I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

[jamest]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

I quite agree that science provides no evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form.

Therefore I ignore it.

[JimC]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

evidence that is:

1. Repeatable, and thus not deriving from a one off freak event.

2. Available to, and able to convince a wide range of disparate people.

3. Not based on internal personal experience or emotional conviction.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

And?

If no experiment you can perform can provide evidence against god, then neither can any experiment provide evidence for god. We are left in the same situation that we start from. Nobody can tell. So, you either go with the evidence of your senses and act as if this universe was exactly as it appears to be, or you treat everything as questionable and potentially false and do what exactly? In most cases, I would imagine, you still act as if this universe was exactly as it appears, because the alternative to that is a whole lot of pain - which, real or not, fucking hurts.

In neither scenario does it make any sense whatsoever to believe in anything without evidence that is convincing to you. In my case, that includes god.

[piscator]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

Well, bacon seems to manage things a lot better than God and Achilles, so... Something similar to the evidence I have for the existence of bacon would be a downright yummy start.

[Brian Peacock]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

No, I don't lump them together at all. There are only two types of small-a atheists: Persons, including children, who have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concepts whatsoever; and persons who are mentally incapable of processing thoughts about theistic concepts (implicit atheists).

Everyone else, meaning anyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and has given such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusion whatsoever, cannot be "atheist."

No true atheist eh? How about this - Anyone who has been exposed to atheistic concepts and has give such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusions whatsoever, cannot be 'theist'. See, it seems to make a kind of sense as you read it along, but really it's a bad batch of prawns all the way through.

They must either be a theist or an atheist. The distinction is subtle but important. Being "atheist" means "having no belief about theism" whereas being "an atheist" is a status, a position taken on the subject of whether or not theistic claims are valid. Whether one is an Atheist, meaning a member of the Atheist religion, depends on how the person reacts to the position taken. If one reacts to that position taken with fervor and evidences that the position is a matter of conscience or ethics to them, then they are by definition practicing religion and can be labeled as an Atheist.

But the thing is, even as people are telling you that they just don't believe theist claims and lack a belief in God, gods, faeries and goblins, you offer these silly blandishments to the effect that strongly or persistently disagreeing with you is evidence of the fervent and ethics-driven nature of their atheism - now writ Atheism. You do see that right? I mean, it's there in your definition of what a religion is and it means that anyone with a moral view on anything who does not subscribe or adhere to some religious tradition is still being Religious and is a member of a religion. What you are doing is casting atheism as an fervent, ethical disagreement with religion when people disagree with you about what their atheism is all about and mean for them.

But as your point hinges on what a religion actually is it has to be said that a moral or ethical outlook is not the preserve of religion, nor is religion the sole domain of morals and ethics, nor are moral and ethical reasoning and judgements purely a matter of or for religious consideration. You just like to maintain that, either just for the sport of it or because you feel that religion is about being good or something.

Participation here is quite obviously evidence that the subject is a matter of conscience or ethics and regular participation here demonstrates a devotion to the principles of Atheism.

See what I mean? But tell me, on what criteria do you disqualify yourself from this Atheist group I wonder? Is it on the basis that you believe in the existence and necessity supernatural agents?

That being said, my arguments are also sauce for the gander, so to speak, as the vast majority of participants here have no issue whatever with lumping all theists together and soundly excoriating and criticizing them, which as I demonstrate is the pot calling the kettle black.

You're funny. Even though you say you're not lumping all atheist together you still thing that it's OK because atheists do it all the time? Sort yourself out mate.

Look at this this way: Religion is everything atheism isn't, and vice-versa. As you said yourself, after one has been exposed to theistic concepts--which you also agree must come before any division into theists and atheists occurs--and arrived at any conclusions 'therefrom' then "they must either be a theist or an atheist." For each set all non-set members are on the other side of the fence - they are in the 'other' group. But what you're doing is removing the fence and telling atheists that they're being religious, that they are religious, and that they belong to a religion. And why? Because...

You Atheists can dish it out, but you can't take it, which is typical of intolerant bigots of every stripe, including bigoted theists.

Ah, I see - you have a lesson on humility to impart unto the fervently godless. Not to mention you've just slipped into lumping all atheists together because, as I've just pointed out, merely disagreeing with you on this places anyone and everyone in that special big-A Atheist group, which in turns marks anyone and everyone out as deserving of the special correction you seem to think it's your moral obligation to provide.

Basically, I think you're operating under the misapprehension that atheist are somehow obliged to meet your standards, criteria, and definitions, to your satisfaction, in order to properly understand the nature of their experience and their relationship to others, and to validate their identity, and moreover, morally and rationally obliged to justify themselves to your satisfaction too. The thing is that I doubt there is anything any atheist can ever say about their atheism which would satisfy you - well, anything other than total and absolute agreement. But don't you find it lonely always having to be right about everything all the time?

Now I know you always like to have the last word, so make it a good one eh?

[Brian Peacock]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

You're the one claiming that atheist aren't justified in excluding certain types of evidence, so what do you think constitutes the type of 'good evidence' that atheists are dismissing, squire?