Is atheism a belief system?

[Dtss]

I hope he (she, they?) come back. Too many don’t stick around through what we all here know as robust defence of our positions, but are taken as offensive, get angry and flee. It’s not always easy to stay in the lane without flinging shit because people can’t differentiate between robust debate and plain assholery and fuckery.

[Sheldon]

Well I can’t imagine it’s much fun having their core beliefs that they cherish subjected to “robust” critical scrutiny. Then again they chose to come here.

[carusmm]

Cognostic, a good analogy. But what is the definition of harm?

[Cognostic]

HARM: a harmful action, event or condition is what makes a life worse than it would have been otherwise, if that action or event had not occurred. The doctor removing the cancer by cutting into the brain is in fact harming the body. The lesser harm alleviates the greater harm, and so we endure it, If I did the same thing on my kitchen table, even if the procedure was a complete success, the harm would be done to the cultural perspective of the right way to do things. If I want to perform surgeries, I should first go to school and get degrees. We can not have just anyone performing surgeries whenever they feel like it. That would be harmful to society. In some sense to qualify as harmful, there must be a victim. If I bite my fingernails, it is probably harmful to my social image, but I don’t care, and so feel no harm. I will probably never harm my body by getting a tattoo. Many people like tattoos and are willing to engage in the harm to satisfy some desire they have. Seems that enduring a small harm for a greater reward is worth it to some people, Look at Jesus! He gave up a weekend of being an eternal being, just so you could have everlasting life. A meaningless harm for a great reward.

[Sheldon]

Is atheism a belief system?

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s the question I’d like to ask here, is it a belief system?

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

No. By definition it is the antithesis of such a thing. Do you have an actual dictionary?

@Sherlock-Holmes

Well to my mind atheism (there are actually several incompatible definitions) seems to presume that there’s nothing we observe that can’t (at least in principle) be explained by naturalism, that science alone can (in principle) explain everything a person can observe.

If he does he’s not using it here.

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities…According to estimates there are at least 500 million atheists in the world."

CITATION

So no then, in its broadest sense and by definition, atheism is not a belief system, and it need make no assumptions about naturalism or science. Your desire to give your own beliefs some purchase, seems to involve ever more desperately dishonest attempts to irrationally shift the burden of proof from your beliefs, onto those who don’t share them. Tellingly you do this in a generic sweeping way, rather than addressing specific claims individual atheists may or may not make.

Atheists have belief systems, atheism is not a beliefs system obviously. Which oddly enough was my initial response in March:

@Sheldon

No, atheists have belief systems, but atheism is not a belief system. Do we need a thread for something any dictionary can settle?

@Sherlock-Holmes

But one cannot state that they “have no belief in any deity” without defining what they mean by deity.

It’s in any dictionary? However your assertion is demonstrably wrong, as it would be absurd to claim one could believe something existed without defining it.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

Reasonable to whom? Not to anyone who is using the commonly used or dictionary definition of atheism.

Which definition do you use?

Is it me? I note that when I pointed out what I had already pointed out he moved one and never revisited that assertion, and he moved on to this:

@Sherlock-Holmes

It’s indicative of the sloppy reasoning inherent in some atheists, when I see how many atheists here mistakenly believe there’s just a single definition of the term.

There is one definition that encompasses al; atheists, no one has claimed only one definition has ever existed. Now note my response at this dishonesty:

@Sheldon

Not one atheist has said that, I do wonder if it really is dishonesty on your part, or just a poor grasp of language, and how dictionaries are complied? The primary definition is clear, you are denying this in favour of one that suits your agenda, to what end though?

Note the response:

@Sherlock-Holmes

So its agreed then, there are several materially distinct definitions of atheism? Does anyone here have the testicular rectitude to just answer with a “yes”?

Did I not just answer that? Is it not clearly emboldened in my post that we are using the primary dictionary definition? Why would I say that if I thought there was only one definition? To add insult to injury he then makes an anecdotal claim about an encyclopaedia definition, that apart from being almost a century old, can’t be examined for context.

@Sherlock-Holmes

My dear chap, restrain yourself please. This is a definition of atheism from a 1936 encyclopedia I have in my library:

"One who asserts ‘There is no God’ ".

Ok so these replies seems to cover this dishonesty, you’d think?

@Sheldon

The primary dictionary definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in a deity, and every single atheist here has made it abundantly clear that this accurately defines their atheism.

@Sheldon

In Rome early Christians were called atheist, from now on I shall insist you’re an atheist, indeed I shall imply all Christians are, now is that sound and honest reasoning?

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

If you go to a pride march, and keep telling everyone you’re gay, then it’s your fault that you meant happy, and not theirs that they’ve misunderstood you.

Sherloc This isn’t a pride march though. It’s the Debate Room section of the forum in a site dedicated to atheism.

ote there he pretends to not understand that this was an analogy about how inaccurate using definitions leads to confusion.

Then he dishonestly ignored the point about primary vs secondary definitions, so I make yet another attempt to explain, despite him ignoring it at every turn:

@Sheldon

Now pay attention as I now you’re on something of a crusade:

The definition of atheism as a belief no deity exists would rule out all the atheists here from being atheists, whereas the current dictionary definition that it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, would include those who made such a denial. Now is it rational or even expedient to have a definition of atheism that excludes large numbers of people who do not believe any deity exists?

He is trying to claim that those who hold no belief in any deity or deities are not atheists, which is of course absurd. He responds without addressing my question at all:

@Sherlock-Holmes

I am just discussing the subject, expressing my views, how I see things, I am disagreeing with some here on some areas, if you don’t want to be challenged then I suggest you desist from participating in these discussions.

I have to say, I had forgotten just how relentlessly dishonest a poster he has been until I read through that brief discourse. He makes assertions, pretends to want to debate them, and simply ignore responses that carefully outline counter arguments. Anyway I then asked him about a blatant lie I highlighted and he had ignored:

@Sheldon

Now did you want to ignore your lie that you haven’t told any atheists what atheism means?

Here’s your duplicitous claim then:

@Sherlock-Holmes

I didn’t “tell atheists what atheism means”

@Sherlock-Holmes

one cannot state that they “have no belief in any deity” without defining what they mean by deity.

Once

@Sherlock-Holmes

even a cursory survey of the literature shows there’s far more than an “absence of belief” going on,

Twice, though that was at least implied rather than implicitly stated.

@Sherlock-Holmes

I was not expecting that I - a theist - would know more about atheism than some atheists here,

A third time, laughably referencing an 87 year old philosophy encyclopaedia, as if that better reflects current usage than a dictionary.

You also failed to address anything in my posts, which suggest it is you who doesn’t want to be challenged, otherwise why clip a single sentence

Guess what:

@Sherlock-Holmes

I also referenced the very current Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are several materially distinct definitions this is fact so why deny a fact?

Moving on

Moving on indeed, no attempt to address the lie at all. I also got this from that very encyclopaedia: “atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.” The definition sherloc wants to pretend applies to all atheists is a philosophical one, and as I have shown, excludes rather than includes many atheists.

[Sheldon]

Here is another breathtakingly dishonest response:

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

That definition would rule out all the atheists here from being atheists, whereas the current dictionary definition would include those who made such a denial.

Your preferred definition “excludes” atheists who assert “There is no God”

Dear oh fucking dear…which part of “would include” tripped him up there do you think?

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

It doesn’t apply to the atheists here as they have stated plainly, and since it isn’t the definition in common usage, it likely doesn’t apply to most atheists.

Ha! there it is, unashamedly presented the famous “No true Scotsman” fallacy! A real atheist is one who shares your definition anyone else is a “clown” and who cares what a clown thinks!

It’s his claim that has created the excluded subgroup not mine? So another breathtakingly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, the word clowns was directed at religious apologists who’ve tried his irrational tactic here, by defining atheism in a way that would exclude many atheists. I not only didn’t claim anyone who held a belief no deity exists was not an atheist, I very specifically explained that the current dictionary definition would include them, I am frankly surprised I managed to keep my cool with such a blatant lie, after re-reading this.

@Sheldon

Not sure why this needs explaining over and over to be honest, it is possible to be an atheist without holding any beliefs, newborn babies for example. This does not mean atheists don’t hold beliefs. Atheism however is not a belief, though atheists can and do have beliefs, and some of them hold the belief no deity exists, no one here has claimed to hold this belief, and the dictionary definition suggests this is true for the majority of atheists.

There you go, one more clear attempt at honest discourse. And this is the result…

@Sherlock-Holmes

Well as to the meaning of “atheist” this is now all over the place,

It’s annoying just re-reading his dishonesty. I think I will leave it there, but next time he’s ranting about civility in debate I’d recommend anyone read through that painfully mendacious exchange, and all to peddle atheism as a belief system, while pretending that he’s asking a question.

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

I did not write “science has no facts”,

@Sherlock-Holmes

Science doesn’t help us with “facts”

@Sherlock-Holmes

betraying a naïve understanding of science, an assumption that it deals with facts!

I’d forgotten about this one…he even implied that I had made it up…

@Sherlock-Holmes

these are your own interpretations. Since you seem to sincerely believe I said this and there’s no evidence I did, it can only be attributed to your imagination or imprecise recollection.

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

I’d forgotten about this one…he even implied that I had made it up…

(Deleted by Author)

Yep!

[UKAtheist]

No.

I discuss that in my very first article on my blog site: UK Atheist: What Is Atheism?.

Here’s a snip from it:

UK Atheist

[Cognostic]

Ewwwwwwwwwww! Nice List … I’m Stealing It. I’m putting it on the refrigerator, right next to the eggnog recipe I stole from Tin Man.

[CyberLN]

@Cognostic

the eggnog recipe I stole from Tin Man.

Bet it’s not as good as my pumpkin martini recipe!

[UKAtheist]

@Cognostic

Ewwwwwwwwwww! Nice List … I’m Stealing It. I’m putting it on the refrigerator, right next to the eggnog recipe I stole from Tin Man.

Thanks, though most of the list itself originated with a guy called Adrian Barnett back almost thirty years ago when I used to be active in an atheism forum called “Wasteland of Wonders”.

UK Atheist

[pythagorean]

Try looking at it this way.

To say that atheism is a “belief system” (whatever that means!) is like saying that theism is a “belief system”.

Atheists as a group are way too diverse to be described in that way.

Just as nobody would call theism a “belief system” because of wide diversity of theists, the same thing applies to us atheists.

[pythagorean]

@carusmm

Look up, what do you see but “above us only sky”?

Some cultures place hell in the sky.

[Kevin_Levites]

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s the question I’d like to ask here, is it a belief system? That is to say does atheism rest upon some foundational belief or assumptions. If so, what are they, if not then on what does depend?

The overriding theme in atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

However, I do believe that there are different types of atheists that fall into slightly different camps, if this addresses your question.

With the understanding that I only speak for myself, I see atheists who seem to wish to do the equivalent of evangilizing for atheism. They (like me) see the damage done by religion, and work to use atheism as a tool to attack a source of harm. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson seem to fit in here.

There are other atheists who seem to be very private and introspective, and who take a “live and let live” attitude of minding one’s own business.

Then there are atheists who are social philosophers who ponder the effects (good and bad) that atheism may have on society.

And then there are “practical atheists” (which is where I seem to be) that explore and promote atheism as a response to practical, everyday matters such as the influence of religion in the workplace, or how religion screws up healthcare (as an example).

It also seems that there are mixed types of atheists that fall into more than one of the above categories.

Even the Pope may be considered an atheist, if we transport him to ancient Greece in a time machine, and he doesn’t believe in (or worship) Zeus.

So, an atheist takes non belief one God further.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s the question I’d like to ask here, is it a belief system? That is to say does atheism rest upon some foundational belief or assumptions.

belief system
noun

1. a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

@Kevin_Levites

The overriding theme in atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

It is the definition of the word, and it encompasses all atheists, even those who make claims to believe no deity exists. That didn’t fit Sherlock’s agenda of course.

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s the question I’d like to ask here, is it a belief system? That is to say does atheism rest upon some foundational belief or assumptions.

Is not believing in the Big Foot, Spider-Man, Ghosts, Flat Earth, Santa, or other unfalsifiable claims a belief system? I think not. I don’t believe in a god in exactly the same way you do not believe in Big Food, Spider-Man, Santa, or the Flat Earth. (Note… I did have to leave out ghosts… obviously you believe in those.)

[ashwaganda]

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s the question I’d like to ask here, is it a belief system? That is to say does atheism rest upon some foundational belief or assumptions. If so, what are they, if not then on what does depend?

Atheists can differ greatly in their other beliefs and attitudes. For example, some may be spiritual in a non-theistic way, some may be strictly materialistic, and others may hold various philosophical or ethical beliefs.

[Cognostic]

@ashwaganda

For example, some may be spiritual in a non-theistic way, some may be strictly materialistic, and others may hold various philosophical or ethical beliefs.

And that would all be something (IN ADDITION TO ATHEISM) and not (ATHEISM). Buddhism can be atheistic. Buddhism has nothing to do with Atheism. They are different things. Skepticism is typically a part of most atheist beliefs. Skepticism is not atheism and certainly not a part of Buddhism. An atheist need not be skeptical to be an atheist. When discussing whether atheism is a belief system, the additional beliefs or non-beliefs of any atheist are inconsequential.The typical answer is usually ‘No.’ However, some atheists do believe that God or gods do not exist. Even so, there is no ‘system’ supporting their assertion. Furthermore, when nonbelieving atheists make such claims (Specifically ‘No God or gods exist’) the claims are unfalsifiable due to their vagueness. Atheism, simply put, is a lack of belief in god. I do not believe in God or gods in the same way you do not believe in Santa Claus, the Good Fairy of the North, Pixies, or Leprechauns. It’s just that simple.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

I didn’t “tell atheists what atheism means”

@Sherlock-Holmes

I was not expecting that I - a theist - would know more about atheism than some atheists here,

That was pretty funny, I love it when a poster is dishonest, then gets all precious when it’s pointed out.