Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'?

[Galileo]

@Voyager

As an example, look at your run-of-the-mill creationist. He or she has a specific tenet that if evidence, scientific or otherwise, contradicts the Bible the evidence must be wrong.
Not all theists are this bad, but I don’t know of any such bizarre distortion of an atheist’s beliefs due to atheism. There may be distortions for other reasons

Not only have you made the leap from theism to religion, you’ve gone from religion in general to a particular (arguably fringe) belief within the body of religious thought. And, you haven’t identified what’s wrong with that particular belief, other than an implied appeal to outrage.

Theism does not equal religion, even though it often follows.
Religion does not equal one particular religious belief.
Also, you haven’t identified how to determine whether a particular religious belief is correct or not. If you think that the best way of learning about the world is through research based on the scientific method, then you have a belief based on aesthetics. And, if you say that the science has demonstrated its validity, I would agree with you but only because I share your belief, not because I have an argument that proves it.

What leads to the distortion in your example is not a belief in God but a belief that the Bible is the inerrrant “Word of God”. Are the two connected? Yes, but I’m sure you’ll agree that theism does not directly lead to a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

In this thread, I’ve been saying that atheism, though not directly connected to other beliefs, is connected to beliefs about the world and about how to understand the world.

As for your statement that you don’t know of any such bizarre distortion of an atheist’s beliefs due to atheism, I appreciate your frankness but, again, I think you’ll agree that an appeal to ignorance is not valid support for a claim, which in this case was Anduril’s claim that it is easier to connect biases to a theist’s beliefs than it is to atheist’s beliefs.

Atheism is often connected to naturalism, although it doesn’t have to be. But, when it is, it can lead to the belief that natural explanations are superior to supernatural explanations. Throughout history, there have been many natural explanations that have turned out to be wrong. Spontaneous generation, phlogiston, and ether are three. Phrenology, social darwinism, eugenics three more. Even today, there are supposedly naturalistic explanations that I would say are distortions, some of which claim to be backed by science, eg. astrology and homeopathy. Now, you could say that science is self-correcting, in contrast with religious dogma, but I think you’ll agree that scientists have demonstrated dogmatic beliefs, and, conversely, some religions have changed (or even “improved”) over the years.

In any case, the discussion has (as it often does) moved from atheism vs theism to religion vs science. And that’s kind of my point here: In practice, atheism is more than “just not believing in God/gods.”

[Galileo]

@Lobohan

You want me to provide evidence that there is no evidence? Does that seem fair to you? The religious people are the ones making claims. They are free to provide their evidence any time.

No, I want you to provide support for *your *claims, which were:

1. All religious people have accepted the tenets of their religion without evidence.
2. Every single one.
3. If you’re religious you’ve accepted your religion’s claims without evidence.

[Galileo]

@PBear42

As for Post #580, you realize, I hope, Galileo, that you’re perilously close to discussing the OP. My reaction is that I think almost all those definitions are fine. What follows from that, though, I think, is that the OP can be true of some atheists but not of others. Voyager, for example, seems to be willing to go further than do I. Do you have a problem with that parsing? I suspect not.

It seems that we agree.

I believe that’s a good thing.

[SmartAlecCat]

@Galileo

Not only have you made the leap from theism to religion, you’ve gone from religion in general to a particular (arguably fringe) belief within the body of religious thought.

Yes. Each of those are different. You can be theist and not religious, and there are myriads of varying religious beliefs.

In practice, theists are quite often religious.

@Galileo

In any case, the discussion has (as it often does) moved from atheism vs theism to religion vs science. And that’s kind of my point here: In practice, atheism is more than “just not believing in God/gods.”

Ok, so in practice atheists often have other beliefs beyond “just not believing in God/gods”, but those are still two different things. You are making the leap from atheism to those other beliefs. Atheism alone doesn’t mean more than simply not believing in God/gods.

[Novelty_Bobble]

I just dipped back in here to see if much progress had been made. I don’t about about progress but some good points were raised.

Personally I am happy to say that a box of tangerines is “atheist” as it fits with my very general definition of that word. It has no belief in a god or gods. To me, that is all an atheist is.
Others can argue about other definitions but I won’t as that is not the way in which I use the word.

Now then for me, atheism is not a belief. nor a belief system (for a given meaning of “belief” which has supernatural and religious connotations…again, that is the meaning I use and I’m not interested in other definitions here) It makes no demands, has no dogma, drives me to take no actions. It is one small part of my worldview, the rest is derived from my other interactions with the world.

What we are, are pattern and meaning seeking creatures. And imperfectly so.
In order to survive in a hostile world our brains are evolved to rely on cause and effect. We are good at seeking that out and reacting to it. It has kept us alive and allowed us to prosper.
It works really well at the “sun get lower - stock up on food” level. What our ancestors sought to do was to extend that causal thinking beyond the physical world. Our brain capacity allowed us to ponder the the previously imponderable and demanded of us to come up with causal links and reasons.
Therefore…we come up with religions to fill those knowledge gaps, which become traditions, which are very hard to shift.
As we become better at scientific thinking we become able to explain most of what was previously mysterious and magical.

Eclipses? trivial
Lightning? easy
Fire? no problem

The supernatural is required less and less. Religions are forced to concede to science and rationality what was previously the remit of their deities.

God was only ever needed because we were alone and afraid and death was only ever a furry pounce away. If we could explain the world we could control the world and “god” was the best stab our hairy brethren could manage.
We now know more, we now know better .
Science tells us how we are made and how we work, how our islands were formed, then our world, solar system and galaxy. It is even having a good go at the universe.
The main reason that religion persists is that our angst about meaning persists. It is just that the horizon for that has shifted to the universal level and that is all that is left to argue about, So that’s where religion stakes it’s wishy-washy claim, safe in the knowledge that for the time being at least, it can resist attack with rhetoric.
I suspect that it will, in time, be booted off that land as well.

Those are my thoughts anyhow. I offer no evidence nor claim any expertise.

[Fear_Itself]

@Galileo

No, I want you to provide support for *your *claims, which were:

1. All religious people have accepted the tenets of their religion without evidence.
2. Every single one.
3. If you’re religious you’ve accepted your religion’s claims without evidence.

The inclusion of the word ‘without’ makes 1 & 3 negative statements, so, yeah, you are asking him to prove a negative.

[Galileo]

You’re kidding, right?

First, I didn’t ask him to “prove” anything.

Second, are you saying that any statement that includes a negative word makes that statement a negative statement and therefore immune to requests for support, evidence, or “proof”? If yes, then you are absolutely, categorically not right. I don’t have to support the previous statement because it contains the word “not”.

**Lobohan ** made a claim about *all *religious people and about *all *tenets. If you genuinely believe that his claims don’t require support, fine. I won’t argue with your belief.

[Fear_Itself]

@Galileo

You’re kidding, right?

First, I didn’t ask him to “prove” anything.

Second, are you saying that any statement that includes a negative word makes that statement a negative statement and therefore immune to requests for support, evidence, or “proof”? If yes, then you are absolutely, categorically not right. I don’t have to support the previous statement because it contains the word “not”.

**Lobohan **made a claim about *all *religious people and about *all *tenets. If you genuinely believe that his claims don’t require support, fine. I won’t argue with your belief.

That is the most illogical string of nonsense I have seen all week.

[Lobohan]

@Galileo

You’re kidding, right?

First, I didn’t ask him to “prove” anything.

Second, are you saying that any statement that includes a negative word makes that statement a negative statement and therefore immune to requests for support, evidence, or “proof”? If yes, then you are absolutely, categorically not right. I don’t have to support the previous statement because it contains the word “not”.

**Lobohan ** made a claim about *all *religious people and about *all *tenets. If you genuinely believe that his claims don’t require support, fine. I won’t argue with your belief.

There is no evidence for any religion being true. For this purpose I limit religions to faiths with a supernatural component.

Since there is no evidence for religions being true, everyone who has accepted a religion has done it without evidence.

Was that said plain enough?

[Galileo]

Well, your previous post said nothing about limiting religions to faiths with a supernatural component. Fine, you want to go with a definition that allows you to continue to believe that you were right.

So, are you saying that there’s no evidence for any tenet from any religion?
Or, more generally, is there any religious tenet that you think is true?

[Czarcasm]

@Galileo

Well, your previous post said nothing about limiting religions to faiths with a supernatural component. Fine, you want to go with a definition that allows you to continue to believe that you were right.

So, are you saying that there’s no evidence for any tenet from any religion?
Or, more generally, is there any religious tenet that you think is true?

[Quote=Lobohan]
Since there is no evidence for religions being true, everyone who has accepted a religion has done it without evidence.
[/quote]
Right there. Read the words.

[Galileo]

The word “tenets” is not in the post that you quoted but it was in Lobohan’s previous post.

I think that it is reasonable to ask for a clarification.

[Lobohan]

@Galileo

Well, your previous post said nothing about limiting religions to faiths with a supernatural component. Fine, you want to go with a definition that allows you to continue to believe that you were right.

This thread is about atheists. Which makes it about belief in a god. Don’t you think any reasonable person would take the context of a discussion into account? If you want to include religions that have no supernatural elements, well that’s just silly.

So, are you saying that there’s no evidence for any tenet from any religion?
Or, more generally, is there any religious tenet that you think is true?

There is no evidence for the supernatural existing. A religion can be correct about some factual things. If a given religion says 2+2=4, it’s still right. But no religion has any evidence for its supernatural claims.

Without evidence, believing in any religion is a stupid act.

[Galileo]

I see. So we are now at the heart of matter.

Just to be perfectly clear: Are you saying that anyone who believes in any religion is stupid?

As you can see, the question is a “Yes or No” question.

More formally, is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

[Lobohan]

@Galileo

I see. So we are now at the heart of matter.

Just to be perfectly clear: Are you saying that anyone who believes in any religion is stupid?

As you can see, the question is a “Yes or No” question.

More formally, is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

Do you think that all people who commit stupid acts are stupid?

[Czarcasm]

@Galileo

I see. So we are now at the heart of matter.

Just to be perfectly clear: Are you saying that anyone who believes in any religion is stupid?

As you can see, the question is a “Yes or No” question.

More formally, is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

No trap here-nosiree!
And here I was thinking you might be interested in an honest debate.

[x-ray_vision]

@Galileo

I see. So we are now at the heart of matter.

Just to be perfectly clear: Are you saying that anyone who believes in any religion is stupid?

As you can see, the question is a “Yes or No” question.

More formally, is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

In other words, please answer without qualifications so I can say “gotchya”.

[Galileo]

Don’t need the “gotcha”. Lobohan has already used the word “stupid”.

Would you care to justify the use of that word?
Would anyone else care to?

A statement is either true or false. Do you agree?
For example, “God exists” is true or “God exists” is false.

I am asking for an answer to this question: Is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

Put as many qualifications as you want.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Galileo

Is the statement “Anyone who believes in any religion is stupid” true or false?

Smart people can have stupid beliefs.

[Czarcasm]

Someone who commits a stupid act is someone who commits a stupid act. Smart people commit stupid acts as well as stupid people. If someone repeatedly commits stupid acts when there is evidence available to them that said act is stupid, their intelligence might be called into question.