Belief isn’t stupid, it is acceptance . A lot of people derive some peace and comfort believing there is more than this. If they do, thats OK. Most atheists were believers once. We just questioned our religion and it came up empty.
This is so freakin’ weird. I have no agenda. I am an atheist. The likelihood that I’ll ever believe in a deity, or anything supernatural, is vanishingly small. Suggesting that atheists have beliefs isn’t about having an agenda: it’s about understanding how our minds conceptualize the world.
It seems to me that only atheists with agendas have a problem with the idea that atheists have beliefs. Well, no, not really, but that makes equal sense.
As a fellow atheist, I respectfully disagree. Also with Czarcasm’s restatement in Post #643, “Blind faith is stupid, period.” Faith is a different epistemology and one I don’t accept. But calling it stupid (or a stupid act) assumes the point in contention. Also, it shuts down discussion. I don’t know about you, but for me when someone plays the “stupid” card the conversation is over. No conversation means the prevailing view, i.e., theism, continues. We win, if ever we do, by sticking to arguments like the one made in Post #629. That is, by sticking to substance and not name calling.
A card that often gets played on SD is “I’m an atheist, so any sweeping statements I make about atheists must be true”.
If you’re saying that atheists have beliefs because all humans have beliefs, I’d go along with that. But if you’re saying that atheism itself rests on a set of propositions, I disagree. And as I argued upthread (it quickly got buried by the torrent), there is no reason to suppose that the brain has ultimate, foundational beliefs, and plenty of reason to suppose that it doesn’t work like that.
I think we should stick to irrational, which is what people generally mean here by “stupid”.
Name-calling isn’t especially helpful in a debate, but if something is irrational we shouldn’t hesitate to call it such.
I agree. I think it’s wise to remember that beliefs and belief systems are only partly intellect and evidence and partly emotion. Even atheists form their belief systems this way. I try to let people work things out along their own path and reserve the right to do the same. I was very involved in organized religion at one point but now I don’t have the same beliefs and don’t anticipate ever going back but I can look at that phase as part of my life as growth rather than stupid. We are unique individuals and can’t say what others should think or feel.
That said, I think facts are important to our development as people and should influence the evolution of our religions, so in discussions let’s not be afraid of the facts.
I think faith in the classic definition,
Hebrews11; 1:Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
is part of every persons life on an emotional level, as part of their overall belief system.
and ftr; I believe atheism is non belief. It is not a belief system but is one aspect of a person’s belief system.
It seems clear to me that all humans have a belief system of sorts composed of their cultural and family influence as well as personal experiences and probably genetics. Atheism is no more a belief system than basic theism is, but is one small component of a belief system.
Often these discussions focus on intellect and factual knowledge but it’s also clear to me that all human belief systems have a major emotional component as well that really cannot be disconnected from the intellect. Through our emotions the element of faith enters and it exists in all humans to varying degrees. It depends on what they have faith in or about.
It’s kinda funny when atheists use their own irrational emotion to criticize the irrational emotional aspects of someone else.
If we acknowledge that faith is irrational we should also acknowledge that we are all irrational at times about various aspects of life. While it seems factually correct to say that religion too often ignores the evidence of science, because of the emotional aspect of belief systems we cannot really say with any certainty that religion is bad or that we’d be better off without it. I think it’s just a part of our evolution as a race and we don’t know where we might be several generations form now.
If you’re raised/conditioned/trained to accept things on the basis of faith, it can become inconceivable that those who do not are demonstrating anything but an inferior “faith”. The skeptical, evidence-based mindset is turned on its head and becomes a “belief”, since that is all that believers can comprehend.
The other major reason for claiming that non-belief is a belief (or for arguing that evidence-based views are merely a form of faith/religion, i.e acceptance of evolutionary theory), is of course to annoy opponents. What does it say, though, about the quality of religion in general that the religious attribute it to people and ideas they despise so intensely?
To me, this is a rather straightforward topic, and it is surprising that it’s been drawn out to almost 700 posts.
Firstly, is atheism defined as a belief system? Well, some definitions have it as the assertion that god does not exist, which is a belief, of sorts (though not a belief system).
Many dictionaries and most philosophers however prefer the definition that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, ergo, not a belief.
Secondly, are certain beliefs often coupled to atheism, for example materialism? Absolutely. These are not fundamental to atheism however. If you care to point out a proposition you consider to be a part of atheism, we can point to an atheist that does not believe that proposition.
(for example, I’m an atheist, but I don’t call myself a materialist; mainly because I don’t consider it well-defined or necessary)
And now follows a very irrational argument…
So:
- Faith may be irrational, but we’re all irrational at times.
- Religion might be good for us, who knows?
…which completely dodges the point and makes no point of its own.
I also disagree that believing in a religion without any evidence is stupid.
It’s delusional, which is a very different thing. I have smart (IMO, anyway) friends who are able to use that intelligence to come up with very elaborate excuses for the things they believe in. Their intelligence makes them more impervious to reason. I’d compare them to conspiracy theorists, but they have the advantage of having been indoctrinated as children, while many conspiracy theorists were won over in their adulthood. That’s stupid.
AClockworkMelon – depends delicately on your definition of “stupid”. I like to differentiate “stupidity” from “cleverness”. I think some who are religious can be clever; they can have a high IQ; they can make elaborate excuses for what are in fact fairly obvious logical fallacies. There is a fine line between “delusional” and “stupid”: the lack of self-awareness that enables delusion is a form of stupidity, IMO.
Frankly, I don’t think irrational, delusional or clever are any better than stupid. Each label is asserting that theists are suffering from a flaw in mental reasoning. This is, at bottom, an ad hominem attack and, rightly, rejected as such. I say again, stick to substance. We atheists win there or never.
For the record, PBear42, I am using the definition I gave here, which does not constitute ad hominem. Though I was responding to whom I assume to be a fellow atheist, I agree that public references to such terms should ideally be avoided if the goal is to actually persuade someone of anything. On the other hand, it is of course frustrating that when confronted with clear examples of fallacious reasoning, proffered corrections are evaded or ignored; one’s mind naturally drifts towards behavioral descriptions that, while not ungenerous, are… undiplomatic. 
I was giving creationism as a specific example of where religion leads to distorted ideas. I chose it because it was a particularly blatant one. If you want me to give details about what is wrong with creationism, I (and many people here) can go on for pages. I assure you that my opinion that creationism is a steaming pile of crap is not based on faith.
That just means you don’t understand. The effectiveness of science is not based on any kind of faith, but on repeated experiments about its effectiveness. Science (unlike religion and natural philosophy) has demonstrably improved our understanding of the world and universe, and our technology is ample proof of this proposition. I work with people who are experts on semiconductor technology. If the science behind this did not work, our chips would fail in many, many ways, and we never would have been able to move to the 20 nanometer technology nodes where we are now. Every bit of “faith” in the characteristics of the next generation gets confirmed by experiments and test chips.
Nor did I claim it did. But those who do believe in inerrancy do it from belief in God. Thus my point holds.
That some naturalistic beliefs have been wrong in no way contradicts my point - as far as we can tell, all supernatural beliefs have been wrong. Science works by making best guesses given available evidence, and refining them with time.
Yes, scientists are dogmatic, but science is designed accept this. First, even the most senior scientists have their papers reviewed, and though there is a halo effect saying something wacky is going to get a paper rejected. Second, the next generation, brought up with the evidence, rejects the dogmatic and inaccurate view. Not many steady-staters out there any more.
How have religions improved? I think only in the sense that they have revised their moral teachings in line with improved secular ethics. The decline in church political power has helped also. But in the sense of agreeing about god and all the important questions religion is supposed to answer, they haven’t gotten very far.
The reason for this is that science has answered many of our questions about the world much better than religion ever has, so well that religions often claim they never even had opinions about them. And it does it with no need for a god. Science is thus a model of how these questions should be answered, and this method has nothing at all to do with faith.
Probably been posted a hundred times, but…
Aethism, by definition, is a rejection of belief (in deities et cetera). As such, it’s the very synonym off “non-belief”. It makes more sense than a ‘belief in non-belief’, right? :dubious:
‘Believers’ simply like to lump those that do no espouse what they do in the same category as themselves (i.e, believers of something) irrespective of their differening take on things. Its human nature to want to normalize what one feels, espouses or enacts; it makes you feel like ‘one of the crowd’. A bit like how the three major religions–Christianity, Judaism, Islam–all have a certain inalienable bond (God) in spite of their often lethal differences.
Branding ‘belief’ upon those that do not have this faculty is just another abstract of the phenomenon of human beings wanting to be accepted.
NB: Not an atheist. More a Agnostic-athiest-whogivesafuck cusp.
No they aren’t.
Saying that theism is irrational is not the same thing as saying that theists themselves are irrational.
Personally I suspect that just interacting with the world and surviving requires us to be rational much of the time.
The problem with the “irrational” label may be a cultural difference. To me, and just about anyone in scientific or philosophical circles, it’s important that every idea be challengeable, with no thought given to people’s sensibilities.
I don’t hesitate to say that theism is irrational, as we have no good grounds for belief in a god.
I’m not sure what you read into my post but I actually said said atheism IS NOT a belief system, but can be part of one. I say “can be” for those hard atheist and more evangelical atheists. In a country and culture where god belief is so much the norm I think not believing in god is more often an active conscious choice but it is still non belief.
what exactly is very irrational about it?
What point do you think I’m dodging?
I’m referring to hard atheism and those few who are assertive about god belief being stupid or very harmful. “Religion is bad for mankind” is itself IMO an irrational emotional argument.
The question of whether Religion is good for mankind cannot be answered with any degree of certainty , but more than that, since people are unique in their intellectual emotional make up, religion might be a very positive influence on one individual , while a negative on another.
The “part of something greater” aspect of religion and the “we are one family of man” is, IMO a positive thing and serves a good purpose. Just as a personal curiosity for myself I’ve wondered how we capture that feeling of unity and the outreach that goes with it, without some form of theism.
It depends on how you define hard atheists. If by “hard atheist” you mean one who asserts knowledge that no Gods exist, then you’ll be hard pressed to come up with even just 5 examples (even Dawkins isn’t one). But if by “hard atheist” you mean someone who is positive but certainly not completely sure that no Gods exist, then I don’t see your point. The fact that there is simply no compelling reason for God belief makes it quite rational to be positive that no Gods exist. There’s a vanishingly small possibility that such a being exists but that can also be said of unicorns and fairies. Surely, you wouldn’t say that someone who is positive that no fairies exist is irrational.
And while I will not make the blanket statement that religion is bad for mankind under every circumstance, I would have to say that the very thing that is valued in religion (faith) makes it highly likely that harmful things could come out of it. If you can believe things that are unsupported by evidence or reason, then it’s quite likely that you can be persuaded to do bad things. Witness circumcision, teaching against condom use, suicide bombings, religious conflicts, opposing gay marriage, etc.
You didn’t use the word “can” in your previous post. You said that atheism is part of a belief system.
This is true for just about any phenomenon that affects lots of people. It doesn’t stop us normally saying that some things are a net positive or negative on mankind.
It’s an IMO thing, separate to this thread, but yeah I’d say religion is bad for mankind overall. It’s been a huge drag on human progress, I’m not convinced that it makes people more moral and I’m not convinced that the comfort it offers outweighs the fear many have of god and hell.
Maybe hard atheist is not quite the term I’m looking for. I think for both theists and atheists there ae those who might intellectually acknowledge they can’t have 100% certainty but still feel very certain.
I tend to see god belief as an ongoing part of our human evolution and although Irrational, delusional, or stupid, might be technically accurate under some definitions of the word, when used as pejoratives I reject them. My own basic thoughts about this are
All humans have a belief system that is part intellect and part emotion. That being the case all employ some form of faith, in the classic sense. I’m not differentiating between religious faith and other kinds but mean the basic quirk of our consciousness that allows us to believe things without hard evidence.
I see that as part of the human condition and evolution as well rather than just a product of religion.
Yes, rather than a belief system in itself. If every human has a belief system then atheism would be part of the belief system of some right. Is your objection that as a non-belief, it isn’t part of a belief system?
And nothing wrong with holding an opinion. I’m just pointing out that those types of opinions based in part on our emotional response, can also be seen as irrational or stupid.