Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
So in part, a belief system is believing something to be true? Nonsense.
Where's this academic definition of a belief system. A belief system requires a lot more than a single lack of one belief, that's what system means. A belief system is a set of coherent beliefs, mutually supportive.
Belief that god exists or the lack of belief that god exists or belief that god does not exist are not belief systems, because it's either a single belief or a lack of a single belief.
|
Absolutely it is. In part. Being an Atheist informs your view on politics, education, human rights, law, etc. As an Atheist, you adhere to other beliefs almost automatically. Fundamentalism is a belief system, but Fundamentalism is defined as the belief that the literal interpretation of the Bible is necessary to Christianity.
Is Fundamentalism not a belief system because it is also a belief (despite being one that other beliefs fall under)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
No one "follows" atheism any more than they "follow" theism or "follow" not believing in fairies. Communities arise because people share common ideas (among other things) and enjoy socializing with those people.
People follow a religion because it is more than simple theism, it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs (a belief system). People follow secular humanism because it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs.
Pretty much all beliefs inform other beliefs, just because a belief informs other beliefs or actions doesn't make it a belief system, it's a single belief in a belief system.
|
So does a lack of belief inform other beliefs? Or are we in agreement that a "lack of belief" in god is the same in this scenario (Atheism) as a "belief" in god? People certainly do follow Atheism. There are organisations that promote community and the teaching of Atheism.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai
http://www.atheists.org
Are there are organisations dedicated the the promotion and education, the "mission" as it were of plain old Theism? Usually such things are dedicated to actual organisations, organisations formed on a system of beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
You're contradicting yourself, earlier you said changing their mind was not possible by definition for agnostics was that the question was unknowable, so by your definition this is partially wrong.
And you are wrong about all religious people as well, see below.
I've had many discussions with religious people where I've asked that exact question (what evidence would change their mind) and I've never had an actual answer, the response is either to ignore the question entirely or to say that no evidence would suffice (which I admire at least they're being honest with themselves).
|
Please cite the contradiction, perhaps you mean I lack clarity. I believe that most Atheists claim they would change their mind, but that it is also impossible to do so, because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists. Same goes with all.
Let me ask you this:
What evidence did you present to your religious friends? To Atheists, God is a story. A fantastical creation that doesn't exist. So what evidence, equally as magical to that of a religious person, did you present?
If anything, you're arguing the difference between a strong belief and a weak belief. A strong Christian can't imagine what the evidence would be that would take God away, a strong Atheist can't imagine God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But it's not clear what you are saying people who use the "would change their mind" argument are justifying. That atheists use the "would change their mind" argument to justify that lack of belief isn't a belief? That doesn't make sense.
|
They use it to justify the idea that their belief is more reasonable than that of any theist.