I seem to encounter a lot more Atheists like T@T and Duffman than I do weak Atheists, so a lot of my own interpretation on the movement is probably distorted due to personal experience.
So long as we're trading personal anecdotes, I encounter many more atheists like photon and Thor than T@T and DuffMan, but that's probably a function of who I choose to associate with.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd say the most common atheists by far are a third kind altogether: secular, non-religious people who don't believe in supernatural god(s) but just go about their lives while never really thinking about or discussing the issue.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
So long as we're trading personal anecdotes, I encounter many more atheists like photon and Thor than T@T and DuffMan, but that's probably a function of who I choose to associate with.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd say the most common atheists by far are a third kind altogether: secular, non-religious people who don't believe in supernatural god(s) but just go about their lives while never really thinking about or discussing the issue.
So long as we're trading personal anecdotes, I encounter many more atheists like photon and Thor than T@T and DuffMan, but that's probably a function of who I choose to associate with.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd say the most common atheists by far are a third kind altogether: secular, non-religious people who don't believe in supernatural god(s) but just go about their lives while never really thinking about or discussing the issue.
No doubt, personal anecdotes serve no purpose of evidence, but rather explanation. If anything this thread has opened my eyes to the different types of Atheism and the fact that not ALL Atheists are the moderately embarrassing "God doesn't exist! Fact!"
Both you and photon seem like pretty good Atheists to me. Just a personal anecdote though
I seem to encounter a lot more Atheists like T@T and Duffman than I do weak Atheists, so a lot of my own interpretation on the movement is probably distorted due to personal experience.
I think that is because they are one's the speak the loudest. Like anything else you can not extrapolate the loudest members of a group to the entire group.
Humans are molecules because they are made up of molecules? Cars are seat warmers because they are comprised of seat warmers (among other things)? No, and neither is a single belief (or lack of a belief) a belief system because they are made up of beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Being an Atheist informs your view on politics, education, human rights, law, etc.
Believing I can't fly informs many of my views, that doesn't make it a belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
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)?
Fundamentalism isn't defined as a belief though as Textcritic points out. Even the dictionary definitions describe a set of beliefs, not a single belief. So no.
And even if your definition was correct, it's still not a belief system because belief in Biblical inerrancy itself isn't a belief system because it isn't a set of mutually supporting beliefs, it's a single belief. So you'd still be wrong because you'd be conflating fundamentalism as your definition as a single belief and fundamentalists describing a group of people and their common set of mutually supportive beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
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?
Beliefs inform other beliefs, lack of beliefs inform other beliefs. I lack the belief that there's gold in the river that my friends want to go pan, which will inform my belief about the venture being worth the time and expense. It could inform it differently than an active belief that there is gold, or an active belief that there is not gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
People certainly do follow Atheism. There are organisations that promote community and the teaching of Atheism.
Textcritic's question is a good one, I think you're doing the same backwards reasoning as the links you've posted. You even intentionally incorrectly capitalize atheism which shows think the word means something different than what it's defined as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
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.
The relative need or desire of people to organize in response to perceived needs in society at the time and the nature of those organizations doesn't change the meaning of the term belief system.
And yes there are organizations dedicated to plain old theism, there are tons of interfaith organizations. And just like an atheist organization they often do or promote things that go beyond what the simple belief or lack of belief in god would require. Interfaith organizations promoting peace or equality or freedom aren't doing so because theism demands those beliefs, just like an atheist organization promoting peace or equality or freedom aren't doing so because atheism demands those beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Please cite the contradiction, perhaps you mean I lack clarity.
I already did cite it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
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.
"I believe most people who don't believe in faeries claim they would change their mind, but that is also impossible to do because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists."
Well of course, believing the evidence doesn't exist is WHY they lack the belief in faeries. Requiring evidence that doesn't yet exist (or exists but isn't yet known to the person) is usually a requirement to believe something for good reason... Suggesting that requiring yet unknown evidence to support a new belief is a problem is illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
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?
I don't have to present any evidence, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (there is a god). That you think I should provide evidence is a fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
They use it to justify the idea that their belief is more reasonable than that of any theist.
Not any theist, only those theists that dogmatically adhere to their beliefs. A belief that is arrived at by evaluating all known information and can change if information changes IS more reasonable than a belief that cannot change despite any information.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I've met atheists that believe in crystal power. Atheists that believe aliens talk to them when they meditate. Atheists that project themselves into the astral plane. All of those atheists have a wildly different belief system than other atheists that get discussed here. They have organizations to promote their ideas, which are informed by their atheism, but since their belief systems are so different the atheism itself obviously isn't a belief system.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Either that or being deliberately obtuse. I think it is a legitimate question that you have yet to answer.
Being deliberately obtuse? What a bizarre accusation. It's crystal clear beyond a shadow of a doubt with no possibility whatsoever for a modicum of confusion that he's referencing the birth of JC.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I've met atheists that believe in crystal power. Atheists that believe aliens talk to them when they meditate. Atheists that project themselves into the astral plane.
At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, those people don't sound like atheists to me even if they self-label with that term. What you describe reminds me of the new age "I'm spiritual but not religious" types one frequently encounters.
Pretty much, and some (most) don't self identify as atheists, but some would answer no to the question "do you believe in god(s)". You could even be "spiritual" but atheist. A lot of new agers these days use quantum mumbo jumbo, interconnectedness of everything in other dimensions, that kind of thing to explain the stuff they believe in, rather than a Universal Source as a god stand-in.
But most new age type stuff seems to play fast and loose with words and meanings so pinning it down can be tough.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Can we all agree that Deepak Shopra and his ilk are the most annoying segment of people in the world.
His whole nonsense is so perfectly encapsulated in this short clip, Michael Shermer has a hilarious little moment where he calls out woowoo which Chopra HATES, loathes in fact the word woowoo.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
"The future is in the midst of the progressive expansion of life"
"Information is entangled in universal timelessness"
"Your body is a modality of dimensionless destiny"
You forgot the best part...for all the wonderful and crazy things he did not one
Scholar recorded his existence in the time period.
.... Jesus was a real person.
And the exact opposite of what you say is true:
Quote:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][21][53].
Quote:
Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time
What's up for debate is the legitimacy of the version in the Bible, considering there are quite a few contradictions regarding his teachings and particular events.
But yeah, Jesus was a dude who actually existed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
.... Jesus was a real person.
And the exact opposite of what you say is true:
I'm not sure this question can be answered with complete certainty. Textcritic makes a very good case for saying that the existence of a historical Jesus is highly probable, but it is based on circumstantial evidence, and not so much on contemporary evidence.
I think it should not matter so much if he was real or not. It is the message that is important. The reference, not the symbol.
What's up for debate is the legitimacy of the version in the Bible, considering there are quite a few contradictions regarding his teachings and particular events.
But yeah, Jesus was a dude who actually existed.
It's not as clear as you might think. Sure, a Jesus likely existed as it was a very common name (as was James), but the question is if the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels exist? Even Bart Ehrman, a strong proponent of Jesus existence, admits there's very little reliable evidence, and he relies almost exclusively on the Gospels as a result, particularly the passages that would make no sense to make up if Jesus didn't exist.
Until the last 50 or so years, Christian history was studied almost exclusively by believers. Further, many of these people work for institutions where if they denied Jesus existed would cost them their job. This is not merely conjecture, or trying to explain away the consensus. David Fitzgerald, one proponent of Jesus never existing, has publicly stated that he has received a lot of messages from scholars he never expected them from stating that they agree with him that Jesus probably didn't exist, but nevertheless publicly say they do as they would lose their job otherwise. Of course, the number of people in this situation are probably no where near large enough to seriously change the percentages, but it's something to remember.
I personally believe that Jesus existed, but I'm not certain, and I don't think the evidence for his existence is nearly as strong as many think it is.
How about, 2,000 years ago, Jesus was born.
Do you think that would've sufficed?
Making a case or even proving that Jesus is not God, does not prove that there is no God. Further, there are also Deists that believe god created the Universe, gave it natural laws, and then left it to function on it's own. It's fair to say that if God existed we'd have found indisputable evidence of his interactions by now. However, don't you think limiting it to the last 2000 years in a universe that 14.x Billion is a somewhat narrow focus?
I'm not sure how you can say with confidence that no god(s) exist when many, like Pascal, recognize that if God exists, he is ineffable. If your merely confident the Christian God does not exist, then you may be justified in your strong belief God does not exist, but if your certain all god(s) including the Deist ones do not exist, it seems you have a burden of proof to meet.
Humans are molecules because they are made up of molecules? Cars are seat warmers because they are comprised of seat warmers (among other things)? No, and neither is a single belief (or lack of a belief) a belief system because they are made up of beliefs.
Believing I can't fly informs many of my views, that doesn't make it a belief system.
You're focusing far too much on the parts instead of the whole. A belief system has to check multiple boxes. If you're going to argue that "Well something being true doesn't make it a belief system" or "Something informing other beliefs isn't a beliefs system" or "Something a community follows isn't a belief system" then you're never going to get anywhere, because I agree with all of those. If you continue to treat them individually, they will all continue to be true, but you won't be arguing against what I'm saying.
If you can HONESTLY tell me that believing you can't fly informs your world view and that you base significant social, political, and philosophical beliefs on the idea of not being able to fly, while being part of a community that all should follow particular beliefs associated with not flying, then you're right, it's a belief system. We can call it Anti-Flightism if you'd like.
Atheism is a belief system. If it isn't, why would it matter if an Atheist believes in Aliens? Or Crystal Power? According to MarchHare, those people probably aren't atheists, and even you agree it's hard to pin down. Isn't your definition of atheism the singular lack of belief in god/deities? So why in the world would ANYONE question someone's atheism if aliens and the power of crystals, two entirely separate things from gods and deities, were other beliefs of theirs?
Would you say that, perhaps, aliens and crystal power do not fall in line with the "system" that which most true atheists follow? They are certainly separate, unless to be a true atheist you must adhere to more than just a lack of belief in gods and deities... in which case...
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And even if your definition was correct, it's still not a belief system because belief in Biblical inerrancy itself isn't a belief system because it isn't a set of mutually supporting beliefs, it's a single belief. So you'd still be wrong because you'd be conflating fundamentalism as your definition as a single belief and fundamentalists describing a group of people and their common set of mutually supportive beliefs.
Since you're so kind, let's work off the idea that my definition was correct. Fundamentalism is a belief system. Fundamentalists believe that:
Quote:
the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record
That is Fundamentalism. That is also a belief. They believe that the Bible is literal and should be taken as such without variation. This belief informs a multitude of other beliefs. It is a belief system.
Nearly every belief system has a central belief, and every central belief informs a range of related, important beliefs that are generally accepted by followers of that belief system. That, or the Alien Crystal Powers Guru is as much as atheist as anyone else, without even the notion that they should have someone questioning their atheism because of seemingly unrelated beliefs they hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I already did cite it.
"I believe most people who don't believe in faeries claim they would change their mind, but that is also impossible to do because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists."
Well of course, believing the evidence doesn't exist is WHY they lack the belief in faeries. Requiring evidence that doesn't yet exist (or exists but isn't yet known to the person) is usually a requirement to believe something for good reason... Suggesting that requiring yet unknown evidence to support a new belief is a problem is illogical.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I don't have to present any evidence, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (there is a god). That you think I should provide evidence is a fallacy.
Well sure you do. You're propositioning your friends with the question of "If there were evidence, would you cease belief in God?".
In order for your question to be comprehensive, you'd surely have to qualify evidence.
It's not the burden of proof fallacy, it's "How to ask a question and get a valid response." If I ask you if you'd ever turn down a Popsicle, and you say "Well probably not, no." then there's not a lot I can actually infer from your answer, because my question was super vague. I certainly can't tell others you'd eat ANY Popsicle provided. If someone asks me "Really? Any kind of Popsicle? He'd eat a urine flavoured Popsicle?" I'm not going to claim fallacy and deny the relevance of the question, nor can I accurately say "Yes" if I didn't ask about the urine flavoured Popsicle. My question was general, so I got a general response, and it would be wrong to reference that in response to specific questions.
To put it another way: Rarely would a person who loves Popsicles is going to think of urine or rotting meat flavoured Popsicles when you ask if they'd ever turn down a Popsicle. They're going to work within their own scope of knowledge and answer based on that, not Chill Cosby's weird fascination with urine Popsicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Not any theist, only those theists that dogmatically adhere to their beliefs. A belief that is arrived at by evaluating all known information and can change if information changes IS more reasonable than a belief that cannot change despite any information.
Absolutely. The only problem is that you talk about Atheism in an "all encompassing way" but talk about Theism differently. Most Theists, I gather, are flexible and would change their belief system based on known information. Much like most Atheists.
God created the world, so the story goes. Some people (creationists) believe evolution not to be real. Most theists believe it to be very real. That's a pretty prime example of the opinion of theists changing, and a good example of their acceptance towards change given the change of information.
That's my issue with the "Atheists would change if the information was sufficient". I'm sure most would. As would most theists. Neither phrases should be uttered conclusively or in a manner that encompasses all who follow either.
EDIT: By the way, I'm really enjoying talking about this with you. It's making me think a little more, and my view if adapting as we go. Hope I've been tolerable so far
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 09-15-2014 at 03:16 PM.
I'm not sure this question can be answered with complete certainty. Textcritic makes a very good case for saying that the existence of a historical Jesus is highly probable, but it is based on circumstantial evidence, and not so much on contemporary evidence.
I think it should not matter so much if he was real or not. It is the message that is important. The reference, not the symbol.
I agree. I was simply rejecting the idea that not a single scholar had recorded evidence or found evidence of his existence.
