• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When does Atheism Become a Belief System

CrabCake said:
I think you're actually on the wrong track here in that you are mixing two separate issues. You list these things as if they are levels of atheism, even calling them degrees and calling the very first one "agnostic". But you are actually not describing levels of atheism, but rather levels of arrogance and intolerance. The difference between what you describe as Atheist 5th degree and Atheist 1st degree has nothing to do with the person's beliefs about God or the strength of those beliefs; the difference is just that the 1st degree Atheist is an arrogant, intolerant prick and the 5th degree is a nice guy or gal (at least in this area).

I think the very idea of listing these as degrees of atheism is misguided. Someone can hold Atheist beliefs yet be a good person who has no problem accepting that others disagree with his view. The fact he's a good person doesn't mean he's less of an atheist. Your scale is actually measuring arrogance and intolerance, not atheist beliefs, so it just shouldn't be labeled "atheist nth degree".
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1st degree atheists have rubbed me wrong in the past too. I agree. They are really annoying when they deny they are 1st degree and cling to the notion that they are 3rd degree, which I agree with you does not really exist in principle but it does as a personality.
 
calamity said:
I guess where I was going with this thread was trying to delineate, better classify, the combination of belief and the vocalization of said beliefs than the list you wrote above. Figure it the non-believers version of climbing the ladder from once a year Catholics (usually Easter or Christmas) on up past the Evangelicals and on up to the top where the proselytizers sit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they're not linear like that. Like I said, there are believers and agnostics who are strongly anti-religion, and there are atheists and anti-theists who don't care.

We're discussing a political belief that is totally unrelated to whether you believe in deities.

With religion, it's a little different.

In order to get to a politically extreme position, like believing that all people who don't believe what you do are evil horrible people, you need a dogma. You need some sort of authoritative dictate that makes you believe that and tells you that you need to act on it.

Religion already comes pre-endowed with dogma. It's part and parcel. Now, it's true that most branches of religiosity don't have a dogma that would inspire such an extreme opinion about other people. In fact, many branches of religion think there are many paths to spiritual goodness, however they define it.

But, you DON'T need anything beyond religion to get to the more extreme views. Religion INHERENTLY has dogma.

With atheism -- which, in correct philosophical terms, is the absence of belief -- you can't get to dogma without attaching anything to it. Atheism is the ABSENCE of something. So there's nothing riding on it which causes someone to act, or have certain beliefs.

So you have to add something to it. Since we're sticking with extreme cases here, let's take fascism.

Now, fascism is not based on atheism. However, it does exclude religion, because fascism has dogma that centers around the LEADER. Having a deity would cause a conflict of power, and we can't have that. Therefore, fascism is anti-religion.

But you can't get to fascism in a straight line from atheism, or even anti-religion. You have to add in all the political beliefs of fascism totally seperately.

This is why no one has ever killed anyone in the name of atheism. Atheism alone has no tenants to act on. You need to attach something else to it, like fascism, which is completely unrelated to atheism -- just compatible.

Religion, on the other hand, already comes pre-loaded with dogma that compels people to act.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, but they're not linear like that. Like I said, there are believers and agnostics who are strongly anti-religion, and there are atheists and anti-theists who don't care.

We're discussing a political belief that is totally unrelated to whether you believe in deities.

With religion, it's a little different.

In order to get to a politically extreme position, like believing that all people who don't believe what you do are evil horrible people, you need a dogma. You need some sort of authoritative dictate that makes you believe that and tells you that you need to act on it.

Religion already comes pre-endowed with dogma. It's part and parcel. Now, it's true that most branches of religiosity don't have a dogma that would inspire such an extreme opinion about other people. In fact, many branches of religion think there are many paths to spiritual goodness, however they define it.

But, you DON'T need anything beyond religion to get to the more extreme views. Religion INHERENTLY has dogma.

With atheism -- which, in correct philosophical terms, is the absence of belief -- you can't get to dogma without attaching anything to it. Atheism is the ABSENCE of something. So there's nothing riding on it which causes someone to act, or have certain beliefs.

So you have to add something to it. Since we're sticking with extreme cases here, let's take fascism.

Now, fascism is not based on atheism. However, it does exclude religion, because fascism has dogma that centers around the LEADER. Having a deity would cause a conflict of power, and we can't have that. Therefore, fascism is anti-religion.

But you can't get to fascism in a straight line from atheism, or even anti-religion. You have to add in all the political beliefs of fascism totally seperately.

This is why no one has ever killed anyone in the name of atheism. Atheism alone has no tenants to act on. You need to attach something else to it, like fascism, which is completely unrelated to atheism -- just compatible.

Religion, on the other hand, already comes pre-loaded with dogma that compels people to act.
Click to expand...

I find that many atheists are staking claims beyond simply the absence of belief. Hence, the thread.

For instance. My tag: Third Degree Atheist is actually a person who refuses to accept he is a First Degree Atheist. He or she is a person who actually does have a belief, the belief that no gods exist. IMO, this person hides behind the "I have no belief system" but they argue and mock those who do, which proves that they must have a belief that gods do not exist because they surely cannot know that no gods exist.
 
calamity said:
I find that many atheists are staking claims beyond simply the absence of belief. Hence, the thread.

For instance. My tag: Third Degree Atheist is actually a person who refuses to accept he is a First Degree Atheist. He or she is a person who actually does have a belief, the belief that no gods exist.

IMO, this person hides behind the "I have no belief system" but they argue and mock those who do which proves that they must have a belief that gods do not exist because they surely cannot know that no gods exist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but those are political positions based on how they feel religion affects society, not based on their philosophical position of the likelihood of deities in the universe.

They DON'T have a believe system, philosophically pertaining to deities in the universe. What they have is a POLITICAL belief system about how the institution of religion affects critical thinking of individuals, or larger society.

And there are believers who feel the exact same way and engage in those debates on the same side.
 
calamity said:
I find that many atheists are staking claims beyond simply the absence of belief. Hence, the thread.

For instance. My tag: Third Degree Atheist is actually a person who refuses to accept he is a First Degree Atheist. He or she is a person who actually does have a belief, the belief that no gods exist. IMO, this person hides behind the "I have no belief system" but they argue and mock those who do, which proves that they must have a belief that gods do not exist because they surely cannot know that no gods exist.
Click to expand...

Atheists are not without belief. It is the God they are missing.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, but those are political positions based on how they feel religion affects society, not based on their philosophical position of the likelihood of deities in the universe.

They DON'T have a believe system, philosophically pertaining to deities in the universe. What they have is a POLITICAL belief system about how the institution of religion affects critical thinking of individuals, or larger society.
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience. These people mock and deride anyone who even hints that there just might be a god or gods. And, they attack relentlessly anyone who says that they believe there is one.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ss-thing-established-impossible-possible.html

And there are believers who feel the exact same way and engage in those debates on the same side.
Click to expand...
Those people at least admit they are "believers."
 
joG said:
Atheists are not without belief. It is the God they are missing.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. My atheism is indeed a belief. I believe that there are no gods. I go even further in my belief and say it is preposterous to even think that there is some deity out that that gives a crap about us as individuals or as a species.

However, and this is where it gets a little more vague, I can totally understand how someone gains peace and feels a sense of control by praying and asking his/her deity for guidance. So, although I do not believe in gods, I do believe in the idea of one. And, I can see where that belief can be a positive influence and a huge benefit...say, in a foxhole.
 
calamity said:
That has not been my experience. These people mock and deride anyone who even hints that there just might be a god or gods. And, they attack relentlessly anyone who says that they believe there is one.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ss-thing-established-impossible-possible.html

Those people at least admit they are "believers."
Click to expand...

But that has nothing to do with them being an atheist. It has to do with a belief in how religion affects thinking or society, and there are believers and agnostics who feel that way about the religious as well. So given that this isn't unique to atheism, it is clearly not directly connected to atheism. It is connected to some other belief that makes the person feel compelled to argue their point. Namely, a political belief about the impact of religiosity.

That said, I have yet to meet an anti-theist who is actually as bad as the social smear campaign against them seems to be. I've met some who are unpleasant, but never one who starts their tirade at the mere mention of religion, not even on DP where people tend to be worse than they would be in person. I don't think that caricature actually exists in reality. How the hell would you ever get anything done if it did?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
But that has nothing to do with them being an atheist. It has to do with a belief in how religion affects thinking or society, and there are believers and agnostics who feel that way about the religious as well. So given that this isn't unique to atheism, it is clearly not directly connected to atheism. It is connected to some other belief that makes the person feel compelled to argue their point. Namely, a political belief about the impact of religiosity.

That said, I have yet to meet an anti-theist who is actually as bad as the social smear campaign against them seems to be. I've met some who are unpleasant, but never one who starts their tirade at the mere mention of religion, not even on DP where people tend to be worse than they would be in person. I don't think that caricature actually exists in reality. How the hell would you ever get anything done if it did?
Click to expand...

IMO, we are talking past each other.

My point with the five degrees is more or less to differentiate between various atheists and the agnostic on a personality level.

For example, like my Third Degree is really a First Degree without the self-awareness to admit he really does have a belief: the belief that no gods exist. So too does the Fourth Degree match up well with Degree number Two. Both are not as belligerent as 1st & 4ths, but they both do have a belief that no gods exist, it's just that the 2nd Degree person admits it.
 
calamity said:
That's where I used to be before becoming a firm believer that there are no gods, while also admitting I really have no proof and can't say for sure. Now, I just argue against those who make claims for their gods that I know are bull****.
Click to expand...

All gods are bull**** so long as there is no objective evidence for them. That's how critical thinking works, if people can't back up their claims with objective evidence, then their claims are crap. I point out crappy claims, regardless of what the claims are.
 
Cephus said:
All gods are bull**** so long as there is no objective evidence for them. That's how critical thinking works, if people can't back up their claims with objective evidence, then their claims are crap. I point out crappy claims, regardless of what the claims are.
Click to expand...

We can't call bull**** on something we cannot know. So, when someone says a god created the universe and left it at that, we can't call it bull**** without bull****ting oursleves. We don't know what, if anything, created the universe. It's a great unknown.

I notice people like to fill in the unknown with bull****. And, that is not just re gods of the gaps either. There is a tendency to fill in the blanks with what we would like to see there.
 
Cephus said:
That's how critical thinking works, if people can't back up their claims with objective evidence, then their claims are crap.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:

Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.

Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.

B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
First, I'll admit I am more of a believer than a non-believer. I believe that there are no gods. I also believe that there is good reason to believe that there are no gods. But, of course, I am not sure of that. So...I guess I see myself as atheist-light.

Given the above, I kind of see a need for establishing a reference guide which delineates the the various degrees of Atheism, from true agnostic to the hard line disbeliever.

Rough template:

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way.

Atheist 5th degree: Simply does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist

Atheist 4th Degree: Also does not believe in gods, says he does not care if others do believe or not, but tends to challenge anyone who does

Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, but argues furiously with those who say they do believe or that they exist

Atheist 2nd Degree: Believes gods do not exist, but is willing to accept that they just might

Atheist 1st Degree: Believes gods do not exist and mocks anyone who even hints at the notion that they might



Thoughts, additions, critiques, etc. ?
Click to expand...

Depends on the god.

Postulate that your god is a magical pink invisible door knob and I'll mock you right out of the room..

In general though, 2nd degree is about right, even though I do believe the chance they just might is vanishingly small (again, how small 'vanishingly small' is depends on the definition of the god in question).
 
calamity said:
I'd agree with that. My atheism is indeed a belief. I believe that there are no gods. I go even further in my belief and say it is preposterous to even think that there is some deity out that that gives a crap about us as individuals or as a species.

However, and this is where it gets a little more vague, I can totally understand how someone gains peace and feels a sense of control by praying and asking his/her deity for guidance. So, although I do not believe in gods, I do believe in the idea of one. And, I can see where that belief can be a positive influence and a huge benefit...say, in a foxhole.
Click to expand...

Yep. I can agree with most of it. Where I do run into difficulties is understanding how one can believe we could tell that there was or wasn't a Deity believing what we do about physics.
 
joG said:
Yep. I can agree with most of it. Where I do run into difficulties is understanding how one can believe we could tell that there was or wasn't a Deity believing what we do about physics.
Click to expand...

Given what we know about programming, AI and sims...I'd say that the idea that we are maybe in some complex simulation created by some uber species or "god" is impossible to rule out.
 
Nilly said:
Depends on the god.

Postulate that your god is a magical pink invisible door knob and I'll mock you right out of the room..

In general though, 2nd degree is about right, even though I do believe the chance they just might is vanishingly small (again, how small 'vanishingly small' is depends on the definition of the god in question).
Click to expand...

Yep. I have not yet seen a god definition that I cannot debunk with logic and observable evidence. However, I admit that it is impossible to debunk all possible definitions of gods, especially those not yet put on the table or those that are too vague to pin down.
 
calamity said:
We can't call bull**** on something we cannot know. So, when someone says a god created the universe and left it at that, we can't call it bull**** without bull****ting oursleves. We don't know what, if anything, created the universe. It's a great unknown.

I notice people like to fill in the unknown with bull****. And, that is not just re gods of the gaps either. There is a tendency to fill in the blanks with what we would like to see there.
Click to expand...

Of course we can. Absolute knowledge is not possible for anything, but we can go by what the currently available evidence says and the currently available evidence says that gods aren't real. That's not an absolute statement, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong by evidence that we find in the future, but based on what we currently know, there's no reason to think that gods, any gods, actually exist in the real world. Rational people believe things only when they are justified by objective evidence. No evidence ought to mean no belief. That makes people who do believe inherently irrational. That's not something to be proud of.
 
Harshaw said:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Click to expand...

People really hate leaving the unknown alone. "We have no proof of A, therefore A does not exist" is very popular, it seems.

It's a phenomenon I did not notice until I came to DP. People here really are loathe to say, "We just don't know."
 
Cephus said:
Of course we can. Absolute knowledge is not possible for anything, but we can go by what the currently available evidence says and the currently available evidence says that gods aren't real. That's not an absolute statement, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong by evidence that we find in the future, but based on what we currently know, there's no reason to think that gods, any gods, actually exist in the real world.
Click to expand...
No one asked you to "think that gods, any gods, actually exist in the real world." You're only being shown that you have no supporting evidence to think the opposite either.

Rational people believe things only when they are justified by objective evidence. No evidence ought to mean no belief. That makes people who do believe inherently irrational. That's not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...
You are free to not believe. But, are you sure you do not actually believe that no gods exist? You sure do seem to be arguing like that is your position.
 
calamity said:
People really hate leaving the unknown alone. "We have no proof of A, therefore A does not exist" is very popular, it seems.

It's a phenomenon I did not notice until I came to DP. People here really are loathe to say, "We just don't know."
Click to expand...

Well, as you pointed out, there are people who have their identities wrapped up in positively believing that there is no deity, even though it's not a conclusion you can legitimately come to through reason. It gets funny when they start lecturing others about "evidence" and "logic" and "critical thinking."

But the Argument from Ignorance is a common fallacy, yes, and one that often catches even otherwise smart people when they're determined that a certain thing just IS -- or is not.
 
calamity said:
No one asked you to "think that gods, any gods, actually exist in the real world." You're only being shown that you have no supporting evidence to think the opposite either.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely we do. The question here is "is there sufficient evidence to believe in gods or not?" Clearly, based on the objective evidence that we have at hand, there is no reason to believe that gods exist, period. That makes not believing in gods the most rational, reasonable position that you can take. Nobody is saying that gods absolutely do not exist, we cannot say that, we're saying there is no reason to think that they do and thus we do not believe that they do until significant objective evidence is presented that proves otherwise.

You are free to not believe. But, are you sure you do not actually believe that no gods exist? You sure do seem to be arguing like that is your position.
Click to expand...

Yes I am and I'm free to criticize anyone who does. I've already said what I believe and why I believe it. It doesn't really matter if gods actually exist somewhere out in the universe, the point is that we have no reason to believe that they do and until we have reason to believe that they do, you'd have to be an imbecile to believe in them.

Stop trying to twist things around.
 
Cephus said:
calamity said:
No one asked you to "think that gods, any gods, actually exist in the real world." You're only being shown that you have no supporting evidence to think the opposite either.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely we do. The question here is "is there sufficient evidence to believe in gods or not?" Clearly, based on the objective evidence that we have at hand, there is no reason to believe that gods exist, period. That makes not believing in gods the most rational, reasonable position that you can take. Nobody is saying that gods absolutely do not exist, we cannot say that, we're saying there is no reason to think that they do and thus we do not believe that they do until significant objective evidence is presented that proves otherwise.



Yes I am and I'm free to criticize anyone who does. I've already said what I believe and why I believe it. It doesn't really matter if gods actually exist somewhere out in the universe, the point is that we have no reason to believe that they do and until we have reason to believe that they do, you'd have to be an imbecile to believe in them.

Stop trying to twist things around.
Click to expand...

That's three times in this thread you've made the mistake of claiming that lack of evidence is actually evidence that a thing does not exist.

And it's even twice after that fallacy was explicitly pointed out to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom