• 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

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...

I'd probably classify somewhere around the 5th Degree.

I don't really give much of a **** what others believe, but if I'm in a debate with someone I won't hesitate to challenge their position.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
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...

You are getting not believing something confused with proof and simply believing something. Lack of evidence is a perfect reason not to believe in something. It is not, however, proof that this something does not exist. You can only believe that it does not exist.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I have said NUMEROUS times that lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist. However, lack of evidence is sufficient reason not to BELIEVE in something. This is about belief, not about proof. How do you justify your belief? You look at the evidence to see what position it actually supports. I don't believe in unicorns. There is no objective evidence that supports their existence, hence I don't believe in them. If evidence is found that proves they exist, I will change my position, but not until. The same goes for gods.

But sure, go around and completely misunderstand, probably on purpose, what people are saying in clear and concise English.
 
calamity said:
You are getting not believing something confused with proof and simply believing something. Lack of evidence is a perfect reason not to believe in something. It is not, however, proof that this something does not exist. You can only believe that it does not exist.
Click to expand...

You are the only one here who has said that you believe gods don't exist, so... whatever.
 
Cephus said:
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

In what I just quoted to you, he said there's no evidence for disbelief, and you said there "absolutely" was, and proceeded to explain that the lack of evidence was that evidence. Just in the very last thing I quoted to you.

And earlier in this thread, you said:

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.
Click to expand...

And:

Cephus said:
we can go by what the currently available evidence says and the currently available evidence says that gods aren't real.
Click to expand...

You drew definite conclusions. You even said the conclusion was based on "evidence." You distinctly said that "evidence says" something.

This is what you said.

Yes, you also said we can't know for sure, but you most definitely drew conclusions, and you most definitely claimed that the lack of evidence WAS evidence of non-existence. Multiple times, for both.

I am not reading you incorrectly. It is what you said.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
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...

That's where you went wrong. When speaking of once a year Christians vs dedicated Christians you are actually speaking of a level of commitment, involvement, and dedication. But when making your scale for atheists, instead of talking about commitment, involvement, and dedication you talk about levels of arrogance and intolerance. Your scale is measuring the wrong thing. You are measuring people's arrogance and intolerance and then tying it to their atheist beliefs. That's wrong.

A dedicated, committed, involved atheist might be someone who is involved in the secular humanism movement. They may be someone who listens to or participates in atheist podcasts and reads or writes atheist blogs. They might be someone who gets involved in ensuring religion isn't being brought into the classrooms. It may even be someone who doesn't spend much time on "atheist" thinking at all, but rather is deeply involved in the field of normative ethics, due to his or her interest in building an ethical framework that does not rely on religion. That same person may actually be a very kind, humble person with many friends of various faiths. They may be respectful of other's beliefs and have no desire to ridicule anyone. Yet that person is a dedicated, committed, and involved atheist.

I think your scale fails to measure what you set out to measure. It measures instead a persons' level of arrogance and intolerance then ties that into their atheist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are, because it makes no sense for a political belief about society to be implied by a non-belief about deities. :shrug:

These aren't "degrees of atheism." Half of them aren't even unique to atheists in the first place.
 
Atheism is not a belief system nor does it come in different degrees. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The problem is that too many people see atheism from their theistic point of view. Anyone who considers the possibility that there are gods seems to see atheists as non-believers. They wrongly use theism as the default human position. There is not, nor has their ever been, a logical reason to be a theist. Atheists should not have to answer to theists or convince them that atheism is not a belief system.
 
Cephus said:
You are the only one here who has said that you believe gods don't exist, so... whatever.
Click to expand...

Sure, while admitting it is indeed a belief
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, we are, because it makes no sense for a political belief about society to be implied by a non-belief about deities. :shrug:

These aren't "degrees of atheism." Half of them aren't even unique to atheists in the first place.
Click to expand...

Check out the title of the thread. The thread was tying atheist behavior to that of the believers. It's not a treatise on atheism.
 
CrabCake said:
That's where you went wrong. When speaking of once a year Christians vs dedicated Christians you are actually speaking of a level of commitment, involvement, and dedication. But when making your scale for atheists, instead of talking about commitment, involvement, and dedication you talk about levels of arrogance and intolerance. Your scale is measuring the wrong thing. You are measuring people's arrogance and intolerance and then tying it to their atheist beliefs. That's wrong.

A dedicated, committed, involved atheist might be someone who is involved in the secular humanism movement. They may be someone who listens to or participates in atheist podcasts and reads or writes atheist blogs. They might be someone who gets involved in ensuring religion isn't being brought into the classrooms. It may even be someone who doesn't spend much time on "atheist" thinking at all, but rather is deeply involved in the field of normative ethics, due to his or her interest in building an ethical framework that does not rely on religion. That same person may actually be a very kind, humble person with many friends of various faiths. They may be respectful of other's beliefs and have no desire to ridicule anyone. Yet that person is a dedicated, committed, and involved atheist.

I think your scale fails to measure what you set out to measure. It measures instead a persons' level of arrogance and intolerance then ties that into their atheist beliefs.
Click to expand...

Post 61
 
Cephus said:
Everything you think is a belief. So what?
Click to expand...

Not true. There actually is a such thing as non-belief. But, to be a non-believer in its literal form, you'd have to make room for accepting that some things are just unknown. So, when someone says gods may exist, you can only say, "Yes. They may or they may not."
 
VanceMack said:
A belief or disbelief in a God does not = a belief system. A belief system provides a foundation for right and wrong. It provides the foundation of morality. If you dont believe in a God you still should know what you believe about right or wrong, life, etc and should be able to clearly identify it and live within it. Similarly...just saying you believe there is a God does not mean you understand that belief or what belief holds re morality, forgiveness, healing, repentance, society, etc.
Click to expand...

Belief systems aren't mutually inclusive to morality or belief in God. A belief system can be anything. We are only informed by our perception and whatever we believe is based upon those perceptions.
 
devildavid said:
Atheism is not a belief system nor does it come in different degrees. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The problem is that too many people see atheism from their theistic point of view. Anyone who considers the possibility that there are gods seems to see atheists as non-believers. They wrongly use theism as the default human position. There is not, nor has their ever been, a logical reason to be a theist. Atheists should not have to answer to theists or convince them that atheism is not a belief system.
Click to expand...

Nope. As has been explained in this thread, there is a distinct difference between simply being a non-believer in gods and being someone who believes gods do not exist.
 
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...
It's all about reality versus philosophy. It's all well and good to define not believing something as a belief itself or claiming every statement you could possibly think of could be true, but it is in no way practical. If someone was to take this idea to heart how would they debate politics exactly? After all, everyone's sources and ideas could definitely be true. What's the point?
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lack of evidence of something is evidence that a thing doesn't exist.

Particularly in the case of gods.
 
Fishking said:
Belief systems aren't mutually inclusive to morality or belief in God. A belief system can be anything. We are only informed by our perception and whatever we believe is based upon those perceptions.
Click to expand...
True. I said so several times. Belief systems can be rooted in science. They just so seldom are.
 
Nilly said:
Lack of evidence of something is evidence that a thing doesn't exist.

Particularly in the case of gods.
Click to expand...

:roll:

No. Not in any case. You are wrong.
 
calamity said:
Check out the title of the thread. The thread was tying atheist behavior to that of the believers. It's not a treatise on atheism.
Click to expand...

The most of a belief system it can ever become is in the form of "positive atheism," or what academics call anti-theism. I.e., a belief there are no gods.

But it is still an absence of something, not a presence. Therefore, to go anywhere else with it, you have to add something else. Some kind of belief that says religion is BAD and therefore you should argue with people about it.

But that belief is always going to be a political one solely, because there is nothing in the non-existence of something that would create a dogma that says, "You must be against this thing." That isn't logically possible.

The behaviors can be tied together in that they both involve dogma, but they can never be considered "tiers of atheism" because the belief they have to be against the religious HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. That is why even some agnostics, ignostics, and believers have the exact same belief for the exact same reasons.

Calling it a tier of atheism is fallacious and philosophically nonsensical.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

No. Not in any case. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope.

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.
But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

Likewise, flipping a coin 1000 times and getting only heads is evidence that the coin is one sided.

Now, absence of evidence will not prove the absence of something, it may not even be strong evidence for the absence of something, but it is evidence.

It's not just a rule of thumb. It's mathematically provable by probability theory if you don't believe me.
 
Nilly said:
Nope.

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.
But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

Likewise, flipping a coin 1000 times and getting only heads is evidence that the coin is one sided.

Now, absence of evidence will not prove the absence of something, it may not even be strong evidence for the absence of something, but it is evidence.

It's not just a rule of thumb. It's mathematically provable by probability theory if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

No.

Not-A will never equal A.
 
calamity said:
Not true. There actually is a such thing as non-belief. But, to be a non-believer in its literal form, you'd have to make room for accepting that some things are just unknown. So, when someone says gods may exist, you can only say, "Yes. They may or they may not."
Click to expand...

But even that is still a belief, it's a choice not to accept a particular conclusion.
 
Harshaw said:
No.

Not-A will never equal A.
Click to expand...

You're incorrectly conflating evidence with proof.

Absence of evidence - RationalWiki

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. - correct

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - incorrect

The proof:
If there is some hypothesis H and some event E such that P(E|H) > P(E), we know that P(H|E) > P(H), or "E is evidence in favor of H." If this is the case, it is also true that P(~E|H) < P(~E), so we can conclude that P(H|~E) < P(H), or "not observing E implies lower probability of H."

A quick proof is as follows:

By the formula of total probability:
P(H) = P(H ∩ E) + P(H∩~E)

Hence, by the definition of conditional probability:
P(H) = P(H|E)P(E) + P(H|~E)P(~E)

This simply means that P(H) is a weighted average of P(H|E) and P(H|~E) and is therefore somewhere between these values. Therefore if P(H|E) > P(H), i.e. if E is evidence for H, then P(H|~E) < P(H), i.e. ~E is evidence against H.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
No.

Not-A will never equal A.
Click to expand...

In a binary proposition, absolutely it will be. The opposite of dead is alive. If something is not dead, then by definition it is alive. 100% of non-dead things are alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom