Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. That construct is a belief system and I'd say can reasonably be called a religion if it has multiple followers. Neither theism or atheism are systems or religions on their own.
Ok.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIn fact what is the point of the "its certainly possible for somebody to behave like that" claim. Based on that I could divine that believing in god makes you eat people because it happens to be possible for a theism to eat someone.
Its not uncommon for athiests to have that point of view. Can you give me one example of a religon were God tells people to eat people? Thats the difference.
Originally posted by Bardock42
How?
eg no afterlife, make the most of what I have.
Originally posted by Deadline
Ok.Its not uncommon for athiests to have that point of view. Can you give me one example of a religon were God tells people to eat people? Thats the difference.
eg no afterlife, make the most of what I have.
But that's his point. Can you mention one belief Atheist people are supposed to have other than "there is no god"?
Wouldn't a rule of atheism be " you can't call yourself an atheist if you believe in anything spiritual or supernatural."? Or something along those lines. You would have to be as committed to rejecting all things that suggest supernatural involvment as a person of faith rejects all things that their religion decrees, right? The term atheist is a title that people use to identify their beliefs, right? That is very much like any other religion.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Wouldn't a rule of atheism be " you can't call yourself an atheist if you believe in anything spiritual or supernatural."? Or something along those lines. You would have to be as committed to rejecting all things that suggest supernatural involvment as a person of faith rejects all things that their religion decrees, right? The term atheist is a title that people use to identify their beliefs, right? That is very much like any other religion.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Wouldn't a rule of atheism be " you can't call yourself an atheist if you believe in anything spiritual or supernatural."? Or something along those lines. You would have to be as committed to rejecting all things that suggest supernatural involvment as a person of faith rejects all things that their religion decrees, right? The term atheist is a title that people use to identify their beliefs, right? That is very much like any other religion.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Wouldn't a rule of atheism be " you can't call yourself an atheist if you believe in anything spiritual or supernatural."? Or something along those lines. You would have to be as committed to rejecting all things that suggest supernatural involvment as a person of faith rejects all things that their religion decrees, right? The term atheist is a title that people use to identify their beliefs, right? That is very much like any other religion.
We had that argument a while ago actually. But no that's not a stipulation of atheism, you can believe all sorts of supernatural and spiritual things. Just not God.
Originally posted by Deadline
For some people or even alot of people it does. If you're going to argue that it means you just don't see any proof of an afterlife that could apply to religon as well ie vice versa.
Well, you are not wrong that an atheist belief MAY further get people to belief other things, but it doesn't have to. It's not a decree of atheism. Either way, the point is just that atheism isn't a belief system.
Originally posted by Bardock42I see. 😮💨 Makes sense to me.
We had that argument a while ago actually. But no that's not a stipulation of atheism, you can believe all sorts of supernatural and spiritual things. Just not God.Well, you are not wrong that an atheist belief MAY further get people to belief other things, but it doesn't have to. It's not a decree of atheism. Either way, the point is just that atheism isn't a belief system.
Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly explain.
Again?
It's not really a hard concept, just because you don't believe in a God doesn't mean you can't believe in life after death. One of my favourite examples is, what if we are just a simulation in that case "we" could be used again or what about reincarnation you don't need a God to do that, it may just be a fact of nature.
Perhaps all those believes are supernatural, but they can easily be believed by an atheist. Those things are in no way mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Bardock42Well, you are not wrong that an atheist belief MAY further get people to belief other things, but it doesn't have to. It's not a decree of atheism. Either way, the point is just that atheism isn't a belief system.
It doesn't have to be a decree all it needs to be is a belief that makes you do something else. Actually I think its impossible for a belief or a lack of belief not leading to other beliefs/actions.
Originally posted by Deadline
It doesn't have to be a decree all it needs to be is a belief that makes you do something else. Actually I think its impossible for a belief or a lack of belief not leading to other beliefs/actions.
Nah, to be a belief system it needs to be a system. There HAVE to be things you have to belief if you belief it. And that doesn't happen here. There's only one belief (or lack of belief to bring up that old stinker again, haha) you must have to be an atheist.
Being an atheist will likely lead to something else for everyone that is an atheist. But it won't necessarily be the same thing. It's a trivial point. But again, the ultimate conclusion is Atheism is not a belief system.
Originally posted by Bardock42I guess I see that distinction as splitting hairs, though valid in this context. But I've always thought the basic question was: is death the end or not? If not, then what is? Typically, it's consciousness or God. The simulation theory is intriguing; we certainly relate to that better than religious/mystical stuff. In any event, I tend to see these distinctions as a secondary issue, considering the main question still remains.
Again?It's not really a hard concept, just because you don't believe in a God doesn't mean you can't believe in life after death. One of my favourite examples is, what if we are just a simulation in that case "we" could be used again or what about reincarnation you don't need a God to do that, it may just be a fact of nature.
Perhaps all those believes are supernatural, but they can easily be believed by an atheist. Those things are in no way mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Deadline
No offence but are sure you're not overcomplicating this? Athiests don't have a bible or commandments. All I'm saying is that if you don't believe in God this may make you act in a certain way eg if I don't get caught it doesn't matter or there is only one life therefore make the most of it.
you couldn't have picked a worse member to make this argument to, as it seems I am the only atheist on these boards who doesn't believe morality is subjective.
The idea that not believing in god frees one from responsibility for their actions is silly, and in fact, i consider their to be more moral commendation for people who act morally because that is the way civilized people behave in society, not because some man in the clouds will punish them because they are bad.
I'm not over-complicating this at all. If atheism were a "system", such fundamental disagreements about the nature of right and wrong wouldn't really be possible. Because, as you said, there are no codes and commandments, there really is no "system". A system has to be more than a single thing.
Originally posted by Deadline
Now I'm not saying this is the case for everybody but its certainly possible for somebody to behave like that. Is it really neccessary to have a detailed discussion about Materialism and Empiricism?
if you want to discuss why people are atheists or what beliefs might underly atheism, then yes. Materialism and Empiricism are probably the most fundamental beliefs that lead to it. They are not necessary, and an atheist might not agree with certain aspects of either, but they certainly present a much better term than "atheism" for describing a "system" through which atheists understand the world.
Originally posted by Deadline
Sorry don't see how thats a problem.
atheism doesn't make you act like a materialist, it is much more likely that materialism makes you act like an atheist. Thus, the emergent behaviour is atheism, arising from materialism, not the other way around, as you described.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But atheism doesn't mean there's no afterlife.
Shakey actually would probably fall into this category, as he believes in a form of materialistic reincarnation (iirc)
Originally posted by Deadline
It doesn't have to be a decree all it needs to be is a belief that makes you do something else. Actually I think its impossible for a belief or a lack of belief not leading to other beliefs/actions.
Sure, every belief leads to others but that doesn't make the seed belief into an entire system.
Take arithmetic. If we pull out the claim "1+1=2" can we call it a "belief system" when it's all alone? Of course we can't, it's obviously just one belief. It lets us prove that 2+2=4 and leads to more complex forms of counting but at the end of the day "1+1=2" is still one particular belief within a system of beliefs.
All systems and axioms work this way.
Just look at religion. Is "thou shalt not kill" a belief system or is it a belief? Is "there is no God but Allah" a belief system or one particular pillar of Islam?
Originally posted by Mindship
I guess I see that distinction as splitting hairs, though valid in this context. But I've always thought the basic question was: is death the end or not? If not, then what is? Typically, it's consciousness or God. The simulation theory is intriguing; we certainly relate to that better than religious/mystical stuff. In any event, I tend to see these distinctions as a secondary issue, considering the main question still remains.
Well "Is death the end or not" is a valid and interesting questions. However it is not a question that has as answer atheism, theism or agnosticism (or others).
Originally posted by inimalist
Shakey actually would probably fall into this category, as he believes in a form of materialistic reincarnation (iirc)
I agree, Shakya doesn't even consider himself atheist though, I know, I had an argument with him about it once before, in fact I think it may have been the last argument I ever had with him, haha.
I don't blame him though, I was a huge jerk back then.
Originally posted by inimalist
you couldn't have picked a worse member to make this argument to, as it seems I am the only atheist on these boards who doesn't believe morality is subjective.The idea that not believing in god frees one from responsibility for their actions is silly, and in fact, i consider their to be more moral commendation for people who act morally because that is the way civilized people behave in society, not because some man in the clouds will punish them because they are bad.
I know. It depends on your personality. That maybe your opinion but other people will differ.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not over-complicating this at all. If atheism were a "system", such fundamental disagreements about the nature of right and wrong wouldn't really be possible.
.
C'mon now religous people disagree all the time.
Originally posted by inimalist
Because, as you said, there are no codes and commandments, there really is no "system". A system has to be more than a single thing.
You don't have to have anything written down and it doesn't have to be official.
Originally posted by inimalist
if you want to discuss why people are atheists or what beliefs might underly atheism, then yes. Materialism and Empiricism are probably the most fundamental beliefs that lead to it. They are not necessary, and an atheist might not agree with certain aspects of either, but they certainly present a much better term than "atheism" for describing a "system" through which atheists understand the world.atheism doesn't make you act like a materialist, it is much more likely that materialism makes you act like an atheist. Thus, the emergent behaviour is atheism, arising from materialism, not the other way around, as you described.
If you're going to make that argument then I could say that theism doesn't make you act like anything either
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure, every belief leads to others but that doesn't make the seed belief into an entire system.Take arithmetic. If we pull out the claim "1+1=2" can we call it a "belief system" when it's all alone? Of course we can't, it's obviously just one belief. It lets us prove that 2+2=4 and leads to more complex forms of counting but at the end of the day "1+1=2" is still one particular belief within a system of beliefs.
All systems and axioms work this way.
Just look at religion. Is "thou shalt not kill" a belief system or is it a belief? Is "there is no God but Allah" a belief system or one particular pillar of Islam?
Yes we already agreed that a belief doesn't make a system. 😬