Atheism the New Religion?

[Beanybag]

Unless I'm not believing. I believe that I'm not believing ABOUT A THING. With respect to THAT THING I am not believing and this does not constitute a contradiction. To put it in perspective, I have no beliefs about A. You say, ahah! Then you believe something about A! I say no, I believe that I have no beliefs about A. You say, ahah, that itself is a belief! But it isn't a belief about A, thus, your original criticism (I have a belief about A) doesn't hold.

Actually the question is much simpler than that and will invariably lead to a belief system. At the most basic level one either believes in an intelligent mind or mindless chance as a first cause. If there is a 3rd option I'd love to hear it but in the absence of that, the former is supported by rationality while the latter results in infinite regress and a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Take your pick.

I don't choose either as a first cause, I have no beliefs about the creation of the Universe. Perhaps we're in a simulation, a video game, a dream. Perhaps it was chance, perhaps it was some deity. I choose not to form beliefs about something for which I don't feel I have a sufficient answer.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is that you BELIEVE that you have NO BELIEFS about A.
Why? because the moment you state and opinion about A, you are stating a belief.

[Beanybag]

The issue is that you BELIEVE that you have NO BELIEFS about A.
Why? because the moment you state and opinion about A, you are stating a belief.

But why point it out? It doesn't have any meaning. It is true that I believe I have some knowledge and believe I don't have other knowledge. Believing you have no knowledge is obviously a self-refuting statement, which makes lack of knowledge claims difficult. But, certainly, with respect to certain areas of knowledge, you can claim to believe to not have knowledge so long as I claim to believe to have knowledge with respect to my knowledge (if you can follow that). Yes, I believe that I don't have a belief. So what? What does that say about my belief towards gods? Nothing. What does it mean with respect to my world view? Not much. I don't understand why you'd raise the objection unless it had any relevance, so I assume you raise it because you feel that my nonbelief actually constitutes some sort of belief with respect to the subject. It's clear now that it does not. So, why even reference it?

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is that you BELIEVE that you have NO BELIEFS about A.
Why? because the moment you state and opinion about A, you are stating a belief.

But why point it out? It doesn't have any meaning. It is true that I believe I have some knowledge and believe I don't have other knowledge. Believing you have no knowledge is obviously a self-refuting statement, which makes lack of knowledge claims difficult. But, certainly, with respect to certain areas of knowledge, you can claim to believe to not have knowledge so long as I claim to believe to have knowledge with respect to my knowledge (if you can follow that). Yes, I believe that I don't have a belief. So what? What does that say about my belief towards gods? Nothing. What does it mean with respect to my world view? Not much. I don't understand why you'd raise the objection unless it had any relevance, so I assume you raise it because you feel that my nonbelief actually constitutes some sort of belief with respect to the subject. It's clear now that it does not. So, why even reference it?

Because, while I do NOT view Atheism as a religion, it most certainly is a belief system.
The moment you have a conviction, an opinion on a matter, you have a belief about it.
So, while atheism may not be a religion in the classic sense of the word, it is a belief system, just like any other ideology or set of principles or convictions.

[Beanybag]

Because, while I do NOT view Atheism as a religion, it most certainly is a belief system.
The moment you have a conviction, an opinion on a matter, you have a belief about it.
So, while atheism may not be a religion in the classic sense of the word, it is a belief system, just like any other ideology or set of principles or convictions.

But you're trying to make the argument that I already disproved again.

1) I say I have no belief about A
2) To say 1), you must believe 1)
3) 1) is a belief about A
4) Therefore, I hold a belief about A

But, you have not demonstrated 4), you've only asserted it through 3), but it doesn't follow because 3) is not true. I hold a belief in 1), but it is not about A, it is about a belief in A or 1). 1) is about my set of beliefs, about my knowledge. It does not have to do with A unless you can demonstrate that my set of beliefs that constitutes my knowledge is the same thing as the subject. Further, 1) hardly tells you anything about what I actually believe (if anything), which makes it hard to establish as a belief system.

Everyone has a set of beliefs. You say this is their belief system, but not every set of beliefs really constitutes a system, more likely a set. Some are not a consistent set, and none are a complete set (there are proofs which say this is impossible given finite resources/deterministic methods using information theory) - which is to say, no set (assuming knowledge exists, which is hard to disagree with) encompasses all knowledge but most sets encompass some knowledge, where knowledge is true belief. Now, what constitutes a true belief is a matter of epistemology and logic, but we don't need to get into that. If someone subscribes to the idea of naturalism or physicalism, then there is a system of beliefs entailed by those views, both of which preclude supernatural - this would be an atheistic world view that is a belief system. Since I subscribe to no ontological view, my world view neither asserts nor precludes the existence of God.

What is interesting is that you seem to assert that all beliefs are a matter of faith, conviction, or ideals. Is that so? I'd say no. I'd say a justified belief is more likely (and in some cases, guaranteed, provided the foundational beliefs are true) to be true. A non-justified belief is only true incidentally. A faith-based belief is one based on insufficient justification (usually referred to as a belief without evidence (let's assume evidence has epistemic value) or one based in faulty reasoning (ditto for reason)). These beliefs are more likely to be untrue, so I try to hold as few as possible. The faith-based convictions I hold, as a matter of sanity, would be that I exist, existence is real, evidence/sensory phenomena are somewhat accurate, and so on. I don't have the ability to create a coherent web of beliefs without assuming some of these things, and my web of beliefs, while sound under the assumptions (I think), is certainly not complete. It doesn't seek to answer the questions that would result in or preclude a God. It either circumvents them or leaves them unanswered.

In short, what I'm getting at is.. no, atheism is not a belief system.

[RickD]

In short, what I'm getting at is.. no, atheism is not a belief system.

Not necessarily a belief system. But it can be.

But, atheism is necessarily, a belief that there is/are no God/god(s).

[Byblos]

Actually the question is much simpler than that and will invariably lead to a belief system. At the most basic level one either believes in an intelligent mind or mindless chance as a first cause. If there is a 3rd option I'd love to hear it but in the absence of that, the former is supported by rationality while the latter results in infinite regress and a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Take your pick.

I don't choose either as a first cause, I have no beliefs about the creation of the Universe. Perhaps we're in a simulation, a video game, a dream. Perhaps it was chance, perhaps it was some deity. I choose not to form beliefs about something for which I don't feel I have a sufficient answer.

The fact that you choose not to believe one way or the other does not in any way negate the fact that there really are only 2 choices. But it certainly is your prerogative to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

[PaulSacramento]

Because, while I do NOT view Atheism as a religion, it most certainly is a belief system.
The moment you have a conviction, an opinion on a matter, you have a belief about it.
So, while atheism may not be a religion in the classic sense of the word, it is a belief system, just like any other ideology or set of principles or convictions.

But you're trying to make the argument that I already disproved again.

1) I say I have no belief about A
2) To say 1), you must believe 1)
3) 1) is a belief about A
4) Therefore, I hold a belief about A

But, you have not demonstrated 4), you've only asserted it through 3), but it doesn't follow because 3) is not true. I hold a belief in 1), but it is not about A, it is about a belief in A or 1). 1) is about my set of beliefs, about my knowledge. It does not have to do with A unless you can demonstrate that my set of beliefs that constitutes my knowledge is the same thing as the subject. Further, 1) hardly tells you anything about what I actually believe (if anything), which makes it hard to establish as a belief system.

Everyone has a set of beliefs. You say this is their belief system, but not every set of beliefs really constitutes a system, more likely a set. Some are not a consistent set, and none are a complete set (there are proofs which say this is impossible given finite resources/deterministic methods using information theory) - which is to say, no set (assuming knowledge exists, which is hard to disagree with) encompasses all knowledge but most sets encompass some knowledge, where knowledge is true belief. Now, what constitutes a true belief is a matter of epistemology and logic, but we don't need to get into that. If someone subscribes to the idea of naturalism or physicalism, then there is a system of beliefs entailed by those views, both of which preclude supernatural - this would be an atheistic world view that is a belief system. Since I subscribe to no ontological view, my world view neither asserts nor precludes the existence of God.

What is interesting is that you seem to assert that all beliefs are a matter of faith, conviction, or ideals. Is that so? I'd say no. I'd say a justified belief is more likely (and in some cases, guaranteed, provided the foundational beliefs are true) to be true. A non-justified belief is only true incidentally. A faith-based belief is one based on insufficient justification (usually referred to as a belief without evidence (let's assume evidence has epistemic value) or one based in faulty reasoning (ditto for reason)). These beliefs are more likely to be untrue, so I try to hold as few as possible. The faith-based convictions I hold, as a matter of sanity, would be that I exist, existence is real, evidence/sensory phenomena are somewhat accurate, and so on. I don't have the ability to create a coherent web of beliefs without assuming some of these things, and my web of beliefs, while sound under the assumptions (I think), is certainly not complete. It doesn't seek to answer the questions that would result in or preclude a God. It either circumvents them or leaves them unanswered.

In short, what I'm getting at is.. no, atheism is not a belief system.

All you have written is, quite simply, what you believe.
Period.

[Beanybag]

All you have written is, quite simply, what you believe.
Period.

Yes, but what does that mean??? It means nothing about my belief (or lack thereof) in any god!

The fact that you choose not to believe one way or the other does not in any way negate the fact that there really are only 2 choices. But it certainly is your prerogative to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

Even if you limit it to a binary position (which I'm not entirely convinced it is), that doesn't mean I have to pick one. If I were on a jury for a criminal and I had to pick not guilty or guilty, I could be undecided. That doesn't mean that I've picked either position, rather, it means the opposite - that I don't currently have a position. Even if you find it obvious that one is the correct answer, that only gets you as far as deism and deism doesn't mean a whole lot to me nor affect my life in any way.

[PaulSacramento]

All you have written is, quite simply, what you believe.
Period.

Yes, but what does that mean??? It means nothing about my belief (or lack thereof) in any god!

It means that your opinions, ANY opinion on ANYTHING is based upon a belief.
Whether you admit that to yourself or not, that is up to you.
In short Atheism, like any other viewpoint or conviction or ideology is based on a belief.

[Byblos]

The fact that you choose not to believe one way or the other does not in any way negate the fact that there really are only 2 choices. But it certainly is your prerogative to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

Even if you limit it to a binary position (which I'm not entirely convinced it is), that doesn't mean I have to pick one. If I were on a jury for a criminal and I had to pick not guilty or guilty, I could be undecided. That doesn't mean that I've picked either position, rather, it means the opposite - that I don't currently have a position. Even if you find it obvious that one is the correct answer, that only gets you as far as deism and deism doesn't mean a whole lot to me nor affect my life in any way.

And again, that would certainly be your choice not to choose one side or the other. What you cannot say, however, is that non-belief in a creator is a matter of choice. The choice is that you choose to ignore the only 2 choices given. But the 2 choices do not change in any way, i.e. either an intelligent, purposeful mind or mindless, purposeless chance as a first cause. And only 1 of those options is rational. That's the bottom line.

[Beanybag]

All you have written is, quite simply, what you believe.
Period.

Yes, but what does that mean??? It means nothing about my belief (or lack thereof) in any god!

It means that your opinions, ANY opinion on ANYTHING is based upon a belief.
Whether you admit that to yourself or not, that is up to you.
In short Atheism, like any other viewpoint or conviction or ideology is based on a belief.

I still think you're trying to pidgeon-hole me into positive belief. It's just not true. There are reasons (sometimes just vague intuitions or failures in comprehension) I find this and that position unpersuasive (either unsound or incomplete), but that doesn't mean I also believe them to be untrue - it just means I've not found a sufficient explanation. Perhaps I'll find it and the unsound or incomplete objection will be erased. Until then, I'm content to not answer.

edit:

The fact that you choose not to believe one way or the other does not in any way negate the fact that there really are only 2 choices. But it certainly is your prerogative to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

Even if you limit it to a binary position (which I'm not entirely convinced it is), that doesn't mean I have to pick one. If I were on a jury for a criminal and I had to pick not guilty or guilty, I could be undecided. That doesn't mean that I've picked either position, rather, it means the opposite - that I don't currently have a position. Even if you find it obvious that one is the correct answer, that only gets you as far as deism and deism doesn't mean a whole lot to me nor affect my life in any way.

And again, that would certainly be your choice not to choose one side or the other. What you cannot say, however, is that non-belief in a creator is a matter of choice. The choice is that you choose to ignore the only 2 choices given. But the 2 choices do not change in any way, i.e. either an intelligent, purposeful mind or mindless, purposeless chance as a first cause. And only 1 of those options is rational. That's the bottom line.

Well, it's never irrational to not choose, though. It's entirely consistent to be rational while also not believing anything, or believing the rational answer. If you're asked 2+2 = ? And you say you don't know, it's not irrational to do so if you aren't sure. That rational answer is 4, but if you don't know (as many don't, with harder mathematical problems), it doesn't mean you're being irrational. It would be irrational to give an incorrect choice. So, if I have some measure of doubt I prefer not to answer, or to suspend judgment.

[Byblos]

Well, it's never irrational to not choose, though. It's entirely consistent to be rational while also not believing anything, or believing the rational answer. If you're asked 2+2 = ? And you say you don't know, it's not irrational to do so if you aren't sure. That rational answer is 4, but if you don't know (as many don't, with harder mathematical problems), it doesn't mean you're being irrational. It would be irrational to give an incorrect choice. So, if I have some measure of doubt I prefer not to answer, or to suspend judgment.

What I meant by 1 side is rational and the other isn't is between the choices given. I didn't mean to imply you're being irrational by not choosing, you're simply electing not to engage in the only available options.

[KBCid]

If you claim to be an atheist then you are not an agnostic

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable[/b].[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its varieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

[sandy_mcd]

Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

And
polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).