Belief does not create two religions

[trotsky]

Interesting post from a blog about raising kids without religion:

http://raisingkidswithoutreligion.net/2014/05/28/belief-does-not-create-two-religions/

Many Christian apologists will insist that atheism is a “belief system” or a religion, too. This is simply an attempt to equalize the two, to bring unbelief on the opposite side of the equation from religion, which is a belief system. If, believers postulate, both sides are “beliefs” and if one is free to choose from two separate–but seemingly equal–systems, then it standardizes religion. Religion is now logical like math and science. Science and math now require a leap of faith. Belief and unbelief are simply one of two choices that any reasonable person can make.

No. No. No.

It is not logical to believe that breaking a mirror will bring you bad luck. It is not logical to believe in my water nymph, even if I tell you that your unbelief is a belief, too.

Much more at the link.

[rexcat]

1. For the life of me...

I have never understood the concept that "atheism" is a belief system. On the other hand secular humanism is a belief system but there are different secular humanist groups who have different view points as to what a secular humanist is or is not.

I did like this excerpt from your link:

“I believe in science” means that I put faith in the people and institutions that are doing the work, that I have confidence in their methods..."

[AtheistCrusader]

2. They desperately want it to be anything other than non-belief, because then we would have

burden of proof.

If I was in their position, I'd be desperate to foist that burden on the other side too.

[trotsky]

3. Me neither.

That's why I thought this was one of the best things I've read about that:

This is simply an attempt to equalize the two, to bring unbelief on the opposite side of the equation from religion, which is a belief system. If, believers postulate, both sides are “beliefs” and if one is free to choose from two separate–but seemingly equal–systems, then it standardizes religion.

[mr blur]

7. Agreed. I think that,

the "Faith is belief without evidence" line really gets to them because they recognise a) the truth of it and b) that they know that they can't provide evidence for their belief (beyond the "Well, I know God loves me and I feel him there" whine) and yet they constantly demand evidence for, say, evolution because without evidence they don't accept that it's true.

[AlbertCat]

18. because without evidence they don't accept that it's true.

I love it when those who poo-poo science cloak their woo in scientific-sounding jargon and trappings to try and make it sound legit. Well, if you don't think science can be reliable, why are you trying to sound scientific?

This is the thing that gives away the notion that in the back of their minds, they know science is real and works. No wonder the flail and flop all over the place when challenged. All that energy it must require to convince themselves of their own beliefs...wasted....

[Ron Obvious]

4. Yeah, I don't get that either.

I've read these discussions (q.f. the Guardian's many types of atheism rubbish from a few days ago) with amazement and frustration. Apart from the absolute tediousness of definition discussions (Don't believe in god(s)? You're an atheist. End of.), it's like the theists have never heard of the null hypothesis.

[edhopper]

14. Because there is no proof either way

and there can never be proof for or against any belief, so both are belief systems.
Unless the belief is about something real that i disagree with, then it is a silly belief we can make fun of.
But we still can't apply the burden of proof on any belief because you can't possibly know.
And no one can ever know and it is useless to try when we can get together and do something that I think is important.


Yes, it's a joke.

[rexcat]

15. You have been visiting that other...

forum way to much!

[edhopper]

16. I can't disagree

With that.

[AlbertCat]

17. I don't believe in science

I TRUST it.

Why?

Well, look around! Has anything been more successful than the scientific method?

[rexcat]

21. I work in the clinical sciences...

and I understand and accept the scientific method as long as the three pillars of the method are adhered too: replication, peer review, and data recording/sharing. Never trust, always verify.

[LostOne4Ever]

5. I love the example of an A-nymphs

Captures it perfectly.

It also explains why some self described liberals feel such a deep need to try and redefine us and tell us what we do or do not believe. Without doing that, then they can't push their false equivalency fallacy and go:

"oh look you are a religion/belief too, no different than that religion calling for gays to be put to death, so why don't you shake hands and we can all sit here and sing Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya!"

Sorry, but my lack of belief is nothing like the belief of the WBC, Pat Robinson, or Bill Donahue. I don't care if your intentions are good or not, that comparison not only is wrong but deeply offensive.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. That is something that never occurred to me,

but it is so true it is like a slap in the face-----"that comparison not only is wrong but deeply offensive".

Maybe that is why it riles me up so much when they pull that "atheism is a belief" thing on me.

[Jim Lane]

9. It's not two religions but it is a belief.

I identify as an agnostic rather than atheist because I don't put God in the same category as unicorns. I believe that unicorns don't exist (on our world). Although there are certainly many species of plants and animals not yet discovered, it's not plausible that there could be unicorns hiding somewhere. The evidence of their non-existence is persuasive.

In 1400, by contrast, it would have been presumptuous for an educated European to believe in the non-existence of unicorns, or of raccoons. There was enough completely unknown area that either or both of those species might turn out to exist (as, of course, one did).

As I see it, atheists are people who think of God the way most of us think of unicorns today (good reason to believe in non-existence). Agnostics think of God the way reasonable people would have thought of unicorns in 1400 (available evidence is consistent with both hypotheses). At some point in the last 600 years, sensible people moved from being unicorn agnostics to being unicorn atheists. That represents a real difference. When it comes to God, we should be able to have the discussion about whether that threshold has been crossed -- whether affirmatively believing in non-existence is the conclusion best supported by the evidence.

[uriel1972]

11. Without evidence...

Without evidence of Gods, there is no more reason to believe in them than there is unicorns. I do allow for the possibility of Gods existing, however without evidence I have, not just no reason to believe in them, but a very good reason not to believe in them.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. There is no belief in atheism, at least as we define the term

There are more than one definition for both the term agnostic and atheist.

You define atheism as a belief in the non-existence of gods. This is a casual definition of the term. It is not how it is being used by this article or in this discussion.

Many (probably most) of us self identifying atheists do not describe atheism as a belief in the non-existence of gods. Rather, we describe it as a lack of belief in any god(s). This is one of the definitions used by the Oxford English dictionary as well as the definition used by the premiere atheist organizations here in America: American Atheists as well as The Freedom from Religion foundation.

This definition includes both what you called atheists as well as what you called agnostics. We term these people explicit and implicit atheists respectively.

Similarly, we define agnosticism differently than the way you are defining it as well. We define it along the lines of which it was originally describe...being about knowledge. Specifically, we define agnosticism as being the belief that one can never have knowledge of whether god exists or not. Belief being defined as holding a position to be true, and knowledge being a justified true belief.

Thus by our definition a person can be both an agnostic and atheist at the same time. I specifically identify as both an agnostic atheist and an implicit atheist. Further, under this definition Atheism is not a belief at all. Thus the point of the OP.

The people, that the OP is agruing against, are insisting upon one specific definition of atheism (it being a belief) being considered the ONLY definition. In essence, it is a bunch of people who do not identify as atheists telling us what we think and how to define ourselves, and using that to try and put their beliefs on the same level as our lack of belief....which as I said in my other post I find incredibly offensive.

Some links to show I am not just making stuff up:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic?q=agnosticism#agnostic__13
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/knowledge?q=knowledge
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief?q=belief
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

Believe it or not this is an incredibly touchy subject. Sooo much so that I created a thread just to show how the atheists of this very forum choose to define the word atheist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=22814

As you can see, while a few of us do using the casual definition that you are using, a great many of us mean "lack of belief." I believe that we atheist should have a say in our we define ourselves. The people the OP is arguing against seems to think that we atheists get no say in what we do or do not believe.

I would highly recommend the religious tolerance article on atheism in particular because it does go over the controversy involved in the whole debate over the meaning of the word "atheist."

[mr blur]

20. Yes, and Iggo's point in that thread is worth underlining -

Yep. It's not a lack or an absence of belief.

That implies there's something missing...which there ain't.

[NeoGreen]

10. Atheism is not a claim...

...(i.e. belief) but the rejection of a claim.

[Mr.Bill]

13. If Atheism is a religion,

Then I'm an athlete because I don't play any sports.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

19. Religion is generally a false hope.

It leaves lots of people disappointed when prayer and belief don't work.

Sometimes you just have to walk away from that magical thinking to retain your sanity and self-esteem. I'm sure many other UUs/secular humanists/atheists/agnostics/whatever could say the same thing I said.