Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watching some theists continue to insist a lack of belief is itself a belief system , and after responding to a poster who referred to the "origin of atheism" , it got me to thinking .
Where is atheism when theism doesn't exist?
What is a lack of belief in something , when that something doesn't exist to lack a belief in it ? A system ? How ?
Lets go back in time to a point in very ancient history to before the newly minted homo sapiens conceived of gods. Unless you are a creationist who believes that the first human sprung up fully developed and able to converse with the invisible creator of it , there has to be that point before humans conceived of supernatural beings to explain the unknown in their world. If you are a creationist, this discussion is lost on you and your participation is pointless . This process doesnt require that gods don't exist , only that there was a point in history before humans conceived of this concept, even if you agree that gods exist.
So we have at some point in the past early self aware humans going about life without the concept of invisible supernatural beings influencing life around them. These no doubt existed as we have ample proof they existed in the near past and even in modern times. Anthropologists have discovered Stone Age tribes with no concept of gods, China existed largely without theists for centuries . So what do we call non belief in gods, when beliefs in gods hasn't been conceived of ? This is the point atheists today try to make, and theists insist on ignoring and trying to call it a belief system . If you want to insist that non belief today is a system of belief, then what is non belief when no system of belief exists as the opposite ?
Lets look at a probable, if highly condensed , scenario of the ancient world. At the dawn of the conception of gods , some tribes adopt this belief as a comforting explanation of various unexplainable natural phenomenon Other tribes have not yet encountered this concept . Much like the concept of Christianity in the 100-300 AD era . Tribes meet up occasionally to visit, swap news, marry , exchange goods, and so on. Some tribes enter this meeting will no concept of gods, since its fairly new . They are non believers by definition, although they don't know it because they don't know there is anything to believe in . Other tribes have adopted this new concept and began to spread it at the meeting . Some more tribes accept this concept, while some don't . The tribes eventually going their separate ways , the believers with some new converts and some non believers still being non believers . What now can we say of the remaining non believers ? Are they now believers in a system of non belief , or are they still just people who don't believe in gods? Does blowing off the new concept of invisible beings change them , or are they the same as when they didn't believe before the meeting ? To be sure they were presented with a new concept, but why would not accepting it create for them a new system of belief called "belief in non belief" ? They are the same after the meeting as they were before the meeting, they just didn't believe in the new idea presented. No big formulation of a system of non belief to counter the existence of a system of positive belief , just a non acceptance of the idea presented to them . Humans are perfectly capable of rejecting new and strange ideas without the need for developing a system of "belief in the non belief of x" . It been done all the time throughout history . But this explanation of non belief completely rankles theists for some reason .
* More to add, but my computer nearly crashed and lost all of this so I hit submit as soon as it came back up
Last edited by NatesDude; 10-21-2021 at 12:14 PM..
Ill continue here in case anyone quotes the above and I end up adding thoughts after that.
To continue the thought, imagine one of the Stone Age tribes recently discovered that have no conception of gods . Just as a humorous aside, one of these tribes, after learning that the missionary preaching about Christianity to them had never actually met Jesus Christ in person , ignored the missionary after that on the basis of why should they believe his words about a guy he had never even met
So this tribe , before their discovery , are non believers. They don't even have a concept of believing in invisible supernatural beings to reject. After they encounter society and are approached by the inevitable Christian missionaries they reject their claims and continue on with their prior way of life, which was one of non belief in gods. Nothing for them changes . How then can we claim that these people engage in a belief system of unbelief ? Prior to encountering society, they had no concept of gods to even disbelieve in. How then does rejecting the claims of others and continuing on with the prior non belief constitute a belief system of unbelief ? The concept of such is silly. Its just a continuation of their previous non belief.
This tactic by some theists has baffled me ever since I saw it being employed. To me, as someone who can conceive of gods and regards himself as a spiritual person , this tactic indicates that some theists are embarrassed to some extent by their beliefs, as if they feel they were indoctrinated into them and didn't accept it freely , and so feel the need to portray those who don't believe as equally indoctrinated into a system of thought to alleviate this embarrassment at being a believer. Otherwise, why spend so much time worrying about the non belief of others?
My guess is that theists view unbelief as a way of thinking and, therefore, systematic (but a sort of unenlightened kind.) They don't view god as a concept, something that can be conceived by humans. As an atheist, my way of thinking tells me that a god is a correct notion of a human being but is only something of the mind. The opposite of me would be a person who thinks there is some kind of evidence that they can see but an atheist cannot see and this makes their god concrete. This way of thinking is the result of some other system being employed that is still alien to an athiest.
My guess is that theists view unbelief as a way of thinking and, therefore, systematic (but a sort of unenlightened kind.) They don't view god as a concept, something that can be conceived by humans. As an atheist, my way of thinking tells me that a god is a correct notion of a human being but is only something of the mind. The opposite of me would be a person who thinks there is some kind of evidence that they can see but an atheist cannot see and this makes their god concrete. This way of thinking is the result of some other system being employed that is still alien to an athiest.
That is my guess anyway.
The bolded - can you state this another way? It is not clear to me. Are you saying if you were to believe in god, it would would be what the ideal human being would be, as a concept, as a thought?
No human does not believe in anything spiritual. Just like no one is really oblivious to art. These are aspects of the human condition, we ask those existential questions. So, religious persons assume you have another belief system.
Do you have to have exposure to the subject matter to even enter the realm of belief/non-belief?
An isolated tribe who have gone about living their lives with no concept/exposure/someone to explain the situation and its alternatives regarding religion would be the theistic version of a tree falling in the woods with no creature human or otherwise with the ability to receive and process the auditory sound waves and stimulus being nearby. Under that circumstance does the tree make a sound?
So what state would a tribe be in if it were isolated, never exposed to, and away from the concept of religion and its belief options?
The bolded - can you state this another way? It is not clear to me. Are you saying if you were to believe in god, it would would be what the ideal human being would be, as a concept, as a thought?
I can try. I believe that if I was a believer, I would not only think I can perceive god in my mind but could also experience it concretely. As an atheist, I recognize that humans are capable of idealism. For example, you and I probably write the letter "g" very differently from each other and I have messy writing. Even then, I still maintain an ideal letter "g" in my head and it doesn't matter how anyone else might form it as long as it has a similar structure.
As an atheist, I recognize that a god can be an ideal form of a human. But a theist wouldn't think this. They separate the two.
No human does not believe in anything spiritual. Just like no one is really oblivious to art. These are aspects of the human condition, we ask those existential questions. So, religious persons assume you have another belief system.
What you seem to be referring to is the unconscious belief that underlies our responses to our existence. We may not hold it in our conscious mind, but it is the substrate that defines our responses to what we encounter in our existence, be it physical or mental. We may not consider it a conscious belief, but it is there coloring every experience and our reaction to it. What we call it is moot.
Do you have to have exposure to the subject matter to even enter the realm of belief/non-belief?
An isolated tribe who have gone about living their lives with no concept/exposure/someone to explain the situation and its alternatives regarding religion would be the theistic version of a tree falling in the woods with no creature human or otherwise with the ability to receive and process the auditory sound waves and stimulus being nearby. Under that circumstance does the tree make a sound?
So what state would a tribe be in if it were isolated, never exposed to, and away from the concept of religion and its belief options?
A lot of the podcasts I've been listening to lately have addressed this concept. I have to listen to them again as most of it goes over my head the first few times but I find it really interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
