If Atheism is "just a lack of belief in God" why do atheists believe almost the same things?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

curiosity bump :)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

IP change bump

This is all philosophy and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with atheism

Most atheists believe it though for some reason

*citation needed

Your thread is shit OP.

>atheists believe almost the same things

Like?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c

Here's your answer

>tl;dw many atheists became such because of a rejection of faith, not because of logic. Therefore, they cling to new ideas, "gods", like a hivenind. Not all atheist tho, of course.

Let's test my hypothesis out, science man

Which one do you and don't you agree with?

like these

>why do atheists believe almost the same things?
Most people believe the same thing. Literally (in the figurative sense) anyone outside of Sup Forums is a left libertarian, at least on the political compass thing.
As for this Most people who argue for moral absolutism (if thats what the opposite of moral relativism is called) believe so due to their belief in a higher deity (a moral authority) eg god, so not believing in god could be quite related to belief in moral relativism

Based man

That's a very rational answer. Thank you

This is like asking why most people who are pro-gun are also for small government. Is there a pro-gun, small government religion? No, but they frequently go together.

To answer your question, atheists have a high need for cognition factor and score higher on tests of logic and reason. The philosophies you linked are a result of that.

Thanks.
Also, a lot of the opposite of what you posted eg scientism is closely tied to belief in a religion/god. Being an atheist probably results in the opposite of these beliefs, which is why atheists share a lot of opinions.

Then atheism is not even close to "just a lack of belief"

Wow. And here I thought I was gonna get only buthurt and insults

Cheers again dutch mate for keeping to your (good) arguments

Yeah, it's a shame that we can very rarely have decent threads on atheism or theology without a flame war happening.

What are you trying to prove to yourself here?

It means a lack of religious belief, that much agrees with what I said. You're free to speculate on anything else that you think goes along with it, although it sounds like you completely misinterpreted what I wrote.

>atheism is so redpilled fuck dogma
>please think for me amazing atheist/ thunderf00t/sargon
every atheist babby ever

>What are you trying to prove to yourself here?

That atheism is not just a lack of belief (in God). As a matter of fact it has a lot of inherent beliefs that come with it, and that essentially makes it work like an ideology

There are many common ideologies among atheists, but they don't define atheism. It's possible to be atheist and not hold these beliefs, so I don't see what you're getting at here.

Flame wars can be fun too, but I'm always impressed by the odd rational user

>Quickly use religion to distract everybody.
Too little too late goy.

It is possible, but highly unlikely in practice. That's what I'm getting at

Atheism doesn't come with any beliefs. It is the lack of belief. The ideas presented in this thread are just reasons and or supplemental beliefs that an atheist could have.

>religion is the opium of the masses

""""""National""""""" (((Socialist)))

>The ideas presented in this thread are just reasons and or supplemental beliefs that an atheist could have.

They most often do. See

They don't.

I agree with the mainstream Sup Forums opinions in most cases, except Deities and glorifying Hitler. Although I suspect that at least half of the board is irreligious anyway and "cultural" Christians at best.

Hitler though, I'm mean seriously, wtf. A failed artists obsessed with pseudo-science started a war that has caused the greatest loss of Europeans lives in history while setting back European nationalism back decades.

Fucking Germaboos.

It's also highly unlikely that a pro-second amendment right person is pro-big government in practice; it doesn't mean anything and this fact doesn't change the definition of either.

I believe in an omni-spirit and was rasied methodist. I don't find your logic sound. You sound like they should correlate, but if anything, there is no logical sense in any correlation besides correlation itself, so why interpret it as correlation in the first place. Assume atheists don't believe in a God and that is Atheism. Don't assume anything else or you're bias. Atheism cannot be anything else, inherently. You have to understand that it branches at that point and the focus is no longer Atheism, unless you genuinely consider atheism (seen you put it not as a pronoun) to be an ideology and if that's true, I would have to disagree because it's a belief. You can't follow it, like an ideology (you can follow the fact that is a belief that inherently has nothing to follow). That is rational to me.

>It's also highly unlikely that a pro-second amendment right person is pro-big government in practice

Because atheism (in practice) and conservatism are both ideologies

They inherently have to share common beliefs

Atheism is a religion. It's a religion that doesn't exist, so it has no doctrine.
It ends there and only there.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in God

Like this dutch bro says, rejecting a system of beliefs (mostly traditional Western Christianity) Western atheists come, in practice, to define themselves in opposite terms to their former beliefs

This is the doctrine (in practice) of Western Atheism

Atheism is the religion of the lack of god. It's not a belief. Atheism is in the same category as Christianity, Islam, Judaism. This has been my belief for as long as I can remember.

ITT another staggering loss for the christcuck brigade to prove atheism is a religion

There's been lots of anti-atheism threads recently. Can't we be friends? I 100% support christian morals, and would fight in a crusade for you guys.

That's not doctrine. That's philosophy. Another user already said that. This is a logic loop.
Doctrine is more than being in practice. It literally has to be revered and held up to a standard. Atheism has no set beliefs besides not believing in God. That's it's only doctrine.

Western Atheism is the religion of the rejection of traditional Western Christianity

In practice it is, on the whole, its antithesis

Plus, atheism is basically supposed to be consider by every thinking man. I have come to the conclusion of higher power(s) based on my experience. If that person has no experience that dictates otherwise and logically, sees no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God or whoever and their doctrine, then that's their choice 100% and it's a sound choice.

That's charged and not actually what Atheism is. Rationally it is not that. Just because it's followers are for lack of a better term man children does mean anything inherently.

You think almost all Western atheists don't revere those philosophies as absolute truth?

Give me a break

Most atheists are like most religious people.

A bunch of braindead plebs who can't think for themselves so they have to pick somebody else's word and go on it.

But not all atheists.

Western Atheism is inherently (by virtue of its definition) the anti-thesis to traditional Western Christianity

That should be obvious to anyone

You wanted to argue. You've dropped that argument. Hey man, I'm just being on your game. The fuck you want me to do?

>atheists still want to get married
>be buried
>punish evil doers with hell concept

fags

>If that person has no experience that dictates otherwise and logically, sees no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God or whoever and their doctrine, then that's their choice 100% and it's a sound choice.

What's the "sound choice"? To believe that God doesn't exist, or to refuse to assert anything on the matter?

No, they do not "inherently have to share common beliefs". This is the point I'm getting at. When someone says "I'm atheist" they are not tacitly accepting

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

And they would scoff at someone suggesting otherwise. No one says "Well, you may not believe in any religion, but since you're not a scientific realist then you're not a true atheist." Either way, you're flimsy argument is relying pretty much exclusively on semantics at this point so maybe you should just stop trying to push your obviously biased agenda.

I haven't dropped any argument. I've clarified the terms

To think that anyone would but dictate from experience. That person cannot fathom God might exist. CANNOT FATHOM. CANNOT FUCKING FATHOM. LITERALLY.
It's not a simple fucking 1 to 0 thing you fucker.

Pussy, I'm arguing you so you can get to the answer on your own. I'm not going to spell it out. You've hit a logic wall somewhere, I'm pretty sure. I got high so I cannot pay attention to this anymore goodbye

Western atheists don't inherently have to share beliefs in order to consider each other atheists, but they inherently have to share some of them in order to be one

Fuck off mate. Get back to me when you're sober :)

So what are you trying to argue, then? That atheism is a religion?

>but they inherently have to share some of them in order to be one
Like?

...

> Religion is the same as atheism

Sumbody cant think in their brain hard enough

>atheists don't know what they're claiming their beliefs are
>christian in charge of telling atheists what their actual beliefs are

you can't be serious

Well looking at it from a historical perspective, Post-Christian Western Atheism has been revolving roughly around the ones ITT

Plus a belief in hedonism I would add

Refer back to

>Post-Christian Western Atheism has been revolving roughly around the ones ITT
Source?

>Plus a belief in hedonism I would add
I am a athiest and i don't belive in hedonism. So am i a bad atheist?

>linking a bunch of kikepedia links
Not an argument

That's completely irrelevant and all you've shown is that you have no interest in rational discourse as you continue to resort to recursive arguments. You have yet to acknowledge the simple implication that topples your entire argument which is the existence of even one atheist that isn't "hedonist". There's two outcomes to this

Either that is the definition of atheism, which atheists will contest and then you're shoving words into their mouths, or
It isn't the definition of atheism, allowing exceptions to your little hedonist qualification, in which case your entire premise was false to begin with.

You want me to dig some up some correlational studies linking those philosophies with atheism I will but that's the only type of scientific evidence that could be found regarding the matter

>I am a athiest and i don't belive in hedonism. So am i a bad atheist?

You're not a completely typical Western Atheist then. :^) Do you believe in any of the others?

I divide them into typical Western Atheists. And atypical ones

There being some exceptions wouldn't invalidate the existence of a majority of Atheists sharing them (which by this virtue are defined as the typical ones)

>I

Yes that's exactly the problem isn't it. You have your own preconceived ideas of what atheists are and aren't when atheists are simply using the denotation to convey what their beliefs are. Atheists don't use your own arbitrary classifications. And you fail to acknowledge that the majority of atheists sharing an opinion has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. I'm sure most atheists like bacon too, is that also now implicit to the definition of atheism?

'Atheisism' literally means 'No God'. Just like Monotheistic religions have one god and Polytheistic religions have multiple.

There are many different types of Atheists. However; by far the most vocal are the Antireligonists; who are not just apathetic towards religion and either don't care or are happy to let those who believe be, but actively seek to discredit and destroy religion.

By all rights; Antireligionists are Atheism's IS.

>If Atheism is "just a lack of belief in God" why do atheists believe almost the same things?

Because Atheists are typically normal rational people, Which is more than I can say for most Christians.
Christians THINK anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is a enlightened Christian.
Atheists on the other hand are rational enough to KNOW anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is Either an idiot or under 5 years old.

>when atheists are simply using the denotation to convey what their beliefs are.
>Atheists don't use your own arbitrary classifications.

Individual Western atheists can't or won't speak for each other as a group, so someone else has to study what common beliefs they share in practice and why

>And you fail to acknowledge that the majority of atheists sharing an opinion has nothing to do with the definition of atheism.

Not with your definition. It has something to do with how Atheism manifests and what beliefs it typically collectively entails *in practice*, in the West

>I'm sure most atheists like bacon too, is that also now implicit to the definition of atheism?

Liking bacon is not a philosophy

>Christians THINK anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is a enlightened Christian.

Not an "enlightened" Christian. Those (biasedly phrased) beliefs are what simply make you a Christian

>Atheists on the other hand are rational enough to KNOW anyone who believes in the all knowing,all seeing magical man in the sky who gives you rewards for good behavior is Either an idiot or under 5 years old.

How do you know this?

>Liking bacon is not a philosophy
You need to open your eyes to the Message of the lord son. I can see you are lost www.unitedchurchofbacon.org/

>most atheists believe it
It's another "anecdotes are evidence" episode. Great one.

politics is the new religion

>You want me to dig some up some correlational studies linking those philosophies with atheism I will but that's the only type of scientific evidence that could be found regarding the matter
yes

You are not taking your own statements to their logical conclusion.

>Liking bacon is not a philosophy
Okay, since you're being a contrarian how about this: people shouldn't be killed. Is that an ideology? Yes it is. And I'm sure most atheists share it. Now what?

>Not with your definition.
No, it's not my definition, it's THE definition.

>So someone else has to study atheists
see
Please stop arguing in circles and think for yourself the logical conclusions of the statements you are making before replying.

Whites overwhelmingly believe in christianity, therefore whiteness is a religion.

Anecdotes are "most people I know"

Statistics are "objectively most people"

>inb4 give me your stats then

I'm still currently gathering data to support my hypothesis :^)

>How do you know this?
Would your loving god allow men of the cloth to sodomize children?.

Because it's scientifically the most probable to be true.

>Okay, since you're being a contrarian how about this: people shouldn't be killed. Is that an ideology? Yes it is. And I'm sure most atheists share it. Now what?

We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people

>No, it's not my definition, it's THE definition.

It's THE definition of Weak Atheism, not the definition of post-Christian Western Atheism (atheism in the West, post-secularisation) - a particular sub-set of Atheism

>>So someone else has to study atheists

Yes. I've already said why. It doesn't matter if you're offended

>Anecdotes are "most people I know"
>Statistics are "objectively most people"
So it's another "I don't really have evidence, so let's play with semantics" episode. Quite popular.

>I'm still currently gathering data to support my hypothesis :^)
Aka, the "I don't have evidence, and I will never have it, so I'll wait until everyone forgets about me and then return with the same thread with the same posts" episode. Tragic.

He wouldn't mind control them out of their responsibilities

>and I will never have it

Quite the pessimist. I've been gathering it ever since I've even heard of atheism

Nothing scientific thus far, but why would you believe Science has that much of an authority in the first place?

If I'm offended by anything it's the fact that I wasted my time with someone who has such poor reasoning skills and is clearly an assblasted christian virtue signalling to his other christfag friends about >muh atheism is religion meme and won't let go of it no matter what. Go take an IQ test and realize how average you are.

>We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people

That's not even a complete sentence. Jesus christ

go back to b

>I've been gathering it ever since I've even heard of atheism
Translation: "I never gathered any info at all".

>but why would you believe Science
You mean "Science"? Like "Oreo"? Or do you mean like "Led Zeppelin"?

>has that much of an authority in the first place
I never brought that up. You're not smooth at changing the topic.

>>We find out if it is typical of atheists to value the absolute undiscriminating right to life for people
>That's not even a complete sentence

Ok user I'm the stupid one

I was trying to find out if I'm right to be honest and if you as an atheist match those philosophies (ie. gathering data)

So how much authority does Science have?

Until religion can offer some form of practical use or real world predictability in the same way science can I see absolutely no need for it. Religion never offers answers to anything that can't be found through the methodology and rigor that is found in scientific research. Any sort of "answers" religion or morality in general can offer is equivalent to the muh feelings phenomenon among the equally hated on Sup Forums SJW movement. In other words fuck off with your feelings, they aren't objective and don't have any real substance to them.

>if you as an atheist match those philosophies (ie. gathering data)
Literally wat.

>So how much authority does Science have?
Not the topic.

>Not the topic.
>If Atheism is "just a lack of belief in God" why do atheists believe almost the same things?

I was trying to test this out (that is, to gather some data)

>they aren't objective and don't have any real substance to them.

Is the mind objectively real?

>What's the "sound choice"? To believe that God doesn't exist, or to refuse to assert anything on the matter?

>why do atheists (aka, people not believing in gods) believe in various other things unassociated with gods like other people do... without believing in gods
Pottery.

>I was trying to test this out
It's obvious that the only thing you want to test is your ego.

>using memes as refutations

Oh boy

The question was why do they share so many beliefs? Specifically in the West

>It's obvious that the only thing you want to test is your ego.

I hope it wasn't too obvious

Define what you mean by mind, I know you religious types love being vague but I can't answer this without you moving goalposts immediately after.

>atheists believe almost the same things

Atheists DONT believe almost the same things believers fell for.