It is reasonably common for
religious persons and others to class Atheists as those that have a “belief”
system. It is taken for granted that the Atheist's "belief" system is
somewhat different from a “belief” in the supernatural and sundry.
Proponents of such loose use of the language would wish to bring Atheists
down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma. They then “reason” that
it is far better to have a “belief” in that which has some perceived
beneficial or “moral” good than that which is “godless” and therefore
immoral. How very wrong, incorrect and opposite to the truth is that
thought.
The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of
“belief” is:
1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion. 2.
conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds
insufficient to afford positive knowledge:
Most other Dictionaries
tender similar definitions.
Those definitions are basically saying
that a “belief” is not formed by critical scientific investigation but by
emotions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinion.
As a child I can hold
a “belief” that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters. I can
have a “belief” that Unicorns exist and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are
also real.
As an adult I can hold a “belief” that any one of the
numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal
"soul". Some even have a "belief" in UFO's, the power of crystals and a
myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.
Atheists do not accept
that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no
scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not
a “belief”, it is just lack of scientific evidence in their
support.
The word “belief” has been incorporated as part of the
religious language of ethereal nonsense with a design to confuse the
faithful. Certain words have been with humanity since the beginning of time
and have been refined in use to fool the unwary. “Belief” is one of
them.
If religion was not evolutionary driven, with its majority
acceptance “seen” as a herd benefit, then the word would not exist in its
present form but would simply be a word or phrase that states that we do
not know.
That which we do not know is our
ignorance and seen in that light, a “belief” in the supernatural etc.
is giving ignorance far greater credibility than reasoned thinking
should permit.
Many so-called examples of our “beliefs” are thrown at
the Atheist, but none come anywhere near being good
explanations. For example, we have a “belief” the Sun will
come up tomorrow. Forgotten, so it seems, is that by example of the Sun
coming up every day for billions of years hence, shows a pattern that cannot
be denied that it will come up again tomorrow. “Belief” has nothing to do
with it.
Another is since we do not fully understand how electricity
works, we somehow have a “belief” in the workings of electricity. It may not
be fully understood but it is accepted that if a toaster is connected to it,
the bread will cook. Again and so on and so forth, “belief” has naught to do
with it.
If religions and such could do likewise and show by previous
experience or experiment that some part of future action could be predicted,
it would then no longer be a “belief” system.
If “belief” in the
super-natural had some kind of quantifiable substance to it, then it would
escape the realms of our acceptance of ignorance as a way of
explaining the world.
The religious and others have a “belief” that
ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.
Atheist see no
credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and
therefore reject the notion as one only originating from our
ignorance.
There is absolutely no similarity between the
Atheist philosophical stance in life and that of the religious. Atheists
accept only facts, whereas the religious et al find no need for them.
