Scientism - The Belief System of Atheists

A code of ethics is not a belief system.

Many professions have codes of ethics that have nothing at all to do with beliefs. For instance CPA's have a Code of Ethics but it would be ridiculous to call it a belief system.

 

Agreed,

1) [neo]Atheists believe they are an atheist, [because]
2) [neo]Atheists believe there is no God, [because]
3) [neo]Atheists believe there is no evidence to prove God exists, [because]
4) [neo]Atheists determined and therefore [neo]Atheists believe that 'EACH' as in countless pieces of evidence that have been given to them are all insufficient.

Thats a hullava lota beliefs right out of the gate that neoatheists try to sweep under the carpet and pretend they dont have.

I can go on but I am sure everyone else gets the point.

Its a 100% pretense that [neo]atheists do not have a belief system to believe in atheism, pure nonsense.

and of course no neoatheist believes the ethics they have adopted and practice and use in their daily lives because everyone does what they dont believe in neoatheistville, welcome to backwards neoatheist logic

 

In spite of these incessant claims by someone who only wants to promote his own nonsense you fail to address that the atheist primarily has just one belief, that there is no gawd. Despite how much you wail and cry this is it. It is, once again, you who are holding these false beliefs to be sacrosanct. This says an awful lot about you and your belief system, which is obviously not what you claim.

 

I’m confused. What is a “neo-atheist”? I’m an objectivist. That is my belief system. A belief system or philosophy based on logic and reality. That being said, belief in a god cannot work. I have no clue what you are spewing here.

 

If you’ve ever studied philosophy you’d know that ethics is one of the many branches of a working philosophy. Put into context a code of ethics springs from epistemology. So by definition you can’t have ethics without a system of belief. So you are wrong on all fronts.
A Code of Ethics in regards to a certain profession is based on principles of knowledge in that profession that are goal directed. That Code is a set of recommended actions to achieve that goal. In philosophy the principle is the same. So it is undoubtedly part of a belief system.

 

Quantum Mechanics might have put a doubt into the admittedly wonderful edifice of science. Or better said the preeminence of materialism.

There might be more to this world than is dreamt of in our philosophy.

 

You do realize that philosophy is no more than a set of ideals proposed by those that want to control everything, right? No proofs available, no hard facts to support it. Kind of like religion.

 

Some philosophies are. Mine isn’t. And it isn’t a set of ideas. Philosophy in its proper role guides thinking in an orderly and logical manner. Who ever told you that obviously enjoys taking advantage of your sense of nihilism.

 

Maybe, but it’s not the job of philosophy to tackle every question of existence. Only to provide men with a proper method of thinking of what “is”.

 

Who ever told you what to think is just playing on you naivete. You appear to think that whatever you choose to believe is true, without any evidence at all.

Philosophy is at best flimsy, at best a deception.

Prove me wrong.

 

In other words, to teach them to follow what they are told and not think for themselves.

 

Did you look in fiction?

 

No. To follow rules of logic and think critically. You really have no idea what your talking about do you? You’re a perfect example of someone with no real philosophy. No method, no proof of what you believe, just a junk heap of contradictions and unwarranted conclusions. You may as well be religious.

 

Do you know what philosophy is? Or do you just think you know?
Where do you lean on the political spectrum? Left or right?

 

Talking about yourself again?

What proof do you have of your beliefs being correct? What "method" do you use to push your fallacies? Your "conclusions" may as well be made up, which they are. The perfect example of a theist wanting to control everyone and force them to your way of thinking and conclusion's for which you just make up what you want with no idea of how they pervert thought and reason. You are the problem.

BTW, if you claim to be thinking critically, you are much mistaken. You are projecting only your own desires. Sounds religious to me.

 

Yes, I know what philosophy is, as I stated in a previous post. Just because you chose to believe differently does not make you correct, just misguided.

As for political leanings, what difference does that make? Another of your fallacies you are trying to push.

 

Only in an effort to justify his own desires. The religious section.

 

Actually I'd say the very existence of the country you live in is compelling evidence to the contrary. Wouldn't you?

 

You used a word there that is significant. Existence.
The very word in itself implies a tangible reality. Another phrase you used,”compelling evidence”. A phrase used in the court of law to describe an objective reality that can be observed, tested, heard or touched.
The existence of my country I live in is proof that it exists. Period. My knowledge of it does not require faith because I live there. I know of it’s reality.

 

So there's no reason for anyone to be the least bit interested in how it came to exist, or why it's worth living in. Have I got that right?

To be sure...

...but the creation of the country you deem worth living in certainly did. You get that, right?

 

not if you are an atheist or a theist, then its based upon 'faith'.

everybody worships some G/god even if its Koalemos
there is a G/god on call for every conceivable human condition.

its not logical to respond to a post that you have no clue except to ask a question.

Sigh~~ I tried but the room was so packed full of neatheists I couldnt get near it.

There are lots of intangible things that can be proven, Mathematics, knowledge, talent and so forth.

 

Long winded semantic squirming duly noted FTR!

Ethics are based upon PRINCIPLES, not beliefs!

The PRINCIPLE of dealing honestly with people needing their taxes done has nothing whatsoever to do with any "beliefs".

The PRINCIPLE of being an honest person who does not lie is based upon respect for oneself and others and has nothing whatsoever to do with any "beliefs".

To put this another way a theist might not lie because he believes that is a violation of their religion.

OTOH an atheist needs to think about why they should be an honest person and not tell lies and comes to the rational conclusion that it is disrespectful both to themselves and others to tell lies.

Feel free to twist your illogical and irrational beliefs into whatever pretzels you like but they are NOT the basis for atheists having a code of ethics based upon principles.

And just to preempt your next semantic gymnastic contortion the term principle applies to more than just beliefs. It has several meanings which have nothing at all to do with beliefs.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/principles

 

Sorry but he doesn’t speak for me. Nice try though. Got to give you credit for trying.

 

More neoatheist ridiculousness

prin·ci·ple
1.a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of Christianity"

Whats that? A rickety brokedown neoatheist Bible? Neoathesit 10 commandments, may as well be Christian and save yourself the effort of inventing the same thing! LMAO!

They dont need to think about any such thing, they need to realize they are Johnny-Come-Lately's and the Deity based religions already have all those bases covered.

No yours is a premptive attempt to cover the fact your premise is 100% semantic BS.

Principles are fundamental beliefs, Ethics are the set of rules based in fundamental/core beliefs which serves as a non-deity man made religion.

 

Talk about an ignorant post, you have just defined it. You ignore actual answers in favor of ones you make up and continue with your own BS as if it were fact.

You try to divert any conversation to something that you, erroneously, think shows just how wonderful you are and fail at that.

You claim that I have not answered a simple question when I have and you are just to immature to admit it.

As for the definition of a fallacy, look in a mirror. You are a waste of bandwidth and lack the honesty to admit it. So you must be a democrat, as you have all of the attributes fully exposed. And not a very bright one either.