Atheism: A belief?

[Thief]

Clearly, believing that something is not right, is not a belief.

You are absolutely correct :no:

Believing something is wrong is a belief.
Believing that something is not right is a belief.

Notice both sentences start with...believing.

Making denial...nay saying....refusals....etc....
all comes from what you DO believe.

That you believe NOT....is a belief unto itself.

 

[Orias]

Believing something is wrong is a belief.
Believing that something is not right is a belief.

Notice both sentences start with...believing.

Making denial...nay saying....refusals....etc....
all comes from what you DO believe.

That you believe NOT....is a belief unto itself.

Some people lack a clear understanding of that perspective.

Refusal to accept something as a belief that is in fact believed is self deceit on their behalf.

 

[Magic Man]

Believing that someting is not right, is a belief, since not believing fits the definition of belief, or what you think is actually right. Your application to...

Yes, believing that something is not right is a belief. Not believing something, though, is not a belief. See how that works?

A belief is believed. So a computer is believed, a book is believed.

I should have known.

You have your beliefs about the definition of atheism, and that may or may not have anything to do at all with the actual definition of atheism.

Actually, no, my beliefs about atheism have nothing to with the actual definition of atheism. The fact that I have beliefs about atheism does not make atheism a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

This is what Copernicus is referring to when he says things about mental gymnastics. My position does not require me to become this nitpicky or technical; it does not require me to word things in a way I normally would not. Yours does.

And worse, I don't see much gained from it but obfuscation.

Yes, the incorrect view does not require getting nitpicky. Just like believing that evolution is "just a theory" doesn't require nitpicking. But to get the most accurate view, nitpicking can be a requirement. Sometimes discussions like this require more thinking and more details than you would normally use in regular conversation. That doesn't mean using more details makes something wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

Examples? What does "a belief" mean to you?

It means roughly "something that is believed", or from dictionary.com:

something believed; an opinion or conviction

I wouldn't say Catholicism is a belief, despite the fact that it contains a belief. I'd say it's a set of beliefs or a belief system.

If you are using "atheism" as a general set, which contains the subset strong atheism, then you cannot say that atheism is not a belief. That is logic 101.

Yes, I can. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist. That's my whole point in defining strong atheism in the technical way.

The purpose of my argument is not to argue that atheism can be a belief. It is rather to argue that neither can be said about the general set. At least, not without qualification, explanation, etc, which could be largely avoidd by simply saying that atheism is not necessarily a belief, and being done with it.

The OP came from someone claiming "atheism is a belief", and other saying "No, it's not". It is incorrect to say that it's a belief, so the statement "Atheism is a belief" is incorrect. I have less argument with you than I do with Copernicus. He simply believes atheism is a belief. You at least seem to agree that someone who lacks belief in gods could qualify as an atheist.

So, really the question of whether or not atheism is absolutely not a belief is not as important here as whether or not it's correct to say "atheism is a belief".

If we followed your approach, mball, than nothing could be considered a belief. Christianity is not a belief; it merely contains beliefs. Heliocentricism is not a belief; it merely contains a belief. That's simply not how we talk about beliefs. We don't separate the belief from the thing that contains it.

Of course things can be considered beliefs. Theism is a belief. "God doesn't exist" is a belief. Intelligent Design is a belief. I guess you could say heliocentrism is a belief. But Christianity is not a belief; it is a set of belief. Strong atheism is not a belief, but it does contain a belief.

Language is about agreed upon meaning; majority consensus is what assigns meaning to it. Thus, whether people accept how you are interpreting strong atheism is highly applicable.

Well, that's a little different than whether or not people find my arguments convincing. And the point about language being agreed upon doesn't quite work here. Whether or not a lot of people accept what I'm saying has no bearing on the truth of it. Again, it's like "theory". A lot of people don't understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific one, but that doesn't mean the scientific one is useless or wrong.

Parts, parts, parts, mball. Why do you refuse to look at "strong atheism" as a whole? We aren't just talking about "strong"; we aren't just talking about "atheism". We are talking about both of those things together as a single concept.

Right, and them together as a whole is "the absence of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". I'm not refusing to look at anything.

 

[Orias]

Yes, believing that something is not right is a belief. Not believing something, though, is not a belief. See how that works?

Actually, not believing something is a belief, as you just said, believing that something is not right is a belief.

If you don't believe something, you are believing that the subject at hand is false, and that you are right.

A belief is what people consider to be true, I don't see how you think your "self evident truths" are an exception to this.

I should have known.

You should of, it is completely obvious.

Actually, no, my beliefs about atheism have nothing to with the actual definition of atheism.

Ah, so as an atheist you do have beliefs separate from the definition about it. Thanks for proving my point.


"Atheos", "without God(s)", or in other words, a godless person, which is a position used to describe One's beliefs towards such an immaculate being.

The fact that I have beliefs about atheism does not make atheism a belief.

Actually it does, since you have beliefs about atheism, as well as having a belief in atheism.

This should be obvious, if you didn't have a belief in atheism then you wouldn't call yourself an atheist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Actually, not believing something is a belief....

Orwellian Newspeak?

 

[Orias]

Orwellian Newspeak?

Except it is more common sensicle and less impoverished. People are trying to complicate it however, which is bothersome.

I think it is a rather simple observation of connecting the dots.

Saying that you don't believe, is saying that you believe something isn't.

When it comes to labels, they are believed, which is the point at hand. If atheism isn't a belief, the label wouldn't exist for people to take unto themselves to describe what they believe (in application to a "God" position).

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, not believing something is a belief, as you just said, believing that something is not right is a belief.

If you don't believe something, you are believing that the subject at hand is false, and that you are right.

Ah, good. After all this time we finally got to the heart of the problem. Not believing something doesn't mean you believe it's wrong. We've given several examples. If Penguin says he ate haggis for breakfast, I might not believe him, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe he didn't have haggis for breakfast. It just means I don't automatically accept his statement as true.

There are many things people believe that I don't believe. That doesn't mean I believe that their beliefs are wrong. It may just mean that I haven't been exposed to their beliefs yet.

So, no, not believing something is not a belief. Believing something = belief. Not believing something = not a belief.

You should of, it is completely obvious.

I know. It is quite obvious that you wouldn't give a real answer, but instead some nonsensical ramblings.

Ah, so as an atheist you do have beliefs separate from the definition about it. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, I have beliefs. I have beliefs about life, death, the world, politics, atheism and many other things. None of those beliefs have any impact at all on whether or not atheism is a belief. So, if that's the point you were trying to prove, well done, but then that's what I've been saying all along.

"Atheos", "without God(s)", or in other words, a godless person, which is a position used to describe One's beliefs towards such an immaculate being.

Disregarding the weird wording, you're right up until the end. It would be more accurate to say "which is used to describe your belief or lack thereof in such a being". When you are without something, you simply don't have that something. It doesn't mean you have its opposite.

Actually it does, since you have beliefs about atheism, as well as having a belief in atheism.

This should be obvious, if you didn't have a belief in atheism then you wouldn't call yourself an atheist.

The best question is why I'm still trying to explain this to you. No, what I believe about something doesn't make that something a belief. I have beliefs about horses, too, but that doesn't make horses beliefs. Also, I don't have belief in atheism.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it's hypothetical, but that wasn't my objection. It should be obvious that, if I'm discussing whether or not something can be correctly said to be my belief and while doing so use a phrase such as "but I also believed (knew) it was going to kill me", that phrase is not to be taken literally to mean that this was my belief. Rather it is how I described my feelings, my thoughts in a (hypothetical) situation.

Taking that out of context and saying: "but you said so!" as an argument that this is indeed my belief (hypothetical or otherwise) - that is, that spiders are deadly, is what I was objecting to.

Surely you're doing the same thing, then --taking the response to your statements ("but you said so!") 'literally', as if it wasn't a response in kind? I do believe Falvlun was keeping it in the context of the hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if you have a belief it means you think there really are spiders.

What is the belief? I agree with you that I have belief(s) that result in, among other things, fear. But the only thing I'm trying to establish is whether or not I can be accurately described as someone who believes spiders are dangerous/deadly. (given that I understand that there is no actual mechanism by which a spider could hurt me and given that I do also feel fear in the presence of spiders)

You're right, that what "the belief" is is entirely dependent on what claim has been made. But obviously Falvlun read it as one particular claim. If Falvlun believes that you can be described as someone who believes that you believe that theses spiders are dangerous/deadly, is it such a difficult matter to trace the belief back to the claim?

 

[Orias]

Ah, good. After all this time we finally got to the heart of the problem. Not believing something doesn't mean you believe it's wrong. We've given several examples. If Penguin says he ate haggis for breakfast, I might not believe him, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe he didn't have haggis for breakfast. It just means I don't automatically accept his statement as true.

You do realize your comparing something that can be proven to something that hasn't been or possibly cannot be proven right?

Not believing something, is in regard to its falseness or lack of evidence to support it.

So not believing something is a belief, the strength of it is irrelevant, as not accepting it is denying it.

Along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty".

Denial is rejecting, not accepting is denying until proven otherwise, which the position we are in (referencing the existence of "God") is One of a conceptual standard, or One that is thought to be true or false.

You are in the position where it is false, until proven otherwise.

There are many things people believe that I don't believe. That doesn't mean I believe that their beliefs are wrong. It may just mean that I haven't been exposed to their beliefs yet.

It may just mean that you haven't been exposed to their beliefs yet, but it does factually mean that you disagree with their beliefs because you substitute your own beliefs into your own reality.

So, no, not believing something is not a belief. Believing something = belief. Not believing something = not a belief.

Don't act as if you hold the factuality of a metaphysical concept

I know. It is quite obvious that you wouldn't give a real answer, but instead some nonsensical ramblings.

I can only speak in the language that you are fluent in as well.

I am sure, if a computer was not believed to be then the device we call a "computer" would cease to be called a "computer".

Yes, I have beliefs. I have beliefs about life, death, the world, politics, atheism and many other things. None of those beliefs have any impact at all on whether or not atheism is a belief. So, if that's the point you were trying to prove, well done, but then that's what I've been saying all along.

Too bad this has nothing to do with what I said.

You said you have beliefs about atheism that have nothing to do with the actual definition of atheism, which separates your atheistic beliefs from the definition of atheism, making it a belief(s).

Actually, no, my beliefs about atheism have nothing to with the actual definition of atheism.

Disregarding the weird wording, you're right up until the end. It would be more accurate to say "which is used to describe your belief or lack thereof in such a being". When you are without something, you simply don't have that something. It doesn't mean you have its opposite.

LOL.

Weird wording?

Take it for what it is, instead of complicating it further.

"Atheos", "without God(s)", or in other words, a godless person, which is a position used to describe One's beliefs towards such an immaculate being.

Atheism is accurately defined as "without "God(s)", or a person who does not believe in the existence of such a being.

"Lack of belief thereof" is a position used to describe the lack of belief in existence, but not merely the lack of downright belief. Since believing that "lack of belief" accurately describes atheism is in itself a belief.

And as for the Opposite, actually it does, as Opposite is defined as altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance.

The best question is why I'm still trying to explain this to you. No, what I believe about something doesn't make that something a belief. I have beliefs about horses, too, but that doesn't make horses beliefs. Also, I don't have belief in atheism.

Actually, having a belief about something does make it a belief. Because you believe it.

I don't understand why your still trying to complicate your nonsensicle ramblings either.

 

[Willamena]

Is it just me, or is the "fail to assent" meaning of "reject" not very intuitive or common?

"Failure" itself, especially in regards to discussions about metaphysics (what is) and epistemology (what we know is), is not intuitive at all when we're trying to assert a way the world is.

 

[Magic Man]

You do realize your comparing something that can be proven to something that hasn't been or possibly cannot be proven right?

Yes, but I also realize that that has no effect on the usefulness of the comparison.

So not believing something is a belief, the strength of it is irrelevant, as not accepting it is denying it.

Saying it over and over won't make it true. Not believing something is not a belief. Not believing one thing doesn't mean you automatically believe its opposite. Someone who has never heard of God doesn't believe in him, but that person also doesn't believe he doesn't exist.

It may just mean that you haven't been exposed to their beliefs yet, but it does factually mean that you disagree with their beliefs because you substitute your own beliefs into your own reality.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means they hold belief X, and you don't.

Don't act as if you hold the factuality of a metaphysical concept

I'm acting as if I understand reality. The facts are pretty simple. Believing something=belief. Not believing something=not a belief.

I can only speak in the language that you are fluent in as well.

I am sure, if a computer was not believed to be then the device we call a "computer" would cease to be called a "computer".

Those seem to be English words, but when put together they don't make any sense.

Too bad this has nothing to do with what I said.

You said you have beliefs about atheism that have nothing to do with the actual definition of atheism, which separates your atheistic beliefs from the definition of atheism, making it a belief(s).

Hmmm...These also appear to be English words, but, like the ones above, they don't make any sense in their current combination.

Atheism is accurately defined as "without "God(s)", or a person who does not believe in the existence of such a being.

Almost. "Atheist" is a person who does not believe in the existence of gods. But other than that you're exactly right. And this is why atheism is not a belief. It took a while, but it seems you finally came around.

Actually, having a belief about something does make it a belief. Because you believe it.

OK, so your definition of "horse" would be "a belief"? Does that really make sense in your head? What you believe about something has no bearing on the definition of that something. I can have knowledge about a country, but that doesn't make a country knowledge. I have beliefs about horses, but horses aren't beliefs; they're animals.

 

[Orias]

Yes, but I also realize that that has no affect on the usefulness of the comparison.

Actually it does, since the pragmatic part of your argument can only apply to real life subjects.

The world is built off of axioms, I don't understand why you can't grasp onto that.

But I suppose bringing human psychology into this argument and expecting others to already know what I am talking about is a mistake on my behalf.

Saying it over and over won't make it true. Not believing something is not a belief. Not believing one thing doesn't mean you automatically believe its opposite. Someone who has never heard of God doesn't believe in him, but that person also doesn't believe he doesn't exist.

Clearly, you do not attempt to apply your own arguments to yourself.

And you know people who actually have never heard of "God"?

Get realistic here, I enjoy practical debates not some "what if" scenario.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means they hold belief X, and you don't.

Exactly, hence the statement that you disagree and substitute their reality with your own.

I'm acting as if I understand reality. The facts are pretty simple. Believing something=belief. Not believing something=not a belief.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Not believing something does equal a belief, because it is the belief that something is not (without the proper "evidence" to justify it).

I don't believe in God. That is a belief.

Those seem to be English words, but when put together they don't make any sense.

I wonder how many times you are going to attack the straw man.

Way to direct my point as well...

Do you need a refesher?

I am sure, if a computer was not believed to be then the device we call a "computer" would cease to be called a "computer".

Hmmm...These also appear to be English words, but, like the ones above, they don't make any sense in their current combination.

I wonder if your actually going to supply an argument besides your own special pleading.

Almost. "Atheist" is a person who does not believe in the existence of gods. But other than that you're exactly right. And this is why atheism is not a belief. It took a while, but it seems you finally came around.

:foot:

Explain to me how something is not a belief when the definition continually references it?

No where in the definition does it say that its not a belief, because obviously it is believed if it exists.

OK, so your definition of "horse" would be "a belief"? Does that really make sense in your head? What you believe about something has no bearing on the definition of that something. I can have knowledge about a country, but that doesn't make a country knowledge. I have beliefs about horses, but horses aren't beliefs; they're animals.

LOL.

No, a horse is believed to be, which is a belief.

The label is separate from the being, since a horse can also reference a donkey or jack-(butt), which can also reference a human.

We are animals too, try again.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually it does, since the pragmatic part of your argument can only apply to real life subjects.

The world is built off of axioms, I don't understand why you can't grasp onto that.

But I suppose bringing human psychology into this argument and expecting others to already know what I am talking about is a mistake on my behalf.

My, that is some tasty word salad!

And you know people who actually have never heard of "God"?

Get realistic here, I enjoy practical debates not some "what if" scenario.

Wait, you enjoy practical debates...like whether or not atheism is a belief? How is that practical? And "what if" scenarios are very useful even in practical debates.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

You might want to try at least coming up with your own material. Also, I said this because all you've done is repeat yourself without providing any justification for your reasoning.

Not believing something does equal a belief, because it is the belief that something is not (without the proper "evidence" to justify it).

I don't believe in God. That is a belief.

Wow, that might be one of the biggest fails I've ever seen. I'll try this again, even though it's probably to no avail:

If Penguin says he had haggis for breakfast, I have 3 choices: 1) Believe that he had haggis for breakfast 2) Not believe he had haggis for breakfast, but not believe he didn't either 3) Believe he didn't have haggis for breakfast

The fact that I don't accept his statement as true doesn't mean I accept the opposite statement as false. If I don't accept "God exists" as true, that doesn't mean I accept "God doesn't exist" as true.

In simple terms, not believing something is not a belief. Believing one thing or the opposite of that one thing is a belief. Not believing either of those things is not a belief.

I wonder how many times you are going to attack the straw man.

Way to direct my point as well...

Do you need a refesher?

I wonder if your actually going to supply an argument besides your own special pleading.

It would be best not to misuse terms like "strawman' and "special pleading" in your ramblings.

Explain to me how something is not a belief when the definition continually references it?

No where in the definition does it say that its not a belief, because obviously it is believed if it exists.

This is very simple (for most people, at least). The definition is "absence of the belief that gods exist". "Absence" means "not". In other words, "absence of belief" means "not a belief".

No, a horse is believed to be, which is a belief.

The label is separate from the being, since a horse can also reference a donkey or jack-(butt), which can also reference a human.

We are animals too, try again.

OK, now you're not even trying to make sense. A horse is not a belief, but we have beliefs about horses. Atheism is not a belief, but we have beliefs about atheism. If you want to argue that, please try to make sense next time.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, the incorrect view does not require getting nitpicky. Just like believing that evolution is "just a theory" doesn't require nitpicking. But to get the most accurate view, nitpicking can be a requirement. Sometimes discussions like this require more thinking and more details than you would normally use in regular conversation. That doesn't mean using more details makes something wrong.

You can explain the difference between "just a theory" and a "scientific theory" without having to tie yourself into knots or paint yourself into ridiculous corners. And yes, I do believe in Occam's Razor, and not making arguments you would not follow in regular conversation.

It means roughly "something that is believed", or from dictionary.com:

something believed; an opinion or conviction

I wouldn't say Catholicism is a belief, despite the fact that it contains a belief. I'd say it's a set of beliefs or a belief system.

A "belief system" or "set of beliefs" is essentially just the plural form of "a belief".

Yes, I can. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist. That's my whole point in defining strong atheism in the technical way.

And even with your technical way, you still cannot make a claim about a general set that is not true of a subset.

The OP came from someone claiming "atheism is a belief", and other saying "No, it's not". It is incorrect to say that it's a belief, so the statement "Atheism is a belief" is incorrect. I have less argument with you than I do with Copernicus. He simply believes atheism is a belief. You at least seem to agree that someone who lacks belief in gods could qualify as an atheist.

So, really the question of whether or not atheism is absolutely not a belief is not as important here as whether or not it's correct to say "atheism is a belief".

I do agree that it is likely not as important, but you are rather gung ho about accuracy. From my standpoint, it is just as inaccurate to say that atheism is a belief as it is to say that it is not a belief.

Of course things can be considered beliefs. Theism is a belief. "God doesn't exist" is a belief. Intelligent Design is a belief. I guess you could say heliocentrism is a belief. But Christianity is not a belief; it is a set of belief. Strong atheism is not a belief, but it does contain a belief.

How come they don't just "contain" a belief? What makes them a belief, and not merely the vessel?

Your quibble about Christianity, again, is merely to point out that there is more than just "a" belief, but does not refute my point that if it has a belief, it's considered a belief.

Well, that's a little different than whether or not people find my arguments convincing. And the point about language being agreed upon doesn't quite work here. Whether or not a lot of people accept what I'm saying has no bearing on the truth of it. Again, it's like "theory". A lot of people don't understand the difference between a regular theory and a scientific one, but that doesn't mean the scientific one is useless or wrong.

The problem with your stance is more than about a misunderstanding on two different ways to define a word. Your argument rests on the idea that, even though the defining concept of strong atheism is a belief, strong atheism itself is not a belief-- it merely contains a belief. There's nothing to back it up-- just your say so-- and it completely flies in the face of how we talk about beliefs-- and the names we give to them.

Right, and them together as a whole is "the absence of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". I'm not refusing to look at anything.

If you were able to look at it as a whole, then you would not be making the argument you are trying to make.

 

[gnomon]

But I've just got to ask this.

Is atheism a belief?

 

[Falvlun]

But I've just got to ask this.

Is atheism a belief?

It depends. How far can a laden swallow fly?

 

[deep3172]

There are no difinitive specifications for atheism. Everyone;s atheism is different. The bottom line is either you are a theist, or an atheist. To what degree of atheist is irrelevant when classifying people, while its the contrary for theists. It is uterly important to theist to have a specification in their theism.

If one rejects a belief in any god, thats atheism. bottom line up front. When you talk schematics like "believing" there is no god, its pretty much a moot point. The core of rejection still stands.

 

[Commoner]

Surely you're doing the same thing, then --taking the response to your statements ("but you said so!") 'literally', as if it wasn't a response in kind? I do believe Falvlun was keeping it in the context of the hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if you have a belief it means you think there really are spiders.

You missed the point - I have no issue about it being taken as "hypothetical" or "actual". I'm saying the train of thought by which I described my feelings in the situation is not to be taken literally (as opposed to metaphorically). I don't care whether someone was arguing as if what I was describing were my "actual" events/beliefs... When I said "I believe/know the spider is going to kill me" that was meant as a description of my thoughts/feeling at the time, not as a proclamation of belief. In the same breath I also stated that I understand that spiders are harmless and that there is no mechanism by which they could harm me. Yet Falvlun and you both pointed to this "then why did you say it" as an argument in favor of "spiders are dangerous" being my belief. Do you now understand my objection?

You're right, that what "the belief" is is entirely dependent on what claim has been made. But obviously Falvlun read it as one particular claim. If Falvlun believes that you can be described as someone who believes that you believe that theses spiders are dangerous/deadly, is it such a difficult matter to trace the belief back to the claim?

Ok, so just as long as I know... Do I also believe small rooms are dangerous?

The reason why I digress from the spider example is to make another point. I would quite happily leave a baby or any other cute living being in a small room, even though I have a fear of being in a small room. So, if I'm afraid of small spaces and I put a small, defenseless child in the room, I must have done something I believe will endanger the child?

So - back to spiders. Obviusly, if I'm afraid of spiders, there is some sort of "belief" or instinct or whatever - whether this is something I'm consciously aware of or not - that drives that fear. However, this is not necessarily the belief that "spiders are dangerous" and it would not be accurate to characterize me as such. I might, at most, be said to believe that spiders are dangerous to me.