Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

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?

Well, no, but I apologize for my denseness. In what way does it not describe your belief? --in other words, what is "belief" that this doesn't qualify?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief says belief = being convinced of the truth of a thing.

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.

Why would you be "quite happy to leave a baby in a small room, even though you have fear of being in a small room"? Would it be because you believe that your fear disorder can be overcome? I don't see belief lacking from either scenario --"belief" lies with the truth claim, whatever that is.

 

[Commoner]

Well, no, but I apologize for my denseness. In what way does it not describe your belief? --in other words, what is "belief" that this doesn't qualify?

Belief | Define Belief at Dictionary.com says belief = being convinced of the truth of a thing.

It's not that it lacks "belief-ness", it's that it's not clear what the belief is. On the one hand I have a fear of spiders, on the other hand I understand there is no actual mechanism by which they could harm me (I'm talking about regular, non-poisonous, household spiders here). If I were to place a bet as to whether or not this spider could hurt someone, I would bet that it could not. Yet, I still feel fear when I see something resembling a spider. So clearly there is some conflict here - the question is what is the proper description of my belief regarding spiders? Is it: "he believes that spiders are dangerous?" or is that not necessarily an accurate description of my belief?

Why would you be "quite happy to leave a baby in a small room, even though you have fear of being in a small room"? Would it be because you believe that your fear disorder can be overcome? I don't see belief lacking from either scenario --"belief" lies with the truth claim, whatever that is.

But Willamena, that's what I'm trying to establish here - whether or not that "whatever" belief is (necessarily) "I believe spiders are dangerous". Why I would hve no problem leaving anyone (except if there was some other reason not to - like them being claustrophobic as well)in a small room (as oposed to a normal sized room) is that I understand that small rooms do not harm people. I am as sure of it as I am sure that I cannot fly by flapping my hands really, really hard - in practical terms, I'm 100% sure. While I do understand this, I'm also claustrophobic - I do feel fear when in have to spend time in a small room and would avoid doing so, if possible.

So the question now is, am I acurately described as someone who believes that small rooms are dangerous? I've argued that this is not an accurate description of my belief regarding rooms (obviously, not this specific example, but the general idea). Do you think that it is?

 

[Willamena]

It's not that it lacks "belief-ness", it's that it's not clear what the belief is. On the one hand I have a fear of spiders, on the other hand I understand there is no actual mechanism by which they could harm me (I'm talking about regular, non-poisonous, household spiders here). If I were to place a bet as to whether or not this spider could hurt someone, I would bet that it could not. Yet, I still feel fear when I see something resembling a spider. So clearly there is some conflict here - the question is what is the proper description of my belief regarding spiders? Is it: "he believes that spiders are dangerous?" or is that not necessarily an accurate description of my belief?

It's simple: what is the truth about this case about these spiders?

But Willamena, that's what I'm trying to establish here - whether or not that "whatever" belief is (necessarily) "I believe spiders are dangerous".

And what I (and I think Falvlun) am trying to point out is that the fact that you're afraid is indicitive of a truth claim in which belief is invested. It may not be "spiders are dangerous," but there is a belief at the source of the fear. Where this got side-tracked, I think, is that whatever the truth claim is isn't as important as that there is one.

So the question now is, am I acurately described as someone who believes that small rooms are dangerous?

In reality, it's for you to say --no one else. Others can only presume. In the earlier scenario, though, if belief is to be determined rather than what is being demonstrated, the conversation jumped figuratively from one foot to another.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Good, because I can do the same with "atheism" without having to tie myself into knots or paint myself into ridiculous corners. You guys have claimed that we are doing those things, but you have yet to provide the evidence for it.

And yes, I do believe in Occam's Razor, and not making arguments you would not follow in regular conversation.

Hmmm...Then you might want to not discuss or debate religion or politics.

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

Sure, but it's not just one belief.

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

Good, because I'm not doing that.

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.

What I'm saying is that that's not even the most important question. The most important question is "Is atheism a belief?". What is your answer to that question?

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

The fact that they are a belief and not merely a 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.

It's not a quibble. Would you agree to the statement "Christianity is a belief"?

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.

I have as much or more to back up my claim as you do yours. You claim that I haven't provided support, but where's yours? All you've done is say that it is a belief and that what you say is how we talk about beliefs. What is the support for that?

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

Maybe you're missing something here, because this doesn't make sense. I'm looking at it as a whole. As a whole it is the lack of one belief and the presence of another belief.

 

[Commoner]

It's simple: what is the truth about this case about these spiders?

The truth is they're harmless - but I am afraid of them. So? What exactly is simple about this? Isn't there some irrational (by your own understanding) fear that you have for which you lack a clear understanding of why it's present?

And what I (and I think Falvlun) am trying to point out is that the fact that you're afraid is indicitive of a truth claim in which belief is invested. It may not be "spiders are dangerous," but there is a belief at the source of the fear. Where this got side-tracked, I think, is that whatever the truth claim is isn't as important as that there is one.

But that wasn't my argument in the first place... It's not getting side-tracked, I'm trying to get it back on track by explaining to you that the point of my argument was not that whatever my fear is based on isn't a belief of some sort (although, I do think there can be other causes as well), but rather that just because I am afraid of spiders doesn't mean I can automatically be said to believe that spiders are actually dangerous.

In reality, it's for you to say --no one else. Others can only presume. In the earlier scenario, though, if belief is to be determined rather than what is being demonstrated, the conversation jumped figuratively from one foot to another.

Presume then. I mean, honestly, this isn't that hard. If you had a friend who was claustrophobic, would you feel comfortable in describing them to other people as someone who believes that small spaces are actually dangerous? I know I wouldn't, even if the fear itself is somehow indicative of this belief being present "on some level", this still wouldn't be an accurate description of that persons beliefs regarding small rooms.

 

[Copernicus]

The truth is they're harmless - but I am afraid of them. So? What exactly is simple about this? Isn't there some irrational (by your own understanding) fear that you have for which you lack a clear understanding of why it's present?

Fear is an emotion, not a belief. Beliefs refer to propositions that one holds to be true. If you believe that contact with a spider will cause harm (even unspecified harm) to you, then that is a belief. If you believe that you should not be near a spider, then that is a belief. Beliefs are what we use to rationalize our emotions.

...just because I am afraid of spiders doesn't mean I can automatically be said to believe that spiders are actually dangerous.

It is hard to imagine how you can have a fear that you do not rationalize. I do have arachnophobia, and I have beliefs about spiders that are driven by my fear. Just as I fear bee stings, I fear spider bites, even though I know intellectually that most spiders will not bite me. I do not fear looking at spiders in the zoo when they are behind a window or too far away to get on my skin. Hence, my rationalization of the fear helps me to control my behavior. It gives me a plan of action when I see the spider. If I see a spider on me, I'll go a little crazy trying to brush it off.

Presume then. I mean, honestly, this isn't that hard. If you had a friend who was claustrophobic, would you feel comfortable in describing them to other people as someone who believes that small spaces are actually dangerous? I know I wouldn't, even if the fear itself is somehow indicative of this belief being present "on some level", this still wouldn't be an accurate description of that persons beliefs regarding small rooms.

But talk therapy can work. If someone has an irrational fear, then you listen to the way in which that person rationalizes the fear. You can work with the rationalization to gradually convince the subject that the rationalizations--beliefs about the object of fear--are untrue at a gut level. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

 

[Orias]

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.

Hey look, someone with some common sense.

Good post.

 

[Orias]

My, that is some tasty word salad!



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.



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.



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.



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



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".



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.

The only thing open is your mouth.

No wonder why debate with you is senseless, you don't even care to make sense of your own ramblings and special pleading and straw man attacks.

In One simple sentence, tell me exactly how Atheism is not a belief.

I'll go first, Atheism is a belief, because it exists in a world where everything is believed on a personal level.

 

[Willamena]

The truth is they're harmless - but I am afraid of them. So? What exactly is simple about this? Isn't there some irrational (by your own understanding) fear that you have for which you lack a clear understanding of why it's present?

Irrational fears are based on factors we're not aware of, but that doesn't discount that some of those factors could still be described as beliefs. Beliefs lie where the truth of some matter is seen.

...just because I am afraid of spiders doesn't mean I can automatically be said to believe that spiders are actually dangerous.

True; but it is the safe bet. Unless it was stated (and I missed it) that the fear is irrational, rational fear is the better bet, and rational fear is with reason.

Presume then. I mean, honestly, this isn't that hard. If you had a friend who was claustrophobic, would you feel comfortable in describing them to other people as someone who believes that small spaces are actually dangerous? I know I wouldn't, even if the fear itself is somehow indicative of this belief being present "on some level", this still wouldn't be an accurate description of that persons beliefs regarding small rooms.

No, I wouldn't presume to know how the person's claustrophia has manifested, but in the scenario with spiders there was rather obvious evidence freely available within the context of the story to form a likely conclusion for how that fear manifested.

 

[Magic Man]

The only thing open is your mouth.

No wonder why debate with you is senseless, you don't even care to make sense of your own ramblings and special pleading and straw man attacks.

I hope you were saying this into a mirror, since that would be much more appropriate than directing it towards me. Again, though, you should really learn what the terms "strawman" and "special pleading" mean before trying to use them.

In One simple sentence, tell me exactly how Atheism is not a belief.

Not that it's going to have any more effect than the last 800 times I said it, but:

Atheism is the absence of a belief. Generally when you have the absence of something, you don't have that something. If there is rain falling, it is raining. If there is an absence of rain falling, it's not raining. This really shouldn't be that hard of a concept to grasp.

I'll go first, Atheism is a belief, because it exists in a world where everything is believed on a personal level.

Great, now maybe you can come up with something that makes some sort of sense.

 

[Orias]

I hope you were saying this into a mirror, since that would be much more appropriate than directing it towards me. Again, though, you should really learn what the terms "strawman" and "special pleading" mean before trying to use them.

I have a pretty clear understanding of what they are, and your "absence of belief" digression is a perfect example of special pleading, an example of the straw man attacks would be your continual insults on a personal level, acting as if they hold any value to the debate.

And way to use my reflection tactic, I'm proud of you

Not that it's going to have any more effect than the last 800 times I said it, but:

Atheism is the absence of a belief. Generally when you have the absence of something, you don't have that something. If there is rain falling, it is raining. If there is an absence of rain falling, it's not raining. This really shouldn't be that hard of a concept to grasp.

Too bad atheism is defined by "absence of belief", it's defined by "absence of belief in "God(s)"",not just merely lack of belief.

No where in the definition of atheism does it say "is not a belief", because it should be a simple explication that not believing in "God(s)" is a belief.

Simply because, it is a belief in the eyes of the partaker, who choses not to belief in "God(s)", rather he believes in no "God(s)".

Great, now maybe you can come up with something that makes some sort of sense.

That is the core of your argument, "you don't make sense".

When you get over yourself and stop acting like a child we can continue.

 

[Copernicus]

Too bad atheism is defined by "absence of belief", it's defined by "absence of belief in "God(s)"",not just merely lack of belief.

And this is the crux of the matter. All atheists lack the belief that gods exist. The question is whether that specific lack of belief licenses the use of the label "atheist" for someone. Most people think that the label applies to someone who additionally believes that gods do not exist. The negative belief is a necessary part of the meaning of atheism and atheist in most cases of usage. There seems to be no serious argument to ignore that requirement other than that some people insist on ignoring it. They advocate a broader usage that serves a purpose they do not feel needs explanation.

 

[Magic Man]

I have a pretty clear understanding of what they are, and your "absence of belief" digression is a perfect example of special pleading, an example of the straw man attacks would be your continual insults on a personal level, acting as if they hold any value to the debate.

As I said, you should really look up the terms and understand them before trying to use them. First, there is no "absence of belief digression"; it's part of the main topic. Second, even if it was a digression, it wouldn't be special pleading. Third, a personal attack is not a strawman. You can call it an ad hominem, if you want, but not a strawman. A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's argument that is much easier to argue against than the person's actual argument.

Too bad atheism is defined by "absence of belief", it's defined by "absence of belief in "God(s)"",not just merely lack of belief.

No, it's not too bad. It's actually quite good. Again, no one said it was the complete lack of beliefs. It's the absence of one particular belief. That means it's the absence of that belief, not the presence of another belief.

No where in the definition of atheism does it say "is not a belief", because it should be a simple explication that not believing in "God(s)" is a belief.

Again, simply repeating something isn't going to make it true. When you have the absence of something, you don't have that something. When you have the absence of a belief, you don't have that belief. You also don't necessarily have a different belief.

That is the core of your argument, "you don't make sense".

When you get over yourself and stop acting like a child we can continue.

That's quite a huge fail. Look, it's not my fault you don't make sense. It's not an argument; just an observation. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, say something that makes sense and cut out the personal attacks.

 

[Magic Man]

And this is the crux of the matter. All atheists lack the belief that gods exist.

Exactly. That is what all atheists have in common, which is why it's the best broad definition for it.

The question is whether that specific lack of belief licenses the use of the label "atheist" for someone. Most people think that the label applies to someone who additionally believes that gods do not exist.

Actually you haven't shown that to be true.

There seems to be no serious argument to ignore that requirement other than that some people insist on ignoring it. They advocate a broader usage that serves a purpose they do not feel needs explanation.

Hey, you're back to that smugness and dishonesty, huh? That's too bad. There are many serious arguments to ignore that requirement. Your refusal to acknowledge them doesn't make them any less serious or valid. Basically all you're doing at this point is "This is the case; others disagree with me, but they're wrong. They've provided arguments, but I refuse to acknowledge them as valid, so they're not". It's very childish and not becoming of you. I had hoped for a better dialog.

 

[Copernicus]

Again, simply repeating something isn't going to make it true. When you have the absence of something, you don't have that something. When you have the absence of a belief, you don't have that belief. You also don't necessarily have a different belief.

And you have repeated this many times as if anyone disagreed with it. The question is over whether atheism always implies a belief. We all agree that it implies a lack of belief in gods.

...If you want to have a meaningful conversation, say something that makes sense and cut out the personal attacks.

I wish that you would take a dose of the medicine you prescribe for others, but it is good advice for us all.

 

[Copernicus]

Exactly. That is what all atheists have in common, which is why it's the best broad definition for it.

All atheists have in common the fact that they are people, but that is not sufficient to define them. The question is whether it is sufficient to define atheists as people merely lacking belief in gods. You owe us something more than a repetition of your claim.

Actually you haven't shown that to be true.

I have rebutted what little evidence you have tried to offer (e.g. the Wikipedia article), and I have given evidence in the form of the preponderance of dictionary definitions and the infamous "baby" surveys. I have also provided criteria for evaluating definitions, which you simply reject out of hand.

Hey, you're back to that smugness and dishonesty, huh? That's too bad...

In the words of someone very dear to you: ...If you want to have a meaningful conversation, say something that makes sense and cut out the personal attacks. - Mball1297

There are many serious arguments to ignore that requirement. Your refusal to acknowledge them doesn't make them any less serious or valid. Basically all you're doing at this point is "This is the case; others disagree with me, but they're wrong. They've provided arguments, but I refuse to acknowledge them as valid, so they're not". It's very childish and not becoming of you. I had hoped for a better dialog.

What you describe here is my exact impression of your behavior, so, rather than to get into a pointless debate over who has the worse character--an argument which I am sure others see as having good arguments on both sides--lets try something different. Try to summarize the evidence for your position as you see it. I've done that for mine, but I honestly cannot think of many substantive arguments you've made to defend your side. A summary would clarify matters.

 

[Magic Man]

And you have repeated this many times as if anyone disagreed with it.

You should really pay more attention to Orias's posts.

I wish that you would take a dose of the medicine you prescribe for others, but it is good advice for us all.

I already do. What I say makes sense, and I generally refrain from personal attacks (unless they're warranted).

 

[Magic Man]

All atheists have in common the fact that they are people, but that is not sufficient to define them. The question is whether it is sufficient to define atheists as people merely lacking belief in gods. You owe us something more than a repetition of your claim.

Why do I owe you more than that? You have given no reason that my claim is incorrect. The problem with your "people" comparison is that theists are people too. Only atheists lack the belief in gods. It is the one thing that they all share that no one else has in common with them.

The biggest problem here is that you don't consider someone who only lacks belief in gods to be an atheist, and you still haven't given a good reason why that person shouldn't be considered an atheist. You've brought up usage, but a significant number of people uses it my way. You've brought up dictionary definitions, but there are dictionary definitions that support my usage, too. In the end, there is no good reason not to consider someone who simply lacks the belief in gods an atheist.

I have rebutted what little evidence you have tried to offer (e.g. the Wikipedia article), and I have given evidence in the form of the preponderance of dictionary definitions and the infamous "baby" surveys. I have also provided criteria for evaluating definitions, which you simply reject out of hand.

And yet you still haven't shown "most people use it my way" to be true. Also, the baby surveys do nothing. It's entirely possible for someone to think of an adult who has never heard of gods to be an atheist while thinking the label doesn't apply to babies. That was even shown in one of your threads. Just because someone doesn't think "atheist" can apply to babies doesn't mean they agree with your definition.

The criteria you provide for evaluating definitions conveniently supports you when you want it to but is then rejected when it doesn't support you.

In the words of someone very dear to you: ...If you want to have a meaningful conversation, say something that makes sense and cut out the personal attacks. - Mball1297

Indeed. That's why I pointed out your smugness and dishonesty again. You know you're pretty bad when you get a reaction out of Penguin like you did. He almost never uses words like that in reference to people. But anyway, I shouldn't have to explain to you that your repetition of my comment doesn't apply here. You're a lexicographer; you should be able to figure it out on your own.

What you describe here is my exact impression of your behavior, so, rather than to get into a pointless debate over who has the worse character--an argument which I am sure others see as having good arguments on both sides--lets try something different. Try to summarize the evidence for your position as you see it. I've done that for mine, but I honestly cannot think of many substantive arguments you've made to defend your side. A summary would clarify matters.

The summary for my argument is that a person who holds neither the belief "Gods exist" nor "Gods don't exist" is an atheist. The evidence for the accuracy of my argument is that there are many people who use it that way; it is the only way you can include all atheists and exclude all non-atheists; it is supported by dictionary definitions; it is the literal meaning of the word, "without belief in gods". There may be more, but that's what I can think of right now, and that's enough.

 

[gnomon]

It depends. How far can a laden swallow fly?

I'll just go ahead and throw myself back into the chasm.

 

[Orias]

As I said, you should really look up the terms and understand them before trying to use them. First, there is no "absence of belief digression"; it's part of the main topic.

Actually there is, since you are straying from the points at hand by saying atheism is just merely a "lack of belief" when its not.

Second, even if it was a digression, it wouldn't be special pleading.

But it is, since you only use One redundant point and act as if defines the whole belief of atheism.

Third, a personal attack is not a strawman. You can call it an ad hominem, if you want, but not a strawman. A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's argument that is much easier to argue against than the person's actual argument.

Personal insults are a complete and obvious explications of straw man tactics, you clearly misrepresent my argument by saying "you don't make sense".

No, it's not too bad. It's actually quite good. Again, no one said it was the complete lack of beliefs. It's the absence of one particular belief. That means it's the absence of that belief, not the presence of another belief.

What?

Make sense of this before you ensue yourself into an abyssal hole of mud.

Yea, and I never said it was a complete lack of beliefs, way to go make another straw man argument.

Again, simply repeating something isn't going to make it true. When you have the absence of something, you don't have that something. When you have the absence of a belief, you don't have that belief. You also don't necessarily have a different belief.

Again, simply repeating something isn't going to make it true.

There is no explication or implication in the definition of atheism that says "is not a belief".

There is no objective material to back up your connotative desire to back up your unsupported presupposition.

Atheism is "without "God(s)", or the belief that One possesses no "God(s)". If its not a belief, it wouldn't be used to describe One's "God" position.

That's quite a huge fail. Look, it's not my fault you don't make sense. It's not an argument; just an observation. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, say something that makes sense and cut out the personal attacks.

Yes, it should be obvious to a psychologist that for One to make sense out of something One must at least posses an ounce of sense themselves.

Way to bypass the mirror again on your way to out to your date.