Atheism: A belief?

[Orias]

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.

be·lief
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

"Without belief in "God(s)"" simply references not believing in a "God", you either believe a "God" exists, or you believe a "God" doesn't exist, or believe that a "God" could exist, or you believe that "God" is irrelevant either way.

In any situation, belief describes our apprehension on the subject matter, since we are all here displaying our beliefs, and they clearly Oppose each other, making them less than factual.

 

[shoinan]

be·lief
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

"Without belief in "God(s)"" simply references not believing in a "God", you either believe a "God" exists, or you believe a "God" doesn't exist, or believe that a "God" could exist, or you believe that "God" is irrelevant either way.

In any situation, belief describes our apprehension on the subject matter, since we are all here displaying our beliefs, and they clearly Oppose each other, making them less than factual.

Right. By those three definitions please explain how "I don't believe God exists" is a belief. What something do I accept and am convinced about as being true regards God's existence? If you say it's because I believe God doesn't exist, you're wrong. I don't.

 

[Copernicus]

Right. By those three definitions please explain how "I don't believe God exists" is a belief. What something do I accept and am convinced about as being true regards God's existence? If you say it's because I believe God doesn't exist, you're wrong. I don't.

That statement is ambiguous between a denial of belief and a denial of the object of belief (of which the latter interpretation seems more common in ordinary conversation). If we take it as a denial of belief rather than the object of belief, then it is a mere absence of belief. The question under discussion is not over whether denial of belief is possible, but over whether it is appropriate to use the word "atheism" to refer to mere absence of belief in gods. If it is appropriate, then it is reasonable to call babies 'atheists'. If it is not appropriate--that is, if it refers to denial of belief--then the denial constitutes a belief in its own right. In that case, it would not be appropriate to call babies 'atheists', because babies lack belief one way or the other. I hope that that explains the conundrum.

 

[Commoner]

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.

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.

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.

This isn't constructive. You simply refuse to address the point at all and continuously jump back to your little red herring about what can be described as a belief - which has little or nothing to do with what I'm arguing. So, stick a fork in me, I'm done.

 

[shoinan]

That statement is ambiguous between a denial of belief and a denial of the object of belief (of which the latter interpretation seems more common in ordinary conversation). If we take it as a denial of belief rather than the object of belief, then it is a mere absence of belief. The question under discussion is not over whether denial of belief is possible, but over whether it is appropriate to use the word "atheism" to refer to mere absence of belief in gods. If it is appropriate, then it is reasonable to call babies 'atheists'. If it is not appropriate--that is, if it refers to denial of belief--then the denial constitutes a belief in its own right. In that case, it would not be appropriate to call babies 'atheists', because babies lack belief one way or the other. I hope that that explains the conundrum.

It's deliberately ambiguous regards what you're stating because I agree with the definition of atheism as 'not thiesm' - ie: not believing in gods. As such, I fail to see what can be drawn beyond that from the statement.

Regards your second statement, if I put the conversationally redundant stipulation "in beings capable of understanding of a god concept' then we can exclude babies and other beings incapable of such a thing.

What you're then arguing is that I've come to some kind of conclusion because I'm capable of understanding the god concept and have. based on my understanding. rejected a belief in god, but this is too much inference. The statement ''I don't believe in a god concept I understand' doesn't explain why I don't at all. It asserts nothing about my not believing in gods except that I do not believe in gods. There's no implied truth or conviction or anything. For all you know I might understand the god concept but simply not care enough to pursue further knowledge or even thought of it. By my definition, I'd be an atheist. You may disagree with the definition all you want but that's not what I was asking with my question to Orias.

Now, I happen to think the overwhelming majority of atheists do have reasons for not believing in gods. I know I do. You could even call them beliefs. I would say it's fair to say 'most atheists have a belief about god, therefore most cases of atheism are derived from belief'. Does that make atheism a belief? No. The only thing atheism specifically talks about (by my definition) is an absence of belief in god. That's the only requirement.

Hence why I think strong atheism is atheism, but not the 'I believe Gods don't exist bit'. That is just the cause of atheism, as I said quite a while ago. If you believe Gods don't exist then naturally you don't believe they do exist, lest you be a contradiction. So the atheism may be derived, even dependent on the belief 'Gods don't exist', but it's still not a belief. I would actually suggest that the broader understanding of an atheist is 'someone who doesn't believe in God' but with the incorrect necessary inference that therefore that person believes gods do not exist. I've followed the thread a while so I know you likely disagree with me on this, but I'm only going by my experience. I think most people just think the two statements go hand in hand.

I think it's a red herring to blame political motivations in terms of a broader definition leading to an increased number of atheists - I'm sure that's the motivation for some people who'd prefer the 'absence of belief' definition. Personally, though, I get frustrated by people saying atheism is a belief because it's misrepresents me in terms of what I'm asserting about the existence of God. I'm largely agnostic about the existence of god, although I wouldn't assert my agnosticism as true - and I subscribe to the idea one can be an agnostic atheist. By people saying atheism is a belief they're trying to argue the atheist is putting forward something, asserting something about god. "If you don't believe in God then you must be A, B, or C'. This is false.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

[youtube]iLLz0kO36YA[/youtube]
YouTube - atheist = someone who lacks belief in a god. the atheist experience

I find that most arguments from people who want to see atheism a belief as stupid as this callers' arguments.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Yes, it is. It's the lack of the belief that gods exists.

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

First, there is no "whole belief of atheism". Second, even if this was the case, it still wouldn't be special pleading. Please just look up the term.

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

I understand that you're too far dug in to accept reality at this point, but it would be best for you to do so. A strawman is rephrasing someone's argument so that it's not the original argument, but instead an easier one to argue against. Personal insults are ad hominems, not strawmen. Saying "you don't make sense" is neither of the two.

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.

Which part couldn't you make sense of? It was pretty clear in a rational way. And I specifically said no one said it was a complete lack of beliefs. Please try to pay attention. You claimed that I have claimed it's a lack of all beliefs rather than just the lack of one particular belief. I was saying that I've never said that, and neither has anyone else.

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

What are you, 5?

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

OK, this is ridiculous. When a term means "the absence of something", that is another way of saying it is not that something. So, when something is the absence of a belief, it is not a belief. If it was a belief, it wouldn't be the absence of a belief. It's really not that hard of a concept.

 

[Orias]

Right. By those three definitions please explain how "I don't believe God exists" is a belief. What something do I accept and am convinced about as being true regards God's existence? If you say it's because I believe God doesn't exist, you're wrong. I don't.

Your own certainty.

Clearly those who argue atheism is not a belief posses no doubt about their conviction.

 

[Orias]

[youtube]iLLz0kO36YA[/youtube]
YouTube - atheist = someone who lacks belief in a god. the atheist experience

I find that most arguments from people who want to see atheism a belief as stupid as this callers' arguments.

This didn't touch down on any of the points.

And yes, atheism is hardly a world view when 2.5% of the world claims they are atheists while another 12.5% says they are non-religious.

Something can hardly be a world view when it is marginalized, indoctrinated and moves as a flock.

I find people that don't support their arguments, as stupid as people who think that anything that is believed is not a belief. Which they did not do.

Just goes to show the ill-perception of most people who act as if they know something.

Oh yes, I would totally consider your argument if I haven't heard the same thing from every atheist. And you all claim its not a world view, you must of had some sort of seceret meeting.

Please, I would hate to start comparing Atheists to Christians. Its just an observation, the possessive grasp atheists have on their belief is starting to look more and more like their immaculate counter parts.

"Its not a world view", though clearly every atheist that has stopped by this thread has provided the same exact argument and almost expects it to dogmatically be accepted as true.

Try again.

 

[shoinan]

Your own certainty.

Clearly those who argue atheism is not a belief posses no doubt about their conviction.

My own certainty of what exactly?

Your second sentence is demonstrably incorrect AND irrelevant. Neither am I certain about my argument being correct, nor is it relevant to whether atheism is a belief or not. Please, using the definitions you listed for belief and relating specifically to the statement 'I don't believe in god' as a defining expression of atheism explain why atheism is a belief. Otherwise concede that your argument is incorrect.

 

[Orias]

My own certainty of what exactly?

Your second sentence is demonstrably incorrect AND irrelevant. Neither am I certain about my argument being correct, nor is it relevant to whether atheism is a belief or not. Please, using the definitions you listed for belief and relating specifically to the statement 'I don't believe in god' as a defining expression of atheism explain why atheism is a belief. Otherwise concede that your argument is incorrect.

You should know, your an agnostic.

 

[Falvlun]

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.



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



Sure, but it's not just one belief.



Good, because I'm not doing that.



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?



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



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



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?



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.

There is no point in debating with you any longer. Good luck with your crusade.

 

[shoinan]

You should know, your an agnostic.

Again, irrelevant unless you explain why. I'm talking purely about the statement 'I don't believe in God'. Correspond 'I don't believe in God' to a belief that is clearly evident in atheism.

"I don't believe in God" = "I believe _________________"?

 

[Vampiel]

I've also recently had the same question about a belief in an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex. One of my friends is convinced that an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex exists in his hometown. Every day he points out how a new pothole came up when cars don’t drive down that road as proof for its existence. Once a large chunk of a building fell off of it for no apparent reason and once again he points out that as more proof of its existence. I questioned him why it only happens rarely and the answer he gave me was that the invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex works in mysterious ways and only reveals itself scarcely.


I personally find the idea ridiculous and reject the idea of such an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex roaming around our town. Since I do not share his belief he has labeled me an Aiptr– one who lacks belief in the invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex.

Now that I’m Aiptr I am glad of this new found belief that he has assigned to me. I wonder how many other beliefs that I don’t have will become beliefs?


Can you think of something that I may not believe in to add to my list of beliefs?


I have a few non-beliefs which you may also share to add to my belief list :
Aunicornist
Alepricanist
Afairiest
Alargegreenmonsterist


If you could help me with my list of beliefs it would be appreciated!

 

[Orias]

Again, irrelevant unless you explain why. I'm talking purely about the statement 'I don't believe in God'. Correspond 'I don't believe in God' to a belief that is clearly evident in atheism.

"I don't believe in God" = "I believe _________________"?

Your going to try and pull the "I believe no God exists", is different from, "I don't believe in a God."

The factuality of that point is that believe is used in both sentences to reference One's "God" position.

The strength of the standard does not exclude it as being a belief because the very definition of belief states that it is something of conviction, and utmost certainty, which almost every atheist that has come by in this has had.

Some have even provided the argument that being believed is different from a belief, which is just unfounded and the lack of the ability to connect the dots.

I provided the example that a computer, and a horse are beliefs, because they are "believed" to be, when the only factual knowledge of this belief is how the label is applied to the subject at hand.

Grammaticaly wise "I believe a God doesn't exist", and "I don't believe a God exists" both hold the same analogical meaning, that One is "without God". A position and belief provided among the strong and deceitful foundation that One has "unbelief" of "God" as it so seemingly defines "unbelief" period.

When talking about a concept that has yet to be proven, or can't be proven, like metaphysical Aspects (God), it is a weak belief in comparison to that of the material or objectional world.

"What if" situations only practically apply in realistic and action wise measures, whereas concepts, labels, and voice only describe what One externally and internally processes.

 

[Falvlun]

I've also recently had the same question about a belief in an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex. One of my friends is convinced that an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex exists in his hometown. Every day he points out how a new pothole came up when cars don’t drive down that road as proof for its existence. Once a large chunk of a building fell off of it for no apparent reason and once again he points out that as more proof of its existence. I questioned him why it only happens rarely and the answer he gave me was that the invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex works in mysterious ways and only reveals itself scarcely.


I personally find the idea ridiculous and reject the idea of such an invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex roaming around our town. Since I do not share his belief he has labeled me an Aiptr– one who lacks belief in the invisible pink tyrannosaurus rex.

Now that I’m Aiptr I am glad of this new found belief that he has assigned to me. I wonder how many other beliefs that I don’t have will become beliefs?


Can you think of something that I may not believe in to add to my list of beliefs?


I have a few non-beliefs which you may also share to add to my belief list :
Aunicornist
Alepricanist
Afairiest
Alargegreenmonsterist


If you could help me with my list of beliefs it would be appreciated!

Would you say you believe that the Invisible Pink Dinosaur does not exist? If you do, then you have a belief: The belief that the Invisible Pink Dinosaur does not exist.

If you are undecided-- you lack both the belief that the IPD exists and the belief that the IPD does not exist-- then you don't have a belief.

So, are you on the fence about the IPD or not? That is what determines whether you have a belief or not.

 

[Copernicus]

I have a few non-beliefs which you may also share to add to my belief list :
Aunicornist
Alepricanist
Afairiest
Alargegreenmonsterist

If you could help me with my list of beliefs it would be appreciated!

If you want a list of names of all the negative beliefs you have, then I would say that you have your life's work cut out for you, although you may never finish it. Myself, I don't have time to help you with that, but I will talk to you about your positive and negative beliefs concerning gods.

 

[Copernicus]

The summary for my argument is that a person who holds neither the belief "Gods exist" nor "Gods don't exist" is an atheist..."

Yes, this is where we definitely disagree. For me, both theists and atheists are people who take a stand on the existence of gods. There are people who fall into neither camp--the ones who, for whatever reason, have no position on whether they exist. It is worth noting that most of the people here who disagree with my definition of atheism are atheists by my definition. They just do not believe that their belief in the non-existence of gods is what truly licenses the use of the label "atheist". It is a very nuanced position, IMO.

...The evidence for the accuracy of my argument is that there are many people who use it that way;

That's a legitimate argument, but I think that you have an exaggerated view of the numbers. There are grounds to believe that not even the majority of atheists use it that way.

it is the only way you can include all atheists and exclude all non-atheists;

Be careful here. We have a different view of who qualifies as an "atheist" and a "non-atheist". When you say things like this, you appear to be begging the question.

it is supported by dictionary definitions;

Actually, almost all dictionaries give my sense of the word as the primary definition. Your "lack" word occurs more rarely and only as a secondary sense. I have only found a couple of dictionaries (out of about 30) that use "absence of belief" as a secondary meaning. And you may be putting too fine a point on how to construe the wording. In other words, your definition is, at best, a marginal usage.

it is the literal meaning of the word, "without belief in gods".

I've raised the criticism of "etymological fallacy" against this type of argument, but it clearly hasn't dissuaded you from that kind of support for your position.

There may be more, but that's what I can think of right now, and that's enough.

Thanks. That was a decent summary. I have given my responses, but you've seen those before. We can "agree to disagree" as the old cliche goes.

 

[Vampiel]

Would you say you believe that the Invisible Pink Dinosaur does not exist? If you do, then you have a belief: The belief that the Invisible Pink Dinosaur does not exist.

If you are undecided-- you lack both the belief that the IPD exists and the belief that the IPD does not exist-- then you don't have a belief.

So, are you on the fence about the IPD or not? That is what determines whether you have a belief or not.

So lack of having hair equates to having hair? I don't have any hair - therefore that's the same as I have hair since I lack it?

A belief has to hold something to believe *in*, not a lack of that belief - not believing in said thing does not equate to being a belief simply because you dismiss it. As my satire demonstrated, simply not knowing or not believing in any number of things any person can believe in does not equate it to me having a belief because I lack belief in X. It is the opposite of holding that belief (non-belief of X), it doesn't make it one. My friend assigned me with a belief because I lacked his - but I never had one in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say I have XXXXX number of beliefs because of my non-belief in all of them.

Non-belief and belief are not the same thing.

 

[Falvlun]

So lack of having hair equates to having hair? I don't have any hair - therefore that's the same as I have hair since I lack it?

A belief has to hold something to believe *in*, not a lack of that belief - not believing in said thing does not equate to being a belief simply because you dismiss it. As my satire demonstrated, simply not knowing or not believing in any number of things any person can believe in does not equate it to me having a belief because I lack belief in X. It is the opposite of holding that belief (non-belief of X), it doesn't make it one. My friend assigned me with a belief because I lacked his - but I never had one in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say I have XXXXX number of beliefs because of my non-belief in all of them.

Non-belief and belief are not the same thing.

Did you even read what I wrote?

You are right-- if you have no opinion, no stance, then you lack both beliefs, and therefore have no belief on the matter. However, if you do have a position-- even if that opinion is that God does not exist-- then you have a belief.

It goes without saying that belief and non-belief are not the same thing. But, belief in a positive claim and belief in a negative claim are the same thing-- they are both beliefs.