Atheism: A belief?

[Wombat]

What dictionary is this? The Complete Lexicon of Incorrect Definitions?

Possibly the same one that defines CAPS,exclamation&question mark, >emphasis< and facepalm as-

"a whole bunch of >PERSONAL INSULTS<"!!??

 

[atanu]

One can concede a slim possibility that gods might exist without believing in any. In fact, that is the position a strict empiricist must hold, as a skeptic believes nothing without conclusive evidence. I am not of the opinion the question of god's existence is insoluble, so I am not an agnostic. I do not believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist. I would become a theist tomorrow if conclusive empirical evidence of the existence of a god came to light.

I do not have an opinion. I just pointed out the 3 level defintion of Wiki. Your and Eliot's views will certainly gain ground and get included as another view.
...

 

[Wombat]

After reading this thread, it seems to me that an atheist does not believe that no God exists. But Atheist knows that no God exists. Just as a Theist knows that God/s exists/exist. :sarcastic

...

This "gnosis"/"knowing" at both ends of the spectrum being the reason Huxley coined 'Agnostic'-

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

Thomas Huxley.

 

[Alceste]

I do not have an opinion. I just pointed out the 3 level defintion of Wiki. Your and Eliot's views will certainly gain ground and get included as another view.
...

It is already included in the definition you posted. See "lack of belief". That's why we're giving you these: :sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

Possibly the same one that defines CAPS,exclamation&question mark, >emphasis< and facepalm as-

"a whole bunch of >PERSONAL INSULTS<"!!??

Ohh, dragging pointless BS that died in your pet thread into another thread to be revived. How tacky. Ignore engaged.

 

[atanu]

It is already included in the definition you posted. See "lack of belief". That's why we're giving you these: :sarcastic

Atheism is defined as 'absence of belief in deities' and not mere absence of belief.

From Wikipedia

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

BY which model you are an atheist? Eliot said he was an Atheist as below:

I consider myself an atheist
.....
One can certainly hold the position that gods might exist but no one has presented them an acceptible model that seems plausible. That is my position and I believe it makes me an atheist.
....
However, if you disagree with me because you believe I must either be for or against something, that by denying one or more god models I am staking a position that none at all exist, then I say you are dead wrong.

...

 

[Wombat]

Ohh, dragging pointless BS that died in your pet thread into another thread to be revived. How tacky. Ignore engaged.

I concur...the proposition that- CAPS,exclamation&question mark, >emphasis< and facepalm constitute -"a whole bunch of >PERSONAL INSULTS<"!!??” is “pointless BS”.

Dragging it here serves to remind how widespread the use of ‘Complete Lexicon of Incorrect Definitions’ has become.

“Ignore engaged.”

Mortified.

 

[Magic Man]

It might be easier if we came up with a list that makes it easier on people and allows them to identify whether they are atheists or not.

Actually, it's really easy. When asked the question "Do you believe God exists?", if you answer "No", then you're an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

Only inasmuch as answering "no" to a simple question constitutes an "activity". Then again, many atheists will never be asked that question. No question, no "active disbelief."

Answering constitutes an "activity", yes.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, it's really easy. When asked the question "Do you believe God exists?", if you answer "No", then you're an atheist.

It is not as easy as you think, because the response could be taken as a denial of holding a belief or as a denial of the content of belief. This is the ambiguity that everyone in this thread has been dancing around. Less ambiguous responses would be "I have no belief one way or the other", "I do not understand what 'God' means", "I believe that he does not", etc. Generally speaking, however, an answer of "no" to such a question would be taken as consistent with denial of the assertion "God exists".

Perhaps people missed atanu's rather subtle distinction between 'absence of belief in deities' and 'mere absence of belief', but I think that he was trying to make an important point. I do not believe that Washington DC is in Pennsylvania. That is not merely a claim that I have a mere absence of belief, and it would not normally be taken as such. It is a claim that I believe the proposition "Washington DC is not in Pennsylvania." To claim that it was only an assertion of "mere absence of belief" would be disingenuous.

 

[Alceste]

Copernicus, do you acknowledge the distinction between belief IN and belief THAT?

The geography question is the latter, the god question is the former, so the analogy doesn't really work.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, do you acknowledge the distinction between belief IN and belief THAT?

I think that you need to repeat what you think the difference is.

The geography question is the latter, the god question is the former, so the analogy doesn't really work.

Mball's question was a "belief that" question, so, by your own analysis, the geography analogy applies. You need to show more clearly why you think they are different.

 

[Willamena]

To say you "believe in" a thing is to say that you've taken a proposition to be true. You "believe that [state proposition here]".

The difference is that "believe in" is the intransitive form.

(Hope I got that right.)

 

[atanu]

It just goes to prove that vak-the word is a lady, personified by Willa and Al and many other ladies.

 

[Copernicus]

To say you "believe in" a thing is to say that you've taken a proposition to be true. You "believe that [state proposition here]".

The difference is that "believe in" is the intransitive form.

(Hope I got that right.)

Well, not quite. The verb "believe in" is really a verb+preposition construction like "decide on". It is a transitive construction that can have several different senses, just like the "believe that" construction. Saying something like "I believe in unicorns" is roughly equivalent to saying "I believe that unicorns exist". It can also mean something like "I put my trust in unicorns", although that requires an imaginary context to make sense. If you say "I believe in America", that can be another way of saying that you put your faith and trust in what America will do. You tend not to equate it with "I believe that America exists", because that would be an unnecessary thing to say in a conversation where the participants believe that America exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps people missed atanu's rather subtle distinction between 'absence of belief in deities' and 'mere absence of belief', but I think that he was trying to make an important point. I do not believe that Washington DC is in Pennsylvania. That is not merely a claim that I have a mere absence of belief, and it would not normally be taken as such. It is a claim that I believe the proposition "Washington DC is not in Pennsylvania." To claim that it was only an assertion of "mere absence of belief" would be disingenuous.

I'll ask you the question that I asked someone in another thread (though he didn't want to play along): do you believe that I had eggs for breakfast this morning?

If your answer is no, does this imply that you believe I didn't have eggs for breakfast this morning?

 

[Orias]

Haven't we seen all this so many times before? A theist takes exception to an atheist's criticism of his or her faith-based, doctrinal beliefs.

Incorrect, though it is agreeable that a majority is indoctrinated in multiple tenets. And it is as faithful as your faithfulness clings to skepticism.

The point is, a majority of people would actually change to what would be a hypothetical "truth" or discovery of the existence of "God(s)". Sure, we are all "skeptics", everyone adheres to their own path, not some strict denomination of a "belief".

The theist comes back with the charge that atheists, too, are blindly committed to an opposing doctrinal belief. A number of atheists immediately fall out with one another and engage in a protracted discussion about what it means to be an atheist - all of which completely misses the point!

This exactly proves my point. Your point is as subtle as everyone else's.

If it is a question of what is believed then surely it is the nature of the belief that settles the matter? The theist holds to a belief dogmatically, as an article of faith (whereas the atheist does not) and if no evidence is necessary to affirm the faith then no evidence is going to disabuse the theist of his or her belief.

Ha, dogmatic. If one did not think so highly of his opinion, he would hardly consider others dogmatic.

Faith is considered strong belief in the truth, it doesn't have to be supernatural, merely developed.

In contrast, the atheists' position is entirely evidence based.

On the inconsistency of man's labels? Evidence is subjected to axioms.

If God exists were demonstrably true and factually evident then even the most ardent atheist or anti-theist must concede that truth.

Not apatheists.

So it is specious to pretend that atheistic belief is the same as theistic belief when the latter by its very definition cannot accommodate doubt.

It was never mentioned that atheistic "belief" is the same as theistic "belief".

Sure it can, a theist may have a strong belief in one "God" while having "doubtful" beliefs in others, and some to just down right laugh at

 

[Orias]

If your answer is no, does this imply that you believe I didn't have eggs for breakfast this morning?

Yes it would.

 

[atanu]

I'll ask you the question that I asked someone in another thread (though he didn't want to play along): do you believe that I had eggs for breakfast this morning?

If your answer is no, does this imply that you believe I didn't have eggs for breakfast this morning?

How does that apply to theism and its contrast atheism?

From Wiki
Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Kindly, note that we are not saying anything against atheism or theism.

...

 

[Alceste]

I think that you need to repeat what you think the difference is.

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Belief that implies definition 1, belief in implies definition 3. I believe in my partner, for example. I can say that to him and it makes perfect sense. But if I say I believe that my partner, it's gibberish. Something else is needed - I believe that my partner will succeed, for example. To say one "believes in God" is not necessarily to say that one believes that God literally exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. Likewise, to not believe in God is not to believe that God literally does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. While one might sometimes not believe in any gods and also believe that no gods exist, it is only a logical overlap. It is not complete, seamless redundancy.