Atheism: A belief?

[Gloone]

You don't have to have encountered any god-concept to have a conception of the world that the word "atheistic" accurately describes. This is because our theistic culture came up with the word. Since "theism" means something to us, it also means something to us to describe belief systems with no supernatural deities as "atheistic": without belief in gods. It doesn't have to mean anything to them to be described as "atheistic".

I can agree with that. I didn't think Atheism was a word that just sprang up in modern cultures though. I have always seen it as someone that deliberately doesn't believe in a god concept.

Granted, "theistic" and "atheistic" are not words that can be usefully applied until a framework of belief has been constructed. So, infants are neither theists nor atheists: as they have no beliefs, adjectives relating to whether their beliefs do or do not contain gods are inapplicable.

I can agree with that too.

Once a framework of beliefs exists, it becomes possible to look at that world view and assess whether or not gods are a part of it. If so, it is theistic. If not, it is atheistic.

Would you call that as something being self-evident or something else?

 

[Alceste]

I can agree with that. I didn't think Atheism was a word that just sprang up in modern cultures though. I have always seen it as someone that deliberately doesn't believe in a god concept.

Well, "deliberately" implies too much. There is no effort at all involved, in most cases. The proposition that a god exists is simply implausible. Do we "deliberately" not believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or is it simply obvious to most of us that no pot of gold awaits, and do we simply accept that trying to believe in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is too much of a bother?

Would you call that as something being self-evident or something else?

I would call it the dictionary definition of theism and atheism. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Copernicus]

So it is more like a facade, to protect their position?

No, I think that theists do carry the burden of proof, other things being equal. But there is a tendency on both sides of the debate to be lazy. Theists would love to sit back and have atheists knock themselves out trying to disprove the existence of God or gods. Atheists would love to sit back and shoot down attempts of theists to prove that God exists. Although atheists may be technically correct that theists carry the burden of proof, that is a non-starter for theists. There are all sorts of mythical beings that I believe do not exist, and gods are among them. I don't merely lack belief in Santa Claus. I positively believe that he does not exist. There aint no Santa Claus, and there aint no gods, either. :sorry1:, Virginia.

 

[Gloone]

Well, "deliberately" implies too much. There is no effort at all involved, in most cases. The proposition that a god exists is simply implausible. Do we "deliberately" not believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or is it simply obvious to most of us that no pot of gold awaits, and do we simply accept that trying to believe in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is too much of a bother?

I will be on the other side of the rainbow with your pot of gold!:clover:

I would probably say it is a waste of time, why bother, unless you knew something might be at the end and how do you know there isn't unless you have actually seen what is on the other side.

 

[Alceste]

I will be on the other side of the rainbow with your pot of gold!:clover:

I would probably say it is a waste of time, why bother, unless you knew something might be at the end and how do you know there isn't unless you have actually seen what is on the other side.

Seriously? How do I know a pot of gold doesn't sit at the end of every rainbow?

I know what causes rainbows, and I know what causes pots of gold. That's how.

 

[Gloone]

Seriously? How do I know a pot of gold doesn't sit at the end of every rainbow?

I know what causes rainbows, and I know what causes pots of gold. That's how.

Okay, I was just making sure. You are funny.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just find it funny that fact is defined by belief. But I completely agree with you.

Facts of language and of concepts are defined by belief, in the form of definitions, yes.

 

[cottage]

Alright, I've been having this discussion with a few atheists on a few different threads and decided it was time to make a thread directed and specified towards this concept.

Now, I have had atheists tell me that atheism isn't a belief (the weak ones), while I have had other atheists tell me that atheism is a belief (the strong ones). Now, weak atheists seem to agree (from what I have observed) that strong atheism is a belief.


From my understanding of these definitions (and perhaps a "weak" solipsistic viewpoint), everything "known" is believed.

One has tried to argue that, "If Atheism is a belief, then provide a belief that is specific to Atheism." It seems to me that this argument is excruciatingly narrow, yet concrete, and I suppose I have Kilgore Trout to thank for that.

But I also find this argument rather frail, since I could ask, what is a belief specific to Satanism, or Christianity, or Islam, etc. etc.

I have yet to find a unique position where a belief is specific to that "classification", since in reality, a thoroughly in depth explanation of one's sincere and honest belief can only concede that these specified beliefs would come in conflict with each other.

Which means, that belief isn't necessarily specified to the classification of the belief, rather to the specification of the beholder of the belief.

Enlighten me.

It is my view that there has been a failure to address what is really the core issue in these discussions. There have been numerous threads on this same subject all arguing the point that atheism is somehow akin to religious belief. In every case it seems to me that the purpose is to interpret atheism as being on a par with belief as faith in order to defend the commitment against what unbelievers might see as being irrational, superstitious, or even mere fantasy. ‘We all have our beliefs’ is the charge, then, as if the two positions were somehow equal! That is plainly nonsense. Atheism even at its most extreme is only response to theism: no theism, then no atheism. Atheists do not believe ‘There are no gods’ as a matter of profound faith any more than a theist (or anyone else) believes, with the same level of commitment, that ‘There are no aliens’.

The absolute crux of the matter is to recognise that the mystic’s committed and emotional belief in God, or gods, is a different species altogether from those who have no reason to believe in such; even the most ardent or strong atheists make no claims to certainty, but are constrained by what can be empirically and logically known. Therefore it is both mistaken and misleading to infer, as a general principle, that from a belief that x or y may be true it is the case that one believes x or y is true.

 

[atanu]

It is my view that there has been a failure to address what is really the core issue in these discussions. There have been numerous threads on this same subject all arguing the point that atheism is somehow akin to religious belief. In every case it seems to me that the purpose is to interpret atheism as being on a par with belief as faith in order to defend the commitment against what unbelievers might see as being irrational, superstitious, or even mere fantasy. ‘We all have our beliefs’ is the charge, then, as if the two positions were somehow equal! That is plainly nonsense. Atheism even at its most extreme is only response to theism: no theism, then no atheism. Atheists do not believe ‘There are no gods’ as a matter of profound faith any more than a theist (or anyone else) believes, with the same level of commitment, that ‘There are no aliens’.

The absolute crux of the matter is to recognise that the mystic’s committed and emotional belief in God, or gods, is a different species altogether from those who have no reason to believe in such; even the most ardent or strong atheists make no claims to certainty, but are constrained by what can be empirically and logically known. Therefore it is both mistaken and misleading to infer, as a general principle, that from a belief that x or y may be true it is the case that one believes x or y is true.

Cottage, I agree.

But is it not a view from one side? The emotional fervour with which it is denied that atheism may also be a kind of belief, suggests to me that most ardent atheists do make claims to absolute certainty.

...

 

[bobhikes]

As far as I know it still can not be proven that God does not exist. Since all atheists believe god does not exist, unless they can provide proof it is a belief.

What I have found is the ones that claim atheism is not a belief use the proof that they don't have to prove god exists like you don't have to prove flying unicorns exist. It is the people that believe in God that have to prove it.

Basically it translates to

You only have to provide proof for things you know are already proven.

Not very rational.

 

[Orias]

same subject all arguing the point that atheism is somehow akin to religious belief.

I never said religious. At all. Which undermines your argument as my claim for atheism being a religious faith.

Tis merely a concept people believe in, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't take such a label unto themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said religious. At all. Which undermines your argument as my claim for atheism being a religious faith.
Tis merely a concept people believe in, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't take such a label unto themselves.

When atheism is just an opinion, it doesn't seem to qualify as a "belief".

 

[LuisDantas]

Strong Atheism is (barely) a belief. Maltheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a belief.

Weak Atheism, however, is not a belief, and by extension neither is Atheism. Neither are apatheism and other related stances.

 

[LuisDantas]

Cottage, I agree.

But is it not a view from one side? The emotional fervour with which it is denied that atheism may also be a kind of belief, suggests to me that most ardent atheists do make claims to absolute certainty.

...

To me it suggests instead that the desire to get rid of the pressure for believing and "being saved" can be very strong, Atanu

 

[Thief]

And again...here we go....no one wants to get got holding the bag.

Any declaration is a belief.

If you say yeah....it's because you think you should.
If you say nay.... it's because you think you should refrain.

Either way....
Your words and deeds are the result of your declaration....your belief.

If you happen to be wrong.....too bad....later on.

Treating your nay saying as a 'non-belief'...is a cop out.

You can't say you don't 'believe'...without using the word...'believe'.

And such words have no consequence?

When you make argument and display it as we do here...
you are influencing someone else's life.

So the atheist argues hard to 'the belief' there is no God.
The consequence?....no 'belief'...no continuance.

Consequence again?...yeah.
If your words derail someone else...you can be held accountable.

If you insist there is no life after death...
you'd better be right.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Well, as Atheism in the lack of BELIEF, in a God, then I don't see how it can been seen as a belief?

 

[Revoltingest]

Criminy! Who ever thought not believing in gods could be so complicated?

 

[LuisDantas]

As far as I know it still can not be proven that God does not exist. Since all atheists believe god does not exist, unless they can provide proof it is a belief.

You're essentially claiming that weak atheists don't exist, and that is not true.

What I have found is the ones that claim atheism is not a belief use the proof that they don't have to prove god exists like you don't have to prove flying unicorns exist. It is the people that believe in God that have to prove it.

It is a burden, not a proof. But otherwise that is correct. Atheism doesn't necessarily have to be justified. Neither has Theism, really.

Basically it translates to

You only have to provide proof for things you know are already proven.

Not very rational.

Uh? I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Criminy! Who ever thought not believing in gods could be so complicated?

Yeah. And I thought it was difficult to get a driver's license...

 

[Alceste]

Cottage, I agree.

But is it not a view from one side? The emotional fervour with which it is denied that atheism may also be a kind of belief, suggests to me that most ardent atheists do make claims to absolute certainty.

...

Nobody enjoys being misrepresented. I don't believe it is "emotional fervour". The atheists I've seen entering into the debate seem to me to be incredibly patient and unperturbed in the face of much smarmy bigotry and incessant misrepresentation. Kind of like Mormons, generally.

Fact is, it is only a little irritating to have things you don't believe in erroneously ascribed to you and attacked. It isn't upsetting.

The silly idea that atheism is a world view / belief system / religion is like a many-headed hydra. Every time you chop one head off, it grows two more. Theists just can't seem to get enough of it.