Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes it would.

:sarcastic

So... which is it? Do you believe that I had eggs this morning? Or do you believe that I had something other than eggs? It's an either-or matter, because there are no other options... right?

Or are there?

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.

...

In the analogy, "theism" would be like believing that I had eggs this morning. "Atheism" would be any case that is not theism. The case where a person has no beliefs about what I had for breakfast (i.e. neither positively accepts that I had eggs for breakfast nor positively accepts that I didn't have eggs) would be like the case of the person who has no beliefs about gods, yet is an atheist.

 

[atanu]

:sarcastic

In the analogy, "theism" would be like believing that I had eggs this morning. "Atheism" would be any case that is not theism. The case where a person has no beliefs about what I had for breakfast (i.e. neither positively accepts that I had eggs for breakfast nor positively accepts that I didn't have eggs) would be like the case of the person who has no beliefs about gods, yet is an atheist.

Ha Ha. You wish others to keep wondering: He no a theist, so what is his belief?

But, you know.

...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ha Ha. You wish others to keep wondering: He no a theist, so what is his belief?

If you don't believe I had eggs for breakfast, then what do you believe I had?

But seriously, it could be anything. But the question isn't whether atheists believe things (they generally do); the question is whether atheism is a belief. The one question implies nothing about the other.

 

[Alceste]

Ha Ha. You wish others to keep wondering: He no a theist, so what is his belief?

But, you know.

...

If anybody asks what I believe, I'll talk their ears off. If they ask whether I "believe in god", whatever that means, the conversation will be shorter.

 

[Copernicus]

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?

I have no idea.

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

That was not my answer. If I had said "no", then I would have expected you to think that I had a reason to believe that you did not have eggs for breakfast. There is a big difference between denying that you have a belief and denying the object of belief.

 

[atanu]

If you don't believe I had eggs for breakfast, then what do you believe I had?

You probably had nothing for breakfast and are suffering from hunger pang.

But seriously, it could be anything. But the question isn't whether atheists believe things (they generally do); the question is whether atheism is a belief. The one question implies nothing about the other.

In the example, it could be egg versus anything. But, in contrast, by definition atheism is in position of contrast to theism. Kindly refer to the earlier citation from Wiki.

I agree that saying 'Atheism is a belief' is wrong wording, as explained by Willamena earlier. Yet, atheism involves taking a position based on some understanding, which some may call as belief and some may call knowing. And again, as explained by Willamena, knowing, does not mean that belief has become no-belief.
...

 

[Thief]

And the word game continues.....

Do you BELIEVE in God?......
Do you BELIEVE He does not exist?.....

Either way....it's a belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And the word game continues.....

Do you BELIEVE in God?......
Do you BELIEVE He does not exist?.....

Either way....it's a belief.

You don't pay all that much attention, do you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea.

You have no idea what you believe? Don't you know your own mind?

I'm not asking you to tell me what I had for breakfast; I'm asking you about your beliefs about what I had for breakfast.

Another way of phrasing my question is this: does the set "what Copernicus believes about what Penguin had for breakfast" include the item "Copernicus believes Penguin had eggs"?

If your response is the set is empty (i.e. you have no beliefs about what I had for breakfast), then the answer is "no". An empty set contains no items at all, so it therefore does not contain the item "Copernicus believes Penguin had eggs".

That was not my answer.

I know. My follow-up didn't work with your response because you didn't really answer the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that saying 'Atheism is a belief' is wrong wording, as explained by Willamena earlier. Yet, atheism involves taking a position based on some understanding, which some may call as belief and some may call knowing.

If you're saying that a person has to declare himself to be an atheist before he can be an atheist, then I disagree.

And again, as explained by Willamena, knowing, does not mean that belief has become no-belief.

I never said it did. Again: I'm not saying that atheists don't believe things. I'm saying that atheism is defined simply by lack of belief in gods, not by anything else. An atheist could actively believe that no gods exist or even know this with certainty, but none of that is relevant, because these things aren't necessary for the label "atheist".

 

[Frank Merton]

And the word game continues.....

Do you BELIEVE in God?......
Do you BELIEVE He does not exist?.....

Either way....it's a belief.

I think maybe there is a subtlety here you miss. When a theist "believes in God," he is usually talking about real belief on which much of his or her life is based. The theist is talking about faith.

When an atheist says they don't believe in God, except for an absence of church in their lives, the belief has little effect on them. It doesn't change their moral system or alter their behavior, and they think of the absence of belief as more of an opinion, certainly not as faith.

Therefore the two are not simply opposite sides of a coin.

 

[Alceste]

There is a big difference between denying that you have a belief and denying the object of belief.

Eureka, I think you've found it. Well done, Penguin.

 

[Alceste]

I think maybe there is a subtlety here you miss. When a theist "believes in God," he is usually talking about real belief on which much of his or her life is based. The theist is talking about faith.

When an atheist says they don't believe in God, except for an absence of church in their lives, the belief has little effect on them. It doesn't change their moral system or alter their behavior, and they think of the absence of belief as more of an opinion, certainly not as faith.

Therefore the two are not simply opposite sides of a coin.

The funny thing is, by insisting atheism is faith-based rather than the outcome of an empirical approach to knowledge, theists implicitly acknowledge they understand empiricism is superior to faith.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

 

[atanu]

If you're saying that a person has to declare himself to be an atheist before he can be an atheist, then I disagree.

I know. Some people say that stones are atheists.

---- I'm saying that atheism is defined simply by lack of belief in gods, not by anything else. ---

I accept this definition. OK. IMO, we have already discussed this and I know there will not be any change of position. Merely for the sake of record the following is noted.

Your logic runs along the line that if something is absent, then it cannot also be present at the same time. Just as lacking hair cannot be still having hair. Or a lack of X cannot still be an X.

Hair is an object of cognition. X is an object of cognition. But no one can say that 'belief' is an object of something else, since that something else is unknown. That which is the subject is known only by subjective knowledge -- namely beliefs.

Thus 'belief' is not an object of cognition but is practically synonymous with cognition and the cogniser itself. Belief, in this case, is the subject which has as its object either 'God' or 'No God'. Belief is present in both the cases as the substratum -- as the subject.

Lack of belief can reasonably be attributed to agnostics who claim ignorance, as well as to noncognitivists who claim puzzlement but cannot be attributed for positive atheists who have made a positive choice not to believe. Otherwise, a stone can also be called an atheist.

Actually, this thread, continually adds to my belief that gnostic-atheist is not ready to acknowledge that his atheism is a world view just as theism is. Gnostic-atheist takes his belief as the truth. And this is fully different from the position of agnostic-atheist who believes that the thing in itself is unknowable or that the reality is immanent.

It is wrongly held by some that among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy; Samkhya system does not accept God and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God. This notion is wrong since both these schools actually derive the necessity of an unchanging Purusha - Person -- an idea which is more Theistic than the philosophy of Vedanta, which believes the highest principle to be homogeneous, made of knowledge itself. So, the question arises: What knowledge will know the knowledge itself?

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And the word game continues.....

Do you BELIEVE in God?......
Do you BELIEVE He does not exist?.....

Either way....it's a belief.

Yeah, so those of us who hold neither of those beliefs have no belief regarding god.

Simple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know. Some people say that stones are atheists.

Strictly speaking, I suppose this is true... just as it would also be true to say that stones are apolitical, asexual, and non-smokers. However, I think it's generally not useful to talk about the beliefs (or lack thereof) of stones, so there are very few contexts where the atheism of stones would be relevant, IMO.

Lack of belief can reasonably be attributed to agnostics who claim ignorance, as well as to noncognitivists who claim puzzlement but cannot be attributed for positive atheists who have made a positive choice not to believe. Otherwise, a stone can also be called an atheist.

Again: if you want to call a stone an atheist, that's fine by me. It's only trivially true that a stone does not believe in any gods, but trivially true is still true.

Actually, I don't think that an agnostic can claim lack of belief. Lack of belief in gods, perhaps, but the term "agnostic" refers specifically to a positive belief that God (or gods) is unknowable.

Actually, this thread, continually adds to my belief that gnostic-atheist is not ready to acknowledge that his atheism is a world view just as theism is. Gnostic-atheist takes his belief as the truth. And this is fully different from the position of agnostic-atheist who believes that the thing in itself is unknowable or that the reality is immanent.

I'm not hiding from the idea of having a worldview. There are several terms that describe what my worldview is: freethinker, skeptic, humanist, secularist... and those are only the ones that came off the top of my head.

I'm not saying that I don't have a worldview; I'm not saying that I don't actively reject belief in gods; I'm not even saying that the atheists around me don't generally actively reject belief in gods as well... all I'm saying is that the term "atheist" is based on what my worldview isn't, not on what it is.

 

[atanu]

all I'm saying is that the term "atheist" is based on what my worldview isn't, not on what it is.

That is your point of view.

Some want to redefine the word "atheism" to mean "a lack of belief in the existence of gods" and use some incredible arguments to support their position. Why? I think because these Atheists want to avoid the burden of proof, knowing that they cannot prove non-existence of god (same as theist cannot prove existence of god).

The definition: "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods" is unsupportable from all following reasons.

1. The word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless".

2. No reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition.

3. I do not believe in the existence of God" does mean "I believe that God does not exist.", by simple understanding and grammar.

Language usage has many examples of what is called "raising". Raising shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, etc..

For example:

"I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.

4. 'Absence of X negates presence of X' logic applies to objects and not to belief.

Why the "raising" example is confounded by logic is that "X" is an object. Whereas, believing, supposing, thinking etc. are related directly to the subject, which always remains.

5. By the definition of 'Atheists Lack a Belief in Gods' all infants and stones and inanimate objects are also atheists.

6. It makes little sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

7. A “lack of belief” definition is too broad. Such assertion is possible from agnostic, undecided, one who believed that gods don’t exist, or one who never thought about it.
...

 

[atanu]

IMO,

The most fundamental question that this thread boils down to is: What knowledge will know the knowledge itself that is the basis of everything we know, in short, the universe including the self?

...

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to make it so complicated. As I said, the test is to ask "Do you believe in God?". If you answer no, then you're an atheist. It doesn't really matter why you answer no.

 

[Magic Man]

Some want to redefine the words "atheism" to mean "a lack of belief in the existence of gods" and use some incredible arguments to support their position.

No, we want to use that definition because it's the correct and standard one. It's not a redefining if it's already the definition.

Why? I think because these Atheists want to avoid the burden of proof, knowing that they cannot prove non-existence of god (same as theist cannot prove existence of god).

That's a great theory. It would be even better, if it was based in reality.

The definition: "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods" is unsupportable from all following reasons.

1. The word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless".

2. No reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition.

3. I do not believe in the existence of God" does mean "I believe that God does not exist.", by simple understanding and grammar.

Language usage has many examples of what is called "raising". Raising shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, etc..

"Lack of belief" is most certainly the definition in many dictionaries, but that's not even the most relevant thing here. The fact is "atheist", as you've pointed out, literally means "without belief in God". Since theism is belief in god, and the prefix a- means "not" or "without", it means exactly "without belief in god", or in other words "lack of belief in God".

It's very simple. If you have the belief that God exists, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist. I'm guessing the reason you're trying to work your way around admitting that is because you have some problem with atheists in general.