Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

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?

...

And in my opinion the fundamental question this thread boils down to is:

Do you believe God exists?

It's a yes or no question. If you answer yes, you're a theist. If you answer no, you're not a theist, hence you're an atheist (remember that a-theist, without belief in God)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is your point of view.

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. 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).

No. If the burden of proof applies at all, it's in the recognition that it applies to the question "do gods exist?" not "are you an atheist?"

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".

Yes... and? I don't see how this refutes the idea that atheism is a lack of belief.

But if you want to be etymologically picky, "atheism" has historically meant something closer to "disbelief in the gods of that particular society" - Christians, by not accepting the Roman pantheon, were "atheists" to the Romans. Muslims, by not accepting Jesus Christ as God, were "atheists" to the Christians. Unless you're willing to call yourself an atheist, you have to concede that the definition has changed over time.

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

Really?

Atheism
noun
[mass noun]

• disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Disbelief
noun
[mass noun]

• inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:Laura shook her head in disbelief
• lack of faith:I'll burn in hell for disbelief

definition of disbelief from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Put those together, and you get that a "lack of faith in the existence of God or gods" is atheism. Unless you're going to quibble over "faith" versus "belief" (or claim that the Oxford English Dictionary isn't reputable), I think that we can consider your point refuted.

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

To someone who's not familiar with the study of logic, maybe... though they would've also had to have avoided the experience of ever hearing someone say "I don't believe God exists... I know he does!"

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.

Colloquially, yes. But I'm not talking about colloquial use here.

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

Beliefs can be objects, but I don't see what point you're getting at anyhow.

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

Again: I agree. It doesn't matter.

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

Except when society is dominated by that 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.
...

Bingo. You're right - they're all atheists.

Or at least they are as long as they don't believe in any gods. A person who's agnostic or undecided can still hold a belief in a god or gods.

 

[Copernicus]

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

Of course I do. I know that I do not know what you had for breakfast.

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.

And I told you, but now I'm going to modify that reply. If I were to try to guess what you ate for breakfast, eggs would be a reasonable guess. Shoe leather, not so much. I could be wrong, though. :foot:

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"?

Well, it could be the empty set, but I do have beliefs about whether people usually eat breakfast and the kinds of food that they eat. I just do not have enough information to be able to answer the question with confidence. My mental model of the world is primed, but not fully instantiated for this particular information.

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".

Definitely not the empty set. My set of beliefs could be nicely modeled in a Bayesian network of probabilities. So I'm definitely including eggs in the set of possibilities. You could supply me with better information, you know. I'm beginning to get curious.

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

Oh, but I did. I just gave you more detail than a simple "yes" or "no". Being a typical human, my beliefs can shift around quite a bit in the course of a discussion. Originally, I said that I had no idea. Now I realize that that answer was not quite correct. Beliefs come in degrees of confidence, and my confidence about what you ate (and whether you even ate any breakfast) rises or falls as I consider different types of foods and non-foods.

You asked a question about my beliefs. I chose not to say more about the nature of speech acts, but conversations entail a lot of beliefs, which linguists tend to call "presuppositions". The philosopher, Paul Grice, famously named four conversational maxims that govern speech acts--quality, quantity, relation, and manner. The maxim of quality states that, other things being equal, speakers believe what they say. Hence, "You shoelace is untied" is functionally equivalent to the assertion "I believe that your shoelace is untied". Do they mean the same thing? Yes, but the second statement contains a redundancy (hence, it "flaunts" the maxim of quantity--saying only what is needed). My point is that making an assertion is stating a belief (unless one is lying or intentionally flaunting the maxim of quality). When someone says "God does not exist", that person is very definitely stating a belief. The concept of "atheism" is as classification of belief.

 

[Willamena]

And in my opinion the fundamental question this thread boils down to is:

Do you believe God exists?

It's a yes or no question. If you answer yes, you're a theist. If you answer no, you're not a theist, hence you're an atheist (remember that a-theist, without belief in God)?

No: the correct answer is, "What is 'God'?" What is it that we are being asked whether we believe. If you don't know, you can't answer, at all.

Edit: Let me rephrase: If you don't know what it is you're asking about, then we can't possibly answer.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

If it did not matter to people, then this thread would have been much shorter.

 

[atanu]

Really?

Really.

From Merriam-Webster OnLine
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
disbelieve:
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief
agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

From the Cambridge Dictionary of American English
atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist
atheism: the belief that God does not exist


From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

.................................................


No definition says "Lack of belief".

...

 

[Copernicus]

No: the correct answer is, "What is 'God'?" What is it that we are being asked whether we believe. If you don't know, you can't answer, at all.

Edit: Let me rephrase: If you don't know what it is you're asking about, then we can't possibly answer.

But there is a general consensus about what "God" means. Just because we believe different details about what a god is and what the characteristics of God are, that does not mean that we cannot answer the question. And we probably should start splitting hairs about the difference between a "response" and an "answer". You can respond to a question with a request for more information.

 

[atanu]

To someone who's not familiar with the study of logic, maybe... though they would've also had to have avoided the experience of ever hearing someone say "I don't believe God exists... I know he does!"

Colloquially, yes. But I'm not talking about colloquial use here.

Beliefs can be objects, but I don't see what point you're getting at anyhow.

Do you mean to say that "I don't believe the mail has arrived" does not mean "I believe the mail has not arrived", except colloquially?

The logical part was discussed:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2388955-post394.html

...

 

[atanu]

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 am in total agreement with above observation, adding that mere absence of belief probably characterizes stones and not humans.

...

 

[atanu]

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.

I can assure that I have no problem with atheists. But IMO, you not answering the main question of OP, which is whether the postion of atheism involves some belief or not?

...

 

[atanu]

Logically lack of X cannot still be an X.

X is an object, lack of which is empirically known by cognition.

Lack of belief of a subject is however not known by lack of cognition, but by the cognition itself. Belief is manifest cognition.

...

 

[Revoltingest]

From Merriam-Webster OnLine
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
atheism:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
disbelieve:
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold....belief

I cherry picked these definitions from those you listed.
They look like they'd allow for lack of belief in the case of a weak atheist.

 

[atanu]

I cherry picked these definitions from those you listed.
They look like they'd allow for lack of belief in the case of a weak atheist.

Do you mean WEAK LACK OF BELIEF?

Only inanimate objects or a highest sage in Turya stage can be without belief, as per my training.

...

 

[Copernicus]

When we come to the point in the discussion where people are agreeing that stones and babies are technically atheists, I think that we have reached a watershed moment, and that is whether we have reached the moment of an obvious reductio ad absurdum. I raised this question earlier, because I think that it exposes the major problem with the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in gods. People will go to such extreme lengths to cling to this definition that they do not even notice when they have crossed the line of reasonableness.

The semantics of the word "atheism" is fairly clear to all of us. It has something to do with belief and gods. Stones do not have minds, and babies do not have a concept of a "god". So if you go around calling either an "atheist", you are going to raise some eyebrows among folks who are just going about their daily business. It is an exercise in procrustean logic to try to stretch the meaning of "atheist" to fit a rock or chop it down to fit a baby.

 

[Gloone]

A belief can also be considered an opinion if that helps narrow it down some.

-Religion is stupid. That is belief or an opinion.
-Religion has helped give some people purpose and meaning in their life. That is a belief or an opinion.
-Religion demoralizes people and leaves them absentminded. That is a belief or an opinion.
-God is neither good nor evil, yet remains a super hero and a villain to some. That is a belief or an opinion.
-I don’t like your shoes they are ugly. That is a belief or opinion. You might like your shoes and not have a problem with them.

Weak Atheism can also be viewed as Agnostic.
​

Weak atheism – disbelief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods. Also referred to as negative atheism or implicit atheism. The weak atheist generally gives a broad definition of atheism as a lack or absence of evidence justifying a belief in God or gods, which defines atheism as a range of positions that entail non-belief, unjustified belief, doubt, or denial of theism.

Strong Atheism is an actual philosophical position and believes there is a lack of evidence for believing in a god and there is not enough justification for doing so.
​

Strong atheism – the philosophical position that deities do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. Some strong atheists also claim that the existence of any and all gods is logically impossible. Also called positive atheism, hard atheism and gnostic atheism. It should be noted that a strong atheist also fits the definition of a weak atheist, but that the reverse is not necessarily true: a strong atheist believes there is a lack or absence of evidence for justifying a belief in God or gods, but a weak atheist does not necessarily deny the possibility of God or god(s) existence.

 

[Magic Man]

No: the correct answer is, "What is 'God'?" What is it that we are being asked whether we believe. If you don't know, you can't answer, at all.

Edit: Let me rephrase: If you don't know what it is you're asking about, then we can't possibly answer.

The assumption is that God is defined.

 

[Magic Man]

If it did not matter to people, then this thread would have been much shorter.

There's no question about whether it matters to people. The question is why everyone's making it so hard. If you answer no to the question "Do you believe God exists?", you're an atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

I can assure that I have no problem with atheists. But IMO, you not answering the main question of OP, which is whether the postion of atheism involves some belief or not?

...

I've already answered it. I even answered it in my last few replies. The only question to determine atheism is "Do you believe in God?". If you say no, you're an atheist. what that implies is that atheism says nothing about what your beliefs are. You don't have to believe God doesn't exist to be an atheist. In simple terms, no, atheism doesn't necessarily involve a belief, as has been explained ad nauseam in this thread and others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No definition says "Lack of belief".

It says "disbelief". Disbelief has a few meanings with different nuances, but one of the valid meanings of disbelief is "lack of belief".

 

[Magic Man]

When we come to the point in the discussion where people are agreeing that stones and babies are technically atheists, I think that we have reached a watershed moment, and that is whether we have reached the moment of an obvious reductio ad absurdum.

You'll notice in the part about stones was, it was said that they're technically atheists by the definition, but that it's not really worth even bringing up. As far as babies are concerned, again technically they're atheists. I can go with what Alceste said about them, though, that like a stone they haven't had a chance to form any ideas at all, so it's pointless to talk about them as atheists.

I raised this question earlier, because I think that it exposes the major problem with the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in gods. People will go to such extreme lengths to cling to this definition that they do not even notice when they have crossed the line of reasonableness.

The only people going to extreme lengths here are those trying to argue that atheism can't just be a lack of belief in God.

The semantics of the word "atheism" is fairly clear to all of us. It has something to do with belief and gods. Stones do not have minds, and babies do not have a concept of a "god". So if you go around calling either an "atheist", you are going to raise some eyebrows among folks who are just going about their daily business. It is an exercise in procrustean logic to try to stretch the meaning of "atheist" to fit a rock or chop it down to fit a baby.

No, it technically fits them. Again, as was said, it's not very productive to use the term in reference to stones, and probably not in reference to babies either, but you're focusing on a part of the conversation that isn't and wasn't meant to be integral to the main one.