Atheism: A belief?

[cottage]

Sorry then. I thought you said:



...

Yep, that's correct. Is there some misunderstanding here?

 

[Magic Man]

You are right, and I apologize. You must have told me this once, but I had forgotten it. I'm actually more of a lexicologist than a lexicographer, Charles Fillmore having been one of my mentors, but my day job nowadays actually has me splitting hairs over dictionary definitions. Surely, then, you know about "neg transportation" verbs, don't you? I'm not sure what your background is, but you should know about this if you had any classes in early transformational theory. Also, why are you taking a prescriptivist position on the meaning of "atheism"?

That's actually a really cool job. Luckily, I like my current job, or else I'd be envious of you.

I remembered the term "negative transportation", but I had to look it up to refresh my memory. It's been a while. I'm not sure why you bring it up, though. Negative transportation is not necessary, as indicated here:

negative transportation Syntactic process in a certain class of verbs with complement clauses (to think, to believe, to expect) in which the negation of the matrix sentence can also be interpreted as the negation of the complement clause: the sentence Philip doesn ‘t think that Caroline is home can be read two ways: (a) Philip doesn ‘t think: Caroline is home; and (b) Philip thinks: Caroline isn’t home; i.e. in (b) the negation is ‘transported’ out of the matrix sentence into the complement clause.

What I'm saying is that (a) is a perfectly acceptable and normal interpretation of the original sentence. In our case "Philip doesn't believe: God exists" is the interpretation of "Philip doesn't believe that God exists".

The debate here seems to depend on people getting tripped up by ambiguous linguist expressions like "X does not believe that God exists". That statement can represent either a denial of having a belief or a denial of the object complement of "believe".

Exactly. It can represent simply the denial of the held belief. It doesn't have to include the denial of the object of belief.

If you deny that gods exist, that entails your belief that they do not exist. It does not mean that you lack a belief with respect to gods, which is way too broad a definition.

Again, I don't understand the point of bringing this up. Yes, if you deny that God exists, everyone in the world should be able to agree that you're an atheist. There is no difference of opinion there. The difference of opinion is whether simply the lack of belief in God constitutes atheism. You think it's too broad a definition, but you have yet to explain why exactly. All you've done recently is say "It's just silly to apply that label to a stone or baby, so clearly you're wrong". Why is that too broad a definition for you?

No, you are getting caught in an etymological argument that contradicts general usage. The prefix "a-" in English only attaches to adjectives, and it gets into nouns (like a-morality) by back formation. The word "atheism" was actually borrowed into English from French. The prefix came pre-attached because of its Greek etymology, but the Greek prefix is not the same as the one in English that Greek morphology gave rise to.

The point is the word is used as the prefix a- and the root theos are intended to mean together. It's used to describe someone who is not a theist.

It does, because people have been denying that assertions entail beliefs. I mentioned Gricean maxims earlier. You are familiar with speech act theory, right? I feel that I can talk about these things at a higher level with you because of your academic background.

Well, assertions always entail beliefs, but that's not really helpful when it's that broad. The assertion "No, I do not believe in God" entails the belief that I do not believe in God, but it does not entail the belief that God does not exist.

As far as Gricean maxims go, what I'm saying is that anyone who does not hold the belief that God exists is an atheist. I'm not sure what your point is with speech act theory.

The bottom line is when considering who fits into the category of "atheists", all you have to consider is whether or not they hold the belief in God. If so, they don't fit. If not, they fit. I'm curious why you think someone who doesn't hold the belief in God shouldn't fit in the "atheist" category.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have decided to initiate legal action against these dictionaries for misleading me. I need some fund.

Maybe you can sell your magical moving goalposts to pay for your lawyer's fees.

 

[Magic Man]

The question in OP does not require that. Essentially, you agree that though not exact opposite, these two types of -ism's have their belief systems.

...

There are belief systems that are atheistic and belief systems that are theistic. Neither theism nor atheism is a belief system in and of itself.

 

[Willamena]

Yep, that's correct. Is there some misunderstanding here?

I believe that my left toe exists. What is the "nature" of the belief? Is it the same as the "nature" of belief? The difference in understanding that I see rests in whether belief is a thing distinct from the proposition.

 

[atanu]

There are belief systems that are atheistic and belief systems that are theistic. Neither theism nor atheism is a belief system in and of itself.

I understand that '-ism' represents a belief system of its adherants.



To your earlier question "Do you believe God exists?", some atheists will reply "No, we do not believe that God exists". Some atheists, however, will say "We lack belief in God".

• Whether we can say with certainty that all atheists lack belief in God'?
• How do we define the term 'atheist' to include both varities?
• Whether 'lack of belief in God' means that there is no belief whatsoever regarding the concept of God?

...

 

[Orias]

I’m not sure what it is you are saying is incorrect. But anyway, my scepticism can be blown away in an instance if it can be shown that a supernatural being or causal agent exists.

I agree.

While religious beliefs don’t require adherence to a particular religion or belief system they are nevertheless propositional, which it to say that something is being asserted. And the fundamental difference between believer and non-believer is that theists (regardless of any specific doctrine or affiliation) believe in a deity from faith, without the necessity for factual evidence or a final proof. For the sceptic those are wholly insufficient grounds for holding to such a proposition.

It's not a religious view point, just a skeptical view of the world. Theist "beliefs" are not all grounded in supernatural or religious tenets.

Please consider again what I was saying, which is that if no evidence is necessary to affirm the theist’s faith then self-evidently it is a belief that is held dogmatically. But as a sceptic my thoughts concerning deities are contingent upon proof, or lack thereof. If it is true that God exists then that will be the case, my beliefs notwithstanding.

So the atheist faith must be a self deceitful form of belief. Your missing my point entirely, God is not relative to faith (at least not all the time), simply detaining axioms that one thinks they are "true" or "right".

Domga also counts for such Opposition, the label skeptic insists upon habitual doubt.

You give "skeptical" a shallow sight, it is beyond physical evidence, since evidence is subject to one's interpretation of "evidence".

Which means you cling to your position of what you label "skeptic" believing in yourself, until a means of real "truth" appears, but you and I both know, not everyone is capable adhering to such consistency.

The very reason we are having this discussion is that we are not speaking of faith per se but theism, a belief as faith in a supernatural or unworldly being, a deity who brought the universe into existence. Isn't that so?

You brought faith up, I merely provided that faith is categorized to a thoroughly followed concept, not necessarily a "God".

"He who is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in one false principal is the beginning of all un-wisdom."-Anton LaVey

 

[cottage]

I believe that my left toe exists. What is the "nature" of the belief? Is it the same as the "nature" of belief? The difference in understanding that I see rests in whether belief is a thing distinct from the proposition.

Every contributor to this thread is correct to some extent in their own understanding of what constitutes atheism, but every contributor to this thread accepts that theism is fundamentally no belief in God/gods. The OP asked is atheism a belief? Well, I guess that depends upon the particular atheist. But where it is a belief it is very different to my mind than a committed belief in something supernatural, which the believer holds to be true from faith. So yes, it is the nature of the belief that sets theism apart from everyday beliefs including those of the atheist's.

 

[Willamena]

I understand that '-ism' represents a belief system of its adherants.

Wikipedia even lists it as "philosophical theory" --so it has many disguises.

 

[atanu]

Maybe you can sell your magical moving goalposts to pay for your lawyer's fees.

You are undermining my problem. Let me remind you.

Merriam-Webster OnLine
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
atheism:
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

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

To make myself (and many others) to agree to your definition that atheism means 'lack of belief in god' only and nothing else, I need to remove the goalposts altogether. I need a lot of fund.

...

 

[Orias]

You are undermining my problem. Let me remind you.



To make myself (and many others) to agree to your definition that atheism means 'lack of belief in god' only and nothing else, I need to remove the goalposts altogether. I need a lot of fund.

...

That's what happens when they take away collective bargaining

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are undermining my problem. Let me remind you.



To make myself (and many others) to agree to your definition that atheism means 'lack of belief in god' only and nothing else, I need to remove the goalposts altogether. I need a lot of fund.

But I already told you that this isn't all the word means. Over the years, it's meant things like "not Christianity" or "refusal to worship the Roman pantheon".

The question of whether atheism is a belief isn't so much a question of whether the word has any other definitions besides "lack of belief in God or gods", it's a question of whether "lack of belief in God or gods" by itself can rightly be called atheism... and it can. Regardless of any other definitions, that is a valid, legitimate definition.

Do other people use the term other ways? Sure. But can you validly use the term to describe "lack of belief"? Yes.

I think your hangup about all the other definitions for the term in the dictionary misses the point. When you use a word, it doesn't have to meet every definition listed; it only has to meet one.

Another way of looking at the question of "is atheism a belief" is to say "does the term 'atheism' imply a belief?" And as long as there is at least one definition for the term "atheism" that doesn't require a belief, then the answer is "no", regardless of however many definitions do require it.

 

[cottage]

It's not a religious view point, just a skeptical view of the world. Theist "beliefs" are not all grounded in supernatural or religious tenets.

I have already said that theism doesn’t require doctrines or organised systems of belief.
Unless you believe in living gods, theism is belief in deities, as supernatural or unworldly beings with special powers.

So the atheist faith must be a self deceitful form of belief.

You misunderstand. I’m saying the sceptic can make no claims to certain truth: if God exists, then he exists.

Your missing my point entirely, God is not relative to faith (at least not all the time), simply detaining axioms that one thinks they are "true" or "right".

No, I don’t think I am missing the point at all. For that is exactly what I understand as a faith-based view. “I believe x to be true and I believe x is true of God. ” That is theism! You are not simply airing a speculative or metaphysical notion of why you think things are or should be.

Domga also counts for such Opposition, the label skeptic insists upon habitual doubt.

It is a two-way street. There is not one thought that I hold to that I consider to be beyond further appraisal, either for or against.

You give "skeptical" a shallow sight, it is beyond physical evidence, since evidence is subject to one's interpretation of "evidence".
Which means you cling to your position of what you label "skeptic" believing in yourself, until a means of real "truth" appears, but you and I both know, not everyone is capable adhering to such consistency.

Sorry but I’m not really sure what it is you mean to say here.

You brought faith up, I merely provided that faith is categorized to a thoroughly followed concept, not necessarily a "God".[/color]

But it is if it's theism!

 

[Orias]

I have already said that theism doesn’t require doctrines or organised systems of belief.
Unless you believe in living gods, theism is belief in deities, as supernatural or unworldly beings with special powers.

Thanks for clarifying

You misunderstand. I’m saying the sceptic can make no claims to certain truth: if God exists, then he exists.

Except that you are certain you are a skeptic.

No, I don’t think I am missing the point at all. For that is exactly what I understand as a faith-based view. “I believe x to be true and I believe x is true of God. ” That is theism! You are not simply airing a speculative or metaphysical notion of why you think things are or should be.

What am I doing right now?

You believe((x)atheism is a lack of belief, or skepticism, etc. etc.), and from one's positions believes,((y)non-existence) is true of "God".

It is a two-way street.

There is not one thought that I hold to that I consider to be beyond further appraisal, either for or against.

Mhmm...:thud:

Sorry but I’m not really sure what it is you mean to say here.

You are very thorough with your explination on what it is you believe...:rainbow1:

But it is if it's theism!

Of course, and it is the same if it's atheism. Not in the same exact manner of course, but by developed axioms.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe you can sell your magical moving goalposts to pay for your lawyer's fees.

He is no more or less "moving goalposts" than you are. He is no more or less consulting the dictionary than you are.

 

[Willamena]

Unless you believe in living gods, theism is belief in deities, as supernatural or unworldly beings with special powers.

That's debatable --in fact, it's debatable that even if you believe in living gods, you believe in supernatural or unworldly beings.

But that's for another thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He is no more or less "moving goalposts" than you are. He is no more or less consulting the dictionary than you are.

I was referring to this goalpost:

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

When I showed him that the Oxford English Dictionary does have "a 'lack of belief' definition", this somehow changed to something like "my preferred dictionaries don't have a 'lack of belief' definition"* and then "these specific definitions aren't 'lack of belief' definitions (notwithstanding the fact that they were cherry-picked from a list of definitions that do include such definitions)."

I think my assessment was accurate. And if you think I've done something similar, please show me where I did it.



*which wasn't actually true from the definitions he quoted, but that's beside the point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I haven't been reading this thread. Has anyone yet actually stated a single belief specific to atheists that all atheists hold (in other words, what belief(s) make any atheist an atheist).

I mean, if atheism is a belief, somebody should be able to get that hashed out after 500 posts.

 

[Orias]

That's debatable --in fact, it's debatable that even if you believe in living gods, you believe in supernatural or unworldly beings.

But that's for another thread.

I agree completely

I was referring to this goalpost:



When I showed him that the Oxford English Dictionary does have "a 'lack of belief' definition", this somehow changed to something like "my preferred dictionaries don't have a 'lack of belief' definition"* and then "these specific definitions aren't 'lack of belief' definitions (notwithstanding the fact that they were cherry-picked from a list of definitions that do include such definitions)."

I think my assessment was accurate. And if you think I've done something similar, please show me where I did it.



*which wasn't actually true from the definitions he quoted, but that's beside the point.

I never disagreed with that definition, just your assertion that it some how made atheism oblivious to belief.

 

[Willamena]

I was referring to this goalpost:



When I showed him that the Oxford English Dictionary does have "a 'lack of belief' definition", this somehow changed to something like "my preferred dictionaries don't have a 'lack of belief' definition"* and then "these specific definitions aren't 'lack of belief' definitions (notwithstanding the fact that they were cherry-picked from a list of definitions that do include such definitions)."

I think my assessment was accurate. And if you think I've done something similar, please show me where I did it.



*which wasn't actually true from the definitions he quoted, but that's beside the point.

Ah. It's a question of no one listening to what he's actually saying --I can sympathize.

Let's try a test: look up "lack of belief" at M-W.com.