Atheism: A belief?

[Alceste]

But all atheists do believe that there are no gods. That is the single belief that characterizes them. Inherent in the concept of "atheist" is that the individual understands what a "god" is. If one lacks the concept, then the label is irrelevant. It is rather like calling a Catholic priest a "bachelor". A bachelor is nominally an unmarried man, but that unmarried man must really be considered eligible for marriage in order to qualify as a "bachelor". Atheists are nominally people who lack a belief in gods, but they really must understand what a god is and reject belief in its existence in order to qualify as an atheist.

Do you believe the dozens of self- professed atheists on this forum who will not make the positive factual claim "god does not exist" do not exist? Or you simply think they are using the word "atheist" incorrectly?

That seems problematic, since you have previously argued that words are defined by usage, not the dictionary (which in any case also disagrees with you).

 

[cottage]

[/color]
I'm saying that you are certain you are a skeptic, you believe that you are, without recognizing it.

In this respect I’m no different to you: when I’m doubting I’m doubting, and when I’m affirming I’m affirming, and when I’m doing the latter I am not doing the former. I believe that tomorrow when I awake I shall be tucked up in bed and not find myself floating near the ceiling, and I also believe that the sun will rise just as it has on every other morning. We are informed that there is no logical necessity in any of those occurrences, and yet as with everyone else on the planet I believe the future to be like the past. I’m not a sceptic in the same way that I’m homo sapiens and male, and my scepticism is reserved for extraordinary claims that cannot be proven; it isn’t a cynical substance that runs through my veins but a tenuous thing capable of being overturned in an instant.

If you were generalizing then I agree with you, but I thought that you were directing that my "God" is characterized.

I would add that whatever god/s one believes in it is logical to believe that they have done or can/will do particular things. Otherwise the belief isn’t intelligible.

[/color]
Sure it is, when they find the "truth" they will be as faithful as one is commited to considering themselves such a label.

One can be faithful to an idea, argument, or point of view, but it is utterly nonsensical to speak of having faith in something’s non-existence.

 

[atanu]

You seem to be confusing knowing with believing. Although, to be fair, this does seem to be a common problem.

No. I am distinguishing between knowledge and belief.

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No. I am distinguishing between knowledge and belief.

Right, I'm asking what you believe, not what you know, so you're confusing the two. If asked whether you knew I was wearing a blue shirt, that would be a different story.

 

[atanu]

Right, I'm asking what you believe, not what you know, so you're confusing the two. If asked whether you knew I was wearing a blue shirt, that would be a different story.

Friend, i have stated agnosticism.

 

[Alceste]

No. I am distinguishing between knowledge and belief.

...

No, you are refusing to answer because you have realized you do not in fact hold the belief: "KT is wearing a blue shirt". There is no reason to believe that he is wearing a blue shirt as opposed to any other colour, therefore you don't hold that specific belief. An agnostic would believe the question of whether or not KT's shirt is blue is unanswerable (which is not the case). A strong a-blue-shirt-ist would believe that KT is definitely not wearing a blue shirt (which may be false). A weak a-blue-shirt-ist says "I lack the belief KTs shirt is blue" and leaves it at that, pending further evidence.

 

[Alceste]

Friend, i have stated agnosticism.

So you have considered the question and resolutely decided it is unanswerable? You don't think KT or his wife could answer it, maybe take a polygraph and send you the results?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Friend, i have stated agnosticism.

You mean you don't know whether you hold the belief or not?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Friend, i have stated agnosticism.

Right, I think we've already established that you'd rather avoid the question as following to its logical conclusion would render your position invalid. Message received - loud and clear.

 

[cottage]

Do you believe the dozens of self- professed atheists on this forum who will not make the positive factual claim "god does not exist" do not exist? Or you simply think they are using the word "atheist" incorrectly?

That seems problematic, since you have previously argued that words are defined by usage, not the dictionary (which in any case also disagrees with you).

If I may intrude...

Personally I don't see what the problem is here. Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods, but within that broad definition there is a sliding scale of interpretations that are so well known that it hardly needs me to enumerate them here. Usage or dictionary it makes no difference, since there are and will continue to be sceptics of every possible derivation.

(For the record, I too say 'There is no God' both as an empirical conclusion and as a premise that when stated involves no logical contradiction.)

 

[atanu]

No, you are refusing to answer because you have realized you do not in fact hold the belief: "KT is wearing a blue shirt". .

Hey Al

You cannot project your beliefs on to me.

Since, I was asked, the data was processed. Before asking there was no cognition of the issue.

I may not know what a blue shirt is. If I know, then I believe with certainty that I have no way to know what colour.

And that is why the assertion that 'lack of belief' proposition does not hold any belief, is baseless.

I have earlier acknowedged that 'Absence of X' logically can never mean 'Presence of X', where X is the object. It can either 'exist' or 'not exist'.Absence of hair can never mean presence of hair.

Whereas, 'belief', is synonymous with the cognition that is ever present underneath any assertion. Assertions such as 'I have lack of belief of God' or 'I don't believe in existence of God' do not happen without cognition.

Belief is common manifestation of cognition and proven beliefs become Gnosis.

In the example of blue shirt, the cognition immediately helps me to state my belief as that of agnostic. It could be ignostic, if I had no knowledge of what a blue shirt was.

Regarding Deity, when one says "I do not believe in Deity', it follows that one knows what Deity is. But that is rarely the case.
...

 

[atanu]

Right, I think we've already established that you'd rather avoid the question as following to its logical conclusion would render your position invalid. Message received - loud and clear.

That is your belief.

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is your belief.

Indeed it is - a well-founded one based off of repeated patterns of experience. Of course, there is the possibility that I am wrong, and that you do not actually see how following the line of questioning logically would invalidate your position. Either way, whether you see it or not, doesn't change the fact that your position is logically invalid.

 

[atanu]

You mean you don't know whether you hold the belief or not?

Do you think that belief can grow without cognition? once, I was asked, an analysis took place and the belief was agnostic.
...

 

[Magic Man]

Your missing the entirety of the point that, you believe that. It is an axiom, and a very thorough one at that, which insinuates that you add a burden of unnecessary claims as to what atheism actually is.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that belief can grow without cognition? once, I was asked, an analysis took place and the belief was agnostic.
...

What does this mean? Do you have the belief or not? "I don't know" isn't an answer to this, because the question is about belief, not knowledge.

My bet is that if you're uncertain on the matter of Kilgore's shirt, then this probably means that you neither believe "Kilgore Trout's shirt is blue" nor "Kilgore Trout's shirt is not blue."

This would imply that the correct answer to the question "do you believe Kilgore Trout's shirt is blue?" is "no".

 

[Alceste]

If I may intrude...

Personally I don't see what the problem is here. Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods, but within that broad definition there is a sliding scale of interpretations that are so well known that it hardly needs me to enumerate them here. Usage or dictionary it makes no difference, since there are and will continue to be sceptics of every possible derivation.

(For the record, I too say 'There is no God' both as an empirical conclusion and as a premise that when stated involves no logical contradiction.)

Of course you may.

I don't see what the problem is either, but I expect it might have something to do with the way people's feathers get ruffled when others presume to tell them what they "really" believe and how they should (or shouldn't) define themselves.

 

[atanu]

Indeed it is - a well-founded one based off of repeated patterns of experience. Of course, there is the possibility that I am wrong, and that you do not actually see how following the line of questioning logically would invalidate your position. Either way, whether you see it or not, doesn't change the fact that your position is logically invalid.

You are forgetting that Penguin tried this Venn diagram. Since the expected line was disrupted because of faulty question, does not make my postion invalid. Invalidity is your belief based on your expectation.

But, I do feel sad that you do not even care to consider that a) assertions (words) proceed from belief; b)the difference between belief and gnosis; c) intimate relation between belief and gnosis; and d) that there is not a man who is devoid of cognition and beliefs thereof.

This universe is sprouting of word rooted on cognition.

So, a statement that "I lack a belief in Deity" is devoid of cognition based belief is impractical at the least.
...

 

[Alceste]

Do you think that belief can grow without cognition? once, I was asked, an analysis took place and the belief was agnostic.
...

You do realize that "agnostic" implies that you are convinced nobody - not even KT - can ever know whether or not his shirt is blue?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's all very simple folks - if there's no reason to believe something is true, then it makes sense not to believe it's true, i.e., I don't believe it is true. The difference between most atheists and theists is that atheists, who mostly are atheists as a conclusion of being rational/skeptical, need the reason to believe that something is true to be rational.

This is the crux of the matter, and I certainly understand why theists want to paint atheists conclusions as no more rational than theirs - who wants to think that they are being irrational - but it doesn't change the fact that most atheists are actually coming to their conclusion based on what is most rational.

Now, if you want to get to the heart of the matter, atheists like myself do have to hold the belief that rationality is better than irrationality, but that simply makes somebody a rationalist - which followed logically will lead them to the conclusion that there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of god(s).