Atheism: A belief?

[Kilgore Trout]

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

I don't lack a belief in deity, nor would I make such a statement. I have no belief in the existence of deities on way or the other. I certainly don't see this as lacking anything - it's simply the most rational position.

 

[Copernicus]

That's just silliness. If all atheists shared the belief "there is no god" these threads would be a page or two at most. Copernicus, who believes there is no god, DISAGREES with all the rest of the atheists on this thread (and with wikipedia and almost all English dictionaries) about whether or not they are "really" atheists. That's what's keeping this thread limping along, not a shared world view.

Alceste, you are misstating my position. Whether or not most atheists in this thread agree with me is irrelevant, since the meaning of "atheist" is determined by English speakers in general. While I concede that most of my fellow atheists disagree with my position on how to define atheism, I do not concede that their own usage corresponds to their definition. You have already conceded that you do not call infants "atheists", even though they technically are under the disputed "lack of belief" definition. As for Wikipedia, most of what they say about atheism corresponds to my definition, not yours. They pay lip service to the "lack of belief" sense, but that is to be expected, given the emotional and political issues at stake.

 

[atanu]

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".

Dear Penguin

Again you are imposing your belief on me.

There is a sanskrit word 'anivarchaniya', which is used to describe magician's illusory effect, which is neither true nor untrue. But that does not mean 'no' as you impose. It simply means that the issue will be resolved with knowledge.

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Alceste, you are misstating my position. Whether or not most atheists in this thread agree with me is irrelevant, since the meaning of "atheist" is determined by English speakers in general. While I concede that most of my fellow atheists disagree with my position on how to define atheism, I do not concede that their own usage corresponds to their definition. You have already conceded that you do not call infants "atheists", even though they technically are under the disputed "lack of belief" definition. As for Wikipedia, most of what they say about atheism corresponds to my definition, not yours. They pay lip service to the "lack of belief" sense, but that is to be expected, given the emotional and political issues at stake.

Meh, as someone interested in people's actual views and perspectives, I base my definitions off of how people actually use words, not off of Wikipedia. Then again, some people are more interested in words than meaning.

Wikipedia, and other such limited slices of information, are imperfect reflections and interpretations of the world, not the other way around.

 

[Copernicus]

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?

No, I think that they are defining the word in a way that does not conform with their own everyday usage and being quite dogmatic about it.

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).

There are lots of dictionaries out there, and they all disagree with each other on some definitions. Dictionaries do not create the meanings of words. They discover them by looking at usage. You yourself have agree with my point that not all individuals who lack a belief in gods should be labeled atheists--or, at the very least, you seem confused about whether they should be.

 

[atanu]

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

KT's knowledge situation is not mine and vice versa.

But, I acknowledge that in english there is probably no equivalent word for anivarchaniya -- which certainly is resolved by knowledge.

Thank you for pointing out.

...

 

[Alceste]

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.
...

If someone asks "do you believe in God", the question relates only to the content of my personal beliefs. This question is answerable, because within the set "Alceste's beliefs" there is enough of a definition for the word "god" to confidently reply that my world view does not contain any.

The question "Does God exist?" is entirely different, as the it refers to the content of the entire universe, not just my personal beliefs. My rudimentary, subjective definition for the language construct "god" can no longer suffice. It wouldn't be relevant in any case because it is no more or less objectively significant than any other. The question is not only unanswerable because the entire content of the universe us unknown, but also fundamentally meaningless because there is no universally agreed upon definition of the language construct "god".

Nevertheless, I am NOT an agnostic because I believe it is possible to answer the question of god's existence - just as soon as everybody in the world agrees on what "god" means.

 

[atanu]

Nevertheless, I am NOT an agnostic because I believe it is possible to answer the question of god's existence - just as soon as everybody in the world agrees on what "god" means.

Kindly see post 586.
...

 

[Alceste]

Kindly see post 586.
...

I see it. You're correct - English people can only pick from "theist" (believes in a deity or deities), agnostic (believes it is impossible to answer the question of "god's" existence but necessarily assumes the word "god" actually means something specific), and atheist (everybody else).

Agnostics, btw, can also be theists or atheists.

 

[Copernicus]

Meh, as someone interested in people's actual views and perspectives, I base my definitions off of how people actually use words, not off of Wikipedia. Then again, some people are more interested in words than meaning.

Wikipedia, and other such limited slices of information, are imperfect reflections and interpretations of the world, not the other way around.

I endorse this sentiment, although I do not think that you are following it objectively in this particular case. We do not base the label "atheist" on whether someone lacks a belief in gods. Rather we base it on whether they reject belief in gods.

Look at it from a logical perspective. If atheism were equivalent to lack of belief, then it would be entirely consistent to label someone an atheist who lacked belief in the statement "No gods exist." That is, the following statements would be logically consistent for the "atheist" X:

1) X does not believe that God exists.
2) X does not believe that God does not exist.

However, I doubt very much that anyone would reasonably hold that (2) describes the mental state of any atheist. Now, that said, I do not doubt that some, if not most, atheists in this thread will remain unreasonable about it.

 

[Alceste]

1) Copernicus does not believe that Alceste is sporting a mohawk.
2) Copernicus believes that Alceste is not sporting a mohawk.

Same thing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are forgetting that Penguin tried this Venn diagram.

I talked about drawing one, but I never actually did it.

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

Do you recognize the difference between atheists and atheism? So far, you've been muddying this distinction.

Dear Penguin

Again you are imposing your belief on me.

There is a sanskrit word 'anivarchaniya', which is used to describe magician's illusory effect, which is neither true nor untrue. But that does not mean 'no' as you impose. It simply means that the issue will be resolved with knowledge.

So... at some point in the future, you will either have or not have a belief that KT is wearing a blue shirt?

I don't see how this is relevant to a question that deals with your belief right now.

I endorse this sentiment, although I do not think that you are following it objectively in this particular case. We do not base the label "atheist" on whether someone lacks a belief in gods. Rather we base it on whether they reject belief in gods.

You might, but don't speak for the rest of us.

Look at it from a logical perspective. If atheism were equivalent to lack of belief, then it would be entirely consistent to label someone an atheist who lacked belief in the statement "No gods exist." That is, the following statements would be logically consistent for the "atheist" X:

1) X does not believe that God exists.
2) X does not believe that God does not exist.

However, I doubt very much that anyone would reasonably hold that (2) describes the mental state of any atheist.

I would.

Certainly not all atheists... but a person who has not intellectually assented to the premise "God exists" AND has not assented to the premise "God does not exist" is an atheist by virtue of the fact that he has not assented to "God exists".

The person who's "on the fence" and has no opinion about god(s) is an atheist.

Now, that said, I do not doubt that some, if not most, atheists in this thread will be reasonable about it.

Ah - poisoning the well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I endorse this sentiment, although I do not think that you are following it objectively in this particular case. We do not base the label "atheist" on whether someone lacks a belief in gods. Rather we base it on whether they reject belief in gods.

Actually, we base it on both, or either.

To be fair, when I was younger and first labeled myself an atheist, it was probably more of a rejection - because I was only thinking of it in terms of god concepts I had been exposed to. If it stayed this way, and my absence of belief was only in regards to rejecting those concepts, then you might have an argument.

However, as I developed intellectually, and explored larger contexts, I ultimately reached the conclusion that there may be something that exists that I would describe as god, or something that people haven't conceptualized could be described as god. My absence of belief is in relation to any of these. I can't reject something that isn't defined. I don't believe or not believe in the existence of any hypothetical concept which could be defined as god. If it was a matter of rejection, I could reject the specific concepts I was actually exposed to.

Even as it stands, I'm probably not aware of many god concepts that people hold. It would be incorrect to say that I'm rejecting those beliefs, as I do not even know what they are. What I can say, is that I have an absence of belief - no belief on way or the other - about those concepts, or any other potential concepts that would meet a reasonable definition of god.

Look at it from a logical perspective. If atheism were equivalent to lack of belief, then it would be entirely consistent to label someone an atheist who lacked belief in the statement "No gods exist." That is, the following statements would be logically consistent for the "atheist" X:

1) X does not believe that God exists.
2) X does not believe that God does not exist.

However, I doubt very much that anyone would reasonably hold that (2) describes the mental state of any atheist. Now, that said, I do not doubt that some, if not most, atheists in this thread will remain unreasonable about it.

Regardless of whether anyone would state #2 in natural language usage, it still applies logically. I don't really understand your point here - whether people would use such a description is irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1) Copernicus does not believe that Alceste is sporting a mohawk.
2) Copernicus believes that Alceste is not sporting a mohawk.

Same thing?

They're apparently the same in that anyone who has a problem with the concept of absence of belief won't actually answer or address the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They're apparently the same in that anyone who has a problem with the concept of absence of belief won't actually answer or address the question.

Everyone who doesn't believe you're wearing a blue shirt thinks you're naked.

 

[Copernicus]

1) Copernicus does not believe that Alceste is sporting a mohawk.
2) Copernicus believes that Alceste is not sporting a mohawk.

Same thing?

Nope. (1) is ambiguous between lack of belief and belief in a negative proposition. (2) can only mean belief in the negative proposition. I have made the distinction clear so many times that I doubt it will make any difference to you whether I try or not. You simply will not pay attention to what I have been saying, because you have already decided your opinion on the matter.

They're apparently the same in that anyone who has a problem with the concept of absence of belief won't actually answer or address the question.

Ditto for you, I'm afraid. What can I do?

 

[ChristineES]

Whether atheism is a belief, a "non-belief", an "anti-belief", or not a belief at all is really not the issue. Since most atheists say that atheism is not a belief, I will respect that and agree that they don't have a belief. Far be it to tell someone whether what they have is a belief or not.

 

[Willamena]

Whether atheism is a belief, a "non-belief", an "anti-belief", or not a belief at all is really not the issue. Since most atheists say that atheism is not a belief, I will respect that and agree that they don't have a belief. Far be it to tell someone whether what they have is a belief or not.

Do you think that "that it is a belief" and "that they have a belief" are two different things?

 

[Copernicus]

Whether atheism is a belief, a "non-belief", an "anti-belief", or not a belief at all is really not the issue. Since most atheists say that atheism is not a belief, I will respect that and agree that they don't have a belief. Far be it to tell someone whether what they have is a belief or not.

That's very diplomatic. If a lot of people insist that the Earth is flat, I presume that you will be similarly accommodating.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whether atheism is a belief, a "non-belief", an "anti-belief", or not a belief at all is really not the issue. Since most atheists say that atheism is not a belief, I will respect that and agree that they don't have a belief. Far be it to tell someone whether what they have is a belief or not.

Ah, a rational and wise response and conclusion. Telling people what they believe when they're telling you that that's not what they believe is simply obnoxious and wrong-headed.