Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

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

Same thing?

If "I don't believe that Alceste is sporting a mohawk" says both those things, then yeah.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

Are you going to argue with them that they don't actually believe that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If "I don't believe that Alceste is sporting a mohawk" says both those things, then yeah.

So when it doesn't, then they're not. Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Alceste]

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

Of course, he must be naked. Nothing is unknown or unknowable, so if I can't say with conviction his shirt is blue, that must mean there is no shirt.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, I cannot parse your sentence for meaning. Can you restate what belief I hold that makes me an atheist?

I couldn't even try.

Whatever your specific beliefs may be aren't really relevant, because they're specific to you, not to atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nope. (1) is ambiguous between lack of belief and belief in a negative proposition.

It's not ambiguous if somebody specifically states what they mean by it.

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

You can attempt to understand the logic behind the statements.

 

[Alceste]

I couldn't even try.

Whatever your specific beliefs may be aren't really relevant, because they're specific to you, not to atheism.

So are you saying atheism is not a belief?

 

[Willamena]

So when it doesn't, then they're not.

Just so.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Nowhere that some of us weren't always.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whatever your specific beliefs may be aren't really relevant, because they're specific to you, not to atheism.

So there are no beliefs that apply to all atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nowhere that some of us weren't always.

I've always been there - I'm talking about the people who have not displayed an understanding of the logical difference between the two statements.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Well, I suppose that this is progress of a sort, but now you seem to have retreated to the position that, because not everyone agrees on the definition of "god", you cannot be sure whether you reject belief in such a being. Again, like "atheism", the word "god" has a number of conventional word senses. I take it that you, like me, reject belief in most of them. Unlike me, you are willing to agree to just about any definition that someone chooses to impose on the word.

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.

Didn't you just say that you could reject some of those gods defined by conventional "reasonable" definitions? OK. Whatever.

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.

(2) is stated in "natural language usage". I agree that it applies logically to "atheism" only if you, in the great tradition of Procrustes, decide to cut anything to fit your definition no matter how crazy it gets.

 

[atanu]

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

Some have already adviced me to get an education. But I will go by the definitions given in reputed dictionaries and those were posted earlier.

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 must say again. It is the same mistake you are commiting as was pointed out in another thread.You are using an oft-repeated logical trap without understanding the nuance.

Blue shirt is a commonly agreed object that is knowable. The moment I see it or the moment Kilgore tells me, I know. Before that I neither have an opinion nor I have no opinion. I need not have any resolution on the issue. And this is the position or belief I hold on this type of issue.

On the other hand, a statement such as "I lack belief in God", pre-supposes a knlowledge of God -- which you do not possess. May I ask you respectfully, what you mean by 'God', in the sentence "I lack a belief of God"?

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, I suppose that this is progress of a sort, but now you seem to have retreated to the position that, because not everyone agrees on the definition of "god", you cannot be sure whether you reject belief in such a being. Again, like "atheism", the word "god" has a number of conventional word senses. I take it that you, like me, reject belief in most of them. Unlike me, you are willing to agree to just about any definition that someone chooses to impose on the word.

No, I'm saying that I have an absence of belief in anything that I might define as god.

Didn't you just say that you could reject some of those gods defined by conventional "reasonable" definitions? OK. Whatever.

Yes, I could. What's your problem with that?

(2) is stated in "natural language usage". I agree that it applies logically to "atheism" only if you, in the great tradition of Procrustes, decide to cut anything to fit your definition no matter how crazy it gets.

I'm only talking about things that would reasonbly fit the definition.

Are you positing that you are aware of and have considered every possible variation of every god concept and have rejected it? You must have a lot of time on your hands.

 

[ChristineES]

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

There are just some things where people don't want or need my opinion. If it doesn't effect me or my family, why would I not be accommodating? Of course, if I taught a science class and some student thought the earth was flat, I would enlighten them. I never met anyone who thought the earth was flat, however.

 

[Tom Terrific]

Alright, I've been having this discussion with a few atheists on a few different threads and decided it was time to make a thread directed and specified towards this concept.

Now, I have had atheists tell me that atheism isn't a belief (the weak ones), while I have had other atheists tell me that atheism is a belief (the strong ones). Now, weak atheists seem to agree (from what I have observed) that strong atheism is a belief.

Now...

This is an exceptionally long thread, and I am not going to read all the responses. If I am duplicating someone else's answer: sorry.

Atheists I have known, with help from theists who haven't thought the matter through very well, regard knowledge and belief as two different things, to wit: that belief is acceptance of a proposition without sufficient evidence. As I think you have recognized, this distinction is specious. "Sufficiency" is in the eye of the beholder, and no one truly "knows" anything rationally. Reason is founded upon the subject-object dichotomy; it requires a discontinuity between that which thinks and that which is thought about. This discontinuity is, of necessity, an infinite gulf that reason is incapable of crossing -- because, if it ever *did* cross it, it would self-destruct, being unable to function. Therefore, all so-called "knowledge" is necessarily founded on limited evidence, and requires a "leap of faith."

For better understanding of how "beliefs" achieve the status of "fact," take a look at a jury sometime. Juries in the U.S. have the job of determining the facts of a case. Evidence is presented to them, and they decide what is. How? Obviously, the legal system does not consider facts to be "self-evident," or juries would not be needed. So, how do they do it? How, indeed. They do it by deciding from the evidence what seems reasonable and what doesn't. Do you see how that begs the question? Yet the most exacting laboratory scientist does precisely the same thing. His tools may be refined, but the process rests on a foundation that is no more secure than that of a jury.

I submit to you that "faith" is not what most atheists, and no few theists, think of it as being. It is pointless to think of "faith" as subscribing to a proposition without sufficient evidence, because there is no objective standard of sufficiency. I find it much more helpful to look at it from a functional point of view, i.e., how does it work? From this perspective, "faith" consists of exercising trust in someone or something. Simply getting out of bed in the morning requires an exercise of trust -- that the floor will be there when you stand up, that your legs won't break beneath you when you put your weight on them, that there's a point to getting out of bed, etc. These are exercises of trust that you find convenient to make, but they aren't forced upon you by reality.

Every action and inaction constitutes an act of trust. The man who prays to God exercises trust in his existence, his nature, etc.; and the man who says that there is no God exercises trust that no God exists, going about his day without acknowledging him or regarding the idea of him as relevant. This is the common belief of atheism: the act of trust in the non-existence of God. Both the weak atheist ("I don't believe there is") and the strong atheist ("I believe there isn't") make this act of trust.

Hope this helps.

 

[atanu]

This is an exceptionally long thread, and I am not going to read all the responses. If I am duplicating someone else's answer: sorry.

Atheists I have known, with help from theists who haven't thought the matter through very well, regard knowledge and belief as two different things, to wit: that belief is acceptance of a proposition without sufficient evidence. As I think you have recognized, this distinction is specious. "Sufficiency" is in the eye of the beholder, and no one truly "knows" anything rationally. Reason is founded upon the subject-object dichotomy; it requires a discontinuity between that which thinks and that which is thought about. This discontinuity is, of necessity, an infinite gulf that reason is incapable of crossing -- because, if it ever *did* cross it, it would self-destruct, being unable to function. Therefore, all so-called "knowledge" is necessarily founded on limited evidence, and requires a "leap of faith."

For better understanding of how "beliefs" achieve the status of "fact," take a look at a jury sometime. Juries in the U.S. have the job of determining the facts of a case. Evidence is presented to them, and they decide what is. How? Obviously, the legal system does not consider facts to be "self-evident," or juries would not be needed. So, how do they do it? How, indeed. They do it by deciding from the evidence what seems reasonable and what doesn't. Do you see how that begs the question? Yet the most exacting laboratory scientist does precisely the same thing. His tools may be refined, but the process rests on a foundation that is no more secure than that of a jury.

I submit to you that "faith" is not what most atheists, and no few theists, think of it as being. It is pointless to think of "faith" as subscribing to a proposition without sufficient evidence, because there is no objective standard of sufficiency. I find it much more helpful to look at it from a functional point of view, i.e., how does it work? From this perspective, "faith" consists of exercising trust in someone or something. Simply getting out of bed in the morning requires an exercise of trust -- that the floor will be there when you stand up, that your legs won't break beneath you when you put your weight on them, that there's a point to getting out of bed, etc. These are exercises of trust that you find convenient to make, but they aren't forced upon you by reality.

Every action and inaction constitutes an act of trust. The man who prays to God exercises trust in his existence, his nature, etc.; and the man who says that there is no God exercises trust that no God exists, going about his day without acknowledging him or regarding the idea of him as relevant. This is the common belief of atheism: the act of trust in the non-existence of God. Both the weak atheist ("I don't believe there is") and the strong atheist ("I believe there isn't") make this act of trust.

Hope this helps.

A nice post to which I can easily relate. But try telling the blue highlighted part to Kilgore.

...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A nice post to which I can easily relate. But try telling the blue highlighted part to Kilgore.

I haven't asked you a single thing about what you know, but what you believe. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference.

 

[atanu]

I haven't asked you a single thing about what you know, but what you believe. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference.

Kilgore,

I may be wrong but I believe that I have told you several times what I believe. it is not my fault either that you did not recognise.
...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Kilgore,

I may be wrong but I believe that I have told you several times what I believe. it is not my fault either that you did not recognise.
...

I must have missed it. Do you believe I'm wearing a blue shirt?

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, I could. What's your problem with that?

Only that you had seemed to contradict yourself, but maybe I just misunderstood you.

I'm only talking about things that would reasonbly fit the definition.

To me, it appears that you are doing just the opposite. You are starting with a definition that you insist on keeping no matter what anyone else has to say. My position is that words do not mean what people say they mean. Words mean what people use them to mean. As a linguist, I am well aware of the wide discrepancy that can exist between usage and intuitions about usage. I think that atheists who insist on the "lack of belief" definition have ulterior motives for insisting on it. Not only is it very popular to use that definition, but they think that it positions them well in their debate with theists. I think that it is a counter-productive position.

Are you positing that you are aware of and have considered every possible variation of every god concept and have rejected it? You must have a lot of time on your hands.

If your argument were true, then you could never know the meaning of any word, because there would never be enough time or opportunity to consider every possible variation of usage. We all have a reasonably good understanding of what a "god" is. It is not unlike other words in the language. (I disagree with atanu and many other theists on this point.)