Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

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.

Do you have a reason to be claiming yourself atheist, rather than igtheist? That is to say, why aren't you igtheist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you have a reason to be claiming yourself atheist, rather than igtheist? That is to say, why aren't you igtheist?

I suppose I generally fit the definition of one of those too. I'm an atheist, agnostic, and igtheistic or ignostic. They don't seem mutually exclusive. I guess I would default to atheist because I see it as the most relevant and broadly correct in describing my view.

 

[Willamena]

So are you saying atheism is not a belief?

Atheism, as I see it, describes a worldview, which is a set of beliefs about the world.

Here's me. There's the world. I believe in the world --I really do. Just as I view it. There are, in my view of the world, people who believe in "god(s)." Do I see the "god(s)" in the world? If the answer is, "no," then they are not a part of that view of the world.

Of course, in my worldview the answer can be "yes and no."

 

[Willamena]

So there are no beliefs that apply to all atheists.

That's true. There are, however, beliefs specific to atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's true. There are, however, beliefs specific to atheism.

Indeed, but for atheism itself to be meaningfully described as a belief, it would have to include a belief which applied to all atheists. Additionally, even if one came from the perspective that atheism was different beliefs, then you would have to be able to at least identify the beliefs specific to those different atheists which make them atheists.

As there are atheists who hold no beliefs that make them atheists, it would be incorrect to say that atheism is a belief, as it wouldn't be true for all atheists.

 

[Thief]

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.

Apparently you missed the post about belief being an action of mind.

As strongly as one person would say yeah....
Another would say nay....
Note the length of this thread.

Either way...these participants are expressing what they believe.

 

[Alceste]

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"?

...

I mentioned this earlier: "God exists" is not among the set "my beliefs". Therefore I lack belief in my own subjective definition of the word "God".

Like everyone, my subjective definition is pretty much the same one I was taught as a child - the ineffable, omniscient, benevolent creator of the United Church of Canada's version of Christianity.

Others have radically different ideas of what the word "god" means, though. Depending on who you talk to, god can mean anything from a voice in your head to the entire universe. Objectively speaking, the definition I borrow from my past to answer the question "do you believe in God" is no more or less accurate than anybody else's.

 

[Copernicus]

Everyone has a different concept of what every content word (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) means. That is because we learn everything by association with experiences, all of which differ. For example, a prototypical "dog" for one person might be more like a collie for one person and a terrier for another. That does not mean that we claim not to believe in the existence of dogs because we cannot all have the same set of beliefs about what is typical. Our associations overlap enough that we can generalize across them. Gods are not learned through interaction with them, but they are learned by analogy with other common experiences--authority figures such as parents and adults, strong people, smart people, good people, etc. Gods are typically conceived of as super-powerful, super-intelligent, super-good agents that respond to prayers. We pretty much interact with them in the same way that we would with other human beings. They have the highest imaginable qualities of other human beings, especially social status.

Now, it is true that many people try to abstract away from the obvious anthropomorphism we impute to gods when we first come to learn the concept. Very intelligent people have very sophisticated models for gods that are less and less humanlike. Nevertheless, it is hard to find any theist who doesn't slip back into the human-interaction mode. That is, even very sophisticated theists tend to feel reverence, loyalty, and a need to pray, as if they were interacting with an intelligent agent of some sort. I have never known a theist who could consistently avoid some amount of anthropomorphism, despite all claims to the contrary.

When I say that I am an atheist, what I mean is that I reject belief in beings that have minds that exist independently of physical brains and are capable of exercising god-like control over physical reality. I do not know for a fact that such beings do not exist, but I treat their existence with the same level of credulity that I give to other mythical beings--leprechauns, centaurs, pixies, wizards, etc. If somebody wants to argue that I cannot reject belief in gods because there might be some very special definition of a god that I am unaware of, I treat that person as someone who does not know what he or she is talking about--because that person quite literally does not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the other hand, a statement such as "I lack belief in God", pre-supposes a knlowledge of God -- which you do not possess.

I disagree. Can you hold a believe in an undefined concept? I don't think I can.

And if I don't hold a belief in a thing, then I lack belief in it.

May I ask you respectfully, what you mean by 'God', in the sentence "I lack a belief of God"?

When it's capitalized like that, I usually take "God" to be a title referring to the deity of Abrahamic religions.

 

[outhouse]

Atheism, as I see it, describes a worldview, which is a set of beliefs about the world.

im not one to call "thoughts" on something a belief. I think that is the confusion with this thread.

thinking is not a belief

lack of belief is not a belief

Copernicus said it well

Everyone has a different concept of what every content word (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) means

And this is also why we are still so primitive. We have trouble communicating with one another on a logical civil basis [as a whole]

 

[atanu]

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

The belief need not be in terms of Yes or No. Suppose, we have a dark room and you do not know whether there is any chair in it or not. What will be your belief? In this situation, you may just hold that there is no need to hold a belief. It is simply easier to put on the light and find the truth.

This situation is called 'anivarchaniya' in sanskrit -- a situation where you have neither a belief nor a disbelieve. You believe that removal of ignorance will reveal the truth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2390634-post583.html

Although, it may not seem so, we are holding nearly similar view.

...

 

[atanu]

Kilgore
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.

Kilgore
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(e?) way or the other. I certainly don't see this as lacking anything - it's simply the most rational position.

I'm an atheist, agnostic, and igtheistic or ignostic. They don't seem mutually exclusive.

Kilgore has no belief of existence of deities as consequence of his belief on his rational position. But according to his own belief he could be atheist, agnostic, and igtheistic or ignostic -- but not a theist -- at least not until his rationality allows him such a belief.

9-10ths_Penguin
I disagree. Can you hold a believe in an undefined concept? I don't think I can.

And if I don't hold a belief in a thing, then I lack belief in it.

When it's capitalized like that, I usually take "God" to be a title referring to the deity of Abrahamic religions.

The above is specific.

Copernicus
When I say that I am an atheist, what I mean is that I reject belief in beings that have minds that exist independently of physical brains and are capable of exercising god-like control over physical reality. I do not know for a fact that such beings do not exist, but I treat their existence with the same level of credulity that I give to other mythical beings--leprechauns, centaurs, pixies, wizards, etc.

This is again clear and precise.

Alceste
I mentioned this earlier: "God exists" is not among the set "my beliefs". Therefore I lack belief in my own subjective definition of the word "God".

Like everyone, my subjective definition is pretty much the same one I was taught as a child - the ineffable, omniscient, benevolent creator of the United Church of Canada's version of Christianity.

Clear. This brings out the personal aspect.

Basically, every Atheist has a belief in what God/Deity is/are and is rationally/consciously opposed to that idea. In essence, every atheist rejects/disbelieves his version of theistic belief.

But what for? What is the implication of rejection?

Tom Terrific
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.

Basically, IMO, every Atheist has a belief in what God/Deity is/are and is rationally/consciously opposed to the idea of possibilty of that God being the controller/creator of his/her life.

Shared disbelief of an existence of a Personal God, believed by all theists commonly, is the commonality among all atheists.

Apples are of varying taste and size, some are red and some are green, yet there is a shared underlying theme of what consitutes an apple. It may be called appleness. Associated with the word 'appleness' there is a shared meaning in consciousness. The general underlying commonality is unborn ever -- called Brahman of the situation. What is/are born is/are instance/s. All instances have uniqueness in particulars.

...

 

[Alceste]

You started out well but fell apart at the end, Atanu. Pantheists and deists are still theists, as are religious taoists, wiccans and other polytheists. Belief in a "personal god" is not a prerequisite for theism, and rejection of that particular god concept is not a prerequisite for atheism.

 

[atanu]

You started out well but fell apart at the end, Atanu. Pantheists and deists are still theists, as are religious taoists, wiccans and other polytheists. Belief in a "personal god" is not a prerequisite for theism, and rejection of that particular god concept is not a prerequisite for atheism.

You are correct. But you will see that all theists have a commonality, else the meaning of word would not exist and if the meaning did not exist then the word would not and the word is this universe. That is my theism.



...

 

[atanu]

I disagree. Can you hold a believe in an undefined concept? I don't think I can.

I think you may find it humorous when you compare with Kilgore's blue shirt.

anirvachaniya.

...

 

[Alceste]

You are correct. But you will see that all theists have a commonality, else the meaning of word would not exist and if the meaning did not exist then the word would not and the word is this universe. That is my theism.



...

Well if you define the word "god" as "this universe", you can see the problem. I can't very well deny this universe exists, can I?

 

[Copernicus]

I think you may find it humorous when you compare with Kilgore's blue shirt.

But his blue shirt, or whether he ate eggs for breakfast, or whether Alceste sports a mohawk haircut are not really ideas that we lack beliefs about. When you think about it, we hold in our minds all sorts of thoughts and hypotheses about things that are likely or unlikely in the real world. Most of what we believe is weakly-held belief that changes rapidly and continuously. I may think that my car keys are in my pocket, but I may change the belief quickly when I see them lying on the counter. We change our beliefs about what is real all the time, and we have expectations. I expect that Kilgore wears shirts (although there is a remote possibility that he doesn't), and I suspect that he sometimes wears a blue shirt. I doubt that Alceste, a woman (or not), sports a mohawk because women tend not to--and, in fact, most people tend not to. Beliefs are usually probabilistic. Plausibility is important to navigating life successfully.

So our beliefs come in degrees of confidence. What we think we know is ephemeral, and we usually give up those beliefs without much regret. Beliefs in mythical beings may not be as easy to give up, because we cannot check those beliefs against everyday reality. And there may be a lot of motivations that we have to keep those beliefs, even if they seem unlikely. So we think of reasons why we should maintain them.

Religious beliefs are among the most deeply held beliefs that we can have, because people really do get so much out of them. Quite often, all the most important events in our lives are associated with them--marriage, birth, death, family, community. People invest a tremendous amount of time and effort to keep the faith. They invent elaborate excuses, exercises, and rituals for believing what they might otherwise lose quite easily. Self-sacrifice is important in that respect--voluntary suffering to demonstrate commitment to oneself and others (especially imaginary gods).

Atheistic belief--relative confidence that there are no gods in the conventional sense--is of a different sort, because atheism serves relatively few needs. It doesn't give us hope or promise ultimate justice. It has no ceremonies associated with it. It doesn't come with instructions on how to behave towards other human beings. It is only a "worldview" in a very weak sense in that it tells us some things not to expect from life. Atheists have to find other means of fulfilling the needs that religion does, but they do not pay the cognitive tax of sustaining belief in the absence of reasonable concrete evidence.

 

[atanu]

Well if you define the word "god" as "this universe", you can see the problem. I can't very well deny this universe exists, can I?

You got it man -- er sorry woman. But go deep again. Universe is an INSTANCE OR NOT?
...

 

[atanu]

But his blue shirt, or whether he ate eggs for breakfast, or whether Alceste sports a mohawk haircut are not really ideas that we lack beliefs about.
So our beliefs come in degrees of confidence.

I fully agree with you Copernicus.

In my training however, the teacher has taught not to hold any belief -- at least on matters that do not matter. Cannot say however, that I have been successful yet.

Regards

...

 

[Thief]

Everyone has a different concept of what every content word (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) means. That is because we learn everything by association with experiences, all of which differ. For example, a prototypical "dog" for one person might be more like a collie for one person and a terrier for another. That does not mean that we claim not to believe in the existence of dogs because we cannot all have the same set of beliefs about what is typical. Our associations overlap enough that we can generalize across them. Gods are not learned through interaction with them, but they are learned by analogy with other common experiences--authority figures such as parents and adults, strong people, smart people, good people, etc. Gods are typically conceived of as super-powerful, super-intelligent, super-good agents that respond to prayers. We pretty much interact with them in the same way that we would with other human beings. They have the highest imaginable qualities of other human beings, especially social status.

Now, it is true that many people try to abstract away from the obvious anthropomorphism we impute to gods when we first come to learn the concept. Very intelligent people have very sophisticated models for gods that are less and less humanlike. Nevertheless, it is hard to find any theist who doesn't slip back into the human-interaction mode. That is, even very sophisticated theists tend to feel reverence, loyalty, and a need to pray, as if they were interacting with an intelligent agent of some sort. I have never known a theist who could consistently avoid some amount of anthropomorphism, despite all claims to the contrary.

When I say that I am an atheist, what I mean is that I reject belief in beings that have minds that exist independently of physical brains and are capable of exercising god-like control over physical reality. I do not know for a fact that such beings do not exist, but I treat their existence with the same level of credulity that I give to other mythical beings--leprechauns, centaurs, pixies, wizards, etc. If somebody wants to argue that I cannot reject belief in gods because there might be some very special definition of a god that I am unaware of, I treat that person as someone who does not know what he or she is talking about--because that person quite literally does not.

It was good til that happened.

If God cannot 'touch' His creation...He is not God....true.
But neither would He be creator.

And life after death will be dysfunctional if there cannot be interaction
between spirit and the material.

Still....here we are....
And the chaotic churning of chemistry has resulted in life....and intellect.

Without spiritual life ahead.....
You are top of the line life form....and terminal.

Top of the line life form are you?
And some people call me arrogant.

And life has little meaning without the possibility of spiritual continuance.
Your stance ends...with you not standing.... at all.