Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what relationship does atheism bear to the alleged object "God", if any?

Atheism is the umbrella term that applies to all belief systems that do not include a belief in any gods.

If you expand your question, maybe I can get a better sense of what you're after.

You can disagree that "the universe" is a useful, accurate or meaningful synonym for "fneeglemorph", but nevertheless it must become included in the definition of "fneeglemorph" if enough people are using it that way.

And how many people need to explicitly say that "fneeglemorph" is not the universe before we get to take it back out again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So...what you think isn't necessarily what it is, is it?

You just said that you think there can be reasoned positions within atheism, which contradicts this statement above.

There's no contradiction. Atheism is not a reasoned position itself, but it does contain reasoned positions.

As an analogy: a country is not a person, but a country contains people.

If you don't think that atheism is a belief or a position for that matter, then why do you take the label atheist (without God) onto yourself?

Because in a society where the majority of people believe in some sort of god, the fact that I don't hold belief in god can be relevant and useful information.

However, while I do think that the label "atheist" properly applies to me, it's not the main term I use when describing myself or my position. I am an atheist, but I identify more with other terms like "humanist", "secularist" and "freethinker".

And that's just here at RF. Out in the real world, I'm more likely to primarily think of myself as "engineer", "gearhead" or even "avid walker". While I am an atheist, I don't identify myself with it first and foremost.

Then why are you reasoning your position on what atheism is?

If you don't understand why this question is nonsense, then I don't think any explanation from me is going to be able to get it across to you.

 

[Magic Man]

Mball, I think you get the picture of why I believe you are taking the stand that you do. I think that things you've said have corroborated my opinion, but I do not expect you to agree. These arguments have become too long and repetitious for me to spend a lot more time defending my position. I'll concentrate on a reply to Penguin, because I think that he has done a better job of addressing my arguments. Also, he raises many of the same points you do, and I don't get the feeling that he is stonewalling me. I enjoy talking about word meanings and definitions, but such discussions quite often get heated. Normally, I'm on your side on these matters. This just happens to be one of my pet peeve subjects, so I've gone on too long about it.

As I said, if you get rid of this false belief that Penguin and I (and others) are just making our argument so that we are in a better position to argue with theists on certain issues, this whole debate will go away. Again, the problem is not that we have an axe to grind. The problem, as you admit, is that you have an emotional stake in this, which is clouding your view.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is the umbrella term that applies to all belief systems that do not include a belief in any gods.

If you expand your question, maybe I can get a better sense of what you're after.

"What I'm after" is clarification of what you'd consider a "position".

For instance, if an umbrella term includes all belief systems that do not include any belief in gods, can it be said to be a position of any sort? Surely it takes a position on "the belief in any gods"?

 

[Tristesse]

Yes.

That your considerations and arguments took you to the negative....
instead of the positive.....

It's all the same.....in your head.

And you will conduct yourself accordingly....even if the results are nothing but dust.

If I don't collect stamps, that makes me the same as someone collects satmps?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Note: I've pruned down some of the quotes to get the post below the character limit.

Huh? Where did I say that I rejected every definition? I think that some are better than others. I have given my definition, which I think is pretty good. But I'm obviously biased.

I guess I misunderstood. To actually reject belief in gods, you'd have to reject belief in anything validly called a god. Since you've been holding up dictionaries as authorities so far, I figured that's what you'd be basing things on.

I think that Merriam-Websters did a pretty sloppy job on that definition. Oddly enough, Wordnet is much better, IMO, even though they didn't have the fancy high-paid usage panel.

Yeah, I suppose that one's better, but it's still on the vague side.

One of the problems with definitions of "god" (and let's please distinguish between the proper noun and the common noun) is that there is a lot of emotion and controversy attached to the concept.
[...]
I think that we atheists tend to be guilty of the same crime when defining our own label (but that has been the topic of discussion here).

So... you want us to go by usage instead of usage? I'm confused.

Actually, it is by definition that they are not.
[...]
Forces in that reality can interact with our reality, but not vice versa.

If they interact, then they're not independent.

That's the thing - IMO, there's no way to define "spiritual" as something distinct from "physical" that doesn't create some sort of internal contradiction AND allows us to know about these "spiritual" things at all.

I understand the idea, which is grounded in mind-body dualism, but I do not believe that it is a plausible belief.
[...]
Logically, they could exist independently of physical reality, but the evidence is against that conclusion.

Here's how I look at it: imagine you're confronted by some previously-unknown force or phenomenon. How would you tell whether it's "spiritual" or "physical"?

If the spiritual interacts with the physical, then there's no way to tell. There's no meaningful distinction between the two categories.

If you want to pursue that semantic argument with others, it's fine with me.
[...]
Such a realm may only exist in their imaginations, but words can be used to describe imaginary concepts.

And in this case, it describes an inherently contradictory concept. "Fundamentally non-physical" things do not have fundamentally physical effects. If anything "fundamentally non-physical" is running around, then we have no way to see, hear, touch, taste, smell or measure it. If a thing is visible sometimes and invisible other times, then it might be only partly physical (or maybe alternate between physical and spiritual), but the physical aspect has to be in there somewhere. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart in a blast of illogic and special pleading.

I do not think that "atheist" can be narrowly restricted to "certain god-claims".
[...]
The Christian God is supposed to be the only one of all possible gods that people are allowed to worship.

I meant that the term can be used in a sense like "I'm an atheist toward Thor." And it could very well be that a Christian might make this claim.

This is basically the old "proving a negative" problem.

Not quite. I'm not asking for proof, just explicit rejection, which IMO requires explicit consideration. The bar is much lower.

You cannot exhaustively examine every conceivable instance, so the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim.

There's no burden of proof here. Conceptually, this approach would be like going down a checklist of god-beliefs and checking "no" for every belief on the list, making sure that you've put a checkmark down for each and every god. Why you check "no" is up to you - I'm not asking for any reasons for your decisions, just for the decisions themselves.

However, like I said, that's only one way to go at the problem. You can also exclude gods by category... as long as you can define your categories properly.

We should all understand why this approach cannot work. Imagine if you applied the same approach to pixies, leprechauns, and banshees. We would never be able to reject belief in any mythical beings.

Exactly! I can't reject things I've never conceived of.

And this illustrates part of why it's much more workable to define terms like "atheist" or other labels of non-belief in terms of lack of belief. If someone somewhere on Earth has come up with a mythical being that has the front half of a narwhal, the back half of a grizzly bear and flies through the air pooping cinnamon hearts (let's call it a "flying grizzwhal" ), the mere fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean I'm a "flying grizzwhal agnostic".

Yes, this is really the only viable approach, and not just with "god" belief. It works with other mythical beings, as well. All the god-believer has to do is come up with reasonable proof of the existence of one god to overturn this approach.

Theoretically, it works just fine. As I alluded to before, it can run into problems in practice when we get down to the nitty-gritty of defining the categories we're rejecting.

Yes. Within reason, that is true.

"Within reason"?

Did I not do this? A god is an intelligent agency (usually thought to be immaterial) that has absolute power over some aspect of reality (subject to usurpation by a more powerful god).

So... off the top of my head, your category does not include any gods who get tired or hungry (since their power cannot be considered absolute), or gods who are less than perfectly sovereign over their domain (subject to usurpation of more powerful gods, as you said).

It sounds to me like your rejection of gods managed to miss the entire Greek pantheon. I'm sure it misses many other gods as well.

And I'm sure that the panentheists (AND the panenfneeglemorphists ) who view God as something like a "life force" and not necessarily intelligent would disagree with your description of God as an "intelligent entity".

Also, what about those theists who say that their God is all-powerful, but this is subject to the limits of "logical possibility" (e.g. no ability to create "square circles" and the like); is this absolute power or not? It's not absolute power over logic, and in these monotheistic religions, there's no higher god saying "you must obey logic!"

We could go on to elaborate the core concept, but it is clearly modeled on human beings. That is, gods tend to be "anthropomorphic", although there have been many attempts to make up gods that have fewer anthropomorphic traits.

I'd tend to agree, but I also realize that this seems to take an a priori position (at least for this discussion) that god-belief is false. After all, to the extent that gods are based on human traits and characteristics, they're not based on the truth of the god-claims that they describe.

I reject belief in such beings, but I'm not going to reject the logical possibility that one or more may exist any more than I will reject the logical possibility that Santa Claus may exist. We can imagine many types of beings and things that do not exist.

Yes, but imagining a thing does not necessarily mean that it can exist.

I do not really agree with this point.
[...]
I might disagree with them that cats have god-like properties, but I'm not going to engage in fisticuffs with every cat-lover over the matter.

I'm not going to get into a fight with someone over the matter either, but I'm still not going to accept a person's claim that their cat is a god. That deals with the problem. And if I did accept their claim, I'd cease to be an atheist.

IMO, I think that a general term has to be generally applicable. If you leave holes in the category, then it doesn't really work.

But in any case, I don't think it's even true that your definition of "god" is good on the whole with problems on the edges; I think it's generally unworkable as it is. It misses many mainstream god-concepts.

Well, thank you for clarifying that now, although you could have been more explicit about what you meant earlier. :slap:
[...]
Should I not try to distinguish between reality and fantasy?

Yes, of course. Never mind - I was trying to make a point by analogy, but it fell apart when you said that you believed that aliens probably exist somewhere in the universe.

Fair enough. You reject verificationism. [...]
I thought that you were going in a different direction, but I'm glad that we agree on this point, at least.

I'm not sure we do agree. What I'm saying is that because rejection is an explicit act, to reject belief in gods generally, you must reject belief in each and every god, either individually or by category. If there are any gaps at all - if there's so much as one single god-concept that you haven't either explicitly considered or didn't quite include in the categories you rejected - then you have not rejected belief in all gods and therefore you aren't an atheist... by your definition, anyhow.

As you pointed out before, it's not enough to reject belief in some gods to be an atheist, because most (all?) theists do just that. Atheism must require rejection of every single god-belief some way or another.

 

[Magic Man]

Your point is hypocritical, not to mention a stubborn drive cements yourself in a narrowminded view.

Well, that's certainly a lot of unsupported claims. It would be great if you'd at least try to support them rather than just spewing them.

Herd conformity isn't something for me

Nor me, but then again, your implication that I am trying to conform to a herd fails for the same reason your above wild accusations do: it's unsupported by any evidence.

So you would view autotheism as being "atheistic", as you would view panentheism?

The point of your question is skewed, when you ask the question, "do you believe in God?". "God" could range from a chair, to a sky daddy to me and you.

It depends. If an autotheist answers "no" to the question "Do you believe in a god?", I would say he/she is an atheist. Same goes for a panentheist. But your last assertion here doesn't make my question skewed.

Not at all. I said "exactly" because I was in complete agreeance with what you said.

OK, this isn't hard. I said that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of a certain belief. You can't agree completely with that, and then claim that atheism is a belief. You have to pick one. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

People are adding extra baggage onto atheism. If it isn't as so much a belief, then people wouldn't go through 800 different posts of trying to explain what they belief atheism is.

The "fact" of the matter is, you can't make objective claims about something that isn't material.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I can make that claim because it is the real definition of the word.

I just find it hard to consider something not a belief when the very definition uses "belief". But whatever, apparently denotation escapes everyone.

So, if the definition of squid was "a multiple-tentacled ocean-dweller that's not an octopus", you would consider a squid to be an octopus because the definition uses the word "octopus"? That doesn't make much sense.

Again, this is really very simple. The broadest definition is "lack of belief in gods". Yes, that uses "belief", but only to say that belief is absent. It's kind of weird to call lack of belief "belief" simply because the word appears in it.

If atheism isn't a belief and were truly "factual", other atheists and apparenty me wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

That's some faulty reasoning. So, do you also claim that evolution is not a fact just because some people argue that it's not true?

People argue against all kinds of stuff that is factual. It is a fact that atheism is, among other things, a lack of belief in gods. However, as you note, that's not stopping you and others from claiming that it is a belief.

No one is disagreeing with you.

OK, now you're just being ridiculous. You and others are disagreeing with that statement. You yourself said that atheism is a belief. You just disagreed with it in this very post of yours.

What I would suggest is you either take some time to gather your thoughts and sort them out so you understand what you believe, or you take some time to carefully write your next response so that you communicate better. Up until now you're either confused in your ideas, or your communication is sorely lacking, because you have said that atheism is a belief while saying you agree with me that it is not a belief.

When contributing to threads, it's good to try to communicate effectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"What I'm after" is clarification of what you'd consider a "position".

For the purposes of this discussion, it'd be something that could be phrased as a statement of the form "I believe ______."

For instance, if an umbrella term includes all belief systems that do not include any belief in gods, can it be said to be a position of any sort?

Probably not. There are atheistic positions, but I wouldn't say that atheism is a position itself.

Surely it takes a position on "the belief in any gods"?

I'm not sure that abstract concepts "take positions", but to the extent that it does, I suppose it'd be something like "those beliefs aren't part of me".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There's no contradiction. Atheism is not a reasoned position itself, but it does contain reasoned positions.

As an analogy: a country is not a person, but a country contains people.


Because in a society where the majority of people believe in some sort of god, the fact that I don't hold belief in god can be relevant and useful information.

However, while I do think that the label "atheist" properly applies to me, it's not the main term I use when describing myself or my position. I am an atheist, but I identify more with other terms like "humanist", "secularist" and "freethinker".

And that's just here at RF. Out in the real world, I'm more likely to primarily think of myself as "engineer", "gearhead" or even "avid walker". While I am an atheist, I don't identify myself with it first and foremost.


If you don't understand why this question is nonsense, then I don't think any explanation from me is going to be able to get it across to you.

:yes:

 

[Willamena]

Probably not. There are atheistic positions, but I wouldn't say that atheism is a position itself.

Out of curiosity, what are these beliefs systems called, that atheism is the umbrella of? Are they each also individually "atheism"? Is any of them?

For the purposes of this discussion, it'd be something that could be phrased as a statement of the form "I believe ______."

I'm not sure that abstract concepts "take positions", but to the extent that it does, I suppose it'd be something like "those beliefs aren't part of me".

So, like, "I believe that I lack any belief in gods." Something like that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity, what are these beliefs systems called, that atheism is the umbrella of? Are they each also individually "atheism"? Is any of them?

Well... no. There's a difference between "atheist", "atheistic" and "atheism".

I mean, I know you're Canadian; are you "Canada"?

So, like, "I believe that I lack any belief in gods." Something like that?

Only to the extent that we're anthropomorphizing atheism. Like I said, I don't think that abstract concepts really "take positions" in the way we're talking about.

I don't think that a person has to believe that they lack belief to be an atheist; they just have to lack the belief.

 

[Willamena]

Well... no. There's a difference between "atheist", "atheistic" and "atheism".

I mean, I know you're Canadian; are you "Canada"?

The distinction between "athiest" and "atheism" wasn't what I asked about. I live in Canada, but Canada is composed of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc. You suggest that atheism, while it doesn't take a position on belief in god, is an umbrella term for belief systems, some of which do take a position and some of which don't. If, for example, ignosticism distinguishes itself from atheism, and some hold it to be under the umbrella but the ignostic does not, is there room under the umbrella for an atheist who doesn't consider himself under that umbrella but still an athiest.

Only to the extent that we're anthropomorphizing atheism. Like I said, I don't think that abstract concepts really "take positions" in the way we're talking about.

I don't think that a person has to believe that they lack belief to be an atheist; they just have to lack the belief.

It's not about anthropomorphs, but characters. Atheism is characterized.

Belief is "a psychological state in which a person holds something to be true." If the atheist hold that they lack belief, then that is an expressed belief. Wherever the truth points, that's where belief lies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The distinction between "athiest" and "atheism" wasn't what I asked about. I live in Canada, but Canada is composed of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc. You suggest that atheism, while it doesn't take a position on belief in god, is an umbrella term for belief systems, some of which do take a position and some of which don't. If, for example, ignosticism distinguishes itself from atheism, and some hold it to be under the umbrella but the ignostic does not, is there room under the umbrella for an atheist who doesn't consider himself under that umbrella but still an athiest.

Sure there is.

It's not about anthropomorphs, but characters. Atheism is characterized.

I'm not going to play this game with you.

Belief is "a psychological state in which a person holds something to be true." If the atheist hold that they lack belief, then that is an expressed belief.

Except it's not a matter of a person "holding that they lack belief" it's a matter of whether they actually do lack belief, whether they "hold it" or not.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not going to play this game with you.

The game of communication? Yeah, I get that.

Except it's not a matter of a person "holding that they lack belief" it's a matter of whether they actually do lack belief, whether they "hold it" or not.

That's not an epistemologically sound position.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't understand why both sides can't just say "Hey, there's two definitions for the word "atheist" that can be used in various circumstances." Because that is what it boils down to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The game of communication? Yeah, I get that.

No, the game where you use words in ways that only make sense to you, and then expect everyone to follow along.

And I wouldn't exactly call it "communication".

That's not an epistemologically sound position.

Why would you say that?

 

[Willamena]

No, the game where you use words in ways that only make sense to you, and then expect everyone to follow along.

And I wouldn't exactly call it "communication".


Why would you say that?

If you don't understand what I say when I talk as plainly as I do, when you accuse me of "playing games" just because I'm trying to say something, then there's no point in continuing this.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you don't understand what I say when I talk as plainly as I do, when you accuse me of "playing games" just because I'm trying to say something, then there's no point in continuing this.

Thanks for the chat.

From what I've read, it's 9_10ths who was being the far more plain and clear one in this discussion. You do have a tendency to convolute issues with arbitrary personal definitions that end up making the discussion go around in circles, and when people refuse to accept your definitions you tend to act as if they're being ignorant or dismissive before leaving the discussion.

Just an observation.

 

[Orias]

There's no contradiction. Atheism is not a reasoned position itself, but it does contain reasoned positions.

As an analogy: a country is not a person, but a country contains people.

Yes, but it is only a country when there is people to fill it, therefore a country is the fulfilment of the people.

As I recall from Skwim's signature, you cannot reason people out of positions that they never reasoned themselves into.

Atheism is a reasoned position, if the position has any room for change.

Because in a society where the majority of people believe in some sort of god, the fact that I don't hold belief in god can be relevant and useful information.

I completely agree.

However, while I do think that the label "atheist" properly applies to me, it's not the main term I use when describing myself or my position. I am an atheist, but I identify more with other terms like "humanist", "secularist" and "freethinker".

Yes, but the point is you take the label, "atheist" unto yourself, which describes your "God" position.

And that's just here at RF. Out in the real world, I'm more likely to primarily think of myself as "engineer", "gearhead" or even "avid walker". While I am an atheist, I don't identify myself with it first and foremost.

I don't see how this really justifies anything.

If you don't understand why this question is nonsense, then I don't think any explanation from me is going to be able to get it across to you.

Thanks for proving my point

No explination will get through, because it is false. First you assert your position, then deny it is even a position at all.

Well, that's certainly a lot of unsupported claims. It would be great if you'd at least try to support them rather than just spewing them.

Oh, the claims have been supported, you must just not be one for recognizing your own thorough rhetoric.

Nor me, but then again, your implication that I am trying to conform to a herd fails for the same reason your above wild accusations do: it's unsupported by any evidence.

You label yourself an atheist, like millions of others, you are indeed conforming to a herd.

It depends. If an autotheist answers "no" to the question "Do you believe in a god?", I would say he/she is an atheist. Same goes for a panentheist. But your last assertion here doesn't make my question skewed.

It does, because autotheists believe in themselves as "God", so when you ask one if they believe in "God", they will ask, "What type?". Not an external or supernatural God, so it does make your vague and reciprocated question skewed.

OK, this isn't hard. I said that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of a certain belief. You can't agree completely with that, and then claim that atheism is a belief. You have to pick one. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

Do you read the posts?

I said I agree that people add extra baggage onto atheism, and I agree with every single definition of atheism, but the definition does not support your claim that atheism is not a belief, since it is obviously clear that the term, "belief" is used to describe it. I really don't know how you keep missing that.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I can make that claim because it is the real definition of the word.

So you sport one fact to disclaim all others?

So, if the definition of squid was "a multiple-tentacled ocean-dweller that's not an octopus", you would consider a squid to be an octopus because the definition uses the word "octopus"? That doesn't make much sense.

Again, your comparing metaphysical thought to concrete and objective material.

You would consider apatheism, atheism right?

Again, this is really very simple. The broadest definition is "lack of belief in gods". Yes, that uses "belief", but only to say that belief is absent. It's kind of weird to call lack of belief "belief" simply because the word appears in it.

Not really, it's what you belief it to be. It's nothing more than a manufactured lie, no where in the definition of atheism does it support your claims that atheism is not a belief. These claims are made by other "reknowned" atheists, which supports my assertion that you only conform to what others have exploited without being challenged.

That's some faulty reasoning. So, do you also claim that evolution is not a fact just because some people argue that it's not true?

So you know, I agree with every step of "evolution". But there is a reason why it is a still a theory. Labels do not consist of "truths", merely projections of our external processions.

The color "red" isn't "red" to everyone, though the majority would agree on the basis of this wavelength, the label isn't a necessity to what it actually is.

People argue against all kinds of stuff that is factual. It is a fact that atheism is, among other things, a lack of belief in gods. However, as you note, that's not stopping you and others from claiming that it is a belief.

You missed the memo, fact is also defined by belief. Until you can prove that you know anything, I will not digress

OK, now you're just being ridiculous. You and others are disagreeing with that statement. You yourself said that atheism is a belief. You just disagreed with it in this very post of yours.

Your just chosing meanings out of what I write. IWe agree with every single definition, just the "fact" that we are trying to exploit your hypocritical and nonsupportive claim that atheism isn't a belief, when it is defined by the very definition.

What I would suggest is you either take some time to gather your thoughts and sort them out so you understand what you believe, or you take some time to carefully write your next response so that you communicate better. Up until now you're either confused in your ideas, or your communication is sorely lacking, because you have said that atheism is a belief while saying you agree with me that it is not a belief.

When contributing to threads, it's good to try to communicate effectively.

Try reading effectively.

 

[Willamena]

From what I've read, it's 9_10ths who was being the far more plain and clear one in this discussion. You do have a tendency to convolute issues with arbitrary personal definitions that end up making the discussion go around in circles, and when people refuse to accept your definitions you tend to act as if they're being ignorant or dismissive before leaving the discussion.

Just an observation.

What definition have I asked him to accept?