Atheism: A belief?

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't hold the belief that god exists.
I don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

Did I miss it? Has somebody yet pointed out how these two statements are logically inconsistent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I don't see where you're going with this. How is this relevant?

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.

As I said before, atheism isn't a position. There are atheistic positions, but atheism itself isn't a position.

To use another analogy, there are blue cars, but "blueness" is not a car.

That being said, there's nothing stopping a person from holding a reasoned position within atheism... or within theism. If a person's reasoning leads them to a position that includes belief in god, he would cease to be an atheist. If a person's reasoning leads him to a position where he no longer has any beliefs in god, he would become an atheist.

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

It's not the be-all and end-all of my "God" position, but yes, that's true. I also say that the label applies to anyone who meets the criteria for it (i.e. no beliefs in gods), even if they haven't given themselves any labels... heck, it still applies even if they've labelled themselves "not an atheist".

I don't see how this really justifies anything.

It's not supposed to justify anything. I'm just giving some background information. My point is that while I recognize that I'm an atheist, this fact doesn't define my life; it isn't even that large a part of it. I was just pointing out that any impression that people get here, on a board dedicated to religious discussion, is going to be an incomplete picture of my overall worldview, because I do most of my discussion of other things in other places.

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.

The fact that I have positions about atheism does not make atheism itself a position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What definition have I asked him to accept?

When you said "atheism is characterized", it strongly suggested (to me, at least) that you were going to go back into that "be the atheist" stuff that you went on about before.

I don't hold the belief that god exists.
I don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

Did I miss it? Has somebody yet pointed out how these two statements are logically inconsistent?

I don't think anyone has.

IMO, the argument isn't over whether your position is logically tenable; it's over whether it qualifies you for the label "atheist".

My position is that it does. Copernicus' position, as I understand it (BTW - feel free to chime in if I'm wrong), is that it doesn't.

What do you think? Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Because one side is recognizing that "rejection of the belief that gods exist" has the two definitions, and he other side isn't. Those of us saying atheism is a lack of belief in gods aren't implying that "rejection of belief in gods" isn't one valid definition of atheism. We're saying that at its core, it's lack of belief in gods, and some atheists also actively believe gods don't exist.

The problem is that others don't want to recognize the other definition, the "lack of belief" one as a valid one.

 

[Willamena]

When you said "atheism is characterized", it strongly suggested (to me, at least) that you were going to go back into that "be the atheist" stuff that you went on about before.

Nah. It's just that making an anthropomorphism and characterization are, to me, different things.

 

[Copernicus]

...The problem, as you admit, is that you have an emotional stake in this, which is clouding your view.

I have "admitted" no such thing, and that is one of the things that has frustrated me in my discussions with you. What I did say was that "pet peeve" has kept me in the discussion, not that it was "clouding my view". And it is very hypocritical of you to criticize others for having an "emotional stake" when you clearly have one yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Yet another unsupported claim. It's interesting that you try to support unsupported claims by claiming they've been supported, which is itself an unsupported claim.

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

You label yourself a human, like billions of others. You are indeed conforming to a herd. I mean, come on. That's just horrible reasoning. Applying a label to myself to explain something about me is not conforming to a herd. Conforming to a herd is accepting something just so that you can be like others. A professional football player isn't conforming to a herd by calling himself a football player.

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.

So, what you're saying is that if I asked an autotheist whether he believes in God, he wouldn't answer "no"? Then he wouldn't fit into the category of "people who answer 'no' to the question 'Do you believe in God?'".

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.

OK, this is why I said you might want to take some time to gather your thoughts. Either your thoughts are confused or your communication of them is. Either way, it would be good to iron out your confusion before replying.

You don't agree with every definition of atheism because, as you say right here, you disagree with the definition "lack of belief in gods". This really shouldn't be that hard. I also explained why using "belief" in the definition doesn't make it a belief. Did you miss that part? When I say "lack of belief", the word "belief" appears, but that doesn't mean it's a belief.

So you sport one fact to disclaim all others?

I "sport" that fact to discredit the view that that fact is not true.

You would consider apatheism, atheism right?

No, I would consider it apatheism. An apatheist could be an atheist or a theist.

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.

In other words "I don't care what you say, I'm just going to ignore it, and keep stating it's not true". The definition "lack of belief in gods" most certainly does imply that it's not a belief. A lack of belief is not a belief. A belief would be "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". A lack of belief is simply the absence of a belief. Saying someone lacks the belief "God exists" is not saying that person holds the belief "God doesn't exist".

So, what you're doing is completely ignoring the definition we've been using, as if it hasn't even been mentioned. That's hardly a good way of debating. You point about other atheists making the same assertion is silly. So, if a computer expert claims that the processing power of an Integra 2 is better than that of an A4, and I make the same claim, I must be just going along with the herd, even if I understand that the claim is made because the Integra 2 has dual cores rather than the one of the A4? I'm not really sure what the "unchallenged" has to do with anything.

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.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. The reason it's "still a theory" is that a scientific theory explains many observable facts. Scientific theories are not possible laws that lack sufficient evidence. They are different things from laws. We're not talking about a theory like "I have a theory about who committed this crime".

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.

That's great. Now if you could go ahead and explain what that has to do with a discussion about definitions of words, I'd be appreciative.

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.

OK, let's take this slowly. The definition we're talking about is "lack of belief in gods". That definition not only implies, but clearly states that it's not a belief, but a lack of belief. If a room lacks a chair, that means there is no chair there.

So, the question is then whether or not you agree with that definition. You say that you agree with every one, which would imply that you agree with this one. Therefore you agree that atheism is not a belief. However, since you've clearly stated that you think atheism is a belief, that's not true. We're left with you making contradictory statements.

So, what's the problem here? Do you not realize that a lack of belief is not a belief? Or is it that you disagree with the definition "a lack of belief in gods"? If you agree with that definition, then you agree that atheism is not a belief. If you disagree with that definition, then you don't agree with every definition of atheism. I'm trying to get you to be clear here.

Try reading effectively.

I've been doing that all along. The problem is not my reading skills. The problem is, as I outlined above, your communication skills or your ideas.

 

[Magic Man]

I have "admitted" no such thing, and that is one of the things that has frustrated me in my discussions with you. What I did say was that "pet peeve" has kept me in the discussion, not that it was "clouding my view".

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that you admitted to having an emotional stake in this, due to your calling it a pet peeve. I also said that that emotional stake is clouding your view.

And it is very hypocritical of you to criticize others for having an "emotional stake" when you clearly have one yourself.

I'm not criticizing you for having an emotional stake. I'm criticizing how it's clouding your view.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't hold the belief that god exists.
I don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

Did I miss it? Has somebody yet pointed out how these two statements are logically inconsistent?

Yes. I pointed it out when I responded to your last request for an explanation. Continuing to ask a question that has already been answered is argumentum ad nauseam.

To repeat it, my point was: "X does not believe that Y" is ambiguous. The ambiguity is well-documented, well-known, and fairly easy to describe. Both Atanu and I have described it for you. The two statements above, according to the ambiguity, can be read either way because of that ambiguity. If you maintain a consistent interpretation of "X does not believe that Y", then equating "Y" with "not Y" creates a contradiction. You may refer back to my past posts for a more elaborate description, but your query has been answered several times over.

 

[Copernicus]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that you admitted to having an emotional stake in this, due to your calling it a pet peeve. I also said that that emotional stake is clouding your view.

I'm not criticizing you for having an emotional stake. I'm criticizing how it's clouding your view.

And I was not criticizing you for claiming that I had an emotional stake in the argument, which I did admit to. What I criticized you for was the hypocrisy of thinking that my emotional stake would be any more likely to cloud my judgment than yours would yours.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes. I pointed it out when I responded to your last request for an explanation. Continuing to ask a question that has already been answered is argumentum ad nauseam.

To repeat it, my point was: "X does not believe that Y" is ambiguous. The ambiguity is well-documented, well-known, and fairly easy to describe. Both Atanu and I have described it for you. The two statements above, according to the ambiguity, can be read either way because of that ambiguity. If you maintain a consistent interpretation of "X does not believe that Y", then equating "Y" with "not Y" creates a contradiction. You may refer back to my past posts for a more elaborate description, but your query has been answered several times over.

What's ambiguous about "I don't hold the belief that god exists"? It's a simple statement with only one reasonable interpretation. Not holding one belief doesn't imply holding another belief.

 

[Magic Man]

And I was not criticizing you for claiming that I had an emotional stake in the argument, which I did admit to. What I criticized you for was the hypocrisy of thinking that my emotional stake would be any more likely to cloud my judgment than yours would yours.

And I was not claiming that you that you criticized me for claiming that you had an emotional stake in the argument.

It's not hypocrisy to note that your preconceived notions that account for your emotional stake are causing you to not see the issue clearly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you think? Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

Seeing that the broadest definition of atheist accurately describes my position, it's irrelevant whether I consider myself one or not. Of course, it would be rather asinine of me to reject what is accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To repeat it, my point was: "X does not believe that Y" is ambiguous. The ambiguity is well-documented, well-known, and fairly easy to describe. Both Atanu and I have described it for you. The two statements above, according to the ambiguity, can be read either way because of that ambiguity. If you maintain a consistent interpretation of "X does not believe that Y", then equating "Y" with "not Y" creates a contradiction. You may refer back to my past posts for a more elaborate description, but your query has been answered several times over.

I think Mr. Trout took care of the ambiguity in the way he phrased things. IMO, "I do not hold the belief that (X)" does not reasonably imply "I believe (not X)".

Seeing that the broadest definition of atheist accurately describes my position, it's irrelevant whether I consider myself one or not. Of course, it would be rather asinine of me to reject what is accurate.

But this whole discussion is about whether that broadest definition is valid. Can I infer that you think it is?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But this whole discussion is about whether that broadest definition is valid. Can I infer that you think it is?

I do. Of course, I haven't yet seen a convincing argument which explains why it isn't valid. I'm open to the possibility - just waiting for someone to make one.

 

[Magic Man]

I do. Of course, I haven't yet seen a convincing argument which explains why it isn't valid. I'm open to the possibility - just waiting for someone to make one.

That's the thing. So far, all we've gotten is that it's absurd, or it leads to absurd statements. There still hasn't been an explanation for why it's supposedly absurd. Like you, I don't mind entertaining the idea that that definition is wrong, but no one has offered any good reason to entertain the idea.

 

[Copernicus]

What's ambiguous about "I don't hold the belief that god exists"? It's a simple statement with only one reasonable interpretation. Not holding one belief doesn't imply holding another belief.

Oops! You got me! Our earlier discussion was about the negation of the verb "believe", and that is what I was thinking of when I replied to your post. You are absolutely right that it is possible to lack a belief in the existence of gods in the sense that you are describing. So there was no incompatibility between those two statements. We have been discussing whether such a definition is reasonable for words like "atheism" and "atheist". I believe that it is not appropriate for the way in which people normally understand and use those words. You may indeed be someone who does not reject belief in gods, although many of your posts outside of this thread seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oops! You got me! Our earlier discussion was about the negation of the verb "believe", and that is what I was thinking of when I replied to your post. You are absolutely right that it is possible to lack a belief in the existence of gods in the sense that you are describing. So there was no incompatibility between those two statements. We have been discussing whether such a definition is reasonable for words like "atheism" and "atheist". I believe that it is not appropriate for the way in which people normally understand and use those words.

This is the whole crux of the matter, and I would probably say that you would have had an argument even 20 or 30 years ago, however, it's difficult to deny the current widespread use of the word atheist as someone who "lacks" belief in god(s). With the continued evolution of the word, I'd say it will soon be the more used/known definition, if it already isn't. Regardless, enough people use and understand it in that context, that it is certainly a valid definition.

You may indeed be someone who does not reject belief in gods, although many of your posts outside of this thread seem to suggest otherwise.

I may reject belief in certain, particular god concepts, but if you think my posts characterize me as someone who rejects the possibility overall, then I can only assume you haven't read many of my posts.

 

[charles brough]

What is "belief" about atheism is that it rests on the logic and science encapsulated in the simple fact that it is impossible to prove something does not exist. We cannot even prove Santa Claus does not exist!

So, we who are atheists don't try, down waste thought on it. It is up to the faithful to prove "HE" does exist.

And you fail every time!

I know, you think you have "truth" and science just has "theory." The difference is that your "truth" is just theory also---only much older, and now discredited, theory. It is no longer consistent with the scientific advance of human understanding.

Indeed, it needs to be replaced with a science-ideology so that the old religions no longer divide up our shrinking planet when we need to all work together to solve its many and growing problems.

We need a world-view and way of thinking that sets such goals as merging the races, controling over-population with birth control, conserving our environment and resources, build a new civilization and colonize outer space.

This is the task of all Non-Theists. I am up to that task and doing my part. All who also seek such goals should work with me . . .

 

[Copernicus]

This is the whole crux of the matter, and I would probably say that you would have had an argument even 20 or 30 years ago, however, it's difficult to deny the current widespread use of the word atheist as someone who "lacks" belief in god(s). With the continued evolution of the word, I'd say it will soon be the more used/known definition, if it already isn't. Regardless, enough people use and understand it in that context, that it is certainly a valid definition.

I think that your claim of usage and your actual usage are two different things. The "lacks belief" definition is more of a slogan than a definition. It does not describe the way people actually use "atheism", but it does accomplish polemical goals.

I may reject belief in certain, particular god concepts, but if you think my posts characterize me as someone who rejects the possibility overall, then I can only assume you haven't read many of my posts.

Notice the bold, underlined word above. This is where we are having a huge disconnect. I never said, nor do I believe, that you reject the possibility of the existence of gods. What I think you do reject, based on my impression of things you've said in the past, is that you reject the probability of gods. Atheists almost never reject the possibility of gods, just their plausibility.