Atheism: A belief?

[Alceste]

I think it's as simple as he thinks it must be a belief if you use the word belief in a sentence. What I don't know, is if it's a matter of an inability to understand logical concepts, or knowingly making an irrational argument out of misguided stubborness. Either way, it seems to be a lost cause.

I think it is probably out of having a niggling, persistent conviction you are dying to express but no talent for the use of language.

 

[Alceste]

Depends on what the goal or purpose is.

I'm waiting for dinner and listening to the Kaiser report. This gives me something to look at.

 

[Alceste]

BTW, Orias, please find me one example of an atheist claiming to have NO beliefs of any kind.

Nothing leaping to mind? That is because the only factor that renders the word "atheist" meaningful is that some folks lack belief IN GOD. Everything else is fair game.

 

[atanu]

BTW, Orias, please find me one example of an atheist claiming to have NO beliefs of any kind.

Nothing leaping to mind? That is because the only factor that renders the word "atheist" meaningful is that some folks lack belief IN GOD. Everything else is fair game.

That does not indicate that atheist lacks any belief whatsoever regarding a concept called god --- at least not by the conventional defintion of 'atheist'.

I understand now that it is very a complicated thing. To some people, the term atheist means 'lack of belief in abrahamic god', by which understanding some would label Spinoza an atheist. To me however, Spinoza is not an atheist. One kind of atheist fails to see anything beyond the perceptions. Another kind of so-called atheist believes through intuition/through experience/through rational understanding that :

From WIKI

Spinoza
---contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications,----

In short, there are atheists who say "There is nothing beneath the phenomenon". Atheists of the kind of Spinoza say "that which stands beneath is the reality of phenomena". IMO, one may decide what kind of atheist one is.

 

[Alceste]

That does not indicate that atheist lacks any belief whatsoever regarding a concept called god.

It does indicate that atheists do not share any belief whatsoever regarding god/s. IOW, there is nothing in the word "atheism" that implies a particular belief that is specific to atheism, and only atheism.

 

[atanu]

It does indicate that atheists do not share any belief whatsoever regarding god/s. IOW, there is nothing in the word "atheism" that implies a particular belief that is specific to atheism, and only atheism.

Even theists do not -- to that extent. But existence of a single word means a shared meaning.

'Lack of belief in deity' is the shared stance -- but two atheists may approach the 'lack of belief' from different understanding -- and that involves mental action.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2405366-post1084.html

Stones (as far as I know) cannot have such mental action.

 

[Alceste]

That does not indicate that atheist lacks any belief whatsoever regarding a concept called god --- at least not by the conventional defintion of 'atheist'.

I understand now that it is very a complicated thing. To some people, the term atheist means 'lack of belief in abrahamic god', by which understanding some would label Spinoza an atheist. To me however, Spinoza is not an atheist. One kind of atheist fails to see anything beyond the perceptions.

You could say the same about one kind of theist.

[youtube]2z-OLG0KyR4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

A ridiculous and simplistic world view can be held by anyone, whether or not they believe something they like to call "god" engages in some activity they like to call "existing".

In short, there are atheists who say "There is nothing beneath the phenomenon". Atheists of the kind of Spinoza say "that which stands beneath is the reality of phenomena". IMO, one may decide what kind of atheist one is.

Or one might not bother to decide because one is too busy mentally replaying jigs, reels, fugues and preludes to have time for loads of language-based thoughts.

 

[gnomon]

I never thought it would take this long to figure a simple term.

 

[atanu]

Or one might not bother to decide because one is too busy mentally replaying jigs, reels, fugues and preludes to have time for loads of language-based thoughts.

I disagree here. Is the mind ever without activity? Different shades of atheist belief are manifest here. If one was not bothered -- such as a stone is not bothered -- this thread would have not grown to this proportion.

And ironically, I agree fully with you.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree here. Is the mind ever without activity?

We are not talking about activity, only activity that involves stringing a bunch of words together. Generally speaking, my mind only strings words together when I am writing or talking to people. Words (all of them) become significant only when I want to communicate something I have already thought up in a non-linguistic cognitive environment. Also, they are only significant to the extent that they are capable of communicating my non-linguistic ideas to others. IOW, if I'm talking to a 3-year-old who wants to know how binoculars work, I'm not going to use words like "refraction", "convex", "distortion", "lens" or "magnification". I'm just going to say "this glass is bent in a way that makes things look bigger". If that kid presses me, I'll draw a picture.

Different shades of atheist belief are manifest here. If one was not bothered -- such as a stone is not bothered -- this thread would have not grown to this proportion.

And ironically, I agree fully with you.

Well that's a comfort, at least. I suspect we are both apophatic mystics, and that language is not a great friend to either of us.

 

[Wombat]

I never thought it would take this long to figure a simple term.

Hmmmmmm....Good thing the search/debate doesn't involve a complex and indefinable notion like 'God' and is just restricted to a simple term describing disbelieving in God...not believing in God...believing there is no God....oh...never mind....I'm >sure< they will work it out, find it, whatever...........:faint:

Language...."Too oft but vague shadows of meaning"

 

[filthy tugboat]

Personally I was under the impression that the literal definition of atheist was: Not theist. One that is not classified as a theist.

To shoehorn anything past that into atheism would really only seek to misrepresent many as the diversity in beliefs(or lack thereof) would expectedly be quite large given the group is based on something that certain people are not.

To put it in perspective: Atheists are not theists. Non-stamp collectors do not collect stamps.

P.S. Sorry if this was just rehashed information, I refuse to read 110 pages of opinions on what atheists may or may not be. If anybody is confused of the definition, refer to the most general and least specific definition and ask individual atheists what they mean when they say atheist, you can be confident there will be diversity in opinions and generalizing what every atheist means when they say 'atheist' would only result in confusion.

 

[Willamena]

We are not talking about activity, only activity that involves stringing a bunch of words together. Generally speaking, my mind only strings words together when I am writing or talking to people. Words (all of them) become significant only when I want to communicate something I have already thought up in a non-linguistic cognitive environment. Also, they are only significant to the extent that they are capable of communicating my non-linguistic ideas to others. IOW, if I'm talking to a 3-year-old who wants to know how binoculars work, I'm not going to use words like "refraction", "convex", "distortion", "lens" or "magnification". I'm just going to say "this glass is bent in a way that makes things look bigger". If that kid presses me, I'll draw a picture.

Well that's a comfort, at least. I suspect we are both apophatic mystics, and that language is not a great friend to either of us.

From some perspectives, there is no other thing that is activity. Word can have significance long before it reaches the mouth.

 

[Orias]

BTW, Orias, please find me one example of an atheist claiming to have NO beliefs of any kind.

If one considers themselves an atheist, then they believe that they are an atheist.

Nothing leaping to mind? That is because the only factor that renders the word "atheist" meaningful is that some folks lack belief IN GOD. Everything else is fair game.

It doesn't make sense that you would say this without letting me answer first.

Atheists seem to be the only one handing out the labels, "theist" or "atheist".

Most people actually are indifferent in this Aspect, and do not define "atheist" if it does not apply to them. Which is kind of circular reasoning when you have atheists defining "God".

Irrelevance, the argument of the year.

 

[filthy tugboat]

If one considers themselves an atheist, then they believe that they are an atheist.

How is recognizing that you are not a theist the same as believing you are an atheist? Is this just an attempt to make atheism look like a belief?

Atheists seem to be the only one handing out the labels, "theist" or "atheist".

I personally do not recall doing this.

Most people actually are indifferent in this Aspect, and do not define "atheist" if it does not apply to them. Which is kind of circular reasoning when you have atheists defining "God".

I do not recall defining "God". I know I have not because I honestly have no idea what a God is.

 

[Orias]

How is recognizing that you are not a theist the same as believing you are an atheist? Is this just an attempt to make atheism look like a belief?

That's not what I said at all.

I said atheists believe they are atheists.

I personally do not recall doing this.

Well you don't make up 2.3% of the atheist popluation now do you?

I do not recall defining "God". I know I have not because I honestly have no idea what a God is.

Then what did you just do?

 

[Alceste]

Filthy tugboat, welcome to the brick wall lol. Before you get going you should be aware that Orias is mostly just arguing that atheism is a belief because some atheists believe they don't believe in god, and they believe that atheism is the correct word to describe that state of affairs. He won't deviate from that argument one iota, no matter what you say. He knows many theists also believe that atheists lack belief in god and that the word for that is "atheism". He just doesn't care.

 

[filthy tugboat]

That's not what I said at all.

I said atheists believe they are atheists.

So you're saying that atheists believe they are not theists? You might have to define belief for me or at least the way you are using it.

Well you don't make up 2.3% of the atheist popluation now do you?

I never suggested I did however you said, "Atheists seem to be the only one handing out the labels, "theist" or "atheist"."

I am an atheist and I do not do this.

Then what did you just do?

You might have to clarify what you mean by "just", I recently finished eating.

 

[Orias]

Filthy tugboat, welcome to the brick wall lol. Before you get going you should be aware that Orias is mostly just arguing that atheism is a belief because some atheists believe they don't believe in god, and they believe that atheism is the correct word to describe that state of affairs. He won't deviate from that argument one iota, no matter what you say. He knows many theists also believe that atheists lack belief in god and that the word for that is "atheism". He just doesn't care.

It is way more simple than you make it out to be

I'm arguing atheism is a belief, but not because some atheists say they don't believe in the existence of "God(s)", it's because all "atheists" don't believe in the existence of "God(s)". Not to mention their thorough expression and individualistic opinions of what they belief atheism is.

Oh, and let's not forget the inability for anyone to prove that they actually know anything.

So you're saying that atheists believe they are not theists? You might have to define belief for me or at least the way you are using it.

Obviously...an "atheist" is an "atheist" to one who considers or believes that they are an "atheist".

Belief:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

I never suggested I did however you said, "Atheists seem to be the only one handing out the labels, "theist" or "atheist"."

I am an atheist and I do not do this.

Well you don't make up 2.3% of the atheist population now do you?

I'm not excluding theists alike.

You might have to clarify what you mean by "just", I recently finished eating.

You just defined "God".

I do not recall defining "God". I know I have not because I honestly have no idea what a God is.

 

[Willamena]

Personally I was under the impression that the literal definition of atheist was: Not theist. One that is not classified as a theist.

To shoehorn anything past that into atheism would really only seek to misrepresent many as the diversity in beliefs(or lack thereof) would expectedly be quite large given the group is based on something that certain people are not.

To put it in perspective: Atheists are not theists. Non-stamp collectors do not collect stamps.

P.S. Sorry if this was just rehashed information, I refuse to read 110 pages of opinions on what atheists may or may not be. If anybody is confused of the definition, refer to the most general and least specific definition and ask individual atheists what they mean when they say atheist, you can be confident there will be diversity in opinions and generalizing what every atheist means when they say 'atheist' would only result in confusion.

Just so. The problem isn't that anyone's confused, it's that everyone is not not confused.

And I like your simplification.