Atheism: A belief?

[charles brough]

Re. the concept that atheism is a belief system, I agree that the meaning of the terms used are important.

Since beliefs change and have changed repeatedly over the course of human civilization and perhaps the previous 35,000 years as well, it is perhaps wise to consider everything we "know" as belief with science being just more accurate rather than rigid and final.

Characteristic of atheism is that it is a single doctrine while our main systems of belief, our world-view and way of thinking systems such as Christianity and East Asian Marxism, wrap together a long list of related doctrines more or less consistant (or set to seem or appear so) with each other. These seperate doctrinal belief systems are all different in some of the most important aspects. Marxism teaches atheism, but all atheists are not Marxist. For example, I am a Christian Atheist in that I adhere to much of the decalogue, keep its callender and AD/DC system, its holidays, matrimonial tradition, and marriage as well as its classical culture and its main language just to name a few.

I believe "The Next Civilization" will be based on an ideology that has no "god" doctrine at all. There is precedent for this. In pre-history, all the ideological systems taught one main technology, first one, hunting, then herding and the last one agriculture. The whole belief system of each wound around their particular technology. Five thousand years ago we began the multi-technology civilizations and took a big step forward similar to the one we are heading for today.

 

[filthy tugboat]

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 would have to consider the second definition, atheists do accept that they are not theists. Atheists believe that they are not theists, yes.

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

I'm not excluding theists alike.

I don't have to, if "atheists" behave in this manner and I am an atheist that is not behaving in this manner then your statement is false. Stereotyping usually results in false statements.

You just defined "God".

I do not recall defining God. What definition did I supply?

 

[Orias]

Re. the concept that atheism is a belief system, I agree that the meaning of the terms used are important.

Since beliefs change and have changed repeatedly over the course of human civilization and perhaps the previous 35,000 years as well, it is perhaps wise to consider everything we "know" as belief with science being just more accurate rather than rigid and final.

Characteristic of atheism is that it is a single doctrine while our main systems of belief, our world-view and way of thinking systems such as Christianity and East Asian Marxism, wrap together a long list of related doctrines more or less consistant (or set to seem or appear so) with each other. These seperate doctrinal belief systems are all different in some of the most important aspects. Marxism teaches atheism, but all atheists are not Marxist. For example, I am a Christian Atheist in that I adhere to much of the decalogue, keep its callender and AD/DC system, its holidays, matrimonial tradition, and marriage as well as its classical culture and its main language just to name a few.

I believe "The Next Civilization" will be based on an ideology that has no "god" doctrine at all. There is precedent for this. In pre-history, all the ideological systems taught one main technology, first one, hunting, then herding and the last one agriculture. The whole belief system of each wound around their particular technology. Five thousand years ago we began the multi-technology civilizations and took a big step forward similar to the one we are heading for today.

Hey look! Someone who makes some sense!

:clap

 

[filthy tugboat]

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

And I like your simplification.

Thankyou. I thought it was a bit long winded for the message I was trying to portray but hey, whatayagonnado?

 

[Orias]

I would have to consider the second definition, atheists do accept that they are not theists. Atheists believe that they are not theists, yes.

Thank you

It seems that so many atheists that have stopped by in this thread have had a hard time comprehending themselves.

I don't have to, if "atheists" behave in this manner and I am an atheist that is not behaving in this manner then your statement is false. Stereotyping usually results in false statements.

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

I do not recall defining God. What definition did I supply?

Not knowing.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Thank you

It seems that so many atheists that have stopped by in this thread have had a hard time comprehending themselves.

I think most are worried you will create an equivocation as if this 'belief' is similar to a theistic belief or positive assertion. I have personally seen many do it and it gets tiring after a while, I am glad you have refrained.

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

Of course not but you are missing the point, claiming atheists do something is a claim that applies to all atheists individually, not as a collective whole.

Not knowing.

I was unaware that was a definition and in fact, I am pretty sure it isn't.

 

[Orias]

I think most are worried you will create an equivocation as if this 'belief' is similar to a theistic belief or positive assertion. I have personally seen many do it and it gets tiring after a while, I am glad you have refrained.

I would agree, it seems most of them added more meaning to my statements than I did.

Of course not but you are missing the point, claiming atheists do something is a claim that applies to all atheists individually, not as a collective whole.

I didn't miss the point. It is a personal observation, which is why I continually stated, "Well you don't make up 2.3% of the atheist population now do you?"

It does indeed apply to the "individual atheist" as well as the collective whole, simply because the label itself carries unrecognized burdens.

But this is a topic for another time.

I was unaware that was a definition and in fact, I am pretty sure it isn't.

Pretty sure isn't good enough.

Fact is a lose based term, used to describe common belief upon agreeance. Fact is void as "truth" since it changes all the time.

Everyone defines "God", just acknowledging the existence of the label, defines it.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I didn't miss the point. It is a personal observation, which is why I continually stated, "Well you don't make up 2.3% of the atheist population now do you?"

It does indeed apply to the "individual atheist" as well as the collective whole, simply because the label itself carries unrecognized burdens.

I don't really follow your logic and for this I will grant your premises.

Some atheists hand out labels "theist" and "atheist".
The label "atheist" carries unrecognizable burdens.
All atheists hand out labels "theist" and "atheist"?

How does the label of atheism carry unrecognizable burdens?

But this is a topic for another time.

Perhaps, if you would like to validate your claims feel free to start new thread.

Pretty sure isn't good enough.

Why not?

Fact is a lose based term, used to describe common belief upon agreeance. Fact is void as "truth" since it changes all the time.

How does fact change all the time?

Everyone defines "God", just acknowledging the existence of the label, defines it.

How does acknowledging the label of God that applies to thousands of different Gods that are claimed to have many different attributes define God?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That went over your head didn't it?

Sorry, you're far outclassed here kid. But it's been fun.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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)".

You still haven't made any cogent attempt to explain how not believing something is a belief. Try again.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

I generally find a strong correlation between the quality of communication and the quality of thoughts.

 

[Alceste]

I generally find a strong correlation between the quality of communication and the quality of thoughts.

Perhaps, but if that were true, how would we ever know?

 

[Orias]

I don't really follow your logic and for this I will grant your premises.

Some atheists hand out labels "theist" and "atheist".
The label "atheist" carries unrecognizable burdens.
All atheists hand out labels "theist" and "atheist"?

You're right, I shouldn't of said "all atheists", many would of been more appropriate.

How does the label of atheism carry unrecognizable burdens?

It's not just atheism, it's any label.

And simply because of word association. Labels and language are extremely misleading, even if one is trying to be direct and consistent as they want, anyone can twist peoples words to best fit their needs.

A good example would be, what do you think of when you hear the term "God", or "reptile train"?

Every persons response would different, some people may associate "reptile train" with a long line of crocidiles or maybe even a seceret military OP.

Perhaps, if you would like to validate your claims feel free to start new thread.

Perhaps. But I wouldn't want to attract any nasty trolls like I have in this thread.

Why not?

Because there is nothing to perpetuate our knowledge.

How does fact change all the time?

By definition they don't change, but by literal scientific opinion they do.

Labels and concepts change to best fit one's perception.

An example would be, "It was a fact that my walls were painted white, but that fact has changed since now they are red."

How does acknowledging the label of God that applies to thousands of different Gods that are claimed to have many different attributes define God?

It is a fathomed concept, a single thought defines an Aspect, not necessarily leading to clear labels however.

Sorry, you're far outclassed here kid. But it's been fun.

You sound delusional.

What can you prove?

You still haven't made any cogent attempt to explain how not believing something is a belief. Try again.

I have, but you are just to narrowminded to view yourself.

You just must not belief that not believing in something is a belief. When in fact you do believe that not believing something is not a belief.

Until you provide any argument against this obvious inconsistency among your ranks, you will be dismissed as another person who has failed to prove that they know anything.

Not to mention the dissention among atheists who would agree that atheism is a belief, simply because it is a label taken unto oneself to describe their belief in the existence of "God(s)" which would be, atheist (not believing in the existence of "God(s)", and theist, believing in the existence of "God(s)".

Again, atheism is a belief because if I asked if you believed in the existence of "God(s)" you would say, "No, I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)".

Because I don't believe any of your points, is that not a belief?

Leave, until you actually have something that is on topic and to the point. Saying I have done nothing to support my claims is asinine, when you yourself have done nothing besides make unsupported claims.

At least I am attempting, unlike the goalie that doesn't believe he was scored on

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have, but you are just to narrowminded to view yourself.

Orias, never, ever, ever, ever, ever make this argument.

Why? Because it isn't an argument at all, it's just a cop-out that anybody can use. For example: We have proven you wrong, you're just too arrogant to view yourself.

See how easy it is? All it does is make you sound self-righteous and arrogant, and a tad antagonistic.

You just must not belief that not believing in something is a belief. When in fact you do believe that not believing something is not a belief.

That still doesn't make not believing itself a belief. You've changed the subject from "not believing" to "believing not believing". Surely you understand that these are two different things.

Until you provide any argument against this obvious inconsistency among your ranks, you will be dismissed as another person who has failed to prove that they know anything.

I know that the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in a God, and I know that it is completely contrary to reality and logic that to say that the lack of something is the same as the presence of something. This is empirically demonstrable.

Not to mention the dissention among atheists who would agree that atheism is a belief, simply because it is a label taken unto oneself to describe their belief in the existence of "God(s)" which would be, atheist (not believing in the existence of "God(s)", and theist, believing in the existence of "God(s)".

Because those are personal definitions. It doesn't change the actual definition as per the dictionary, nor does it change what the word represents in the broadest sense.

Again, atheism is a belief because if I asked if you believed in the existence of "God(s)" you would say, "No, I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)".

Which isn't a belief, so how is atheism a belief?

Because I don't believe any of your points, is that not a belief?

Nope. That's a lack of belief.

 

[Orias]

Orias, never, ever, ever, ever, ever make this argument.

Why? Because it isn't an argument at all, it's just a cop-out that anybody can use. For example: We have proven you wrong, you're just too arrogant to view yourself.

See how easy it is? All it does is make you sound self-righteous and arrogant, and a tad antagonistic.

After 200 posts directed and argued against this man, I'd say your in no position to say what is and what isn't an argument.

That still doesn't make not believing itself a belief. You've changed the subject from "not believing" to "believing not believing". Surely you understand that these are two different things.

\
The word belief must be meaningless then.

I'm sure you think you are right, which is a belief.

I know that the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in a God, and I know that it is completely contrary to reality and logic that the lack of something is not the same as the presence of something. This is empirically demonstrable.

Then demonstrate.

Because those are personal definitions. It doesn't change the actual definition as per the dictionary, nor does it change what the word represents in the broadest sense.

a·the·ism (

th

-

z

m)
n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


Is that so?

All definitions are personal.

Which isn't a belief, so how is atheism a belief?

It's not a belief to not believe?

Nope. That's a lack of belief.

It is, but I directly said "I don't believe". Which references that I believe that he is wrong.

The same baseless and unsupportive claims of "but that's not a belief" is getting rather irritating. I don't see anyone doing anything to prove me otherwise besides saying "which isn't a belief", or "it's lack of belief". Clearly the repetitave reference of belief must be escaping everyone's conscious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

After 200 posts directed and argued against this man, I'd say your in no position to say what is and what isn't an argument.

Yes, I am, and no matter the context "you are wrong and you're just too blind/arrogant/narrow-minded to realize it" is not an argument. It is a cheap cop-out.

\
The word belief must be meaningless then.

A belief is something that you hold to be true. I do not hold the proposition that God exists to be true, ergo, I lack a belief in a God and am an atheist.

I'm sure you think you are right, which is a belief.

It sure is. But what does that belief have to do with the lack of belief in a God?

Then demonstrate.

You want me to demonstrate that the lack of something cannot simultaneously be the presence of that same thing? This should be demonstrable to you in almost every area of your life.

Case in point: you either have a pencil in your pocket, or you do not have a pencil in your pocket. You cannot neither have and not have a pencil in your pocket, and you cannot simultaneously have a pencil in your pocket while not having a pencil in your pocket. This is demonstrable logic.

a·the·ism (

th

-

z

m)
n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


Is that so?

All definitions are personal.

That definition fits perfectly with the definition that atheism is the absence of belief in a God. Or do you not know that "disbelief" meant the exact same thing?

And no, not all definitions are personal, otherwise language would be wholly useless and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are certain set definitions which are commonly accepted.

It's not a belief to not believe?

Correct.

It is, but I directly said "I don't believe". Which references that I believe that he is wrong.

No, it doesn't. It just "references" that you don't believe he is right.

 

[Orias]

Yes, I am, and no matter the context "you are wrong and you're just too blind/arrogant/narrow-minded to realize it" is not an argument. It is a cheap cop-out.

You clearly lack any motion to position yourself in this argument.

You just appear and decide to tell me that "claiming someone is narrowminded is a cheap-cop out". A cheap cop out would be putting this thread in a DIR. I have a very large amount of reasons to consider my statement as correct.

I credit his doubt, however, you are in no position to tell me what is an argument against anyone other than yourself. Even then, an argument is an argument, period.

A belief is something that you hold to be true.

Think about this for a long, long time. Then post back once you realize.

I do not hold the proposition that God exists to be true, ergo, I lack a belief in a God and am an atheist.

This is completely irrelevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You clearly lack any motion to position yourself in this argument.

You just appear and decide to tell me that "claiming someone is narrowminded is a cheap-cop out". A cheap cop out would be putting this thread in a DIR. I have a very large amount of reasons to consider my statement as correct.

I credit his doubt, however, you are in no position to tell me what is an argument against anyone other than yourself. Even then, an argument is an argument, period.

Except for the one you made, which isn't an argument. It's a cheap cop-out. Now you're following it up by making more cheap cop-outs at me in an attempt to discount my pointing out that it was a cheap cop out.

You could just admit it was cheap, and we'll leave it at that.

Think about this for a long, long time. Then post back once you realize.

I've studied belief and logic my entire life. Don't patronize me.

A belief is a position that you hold to be true. Since atheism is the lack of holding a particular position that a given supposition is true, how is it a belief?

This is completely irrelevant.

It's a demonstration of how atheism is a lack of belief. It's entirely relevant.

 

[Orias]

Except for the one you made, which isn't an argument. It's a cheap cop-out. Now you're following it up by making more cheap cop-outs at me in an attempt to discount my pointing out that it was a cheap cop out.

You could just admit it was cheap, and we'll leave it at that.

Kicking someone in the nuts is cheap, but it gets the job done.

I've studied belief and logic my entire life. Don't patronize me.

A belief is a position that you hold to be true. Since atheism is the lack of holding a particular position that a given supposition is true, how is it a belief?

So are you saying that you don't believe your position is true?

Seriously, reflect upon yourself and distinguish what you believe to be true and not to be. From there perhaps we could make some progress, unlike all of the other atheists don't read into things.

It's a demonstration of how atheism is a lack of belief. It's entirely relevant.

No, "God" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Kicking someone in the nuts is cheap, but it gets the job done.

Except what you did was more like saying "no I'm not you are" than physically kicking in the nuts.

So are you saying that you don't believe your position is true?

What position? My position that atheism is not a belief? Yes, I believe that atheism is not a belief.

But how does that make atheism itself a belief? I've asked you this three times now.

Seriously, reflect upon yourself and distinguish what you believe to be true and not to be. From there perhaps we could make some progress, unlike all of the other atheists don't read into things.

I'll make this simple. Atheism is the absence of belief in a God, and that is all. To illustrate this definition, I will be putting it in this brackets as so for the following examples:

[absence of belief in a God]

I believe that atheism is [the absence of belief in a God]

Notice how the actual definition remains within those brackets? Because the words outside the bracket do not impact on the definition of atheism. Here is another one.

I believe I am correct when I assert that atheism is [the absence of belief in a God]

See, another example. The face that I believe I am right about my definition is a instance entirely separate from the actual definition of atheism. It remains within those brackets, regardless of what is put around it.

So, here is where your challenge is: where, within the brackets, does belief come into it?

No, "God" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Except for the fact that "God" is a subject of the term "atheism", so it's completely relevant. Or do you from now on want me to refer to atheism as the "absence of belief in a _____"? Because, just so you know, I'm not doing that.