Atheism: A belief?

[Copernicus]

Er, nope. The fact that the dictionary defines atheism as either a lack of belief or the disbelief of God tells me atheism isn't a belief.

ImmortalFlame, expressing disbelief in Orias' position must mean that you lack belief that he is wrong.

 

[Orias]

This basically ignored the point of atheist and non-theist being the exact same thing. Even grammatically speaking atheist means not a theist or without theism as the prefix 'a' means without.

Check here for more info.

I do not follow the rest of the paragraph.

Actually it doesn't igore the point that atheists and non-theist are the exact same thing, because they're not. If they were then they wouldn't be labled "atheist", and "non-theist".

An apatheist can be either a "theist" or an "atheist", but the matter does not simply imply that the chosen meaning describes the position.

Atheist roots from the term "without God", this does not root non-theism into specific theism since like I provided, angostics can be either "theist" or "atheist" as well as apatheists.

It's all subjected to what a person wants to be, who is anyone else to determine what is what, and what is right?

Belief has but the subject of that belief is what changed, it went from 'atheists believe they are atheists' to 'atheism is a belief'.

The title of this thread misleads you doesn't it?

So not only is pretty sure not good enough, nothing is good enough? Why did you say it like you did if this was what you were trying to convey?

So far your the only person to figure this out. Even though I have made it blantly obvious in previous posts, people have a tendancy to avoid points that they don't know how to respond to.

Otherwise they just say that it's wrong, or incorrect, without supporting their assertion.

There is a difference in words but the meaning is the same as saying "I don't know" is not coming to a conclusion on the matter, it is just an expression of a lack of knowledge.

This is a good example of how "meaning" changes from person to person.

Let me ask you this, what is the first thing that pops up in your mind when you hear the term, "Reptile train"?

You responded to the question with your expression of lacking knowledge in this concept. You have reached a conclusion because you concluded that you are ignorant about the subject at hand.

That may be true but that doesn't mean that whatever I am unaware of is a conclusion.

Not to you at least.

If a term is entirely subjective and has no objective meaning does that not subjugate it to the imagination alone? How can something with no objective definition be apart of reality beyond the subjective interpretation of individuals?

Well the concept wouldn't exist if someone had not imagined it into existence.

And to answer your second question, reality is defined differently by everyone. It would be safe to say that everyone is delusional, by means of seeking comfort out of the highest law of Life, self preservation.

Try and adopt a psychological and sociological view point, it may help you a little...

Which position am I inherently trying to understand?

You tell me, you're the one trying to Oppose me.

You might need to clarify rather than re-assert.

What is there to clarify?

If someone asks you what "God" is, you and respond, "I don't know", you have concluded that you do not know what "God" is, therefore defining what you believe "God" to be.

I don't really follow, you suggested that facts can change when you were really talking about the perception of facts? And now you are suggesting you did this because you didn't want to subject yourself to formalities? Which formalities were you trying to avoid? Why?

Formalities only exist to people who need rules to "win".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame, expressing disbelief in Orias' position must mean that you lack belief that he is wrong.

No, because I also hold the belief that he is wrong as well as lacking the belief that he is right.

 

[Orias]

No, because I also hold the belief that he is wrong as well as lacking the belief that he is right.

You should digress because of this statement...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Even though if I asked an atheist if they believed in the existence of "God", they would respond, "No, I do not believe in the existence of "God". It is the along the same lines of, "I believe no "God" exists", it's just that the frist sentence is more accuratly describes the position.

But it is not the same position.

Saying "I do not believe X" is a different claim to "I believe X does not exist".

Disbelief is a belief that something isn't.

No, it isn't. It's the absence of belief that something is true.

dis·be·lief   
–noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

Disbelief | Define Disbelief at Dictionary.com

The two have a connection that is clearly obvious to others and escape the sense of atheists.

And yet you've never been able to explain that connection.

This is an unsupported claim, a belief is a belief, period.

And absence of belief is not a belief, period.

Actually it doesn't. It shows the fundmental understanding that the world's logic is based upon belief.

Your statement shows that you don't understand the fundamental logic of "belief", since it applies to everyone, and everything. Prove that you can prove knowledge, then I would consider your argument.

I told you, I wasn't going to get into a pointless epistemological debate with you. I have already shown you the definition - you even provided a definition of your own - both of which support the claim that atheism is the absence of a belief and, therefore, is not a belief.

You can postulate that "belief applies to everyone" all you like. That has absolutely nothing to do with atheism specifically being a belief.

Yet another unsupported claim.

You are equivocating "the belief that a certain definition is true" with "absence of belief is a belief". They are not the same thing. This claim is supported by fundamental logic and reading skills.

A logical fallacy would just be saying "That's not right", and that's what you among most other atheists in this thread are doing.

Do you not understand what a logical fallacy is? A logical fallacy is when you attempt to justify something using a flawed argument, or an argument that employs faulty logic. An example of this would be:

"Bunnies are hairy,
my next door neighbour is hairy,
therefore my next door neighbour is a bunny."

This particular example is called "affirming the consequent".

Support your statements, prove that atheism isn't a belief, besides asserting your beleif of what atheism is.

I see no empirical propagation to believe in your standard and sensible logic of what you believe atheism to be.

I've already presented a dictionary definition that states that atheism is the absence of belief in God, and you yourself and presented a dictionary definition that states atheism is a disbelief of God.

What else could I possibly do? If the actual definition of atheism is not reason enough to support my argument, what else could possibly count? Do I have to draw you some kind of diagram?

Absence of belief in "God", does not insinuate down right absence of belief, since your rhetoric states that you believe this statement to be true, and you to consider yourself an atheist. You belief you are an atheist, with regards that you believe your assertion to be true. That is a belief, whether you like it or not, you cannot prove that atheism has a sound basis for determining prove, since it is an abstract and untangible concept.

And now you've changed the subject and the definition again. I've been saying, from the beginning that atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I have not once said it means a lack of any kind of belief. I have maintained always that atheism deals with a lack of belief with regards to a specific subject.

You are now either playing ignorant or attempting to put words in my mouth.

Again, if you want a specific answer you should ask a question specific to the answer you desire, instead of continually resorting to special pleading.

Or maybe you should just answer the question.

Clearly I do.

No where in this definition does it say strictly, "Absence of belief". Again, "God" is irrelative to this debate.

Again, what are you talking about? I have always been saying that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God" and have brought this definition up dozens of times. Do you now admit that atheism is not a belief but an absence of belief?

No, your comparing a concrete and objectional material with an abstract and specious lable. It's not practical at all.

Doesn't matter - it's a logical analogy.

Thank you for proving my point. I will now render all discussion with you baseless, since you have failed to provide any evidence against my claims besides asserting that I am incorrect.

And showing you the dictionary definition of atheism and logically pointing out that a lack of belief in something is demonstrably different to the belief that something is not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it doesn't. The denotative definition simply implies "Lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)", or disbelief and denial and deities." You're using a conotative definition, just like everyone else. And it is not practical at all. The denotation does not imply anywhere, that atheism is purely lack of belief, because clearly people follow atheism, they believe in atheism, they defend atheism, and they attempt to propagate atheism.

Even if you may not fit in any of these catagories, like it or not people that take lables unto themselves tend to want to lable others as well. It's self deceit.

So, basically you've just misunderstood my argument this whole time and believed I was arguing that atheism is a "lack of any kind of belief in anything" when I have said no such thing? How could you possibly think that when I have repeatedly stated that it is the lack of belief in a God?

I have answered this question more times than you have asked it. You just shoot it down and say it's incorrect without supporting it, just like everyone else that disagrees with.

Because you keep moving the goalposts, and I have already demonstrated how you do so. Do not play dumb.

:no: I didn't think you were arguing that at all. If that were the case then this wouldn't be a debate.

Are you serious? You cannot be serious.

I said it dozens of times! Look:

I know that the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in a God...

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.

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

That definition fits perfectly with the definition that atheism is the absence of belief in a God.

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?

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]

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

Except for the fact that "God" is a subject of the term "atheism", so it's completely relevant.

These are only the instances of me stating it in my first three posts to you on page 112 of the discussion. I seriously doubt that you have been misunderstanding me this whole time. I was extremely, extremely clear.

It must escape your mind that you truly believe that.

And again, the goalposts have all been the same, since the term "belief" is the subject at hand. If you did not realize this then you should not have posted.

No, the subject is whether atheism, specifically, is a belief. Since then you have moved the goalposts from "atheism is a belief" to "believing the definition of atheism makes atheism a belief" to "everything is a belief therefore atheism is a belief".

That's moving the goalposts.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what you can prove, and so far you have failed.

Aside from the dictionary definitions that both you and I posted?

All you do is support your belief with more beliefs, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to see countless atheists not recognize themselves.

Well, since you think that everything is a belief there's not much else I can support it with. You've basically just constructed a worldview that allows you to believe whatever you want to believe and ignore anyone who either believes differently to you or present you with evidence or logic that demonstrates you to be wrong, because with them it's "just a belief".

And to think I once considered myself part of your "flock".

Well, if being correct or rational is an impediment to your desperate desire for individuality, I can see why being a part of my "flock" wouldn't appeal to you.

Again, I will give you another chance. Prove that you know anything, and your argument will be considered as "truthful". Until then, it's just like debating with another Christian.

I told you, I'm not getting into a mindless epistemological debate with you. It's completely irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

 

[Copernicus]

No, because I also hold the belief that he is wrong as well as lacking the belief that he is right.

So, is it your position that "disbelief in gods" equates to holding a belief that gods are unreal at the same time as lacking belief that they are real? If so, then we are in complete agreement. That is equivalent to defining atheists as people who reject belief in the existence of gods. It is a belief that the proposition "One or more gods exist" is false.

 

[Orias]

I told you, I'm not getting into a mindless epistemological debate with you. It's completely irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

No, actually it's not. Since you cannot prove that you know anything, "atheism" is a belief, on the basis that you have no fact to support your disagreement.

What is irrelevant is all of the points that stray away from the topic that people so seemingly strive to do.

You lack in justification, while mine is so sincere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, is it your position that "disbelief in gods" equates to holding a belief that gods are unreal at the same time as lacking belief that they are real?

No, I didn't even say anything remotely like that.

If so, then we are in complete agreement. That is equivalent to defining atheists as people who reject belief in the existence of gods. It is a belief that the proposition "One or more gods exist" is false.

Except that's not what I said or believe at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, actually it's not. Since you cannot prove that you know anything, "atheism" is a belief, on the basis that you have no fact to support your disagreement.

What is irrelevant is all of the points that stray away from the topic that people so seemingly strive to do.

You lack in justification, while mine is so sincere.

So sincere that you apparently skipped over absolutely everything I said and only responded to the last line of my two whole posts?

I've had the decency to respond to every point you have made. Show me the same courtesy. If you cannot do that, then admit that you were wrong.

Also, you have repeatedly stated that you know atheism is the "absence of belief in a God", so why you are not asserting that atheism is a belief is beyond me. You make so many contradictory claims and U-turns it must be hard to keep track of what your beliefs actually are.

 

[Orias]

So sincere that you apparently skipped over absolutely everything I said and only responded to the last line of my two whole posts?

I got what I needed out of you, there is no need to go any further. But I will oblige, for the courtesy of conversation

I've had the decency to respond to every point you have made. Show me the same courtesy. If you cannot do that, then admit that you were wrong.

Admit I was wrong? Why don't you prove it?

Also, you have repeatedly stated that you know atheism is the "absence of belief in a God", so why you are not asserting that atheism is a belief is beyond me. You make so many contradictory claims and U-turns it must be hard to keep track of what your beliefs actually are.

Support this, otherwise don't say it.

So, basically you've just misunderstood my argument this whole time and believed I was arguing that atheism is a "lack of any kind of belief in anything" when I have said no such thing? How could you possibly think that when I have repeatedly stated that it is the lack of belief in a God?

Again, no that's not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that no where in the definition of atheism does it say "Not a belief", because it is obvious that it is believed.

Because you keep moving the goalposts, and I have already demonstrated how you do so. Do not play dumb.

Belief entitles all specifications, not just one. Forward progress, there is a multitude of perspectives that encompass the variations of belief, all of them being of the mind.

These are only the instances of me stating it in my first three posts to you on page 112 of the discussion. I seriously doubt that you have been misunderstanding me this whole time. I was extremely, extremely clear.

Are you confused?

I said I never thought you were arguing that atheism is merely "lack of belief in anything".

No, the subject is whether atheism, specifically, is a belief. Since then you have moved the goalposts from "atheism is a belief" to "believing the definition of atheism makes atheism a belief" to "everything is a belief therefore atheism is a belief".

That's moving the goalposts.

Again, if you did not realize that "belief" was the subject at hand, you shouldn't of posted.

Belief entails all that is believed, not just a one dimensional Aspect.

Aside from the dictionary definitions that both you and I posted?

Again, the denotative defitions do not imply that "atheism" is not a belief. Therefore being a belief by default, since it is not proven, yet thought to be certain along the lines of the partakers.

Well, since you think that everything is a belief there's not much else I can support it with. You've basically just constructed a worldview that allows you to believe whatever you want to believe and ignore anyone who either believes differently to you or present you with evidence or logic that demonstrates you to be wrong, because with them it's "just a belief".

Naturally, there is nothing you can do about ignorance. Essentially all lables and existences are believed to be, which means without a perpetuated existence we can truly know nothing except the Universe of our Mind in which we dwell.

The world is built off of axioms, which means "flocks" only "know" what their messiah's present to them.

Answer this, do you doubt yourself?

Well, if being correct or rational is an impediment to your desperate desire for individuality, I can see why being a part of my "flock" wouldn't appeal to you.

Despair floods all senses, clearly I hold mine with a Kung Fu grip

You speak of being correct or rational, yet it isn't very rational for One to Oppose an enemy without "knowing" the battlements He posseses.

Your arguments are nothing I haven't heard before, which is why my lazy responses may seem "irrational" or "desperate" to you. If you haven't noticed, there is over 1,000 posts in this thread, over 60% of them being mine. It gets rather boring hearing the same argument over and over again.

And as for the individual thing...well it is nothing I try to do. I have observed that those that fly with a "flock" are often weaker to outside Opposition.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I didn't even say anything remotely like that.

Except that's not what I said or believe at all.

What you said was:

No, because I also hold the belief that he is wrong as well as lacking the belief that he is right.

That looks very much like my analogy. You hold a belief that what he said was false. An atheist holds a belief that the existence of gods is false. You lack the belief that he was right. An atheist lacks a belief that God exists. I see a complete parallelism there.

The problem is that dictionary definitions are ambiguous when they refer to "lack of belief" and "disbelief". You can interpret such language to refer to rejection of belief (because people lack belief in the beliefs that they reject) or to no belief at all. You choose to interpret the definitions as implying "no belief at all". That is not necessarily the conclusion that the lexicographers who crafted those definitions thought you would come to. If you actually pay attention to how most people use the word "atheist", it is to describe someone who rejects belief in deities, not someone who merely happens to lack a belief one way or the other.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Admit I was wrong? Why don't you prove it?

You already stated that atheism is the absence of belief.

Support this, otherwise don't say it.

"The specified definition only determines the absence of belief in the existence in "God(s)"

"Even though if I asked an atheist if they believed in the existence of "God", they would respond, "No, I do not believe in the existence of "God". It is the along the same lines of, "I believe no "God" exists", it's just that the frist sentence is more accuratly describes the position."

"Atheism clearly is the absence of belief in a "God", not in a belief."

"The denotative definition simply implies "Lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)", or disbelief and denial and deities." "

"Absence of belief in "God", does not insinuate down right absence of belief."

Again, no that's not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that no where in the definition of atheism does it say "Not a belief", because it is obvious that it is believed.

And it doesn't say that love is "not a camel" in the definition of love either. I've already trumped this point: the definitions that both you and I provided say "absence of belief in a God" and "disbelief in a God" respectively. By definition, neither absence of belief nor disbelief cannot be beliefs.

As has been said before, that would be like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby".

Belief entitles all specifications, not just one. Forward progress, there is a multitude of perspectives that encompass the variations of belief, all of them being of the mind.

And how does that make atheism a belief?

Are you confused?

I said I never thought you were arguing that atheism is merely "lack of belief in anything".

"No, it doesn't. The denotative definition simply implies "Lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)", or disbelief and denial and deities." You're using a conotative definition, just like everyone else. And it is not practical at all. The denotation does not imply anywhere, that atheism is purely lack of belief, because clearly people follow atheism, they believe in atheism, they defend atheism, and they attempt to propagate atheism."

"Atheism clearly is the absence of belief in a "God", not in a belief. Again, "God" is irrelevant to this argument."

"No, the word belief is within the brackets. People who trust in labels, believe in labels. The specified definition only determines the absence of belief in the existence in "God(s)", not purely absence of belief."

ME: "All atheism describes is the "absence of belief" of a specific thing. Aside from lacking that specific lack of belief, an atheist can believe whatever they want. Once again, you seem to be arguing that I said atheist means "a lack of belief in anything". No, it isn't, and I never said it was."
YOU: "I didn't think you were arguing that at all. If that were the case then this wouldn't be a debate."


Now you have resorted to lying.

Again, if you did not realize that "belief" was the subject at hand, you shouldn't of posted.

Belief entails all that is believed, not just a one dimensional Aspect.

Except we're not talking about belief - we're talking about whether or not atheism is a belief.

I'll ask you this once more: stop moving the goalposts.

Again, the denotative defitions do not imply that "atheism" is not a belief. Therefore being a belief by default, since it is not proven, yet thought to be certain along the lines of the partakers.

You're wrong. Literally in it's original latin, atheism means "without God belief", and this is the denotative definition of atheism. The literal definition of the word means exactly the same as "absence of belief in a God".

You have already agreed with this. Earlier you stated: "The denotative definition simply implies "Lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)", or disbelief and denial and deities." "Lack of belief" means that atheism is not a belief, but the lack of one, hence you are now accepting my definition. Your only problem now is you have difficulty understanding or acknowledging the words "lack of".

Naturally, there is nothing you can do about (insert irrelevant, rambling, nonsensical philosophy 101 lecture here) yourself?

Despair floods all senses, clearly I hold mine with a Kung Fu grip

You speak of being correct or rational, yet it isn't very rational for One to Oppose an enemy without "knowing" the battlements He posseses.

Your arguments are nothing I haven't heard before, which is why my lazy responses may seem "irrational" or "desperate" to you. If you haven't noticed, there is over 1,000 posts in this thread, over 60% of them being mine. It gets rather boring hearing the same argument over and over again.

And as for the individual thing...well it is nothing I try to do. I have observed that those that fly with a "flock" are often weaker to outside Opposition.

Except in this case, since you've resorted to lying, twisting my words, bringing irrelevant, vague, preschool level philosophy into the discussion and endlessly moving goalposts around.

So, it's pretty clear in this case that the "flock" has outsmarted you, and you're getting pretty desperate.

 

[Orias]

But it is not the same position.

Saying "I do not believe X" is a different claim to "I believe X does not exist".

Elaborate.

No, it isn't. It's the absence of belief that something is true.

dis·be·lief   
–noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

Disbelief | Define Disbelief at Dictionary.com

Clearly, if you do not belief in something then your absence in that belief is evident, while clearly believing that absence is a belief.

And yet you've never been able to explain that connection.

Alright, if you don't have a belief about something why are you hear posting what you believe about x, in relation to believing that x is not true?

And absence of belief is not a belief, period.

Support this.

Anything thought to be "true" (including your certainty that absence of belief is not a belief) is a belief.

I told you, I wasn't going to get into a pointless epistemological debate with you. I have already shown you the definition - you even provided a definition of your own - both of which support the claim that atheism is the absence of a belief and, therefore, is not a belief.

It supports the absence of belief in "God", no where does it imply that this absence lacks and belief. Because obviously you are using the "absence of belief" argument to posit your belief of atheism as not being a belief.

You can postulate that "belief applies to everyone" all you like. That has absolutely nothing to do with atheism specifically being a belief.

I'm not going to connect the dots for you, because apparently you think they lack existence.

You are equivocating "the belief that a certain definition is true" with "absence of belief is a belief". They are not the same thing. This claim is supported by fundamental logic and reading skills.

No, I am not. I have to admit, your assumptions are starting to get to me.

I have clearly stated numerous times that, a belief that a definition is true entails a belief specific to a person, while the absence of belief entails a belief specific to the mass.

The only implicit thing about this argument is your continual reference towards "absence of belief in "God(s)" and then unreflective statements that somehow you belief that this definition implies that it's not a belief. Clearly, you believe that.

Everyone argues from a personal basis, if they didn't this would be a lot easier.

Do you not understand what a logical fallacy is? A logical fallacy is when you attempt to justify something using a flawed argument, or an argument that employs faulty logic. An example of this would be:

Reflect upon this statement, and then view yourself.

Your argument among others is to just push to "absence or lack of belief in "God(s)" dichotomy, without proving that any of these difintions actually fit the explicit definition of "not being a belief".

"Bunnies are hairy,
my next door neighbour is hairy,
therefore my next door neighbour is a bunny."
This particular example is called "affirming the consequent".

This is deserving of a cookie.

I've already presented a dictionary definition that states that atheism is the absence of belief in God, and you yourself and presented a dictionary definition that states atheism is a disbelief of God.

What else could I possibly do? If the actual definition of atheism is not reason enough to support my argument, what else could possibly count? Do I have to draw you some kind of diagram?

I wish you would just understand the basis of perception...

There is no progress to be made when the Opposition cannot view himself as being fallible.

And now you've changed the subject and the definition again. I've been saying, from the beginning that atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I have not once said it means a lack of any kind of belief. I have maintained always that atheism deals with a lack of belief with regards to a specific subject.

Again, "absence of belief in "God(s)" is the argument you use to try and clarify that atheism is not a belief. If you want to communicate your point efficiently, then you should use anything that references belief, but you can't because it simply entails the picture of Life.

Perhaps you should adopt a new standard.

You are now either playing ignorant or attempting to put words in my mouth.

How can one not be ignorant?

Or maybe you should just answer the question.

Again, if you want a specific answer you should ask a question specific to the answer you desire.

You asked me to point out where belief fits into the definition and I pointed our where belief literally fits into the definition. If belief didn't fit into the definition, then belief wouldn't be in the definition :help:

Again, what are you talking about? I have always been saying that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God" and have brought this definition up dozens of times. Do you now admit that atheism is not a belief but an absence of belief?

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? I thought you said you weren't pushing "absence of belief", since the definition clearly says, "Absence in the belief of "God(s)".

Being inconsistent doesn't free you from the restraints of your own mind.

Doesn't matter - it's a logical analogy.

It's not applicable to the subject at hand. Try again.

You literally cannot touch "atheism". Saying "atheism" isn't a belief is like saying it doesn't exist. If "atheism" was not a belief, then it would lack definition.

And showing you the dictionary definition of atheism and logically pointing out that a lack of belief in something is demonstrably different to the belief that something is not.

If you weren't so certain, I would be inclined to believe you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What you said was:

No, because I also hold the belief that he is wrong as well as lacking the belief that he is right.

That looks very much like my analogy. You hold a belief that what he said was false. An atheist holds a belief that the existence of gods is false. You lack the belief that he was right. An atheist lacks a belief that God exists. I see a complete parallelism there.

Except I was talking about my beliefs regarding his argument, not my beliefs with regards to God.

An atheist may hold the belief that the existence of God is false, but an atheist may also simply not hold the belief that the existence of God is true. Both come under that same, broad definition.

The problem is that dictionary definitions are ambiguous when they refer to "lack of belief" and "disbelief". You can interpret such language to refer to rejection of belief (because people lack belief in the beliefs that they reject) or to no belief at all. You choose to interpret the definitions as implying "no belief at all". That is not necessarily the conclusion that the lexicographers who crafted those definitions thought you would come to. If you actually pay attention to how most people use the word "atheist", it is to describe someone who rejects belief in deities, not someone who merely happens to lack a belief one way or the other.

Then those people are using a particular interpretation of the definition which doesn't take into account the wording of it. How most people use the word "theory" does not dictate every definition of the word, nor does it show a great deal of understanding of what the word means. If atheism were just the belief that there is no God, then the dictionaries would simply say that, rather than (as most of them do) saying "the belief that there is no God or the absence of belief in a God/the disbelief in a God". What you are suggesting isn't that the lexicographers are being misrepresented, but that they needlessly provided a common and much more broad definition which should be arbitrarily ignored in favour of the more exclusive one.

Lexicographers aren't idiots - they happen to know better than most people what certain words and phrases mean, and when they write that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God" rather than "belief in the nonexistence of a God" they do it to make a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Orias]

You already stated that atheism is the absence of belief.

NO, I've stated that "atheism" is merely the absence of belief in "God(s)". This doesn't support anything.

And it doesn't say that love is "not a camel" in the definition of love either. I've already trumped this point: the definitions that both you and I provided say "absence of belief in a God" and "disbelief in a God" respectively. By definition, neither absence of belief nor disbelief cannot be beliefs.

Well believing these definitions don't help your argument out at all.

And yes, disbelief can and only can be a belief, because it is the refusal to believe.

It is a believe when someone says, "I believe in the existence of "God(s)", just as it a belief when someone says "I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)".

I'm looking forward to the way you complicate this, subsequently "atheism" carries a heavier burden in it's implications than what it actually is.

As has been said before, that would be like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby".

Not collecting stamps is a hobby with a retrospective reference to activity and physiology. Since, not doing something is a physiological process due to all of the functions of a living organism and any of it's parts.

And how does that make atheism a belief?

It is expressed in more than one way, obviously. Hence when I said, "belief entitles a multitude of perspectives.

ME: "All atheism describes is the "absence of belief" of a specific thing. Aside from lacking that specific lack of belief, an atheist can believe whatever they want. Once again, you seem to be arguing that I said atheist means "a lack of belief in anything". No, it isn't, and I never said it was."

Now you have resorted to lying.

Either you can't understand what I'm saying or you are deceiving yourself. I didn't want to go here, because you are of great understanding.

I have stated numerous times, that "atheism" is "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)". You are the one changing the expression to simply "absence or lack of belief of a specific thing".

So I'm not going to assume that you can't understand what I am saying, maybe you're just picking up on certain meanings and leaving out others.

Except we're not talking about belief - we're talking about whether or not atheism is a belief.

I don't know how I could make that any more clear.

I'll ask you this once more: stop moving the goalposts.

I have reached them, I am not at fault for your lag of effort.

You're wrong. Literally in it's original latin, atheism means "without God belief", and this is the denotative definition of atheism. The literal definition of the word means exactly the same as "absence of belief in a God".

Actually, it stems from a combination of Roman and Greek being, atheos or "to deny gods, godlessness, and without God". The American term "atheist" stems for the original French distinction "athee" or " one who denies or disbeliefs the existence of Gods". The definition "lack of belief or absence of belief" is relatively new to the atheistic by-product of belief.

I'd figure you would at least know the origins of your position.

Except in this case, since you've resorted to lying, twisting my words, bringing irrelevant, vague, preschool level philosophy into the discussion and endlessly moving goalposts around.

Yet another supported claim. How many of these are you going to make?

So, it's pretty clear in this case that the "flock" has outsmarted you, and you're getting pretty desperate.

You've never questioned your own position have you?

It's sad to see such a competent person resort to special pleading. Come on...you're better than that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Elaborate.

Alan says "I do not believe Bigfoot exists". This is because Alan has yet to be convinced of Bigfoot's existence - however, neither has Alan been convinced of Bigfoot's nonexistence.

Judy says "I believe Bigfoot does not exist". This is because Judy has yet to be convinced of Bigfoot's existence, and also has been convinced of Bigfoot's nonexistence.

Now, do you understand the difference between belief and absence of belief?

Clearly, if you do not belief in something then your absence in that belief is evident, while clearly believing that absence is a belief.

But that doesn't make absence of belief a belief. Once again, you're shifting and equivocating.

Alright, if you don't have a belief about something why are you hear posting what you believe about x, in relation to believing that x is not true?

I've not once said I don't have a belief about something. Now, stop avoiding the question.

Support this.

Is the absence of food a meal?

If not, then the absence of belief is not a belief.

Anything thought to be "true" (including your certainty that absence of belief is not a belief) is a belief.

I agree with you - I believe that the absence of a belief is not a belief. But how does that make the absence of belief itself a belief?

You've done this hundreds of times now. I've already demonstrated that your logic is flawed with these arguments, because "believing I am correct in defining X" does not make "X" itself a belief.

It supports the absence of belief in "God", no where does it imply that this absence lacks and belief. Because obviously you are using the "absence of belief" argument to posit your belief of atheism as not being a belief.

Now you're just being silly. The words are right there - you said them. Atheism is the absence of belief in God. You are now literally arguing like this:

"The definition says that it is the absence of belief in God, but you're just using that statement to support your argument that atheism is the absence of belief in a God."

If atheism were a belief, why would the definitions include the "absence of" part, Orias?

I'm not going to connect the dots for you, because apparently you think they lack existence.

Finally, you're getting it.

No, I am not. I have to admit, your assumptions are starting to get to me.

I have clearly stated numerous times that, a belief that a definition is true entails a belief specific to a person, while the absence of belief entails a belief specific to the mass.

Actually, you've not said anything even remotely resembling that in our discussion so far, but let's see where this leads...

The only implicit thing about this argument is your continual reference towards "absence of belief in "God(s)" and then unreflective statements that somehow you belief that this definition implies that it's not a belief. Clearly, you believe that.

Yes, I do believe that.

Now, how does my believing that make absence of belief a belief?

Everyone argues from a personal basis, if they didn't this would be a lot easier.

I dunno. I finding this pretty easy.

Reflect upon this statement, and then view yourself.

Your argument among others is to just push to "absence or lack of belief in "God(s)" dichotomy, without proving that any of these difintions actually fit the explicit definition of "not being a belief".

I shouldn't have to - it's pretty explicit. The absence of X is not X, therefore the absence of belief is not a belief. This isn't even basic logic, it's basic English.

This is deserving of a cookie.

I prefer hookers.

I wish you would just understand the basis of perception...

There is no progress to be made when the Opposition cannot view himself as being fallible.

Oh, I'm perfectly fallible. It's just that, while being fallible, I also happen to be right in this instance. And I have the dictionary definitions to back me up.

Again, "absence of belief in "God(s)" is the argument you use to try and clarify that atheism is not a belief. If you want to communicate your point efficiently, then you should use anything that references belief, but you can't because it simply entails the picture of Life.

Perhaps you should adopt a new standard.

Perhaps you should just admit that you're wrong already. I've been waiting for several posts now...

How can one not be ignorant?

So, you're not just "playing ignorant", then?

Again, if you want a specific answer you should ask a question specific to the answer you desire.

You asked me to point out where belief fits into the definition and I pointed our where belief literally fits into the definition. If belief didn't fit into the definition, then belief wouldn't be in the definition :help:

A famine is a widespread scarcity of food. But look, food is right there in the definition! Looks like I just solved world hunger.

Now, stop playing dumb and answer the question. It was very specific to begin with, and the more you intentionally misunderstand it the more telling it is that you are backed into a corner.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? I thought you said you weren't pushing "absence of belief", since the definition clearly says, "Absence in the belief of "God(s)".

Being inconsistent doesn't free you from the restraints of your own mind.

I have always been stating that the definition is "absence of belief in a God". You have repeatedly stated that "absence of belief" is not a belief. I have been trying to explain to you that this is not the case by explaining that "absence of belief" is not a belief, and in this context atheism is an "absence of belief" in a God. You are clearly twisting my words.

It's not applicable to the subject at hand. Try again.

Logic isn't applicable to the subject at hand?

You literally cannot touch "atheism". Saying "atheism" isn't a belief is like saying it doesn't exist. If "atheism" was not a belief, then it would lack definition.

Is that the sound of goalposts moving?

If you weren't so certain, I would be inclined to believe you.

[sarcasm]Because you're not showing any degree of certainty at all, right?[/sarcasm]

 

[Orias]

An atheist may hold the belief that the existence of God is false, but an atheist may also simply not hold the belief that the existence of God is true. Both come under that same, broad definition.

Any conceptualization towards the word "God" is a belief, since there is nothing to support it's reasoning, besides the axiom of course. But that doesn't apply to external people.

If atheism were just the belief that there is no God, then the dictionaries would simply say that

It's good to see that you are using my argument

rather than (as most of them do) saying "the belief that there is no God or the absence of belief in a God/the disbelief in a God".

You're right, these definitions are extremely misleading.

Lexicographers aren't idiots - they happen to know better than most people what certain words and phrases mean, and when they write that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God" rather than "belief in the nonexistence of a God" they do it to make a clear distinction between the two.

If you're not a lexicographer how can you say you know what they do and what they don't do?

They didn't do anything to make it vague or ambiguous, it should be common sense that anything believed to be is a belief. But you know, common sense isn't something that everyone posses either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

NO, I've stated that "atheism" is merely the absence of belief in "God(s)". This doesn't support anything.

It supports that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God".

Which means it's not a belief, it's the absence of one. Otherwise it wouldn't be defined as the absence of a belief in a God.

Well believing these definitions don't help your argument out at all.

That's funny, because you were actually the first person to quote a dictionary definition. Now that you realize it doesn't support your argument, suddenly dictionary definitions are useless. How convenient.

And yes, disbelief can and only can be a belief, because it is the refusal to believe.

Which isn't a belief either.

It is a believe when someone says, "I believe in the existence of "God(s)", just as it a belief when someone says "I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)".

No, it isn't.

I'm looking forward to the way you complicate this, subsequently "atheism" carries a heavier burden in it's implications than what it actually is.

Actually, I've simplified it. You appear to be the one who is complicating things by going "atheism is the absence of belief, but atheism is a belief because your belief that atheism is the absence of belief makes it a belief".

Nope, I'm sticking with what the word actually means.

Not collecting stamps is a hobby with a retrospective reference to activity and physiology. Since, not doing something is a physiological process due to all of the functions of a living organism and any of it's parts.

Are you serious? Are you seriously now saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and if that is the case does language serve any function or meaning to you whatsoever?

It is expressed in more than one way, obviously. Hence when I said, "belief entitles a multitude of perspectives.

Irrelevant.

Either you can't understand what I'm saying or you are deceiving yourself. I didn't want to go here, because you are of great understanding.

Thanks?

I have stated numerous times, that "atheism" is "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)". You are the one changing the expression to simply "absence or lack of belief of a specific thing".

That specific thing being "God". You seem to have an issue with subtext and/or inference. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was referring to.

So I'm not going to assume that you can't understand what I am saying, maybe you're just picking up on certain meanings and leaving out others.

Or maybe you're just misreading what I'm saying and misrepresenting me, in spite of the fact I've made my position very clear. Hence why I have repeatedly stated that atheism is the "absence of belief in a God" yet you are still confused when I say "atheism is an absence of belief" or "atheism is the absence of belief in a specific thing". I would have caught on to the fact by now that atheism refers to an absence of belief in a God, so I felt no need to keep reminding you of the God part. Apparently, you seem to be of the opinion that I should talk down to you.

I don't know how I could make that any more clear.

So, you don't understand the difference between discussing "belief" in general and "whether or not atheism is a belief"?

I thought we were both on the same level with regards to the definition of belief. A belief is a supposition that you hold to be true. The debate is whether or not atheism fits that definition (which it doesn't).

I have reached them, I am not at fault for your lag of effort.

Considering I could (and probably should) have given up around the point you said that not collecting stamps is a hobby, I think I'm putting in a great deal more effort than you are.

Actually, it stems from a combination of Roman and Greek being, atheos or "to deny gods, godlessness, and without God". The American term "atheist" stems for the original French distinction "athee" or " one who denies or disbeliefs the existence of Gods". The definition "lack of belief or absence of belief" is relatively new to the atheistic by-product of belief.

I'd figure you would at least know the origins of your position.

I do. Hence why I'm going to correct you when you say that "atheos" meant "to deny Gods". Atheos, simply and literally, means "without god". As a suffix, ism, derived from the Latin "isma", when applied in this context means "doctrine" or "belief". The word, therefore, means "without God doctrine/without God belief".

Nevertheless, thankyou for the slightly misleading etymology lesson.

Yet another supported claim. How many of these are you going to make?

What's the point? When I support my points with quotes directly from you you just ignore them. Stop asking me to support my claims if you're just going to ignore any and all support I give them.

You've never questioned your own position have you?

Of course I have. I do it all the time.

It's sad to see such a competent person resort to special pleading. Come on...you're better than that.

I'm going to take a page out of your book.

"That is an unsupported claim - now support it!"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Any conceptualization towards the word "God" is a belief, since there is nothing to support it's reasoning, besides the axiom of course. But that doesn't apply to external people.

A belief is a supposition that you hold to be true. The absence of a belief means that you do not hold that position yet to be true. There can be (and is) plenty to support the reasoning that the supposition that God exists has not demonstrated it's truth value.

You're right, these definitions are extremely misleading.

Again, you were the first person to quote from a dictionary. You obviously didn't think the definition was "misleading" at the time because you thought it supported your position. Since I have now shown you that it does not, suddenly dictionary definitions are "misleading".

No, they are not misleading. There is a difference between a definition being misleading and it simply being misrepresented. Definitions are concise and straight-forward.

If you're not a lexicographer how can you say you know what they do and what they don't do?

Considering it's a lexicographer's job to fashion concise definitions for words, it's pretty obvious. Lexicographers probably don't roll up their sleeves every morning and think "okay, I'm going to make this definition vague and inaccurate purely for the case of giving people the wrong idea about the word! Mwahahahahhaha!".

They didn't do anything to make it vague or ambiguous, it should be common sense that anything believed to be is a belief. But you know, common sense isn't something that everyone posses either.

You are correct - something that is believed to be is a belief.

Since atheism is not a belief in something that is - it is the absence of a belief that something is - it is therefore not a belief by definition.