Atheism: A belief?

[shoinan]

Willamena was right; there is a logical inconsistancy with my diagram.

Negative Belief atheism cannot be a subset of Lack of Belief atheism, since you and others have made it clear that "Lack of Belief" also implies "No belief that gods don't exist".

This is another reason why you cannot simply say "atheism is not a belief" when using the general definition, since that would exclude (and the whole point is to be inclusive, right?) those who do have the belief.

I would suggest you're getting lack of belief in gods confused with lack of belief about gods. I would disagree with a definition of atheism that was "a lack of belief about gods", but I would also suggest atheism - by this "lack of belief in gods" definition - doesn't necessarily imply (the presence or lack of) any particular beliefs about the existence of gods.

On a separate note, I would also suggest there's enough documented contention about the definition of atheism to simply suggest the word is transitioning in terms of a widely understood meaning. Right now some people say it means "positive belief no gods exist" while others, and I would suggest the majority of (vocal) atheists based on my own experience, say it means "absence of belief in the existence of gods".

Words change meanings over time and I suspect as atheism gains more and more standing (a vague term I know) in the US in particular then people will come to define it more and more by how atheists themselves define it, simply because they're the ones who are identified by the word 'atheist'. So while this semantic discussion is interesting, I think right now it's a bit pointless and that people's insistence on both sides is more politically motivated than they admit.

The best thing to do is to ask an atheist what he or she means by labelling himself or herself that way. Just as it's best to ask a Christian what he or she means exactly by his or her label too, rather than assume and impose your own definitions on other people.

 

[filthy tugboat]

This is another reason why you cannot simply say "atheism is not a belief" when using the general definition, since that would exclude (and the whole point is to be inclusive, right?) those who do have the belief.

A more appropriate statement would be that the term atheism does not imply that beliefs regarding theism or it's properties are present. However, atheism is still not a belief and still includes strong atheists. The whole point of calling them strong atheists is because the additional word changes it from 'atheism'. Strong atheists still lack the belief in deities, they also happen to believe that God's do not or can not exist.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm just trying to figure out why making the most general possible definition is the most important thing, rather than simply accepting that there are different kinds of atheism, which have slightly different, and often incompatible, connotations.

Well, first, they're not incompatible. My definition is compatible with every other definition. Second, when you're talking about what something is, you need a definition that includes all of it. You can't say "A car is a four-wheeled vehicle with a gas engine" because that doesn't include something things that are cars. When you say "atheism is...", you need to take into account all possible examples of atheism.

It's more of a personal thing I guess: I just don't find such a general definition that important or useful. It's just something to hold in the back of your mind: Yeah, technically those people are atheists too. But that's really the extent of it.

It's extremely useful for the purposes of threads like this, which is why it's up for discussion. In daily life, it doesn't make much difference, but in this context, this definition is very important and useful.

How so? You are advocating for a definition of atheism that is slightly different than the regular use of the word. Why can't an alternate definition-- one that has been largely accepted and in regular use-- also be accepted for agnosticism?

For the same reason that I don't want to use an imprecise definition of atheism for an in-depth discussion like this. This isn't the proper context.

Sam throws 3 darts at a dartboard. One hits the 20, one hits the triple 17, and another hits the 3. Susan throws 3 darts, and all three stick in the 20. Sam's darts all hit the general area of the dartboard; Susan's hit the dartboard, and the specific area of the 20 wedge. Whose throws were more precise?

Do you think this analogy was at all accurate or relevant?

 

[Magic Man]

Willamena was right; there is a logical inconsistancy with my diagram.

Negative Belief atheism cannot be a subset of Lack of Belief atheism, since you and others have made it clear that "Lack of Belief" also implies "No belief that gods don't exist".

This is another reason why you cannot simply say "atheism is not a belief" when using the general definition, since that would exclude (and the whole point is to be inclusive, right?) those who do have the belief.

That's an incorrect rewording of the diagram. The big circle is those who lack the belief "God exists". The smaller circle is those who lack the belief "God exists" and hold the belief "God doesn't exist". All of them lack the belief "God doesn't exist", which is why they're in the big circle.

Anyway, the overall point is atheism is not a belief. If you want to say it can be a belief, that's fine. I've said from the beginning that I have no problem with that. But to say that it is a belief is incorrect.

 

[Willamena]

If you want to say it can be a belief, that's fine. I've said from the beginning that I have no problem with that. But to say that it is a belief is incorrect.

So, as it can be a belief, when does it become a belief?

 

[Magic Man]

So, as it can be a belief, when does it become a belief?

When the definition "lack of belief in gods" stops applying to it.

 

[Willamena]

When the definition "lack of belief in gods" stops applying to it.

So, when does the definition "lack of belief in gods" stop applying to atheism?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It was!

Here's a diagram more representative of the information I work from:

Belief takes a second place to the picture we've painted of the world: if we feel it's an accurate picture, we're going to invest belief in it; if there's uncertainty, we'll just claim, "I don't know."

So where, you might ask me, does "the atheist" fall in that diagram? Depending on what a person's image of "God" might be, it could be the yellow, it could be the yellow and the green, or it could be the yellow, the green and the purple.

Why would the circles overlap?

 

[Willamena]

Why would the circles overlap?

Everything overlaps.

Ultimately

The diagram is meant to portray two propositions and demonstrate how they might relate.

 

[Orias]

I'll try this slowly for you.

No one is even implying that atheism is lack of any belief at all.

I'm glad you finally gave that joke of an argument up.

It is the lack of one particular belief (that being "God exists"). Atheism is the absence of that one belief, and therefore it's not a belief. The absence of a belief is not a belief.

If you were not so certain I would be inclined to agree with you.

But then again, even doubt is considered a belief.

Did any of that get through this time?

:foot:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, as it can be a belief, when does it become a belief?

When someone holds the belief that god doesn't exist. Really, you still haven't picked this up after all this time?

Unbelievable.

 

[Orias]

When someone holds the belief that god doesn't exist. Really, you still haven't picked this up after all this time?

Unbelievable.

No, it becomes a belief when people believe in the certainity of it's proposition.

The existence of (belief) such immaculate figures becomes only strongly expressed by individuals who determine themselves in this position.

According to a majority of "atheists", you're either an "atheist" or a "theist", both being positions of determination.

This applies to the indifferent who "posses" no conviction of "truth" besides their own that they seemingly dismiss as "It's not because I say so".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, it becomes a belief when people believe in the certainity of it's proposition.

Right, when they believe in the certainty of the proposition that god doesn't exist. Protip: read for comprehension.

 

[Orias]

Right, when they believe in the certainty of the proposition that god doesn't exist. Protip: read for comprehension.

Protip:reread for comprehension.

"God" was never involved in my statement.

It becomes a belief when they believe in the certainty of the proposition.

Obviously, your own certainty in your argument escapes you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Protip:reread for comprehension.

"God" was never involved in my statement.

Then your statement was irrelevant as the discussion was about belief in god. Protip: understanding context helps you make relevant comments.

 

[Orias]

Then your statement was irrelevant as the discussion was about belief in god. Protip: understanding context helps you make relevant comments.

No, the discussion is whether Atheism is a belief or not.

Perhaps you need to be reiterated on my statement...

It becomes a belief when they believe in the certainty of the proposition.

"God" is relative to "atheism", but his determined existence is irrelative to this thread, simply because belief goes beyond His "existence".

Now, if you have something on topic, not sarcastic and non-insultive to say to me then please continue.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, the discussion is whether Atheism is a belief or not.

Perhaps you need to be reiterated on my statement...

Perhaps you need to read the series of posts I was responding to. Protip: read the series of previous comments that you're responding to to understand the correct context.

 

[Orias]

Perhaps you need to read the series of posts I was responding to. Protip: read the series of previous comments that you're responding to to understand the correct context.

Maybe you should take your own tip.

That's an incorrect rewording of the diagram. The big circle is those who lack the belief "God exists". The smaller circle is those who lack the belief "God exists" and hold the belief "God doesn't exist". All of them lack the belief "God doesn't exist", which is why they're in the big circle.

Anyway, the overall point is atheism is not a belief. If you want to say it can be a belief, that's fine. I've said from the beginning that I have no problem with that. But to say that it is a belief is incorrect.

So, as it can be a belief, when does it become a belief?

When someone holds the belief that god doesn't exist. Really, you still haven't picked this up after all this time?

Unbelievable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe you should take your own tip.

Right, atheism becomes a belief when the person holds the belief that god doesn't exist.

 

[Orias]

Right, atheism becomes a belief when the person holds the belief that god doesn't exist.

No, atheism becomes a belief when people believe in the certainty of the proposition.

That obviously being, that atheism simply is.