Atheism: A belief?

[Kilgore Trout]

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

That obviously being, that atheism simply is.

This would mean that anyone who believe that atheism is, is an atheist.

Try again.

 

[Magic Man]

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

At this point, I'd say never, although it's possible that could change someday.

 

[Orias]

This would mean that anyone who believe that atheism is, is an atheist.

No, atheism becomes a belief when they belief in the certainty of it's proposition.

Some how I am starting to come to the conclusion that you're not necessarily trying to apply any of this to yourself.

Somewhere along the lines of, "It's a not a belief because I don't believe it to be". Even then, when applying terms that appeal to the self it is an axiom, what one believes to be true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, atheism becomes a belief when they belief in the certainty of it's proposition.

Indeed, for those of us who hold no certainty about the existence of god, atheism isn't a belief.

Now you're learning.

 

[Orias]

Indeed, for those of us who hold no certainty about the existence of god, atheism isn't a belief.

Not at all, for those of us who hold the certainty in the definition of atheism, is a belief.

Doubt, is a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

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

I didn't give anything up. You apparently have been mistaken this whole time. None of us ever said atheism is a complete lack of beliefs. Every one of us acknowledged that atheists hold beliefs; we just also acknowledged that "God exists" isn't one of those beliefs.

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

What does being certain have to do with anything?

But then again, even doubt is considered a belief.

So, you're just not even going to respond to what I said, huh?

:foot:

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not at all, for those of us who hold the certainty in the definition of atheism, is a belief.

Okay, for you atheism is a belief. For me, it isn't. Vive la difference.

 

[Magic Man]

No, atheism becomes a belief when they belief in the certainty of it's proposition.

OK, this nonsensical statement isn't helping anything. It's very simple. Atheism becomes a belief when the atheist believes gods don't exist.

Somewhere along the lines of, "It's a not a belief because I don't believe it to be". Even then, when applying terms that appeal to the self it is an axiom, what one believes to be true.

Actually, you're the one using that logic. You're the one saying "It's a belief because you believe it to be". We're trying to get through to you that that's incorrect. It's not a belief because it's not a belief.

 

[Orias]

I didn't give anything up. You apparently have been mistaken this whole time.

I'm not going to dig through 1,200 posts to prove you wrong. I'll just let that sit within your conscience.

None of us ever said atheism is a complete lack of beliefs.

I never said any of "you" did.

It was just merely you pushing the, "atheism is just merely a lack of belief". It is clearly obvious that atheists hold beliefs other than, "Atheism isn't a belief".​

Every one of us acknowledged that atheists hold beliefs; we just also acknowledged that "God exists" isn't one of those beliefs.

Sigh...

What does being certain have to do with anything?

What doesn't it have to do with anything?

You clearly asserted that you are certain that you are correct about your own belief.

So, you're just not even going to respond to what I said, huh?

Sigh...not responding to what you said would be...not responding. Which I clearly did do.

I'll take that as a "no".

You should take it for what it is, "foot in mouth".

 

[Orias]

Okay, for you atheism is a belief.

No, belief is a belief (period), otherwise known as, what can't be proven (in terms of objective material, which there clearly is none to support you other than your own self evident "truths").

For me, it isn't.

That's your own belief

Vive la difference.

Obvio.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's your own belief

Indeed, a belief well founded in logic and reason. Logic and reason not yet countered in this thread. After 1300 posts this isn't likely to happen.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not going to dig through 1,200 posts to prove you wrong. I'll just let that sit within your conscience.

You're more than welcome to go back through my posts, but I think we've hit on a key problem here. Your understanding of others' comments seems to be about equal to your ability to communicate clearly. It seems that the problem that causes you to be unable to make coherent statements also causes you to misunderstand others' statements.

I never once implied atheists don't hold any beliefs. That would be a ridiculous thing to claim. It's kind of obvious that when we talk of "lack of belief" in regards to atheism, we're talking about "lack of belief in gods". The belief in question is "God exists", so the lack of belief in question is in regards to that.

I never said any of "you" did.

It was just merely you pushing the, "atheism is just merely a lack of belief". It is clearly obvious that atheists hold beliefs other than, "Atheism isn't a belief".​

Way to focus on the wrong part of that. Yes, you're now admitting that you thought I was implying that atheists have no beliefs at all. Apparently, that's the major problem here. Now that you finally understand that we're talking about atheism and not all beliefs, and that no one here would claim that an atheists lacks any and all beliefs, you can finally agree that atheism is a lack of the belief "God exists".
​

Sigh...

What are you sighing about? What part of that didn't you understand?

What doesn't it have to do with anything?

You clearly asserted that you are certain that you are correct about your own belief.

And what does my certainty or uncertainty have to do with anything? Why would you agree with me if I wasn't certain, but you disagree with me because I'm certain?

Sigh...not responding to what you said would be...not responding. Which I clearly did do.

You put a response beneath my words, but it in no way actually responding to what I said.

You should take it for what it is, "foot in mouth".

Right. In other words, "no".

 

[Willamena]

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

Unbelievable.

So the definition of atheism is something different for everyone? Okie dokie.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So the definition of atheism is something different for everyone? Okie dokie.

No, but there are different definitions of atheism - some of them being a belief, and some not. Haven't picked this up yet either?

 

[Kurohige]

Atheism is not a belief.. is a way life, a way of detachment from hope and fith.. is a philosphy that allow u to live the world and the mundane society without any compromised...
in other word .. being an atheist is fun ....

and then u meet a christian or muslim or jew and they condamn u to hell for an eternity.. and it gets anoying ....

 

[Orias]

Indeed, a belief well founded in logic and reason. Logic and reason not yet countered in this thread. After 1300 posts this isn't likely to happen.

It can't be proven to be "true", by means and default it is a belief.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It can't be proven to be "true", by means and default it is a belief.

Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not going any further with this ridiculous side argument. We all understand what "valid use" means.

I understand it to mean "conformity with common usage". You cannot provide any alternative understanding, so you must agree with me. Your definition of "atheism", therefore, does not point to a "valid use" of the word.

Yes, roughly 50% agree with your definition. How many of the total respondents do you think are atheists? I'm guessing not many more than 50%, if even that many...

Exactly. You are "guessing" and then behaving as if your guesses were facts. We've seen you do that many times in the past. You have no way of knowing what the 50-50 represented. On the Secular Cafe board, which has relatively few theistic participants, the same poll has been running 2-to-1 against your concept, and that was without any prompting from me. The difference in RF is that the debate over the "proper" definition of atheism began early and may well have had an effect on how people responded.

You haven't used the word "actively", but that's the only difference here. For you there has to be an active belief on the atheist's part. Your definition is found many places, as is mine. Your point is lost. Again, it doesn't really matter what most people use in this case. We're only interested in the best possible definition.

I did not use "actively", because that word narrows the scope of the definition. People who do not actively promote atheism still qualify as atheists. The only requirement is that they consider gods to be the product of human imagination, no matter how weakly they hold that belief.

And there's no need to go further here. The fact is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist" is the best definition because it includes everyone who would rightly be called an atheist...

No, it includes a large number of people that English speakers would not normally apply the label "atheist" to. Your definition would be improved by replacing "sometimes" with "usually", but the best solution would be to remove the words "absence of belief", which only confuse matters. All atheists have an "absence of belief" in gods. Not all people with an "absence of belief in gods" are properly referred to as "atheists". Not according to common, everyday usage anyway. Obviously, folks engaged in an active attempt to modify usage of the word will try to impose the label on a broader range of people.

Someone who has never heard of gods and doesn't believe in them is an atheist. Your only argument is "That's not how most people use it". To have a valid argument, you'd have to show that that's not how any English speakers use it...

This is an utterly absurd argument. Idiosyncratic usage is "invalid use". The only criterion relevant to determining word meaning and definition is usage. We come back again to the expression that you cannot define: "valid use". Invalid use is the failure to use a word according to social convention. The purpose of language is to communicate. We cannot communicate with each other if we do not have conventional agreement on word usage. That is why people consult dictionaries--to make sure that they are conforming to common patterns of usage.

...You'd also have to show why we should discount the fact that the word literally means "without belief in gods". You haven't done any of that...

Rubbish. I have done it repeatedly. No matter how many times the genetic fallacy known as etymological fallacy is explained to you, you cannot stop yourself from committing it. The meaning of "atheism" does not depend on a historical analysis of its components, nor do modern folk etymologies reflect common usage.

...The only thing you've done is offer outlandish reasons why some people accept my definition in an attempt to retain your precious belief about this.

Yet you now seem to accept the fact that most people use the word as I have defined it. We are down to disputing how many atheists use it the way you define it. I am content to let the argument stand that way. You can continue to advocate for your definition. The ordinary English concept is perfectly useful. The only question remaining here is why you advocate so strongly for a different usage than people in the general public have. What purpose does it serve? (I have my own opinions on that, which you naturally reject quite vehemently.)

 

[Magic Man]

Good, so we're clear now that atheism is not a belief and it means "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist", right? It would have been much easier to just agree to that on the first page.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Atheism is not a belief.. is a way life, a way of detachment from hope and fith.. is a philosphy that allow u to live the world and the mundane society without any compromised...

it's not that either.