Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

... which is rather irrelevant to what is true.

If you mean a claim is irrelevant to what is true, I agree.

 

[Orias]

Belief implies the acceptance of something you cannot prove to be true or false either to yourself or to others.
For ever in the Dark Fire of Set!
/Adramelek\

The scales still cling to the eyes of those who wish to determine their complication.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the Opposite direction." -Albert Einstein


I thought it was rather simple, something that is not a belief does not exist.
​

And, as I have said many times now, a negative belief entails lack of belief in a positive claim. The mistake here has been to reverse the entailment in order to enforce wider usage of the term. Atheists all lack belief that gods exist, but not all people who lack belief that gods exist are atheists. Entailment is not logically symmetric.

"He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."-Albert Einstein

​

​

I think I understand why people are trying to expand the definition of "atheism", but I also think that the effort just confuses everyone else. That confusion resulted in the question being asked in the OP--Is atheism a belief? It is a belief, but a special type of belief. It is a negative belief.

"He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in One false principal is the beginning of all unwisdom."-Anton LaVey

:clap

 

[Falvlun]

The belief "Gods don't exist".

So you would not call the belief that no gods exist "atheism"? Interesting.

Does that not come across as counter-intuitive, as that is a definition of the word "atheism" in popular usage? I realize now that you are not just trying to broaden the definition; you are trying to abolish the current (popular) definition as well.

You are stripping a concept of its label so that you can apply it to something else.

Oh, my bad, I thought we were talking about atheism in general.

We are. Strong atheism is a part of general atheism. What is true for general atheism must also be true for strong atheism. Why are you not comfortable with saying that strong atheism is not a belief?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We are. Strong atheism is a part of general atheism. What is true for general atheism must also be true for strong atheism. Why are you not comfortable with saying that strong atheism is not a belief?

Yes, it's quite perplexing when you keep confusing semantics with logic. But, whatever, I'm not going to keep on going around in circles with you on this. Reread my posts if you want a response. I've already covered it.

 

[Falvlun]

That's not analogous.

The relevant question would be "what makes a balloon a balloon?" If you say that one of the "necessary" characteristics of a balloon is "it's either red or not red", then you haven't really said anything. You might as well drop all reference to colour when defining what it means to be a balloon.

The purpose of the example was not to be analogous but to illustrate the availability of a third option: Neither claim can be made. Both you and Kilgore argued that since atheism cannot be labeled a belief, it necessarily must be labeled "not a belief". That argument is false, since a third option is available.

Well, no. Atheism isn't a belief at all. Atheists believe things beyond atheism. Atheism is not a belief itself, but it allows for beliefs.

Are you willing to state that strong atheism is not a belief?

Can you give me an example of something in which you can make a claim about the general set that is untrue for the subset?

Just because an atheist does something doesn't mean that the definition of atheism has to directly address it. I mean, I'm an atheist and I'm an auto racing fan, but other atheists (babies? ) might not like auto racing. We don't need to say "atheism is not necessarily appreciation of motorsports", do we?

Same thing for rejection of gods: many atheists do it, but it's not relevant to the definition of "atheist", IMO.

It is rather disingenuous to equate the relevancy of auto racing with a position on the existence of god when the discussion is about positions on the existence of god. One is obviously much more relevant than the other.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually scratch that. Atheism isn't a belief, so we've answered that question. If someone wants to use the awkward phrase "atheism isn't not a belief," then feel free - it still doesn't make atheism in general a belief.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, it's quite perplexing when you keep confusing semantics with logic. But, whatever, I'm not going to keep on going around in circles with you on this. Reread my posts if you want a response. I've already covered it.

You are dancing around the issue. You are taking a position, but unwilling to face the consequences of that position.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are dancing around the issue. You are taking a position, but unwilling to face the consequences of that position.

Atheism in general isn't a belief. That's the only issue I'm concerned with. And that's been established.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Additionally, combining weak and strong atheism is rather pointless, as weak atheism is the position based on rational skepticism, and strong atheism results in an irrational belief. Atheism resulting from rational skepticism, or "weak" atheim, isn't a belief. Strong atheism is another matter.

 

[Falvlun]

That's not analogous.

The relevant question would be "what makes a balloon a balloon?" If you say that one of the "necessary" characteristics of a balloon is "it's either red or not red", then you haven't really said anything. You might as well drop all reference to colour when defining what it means to be a balloon.

If you would like the analogy:

You have a bunch of clear balloons, some of which have red spots on them. Can you say of the set of balloons that they are colorless? Can you claim that they are not colorless?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The purpose of the example was not to be analogous but to illustrate the availability of a third option: Neither claim can be made. Both you and Kilgore argued that since atheism cannot be labeled a belief, it necessarily must be labeled "not a belief". That argument is false, since a third option is available.

That's not exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying that atheism isn't a belief, full stop.

Are you willing to state that strong atheism is not a belief?

No, I'm not. What I'm willing to say is that "atheism" and "strong atheism" refer to different things.

Can you give me an example of something in which you can make a claim about the general set that is untrue for the subset?

Sure:

- hockey can be played on ice.
- field hockey cannot be played on ice.

- "many people are doctors" is true.
- "many infants are doctors" is false.

It is rather disingenuous to equate the relevancy of auto racing with a position on the existence of god when the discussion is about positions on the existence of god. One is obviously much more relevant than the other.

What does that matter? It was my way of illustrating a general rule, and it doesn't depend on how closely related the characteristic is to the question you're asking: if you're trying to figure out the necessary characteristics of a group, if that group contains members who both have and don't have characteristic 'X', then you can safely say that X (or not X) is not necessary for membership; you can drop it from consideration.

This is the same principle that's in play when you simplify logical expressions using a Karnaugh map. If output X (e.g. "this person is an atheist) doesn't change state as input A (e.g. "this person rejects belief in gods") changes, then input A is irrelevant to output X.

If you would like the analogy:

You have a bunch of clear balloons, some of which have red spots on them. Can you say of the set of balloons that they are colorless? Can you claim that they are not colorless?

I could claim that the balloons' colour (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the question of whether they're balloons.

 

[Commoner]

The purpose of the example was not to be analogous but to illustrate the availability of a third option: Neither claim can be made. Both you and Kilgore argued that since atheism cannot be labeled a belief, it necessarily must be labeled "not a belief". That argument is false, since a third option is available.

Are you saying "a belief" or "not a belief" is a false dichotomy?

 

[Magic Man]

So you would not call the belief that no gods exist "atheism"? Interesting.

Does that not come across as counter-intuitive, as that is a definition of the word "atheism" in popular usage? I realize now that you are not just trying to broaden the definition; you are trying to abolish the current (popular) definition as well.

You are stripping a concept of its label so that you can apply it to something else.

Oh, I see. You wanted me to call it atheism. No, it's not atheism. It's a characteristic of the mindset of some atheists. It sometimes gets used as a definition for atheism.

 

[Magic Man]

The purpose of the example was not to be analogous but to illustrate the availability of a third option: Neither claim can be made. Both you and Kilgore argued that since atheism cannot be labeled a belief, it necessarily must be labeled "not a belief". That argument is false, since a third option is available.

When someone says "Atheism is a belief", what is the appropriate response?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you would not call the belief that no gods exist "atheism"? Interesting.

Does that not come across as counter-intuitive, as that is a definition of the word "atheism" in popular usage? I realize now that you are not just trying to broaden the definition; you are trying to abolish the current (popular) definition as well.

"A implies B" is not the same thing as "A is B". If someone believes that no gods exist, this implies that the person is an atheist. However, it doesn't mean that the belief that no gods exist defines atheism.

We are. Strong atheism is a part of general atheism. What is true for general atheism must also be true for strong atheism. Why are you not comfortable with saying that strong atheism is not a belief?

Would it be right to say that what is true of the United States as a whole must be true of each individual state?

- The United States has coastline on two oceans.
- Wyoming has coastline on two oceans.

You're committing a compositional fallacy.

 

[Copernicus]

I know, but his tactic has become to just keep claiming that he's right, and others just don't want to admit it, so I wasn't worried about responding with anything more than he was giving.

Mball, we each have our own opinions here. I wish that you would stop making it so personal, and I also wish that you would spend more time examining your own behavior.

I had a thought last night (rare as that might be). Copernicus, you're argument is that some of us atheists use our definition of "atheist" to bolster our argument against theists...

That has not been my argument, but it has been an opinion that I have expressed. I think that some are taking the definition too literally and using it to try to drive usage.

....You've made it clear that to you "non-theist" can be used to describe weak atheists....

To include atheists. It has the advantage of not carrying the stigma of "atheist", and it is also more appropriate for describing people who either don't care or don't hold an opinion about the existence of gods.

...So, what does it matter? The group in question (people who don't believe in gods, but don't hold the belief "Gods don't exist") is then non-theists. I don't see how that's any different from them being atheists. So, OK, let's use your way of thinking. Those people are still non-theists, who - even if you consider that word to mean something different from "atheists" - are still pretty darn close to atheists. They're much, much closer to atheists than theists. That works just as well in any argument with theists I can think of.

I would be happier if people here used "non-theist" as a broader term, but I recognize its use as a euphemism for "atheist". I see nothing to be gained by broadening the usage of "atheist" to include all non-theists, although some may see the broadening of the definition as a way of removing its stigma. If babies are atheists, then atheist-haters are also baby-haters.

In other words, I'm asking why we'd bother when we could just assume for the sake of the argument that non-theist describes those people better, and still be in the same position regarding the argument.

I think that "atheist" is a very useful term as a label for someone who explicitly rejects belief in gods, regardless of whether that rejection takes the form of a weak opinion or a strong conviction. There can be non-theists who fall outside of that class of people. There should be nothing wrong with denying belief in gods and nothing wrong with admitting that in public. In a way, your position only exacerbates the stigma by trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

[Copernicus]

That's not exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying that atheism isn't a belief, full stop.

However, most people who use the word treat it as an "ism" (in the sense of the noun "ism" as defined in dictionaries. Don't confuse "ism" with any word that ends in those letters.)

No, I'm not. What I'm willing to say is that "atheism" and "strong atheism" refer to different things.

They do. Strong atheists are people with a strong belief that gods do not exist. Weak atheists are people with a belief that there is merely insufficient evidence to believe that they exist. Both strong and weak atheism are full-fledged negative beliefs.

This has been an argument about how we ought to use the term "atheist", not how we actually do use it. In very limited contexts--these religion debates--some people do end up using "atheist" to refer to anyone who lacks belief in gods, regardless of whether they know what a "god" is. We quite often hear it said that everyone is essentially an "atheist" except perhaps for one or a handful of deities that they do believe in. The point being made in the argument is that theism rests on a foundation of special pleading. I think that it is a worthy point to make in a debate. I do not think that it really affects the meaning of "atheism" that exists in the mind of most English speakers, and I do not think that there is much movement beyond the narrow confines of forums like this to broaden out the usage of "atheism" to mean "non-theist". If anything, there is a movement to abandon the use of "atheist" in favor of more neutral labels like "non-believer" and "non-theist".

 

[Magic Man]

Mball, we each have our own opinions here. I wish that you would stop making it so personal, and I also wish that you would spend more time examining your own behavior.

I don't think I'm the one who needs to examine their own behavior. I acknowledged what I was doing. You seem to be denying what you're doing. All you've been doing for a while now is saying "These people are wrong" and using assumptions as your evidence.

That has not been my argument, but it has been an opinion that I have expressed. I think that some are taking the definition too literally and using it to try to drive usage.

It's part of your argument to explain why we "use an incorrect definition".

To include atheists. It has the advantage of not carrying the stigma of "atheist", and it is also more appropriate for describing people who either don't care or don't hold an opinion about the existence of gods.

We agree that it has the advantage of not carrying the stigma of "atheist", but all it is is a rebranding. It's like a company renaming their newest version of a product to get away from a bad reputation and start anew. The product is the same, only the name has changed. Whether you want to call it "non-theist" or "atheist" doesn't matter. They're all the same.

I would be happier if people here used "non-theist" as a broader term, but I recognize its use as a euphemism for "atheist". I see nothing to be gained by broadening the usage of "atheist" to include all non-theists, although some may see the broadening of the definition as a way of removing its stigma. If babies are atheists, then atheist-haters are also baby-haters.

It's not broadening anything. It's using the correct definition. But here's my point. In these arguments you're talking about, the argument by the atheists is that certain people fit into the group "people who don't believe in gods". Whether you want to label that group "non-theists" or "atheists" really doesn't even matter. Whichever one you use, you're still using it to refer to that group.

I think that "atheist" is a very useful term as a label for someone who explicitly rejects belief in gods, regardless of whether that rejection takes the form of a weak opinion or a strong conviction. There can be non-theists who fall outside of that class of people. There should be nothing wrong with denying belief in gods and nothing wrong with admitting that in public. In a way, your position only exacerbates the stigma by trying to sweep it under the rug.

And I think "atheist" is a very useful term for anyone who is not a theist. I don't even understand where you're getting your last sentence.

 

[Magic Man]

They do. Strong atheists are people with a strong belief that gods do not exist. Weak atheists are people with a belief that there is merely insufficient evidence to believe that they exist. Both strong and weak atheism are full-fledged negative beliefs.

That's incorrect. Weak atheists don't necessarily have the belief that there is insufficient evidence to believe that gods exist. Weak atheism is most certainly not a negative belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, most people who use the word treat it as an "ism" (in the sense of the noun "ism" as defined in dictionaries. Don't confuse "ism" with any word that ends in those letters.)

Poisoning the well, are we?

They do. Strong atheists are people with a strong belief that gods do not exist. Weak atheists are people with a belief that there is merely insufficient evidence to believe that they exist. Both strong and weak atheism are full-fledged negative beliefs.

So you disagree with this summary, then?

Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is at least one god" is a false statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.

Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism, whereas weak atheism and soft atheism are alternates for negative atheism.

This has been an argument about how we ought to use the term "atheist", not how we actually do use it.

I disagree. Much of this discussion has been a matter of myself and others explaining to you how we do use the term, and you arguing that we don't use it the way we say we do.

In very limited contexts--these religion debates--some people do end up using "atheist" to refer to anyone who lacks belief in gods, regardless of whether they know what a "god" is.

Yes - the term "atheist" does tend to be used more often in discussions of religion and god-belief than, say, everyday conversation.

We quite often hear it said that everyone is essentially an "atheist" except perhaps for one or a handful of deities that they do believe in. The point being made in the argument is that theism rests on a foundation of special pleading. I think that it is a worthy point to make in a debate.

So... you want your definition to be used because that way, the point can be made in debates explicitly, instead of having it hidden in the meaning of the word?

I do not think that it really affects the meaning of "atheism" that exists in the mind of most English speakers, and I do not think that there is much movement beyond the narrow confines of forums like this to broaden out the usage of "atheism" to mean "non-theist".

IMO, the idea that there might be a distinction between "atheist" and "non-theist" doesn't get much play outside forums like this one, either.

If anything, there is a movement to abandon the use of "atheist" in favor of more neutral labels like "non-believer" and "non-theist".

There's both, actually. As the term "atheist" increases in popularity and usage, more people consider whether it's their preferred label for themselves. Some atheists like it fine; others decide they'd prefer something else. Personally, I label myself things like "humanist" and "skeptic" before I label myself an atheist, just because I think they express more about what I actually believe, rather than about what I don't believe... but I still recognize that the label "atheist" does apply to me.