Atheism: A belief?

[Commoner]

Hey! I object --I'm extremely skilled at not collecting stamps, it's one of the few things I do well.

I sucked at it when I was younger, but I'm doing alright now. 15 years without collecting a single stamp!

 

[Falvlun]

Ugh. 19 pages of this to catch up on. My eyeballs are burning and my brain is jello. And I think I'd prefer to be called a fluffy bunny now, just so I never have to say the word "atheist" again.

I'm not conflicted - I'm 100% sure this is not a poisonous spider. It has no capacity of physically harming me whatsoever. But I do also feel that it's 100% going to kill me if I come within 10 feet of it. Do you think I believe this spider is poisonous or deadly?

If you believe it's going to kill you, then yes, you believe that it is deadly.

 

[Falvlun]

So, I was thinking. Why couldn't I redefine "theist" as someone who lacks the belief "gods do not exist"? Afterall, there are people right here who lack that belief, but don't have the positive belief that gods do exist. And we are trying to make definitions all inclusive, so we can't just say that a theist is someone who holds the belief that god(s) exist. That would only refer to Strong Theists. Hey, presto! Mball's a theist.

I wonder... under this new definition, would theism be considered a belief?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

No more irrational than the belief that unicorns don't exist.

 

[Falvlun]

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

If you are referring only to weak atheism, then that would be true. If you are referring to atheism in general, that cannot be said definitively.

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

So when you say "atheism" you are only referring to "weak atheism"? I thought atheism was the general term under which all forms of atheism fall under.

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.

In reference to your hockey example: You stated "can be". That is not an absolute statement, so it's just fine. If you had stated "hockey is played on ice" and you are using "hockey" as a general term that includes both field and ice hockey, then you could not make that statement. Likewise, if you state "it is possible for atheism to not be a belief" that would be just fine. When you make it an absolute statement-- atheism is not a belief-- you run into trouble.

Your doctor example is not very clear to me.

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.

The difference is that there are some characteristics that coalesce to create subgroups. Strong atheism is a subgroup of atheism, hence the belief that gods do not exist is relevant when discussing atheism in general. Race car afficianados are not a subgroup of atheism, so they are not relevant.

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

If the question is "are the balloons colored", then the color of the balloons is necessarily relevant.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

That's like stating a round, bouncy object is not a ball, but some people define a ball as a round, bouncy object. Don't you see the problem there? If it sometimes gets used as a defintion for atheism, then wouldn't it mean that it is (a form of) atheism?

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

Atheism is not necessarily a belief.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Funny, because that's precisely the fallacy I felt you guys were committing (thanks for the name, btw).

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties.

Source
Only some forms of atheism are not a belief. To apply "not a belief" to atheism in general, then, is a compositional fallacy.

 

[Commoner]

Ugh. 19 pages of this to catch up on. My eyeballs are burning and my brain is jello. And I think I'd prefer to be called a fluffy bunny now, just so I never have to say the word "atheist" again.

If you believe it's going to kill you, then yes, you believe that it is deadly.

If it's an apple, it's an apple.

I don't "believe" it's going to kill me, I simply feel that way. I know perfectly well it's harmless, I also understand that the fear is irrational, yet there's no getting around it.

 

[Commoner]

Atheism is not necessarily a belief.

That's fine by me, btw. And it doesn't necessarily imlpy that it's ever a belief either.

 

[Commoner]

So, I was thinking. Why couldn't I redefine "theist" as someone who lacks the belief "gods do not exist"? Afterall, there are people right here who lack that belief, but don't have the positive belief that gods do exist. And we are trying to make definitions all inclusive, so we can't just say that a theist is someone who holds the belief that god(s) exist. That would only refer to Strong Theists. Hey, presto! Mball's a theist.

I wonder... under this new definition, would theism be considered a belief?

A.k.a atheists.

Atheism is a response to theism, not the other way around.

 

[Copernicus]

Seriously? You wanted to discuss Lexicography with me? That was the point of this conversation? Not whether or not your definition properly portrays how people in general and atheists in particular understand the term "atheist"?

We have been debating the merits of a definition here. I did not think it presumptuous to ask how you evaluate a definition.

Yes and no. Either for an inconsistent/ever expanding definition of "god" or for a sufficiently broad definition, I would not necessarily claim to believe that god does not exist - unless you think that I can believe in something and also consider it irrational and false at the same time. Then you might have a point.

I actually do believe that. The ability to have contradictory and inconsistent beliefs is a design feature of the human mind, not a flaw. In any case, you do need to think more about the possibility that people do not always describe their word usage accurately. There is no shortage of theists who deny anthropomorphism while also describing their belief in a god with humanlike qualities.

I'm not conflicted - I'm 100% sure this is not a poisonous spider. It has no capacity of physically harming me whatsoever. But I do also feel that it's 100% going to kill me if I come within 10 feet of it. Do you think I believe this spider is poisonous or deadly?

Is it not possible to be both poisonous and deadly? Anyway, I could not begin to answer the question until you tell me the means that you think the spider would employ to kill you. And you're beginning to give me the creeps with this spider obsession. I don't like them either.

...believe that you are an atheist (your quibbles about the nature of beliefs notwithstanding), not that people who truly "lack belief in gods" are by that fact alone "atheists".

Did I say they were?

You did appear to be taking that position. That is the position of others that you appear to have been siding with. Perhaps you are making some subtle distinction that I have missed.

What is there in deism that is not present in theism?

Since I have been using theism as a hypernym of deism, deism would inherit all of the properties of theism. There is a narrower sense of theism where it is not a hypernym--and that is the one that you appear to favor.

Nowhere where "deist" and "theist" are used in the same context are they treated as the same thing or is deism considered to be theism.

Deism and theism are not the same thing, and I never claimed that they were. The dictionary contradicts the generalization in your last statement, so maybe you were just unaware of that word sense. That is the sense in which I usually use the term in these discussion threads.

Except Santa Claus is a specific imaginary figure as is, for instance, the God of the Bible, with a specific, falsifiable argument/story attached and I have no problem in saying that neither exists.

So why is it a problem for you to say that gods in general are implausible beings? Is it just that you think the word "god" lacks a meaning in some way that other words do not?

 

[Falvlun]

If it's an apple, it's an apple.

I don't "believe" it's going to kill me, I simply feel that way. I know perfectly well it's harmless, I also understand that the fear is irrational, yet there's no getting around it.

I don't understand your distinction between feel and believe. It just sounds like you are using the word "feel" instead of "belief" when the belief is irrational, but beliefs can be irrational too.

Regardless, if you do believe it's going to kill you (which you stated before), then you must also believe it's deadly, since it is not possible to kill you without also being deadly.

That's fine by me, btw. And it doesn't necessarily imlpy that it's ever a belief either.

Sweet. That's all I've been trying to say. Some people seem to think that when I claim that you can't say atheism (as a whole) is not a belief, that means I am advocating that atheism is a belief, but that is not the case.

A.k.a atheists.

Atheism is a response to theism, not the other way around.

So? Apparently we can redefine words if we feel that it makes the definition more "accurate" or more "inclusive". Why is that redefinition not valid?

 

[Commoner]

I actually do believe that. The ability to have contradictory and inconsistent beliefs is a design feature of the human mind, not a flaw. In any case, you do need to think more about the possibility that people do not always describe their word usage accurately. There is no shortage of theists who deny anthropomorphism while also describing their belief in a god with humanlike qualities.

Wait a minute, that's not really the same. The ability to hold conflicting ideas is one thing, it's another thing to recognize those things as false/irrational and still have an emotional response to them - like some ex-theists do with "hell". Now, I'd like to see you go to someone who had been a Christian an has since become a non-theist, for instance, and argue to them that they sincerely believe in hell, sin, god's mercy, etc.

Is it not possible to be both poisonous and deadly? Anyway, I could not begin to answer the queston until you tell me the means that you think the spider would employ to kill you. And you're beginning to give me the creeps with this spider obsession. I don't like them either.

Ok, ok, do I believe spiders are poisonous and/or deadly?

I don't actually have a (significant) fear of spiders, it was just an example. There is no "means" that I'm consciously aware of, as said - the fear is irrational.

You did appear to be taking that position. That is the position of others that you appear to have been siding with. Perhaps you are making some subtle distinction that I have missed.

I do believe they have to be capable of understanding such concepts and consider them in order to be atheists. I wouldn't automatically label babies as "atheists", for instance. For all I know (and I know nothing of babies), their only thoughts are "food", "sleep" and "panic".

Since I have been using theism as a hypernym of deism, deism would inherit all of the properties of theism. There is a narrower sense of theism where it is not a hypernym--and that is the one that you appear to favor.

I thought we were all about common usage...

So why is it a problem for you to say that gods in general are implausible beings? Is it just that you think the word "god" lacks a meaning in some way that other words do not?

What does it matter what I do? Here you go: "Gods are, in general, implausible". Is this synonymous with "god doesn't exist?" Have we suddenly established a definition of an atheist? Has any value been added?

 

[Commoner]

I don't understand your distinction between feel and believe. It just sounds like you are using the word "feel" instead of "belief" when the belief is irrational, but beliefs can be irrational too.

Of course beliefs can be irrational. If you read it again, you'll see that that's far from the point I was making. If I feel fear do I necessarily believe something is dangerous?

Regardless, if you do believe it's going to kill you (which you stated before), then you must also believe it's deadly, since it is not possible to kill you without also being deadly.

It wasn't to be taken literally. It's also not possible for me to believe it was harmless without believing it isn't deadly. Perhaps, then, I believe both? But, once I recognize that one belief is irrational and the other valid, can I be said to "believe that the spider is poisonous" because I still have a level of fear of it? Is this an appropriate use of the term "belief"? I don't think so. It's certainly not synonymous with "belief" as a "knowledge", conviction, position, something that implies intentionality.

Sweet. That's all I've been trying to say. Some people seem to think that when I claim that you can't say atheism (as a whole) is not a belief, that means I am advocating that atheism is a belief, but that is not the case.

"Necessarily", you left out "necessarily.

So? Apparently we can redefine words if we feel that it makes the definition more "accurate" or more "inclusive". Why is that redefinition not valid?

Good luck with that. I don't know how it's more accurate though, it has no connection to the common usage of the word, no theists describe themselves as such nor are they described as such by others, it does not follow from its etymology or it's meaning in the original language, etc., etc...

 

[Willamena]

Of course beliefs can be irrational. If you read it again, you'll see that that's far from the point I was making. If I feel fear do I necessarily believe something is dangerous?

Belief there's danger is only one of the reasons we might feel fear.

 

[Commoner]

Belief there's danger is only one of the reasons we might feel fear.

Exactly... :yes:

Just because something is "on my mind" or "in my thoughts" doesn't make it my belief. Especially if that something goes against my reasoning.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly... :yes:

Just because something is "on my mind" or "in my thoughts" doesn't make it my belief. Especially if that something goes against my reasoning.

Actually, I meant that belief in something else could be the cause of fear.

 

[Commoner]

Actually, I meant that belief in something else could be the cause of fear.

Ok...but do you agree or disagree with me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are referring only to weak atheism, then that would be true. If you are referring to atheism in general, that cannot be said definitively.

Yes it can, actually... so long as weak atheism is part of "atheism in general".

So when you say "atheism" you are only referring to "weak atheism"? I thought atheism was the general term under which all forms of atheism fall under.

No, I'm not. I'm acknowledging that the term "atheism" encompasses both strong and weak atheism.

In reference to your hockey example: You stated "can be". That is not an absolute statement, so it's just fine. If you had stated "hockey is played on ice" and you are using "hockey" as a general term that includes both field and ice hockey, then you could not make that statement. Likewise, if you state "it is possible for atheism to not be a belief" that would be just fine. When you make it an absolute statement-- atheism is not a belief-- you run into trouble.

I don't recall ever putting it that way. My position all along has been that a belief in the non-existence of gods is not required to be an atheist.

The difference is that there are some characteristics that coalesce to create subgroups. Strong atheism is a subgroup of atheism, hence the belief that gods do not exist is relevant when discussing atheism in general. Race car afficianados are not a subgroup of atheism, so they are not relevant.

But my point is that it is not necessary to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

I get the feeling that we're talking past each other here.

If the question is "are the balloons colored", then the color of the balloons is necessarily relevant.

Exactly how does this analogy work back to the discussion at hand?

IMO, the question that would be properly analogous to the OP's question of "is atheism a belief?" would be "do balloons need a colour?" The answer to that question would be "no", regardless of the colour (or lack thereof) of any particular balloon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funny, because that's precisely the fallacy I felt you guys were committing (thanks for the name, btw).


Source
Only some forms of atheism are not a belief. To apply "not a belief" to atheism in general, then, is a compositional fallacy.

Hang on... I think I see the issue here, and why we seem to be talking across each other. If I'm wrong, please correct me:

- you're operating based on the title of the thread... effectively, "strong atheism is 'an atheism', and strong atheism is a belief, so yes, sometimes atheism is a belief."

- I'm operating based on the OP, which explains the title in further detail and suggests that the question asked is more intended in the sense of whether "atheism in general" is a belief.

I'm not trying to argue that strong atheism isn't a belief; I agree that it is. What I'm arguing is that atheism in general isn't a belief, and that belief is not required for atheism.