Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that you are so wedded to your definition that you can't see the point I was making. You were claiming that people do not call babies atheists because there is no reason to do so. I was pointing out that it could be because they have a reason not to--the label doesn't apply. Most people think of theists and atheists as people who advocate a position on the existence of gods. That label would not apply to babies or people who have no concept of gods.

I think you're forgetting that you were the one who brought up usage with respect to babies as support for your position in the first place. It was your argument that I was addressing when I pointed out that there could very well be reasons that people don't go around saying "babies are atheists!" that have nothing to do with them actually thinking "babies aren't atheists!"

I was raising a problem that casts doubt on your argument. You trying to cast doubt on the problem that I pointed out doesn't magically make your argument a sound one.

Since you seem to have retreated from your initial position that the lack of people describing babies as atheists is meaningful (I suspect because it would imply that the lack of people describing babies as "not atheists" is meaningful as well, which hurts your argument) and have instead apparently switched to something more like "maybe it's meaningful, maybe it's not, but you can't say for sure that it's not meaningful", can we just agree to set the matter of usage with respect to babies aside as irrelevant?

 

[Willamena]

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

All that's required for it to qualify as "believed" is for it to be true.

 

[Willamena]

I think you're forgetting that you were the one who brought up usage with respect to babies as support for your position in the first place. It was your argument that I was addressing when I pointed out that there could very well be reasons that people don't go around saying "babies are atheists!" that have nothing to do with them actually thinking "babies aren't atheists!"

I was raising a problem that casts doubt on your argument. You trying to cast doubt on the problem that I pointed out doesn't magically make your argument a sound one.

Since you seem to have retreated from your initial position that the lack of people describing babies as atheists is meaningful (I suspect because it would imply that the lack of people describing babies as "not atheists" is meaningful as well, which hurts your argument) and have instead apparently switched to something more like "maybe it's meaningful, maybe it's not, but you can't say for sure that it's not meaningful", can we just agree to set the matter of usage with respect to babies aside as irrelevant?

It certainly doesn't cast doubt on this argument, that there are possible other ways to make the same argument.

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.

It would seem Falvun made a good point in indicating that it is no less a compositional fallacy to say atheism in general isn't a belief as to say that atheism in general is a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

I just had a vision of all of us standing before this young kid named Virginia. She asks if there is a Santa Claus. I say no, and Penguin, Mball, Commoner, Killgore, Tugboat, and a whole crowd of other atheists say "We merely lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus." Who will Virginia hate worse? I'm betting that she will hate us all equally.

I understand you were going more for humor here, but it's also not quite accurate. We don't have a word "asantaclausists", and anyone who has heard of Santa Claus either accepts his existence or actively rejects it.

 

[Magic Man]

It would seem Falvun made a good point in indicating that it is no less a compositional fallacy to say atheism in general isn't a belief as to say that atheism in general is a belief.

In other words your response to him is "You're wrong; Falvlun's right"? How is that helpful?

 

[Willamena]

In other words your response to him is "You're wrong; Falvlun's right"?

Nope.

How is that helpful?

How it might be helpful depends on him, not me.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

Yes, that would mean it's a form of atheism. It doesn't mean it's atheism. Those are two completely different things. A foil balloon is a form of balloon, but it is not all balloons.

Atheism is not necessarily a belief.

Yup, and even better, atheism is not a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

Nope.

Well, that was your response, just in different words. If you meant something different, you should rephrase it with words that don't mean what I said.

How it might be helpful depends on him, not me.

Nope.

 

[Where Is God]

I something was just brought to my attention...

saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby and not smoking is a habit/addiction..

 

[Kilgore Trout]

saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby and not smoking is a habit/addiction..

Don't worry, you'll get plenty of arguments about how not collecting stamps is a hobby and not smoking is an addiction.

 

[Where Is God]

Don't worry, you'll get plenty of arguments about how not collecting stamps is a hobby and not smoking is an addiction.

I was waiting...

 

[Magic Man]

Don't worry, you'll get plenty of arguments about how not collecting stamps is a hobby and not smoking is an addiction.

Yeah, I had a hard time kicking my smoking addiction, but I'm having an even harder time kicking my not-smoking addiction. I just can't seem to do it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, I had a hard time kicking my smoking addiction, but I'm having an even harder time kicking my not-smoking addiction. I just can't seem to do it.

The key is to take it one day at a time. Try to have one cigarette every day. Before you know it, that non-smoking addiction will be history.

 

[Willamena]

Well, that was your response, just in different words. If you meant something different, you should rephrase it with words that don't mean what I said.

I think that's always been our problem, Matt. My words only mean what I said.

 

[Orias]

This is why it gets confusing when you respond to a question posed to someone else.

I didn't mean to interupt a point you were trying to make to others.

The way you responded made it seem like you thought I was trying to label you, and I wasn't.

See, now that's completely nonsensical. Not every activity is a hobby

Your right, hobby is a bad word used to describe this situation. Though in a weaker strength it could still apply, since One may pursue something for entertainment that may not apply to collecting stamps.

Every inaction, is an action.

Per the example, not collecting stamps is an activity, simply because action applies to conscious, which applies to mind.

and not every thought or not everything "of the mind" is a belief.

Labels are believed. Everything of the Mind is believed.

We have different words for a reason.

What's your point? All of these words exist under the common belief that they actually mean something.

But let me just say this - if not collecting stamps were a hobby, atheism would certainly be a belief. It would also be a hobby.

Not collecting stamps is a hobby, because it is a general interest for One to take no interest in collecting stamps and doing something else of amusement.

 

[Magic Man]

I think that's always been our problem, Matt. My words only mean what I said.

Yup, and what you said is what I said in different words. That's my point. When I rephrased your comment to make it clear why it was unhelpful, you said my rephrasing was wrong. The problem wasn't my rephrasing. The problem was your wording. If you meant something other than what I said, then you should go back and use different words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would seem Falvun made a good point in indicating that it is no less a compositional fallacy to say atheism in general isn't a belief as to say that atheism in general is a belief.

It's not a compositional fallacy to say that atheism in general isn't a belief.

Atheism consists of:

- strong/explicit atheism - a belief (or a category of beliefs, maybe)
- weak/implicit atheism - not a belief

The category "atheism in general" must accommodate both strong atheism and weak atheism. IOW, it must allow belief (otherwise, strong atheism would be excluded) but it also must not require belief (otherwise, weak atheism would be excluded).

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that saying "'atheism in general' is a belief" is more of a category error than anything else: "atheism in general" is a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs, but it isn't a belief itself.

Basically, the phrase "atheism is a belief" is a mismatching of concepts... like "democracy is a colour".

OTOH, it's perfectly valid to say that "a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs but is not a belief itself" is not a belief... just as it would be valid to say "democracy is not a colour".

 

[Falvlun]

It's not a compositional fallacy to say that atheism in general isn't a belief.

Atheism consists of:

- strong/explicit atheism - a belief (or a category of beliefs, maybe)
- weak/implicit atheism - not a belief

The category "atheism in general" must accommodate both strong atheism and weak atheism. IOW, it must allow belief (otherwise, strong atheism would be excluded) but it also must not require belief (otherwise, weak atheism would be excluded).

So how, exactly, does saying "atheism is not a belief" allow belief?

That's been my problem all along, and I why I proposed we say "atheism is not necessarily a belief" rather than an absolute in either direction.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that saying "'atheism in general' is a belief" is more of a category error than anything else: "atheism in general" is a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs, but it isn't a belief itself.

Basically, the phrase "atheism is a belief" is a mismatching of concepts... like "democracy is a colour".

OTOH, it's perfectly valid to say that "a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs but is not a belief itself" is not a belief... just as it would be valid to say "democracy is not a colour".

This really doesn't make sense to me. Is theism not a belief then, because it is just a framework in which a range of god beliefs exists? It seems to mulitply layers to the word "atheism" that really don't need to be added.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

Some aspect of you must.

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.

You are right in that you can hold two conflicting beliefs. But I disagree that merely acknowledging that a belief is irrational somehow divests it of its "beliefness". And I certainly believe that if you fear something, it is because you believe something to be true about that something.

I do not equate belief with knowledge or necessarily conviction. Belief is simply a position you take in regards to something.

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...

All of these could be said for the proposed definition of atheism before it had gathered steam among the atheistic community. Maybe some theists would like to be able to claim that theirs is not a belief, and that the babies and undecided are theists. They just haven't thought of it yet.

 

[Orias]

It's not a compositional fallacy to say that atheism in general isn't a belief.

But it's composition must allow belief.

Atheism consists of:

- strong/explicit atheism - a belief (or a category of beliefs, maybe)
- weak/implicit atheism - not a belief

Can One explain to me how weak atheism is not a belief?

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that saying "'atheism in general' is a belief" is more of a category error than anything else: "atheism in general" is a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs, but it isn't a belief itself.

That depends on what "general" means. Atheists are "Godless" (obviously), which leads One to believe that an atheist is just another person who believes (period).

Basically, the phrase "atheism is a belief" is a mismatching of concepts... like "democracy is a colour".

How exactly do you get that out of "atheism is a belief"?

And IMO, it could be a very vague and frail comparison. Since "color" references the quality of things reflected upon by "light". This could potentially lead to great and useless philosophical debate

But I think you understand what I mean...

OTOH, it's perfectly valid to say that "a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs but is not a belief itself" is not a belief... just as it would be valid to say "democracy is not a colour".

I think it is even more accurate and valid to say that which One believes to be "true" is a belief