Atheism: A belief?

[Falvlun]

Ok - but is it then appropriate to say that this is my belief? I hardly think so. It might mean that I have doubts about just how sure I can be about whether or not spiders are dangerous, for instance - or whether or not I can be sure I'm looking at a "spider" in the first place, not somme other monstrosity. Or it might be a completely instinctual response with absolutely no conscious awareness.

Something, yes - something. But that does not imply that I believe that spiders are deadly/dangerous/poisonous, does it? For you to present me as having this belief to a third-party would be misleading, would it not?

Even then, I can hardly be said to be of a position that spiders are deadly, now can I?

If you feel that spiders are going to kill you, and you act in accordance with this, then it is a belief, regardless of how it was obtained or why (ie, instinctual, reasoned, concious, unconcious.) Because even if it is an instinctual fear, once you are aware of it and choose to still act in accordance, then it is now conciously accepted.

If you did believe that spiders will kill you, then I also think it a reasonable assumption to assume that you believe the spider is deadly in some manner (as something cannot kill unless it is deadly.) Basically, we go through life making probability assumptions-- nothing is every 100% certain. This is necessary in order to operate in a world in which we never have complete knowledge; if we didn't, we would be immobilized, incapable of ever making any action. So, while, true, it is possible you are extremely irrational and do not believe that spiders are deadly while believing that spiders will kill you, that is the less likely explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, I do believe that there are the undecideds, between yes and no. I just don't think that there are as many as are claimed to be. Or, to put it another way, I think the grey area has been coopted by a set who really don't belong in the grey area but want to be there for whatever reason.

You don't think I'm claiming that I'm in the grey area, do you?

I do actively reject belief in gods. I'm just saying that this isn't what makes me an atheist.

I think the hypothetical "person with no beliefs" isn't so much supposed to be a real person as a thought experiment for us to consider.

Saying "I don't believe you" commits him to one side of the fence.

... about Sally's reliability. Not necessarily about the factual matters of how grapefruit grows.

 

[Willamena]

I do actively reject belief in gods. I'm just saying that this isn't what makes me an atheist.

Out of curiosity, what does actively rejecting gods make you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Out of curiosity, what does actively rejecting gods make you?

Exhausted, I would assume.

 

[Orias]

This is true as long as inaction in one area implies action in another - which is not necessarily so.

But it is, since when you aren't doing One thing, conscious manipulation continually proliferates another.

When you are doing nothing, you are doing something, even if this "nothing" lacks physical activity.

It need not be. There needs to be no conscious decision or "alternative action" for "not collecting stamps", you're simply assuming that it must be so because it usually is.

I wasn't speaking of direct or explicit conscious decision.

Just merely consciousness.

Again, every action applies to conscious which is literally One with the mind.

Then "belief" means nothing and everything. I've already conceded the point that, if I were to agree with such a definition of "belief" in the context we're using it in, I would have to agree that atheism is a belief (and so would be stamp collecting).

Well "truth" does contest with belief, since what One may contest as "true" may be Opposed by means of someone else who claims that certain "truth" false, and substitutes their own "truth" with the other person's reality.

Essentially, everything is believed, while the only true knowledge we hold, is that of our Self.

It is? I can quite happily not collect stamps without ever knowing the meaning of the word "stamp".

Therefore being amused by not collecting stamps.

I can also not collect stamps without having an alternative form of amusement.

Then you are a boring and unwillful person.

Being forced to do something and willfully doing it are two different things, a willful action that does not involve collecting stamps does involve an alternative form of amusement, since comfort is a drive that we all posses.

Even if some others copeing or "comforting" mechanisisms are less than hospitable to others.

Having no hobby cannot possibly be a hobby and the usage of the word hobby to mean not doing something you don't like that may or may not result in doing something you do like is completely inappropriate, misleading and can add absolutely no value to the conversation

Actually anything done outside of One's own regular occupation is a hobby, so if comming home and doing nothing is something done outside of One's own regular occupation, than not doing anything, or not possessing a "hobby" is a hobby. Consider the strength of it's implication, conscious direction plays a huge role in this.

Active implies direct, which correlates to consciousness.

- except for giving you a glimmer of a hope of establishing, by analogy, that the absence of a belief is a belief.

Yes absence of belief is a belief to those who truly belief in it's connotation.

Not to mention "atheism" is not defined by "absence of belief", it is defined by "absence of belief in "God(s)"".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity, what does actively rejecting gods make you?

"Strong atheist" works. "Anti-theist" might also work depending on the definition used; I believe that gods aren't real, but I don't make a point of going around telling theists that they're wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exhausted, I would assume.

My "active rejection" is usually pretty sedentary.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My "active rejection" is usually pretty sedentary.

Yeah, mine too - it really just sounds exhausting though. I get this picture of an endless line of religious people at your door pitching their god/religion one at a time, and you eventually have to just shut the door after telling them multiple times that you're not interested. Then the next ones knock.

 

[Willamena]

"I don't believe _____" effectively means "I fail to accept that _____ is true". Depending on context, we might be able to infer why the speaker fails to accept the claim in question. In many cases, it might be very reasonable to infer that the reason why the speaker doesn't accept it is because he actually believes that it's false, but that's still an inference based on things outside the strict meaning of the statement itself.

I have no argument with this post, but out of curiosity, why do you insist on seeing "don't" as a failure? Does that "fail" have a cause?

Ordinarily (IMO) "don't" simply implies that something isn't the case. Where does the failure come in?

 

[Orias]

Yeah, mine too - it really just sounds exhausting though. I get this picture of an endless line of religious people at your door pitching their god/religion one at a time, and you eventually have to just shut the door after telling them multiple times that you're not interested. Then the next ones knock.

That's why I keep a sign on my porch that says, "Beware of Satanist, and dog".

 

[Copernicus]

Stephen Pinker uses an example to talk about the strange conventions we've adopted in different social situations: "if you could pass me the potatoes, that would be awesome."

These are called indirect speech acts, and Pinker's example is a standard one that most linguists use to explain them. The expression "X does not believe that Y..." is ambiguous in direct speech acts, so they aren't really relevant to this discussion.

"I don't believe _____" effectively means "I fail to accept that _____ is true". Depending on context, we might be able to infer why the speaker fails to accept the claim in question. In many cases, it might be very reasonable to infer that the reason why the speaker doesn't accept it is because he actually believes that it's false, but that's still an inference based on things outside the strict meaning of the statement itself.

No, there is an ambiguity with respect to the scope of "not" in such sentences. This phenomenon has been well-known and well-studied since the late 1960s. This came up in the discussion much earlier in the thread, and you may have forgotten the details. The expression "X does not believe that Y" can logically mean either

1) [X not [believe Y]]
or
2) [X believe [not Y]]

It has been a bit frustrating to see so many people ignore this ambiguity and end up equivocating over it at length.

Just to be clear about it, the sentence "John does not believe that the Montreal is in Quebec" can mean either that John merely lacks the belief Montreal is in Quebec or that John really thinks Montreal is not in Quebec. There is no way to determine which meaning the sentence has outside of a conversational context.

So? You were happy to cite French and Latin meanings before in support of your case... remember your argument about how the "a-" in "atheism" doesn't work the same as the "a-" prefix in other words?

I never cited French and Latin meanings to support my case. I argued explicitly that those meanings were irrelevant.

You don't think I'm claiming that I'm in the grey area, do you?

I do actively reject belief in gods. I'm just saying that this isn't what makes me an atheist.

How could this statement mean anything other than that you think gods to be non-existent beings? I don't care whether you are open to changing your mind. What makes you an atheist is that you actively reject belief in their existence. BTW, I'm glad that you are finally acting as if you know what people mean by the word "god". This is a welcome change from earlier lengthy exchanges in which you seemed to claim that you could only deny belief in some gods because you had not encountered every meaning that someone might assign to the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no argument with this post, but out of curiosity, why do you insist on seeing "don't" as a failure? Does that "fail" have a cause?

Ordinarily (IMO) "don't" simply implies that something isn't the case. Where does the failure come in?

I'm not trying to suggest that failure to accept a claim necessarily means that there's some deficiency in my viewpoint. What I'm trying to get at is that when confronted with a claim, I have three possible choices:

1. accept the claim as true.
2. accept the opposite... i.e. that the claim is false.
3. reserve judgement... i.e. accept neither that the claim is true nor that the claim is false.

When I say "fail to accept", I'm referring to that third option. Really, I think that saying "I don't believe... " only removes option 1, but since you're arguing (AFAICT) that "I don't believe... " effectively implies taking option 2, for clarity's sake I'm trying to express that I think that option 3 is still available.

 

[Copernicus]

1. accept the claim as true.
2. accept the opposite... i.e. that the claim is false.
3. reserve judgement... i.e. accept neither that the claim is true nor that the claim is false.

When I say "fail to accept", I'm referring to that third option. Really, I think that saying "I don't believe... " only removes option 1, but since you're arguing (AFAICT) that "I don't believe... " effectively implies taking option 2, for clarity's sake I'm trying to express that I think that option 3 is still available.

If you take option 3, then you are not really rejecting belief in the claim. You neither believe it nor disbelieve it. What you reject is the argument establishing its truth, and that is where you have your argument with folks who claim that atheism is a negative belief as opposed to mere absence of belief.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not trying to suggest that failure to accept a claim necessarily means that there's some deficiency in my viewpoint. What I'm trying to get at is that when confronted with a claim, I have three possible choices:

1. accept the claim as true.
2. accept the opposite... i.e. that the claim is false.
3. reserve judgement... i.e. accept neither that the claim is true nor that the claim is false.

When I say "fail to accept", I'm referring to that third option. Really, I think that saying "I don't believe... " only removes option 1, but since you're arguing (AFAICT) that "I don't believe... " effectively implies taking option 2, for clarity's sake I'm trying to express that I think that option 3 is still available.

Okay; for "reserve judgement," is it possible that either 1 or 2 also took place? For instance, "that makes sense to me, but I'll wait and see," or "I'm not buying it, but I'll wait and see."

Edit: What I'm getting at is that it's two choices, and a contingency.

 

[Magic Man]

The belief that gods do not exist is so entwined with the concept of atheism, I find it strange to make it some mere corollary. But that, I suppose, is more of a quibble than anything.

You still have not addressed my point, though. If you do indeed feel that "lack of belief" is something that all forms of atheism share, and that means that all forms of atheism are "not a belief", then you should be able to state that strong atheism is not a belief. The reason you don't want to do so is precisely the reason why I believe it incorrect and misleading to state that atheism (in general) is not a belief.

I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. Strong atheism is not a belief. It includes a belief, though. I am not an arm, but I do include one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, there is an ambiguity with respect to the scope of "not" in such sentences. This phenomenon has been well-known and well-studied since the late 1960s. This came up in the discussion much earlier in the thread, and you may have forgotten the details. The expression "X does not believe that Y" can logically mean either

1) [X not [believe Y]]
or
2) [X believe [not Y]]

It has been a bit frustrating to see so many people ignore this ambiguity and end up equivocating over it at length.

I'm not ignoring it; I'm directly addressing it. That's been my point all along: without some sort of context to suggest which meaning is intended, you can't automatically assume that "I don't believe" implies your meaning #2.

Just to be clear about it, the sentence "John does not believe that the Montreal is in Quebec" can mean either that John merely lacks the belief Montreal is in Quebec or that John really thinks Montreal is not in Quebec. There is no way to determine which meaning the sentence has outside of a conversational context.

Yes... and therefore no way to validly infer that John thinks that Montreal is not in Quebec.

I never cited French and Latin meanings to support my case. I argued explicitly that those meanings were irrelevant.

I'll have to dig up the posts, but I remember that as the general thrust of your argument. Maybe I'm wrong.

How could this statement mean anything other than that you think gods to be non-existent beings?

I don't know; I do think that.

I don't care whether you are open to changing your mind. What makes you an atheist is that you actively reject belief in their existence.

No, what makes me an atheist is that I don't believe in any gods. My rejection of gods is just icing on the cake. I don't need it to get into the "atheist club"; I only need it for the "strong atheist" VIP room.

BTW, I'm glad that you are finally acting as if you know what people mean by the word "god". This is a welcome change from earlier lengthy exchanges in which you seemed to claim that you could only deny belief in some gods because you had not encountered every meaning that someone might assign to the word.

When I say "god", I am using my understanding of the term "god".

The issue before was that you tried to suggest that the word "atheist" relies on some objective (or at least external) definition of the term "god". The point I raised was that by relying on this approach, and by phrasing your definition in terms of rejection of all gods, this means that there's no room in the definition of "atheist" for a person who rejects the vast majority of gods in general, but simply never considered some weird, fringe-y concept that is unpopular but is nevertheless a valid "god".

If you modify your definition of "atheist" to be something more like "a person who rejects all the gods he's ever considered", then this allows a person who's never considered any gods at all (e.g. a baby) to be an atheist, since zero is 100% of zero.

There's a major difference in approach between our definitions, and I think it makes mine workable and yours not:

- yours: consider all valid concepts of gods and reject all of them.
- mine: consider all of my personal beliefs and confirm that they contain no god-concepts.

I doubt whether the burden that your definition creates is even practically possible. Mine is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay; for "reserve judgement," is it possible that either 1 or 2 also took place? For instance, "that makes sense to me, but I'll wait and see," or "I'm not buying it, but I'll wait and see."

Edit: What I'm getting at is that it's two choices, and a contingency.

And I disagree.

Rather, I think there are two choices, but that they're these:

- do I intellectually assent to the truth of the claim? Yes or no.
- do I intellectually assent to the falsehood of the claim? Yes or no.

There's a logical contradiction if I answer "yes" to both, but there's no contradiction in answering "no" to both.

Edit: by "reserve judgement", I was referring to the case where I answer "no" to both questions. I don't think that either question can be answered "yes" AND "no" simultaneously.

Edit 2: the evidence or your own reasoning can point one way or the other, but in the end, you either have intellectual assent or you don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you take option 3, then you are not really rejecting belief in the claim. You neither believe it nor disbelieve it.

I agree.

What you reject is the argument establishing its truth, and that is where you have your argument with folks who claim that atheism is a negative belief as opposed to mere absence of belief.

That's right. When the question is the existence of gods, I consider option 3 to fall under the umbrella of atheism; apparently, you don't.

 

[Copernicus]

It's not? So, atheism is the rejection of everything that can be called "God"? I thought the "God" had to fit your particular definition, which would make it a specific god.

I'll repeat my position on this again, since you seem to have forgotten it. The word "god" refers to a category of beings. If you believe the existence of beings in that category to be implausible, then you think that they probably do not exist. That makes you an atheist, not just your absence of belief in their existence.

I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. Strong atheism is not a belief. It includes a belief, though. I am not an arm, but I do include one.

So now not even strong atheism is a negative belief. It merely includes a belief, whatever that means.

 

[Willamena]

And I disagree.

Rather, I think there are two choices, but that they're these:

- do I intellectually assent to the truth of the claim? Yes or no.
- do I intellectually assent to the falsehood of the claim? Yes or no.

There's a logical contradiction if I answer "yes" to both, but there's no contradiction in answering "no" to both.

Edit: by "reserve judgement", I was referring to the case where I answer "no" to both questions. I don't think that either question can be answered "yes" AND "no" simultaneously.

Edit 2: the evidence or your own reasoning can point one way or the other, but in the end, you either have intellectual assent or you don't.

Alright. But out of curiosity, why has "intellectually" been added? I mean, what other faculty are you going to use to accomplish assent?