Atheism: A belief?

[Commoner]

Possibly, but it is a very contrived example. It is for just this reason that people make up labels like "apatheist" and "agnostic"--to try to classify borderline cases. If Huxley had considered the definition promoted by folks here to be reasonable, he never would have rejected the label "atheist" and coined the word "agnostic". What I think is really going on with "atheist" is that it carries a great amount of social stigma. So some people don't want to use it to describe themselves. Others strive to keep the label but give it a broader definition than it has had in the past. The new definition then becomes a tool to try to drive change. After all, if babies are atheists, how can everyone stay mad at them? Sure, they whine a lot, and they sometimes make a mess, but aren't they also cuddly and cute?

So, what's the conclusion? If babies aren't necessarily atheists and Johhny (possibly) is, then neither "lack of belief" nor "rejection of belief" fits...

 

[Sunstone]

1,900 posts in this thread. It seems possible this issue might not get resolved by midnight on the 15th, as I had expected.

 

[Magic Man]

Possibly, but it is a very contrived example. It is for just this reason that people make up labels like "apatheist" and "agnostic"--to try to classify borderline cases.

It's not contrived at all. What about it do you think is contrived?

An apatheist can be a theist or an atheist, and an agnostic is someone who thinks we can't know whether or not God exists.

 

[Willamena]

So, what's the conclusion? If babies aren't necessarily atheists and Johhny (possibly) is, then neither "lack of belief" nor "rejection of belief" fits...

That "atheism" is a position people reason themselves to, once they've good reason to?

 

[Willamena]

1,900 posts in this thread. It seems possible this issue might not get resolved by midnight on the 15th, as I had expected.

Or by May 21st.

 

[Willamena]

But several times now, you've rejected usage on these debate forums as reasonable, so what does that do for you?

I'm pretty sure it's misuse that he's rejected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That "atheism" is a position people reason themselves to, once they've good reason to?

Do you really think that all atheists are atheists because they "reasoned" themselves into it?

Even if we define atheism in terms of rejection, this still leaves plenty of room for irrational atheists.

 

[Willamena]

Do you really think that all atheists are atheists because they "reasoned" themselves into it?

Even if we define atheism in terms of rejection, this still leaves plenty of room for irrational atheists.

When I was a child, I rejected "God" because my Sunday School teacher gave me an incredible description of a fellow who sits on a cloud up in the sky. Did I reason myself to atheism?

I think I did.

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiosity, what sort of excuse would an "irrational atheist" present for his atheism?


________
IR: I'm an atheist.
AP: So, you don't believe in "god"?
IR: No, I'm just an atheist.
AP: So, you lack belief in "god"?
IR: No, I'm just an atheist.
AP: Why are you an atheist?
IR: Just because.

 

[Falvlun]

1,900 posts in this thread. It seems possible this issue might not get resolved by midnight on the 15th, as I had expected.

Actually, I suspect it will continue until May 21st, when only the ending of the world will end it.

EDIT: Oh darn. Willamena beat me to it.

 

[Falvlun]

Are you sure that I'm just not entirely convinced I'm even looking at a spider?

Then why would you say "I believe that spider is going to kill me?" Sorry, I don't recall the original wording or scenario. I think it pretty safe to assume we have a different outlook on what constitutes belief, which in itself is a pretty interesting topic.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

No, not you, but it does seem to be a trend to only claim lack of belief even when a decision has been made, a position has been taken. It seems that, by defining atheism as a "lack of belief", it is felt that to have the negative belief is a sort of betrayal.

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.

Would you ever state "I don't believe you" if you did believe that grapefruit grows on bushes? The "I don't believe you"-- even if it is a statement about the reliability of the source rather than the information itself-- implies a negative outlook on the information as well.

I can't imagine a person saying "I don't believe you" when they actually did believe the information being presented.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Correction. Strong atheism is a belief-- precisely, it's the belief that gods do not exist. It is not the belief that gods exist. See, that's the whole crux of the matter: Which belief is not defined, leading to confusion and misunderstanding when you make a general "it's not a belief" statement. Most people will think you are referring to the belief that gods do not exist, when you are referring to the belief that gods do exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not you, but it does seem to be a trend to only claim lack of belief even when a decision has been made, a position has been taken. It seems that, by defining atheism as a "lack of belief", it is felt that to have the negative belief is a sort of betrayal.

I have the negative belief, and I don't think I've "betrayed" anyone or anything by doing so.

Would you ever state "I don't believe you" if you did believe that grapefruit grows on bushes? The "I don't believe you"-- even if it is a statement about the reliability of the source rather than the information itself-- implies a negative outlook on the information as well.

It applies a lack of positive outlook, but that's not the same thing. It also allows for a lack of belief one way or the other on the subject.

I can't imagine a person saying "I don't believe you" when they actually did believe the information being presented.

But that's not the case we were talking about. The specific case at issue is when a person neither accepts the claim as true nor accepts that opposite claim is true.

 

[Willamena]

Then why would you say "I believe that spider is going to kill me?" Sorry, I don't recall the original wording or scenario. I think it pretty safe to assume we have a different outlook on what constitutes belief, which in itself is a pretty interesting topic.

Bingo.

 

[Falvlun]

9-10ths_Penguin, in regards to your argument that atheism is not a belief because "atheism" is a category, meaning that "belief" is meaningless when applied to it, I suppose that could be technically correct. It is not very intuitive with how we talk about things, though; as you said yourself, theism would also not be considered a belief.

I still think it much more informative, much easier, and much less misleading to simply tell people that atheism is not necessarily a belief-- some forms of atheism are a belief and some forms of atheism are not.

That is the biggest issue I have with your and mball's position: It does not really aid the dialogue. In fact, it just muddies the water even more, as it is counter-intuitive and a bit esoteric. Regardless of what you say about atheism, you are still going to have to qualify the statement, explaining which sort of atheism you are speaking about. Your guys' version just adds an extra layer of explanation, without, imo, actually adding anything useful to the dialogue.

 

[Falvlun]

I have the negative belief, and I don't think I've "betrayed" anyone or anything by doing so.

Again, not talking about you personally. Just an observation of atheist posters in general on this forum.

It applies a lack of positive outlook, but that's not the same thing. It also allows for a lack of belief one way or the other on the subject.

To go back to your list of 3 possibilities:
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.

If 1 is scratched off as a possibility (which it is when someone states "I don't believe you" as that is never interpreted to mean "I believe your statement but I don't trust you personally) how can you still have 3? You may have "reserved judgement", but there is only one way you can eventually go-- 2-- since 1 has already been precluded.

But that's not the case we were talking about. The specific case at issue is when a person neither accepts the claim as true nor accepts that opposite claim is true.

Right. You are saying that when someone says "I don't believe X" that means it is possible that he is saying that he neither accepts or rejects X. I agree-- it is possible.

What I disagree with is that "I don't believe X" is actually used that way. If you are trying to convey the idea that you are undecided, then you wouldn't just say "I don't believe X"-- you would follow it up with "nor do I not believe X", or you would simply say "I don't know", "I have no opinion".

With the curious exception of atheists, of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, not talking about you personally. Just an observation of atheist posters in general on this forum.

Without naming names, I might be able to think of one or two who might fall into that category, but I definitely don't think it's true of atheist posters in general here.

To go back to your list of 3 possibilities:
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.

If 1 is scratched off as a possibily, how can you still have 3? You may have "reserved judgement", but there is only one way you can eventually go-- 2-- since 1 has already been precluded.

For now, but any approach I take is tentative. Just because I don't accept the claim now doesn't mean that I can't accept the claim tomorrow under different circumstances.

Right. You are saying that when someone says "I don't believe X" that means it is possible that he is saying that he neither accepts or rejects X. I agree-- it is possible.

What I disagree with is that "I don't believe X" is actually used that way. If you are trying to convey the idea that you are undecided, then you wouldn't just say "I don't believe X"-- you would follow it up with "nor do I not believe X", or you would simply say "I don't know", "I have no opinion".

Actual usage usually includes other contextual clues that often can narrow down the meaning as you describe: "I don't believe you picked up your litter because I just stepped in a half-eaten cheeseburger!"

With the curious exception of atheists, of course.

Well, gods are curious things.

 

[Orias]

1,900 posts in this thread. It seems possible this issue might not get resolved by midnight on the 15th, as I had expected.

It seems that those athiests tend to their garden of belief while saying it's not a belief.

It's circular.

Orias, to me this is such a mess of illogical thinking, I'm not even going to respond to it. I feel we're just running in circles. So, good luck with that, I'm done arguing about this since I see absolutely no value added in such a discussion. Sorry, man.

I'm sorry you do not posses the proper sense or will to see the logic behind it.

Belief is simply that which people think to be true, which applies in all areas of concrete and objectional material, as well as abstract and metaphysical applications.

If One would just simply direct that point instead of trying to talk their way around or play word games to make the Opposite seem illogical, we would of conceeded many great logical points.

But it is a shame to see people resort to finger pointing tactics.

Belief is what it is, instead of trying to prove that something that is believed isn't a belief then maybe you should consult the people that birthed to term "belief" and the following semantics behind it.

The illogical fallacy occures when people decide to argue from a position like they actually know something, which is a mistake that I have noticed throughout the entirety of this thread.

Belief is what it is, any other add-ons or denominations of the term "atheist" is an unecessary and misleading complication, since "atheist" literally means, "without God", a position a person takes when they do not believe a "God" exists. The strength of belief can totally be up to question no doubt, but it is a label (a trusted One at that) and people tend to believe and have a belief about labels and especially One's that they take unto themselves.

 

[Willamena]

For now, but any approach I take is tentative. Just because I don't accept the claim now doesn't mean that I can't accept the claim tomorrow under different circumstances.

It never did mean that.