Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

Correction. Strong atheism is a belief-- precisely, it's the belief that gods do not exist. It is not the belief that gods exist.

Correction. Strong atheism is not a belief. Precisely, it's the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't 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.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Really? When I think of a list of atheists on these boards, most of them admit they have the belief that gods don't exist. Maybe a couple would be weak atheists, but most of the ones I can think of would be strong atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It never did mean that.

What never meant what now?

 

[Orias]

Really? When I think of a list of atheists on these boards, most of them admit they have the belief that gods don't exist. Maybe a couple would be weak atheists, but most of the ones I can think of would be strong atheists.

I would say that a majority of us would make no claim either way.

 

[Falvlun]

Correction. Strong atheism is not a belief. Precisely, it's the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist.

Why would you define strong atheism by the thing that doesn't define it? What defines strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. That belief is not a mere "accompaniment"; it's the crux and foundation of what it means to be a "strong atheist".

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here.

When we say that atheism is a lack of belief, what belief are you specifically referring to? You are not referring to the belief that fairies dance on toadstools. You are referring to the belief that gods exist. So, to be specific, "atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist."

When we say that strong atheism is a belief, what belief are we referring to? We are not referring to the same belief as above, otherwise, it would be "strong atheism is the belief that gods exist", which makes no sense. We are referring to a different belief: the belief that gods do not exist. So, it becomes "strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist."

When you use shorten your statement to just "not a belief" or "is a belief", it can be unclear to which belief you are referring.

 

[Magic Man]

I would say that a majority of us would make no claim either way.

A majority of whom?

 

[Magic Man]

Why would you define strong atheism by the thing that doesn't define it? What defines strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. That belief is not a mere "accompaniment"; it's the crux and foundation of what it means to be a "strong atheist".

The fact that it's an accompaniment doesn't mean it's not the crux and foundation of what it means to be a strong atheist.

A balloon is "a bag, usually brightly colored, inflated with air or with some lighter-than-air gas and used as a children's plaything or as a decoration". So a foil balloon would be "a bag made of foil, usually brightly colored, inflated with air or with some lighter-than-air gas and used as a children's plaything or as a decoration". Atheism is "absence of belief in gods", so strong atheism would be "absence of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

When we say that atheism is a lack of belief, what belief are you specifically referring to? You are not referring to the belief that fairies dance on toadstools. You are referring to the belief that gods exist. So, to be specific, "atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist."

When we say that strong atheism is a belief, what belief are we referring to? We are not referring to the same belief as above, otherwise, it would be "strong atheism is the belief that gods exist", which makes no sense. We are referring to a different belief: the belief that gods do not exist. So, it becomes "strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist."

When you use shorten your statement to just "not a belief" or "is a belief", it can be unclear to which belief you are referring.

I'm still not sure what the point is. Why do you bring this up?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Basically, any time someone claims that their atheism is merely the "lack of belief" and they "don't believe that gods exist" and that's not the same thing as saying "I believe that gods don't exist", but then go on to state all the reasons they find the god hypothesis to be ridiculous, impossible, without evidence, etc, I tend to be a bit incredulous about their initial protests that they have not decided either way-- that they merely "lack" the positive belief.

I just think that they are kidding themselves when they state that they don't have the negative belief; it is a personal pet peeve of mine. Perhaps this is unfair of me.

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.

But we are always free to change our minds. I can believe that gods don't exist today, and believe that they do exist tomorrow (hopefully because of some overwhelming evidence, and not due to brain injury, etc)

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!"

Well, gods are curious things.

I would be happy if everyone who states that "I don't believe god exists" is not the same as "I believe god does not exist" would simultaneously state "I also don't believe that god doesn't exist" if that is the sense in which they are using it. Why is the first formulation always used, but never the second? Afterall, it should be equally weighted for both beliefs that are lacking.

 

[Willamena]

What never meant what now?

Reserving judgement is a contingency. It's Monty, giving you a look at what's behind the curtain. It's never not an option, and it doesn't have any impact on whether you've already chosen between what's behind Door #1 or Door #2. You never don't get the curtain.

To place it alongside #1 and #2 as a third alternative is fallacious --is there a term similar to false dilemma, only you're adding an alternative instead of leaving one out?

 

[Falvlun]

The fact that it's an accompaniment doesn't mean it's not the crux and foundation of what it means to be a strong atheist.

A balloon is "a bag, usually brightly colored, inflated with air or with some lighter-than-air gas and used as a children's plaything or as a decoration". So a foil balloon would be "a bag made of foil, usually brightly colored, inflated with air or with some lighter-than-air gas and used as a children's plaything or as a decoration". Atheism is "absence of belief in gods", so strong atheism would be "absence of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

It's hard to find an apt parallel since we are using the same word (belief) for both things.

In regards to your foil example, I would see it akin to saying that the foil balloon is not made out of foil because foil is not part of the general definition of what a balloon is. But, like I said, not a perfect parallel.

I'm still not sure what the point is. Why do you bring this up?

To illustrate why it is confusing and misleading to say "not a belief", as "belief" can refer to two different things, and depending on which thing you are referring to, the answer of whether it is a belief or not will differ.

 

[Falvlun]

Really? When I think of a list of atheists on these boards, most of them admit they have the belief that gods don't exist. Maybe a couple would be weak atheists, but most of the ones I can think of would be strong atheists.

I may be more attuned to those cases which irk me. I will try to be more cognizant of those that do profess the negative belief.

And with that nugget, I'm off for an internet-free weekend, as usual.

 

[Magic Man]

It's hard to find an apt parallel since we are using the same word (belief) for both things.

In regards to your foil example, I would see it akin to saying that the foil balloon is not made out of foil because foil is not part of the general definition of what a balloon is. But, like I said, not a perfect parallel.

No, what I'm saying is that in the case of a foil balloon, there are two parts. There is "balloon" and "foil". The main part of the definition of "foil balloon" is defining "balloon". There are two parts to "strong atheism". The main part of defining "strong atheism" is defining atheism.

Strong atheism is still atheism. So, if we substitute the definition of atheism, we get strong [absence of belief in gods]. Adding "strong" adds "accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". So, you get "absence of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

To illustrate why it is confusing and misleading to say "not a belief", as "belief" can refer to two different things, and depending on which thing you are referring to, the answer of whether it is a belief or not will differ.

Not in this case. I'm saying atheism and strong atheism aren't beliefs at all.

 

[Magic Man]

I may be more attuned to those cases which irk me. I will try to be more cognizant of those that do profess the negative belief.

I think you're right. I don't remember coming across many atheists who claimed they themselves don't hold the belief that gods don't exist and then went on about how ridiculous the idea of God is. Maybe it happens, but I'd say it's likely that it sticks out to you causing you to overestimate its occurrence. Also, it could be that those atheists aren't denying they hold the belief that god exists, but merely pointing out that it's not necessary to be an atheist.

And with that nugget, I'm off for an internet-free weekend, as usual.

Have fun! I'm not too far behind you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically, any time someone claims that their atheism is merely the "lack of belief" and they "don't believe that gods exist" and that's not the same thing as saying "I believe that gods don't exist", but then go on to state all the reasons they find the god hypothesis to be ridiculous, impossible, without evidence, etc, I tend to be a bit incredulous about their initial protests that they have not decided either way-- that they merely "lack" the positive belief.

I'm not sure you intended it this way, but I think there's an equivocation in what you're saying: "atheism is merely the lack of belief" does not necessarily imply that a person can't have additional beliefs over and above what is required for atheism.

This is what I was getting at before when I was talking about noses: most likely, every single atheist you'll ever encounter will have a nose, however, "having a nose" is not a requirement for atheism.

Personally, I think that all that's necessary for "atheism" is a lack of belief in gods. On top of this, I also believe that gods do not exist. In my experience, the atheists who say that they only have "lack of belief" but take the position you describe are pretty rare.

But we are always free to change our minds. I can believe that gods don't exist today, and believe that they do exist tomorrow (hopefully because of some overwhelming evidence, and not due to brain injury, etc)

I agree. I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

I would be happy if everyone who states that "I don't believe god exists" is not the same as "I believe god does not exist" would simultaneously state "I also don't believe that god doesn't exist" if that is the sense in which they are using it. Why is the first formulation always used, but never the second? Afterall, it should be equally weighted for both beliefs that are lacking.

It's usually not the relevant claim, I guess. The positive claim is "gods exist"; pointing out that I'm not convinced that the claim is false doesn't do anything to establish that the claim is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reserving judgement is a contingency. It's Monty, giving you a look at what's behind the curtain. It's never not an option, and it doesn't have any impact on whether you've already chosen between what's behind Door #1 or Door #2. You never don't get the curtain.

To place it alongside #1 and #2 as a third alternative is fallacious --is there a term similar to false dilemma, only you're adding an alternative instead of leaving one out?

It's not fallacious. If you say to Monty "I don't choose either door", exactly which door have you chosen?

 

[Willamena]

It's not fallacious. If you say to Monty "I don't choose either door", exactly which door have you chosen?

It doesn't matter which (and not choosing means you don't get the curtain either) --if you're alive and conscious, one of the Doors is a done deed. I'm of the opinion that "belief" is not something that you would do after choosing Door #1 or Door #2. I don't believe that "belief" is a choice. Door #1 or Door #2 will get pointed to/"chosen"/opened/decided in that moment that you've assessed the information available to you about the claim.

I agree with Falvlun that it's a matter of difference in the image of "belief." That would be an interesting thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter which (and not choosing means you don't get the curtain either) --if you're alive and conscious, one of the Doors is a done deed. I'm of the opinion that "belief" is not something that you would do after choosing Door #1 or Door #2. I don't believe that "belief" is a choice. Door #1 or Door #2 will get pointed to/"chosen"/opened/decided in that moment that you've assessed the information available to you about the claim.

I think you need a better analogy, then, because so far, the one you've chosen speaks against your position.

On Let's Make a Deal, they'd always make a big show of presenting the choices and then eliciting a choice from the contestant, who'd usually hum and haw until he decided. And when it came right down to it, any contestant could just choose to give up, leave the studio and never have to choose between the doors at all.

 

[Willamena]

I think you need a better analogy, then, because so far, the one you've chosen speaks against your position.

Very possibly.

On Let's Make a Deal, they'd always make a big show of presenting the choices and then eliciting a choice from the contestant, who'd usually hum and haw until he decided. And when it came right down to it, any contestant could just choose to give up, leave the studio and never have to choose between the doors at all.

But that doesn't make for good television programming.

 

[Commoner]

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.

I explained a couple of times now that that's not to be taken literally. I also said I didn't believe it, so...how is that an argument?

I see a "spider" possibly, I feel fear, I'm afraid for my life. This is what was meant by "I know it's goign to kill me". It's not only that we have a different outlook on what "belief is", but also a different take on what the actual belief is in this case. You interpret that as necessarily being a belief that spiders are deadly/dangerous, while I don't. I'm not saying whatever "it" is isn't my belief, I'm saying it's not correct to say that it's my belief that spiders are deadly. Better?

 

[Commoner]

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

I've never actually argued against that proposition so... what's your point?