Atheism: A belief?

[Commoner]

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 notbelievea "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.

Unlike you, right?

 

[Orias]

Unlike you, right?

Bolding my sentences doesn't support your claims

If I held trust in the knowledge that we as humans perceive this thread would be utterly useless to me. As for the knowledge that I do posses it is purely of myself, I'm arguing based off a standard of experience and a well recognized formulation of human psychology and physiology. I'm not denying my arrogance, but that seems to be something people focus on too much, get past the formal facades and direct the OP!

And as for the finger pointing, well that was just me pointing fingers at those who try and drag me off topic.

Something can hardly be not a belief if it is in fact, believed in.

I have to be honest, this is One of the longest on going threads I've seen. All of the debates I've gotten into have started off on a completely logical level, but when points get brought up that others want to talk around or avoid is when it becomes messy and confusing.

It's called self deceit

 

[Falvlun]

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".

That's fine, but you take it a step further by saying that strong atheism is not a belief. If strong atheism is accompanied by the belief that gods exist, then that means it is a belief. Note the article there: a.

At some point, you've got to look at the thing as a whole, and not merely it's component parts.

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

I'm afraid you still don't understand my point that the word "belief" is referring to two different beliefs. I shall try again.

Our general definition for atheism is "lack of the belief that gods exist". It is not "lack of the belief that gods do not exist". And, as easy as it is to write, it is not simply "lack of belief". In the general definition, the belief to which we are referring is pointed out: "the belief that gods exist."

So, apply this to strong atheism. Since strong atheism is a type of atheism, it also contains the "lack of belief that gods exist". So, if you say "strong atheism is not a belief" (because it is a type of atheism), then you are specifically referring to the belief that gods exist.

But strong atheism also contains the belief that gods do not exist. So, you can also say "strong atheism is a belief". But you are referring to a different belief than before when you were saying that "strong atheism is not a belief". Now you are referring to the belief that gods do not exist.

Hence, the problem with simply saying "strong atheism is not a belief" is that it is confusing to which belief you are referring. Most people will not assume you are referring to the belief that gods exist; they will assume you are referring to the belief that gods do not exist (as that is the general understanding of what strong atheism entails.)

Moreover, I believe you are incorrect to preferentially refer to the belief that gods exist, rather than the belief that gods do not exist when speaking of strong atheism, as it is the belief that gods do not exist that defines strong atheism-- it is what makes it strong atheism as opposed to just atheism-- and therefore has priority.

 

[Falvlun]

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

You agreed that saying "I don't believe you" effectively eliminated choice 1 (I believe your claim is true), leaving choices 2 (I do not believe your claim is true) and 3 (I am undecided whether your claim is true or not). If 1 is eliminated, I asked how you could be undecided since there was only one way you could go-- 2. You said you were still undecided because you have the ability to choose something differently the next day-- you only eliminated 1 for the moment. I responded that that is true even if we had accepted 1 or 2-- we still are able to change our minds later; our acceptance only applies to the moment. So, the reason you gave for 3 being possible doesn't really matter. What matters is that particular moment: Is the person undecided in that moment, when he has already rejected 1?

Or conversely, since it is always possible for us to change our positions, does that mean we are always 3, and never 1 or 2?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You agreed that saying "I don't believe you" effectively eliminated choice 1 (I believe your claim is true), leaving choices 2 (I do not believe your claim is true) and 3 (I am undecided whether your claim is true or not). If 1 is eliminated, I asked how you could be undecided since there was only one way you could go-- 2. You said you were still undecided because you have the ability to choose something differently the next day-- you only eliminated 1 for the moment.

Well, yes. Just because we make a decision now doesn't mean we can't re-evaluate that decision later.

I responded that that is true even if we had accepted 1 or 2-- we still are able to change our minds later; our acceptance only applies to the moment.

Yes...

So, the reason you gave for 3 being possible doesn't really matter.

Why do you say that?

What matters is that particular moment: Is the person undecided in that moment, when he has already rejected 1?

Or conversely, since it is always possible for us to change our positions, does that mean we are always 3, and never 1 or 2?

I'm confused. I think you've inferred some point I never intended to make.

The fact that we can change our minds doesn't change that we can be convinced of an idea or not, and that failing to be convinced that an idea is true doesn't necessarily mean being convinced that the idea is false.

Sure, we can become un-convinced of an idea we once thought was true, or become convinced of an idea we previously found unconvincing, but I don't see how this refutes what I said.

 

[Falvlun]

Why do you say that?

Because it applies equally well to any of the choices.

I'm confused. I think you've inferred some point I never intended to make.

The fact that we can change our minds doesn't change that we can be convinced of an idea or not, and that failing to be convinced that an idea is true doesn't necessarily mean being convinced that the idea is false.

Sure, we can become un-convinced of an idea we once thought was true, or become convinced of an idea we previously found unconvincing, but I don't see how this refutes what I said.

I am saying that you cannot claim to be undecided if you have already rejected one of the choices. Choice 3 is impossible to make if Choice 1 (or 2) has been eliminated.

It is possible to be undecided, just not once you have crossed out one of the options.

 

[Magic Man]

That's fine, but you take it a step further by saying that strong atheism is not a belief. If strong atheism is accompanied by the belief that gods exist, then that means it is a belief. Note the article there: a.

At some point, you've got to look at the thing as a whole, and not merely it's component parts.

Why does that make it a belief? A human being includes a heart. Would you say "A human being is a heart"?

And I'm not saying "strong atheism is accompanied by the belief that gods exist". I'm saying "Strong atheism is atheism accompanied by the belief that gods exist", in other words "Strong atheism is the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

I'm afraid you still don't understand my point that the word "belief" is referring to two different beliefs. I shall try again.

I understand your point, but I still don't understand the goal of bringing it up. Yes, saying "belief" could refer to more than one belief. What I'm saying is that I'm saying strong atheism is not a belief at all. It's not the belief that gods don't exist, and it's not the belief that gods do exist. It's just not a belief, period. So, bringing up the idea that "belief" isn't specific seems pointless to me.

But strong atheism also contains the belief that gods do not exist. So, you can also say "strong atheism is a belief".

But this doesn't follow. A computer contains a hard drive. Can you say "A computer is a hard drive"?

Hence, the problem with simply saying "strong atheism is not a belief" is that it is confusing to which belief you are referring.

But this is my point. I'm not referring to any particular belief. I'm saying in a very general way that strong atheism is not a belief. It is neither the belief that gods exist, nor the belief that gods don't exist. It's not the belief that computers are awesome either. It's not a belief at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am saying that you cannot claim to be undecided if you have already rejected one of the choices. Choice 3 is impossible to make if Choice 1 (or 2) has been eliminated.

It is possible to be undecided, just not once you have crossed out one of the options.

I disagree. In fact, that's the whole point I've been trying to argue: failing to assent to one proposition doesn't necessarily imply assenting to its opposite.

This is what I was trying to demonstrate with my "breakfast" question many pages back: If I tell you "I had eggs for breakfast", you might not automatically accept it, but the fact that you didn't accept it doesn't mean that you accept that I didn't have eggs for breakfast. Instead, you can reserve judgement. Maybe you'll choose one of those options later, and maybe you won't.

Here's a hypothetical example: let's say for argument's sake that you know I'm a really untrustworthy guy. You don't believe anything I say without independent corroboration.

Say I come up to you and say "I had eggs for breakfast". Do you believe me? I'm untrustworthy, so probably not. You don't accept my claim.

Now... let's take the approach you suggested: take the failure to accept a claim as acceptance of its negation. So, because you don't believe me when I say "I had eggs for breakfast", you decide that it's actually true that I didn't have eggs for breakfast.

However, let's consider the scenario again, but with one change: when I come up to you, instead of saying to you "I had eggs for breakfast", I say "I didn't have eggs for breakfast".

The rest of the scenario plays out as before: because I'm an untrustworthy guy, you don't accept my claim and instead accept its negation; you decide that I actually did have eggs for breakfast.

So... in the two cases, you came to the exact opposite conclusion, and the only difference between the scenarios was that you were presented with an unsupported claim from an untrustworthy person... IOW, something that should carry no weight at all in a logical determination of what's true. IMO, this is problematic.

Does that help you see what I'm getting at?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I'm not saying "strong atheism is accompanied by the belief that gods exist". I'm saying "Strong atheism is atheism accompanied by the belief that gods exist", in other words "Strong atheism is the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

I think the issue might be coming from the fact that the belief that gods don't exist necessarily implies a lack of belief in gods, so it's just as workable to consider strong atheism "the belief that gods don't exist" and be done with it.

 

[Falvlun]

Why does that make it a belief? A human being includes a heart. Would you say "A human being is a heart"?

It's how we speak when talking about beliefs, mball. If something contains a belief, it is a belief (note that pesky article again), regardless of how many beliefs it lacks.

Your parts vs whole examples are not very apt. It's more about sets and subsets, which have different connotations.

And I'm not saying "strong atheism is accompanied by the belief that gods exist". I'm saying "Strong atheism is atheism accompanied by the belief that gods exist", in other words "Strong atheism is the lack of belief in gods accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist".

You could also say "strong atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the belief that gods do not exist." It is just as truthful as your wording, though it makes it harder for you to make out the negative belief as a mere appendage.

I understand your point, but I still don't understand the goal of bringing it up. Yes, saying "belief" could refer to more than one belief. What I'm saying is that I'm saying strong atheism is not a belief at all. It's not the belief that gods don't exist, and it's not the belief that gods do exist. It's just not a belief, period. So, bringing up the idea that "belief" isn't specific seems pointless to me.

But this is my point. I'm not referring to any particular belief. I'm saying in a very general way that strong atheism is not a belief. It is neither the belief that gods exist, nor the belief that gods don't exist. It's not the belief that computers are awesome either. It's not a belief at all.

I doubt you will find many people who find that convincing. The arguement is purely based upon the general definition of atheism-- which refers to the lack of a very specific belief-- and does not take into account what makes strong atheism strong, which is the presence of a very specific belief.

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree. In fact, that's the whole point I've been trying to argue: failing to assent to one proposition doesn't necessarily imply assenting to its opposite.

This is what I was trying to demonstrate with my "breakfast" question many pages back: If I tell you "I had eggs for breakfast", you might not automatically accept it, but the fact that you didn't accept it doesn't mean that you accept that I didn't have eggs for breakfast. Instead, you can reserve judgement. Maybe you'll choose one of those options later, and maybe you won't.

Here's a hypothetical example: let's say for argument's sake that you know I'm a really untrustworthy guy. You don't believe anything I say without independent corroboration.

Say I come up to you and say "I had eggs for breakfast". Do you believe me? I'm untrustworthy, so probably not. You don't accept my claim.

Now... let's take the approach you suggested: take the failure to accept a claim as acceptance of its negation. So, because you don't believe me when I say "I had eggs for breakfast", you decide that it's actually true that I didn't have eggs for breakfast.

However, let's consider the scenario again, but with one change: when I come up to you, instead of saying to you "I had eggs for breakfast", I say "I didn't have eggs for breakfast".

The rest of the scenario plays out as before: because I'm an untrustworthy guy, you don't accept my claim and instead accept its negation; you decide that I actually did have eggs for breakfast.

So... in the two cases, you came to the exact opposite conclusion, and the only difference between the scenarios was that you were presented with an unsupported claim from an untrustworthy person... IOW, something that should carry no weight at all in a logical determination of what's true. IMO, this is problematic.

Does that help you see what I'm getting at?

I agree with the bolded above, and you illustrate why quite nicely. My argument, though, was about something slightly different.

If you reject a position (different from simply failing to assent to it), do you believe it is still possible to be considered undecided?

 

[Magic Man]

I think the issue might be coming from the fact that the belief that gods don't exist necessarily implies a lack of belief in gods, so it's just as workable to consider strong atheism "the belief that gods don't exist" and be done with it.

In most situations I don't have a problem calling strong atheism a belief. The problem here is that Falvlun is using "Strong atheism is a belief" to imply that atheism can be a belief. I'm getting very technical (as we are with the applications of "atheist") because it's necessary in the argument against that implication.

I wouldn't say "Atheism can be a belief". I would say "Atheism is not a belief, but it can include a belief". That's why, in this case, I'm nitpicking whether or not it's technically a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

It's how we speak when talking about beliefs, mball. If something contains a belief, it is a belief (note that pesky article again), regardless of how many beliefs it lacks.

No, we don't, and no, it's not. As I just told Penguin, I have no problem in normal conversation calling strong atheism "the belief that gods don't exist", but when we're being technical enough for you to use that as an argument for saying "atheism can be a belief", I have to disagree with it.

Your parts vs whole examples are not very apt. It's more about sets and subsets, which have different connotations.

So, why would you call something that contains a belief a belief because it contains a belief, but you wouldn't call a computer a hard drive because it contains a hard drive? What's the difference to you?

You could also say "strong atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the belief that gods do not exist." It is just as truthful as your wording, though it makes it harder for you to make out the negative belief as a mere appendage.

And that still wouldn't make it a belief.

I doubt you will find many people who find that convincing.

What does that have to do with anything? Many people don't find the argument for evolution convincing.

The arguement is purely based upon the general definition of atheism-- which refers to the lack of a very specific belief-- and does not take into account what makes strong atheism strong, which is the presence of a very specific belief.

Exactly, it's what makes strong atheism strong; not what makes it atheism. What makes it atheism is the lack of belief in gods. What makes it different from general atheism is the addition of that particular belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the bolded above, and you illustrate why quite nicely. My argument, though, was about something slightly different.

If you reject a position (different from simply failing to assent to it), do you believe it is still possible to be considered undecided?

That depends what you mean by "reject". I could see it meaning either "fail to assent" or "deem false". One meaning allows for a person to be undecided; the other doesn't.

"Failing to assent" means eliminating option 1 (at least for the time being). "Deeming false" means taking option 2, and thereby eliminating options 1 and 3.

 

[Copernicus]

I have found this entire thread an interesting experience. I had not realized before how committed some people (mostly atheists) were to the belief that "atheism is not a belief". It always irked me to see people defining atheism as a "lack of belief" precisely because of all the mental gymnastics one has to go through to justify that definition. It is also a little surprising that many non-atheists here are willing to accept any definition that self-proclaimed atheists want to use for their designation. The "lacks belief" definition just doesn't square with the way most people use the very common terms "atheism" and "atheist".

Mball has dug his heels in so far that I feel there is no rational argument that will ever dissuade him from his crusade to eliminate all thought that "atheism" might be defined as a kind of belief. 9-10ths Penguin, Kilgore Trout, Commoner, and others have done a good job of explaining the idea behind their definition--that one can "reject" belief in gods without actually coming to an opinion about the existence of gods. They also admit that they believe gods they've actually thought about not to exist. That isn't their point. Their point is that atheism is purely and simply the rejection of belief regardless of belief about specific gods. (I think that Penguin has done the best job of defending this idea.)

My own position on this is not that they are wrong about the philosophical possibility of rejection of belief in their sense. I think that Huxley had very much the same idea in mind when he rejected the label "atheist" and coined "agnostic". However, the line between atheism and agnosticism has become very blurred in more recent years, as many (including myself) have taken pains to argue that there is no incompatibility between atheism (a belief claim) and technical agnosticism (a knowledge claim). So, while I do not reject their point as impossible, I do reject their definition as a feasible definition for the words "atheism" and "atheist". The actual usage that they describe is, at best, limited to just debates of what the word means. Nobody outside of these debates really thinks of atheism as a neutral position on the question of whether gods exist. So it is a terminological dispute without practical merit. OTOH, if some atheists really pursue it with the kind of evangelical fervor that Mball has, maybe it can influence ordinary usage. Because of this debate, I will be much more sensitive as to how the word is used by others in the future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have found this entire thread an interesting experience. I had not realized before how committed some people (mostly atheists) were to the belief that "atheism is not a belief".

Heh... if you really want to see something, you should see me get going on the issue of word choice when it comes to "collision" vs. "accident". My feelings about the word "atheism" pale in comparison.

It always irked me to see people defining atheism as a "lack of belief" precisely because of all the mental gymnastics one has to go through to justify that definition.

Funny - I felt (and actually still do feel) the same about your position.

 

[Magic Man]

It always irked me to see people defining atheism as a "lack of belief" precisely because of all the mental gymnastics I mistakenly believe one has to go through to justify that definition.

I fixed that for you.

It is also a little surprising that many non-atheists here are willing to accept any definition that self-proclaimed atheists want to use for their designation. The "lacks belief" definition just doesn't square with the way most people use the very common terms "atheism" and "atheist".

Mball has dug his heels in so far that I feel there is no rational argument that will ever dissuade him from his crusade to eliminate all thought that "atheism" might be defined as a kind of belief.

Wait, you say this right after saying "It is also a little surprising that many non-atheists here are willing to accept any definition that self-proclaimed atheists want to use for their designation"? It's pretty clear that you're the one having a problem digging in and not listening.

9-10ths Penguin, Kilgore Trout, Commoner, and others have done a good job of explaining the idea behind their definition--that one can "reject" belief in gods without actually coming to an opinion about the existence of gods. They also admit that they believe gods they've actually thought about not to exist. That isn't their point. Their point is that atheism is purely and simply the rejection of belief regardless of belief about specific gods. (I think that Penguin has done the best job of defending this idea.)

I won't disagree that Penguin has done the best job of arguing. He usually does. However, it may just be that you weren't listening to me, or it may be that I haven't explained things well, but I've said the same things they've said.

Nobody outside of these debates really thinks of atheism as a neutral position on the question of whether gods exist.

Well, it's good to know you're at least not basing your opinions on facts.

OTOH, if some atheists really pursue it with the kind of evangelical fervor that Mball has, maybe it can influence ordinary usage.

Yes, clearly I'm the one with evangelical fervor here. It's not exactly the best debate tactic to accuse your opponent of "evangelical fervor" and such because he is participating in a long debate with you. The obvious problem with that is that, if you're participating too, then you would also be guilty of that same "evangelical fervor". And this has been the problem all along. All you have done is say that no one uses our definition and that we're clearly biased and we're only supporting our definition because of our agenda. Those are not only not true, but not very good for debating facts.

So, I hope you're happy with this last attempt to dismiss opposing arguments without providing valid arguments against them, but I also hope you realize that all you've said here boils down to "It's interesting. I'm clearly right on this, and so it's funny to see others vainly try to argue against me because it obviously shows their inferiority and bias". It's disappointing coming from you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most dictionaries define atheism as disbelief or rejection of the belief that god exists. Disbelief can be either active or passive - believing something not to be, or simply not holding the belief that something is.

Apparently, atheism has a few valid definitions, as defined by dictionaries, not holding the belief that god exists being one of them. The dictionary is good enough for me.

 

[Copernicus]

Funny - I felt (and actually still do feel) the same about your position.

I know, but the difference is that I have actual evidence to back up my position, and you have yet to explain what specific criteria you use to back up your definitions. Nevertheless, I think that you do a reasonably good job of defending a wrong conclusion.

Yes, clearly I'm the one with evangelical fervor here. It's not exactly the best debate tactic to accuse your opponent of "evangelical fervor" and such because he is participating in a long debate with you. The obvious problem with that is that, if you're participating too, then you would also be guilty of that same "evangelical fervor". And this has been the problem all along. All you have done is say that no one uses our definition and that we're clearly biased and we're only supporting our definition because of our agenda. Those are not only not true, but not very good for debating facts.

I hope that I have never said that "no one uses [your] definition", because I would have been speaking imprecisely. The question is whether your definition is ever manifested in usage well enough to merit the definition that you give "atheism". That is what I suggest is not the case. It is true that you may call babies "atheists" at every opportunity, but the reality is that you and the others qualify as atheists under my definition, as well. It's just that you quibble over the details of how to construe my definition.

So, I hope you're happy with this last attempt to dismiss opposing arguments without providing valid arguments against them, but I also hope you realize that all you've said here boils down to "It's interesting. I'm clearly right on this, and so it's funny to see others vainly try to argue against me because it obviously shows their inferiority and bias". It's disappointing coming from you.

TBH, I have not seen much of an argument from you, just dogged repetitions of your claim. I've had more productive discussions with others because they have gone to greater lengths to defend their conclusions with reasoned argument. I can no more argue with you than I can argue against a Christian presuppositionalist. You start with the assumption that you are correct, and then you think that merely repeating your definition and calling it "accurate" is enough to win the argument.

Most dictionaries define atheism as disbelief or rejection of the belief that god exists. Disbelief can be either active or passive - believing something not to be, or simply not holding the belief that something is.

If you take a very nuanced position on "disbelief" and "rejection", you can argue that case. I agree with you there. However, I do not think that those who craft dictionary definitions are expecting their readers to do that. You are reading the definitions like a lawyer and imposing an interpretation on them that is far too subtle to make sense. The words "rejection" and "disbelief" imply negative beliefs, not mere absence of belief.

Apparently, atheism has a few valid definitions, as defined by dictionaries, not holding the belief that god exists being one of them. The dictionary is good enough for me.

I have looked in about 30 dictionaries so far. Every single one of them defines atheism as rejection of belief, denial of belief, belief in nonexistence, etc. Some use a second word sense entry "lack of belief". I came across "absence of belief" once. By far, the vast majority of dictionary entries are clear that atheists are primarily considered people who believe that gods do not exist. There is no reason at all to think that those who use "lack of belief" as extending to people who had no knowledge of gods. Since every atheist lacks belief in gods, it is perfectly natural to use "lack of belief" to connote weak rejection or casual rejection based on lack of evidence. By my definition (and that of the majority of dictionaries), there must be an inclination to disbelieve, not mere absence of thought on the subject. You cannot reject that which you have not considered, and the moment you actually do reject something, you are in a state of negative belief, not mere absence of belief.

 

[Magic Man]

I hope that I have never said that "no one uses [your] definition", because I would have been speaking imprecisely. The question is whether your definition is ever manifested in usage well enough to merit the definition that you give "atheism".

Well, that's much different from what you've been saying, but either way, our definition is used, so it's part of usage. Your argument from usage fails for that reason.

TBH, I have not seen much of an argument from you, just dogged repetitions of your claim.

Then you should probably pay more attention next time.

I've had more productive discussions with others because they have gone to greater lengths to defend their conclusions with reasoned argument. I can no more argue with you than I can argue against a Christian presuppositionalist. You start with the assumption that you are correct, and then you think that merely repeating your definition and calling it "accurate" is enough to win the argument.

There's no question others have had much more patience with you. You have yet to give any valid reasons why our definition doesn't work, and so I lost patience with your continued vain efforts to support your insupportable position without using any real arguments. Here's the fact: Atheism, in its most general form, is the absence of belief in gods. Give any good reason why that's not the case, and I'll consider it.