Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know, but the difference is that I have actual evidence to back up my position,

Logical fallacies are not evidence.

and you have yet to explain what specific criteria you use to back up your definitions.

I've explained my criterion many times: usage. A significant number of people actually use the word the way I say they do. Your response has been that this usage doesn't count for some reason.

Nevertheless, I think that you do a reasonably good job of defending a wrong conclusion.

Oh, come off it. Your main approach this whole time has been you telling me that I either don't use the word the way I say I do, or do use it, but for reasons other than the ones I give. Effectively, you've been implying that I'm either a liar or an idiot this whole time; at least come out and say it directly instead of playing coy.

I've approached this argument in good faith the whole time, and have been repeatedly met by dishonest tactics on your part. This isn't something to be smug about.

When you say it's about dictionary definitions, I give you the dictionary defitions that clearly support my argument... but somehow, they're not the "right" dictionary definitions, even though I pull them from the very same dictionaries that you cite.

When you say it's about usage, I give you usage... but somehow, it's never the "right" sort of usage. Depending on the day of the week and the phase of the moon, either:

- it's in the "wrong" setting, because apparently people reserve this usage for atheist debates, which doesn't "count" for some reason (ignoring the fact that my position all along has been that people use the term the way I say in general use, not just debates),

- even though people say they use the word my way in general usage, they actually use it your way... and are apparently either too stupid to realize it or are being dishonest, or

- some people do use the word the way I say in general usage, but they're doing it for nefarious reasons, like skewing the definition of the term so they use their definition in debates about theists.

... and never mind that each of these explanations contradicts the other two.

When I ask you for support of your position, you give me arguments that don't pass basic tests for logical coherence, and that rely on unsupported claims that you refuse to give a proper defense for.

You say that you've got a number of degrees and that you're a professional lexicographer. If that's true, then I have to believe that you know better than this... or ought to know better, anyhow. I've just about run out of benefit of the doubt that you're approaching this argument honestly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Ah, so they don't expect me to use the definitions as they define them. Interesting. Somebody's going to great lengths to impose interpretations, and it ain't me.

 

[Copernicus]

I've explained my criterion many times: usage. A significant number of people actually use the word the way I say they do. Your response has been that this usage doesn't count for some reason.

I've explained the reason. The population you are talking about is largely confined to debates between theists and atheists, and it is severely restricted even within the population of atheists. We only used one reasonable test of your usage--the "baby" survey--and it only came off as 50-50 in this forum. So I do not see any evidence for "significance" here.

Oh, come off it. Your main approach this whole time has been you telling me that I either don't use the word the way I say I do, or do use it, but for reasons other than the ones I give. Effectively, you've been implying that I'm either a liar or an idiot this whole time; at least come out and say it directly instead of playing coy.

I've approached this argument in good faith the whole time, and have been repeatedly met by dishonest tactics on your part. This isn't something to be smug about.

I'm sorry to hear this coming from you. I have not once called you a name or accused you of dishonesty or smugness. My main problem in that department has been with Mball, but that is his style with everyone. These discussions can get way too personal, and I think you know that. You seem to have interpreted my reactions to you as smugness and dishonesty. That suggests to me that it is time to end this conversation now. Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view. I still consider you one of the better posters and thinkers in this forum, so I hope that your resentment towards me lessens over time, but I no longer think that we can have a productive discussion on this topic.

 

[Willamena]

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 can only imagine that "taking a belief literally" means something particular to you. Normally, it means that the spider, the fear, and all the elements of the story are to be taken just as they are stated. In other words, it's stated as hypothetical.

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?

If there was fear, it should be because there was belief. If there wasn't belief, there'd be no reason to fear the spider. "Belief" is an indicator of an investment in truth.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm sorry to hear this coming from you. I have not once called you a name or accused you of dishonesty or smugness. My main problem in that department has been with Mball, but that is his style with everyone.

Haha, way to display that smugness and dishonesty. It's OK. I don't think as highly of your debate tactics as I did before either.

 

[Orias]

This is what I like to call getting off topic, and unreflective positing.

Clearly something that is believed is a belief.

But it's ok , I understand you all like to ignore practical points and resort to strawman and special pleading tactics.

After almost 2,000 posts you'd figure we would of gotten somewhere, but clearly belief is to complicated for some to understand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is what I like to call getting off topic, and unreflective positing.

Clearly something that is believed is a belief.

But it's ok , I understand you all like to ignore practical points and resort to strawman and special pleading tactics.

After almost 2,000 posts you'd figure we would of gotten somewhere, but clearly belief is to complicated for some to understand.

Yeah, why's it so hard for people to get that not believing something isn't a belief.

Perplexing.

 

[Magic Man]

This is what I like to call getting off topic, and unreflective positing.

Clearly something that is believed is a belief.

But it's ok , I understand you all like to ignore practical points and resort to strawman and special pleading tactics.

After almost 2,000 posts you'd figure we would of gotten somewhere, but clearly belief is to complicated for some to understand.

Indeed. It does seem complicated for some here to understand that "something that is believed is a belief" is not in question. It's apparently hard for them to grasp that that is a given, but that something that is not believed is not a belief. I also would have figured after 2,000 posts that that would be made clear.

 

[Orias]

Yeah, why's it so hard for people to get that not believing something isn't a belief.

Perplexing.

Perhaps you should reprahse, not believing something is a belief, as much as disbelief is a belief in the application that you chose to not belief what others do.

Indeed. It does seem complicated for some here to understand that "something that is believed is a belief" is not in question.

Yes, that isn't a question, but asking whether or not Atheism is a belief, is a question.

Which clearly so many people have gone through great lengths to explain what they believe (includes atheists and non-theists as well as theist) atheism is, and their "flavor" of atheism.

It's apparently hard for them to grasp that that is a given, but that something that is not believed is not a belief. I also would have figured after 2,000 posts that that would be made clear.

Yes, but if something wasn't a belief then it wouldn't exist, since so many people believe in the given definitions of atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps you should reprahse, not believing something is a belief, as much as disbelief is a belief in the application that you chose to not belief what others do.

I suppose if I wanted to speak gibberish, then I might rephrase it as such.

 

[Orias]

I suppose if I wanted to speak gibberish, then I might rephrase it as such.

Clearly, believing that something is not right, is not a belief.

You are absolutely correct :no:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Clearly, believing that something is not right is not a belief.

You are absolutely correct :no:

Right, my atheism isn't based in believing that anything isn't right. It's based in not holding a belief.

Sorry, try again.

 

[Orias]

Right, my atheism isn't based in believing that anything isn't right. It's based in not holding a belief.

Sorry, try again.

Too bad that's not what I said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Too bad that's not what I said.

What you said doesn't apply either. Whatever it was.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, that isn't a question, but asking whether or not Atheism is a belief, is a question.

Good, I'm glad you understand this. So, why did you bring it up then?

Yes, but if something wasn't a belief then it wouldn't exist, since so many people believe in the given definitions of atheism.

So, is a computer a belief? Is a book a belief?

Yes, many people have beliefs about the definition of atheism, not that that has anything at all with the actual definition of atheism.

 

[Commoner]

I can only imagine that "taking a belief literally" means something particular to you. Normally, it means that the spider, the fear, and all the elements of the story are to be taken just as they are stated. In other words, it's stated as hypothetical.

Of course it's hypothetical, but that wasn't my objection. It should be obvious that, if I'm discussing whether or not something can be correctly said to be my belief and while doing so use a phrase such as "but I also believed (knew) it was going to kill me", that phrase is not to be taken literally to mean that this was my belief. Rather it is how I described my feelings, my thoughts in a (hypothetical) situation.

Taking that out of context and saying: "but you said so!" as an argument that this is indeed my belief (hypothetical or otherwise) - that is, that spiders are deadly, is what I was objecting to.

If there was fear, it should be because there was belief. If there wasn't belief, there'd be no reason to fear the spider. "Belief" is an indicator of an investment in truth.

What is the belief? I agree with you that I have belief(s) that result in, among other things, fear. But the only thing I'm trying to establish is whether or not I can be accurately described as someone who believes spiders are dangerous/deadly. (given that I understand that there is no actual mechanism by which a spider could hurt me and given that I do also feel fear in the presence of spiders)

 

[Orias]

What you said doesn't apply either. Whatever it was.

Actually it does, since you said...

Yeah, why's it so hard for people to get that not believing something isn't a belief.

Believing that someting is not right, is a belief, since not believing fits the definition of belief, or what you think is actually right. Your application to...

Right, my atheism isn't based in believing that anything isn't right. It's based in not holding a belief.

Sorry, try again.

Is completely irrelevant, inconsistent, and irrational to my statement, since I never based my statement and specifically applied to atheism ,just belief.

I knew there was a confusion bug somewhere in this thread.

Good, I'm glad you understand this. So, why did you bring it up then?



So, is a computer a belief? Is a book a belief?

Yes, many people have beliefs about the definition of atheism, not that that has anything at all with the actual definition of atheism.

A belief is believed. So a computer is believed, a book is believed.

You have your beliefs about the definition of atheism, and that may or may not have anything to do at all with the actual definition of atheism.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Okay. I think we were using different definitions for "reject" then.

Is it just me, or is the "fail to assent" meaning of "reject" not very intuitive or common? That's been a thread for me throughout this whole debate: I do see now how "fail to assent" can be technically used for things like "I don't believe X" and now even "reject", but I would never really consider those possibilities unless I was, well, debating someone online or writing a paper on logical arguments.

For me, this debate has always been more about how we actually talk to people, how we present our position to the general public. Do people generally think of both possibilities, and I have just been left behind?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

This is what Copernicus is referring to when he says things about mental gymnastics. My position does not require me to become this nitpicky or technical; it does not require me to word things in a way I normally would not. Yours does.

And worse, I don't see much gained from it but obfuscation.

 

[Falvlun]

No, we don't, and no, it's not.

Examples? What does "a belief" mean to you?

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.

If you are using "atheism" as a general set, which contains the subset strong atheism, then you cannot say that atheism is not a belief. That is logic 101.

The purpose of my argument is not to argue that atheism can be a belief. It is rather to argue that neither can be said about the general set. At least, not without qualification, explanation, etc, which could be largely avoidd by simply saying that atheism is not necessarily a belief, and being done with it.

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?

If we followed your approach, mball, than nothing could be considered a belief. Christianity is not a belief; it merely contains beliefs. Heliocentricism is not a belief; it merely contains a belief. That's simply not how we talk about beliefs. We don't separate the belief from the thing that contains it.

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

Language is about agreed upon meaning; majority consensus is what assigns meaning to it. Thus, whether people accept how you are interpreting strong atheism is highly applicable.

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.

Parts, parts, parts, mball. Why do you refuse to look at "strong atheism" as a whole? We aren't just talking about "strong"; we aren't just talking about "atheism". We are talking about both of those things together as a single concept.