Atheism: A belief?

[Falvlun]

But "I have no beliefs on the matter" necessarily implies "I do not believe position 'A' on the matter", "I do not believe position 'B' on the matter", "I do not believe position 'C' on the matter", etc., for every possible position on the matter in question.

I would agree with that. However, "I have no beliefs on the matter" is saying something different than "I do not believe that the matter has characteristic X."

It says that I don't hold the belief "God exists". It doesn't say that I hold the belief "God doesn't exist". There are times when we use the phrase "I don't believe" to imply we believe the negative. For instance,:

- Is John in today?
- I don't believe so.

However, that's not the context we're talking about here. When we say it in reference to God, we're saying "I don't hold the belief that God exists". From that one piece of information you can't tell whether the person holds the belief "God doesn't exist".

Sorry, m. If someone said to me "I don't believe that god exists", I would assume that he "believed that god did not exist." Can you think of another instance where the "negative belief" assertion is not assumed? I really would like to understand this point of view.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, it is a somewhat meaningless statement because the word god does not have a universally accepted definition. On the other hand, it is a true statement because I don't believe in the vast majority of the wildly different god concepts I have so far encountered.

In order to answer a question honestly I must have a good idea what the questioner is asking. I need to know what the questioner means by "god". I don't need my own definition, so I have not bothered to construct one.

Regardless, when you make the statement "I do not believe god exists" you must have a conception in mind as to what "god" is referring to-- whether that conception was defined by your fellow debater or yourself doesn't really matter.

Also, do you stop being an atheist when you are not talking to people? You must maintain a catalogue of god definitions in your mind, that you refer to when you consider yourself an atheist. It's not like you forget them all when you walk away.

One of those ways is not "I believe KT is not wearing a blue shirt". That's just guessing, rather than declining to construct a belief until evidence is presented.

I gave my reasons to Kilgore why I chose not to believe he was wearing a blue shirt.

Besides, since when has evidence been required to construct a belief? It might be required to construct a rational belief, but beliefs exist just fine without pesky facts.

And it's not like "god doesn't exist" has no evidence to support it, so I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, m. If someone said to me "I don't believe that god exists", I would assume that he "believed that god did not exist."

Good point. A lot of people's problem is based specifically on this phrase. In fact, I, and I suspect many other atheists, never actually make this statement - especially without a context clarifying what is meant by it.

If someone asked me whether I believed in god, I might answer "no." But, that isn't me making the statement "I don't believe god exists." If they went on to ask "so you believe that god doesn't exist?" I would answer "no." In either case, I would clarify what my position actually is.

If I were to state my view without responding to a specific prompt about whether I believe in god or not, I would never just make the statement "I don't believe god exists." It doesn't paint the full picture, nor does it provide any actualy useful information about my position. I'm more likely to talk about atheism as a conclusion of being a rationalist than even discuss it terms of "belief."

Anyway, getting repeatedly stuck on the one phrase "I don't believe god exists," ignores the fact that when atheists do use it here, they are specifically telling you what they do mean by it - there's no ambiguity involved. So, saying that it's an ambiguous phrase is rather disingenuous, although it's a useful tactic for being obfuscatory.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Besides, since when has evidence been required to construct a belief? It might be required to construct a rational belief, but beliefs exist just fine without pesky facts.

Right, some of us consistently choose to form views based on rationality. Others don't. I don't think this is being disputed - at least not by the rationalists.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, m. If someone said to me "I don't believe that god exists", I would assume that he "believed that god did not exist." Can you think of another instance where the "negative belief" assertion is not assumed? I really would like to understand this point of view.

If you're just talking to someone and they said out of the blue "I don't believe God exists", I would think it reasonable to assume that they mean "I believe God doesn't exist". However, if you asked someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they said "No", I would think it reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?".

In most cases, the negative belief assertion should not be assumed. Do you believe I'm wearing a blue shirt (to steal from KT)? Do you believe I own a red car? Do you believe horses have large stomachs? I would assume you don't currently believe I'm wearing a blue shirt or own a red car, and you probably don't believe horses have large stomachs. Answering no to those questions doesn't mean you think I'm not wearing a blue shirt, don't own a red car or that horses have large stomachs.

 

[Falvlun]

There are also contexts where "I don't believe" does not imply belief in the opposite. For instance, "I don't believe it's true; I know it's true!" Does not imply "I believe it's false and I know it's true."

I did already address this. It was one of my exceptions from the get go.

It is also largely irrelevant, unless you are claiming that when an atheist says "I do not believe god exists" she really means "I know that god does not exist." While this may be true for some atheists, I think most would be pretty uncomfortable with that formulation.

 

[Magic Man]

So, saying that it's an ambiguous phrase is rather disingenuous, although it's a useful tactic for being obfuscatory.

I think this is a very good point. The original assertion was that anyone who doesn't believe that God exists is an atheist, and so to determine whether or not someone is an atheist, you can ask the question "Do you believe God exist?". If they answer "no", then they're an atheist.

This emphasis on the assertion "I don't believe God exists" is a little off-track. The main thing is that if someone doesn't hold the belief "God exists" (or for accuracy "gods exists"), then that person is an atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

If someone asked me whether I believed in god, I might answer "no." But, that isn't me making the statement "I don't believe god exists." If they went on to ask "so you believe that god doesn't exist?" I would answer "no." In either case, I would clarify what my position actually is.

Which is "I don't have an opinion either way"? Just curious. So, would this technically be an agnostic position, and only atheist by default?

If I were to state my view without responding to a specific prompt about whether I believe in god or not, I would never just make the statement "I don't believe god exists." It doesn't paint the full picture, nor does it provide any actualy useful information about my position. I'm more likely to talk about atheism as a conclusion of being a rationalist than even discuss it terms of "belief."

Is your avoidance of the term belief accurate or just reflective of a bias against the word belief? I mean, you seriously do not have an opinion on the existence of god?

Anyway, getting repeatedly stuck on the one phrase "I don't believe god exists," ignores the fact that when atheists do use it here, they are specifically telling you what they do mean by it - there's no ambiguity involved. So, saying that it's an ambiguous phrase is rather disingenuous, although it's a useful tactic for being obfuscatory.

I'm not actually claiming that it is ambiguous. I am saying that it is inaccurate to say that atheism is not a belief if you say "I do not believe god exists."

 

[Falvlun]

I think this is a very good point. The original assertion was that anyone who doesn't believe that God exists is an atheist, and so to determine whether or not someone is an atheist, you can ask the question "Do you believe God exist?". If they answer "no", then they're an atheist.

This emphasis on the assertion "I don't believe God exists" is a little off-track. The main thing is that if someone doesn't hold the belief "God exists" (or for accuracy "gods exists"), then that person is an atheist.

Actually, the original point of the thread was to determine whether atheism was a belief or not. Since the assertion "I don't believe God exists" heavily implies "I believe that God does not exist", I find the analysis particularly relevant.

 

[tpetaway86]

I think atheism is a belief based on the fact that its the lack of believing in GOD as an all know deity. To have this thought, a person would have to BELIEVE in no GOD. The better question is, can atheism be consider religion.

 

[Willamena]

If you're just talking to someone and they said out of the blue "I don't believe God exists", I would think it reasonable to assume that they mean "I believe God doesn't exist". However, if you asked someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they said "No", I would think it reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?".

Why? Should their answer be different if they are answering that they mean, "I believe God doesn't exist"?

In most cases, the negative belief assertion should not be assumed. Do you believe I'm wearing a blue shirt (to steal from KT)? Do you believe I own a red car? Do you believe horses have large stomachs? I would assume you don't currently believe I'm wearing a blue shirt or own a red car, and you probably don't believe horses have large stomachs. Answering no to those questions doesn't mean you think I'm not wearing a blue shirt, don't own a red car or that horses have large stomachs.

The negative assertion, nevertheless, would be assumed in most cases.

The question of the blue shirt isn't comparable. "God" can be known now; the color of a shirt on a person on the other side of an Internet monitor can't, unless it's truthfully told.

 

[Copernicus]

Hmmm...This might explain part of the problem. I would say that someone who calls himself a communist would have to have an idea of what communism is. I would say the same for an atheist. If you call yourself an atheist, I would think you'd have an idea of what God is. However, if one is not calling oneself a communist or atheist, and that label is being assigned by someone else, I wouldn't think you'd have to have any idea about communism or atheism. In the case of communism, you could believe that everyone's salary should be equal and the government should own all means of production, but you've never heard of Marx or communism.

But "communism" is just one of many "isms". The suffix commonly refers to some kind of belief system or doctrine. So an "anarchist" is someone who needs to know what a government is, not someone raised in the wild by wolves who just happens to have no beliefs about whether there should be laws and taxes.

 

[atanu]

This discussion is "---atheist has a belief that there is no deity" vs. "Atheist lacks a belief on deity and thus has no belief".

A couple of points.

1. The debate could not go on among stones or babies.
2. "Atheist lacks belief in ----" is being extrapolated to "Atheist has no belief regarding -----".

IMO, what KIlgore is saying: "Neither a belief nor a lack of belief", does not apply to atheist. It applies to a situation such as not knowing whether there is a chair in a dark room or not. In this case, in fact, there is a certainty that with light, the fact can be confirmed.

This is actually the position of Vedanta wrt to both Brahman (the true) and mAyA (illusion). It is held that these are beyond belief but are knowable.

 

[Orias]

Yet that belief isn't atheism.

Duh.

You just said it was.

To be an atheist you need nothing more than merely a lack of belief in a "God". If you were not so faithful to your position I may consider your argument.

I have been finding that you support none of your claims.

If it's not atheism, then what it is?

God is irrelevant to this debate, as your arguments consist of nothing more than semantical games and mental gymnastics. That's what I'm debating you about - your inability to form or understand a cogent argument.

Not at all.

A belief is merely something someone beliefs, you just can't seem to get that through to your head.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, the original point of the thread was to determine whether atheism was a belief or not. Since the assertion "I don't believe God exists" heavily implies "I believe that God does not exist", I find the analysis particularly relevant.

First, it doesn't heavily imply that. You might take it that way, but being accurate, that is not implied.

Second, it's still not relevant. The original question was whether atheism is a belief. So the relevant question is:

Is "lack of belief in gods" a valid definition for "atheism"?

If you agree that it is, then atheism is not a belief.

 

[Falvlun]

First, it doesn't heavily imply that. You might take it that way, but being accurate, that is not implied.

You guys have yet to show a relevant instance where the negative belief is not implied. As far as I can tell, you are merely redefining the statement "I do not believe X" to mean "I have no opinion on X", which seems strange, and a bit untruthful, to say the least.

Second, it's still not relevant. The original question was whether atheism is a belief. So the relevant question is:

Is "lack of belief in gods" a valid definition for "atheism"?

If you agree that it is, then atheism is not a belief.

So, in other words, only the parts that support your position are relevant?

To clarify, while "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition for atheism, I do not think it is an accurate definition for most atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

Why? Should their answer be different if they are answering that they mean, "I believe God doesn't exist"?

Huh? What I'm saying is if you ask someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they say "No", it would be reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?" because the first question doesn't necessarily imply the answer to the second one.

The negative assertion, nevertheless, would be assumed in most cases.

Maybe you would assume it. I wouldn't.

The question of the blue shirt isn't comparable. "God" can be known now; the color of a shirt on a person on the other side of an Internet monitor can't, unless it's truthfully told.

I don't see how God can be known now any more than the blue shirt can.

 

[Magic Man]

But "communism" is just one of many "isms". The suffix commonly refers to some kind of belief system or doctrine. So an "anarchist" is someone who needs to know what a government is, not someone raised in the wild by wolves who just happens to have no beliefs about whether there should be laws and taxes.

What I'm saying is that any "-ist" only needs to know the beliefs of that "-ism" if they call themselves that "-ist". An anarchist could be an anarchist without ever having heard the term or the concept.

 

[Magic Man]

You guys have yet to show a relevant instance where the negative belief is not implied. As far as I can tell, you are merely redefining the statement "I do not believe X" to mean "I have no opinion on X", which seems strange, and a bit untruthful, to say the least.

I've provided many. Penguin even provided a very good one. Did you miss them?

So, in other words, only the parts that support your position are relevant?

No, only the parts that are relevant are relevant.

To clarify, while "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition for atheism, I do not think it is an accurate definition for most atheists.

OK, but that's not the question here. If you agree that "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition for atheism, you agree that atheism is not a belief. The question of how many atheists believe gods don't exist is a separate question. However, just to clarify, "one who lacks belief in gods" is still an accurate definition even for atheists who believe gods don't exist.

 

[Orias]

You guys have yet to show a relevant instance where the negative belief is not implied. As far as I can tell, you are merely redefining the statement "I do not believe X" to mean "I have no opinion on X", which seems strange, and a bit untruthful, to say the least.

They have a hard time grasping the concept that a belief can either be," I believe x exists," or "I don't believe x exists."

He does ,however, raise a valid point that "atheism" can be defined by lack of belief in "God(s)", however this assertion is not the view of most atheists.

With that being said, a lack of belief in "God(s)" can be taken into the view of belief, simply because those atheists that stick by that definition, tend to belief in it and explain it in a most thorough manner.

So, in other words, only the parts that support your position are relevant?

That has been the basis of his (their) argument for some time now.

To clarify, while "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition for atheism, I do not think it is an accurate definition for most atheists.

I agree.

I would also note that no where in the definition of "atheism" does it say that it's not a belief, since when a label is defined by belief, it tends to be believed.