Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Augustus]

Atheism means "without theism." That's why the "a" is in front of the word "theism" - it means "without."

That's simply not true though. Factually, at least per the OED, the etymology is athe(os)-ism, not a-theism (the term atheism even predates the term theism).

If we are making an 'argument from etymology', athe-ism thus means 'the doctrine or belief of being without god(s)' as it was an -ism suffix being applied to atheos, not an a- prefix being applied to (the then non-existent term) theism .

Ultimately though, an argument from etymology doesn't really carry much weight anyway. It changes nothing as it is still a subject preference to use the more traditional 'a belief no gods exist' definition or the more recent addition 'a lack of belief in gods' as it would be with any other term with multiple usages that evolved over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By believing that it's wrong, false, or invalid because it's unproven according to what you believe to be the valid criteria for proof.

I don't believe it's true, because I haven't seen sufficient evidence that convinces me that it is true. That doesn't mean I believe it's negation to be true. I could be convinced, given that some good evidence is presented to me.
That's not the same thing as declaring that I know it's false.
This is a distinction you really need to start wrapping your head around.

Let's say we've got a big jar filled with gum balls in front of us. Neither of us know how many are in it. If you say to me, "There are an odd number of gum balls in that jar," and I say "I don't believe you" that doesn't mean I believe there are an even number of gum balls in that jar. Now replace, "there are an odd number of gum balls in that jar" with "There is a God." Get it?

 

[Sheldon]

If you really meant to start a serious discussion you wouldn't have worded your poll and the sentences above as you did.

I disagree, and I have more than qualified why they are worded that way.

1. It collapses the distinction between atheist and agnostic. I'm an agnostic, I think that the distinction is important and I want to preserve it.

I am an gnostic and an atheist they are not mutually exclusive. In fact I always withhold belief from unfalsifiable claims.

2. It is an attempt to place atheism on a unique rhetorical/epistemological pedestal where atheists supposedly have no burden of 'proof',

Not it isn't, I suggest you read more and assert less.

Accepting it leads to all kinds of tendentious assertions, such as the claim that atheism is humanity's natural state since babies are supposedly born atheist and religious belief is a subsequent social corruption of that pristine natural state. (So is any kind of education.)

No it doesn't, at all.

I rarely encounter atheists who stop with 'I don't believe that'.

I doubt that, and I am such an atheist, as are others here.

In academic philosophy of religion, at least until the last 20 years or so, 'atheism' was the belief that the proposition 'God exists' is false.

And gay once meant happy, and atheists was once used by ancient Rome to describe early christians, so your point seems irrelevant to this discourse. Of course I don't imagine for a minute that religious philosophers wouldn't give atheists the benefit of the doubt, especially in the US. Atheists are one of the most maligned demographics in the US, it is virtually impossible for an avowed atheist to hold public office, the prejudice against atheists is quite startling. I think it has its roots in the cold war, and the idiotic notion that atheism is evil because the Soviet Union forced atheism onto the populace in order to destroy the centuries old doctrine that absolute monarchs like the Tsar derive power by divine right, endorsed enthusiastically by European churches of course.

 

[Altfish]

I was an editor there....briefly.
Did a little surgery on entries regarding atheists.

I was also signed up early days but got thrown out for posting something about Ken Ham having a budgerigar fetish.

 

[Sheldon]

That's simply not true though. Factually, at least per the OED, the etymology is athe(os)-ism, not a-theism (the term atheism even predates the term theism).

If we are making an 'argument from etymology', athe-ism thus means 'the doctrine or belief of being without god(s)' as it was an -ism suffix being applied to atheos, not an a- prefix being applied to (the then non-existent term) theism .

Ultimately though, an argument from etymology doesn't really carry much weight anyway. It changes nothing as it is still a subject preference to use the more traditional 'a belief no gods exist' definition or the more recent addition 'a lack of belief in gods' as it would be with any other term with multiple usages that evolved over time.

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

"Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

"The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity, it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society,[13] those who were forsaken by the gods, or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods.[14] The term denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed.[14] The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century.[15] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment."

Wikipedia - atheism

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not what he asked, he asked "how is not believing something a belief? You misrepresented his claim as an a prior belief.

Thanks I missed that!

 

[Secret Chief]

Can you see that Laika and I have distinct opinions about the existence of gods, yet are both atheists? We are not communicating the same meaning, even though there is overlap.

I certainly do. A theist / atheist conversation is thus made even more challenging. For such an apparently simple idea, there seem to be at least two self-identifying as "no religion" on this thread quite strongly disagreeing with each other as to what the term implies. (I think, although it is all getting a bit blurry). What hope the theist?

 

[Secret Chief]

it is virtually impossible for an avowed atheist to hold public office

Really? That's disgusting.

 

[Augustus]

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

"Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

"The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity, it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society,[13] those who were forsaken by the gods, or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods.[14] The term denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed.[14] The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century.[15] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment."

Wikipedia - atheism

Thank you for confirming what I said

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you really meant to start a serious discussion you wouldn't have worded your poll and the sentences above as you did.

What if, however, the person wanted to start a serious discussion, but also wanted to let others know the types of shenanigans that were not going to be accepted at the outset? How does one accomplish this without a bunch of whining from the peanut gallery?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Except as a convenient excuse to chat about cheese with @Revoltingest, this question about whether atheism is a "belief" or not is way, way, way over over-analyzed.

After all, in terms of behaviours (because beliefs inform behaviours), believing there are no gods and not believing in gods results in exactly the same thing: behaving as if there aren't any.

 

[PureX]

So are you advocating for the middle ground of being totally confused and uncertain?

If we want truth we can just use the rules outlined in logic for reasoning. From reasoning we might not have answers, but we can be less confused. And we certainly wouldn't be believing in ideas like gods existing.

Let's note that those who believe gods exist don't have answers, they just don't like being uncertain about it. Atheists are fine with being uncertain.

Most theists AND most atheists understand quite clearly that they do not know that what they have chosen to believe about the nature or existence of 'God' is any way certain. The big difference seems to be that most theists will readily admit that their belief in God is based on faith, not on knowledge or on any 'proof'. And even those few who claim knowledge or proof are basing that claim on their experience of faith as their 'evidence'. Whereas most atheists are trying to insist that they are basing their position on the God proposition based on logic and evidence, because they abhor the idea of living by faith. Yet they have neither logic nor evidence to present as justification for this claim. And it makes them look to be either not too bright, or not very honest. Which is why, I believe, they are so desperate to hide their belief behind "unbelief".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think that there is a group of people that simply are unaware of what critical thinking is and what it can do. I used to think that they simply had no respect for it, but now I believe that they are simply unaware that people can know things with a high degree of reliability and know that they know it. I call them the knowingly knowing, because they both know something and know that it is correct. I'm thinking now of people that can evaluate the morbidity and morbidity data regarding COVD and vaccines. The can look at the death rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and conclude with near certainty that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine, and that all eligible people should take it.

Then their is a second tier that isn't adept at critical thought, but recognize that it exists, and that people who can do it well can be experts in a field. They understand that somebody like Dr. Fauci can also come to such conclusions, and being an expert, should be believed. I call them the knowingly unknowing. They don't have the answers, but they know that they exist, that some others have them, and who they are.

Then comes the third tier, the unknowingly unknowing (see Dunning-Kruger). They are unaware that there is another way of thinking than their own, which is simply guessing what to believe and who to trust. They assume that everybody else is doing the same, unaware that there is another way to think. They're the unknowingly unknowing, and they think that all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the type you're describing, albeit in the arena of religion rather than vaccines. It might not be spinning if they are unaware that their arguments aren't as good as some others'.

I agree with everything you have stated, understand these categories and have come across examples throughout my experience of people who very easily fall into them. I also have come across, however, the type of person who, even after they are told the actuality of a thing, and tacitly seem to accept it (by no longer replying because they have realized they won't get away with various tomfoolery with the person who informed them), they turn around to go on to propagate falsehoods with others no matter how well they were schooled by the original person they stopped talking to. These are the "knowingly disingenuous." Liars, in other words.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe it's true, because I haven't seen sufficient evidence that convinces me that it is true. That doesn't mean I believe it's negation to be true. I could be convinced, given that some good evidence is presented to me.
That's not the same thing as declaring that I know it's false.
This is a distinction you really need to start wrapping your head around.

You need to start following through, logically, on what you claim to be your "unbelief". Because there are a lot of beliefs involved in it that are fueling it.

 

[John53]

The problem with this overused analogy is that it doesn't leave room for being wrong...
Real 'Siberian unicorn' remains found | CNN

OOPS! They found the remains of a real unicorn.

OOPS! Maybe there is a real God? Since what we know is so limited and finite in comparison to the knowledge to be discovered...

"It was fatter and furrier, and in reality more rhino than stallion. It did, however, have a huge horn."

Oops they found a rhino.

Oops. It's all smoke and mirrors as usual. Maybe there isn't a real God.

 

[Yazata]

What if, however, the person wanted to start a serious discussion, but also wanted to let others know the types of shenanigans that were not going to be accepted at the outset? How does one accomplish this without a bunch of whining from the peanut gallery?

The options in the poll are these:

1. Yes I accept the fact that atheism is not a belief

2. no, I lie that atheism is a belief

That certainly looks like an attempt to bias the poll's outcome. The way Sheldon frames it, it's a choice between accepting a fact and admitting that one lies.

Of course the real issue here is whether or not the proposition 'atheism is not a belief' is indeed a 'fact'. And whether one who disagrees with that proposition is in fact 'lying' (with all the moral baggage that word implies) instead of disagreeing in a more principled and intelligent fashion. (Being wrong about something isn't the same thing as lying if it isn't a knowing deception.)

That's why I didn't like how the original post was worded.
.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You need to start following through, logically, on what you claim to be your "unbelief". Because there are a lot of beliefs involved in it that are fueling it.

Someone says to me "I believe there is a God." I say, "I have insufficient evidence to believe you. Do you have any evidence?"

There, done. Thanks for the advice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists are trying to insist that they are basing their position on the God proposition based on logic and evidence, because they abhor the idea of living by faith. Yet they have neither logic nor evidence to present as justification for this claim. And it makes them look to be either not too bright, or not very honest. Which is why, I believe, they are so desperate to hide their belief behind "unbelief".

Hide from what? Theists who can't make a sound argument? Theists who can't understand what an atheist is?

Do you think that atheists are insecure, feel threatened by what theists believe? It's the other way around. I've already explained to you that I don't care what others believe unless it bleeds into my world unfavorably. Why would I? If my neighbor thinks that running around a tree baying under a full moon while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed onto it at the heavens in order to center himself and give his life meaning, I don't mind, unless he gets too loud. Again, why would I? Why would anybody?

Yes, many abhor the idea of believing by faith. It's guessing. Such people understand that there is a better way of thinking, a better way to determine what is true about the world, in fact, the only way. Faith cannot do that. I have a better way. Theists are taught that faith is a virtue. But how can it be that? It's just an irrational choice to believe without sufficient evidentiary support.

And that refusal to believe by faith agitates many theists. Not all of them, but many theists continually slander atheists, which shows me that they resent atheists. They object to atheists' beliefs, it offends them, and they let the atheists know it. They get angry at atheists for being intractable regarding faith, for having higher standards for belief than faith. Judging by their posting, most atheists don't seem to care about that, either.

Incidentally, you probably ought no call others desperate, illogical, not too bright, or not honest if you don't have your own ducks in a row. And you don't.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The options in the poll are these:

1. Yes I accept the fact that atheism is not a belief

2. no, I lie that atheism is a belief

That certainly looks like an attempt to bias the poll's outcome. The way Sheldon frames it, it's a choice between accepting a fact and admitting that one lies.

Of course the real issue here is whether or not the proposition 'atheism is not a belief' is indeed a 'fact'. And whether one who disagrees with that proposition is in fact 'lying' (with all the moral baggage that word implies) instead of disagreeing in a more principled and intelligent fashion. (Being wrong about something isn't the same thing as lying if it isn't a knowing deception.)

That's why I didn't like how the original post was worded.
.

I understand your beef... but there are plenty of posts explaining how atheism is not a positive belief pointed toward anything. It is lack of or disbelief in a proposition. Other qualifiers are necessary if you want to cast it as "belief that there is no God." This is the attempt to make sure these ideas are accepted "as fact."

And again, in the end, the word itself isn't important! It is entirely possible to simply not believe someone's claim without truly knowing whether or not it reflects truth. Entirely possible - which has been demonstrated time and time again in this very thread. See my purple text in post #74 about offering up a bridge for sale, for example - which, I might add NO ONE from the theistic side has EVER replied to with a refutation. EVER. I have brought it up multiple times in many different threads (the same example/analogy) and NOT ONCE has a theist EVER replied to it with a refutation or explanation of how it doesn't fit, etc. It is most often glossed over and ignored. That's telling, in my estimation. And hilarious.

So, I call this stance "atheism" - that of not believing any God claims having been made or even made into the future without proper evidence in support. You want to come up with some other word that doesn't mean "No Gods Exist" but does mean that "No Belief Will be Forthcoming Without Warrant?" Fine. What's the word you want to use? I'll use it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hide from what? Theists who can't make a sound argument? Theists who can't understand what an atheist is?

Do you think that atheists are insecure, feel threatened by what theists believe? It's the other way around. I've already explained to you that I don't care what others believe unless it bleeds into my world unfavorably. Why would I? If my neighbor thinks that running around a tree baying under a full moon while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed onto it at the heavens in order to center himself and give his life meaning, I don't mind, unless he gets too loud. Again, why would I? Why would anybody?

Yes, many abhor the idea of believing by faith. It's guessing. Such people understand that there is a better way of thinking, a better way to determine what is true about the world, in fact, the only way. Faith cannot do that. I have a better way. Theists are taught that faith is a virtue. But how can it be that? It's just an irrational choice to believe without sufficient evidentiary support.

And that refusal to believe by faith agitates many theists. Not all of them, but many theists continually slander atheists, which shows me that they resent atheists. They object to atheists' beliefs, it offends them, and they let the atheists know it. They get angry at atheists for being intractable regarding faith, for having higher standards for belief than faith. Judging by their posting, most atheists don't seem to care about that, either.

Incidentally, you probably ought no call others desperate, illogical, not too bright, or not honest if you don't have your own ducks in a row. And you don't.

I keep trying to like this multiple times... but alas.