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

[John53]

I think a better question would be... why do some theists want atheism to be a belief? Or more importantly... why do some theists want atheism to be a religion?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Can I just say, to the two people who marked and committed to the "No, I lie that atheism is a belief." option of the poll... that's awesome. It may sound like I am being facetious... but it is great no matter what the impetus for selecting that option. If you are just doing it to be ironic, good for you. If you are sticking to your guns, no matter what negative labels are applied, good for you. If you are admitting that you understand that you lie when you liken atheism to a belief, good for you. Seriously, it made my day to see those two votes - again, no matter why they are there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

5. 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. That's the definition that I continue to prefer. I don't like the idea of trying to win philosophical arguments by unilaterally redefining words.

You prefer that definition? Really? You are aware that theistic belief systems besides Abrahamic monotheism exist, right?

If we took your definition at face value, it would imply that all sorts of polytheists are "atheists." I don't believe that this is how you or anybody else actually uses the term. Am I wrong?

For your definition to be workable and reflect anyone's actual usage, it needs some pretty prejudicial baggage: that belief systems other than classical monotheism aren't valid... or at least don't warrant the same sort of consideration as the Abrahamic God.

I mean, I can only see 3 ways to make sense of your definition:

1. Just ignore the fact that polytheists exist.
2. Do a 2-tier approach where being an atheist requires explicitly rejecting God-with-a-capital-G/Yahweh/Jehovah but only failing to accept all other gods.
3. Accept that polytheists really are atheists somehow.

Is there some other way that I'm not seeing?

But yes: you're right that in our colonial past, a lot of people went with option 1, which is why it's enshrined in many philosophy books and dictionaries... and we've tended to depart from this chauvinistic mindset in the past few decades.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"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.

Maybe. Seems to me there is, seems to you there isn’t. Perhaps we’re both wrong.

 

[John53]

Maybe. Seems to me there is, seems to you there isn’t. Perhaps we’re both wrong.

I can only agree whole heartedly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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".

There's uncountably many "god propositions," not just one "God proposition." There are enough that it's practically impossible for a human being to be aware of all of them, to say nothing of actually rejecting all of them.

Seems to me that this is a big part of the sort of reaction I see from you and other monotheists: treating your - and their - beliefs as just one belief system out of many makes them a little less special.

I get why you'd reflexively push back against this. It can be uncomfortable to be taken down a peg... to be treated as on the same level as the polytheistic beliefs and extinct religions that monotheists often make fun of.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

5. 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. That's the definition that I continue to prefer. I don't like the idea of trying to win philosophical arguments by unilaterally redefining words.

Make a new word then. Seriously, why is this off the table? We'll make a new word that describes "a person who fundamentally lacks belief in all claims of God or gods existences without proper warrant for such belief (as perceived by themselves) having been achieved."

Can you understand why you wouldn't like such a word? Can you understand why you would still want to "continue to prefer" a definition even for that new word that means that the person actively believes that God/gods does/do not exist? Because you know that position is untenable... just like YOUR THEISTIC POSITION. So you'd much rather be on equal footing with your opponent, rather than understand you are forced to take a position downhill at the outset.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

That'll learn ya to not use such big words with that crowd.

 

[Windwalker]

I would say that you are wrong,

I am not wrong. Do you disbelieve God exists?

 

[Windwalker]

Experts in faith? No. There is no such thing.

What about those who study religious faith and speak to how it functions in people's life? They don't exist? You don't think there are experts on the topic, versus hacks who spend their time on web forums and say it's all just hooey?

This isn't specialty knowledge.

The hell it's not. They teach about it in comparative religion course in colleges, and they don't use the dictionary as their main course syllabus.

All I need do is to define the word (and not with a dictionary, but according to which definition is most useful). I have a strong opinion about believing by faith based both in reason and experience, and have no reason to defer to the opinions of others, especially theists.

So then experts don't matter. It's all just a matter of opinion. Creationists are right. Why should we listen to the experts in science? It's all just opinion, and all opinions are of equal weight.

The reason I left fundamentalist religion, was because it was anti-intellectual too. I found much of the online atheist circles to be just like them in a lot of regards, like dry drunks, who are still drunks minus the booze bottle. So that's one major reason I dis-identified myself as an atheist as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say that most people when they hear someone self-identify as "an atheist", they are hearing someone state their opinion of belief about the existence of God. I don't believe most people hearing someone self-identify in that way are assuming they simply lack belief in God, or a nontheistic perspective, someone who just simply lacks an opinion on the matter.

I think the "self-identification" piece is a red herring.

If someone self-identifies as tall, for instance, you can infer that they've given some thought to what it means to be "tall" and decided that it describes them. None of this thought process is part of what it means to be tall, though.

 

[lukethethird]

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".

Hiding behind unbelief? Hilarious. No logic or evidence? How about the logic supporting the notion of an invisible god out there as being evidently stupid just for starters. You want to believe on faith alone? Go ahead, knock yourself out.

 

[Windwalker]

I think the "self-identification" piece is a red herring.

If someone self-identifies as tall, for instance, you can infer that they've given some thought to what it means to be "tall" and decided that it describes them. None of this thought process is part of what it means to be tall, though.

It's not a red herring. Again, to say I am an atheist, or I am a theist, these are both in regard to the question if I believe God exists or not. So that is a statement of belief. Period. To actually identify yourself as an atheist, is saying you are a disbeliever, which is a statement of belief in the negative. That's not just nontheism, which doesn't really think about it.

Like I said before, Buddhism, for instance is NOT an atheistic religion. It's non-theistic. If a Buddhist says, "I am an atheist", then he is making a statement of belief, which goes outside of Buddhism, which issues no point of view, it simply just omits. It says nothing about God, either believing in or disbelieving in it. That is an example of true, 'absence of belief".

A-theism, is tied to the question of belief. Theism is a belief. Atheism is its negative answer. It's an ism, not an absence of. An infant is not an atheist either. It's neither. It lacks any beliefs as it has no knowledge. That is the only true "absence of belief" there is. It is neither an atheist nor a theist.

 

[lukethethird]

I am not wrong. Do you disbelieve God exists?

I believe that the notion, the very idea of an invisible god out there, is silly. The idea of a god's existence or non-existence is just too silly to comment on.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe that the notion, the very idea of an invisible god out there, is silly. The idea of a god's existence or non-existence is just too silly to comment on.

Then you believe God doesn't exist. You therefore consider yourself an atheist because of that, correct?

BTW, it's interesting your religion is listed as "xtian". Do you consider yourself a Christian Atheist? They do exist. I know some. Or are you keying in the notion of "out there", meaning external to one's self? If so, I think I get what you mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not a red herring.

Yes, it is.

You could take the self-reflection aspect out of it by saying "he is an atheist."

Again, to say I am an atheist, or I am a theist, these are both in regard to the question if I believe God exists or not.

Well, no. The terms "theist" and atheist", if they have any meaning at all, are about gods in general, not just some specific god named "God".

So that is a statement of belief. Period. To actually identify yourself as an atheist, is saying you are a disbeliever, which is a statement of belief in the negative.

Belief in what, exactly? I can't even tell you the names of every god that humanity's ever believed in. I certainly don't have firm opinions about the ones that are unknown to me.

That's not just nontheism, which doesn't really think about it.

Nontheism is a euphemism for atheism. Both terms cover everything except theism.

Like I said before, Buddhism, for instance is NOT an atheistic religion. It's non-theistic. If a Buddhist says, "I am an atheist", then he is making a statement of belief, which goes outside of Buddhism, which issues no point of view, it simply just omits. It says nothing about God, either believing in or disbelieving in it. That is an example of true, 'absence of belief". A-theism, is tied to the question of belief. Theism is a belief. Atheism is its negative answer.

Theism is a belief? I'd say it's an umbrella term that covers uncountably many beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

I've never seen good evidence to indicate that unicorns exist.

Thanks for not answering my question.

I gave a news website... can't do more than that

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, it is.

You could take the self-reflection aspect out of it by saying "he is an atheist."

I wouldn't call someone an atheist for simply not being a theist. I'd only call them that if they said they didn't believe God exists. In which case, they are stating that they don't believe in God, sharing what their belief on the matter was. If they simply just lacked a view on the subject, I'd consider them as just a human being without a view on the question. Not an atheist, who does.

Well, no. The terms "theist" and atheist", if they have any meaning at all, are about gods in general, not just some specific god named "God".

Sure, singular or plural, it's still a question of belief. It/he/she/they exist or don't exist. What do you believe, yes or no? Which is your belief? Again, atheism is tied to theism, which is about believing in god(s) or not. Its a question of belief. It's the flip side the same God(s)-Belief coin. Not an absence of the coin.

Belief in what, exactly? I can't even tell you the names of every god that humanity's ever believed in. I certainly don't have firm opinions about the ones that are unknown to me.

They all fit under the theism umbrella. So belief or disbelief in a theistic view, that God or gods exist or not.

Nontheism is a euphemism for atheism. Both terms cover everything except theism.

No it is not a euphemism. Nontheism is the absence of a theistic belief. Atheism is not. It's a theistic belief itself, only that God does not exist. It's saying "no" to the question of God. Nontheism lacks the question itself.

I gave a comparison earlier that "love" for instance is non-rational. That means it's not about rationality. But to say love is irrational, that makes it about rationality. Love is not irrational, it's non-rational. That's a category, not tied to rationality. Same thing with nontheism. It's a category, not tied to the question of theism. Atheism is tied to theism, in the very word itself "No-God". Nontheism has no opinion. Atheism does.

And again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with atheism. I applaud it, but shake my head when it claims its not a belief about God! Never while I self-identified as an atheist for those 10 plus years would I have claimed otherwise.

Theism is a belief? I'd say it's an umbrella term that covers uncountably many beliefs.

It's tied to many those views which see the Divine in terms of both transcendent, and external to one's own self or being. That can include a lot of variation. Then you get into pantheism and panetheism which are related to, but distinct from traditional theism, which is about a God(s) external to one's self. Most who identify as atheists, are in regards to that view of theism.

 

[Kenny]

Nope. I for one make no such claim. Would you say that I'm not an atheist? If so, your definition of atheist simply isn't useful to me. Of course I'm an atheist, and it is independent of any comment I make about whether gods might or do not exist. I choose the former, not the latter.

But, again, it isn't my definition but that which I found on multiple sites.

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is? IMV, according to definitions, anything less than "there is no god" is agnostic (by definition)

 

[Secret Chief]

Nontheism is a euphemism for atheism. Both terms cover everything except theism.

I do not believe (ha!) nontheism to be a euphemism for atheism. It is common for Buddhism to be considered nontheistic, given the Buddha was not concerned with the matter, rather than atheistic.