• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Do you accept atheism is not a belief, or do you lie it is?


  • Total voters
    31

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In the passing decades, atheists have tried to change this definition into simply "not believing in God." This is undoubtedly in response to the arguments that theists have made that it is just as much faith to say there is no God as to say there is a God.
Okay... so again... we make a new word that means "I don't believe you, try again." with respect to God/gods. I don't care what the label is. If you say a god exists, and do so with only the scant and insufficient types of evidence that get paraded around all the time for such ridiculous claims, then I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What do you want to call that? I will take up the mantle right here and now.

You want to call it "doofusism?" Fine... I am a doofusist. You hear that everyone? I am a doofusist... which means that if you make a claim about a god existing and have crap-all for evidence, I am going to laugh in your face and tell you I don't believe you. Does this satisfy you? How are you going to twist your way out of this one? Might I suggest crying and huddling into a ball to evoke a sense of pity from me? That might work - you never know.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

I'd never heard of that so I Googled it, and in the very first line this is what it said:

"The Oxford Handbook of Atheism is a pioneering edited volume, exploring atheism – understood in the broad sense of ‘an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods’ "

It goes on...

"Bringing together an international team of established and emerging scholars, it probes the varied manifestations and implications of unbelief from an array of disciplinary perspectives (philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, demography, psychology, natural sciences, gender and sexuality studies, literary criticism, film studies, musicology) and in a range of global contexts (Western Europe, North America, post-communist Europe, the Islamic world, Japan, India). Both surveying and synthesizing previous work, and presenting the major fruits of innovative recent research, the Handbook is set to be a landmark text for the study of atheism"

Hmmm....
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You can't conceive as true what you can't conceive at all.

If you don't have any idea what something is, of course you won't believe in it.

Do you know what a quark is? A graviton? How about a neutrino? Have you seen any of these things?

Quark, graviton, neutrino. So leaving aside the fact that you misrepresented what was posted, and changed concept of something to seeing it, I'm at a loss as to what point you're making, since it took a few seconds to find accurate explanations of those concepts? If they are scientific concepts then they must also be falsifiable of course, unlike imaginary deities.

As scientists often say, unfalsifiable ideas are "not even wrong".
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Can't say that I agree with you on this. It's pretty obvious most atheists couldn't give a **** about such academic trivialities. Almost everyone who bothers to make the distinction only do so because they have read/heard other 'active' atheists make the same point which requires exposure to a particular kind of atheist media or interaction with others 'active' atheists.
This is such crap. I already pointed out to @KenS that the definition for a word even as simple as "apple" leaves room for multiple interpretations:

apple - noun
  1. the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
  2. the tree, cultivated in most temperate regions.
  3. the fruit of any of certain other species of tree of the same genus.
  4. any of these trees.
  5. any of various other similar fruits, or fruitlike products or plants, as the custard apple, love apple, May apple, or oak apple.
  6. Informal. anything resembling an apple in size and shape, as a ball, especially a baseball.
Do you understand this point? Do you understand why this would be relevant to the conversation @Augustus? Or are you one of these people trying your hardest to, for whatever reason, misconstrue the situation into something you want it to be? Are you a liar, to put in plainly? Are you?

And guess who didn't even reply to my pointing out that a word as simple and easily used as "apple" had multiple definitions? Why... @KenS of course! And do you know why I think he didn't reply? Can you take a guess? Because it has the capacity to put a large dent his crappy, closed-minded narrative, and acceptance of this FACT might not allow him to strawman atheists as easily, nor to relegate their position to the status of his own position (that being THE TOILET).

Reply @Augustus. Do it. Don't be like @KenS. Don't fear and secretly run off into a corner and cry and lament that your life means nothing. Face the sun! Be bold! Claim your rightful place among the people who are wrong but at least proud of it!
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
For instance, I am a Deist who does not believe in a theistic god, which makes me a kind of non-theist or atheist. Please don't deny this or you could be lying!

Obviously it's for you to clarify what you do or do not believe, as it is for others to do, but unless I've misunderstood doesn't deism necessarily involve belief in a deity of some sort?

deism
noun

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Are you saying this "creator or supreme being you believe exists is not a deity or god? I suppose you could also be an atheist if that is the case, just not sure I've ever heard that before. So I've learned something new anyway, so thanks for that.

My main problem with defining atheism broadly as a belief no deity exists, it would mean many atheists would be excluded by that definition, myself included. To me it seems nonsensical to have a broad definition of atheism that excludes many atheists.

Parenthetically if atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities this would not exclude atheists who also hold the belief that no deity or deities exist.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
In the passing decades, atheists have tried to change this definition into simply "not believing in God." This is undoubtedly in response to the arguments that theists have made that it is just as much faith to say there is no God as to say there is a God.

I wasn't aware of anybody trying to redefine the word, but if they did, then they succeeded some time ago. It's in the Oxford English Dictionary definition and has been since at least the 2nd Edition in 1989.
 
Atheism can encompass a belief, but that does not mean it is a belief. A basic grasp of language would help people stop falling onto that trap,

You are falling into the trap that your preferred definitions constitute some kind of reified fact rather than being your person subjective preferences. You seem to be the one struggling with the basics of language here.

A basic grasp of language would also enable you to understand that your assertion that "I don't believe gods exist" does indeed constitute a belief according to how many people utilise the term belief (particularly in a philosophical context).

In this context, a belief is just an attitude towards a proposition, for example "gods exist". Thus an atheist is one who believes the proposition 'god(s) exist' not to be true.

A basic grasp of language would also make you more aware of the numerous axioms or philosophical contingencies on which word usages and communication may depend, and that people may legitimately disagree on these (hence the scientific and philosophical studies of language, mind, etc).


If atheism is a belief, as some are trying to claim, then atheists, like myself, who simply don't believe a deity exists, are not atheists.

No, they believe you are expressing a belief and thus meet their definition of being an atheist.

Atheism can't exclude atheists from it's definition, that's the point some seem unable or unwilling to understand.

They aren't excluding you, they just have a more nuanced view of the term 'belief' than you do.

Anyway, of course a definition of X can exclude self-identified Xs. If I claim I'm an astronaut because I like looking at the stars, that doesn't mean everyone else needs to redefine the term astronaut to pander to my pretences.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Okay... so again... we make a new word that means "I don't believe you, try again." with respect to God/gods. I don't care what the label is. If you say a god exists, and do so with only the scant and insufficient types of evidence that get paraded around all the time for such ridiculous claims, then I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What do you want to call that? I will take up the mantle right here and now.

You want to call it "doofusism?" Fine... I am a doofusist. You hear that everyone? I am a doofusist... which means that if you make a claim about a god existing and have crap-all for evidence, I am going to laugh in your face and tell you I don't believe you. Does this satisfy you? How are you going to twist your way out of this one? Might I suggest crying and huddling into a ball to evoke a sense of pity from me? That might work - you never know.
The word you're looking for here is SKEPTICISM. How hard is that to understand? You aren't atheistic, you're a skeptic.

And here is the difference: the skeptic has not taken a position, yet. He remains open to the possibility even though at present he is not convinced. Whereas the atheist has taken the position that unless and until shown otherwise, he is presuming that the assertion that gods exist is FALSE.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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)
Isn't that what we're trying to do here?
It's just that some people don't want to hear it?
 
I wasn't aware of anybody trying to redefine the word, but if they did, then they succeeded some time ago. It's in the Oxford English Dictionary definition and has been since at least the 2nd Edition in 1989.

It is definitely true that the word was redefined. This happened in the 80s and 90s, and is pretty easy to check by looking at older dictionaries.

There was an attempt to popularise the newer term from the early 80s onwards.

Of course that doesn't mean the newer definition is intrinsically better or worse. It just reflects individual preference.


From my reading though, the OED still uses a very traditional definition (note God and active belief/disbelief).


upload_2021-11-10_14-55-37.png


upload_2021-11-10_14-54-51.png
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The word you're looking for here is SKEPTICISM. How hard is that to understand? You aren't atheistic, you're a skeptic.

And here is the difference: the skeptic has not taken a position, yet. He remains open to the possibility even though at present he is not convinced. Whereas the atheist has taken the position that unless and until shown otherwise, he is presuming that the assertion that gods exist is FALSE.
And you are back to your strawman argument that has been refuted countless times.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Is what my belief? If you mean the meaning of atheism, then no, it's from the dictionary definition. If you mean that I'm unconvinced by theist claims, then also no, because it's just a statement of fact.
I don't believe that theism convinces me either. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
If you've got as much evidence backing your claim that I am a liar as the OP has for what one of the actual definitions of atheism is, and you have your own repeated proclamations of which definition you hail under to point to in various threads, and then you can also point to complete and utter butt-hats who insist on INFORMING YOU that the position you are arguing is that you are literally arguing something that you have repeatedly stated you aren't trying to argue - yeah... then call me a "liar" all you want... because if I fit all that various criteria and was STILL INSISTENT on being a butt-hat and making my false proclamations and demands that you "Defend your actual position" then I would definitely be lying. I would definitely be misconstruing the situation purposefully for my own purposes. I would be a scumbag of a human being with little to no moral rectitude, and I should be entirely ashamed of my actions and accept the idea that there is little to no hope for me to ever produce anything of worth with my miserable life - which isn't even worth one single atom of the carbon my flesh is sculpted out of.

WHAP!!!!!

HOW DARE YOU USE THE WORD "WAFFLE" IN A DEGRADING MANNER!?!?!! Waffles are delicious.

Sounds like a completely ridiculous position to hold to me... but I am not going to sit here and tell you that that isn't what you believe or argue for. All I will do is tell you why I think you shouldn't believe it or argue support of it (which I do think, by the way - what the hell do you think you are doing?). But the theist (or defender of the theist - which we've had a few of in this thread) who knowingly twists the definitions so that they can try and push you down, intellectually - mostly because THEY HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE OR AVENUE OR ARGUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO THEM - is literally trying to tell me what it is I am arguing. Screw that.
Do you feel better now?
Look, if that's what you believe then fine. OK?
I want to make you happy VM, but with some folks it can be difficult.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Why do you call yourself an atheist?
I'm curious why this question was asked. Is there some confusion by theists that some humans approach religious ideas objectively, and free of the social and cultural pressure to adopt religious norms?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Obviously it's for you to clarify what you do or do not believe, as it is for others to do, but unless I've misunderstood doesn't deism necessarily involve belief in a deity of some sort?

deism
noun

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Are you saying this "creator or supreme being you believe exists is not a deity or god? I suppose you could also be an atheist if that is the case, just not sure I've ever heard that before. So I've learned something new anyway, so thanks for that.

My main problem with defining atheism broadly as a belief no deity exists, it would mean many atheists would be excluded by that definition, myself included. To me it seems nonsensical to have a broad definition of atheism that excludes many atheists.

Parenthetically if atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities this would not exclude atheists who also hold the belief that no deity or deities exist.
No Sheldon, my idea of Deity is not a creator, it just ....is. and you are a tiny part of it.
Don't ask me how all this came about....it's too big for me to guess at.
 
No it isn't "pretty obvious" at all.

You must be very out of touch with the average person then.

I love the condescension that atheists can't reason this for themselves as well, without recourse "active atheists" or atheist media, that's hilarious. Atheism has no doctrinal teachings or dogma, beyond not believing in any deity or deities an atheists is free to reason and believe as they choose.

Strange how atheists who are active in online spaces discussing atheism and religion are, on average, just about the most predictable group there is then if they are all such independent spirits.

This ridiculous idea that atheism is some nefarious conspiracy is ludicrous paranoia.

I'm an atheist so why would I think there is a conspiracy?

What I do think is that many (for want of a better term) "New Atheist" types exist in a massive groupthink thought bubble while operating under the pretence they are highly independent thinkers.

Hence they make all of the same mistakes and parrot the same talking points.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Then you would be an agnostic theist. Deists are a subgroup of theists.
I know....the 'scholars' still have not come to terms with the differences between involved gods and totally unaware god's.
So I'm all kinds of things to all kinds of folks. The trick is to smile as sweetly as possible (difficult) and look for any advantages that might offer themselves.
But you are right if dictionaries are reviewed at this time...proof of how far out they can be, I guess.
 

Shadow11

Member
Although it isn’t an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, atheism is a religious worldview. With assurance rooted in faith (rather than in proven fact), the theist says “I believe in god(s)/God,” while the atheist with equal confidence says “I don’t believe in god(s)/God.”

Atheism is a religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven. Like theists, atheists operate out of a foundational faith or belief that shapes their perceiving, thinking, and living in the world.

But it’s not as if theism and atheism are forms of “blind faith.” Each has gathered from human experience evidence that supports their worldview. For example, neither theists nor atheists have proven whether life has meaning. Theists believe life has meaning because of their primary belief in a good Creator God who guarantees life’s intrinsic meaning. Atheists’ primary belief that there is no god(s)/God means the universe has emerged accidently and without inherent meaning and that humans must be the ones to give life its meaning.

Here’s where the New Atheists (including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens) are so puzzling. These brilliant minds invite us to think that because we can’t observe god(s)/God through a microscope or telescope, faith is silly at best and dangerous at worst. They do not take into account that the scientific method (which works wonderfully across a large part of human life) simply isn’t geared to make definitive metaphysical pronouncements. In their attempt to reach the truth, they have swapped their own version of scientific dogma for religious dogma.

Our culture today has largely exchanged older, pre-modern theistic assumptions about the world for modern atheistic assumptions. Because of the industrial, scientific, and technological revolutions of the past 300 years, life in the Western world today leaves little room for questions of god(s)/God. Christian writer C. S. Lewis said the world today says to us, “‘You may be religious when you are alone,’ but adds under its breath, ‘and I will see to it that you never are alone.’”

This has resulted in a generally atheistic culture and worldview rather than the theistic culture and worldview of Christendom. Many people have migrated from religious faith and church life to agnosticism, atheism, and secularism. They are the religious “nones” on surveys, or those who call themselves “spiritual but not religious.” Young people today live in a world where it is hard to believe in God. Their grandparents lived in a world where it was hard not to believe in God. And Western secular governments tend to default to the atheistic worldview in an effort to be inclusive.

Both theism and atheism, therefore, operate out of a primary and foundational belief or faith that results in a particular worldview. Both attempt to offer a comprehensive account of reality. If the goal is, as someone said, “living with the grain of the universe,” then you’ll live according to how you discern the grain from either your theistic or atheistic starting point.

Did you know that the earliest Christians were derided as atheists? It was because Christians didn’t worship the Greek and Roman gods or the Roman emperor as divine, refusing to give their allegiance to anyone or anything other than Jesus Christ and refusing to conform their lives to the pattern of their idolatrous and pagan neighbors.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And you are back to your strawman argument that has been refuted countless times.
See, we have these different words because they refer to different conceptual states of mind. Being atheist doesn't mean being skeptical, and being skeptical doesn't mean you are an atheist; because the atheist isn't skeptical. The atheist has chosen a determined position, even though they say their position could change if someone could convince them otherwise.
 
Top