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

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

Yes, that too! But I would like to tack on in there somewhere that I am going to be extremely skeptical, to the point of needing monumental evidence to demonstrate a God, specifically, to me.

And here is the difference: the skeptic has not taken a position, yet.

One again, the relative "largeness" of the claim is important here. I remain open to the possibility of being convinced there is a God... but again, the weight of the evidence is going to need to match the weight of the importance theists tend to place on God. Just bring me actual, valid evidence of a god, tie it to something that indicates that that is what it is, and cannot be anything else, and boom! Done. But short of that... no dice. It is precisely the same as me offering to sell you a bridge that I can't produce the deed for. Precisely that scenario.

In fact... if you reply to nothing else in my entire post, please reply to this:
Let's say I offer to sell you a bridge, and your interest is piqued. We talk about the bridge and discuss some of its features, etc. And then it comes to a point where, naturally, you ask to see the deed to the bridge. I say "Of course!", and then reach into my pocket and bring out a $500 note from the game Monopoly. That is what I present to you as "the deed." And then you ask "What is this?", to which I reply (enthusiastically) "That's the deed!"

Now... in the above situation, do you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that I am not the owner of the bridge? Do you? Can you state that? I don't think you can. But, now please speak to your level of belief that I own the bridge. Do you believe that I own the bridge? And, even more pointedly, are you leaning toward NOT BELIEVING that I own the bridge, based on my idiotic pronouncements and behavior - with my being generally enthusiastic in the face of a complete lack of being realistic? I know I would be leaning toward positively believing that such an individual DOES NOT own the bridge. I would hold out just that slightest amount of possibility that they actually did, because I know that I do not know for certain... but certainly I would suspect that they do not own that bridge.

Now please... please be the VERY FIRST theist to actually come back with ANYTHING to say about how that analogy matches the whole "god versus no god" debate. Please. I am begging you @PureX. Please bolster my faith in humanity as a species worthy of life on this planet! Please!!!!!!!

 

[F1fan]

There is no knowable God, at least in His essence.

If God isn't knowable, how can you assert it exists and has an essence?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

So you don't address what I said at all, and simply bat it back to me like a playground taunt?

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

Hard to argue with those kind of smarts.

And my choice as I have demonstrated is contained in almost every mainstream dictionary, even the ones that offer atheism as a belief, also offer a broader definition of atheism as a lack or absence of belief; and of course as I've explained tirelessly, the second definition is the more accurate definition in the broad sense, precisely because it doesn't exclude any atheists, atheists like myself who don't hold a belief that no deity exists. Unlike the narrow definition, which clearly does exclude many atheists, like myself, just because a minority theists with an obvious agenda, want to tell me, and other atheists, what we think.

Atheism Oxford English dictionary
noun
1. lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Meriam Webster's
noun
1. a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

The largest English dictionaries from both the UK and the US. So yeah, I can see why you want to pretend this is just my personal preference.

Here are the two largest online dictionaries.

Wiktionary
Noun
atheism

1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).

1. The term atheism may refer either to:
   
   
   • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
   • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
   • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism

Google
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So it isn't just my choice, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Do you feel better now?

I absolutely loved writing that post. so yes! Yes indeed!

Look, if that's what you believe then fine. OK?

No... it isn't "what I believe." It is what is demonstrable. If a naysayer can be shown a definition of a word, and the atheist then pronounces that THAT PARTICULAR DEFINITION matches their disposition, and then that same naysayer who was just shown such EVIDENCE goes on to state "No... YOU BELIEVE THIS." and presents some other definition, then THAT PERSON IS BEING DISINGENUOUS (as has literally happened several times now in this very thread from various dubious and [in my opinion] disgusting actors). Hands down. This is simple fact. I get that you don't like facts @oldbadger, but you're just going to have to suck it up, buttercup.

I want to make you happy VM, but with some folks it can be difficult.

What? You think I care if you want to "make me happy." Holy crap... I almost choked on my breakfast laughing. Please don't to that again.

 

[Sheldon]

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

They're not mutually exclusive, how hard is that to understand?

 

[F1fan]

See, we have these different words because they refer to different conceptual states of mind.

As opposed to ACTUAL states of mind.

 

[oldbadger]

What? You think I care if you want to "make me happy." Holy crap... I almost choked on my breakfast laughing. Please don't to that again.

You believe in 'Holy' things, VM?
Now that's a surprise.

 

[Sheldon]

Why do you repeat this falsehood after it has been pointed out to you multiple times that agnosticism and (a)theism aren't mutually exclusive?

Different answers to different questions.
One deals with knowledge, the other deals with beliefs.

How many times must it be repeated?

I fear repetition won't help here, but you are nonetheless correct. Agnosticism is a statement about the limits of knowledge, whereas atheism is a lack of one particular belief, they are not mutually exclusive.

If theists dedicated as much time to finding a shred of objective evidence for any deity, as they do to telling atheists what they have to think and believe, there might not be an atheists. Though I am dubious of course. Oh, PureX that means doubtful, or doubting, so I am a sceptic and an atheist look....

 

[Augustus]

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!

You seem a bit excitable today. Have an apple

No idea why though or what that has to do with anything I said.

I fully agree that words have many usages and that is the single point I have most repeatedly emphasised throughout the thread.

Atheism, belief, etc. have multiple legitimate usages and that is why this issue has no 'correct' answer. It is entirely contingent on subjective preferences

The point you replied to was me stating:

a) then idea that there is a 'definitive' answer decided upon by atheists and philosophers is false

b) that most people are not going to engage in prolonged introspection and quibbling about a difference between "I believe gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist" in regard to the definition of atheism even if they are aware that such a distinction exists (which many people don't)

Us folk here who do are a minority. Just like people who read books are a minority.

A fair proportion of the population in Western countries has a low level of literacy for a start, then many more simply have no interest in wasting their time and energy on contemplating such things.

Are we agreed?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You believe in 'Holy' things, VM?
Now that's a surprise.

Yes... as stated... crap. "Holy" and "crap" being used together is basically just a tautology in my vernacular. I state it twice for emphasis, as a sort of exclamation suitable for when things are just too ridiculous to keep going.

 

[Sheldon]

Is the so-called absence of evidence, the evidence of absence __________

Absence of evidence is not necessarily conclusive proof of absence, but it definitely represents evidence of absence.

There is usually a complete absence of evidence for things that don't exist, that's not a complicated idea after all.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

What has that to do with the idiotic idea that the definition of atheism should exclude many atheists? Just how many words are theist going to sulk over, just because it exposes their religious beliefs are an empty bag?

 

[Yerda]

The atheist has chosen a determined position, even though they say their position could change if someone could convince them otherwise.

I might be the only atheist here who agrees that this is correct.

Edit: I should add that by 'correct' I'm meaning more like personal preference. The state of ignorance or ambivalence are not inherently atheist in my book.

I've made this point before, but to argue that babies (for example) are atheists is taking a word beyond its sensible application and by extension that applies to people who just haven't had much exposure to God ideas and just don't really care.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes... as stated... crap. "Holy" and "crap" being used together is basically just a tautology in my vernacular. I state it twice for emphasis, as a sort of exclamation suitable for when things are just too ridiculous to keep going.

Look, if your beliefs exclude God's and Holinesses then it might be best for you not to use them? That's all.

If you were as immune to religious matters as you claim then I'm at a loss to guess why you take part in religious debates and forums. That's strange imo.

 

[F1fan]

I had a very good friend who was a Buddhist, lovely man, died a few years ago. He told me that he didn't believe in God, but I never once heard him describe himself as atheist.

Atheist is a category. Anyone who doesn't believe in God falls into that category.

 

[Sheldon]

Please bolster my faith in humanity as a species worthy of life on this planet! Please!!!!!!!

Oh their god, you used the word faith, they're going to leap on that like a frog on amphetamines.

 

[F1fan]

You believe in 'Holy' things, VM?
Now that's a surprise.

Holy crap = sacred ****.

 

[Augustus]

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....

Jesus wept

You do understand why they had to clarify that statement, don't you? If not, go back and read the passage I quoted, and you will see why.

What they are doing is defining the scope of the text, which is a common academic convention, not stating the definitive definition of atheism. Indeed, they specifically explain there is no agreed upon scholarly definition.

 

[Sheldon]

If you were as immune to religious matters as you claim then I'm at a loss to guess why you take part in religious debates and forums. That's strange imo.

I know right, I mean it's not as if religions ever tell anyone else how to behave right, or invoke their deity as a moral standard to justify anything, or try to get their bat**** crazy creationist myths inserted into education. or as if they ever try to dictate ethics to science, or medicine, and all based on the moral codes of bronze age patriarchal Bedouins, or as if they ever tell an atheist that they need to study the "evidence" for deities before they rationally withhold belief.

It's a puzzler alright....

 

[Shadow11]

Atheism is a worldview I will argue back with the definition of worldview :

Worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of Reality that ground and influence all one's perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. One's worldview is also referred to as one's philosophy, philosophy of life, mindset, outlook on life, formula for life, ideology, faith, or even religion.