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

[A Vestigial Mote]

Great! You've just identified what it is that atheists don't believe. So, you consider yourself an atheist because you believe that doesn't exist, correct? Atheism means believing what you just described is not real, right?

Nope. Sorry... I see what you have laid out, and you're not going to hear the "SNAP!" of the trap you think you have set being tripped, you sneaky sneak you (haha... not really that sneaky - I mean, you were pretty obvious with the whole attempt at seeming accommodating and personable).

NOT (is this big enough, do you think?) that it "isn't real", necessarily - no. That it "isn't going to be accepted or believed lightly" - yes (or "hell yes" - your choice here).

But at any rate, for myself (and others I have spoken to as self-proclaimed "atheist") yes, I think the whole "god" thing I presented it probably a pretty good description. Non-belief (i.e. easy, initial rejection) of god claims of the category of supernatural overseer of the universe, or an actual existent, sentient "being" of a kind that is purported to have done various things like "create the universe" or "create Earth" or "create the animals", or that there are separate "gods" for all various aspects of the world - like the god of the ocean, god of luck, god of destruction (where's the god of moldy toenail clippings?). These are things that are not going to be believed easily (or at all, when the evidence comes up dumb stinky poopoo - as so very, very often is ultimately the case). That's the deal.

Someone's claims that "God is everything" - obviously I believe in some things, so my beef is no longer going to be about whether or not that person's "god" exists - but the use of language and whether or not it is superfluous or misleading - perhaps even purposefully so.

 

[Sheldon]

Great! You've just identified what it is that atheists don't believe. So, you consider yourself an atheist because you believe that doesn't exist, correct? Atheism means believing what you just described is not real, right?

Atheist and atheism are not the same, atheism must necessarily encompass all atheists, but what an atheist believes does not dictate what atheism is.

I might if I wished, believe the moon is made of cheese, does that mean then that atheism means the moon is made of cheese, just because I also don't believe in any deity or deities?

 

[Windwalker]

I mean, you were pretty obvious with the whole attempt at seeming accommodating and personable).

Such cynicism. You had already set and sprung the trap yourself. I was just interested in you stating it a second time for the record, so when you would try to backpedal, I could show you affirmed the same thing multiple times. Not necessary however.

Seeing with which such creative and large fonts you use, it seems you are wiggling quite hard to free yourself here. But that's alright, I'll still be try to be personably because I feel your discomfort and don't wish to be mean about it.

But at any rate, for myself (and others I have spoken to as self-proclaimed "atheist") yes, I think the whole "god" thing I presented it probably a pretty good description. Non-belief (i.e. easy, initial rejection) of god claims of the category of supernatural overseer of the universe, or an actual existent, sentient "being" of a kind that is purported to have done various things like "create the universe" or "create Earth" or "create the animals", or that there are separate "gods" for all various aspects of the world - like the god of the ocean, god of luck, god of destruction (where's the god of moldy toenail clippings?). These are things that are not going to be believed easily (or at all, when the evidence comes up dumb stinky poopoo - as so very, very often is ultimately the case). That's the deal.

So even here, you are affirming that atheism is a belief that these things are not real. I'll shorten it for clarity's sake. Atheism is a belief. A belief in the negative, is still a belief. I don't believe it's true, is identical as saying I believe it's not true. Disbelief, is negative belief. "Not to be believed", your words here, is a belief something is not true. Therefore, Atheism is a belief.

It is a belief in the non-reality of God. It is a belief that God does not exist. It is a belief, an affirmation of what one holds to be true and believes in, namely that God does not exist.

Someone's claims that "God is everything" - obviously I believe in some things, so my beef is no longer going to be about whether or not that person's "god" exists - but the use of language and whether or not it is superfluous or misleading - perhaps even purposefully so.

This is a different matter. I would be someone to say that, but I don't think you would understand that necessarily. To you that likely would be taken as referring to all physical reality, but that's not what I would mean. I could tell you what I believe, but you would probably just insult me, calling it "deepity" or some such vacuous response, maligning anything that isn't concretely availble for easy understanding. Perhaps I am mistaken.

In either case, based upon your current understanding of what God is, you disbelief in that, and therefore call yourself an atheist. You believe it is not real. Your atheism is your belief that only the natural world is real and God does not exist.

How then is atheism not a belief, pray tell?

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is belief, a way of life when you join religious forums to promote it. The real neutral, I don care, just stay off my lawn-Atheists, aren't here. So when Atheist put forth this "we are a special class of non-conformist who require delicate consideration because we are so insightful and unique" on a religious forum, some find that laughable! So you get called out for declaring the special case-ness of your non-belief, belief.

I didn't join RF to promote or discuss atheism. I just liked talking about ideas, current events, &c, and my cat isn't much of a conversationalist.

When I make atheist comments it's in response to someone else who brought up the subject.
I don't know where you come up with this portrayal of atheists as special snowflakes. What we mostly seem to be doing here is asking for evidence and pointing out logical errors in theists' reasoning.
I suspect some theists find this disturbing or threatening, and feel a need to retaliate with anti-atheist propaganda.

 

[Windwalker]

Atheist and atheism are not the same, atheism must necessarily encompass all atheists, but what an atheist believes does not dictate what atheism is.

I might if I wished, believe the moon is made of cheese, does that mean then that atheism means the moon is made of cheese, just because I also don't believe in any deity or deities?

Of course there is a difference. An atheist is someone who believe in atheism. Just kidding. I realize a lot of people want to define atheism to suit themselves, such as saying a cat or a cow are atheists because they don't believe in God, or an infant or a child of three is an atheist because that is supposedly the "default position". These are absurd arguments of course. But it makes them feel they are following the natural order in their disbelief in God.

In reality, as we have shown, atheism is a general belief in the non-existence of God or gods. If someone chooses to self-identify by that word, they are doing so in response to the question of God's existence, and do so as a matter of stated belief in the non-existence of God. Their "atheism" is a tenant of faith for them. It is a religious faith that ultimate Reality has no God, as they imagine God to be in their saying that doesn't exist. A religious faith is what one believes the nature of Ultimate Reality to be, so then it becomes Atheism, at that point, like Theism does for the believer in God for the exact same reason.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Such cynicism. You had already set and sprung the trap yourself. I was just interested in you stating it a second time for the record, so when you would try to backpedal, I could show you affirmed the same thing multiple times. Not necessary however.

Not cynicism at all... as you clearly just admitted to exactly what i thought you were doing - trying to get me to affirm things that you were then intent on trying to get me to be seen "backpedaling" out of. So, you see - where I come directly at you, and you know in engaging with me that the fight is "to the death" (metaphorically, of course) - so that you might be prepared to dodge, or escape as needed, you, on the other hand, "play nice", hoping only to catch me off-guard and then make a killing blow right at the end, all while I didn't even know that the contest was as serious as all that. And you even go on to demonstrate this further...

Seeing with which such creative and large fonts you use, it seems you are wiggling quite hard to free yourself here. But that's alright, I'll still be try to be personably because I feel your discomfort and don't wish to be mean about it.

oh shoot... another one of your type of people who is super duper sensitive to the use of various font sizes and capitalization. like i did for @KenS (the site itself adds the capitalization when you call someone out as a link to their profile - i am so, so very sorry! please forgive me!), i guess i will have to resort to keeping all my text in lowercase so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities. i apologize for all of the dire pain you must have felt when i was varying the size and weight of my text. you must have really, really found it hard to concentrate or glean the meaning of what i was typing. again... sorry. i will not let it happen again.

So even here, you are affirming that atheism is a belief that these things are not real. I'll shorten it for clarity's sake.

not going to let you do this, it is completely disingenuous, and disgustingly dishonest in my perception. what did I say, windwalker? please only ever repeat what i said if you are going to try and represent me. i did not affirm (like you so obviously, obviously wanted me to) that my atheism is a belief that these things are not real. only that it is going to take monumental types and amounts of evidence for me to be convinced of claims of this nature. that i am a 'hard sell' for this exact type of claim. you want to claim that your favorite color is 'red' - fine... your favorite color is 'red'. who cares? but... you want to claim that i am only here because of the will of some extra-terrestrial being who will torture me for eternity when i don't 'toe the line' (i'm trying to only use single-quotes here as well, because i am not entirely sure what will trigger someone of your particular disposition - am i coming through clearly so far? i always like feedback on these things, because i do really try to be clear, you see. thanks in advance!), then we're going to have a problem with me just accepting that as 'my favorite color' also. do you see? please tell me that you do. if you do not, then take your attempt to misrepresent me elsewhere please.

Atheism is a belief. A belief in the negative, is still a belief. I don't believe it's true, is identical as saying I believe it's not true. Disbelief, is negative belief. "Not to be believed", your words here, is a belief something is not true. Therefore, Atheism is a belief.

okay... sure... if it is a 'belief' (still single quoting oh crap - are emojis okay? i should have asked! dummy me!) then it is a belief that the other person could very easily be wrong about what they are proposing. that's what i believe. that they could be entirely wrong... especially when bad evidence is provided. not that i know that to be the case (or even hold a position anywhere near knowledge), but yes, i believe that they could be wrong, or misinformed, or psychologically unstable, or any number of things. that, i most definitely 'believe' in the positive. yes. but i do not know whether or not to 'believe' in the positive that their god does not exist - and my stance is also most certainly that they should not know whether to do this or not either!

It is a belief in the non-reality of God. It is a belief that God does not exist. It is a belief, an affirmation of what one holds to be true and believes in, namely that God does not exist.

nope. i just explained this, and please see my 'bridge' example to my best friend @Augustus in post #638. and, if you care to characterize or find the word for that exact scenario i laid out in post #638 (both of these are links, in case you need to review), then i can switch to using that word posthaste... and still smack you upside your silly head and watch you scramble to still represent me the way you want to represent me, even though i completely represented myself in an entirely different manner. that's lying, windwalker. something you just put on oh-so-obvious display for the entire group of continuing participants in this thread.

How then is atheism not a belief, pray tell?

i don't have to positively claim that 'god does not exist' in order to inform you that i don't believe you, do i?

 

[Valjean]

I was actually asking you to make an educated guess based on your lifelong dealing with humans of all kinds and empirical observation of their literacy, philosophical inclinations, habits and interests as to whether you think the average person is likely to quibble minor grammatical changes in definitions they don't commonly think or care about.

But when the subject does come up, and the grammatical quibbles become important, then the average people are either forced to think or must bow out of the discussion.

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.

Most atheists never discuss their lack of belief, so no quibble is required. But if they do find themselves drawn into such discussions, then, as I said, they must either deal with these 'trivialities' or forgo the discussion.

There is no burden of proof to believe something. It's just your attitude towards a proposition.

True. The burden of proof obtains only when something is asserted or promoted.

Some people have this incredibly irrational notion that it is a 'theist position' to consider that someone clearly expressing a cognitive stance in regard to a proposition is expressing a belief rather than demonstrating a 'lack of belief

Huh?

 

[Sheldon]

So even here, you are affirming that atheism is a belief

These are things that are not going to be believed

Oh I think not, and even were you not misrepresenting not believing (I didn't embolden it you did) with believing, what an individual atheist claims is not what defines atheism.

Atheism is a belief.

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

I don't believe it's true, is identical as saying I believe it's not true.

Preposterous sophistry. this mantra so many theists have adopted here is now sounding almost like Orwellian double think.

your words here, is a belief something is not true. Therefore, Atheism is a belief.

Is that what he said? Lets take a look.

(is this big enough, do you think?) that it "isn't real", necessarily - no. That it "isn't going to be accepted or believed lightly" - yes

So no, not his words at all. More Orwellian double think?

It is a belief in the non-reality of God. It is a belief that God does not exist. It is a belief,

Wow, you really are making it your Orwellian mantra, but chanting it won't make it true. My atheism is a lack of belief, and atheism is defined that way. Why is it so annoying for you that I disbelieve in a deity, but stop short of asserting an unevidenced claim, or belief that no deity exists?

It wouldn't be to distract from the fact you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity would it?

EDIT: Would it cheer theists up if I said I was an agnostic, who does not believe in any deity or deities, or anything supernatural?

 

[Kenny]

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!

I just saw this...

Where in the world did you come to a conclusion like that?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I just saw this...

Where in the world did you come to a conclusion like that?

Either I missed a post in our exchange there or you just stopped responding. Maybe you missed one? I have no idea. At any rate, 'perception is reality' as the saying goes. I would think theists would normally like sayings like that. Perhaps not when it is used against them, I suppose. Take care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know you didn't ask me... but my answer would be "all of them." All the thousands. I believe in none of them. I mean, evidence of a thing needs to be presented for me to even be aware of that thing in the first place, let alone "believe" in it. And I absolutely love your quote - because in my case, that means that none of them exist!

Look at it this way - let's say you said "I don't believe in fairy tale creatures" as a general statement when I state that I believe in at least one fairy tale creature, and then I came back at you with "Which fairy tale creature did you have in mind when you say you don't believe in them?" That series of statements and question is exactly as relevant as your setup about God/gods. You have an idea what someone would consider a "fairy tale creature" and to say you don't believe that any of them exist is not some crazy leap of the imagination, and you wouldn't consider yourself "intellectually remiss" or any such thing by making that statement, would you?

And let's say I provides you a list, after you make that statement, and it goes like this:

1. Unicorns
2. Fairies
3. Leprechauns
4. Vampires
5. Griffins
6. Manticores
7. Baggledeguppits

You hit that last one, and you say, "Hold up - what's a Baggledeguppit?"
And I reply, "Well, it's a penguin that lives in the Falklan Islands."
"Why isn't it just called a penguin, and why is it on this list of what are supposed to be fairy tale creatures?" you ask.
And then I say "Ha! I told you fairy tale creatures are real!"

That's how the "god" conversation tends to go, I have found, when people are trying to frame it up like you are. Like it literally matters "which god." Generally, the atheist is talking about the supernatural, omnipotent or super-powerful being from some alternate realm, or who watches over our realm intently, or is some being (thinking, distinct, and cognizant) supposedly woven into the fabric of everything. All those ideas are particularly ARBITRARY. And, in the end, if you define God as "everything in existence" then I am going to ask "Why not just call it everything?" - which is exactly the same as asking why a penguin would be on a list of fairy tale creatures. Do you see?

Seems to me that your approach needs some refinement. After all, there are plenty of regular, non-magical horses in fairy tales.

Personally, I find the question "which god?" useful because my response varies depending on the god. I certainly don't think that a god is necessarily omnipotent, for instance. In fact, most of the gods humanity has believed in haven't been omnipotent.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Seems to me that your approach needs some refinement. After all, there are plenty of regular, non-magical horses in fairy tales.

This is true, but, just like the word "god" in the question originally posed the gist is what is being employed here - and that gist does end up being slightly different across varying people. When "fairy tale" is evoked I think of the ones that aren't just normal, everyday Earth creatures. Some people may think differently - like you, obviously. This is all part of the need for clarity, but also I think a lot of times people like to try and clarify a thing to death to try and turn it into something they know the other person wasn't really going after.

Personally, I find the question "which god?" useful because my response varies depending on the god. I certainly don't think that a god is necessarily omnipotent, for instance. In fact, most of the gods humanity has believed in haven't been omnipotent.

This makes sense... but I can't bother knowing or learning the attributes of every god. Not going to happen. I simply refuse. If someone has the true-to-life-goods, then it will be brought to our attention soon enough... that I think we can count on in this age of fast and prevalent information. Anyone without... well... that's currently everyone by that measure. And, in the end, I don't care about the gods of people who aren't bringing them to my attention. Just don't care. They aren't bothering me in the slightest.

 

[Kenny]

Either I missed a post in our exchange there or you just stopped responding. Maybe you missed one? I have no idea. At any rate, 'perception is reality' as the saying goes. I would think theists would normally like sayings like that. Perhaps not when it is used against them, I suppose. Take care.

OK... Just for the record...

Don't be like @KenS. Don't fear and secretly run off into a corner and cry and lament that your life means nothing.

Though it wasn't me... I would totally agree that people shouldn't run to a corner, cry and lament that their life means nothing.

Every life is important and can have impact. In my world view, God created everyone with identity, purpose and destiny. We may get confused in the journey, but it is still within each of us.

 

[Windwalker]

Not cynicism at all... as you clearly just admitted to exactly what i thought you were doing - trying to get me to affirm things that you were then intent on trying to get me to be seen "backpedaling" out of.

My being "nice" to you wasn't for that reason. I generally try to be nice as a matter of course. For instance, I refrain from using 74 point fonts and bold type to shout at members when I feel frustrated. Personally, I don't need to do that because I know my arguments can stand on solid ground in just normal type font, and I don't get emotional about it because I know what I'm talking about and don't feel insecure in defending my views.

So, you see - where I come directly at you, and you know in engaging with me that the fight is "to the death" (metaphorically, of course) - so that you might be prepared to dodge, or escape as needed, you, on the other hand, "play nice", hoping only to catch me off-guard and then make a killing blow right at the end, all while I didn't even know that the contest was as serious as all that. And you even go on to demonstrate this further...

This sounds like a projection. I'm pretty much just doing this because it's cold and rainy outside and it's mildly entertaining to me. Plus, I am of the belief that reason and rationality will ultimately prevail against fallacious emotional logic.

oh shoot... another one of your type of people who is super duper sensitive to the use of various font sizes and capitalization.

My type of people? LOL! That's good. No I'm not sensitive to it. I'm amused seeing it. It tells me just how weak the person I'm debating with actually feels about their own arguments that they think that makes them stronger somehow.

i guess i will have to resort to keeping all my text in lowercase so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities.

You could just come up with a better presented and reasoned arguments so you feel a need to resort to histrionics in your posts.

i apologize for all of the dire pain you must have felt when i was varying the size and weight of my text. you must have really, really found it hard to concentrate or glean the meaning of what i was typing. again... sorry. i will not let it happen again.

Are you sure? You have this under control now?

not going to let you do this, you completely disingenuous, disgustingly dishonest person you.

Oh dear! Resorting to personal attacks too now? Placing yourself in a position for a moderator to see you violating forum rules? You may need to take a break before posting and getting yourself into trouble. I won't report this, but won't promise someone else might not.

Anyway, I've supported my point abundantly clear, and you've made it abundantly clear you don't have a leg to stand on by your shouting and personal attacks. You've lost the debate.

 

[Sheldon]

So we're 33 pages in, and I have another question.

I do not believe in any deity or deities, or anything supernatural, but I do not hold a belief no deity exists, as such a broad claim seems unfalsifiable.

What adjective or adjectives do people think this describes?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

OK... Just for the record...



Though it wasn't me... I would totally agree that people shouldn't run to a corner, cry and lament that their life means nothing.

Every life is important and can have impact. In my world view, God created everyone with identity, purpose and destiny. We may get confused in the journey, but it is still within each of us.

I am glad you wanted to set the record straight. I admire that, truly. And I am sorry for implying what I did apparently without all the facts I should have had at my disposal. I think I may be able to delete the post, though I am sure it is too late to edit it. I will go check now.

 

[Sheldon]

Every life is important

Something we can agree on.

I think any decent society must recognise the inherent value of a single human life.

I suspect this will be a short lived concord, as I do not extend this in an unlimited fashion to a developing foetus or blastocyst, and certainly not in a way that would enslave the woman whose body it was developing in by taking away her bodily autonomy.

 

[Sheldon]

Anyway, I've supported my point abundantly clear, and you've made it abundantly clear you don't have a leg to stand on

I don't believe either of those claims are true.

 

[lukethethird]

So we're 33 pages in, and I have another question.

I do not believe in any deity or deities, or anything supernatural, but I do not hold a belief no deity exists, as such a broad claim seems unfalsifiable.

What adjective or adjectives do people think this describes?

No deities exist is a falsifiable claim because all one has to do to falsify it is to present us with evidence of a god.

 

[Kenny]

I am glad you wanted to set the record straight. I admire that, truly. And I am sorry for implying what I did apparently without all the facts I should have had at my disposal. I think I may be able to delete the post, though I am sure it is too late to edit it. I will go check now.

No biggy! I'm perfectly fine (no need to try to find it and correct it).

Hope you have a great rest of your day.

 

[Kenny]

Something we can agree on.

I think any decent society must recognise the inherent value of a single human life.

.

Finding agreement is always a move forward IMO.