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

[Windwalker]

What's relevant is that you're a theist

Am I? Have I said that, or are you just telling me I am while I don't consider myself one? Why do you assume I identify myself as such? Because I call out atheists who erroneously deny that atheism is a belief? That makes me a theist in your mind? You're either one or the other mentality at play here?

Aren't there other options than just those two?

and it is theists that are the ones making claims of invisible gods out there.

I would never refer to God as "out there". I am not a traditional theist which believe the Divine is external to creation. Here's what traditional theism says: Platonism and Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Traditional Theism understands God to be the creative source for his own existence, as well as for the existence of all reality existing outside of himself.
​

I do not believe there is any "outside" to the Divine. I am a nondualist, not a dualist.

If there were no theists making such claims there would be no one saying, "wait a minute." Atheism is predicated on there being theists, big difference because there is no "coin" if there are no theists.

You are arguing for the point I am making! Atheism is a response to theism. Atheism is the flipside of the theist coin. And to your point, you are correct! If theism did not exist, neither would atheism! You agree with me. Atheism is a belief about the existence of God.

BTW, why is it you don't feel free to share your views? I am merely puzzled why you list your religion as Christian, yet speak as if you are an atheist? I'm fine with that. I personally know Christians who don't believe in God and consider themselves atheists. I think that shows a lot of faith and courage to say that, to challenge the status quo.

I'll make you a deal. You explain your views to me, and I'll explain my views to you? Okay?

 

[Augustus]

But not the belief you keep on stating the atheist must necessarily hold. Do you get that? It isn't a belief about the existence of God - it is a belief about the amount of evidence it takes to get to the stage of actually having a belief one way or the other on the "existence of God" question.

You said: I believe that there is not enough evidence to find God in the position of "existence."

It thus very much is a belief about the existence of god.

Please - go ahead and tell me that you have not been characterizing it as a "belief that there is no God." Given your plethora of posts stating exactly that, this should be interesting.

Why would I want to do that? As I've said repeatedly, I see the difference as grammatical rather than cognitive. For a given individual, stuff they don't think exists doesn't exist. We disagree on this point, it's fine.

But the main thing my dear Mote, given the OP, is that you have noted your atheism is indeed a belief, and that one is not lying when they say this

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists, when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief, so that atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'.

No, people with no god belief who recognize the limits of knowledge and the inability to rule gods out (and therefore haven't) are defining the word atheism in a way that includes them. Nothing sinister or dishonest there, as you imply. No effort to make defending atheism easier (atheists need no defense of their atheism, nor their avampirism). It's really of no concern to theists, but they seem to get bothered over it a lot. They seem to want to force atheists into a position most don't hold. One can only speculate why - how that benefits them or why they care.

Look at how many people on these threads have no idea what atheists actually believe as we can tell from their continual mischaracterization of what atheists actually tell them they believe. Why would the opinions of such people about atheists and atheism be of any value to unbelievers?

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'.

And there you go. Where are the actual atheists in that, the majority who say neither of those things?

when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism. An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

Is this a serious question? Do you not know how critical thinkers process information, or their criteria for belief?

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is risably false. The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless.

Your claim that atheists do that is risibly false. How many times have you read that atheism is a comment on only one possible belief? Of course atheists have thoughts and beliefs, and not only have never claimed otherwise, but spend a considerable amount of time and effort on RF explicating them, as I am doing now. Every word I've written reflects a belief of mine. Saying that I am an atheist means that none of those words will be "I believe in a god."

They always seem to insist on extremely literal readings of those Bible texts and vigorously fight any kind of allegorical interpretation

What allegorical interpretation? Falsely calling something an allegory when it is not that, but merely a wrong guess? That's not an allegorical interpretation, just another error. In an allegory, fictional characters and events stand for actual characters and events in history. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. That's an allegory. The author has a clear understanding of what he is allegorizing, and his characters and events stand in 1:1 correspondence with what he is allegorizing. We know what these things stand for, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known. Without that, you don't have allegory.

Biblical apologists are simply taking erroneous accounts and calling them allegory (or metaphor, which has the same requirement of referring to something specific). Biblical myths are not that. The mythopoeist is simply guessing about how the world got to be the way he sees it, and has guessed incorrectly. Calling myths allegories is what you do when you are committed to biblical inerrancy, and are not permitted to ever call any scripture incorrect.

What would you tell a child who didn't pay attention in his Big Bang class, and on the final, when asked to describe the evolution of the material universe and how it got to be the way we find it, wrote something that resembled a creation myth? Suppose he was enamored of the Vikings, and wrote, "The world was created from the remains of the giant Ymir. Three brothers dragged Ymir's lifeless body towards the center of Ginnungagap, the place where they created the world from the remains of Ymir. The blood became the oceans, rivers, and lakes. The flesh became the land."

You give him his F, then he tells you it was an allegory. "No, Billy, it's just wrong."

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning you have to have the right beliefs. At the top of the list is belief in One God.

Many non-Christians don't use what believers use as their criteria for being a Christian. I don't use any theological criteria. Christians do, and call each other fake Christians for not holding the right beliefs, such as not true Christians because they worship saints or because they don't.

Also, I don't care how closely they approximate the model of Christ in the New Testament. Hitler's behavior doesn't make him No True Christian to me.

So, I use the definition that the surveys that conclude that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world use - they self-identify as Christian. They see themselves as Christian. They may never go to a church or read the Bible or pray, because it's not what matters about such people to me. My interest in Christianity, the dominant religion in the part of the world I live and have always lived in, is in organized, politicized religion, such as the effort in Texas to take abortion rights away. When people vote for candidates because they believe that they will give them that if elected because they self-identify as Christians and understand that that is a Christian goal, I am uninterested in their theology or their walk with Jesus.

When somebody tells you that they are Muslim, do you reserve judgment until you have a sense of their theology and how they life their lives? I don't. They're Muslim to me because they identify as Muslim. That's enough for me. I wouldn't even know how to judge them on those other criteria, since I don't know the religion.

How about you? You're a Jew. Although I was raised by atheist parents, they called themselves Jewish. Neither ever mentioned a god, nor took us to synagogue, nor celebrated the High Holy Holidays. Their friends were mostly secular Jews with names like Hyman and Pinsky. They liked to eat ethnic food - kreplach, latkes, bagels with shmear. They liked Borscht belt comedians. They used a lot of Yiddish words (when I introduced my shiksa wife-to-be to my mother, she proudly announced that she was a shi.tzu to the amusement of all).

But they were atheists. All of them, as are my sister and I.

My point is that most of these people would call themselves Jews. Would you? I would, because that's how they self-identify. My sister and I, a generation later, don't call ourselves Jewish, and are much less acculturated to things Jewish than our parents were, but theologically, we're the same as they were. Who's right? I say all of us.

 

[Augustus]

Except I'm an atheist, and I am not taking a stance, I'm disbelieving one.

"This stance that I'm taking regarding the existence of god isn't a stance it's a non-stance"

Ok, super. Makes sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So which one is the one [god] out of the thousands that you have in mind when you say you're an atheist? Surely you must have something in mind to say you don't believe in God when you say that.

Really? You still don't know what the atheist is telling theists? You think they've rejected one specific god?

Usually, we are dealing with a theist who refers to "God," which I assume means that he has an idea of what god he means, so, as long as he means a conscious, supernatural universe creator, the answer is none without knowing which one he means.

"I don't believe God exists". "I believe God does not exist". These are both saying exactly the same thing.

Do you not understand that when you make a comment like this, it undermines every other thing you say about these topics? You can't tell them apart? To me, this is like a guy with red-green color blindness with a red sock and a green sock telling me doesn't see a difference, puts them both on, and proceeds to give others fashion advice.

Or maybe you were just being careless with language. There are very few times that contradictory statements mean the same thing, and even then, not exactly the same thing. "Maybe it is" means the same as "Maybe it isn't," but they aren't exactly the same thing. They imply different hopes or expectations without disagreeing.

Again, I don't self-identify as a theist. I see theism and atheism as the exact same thing, just opposite points of view on the same question. But to answer your question, it would make me feel happier if you were to just acknowledge it's a belief, be happy with it, and own it as such.

Then you don't understand the people telling you they are atheists. So why would one who doesn't agree with you do as you suggest? It would make me happier if you were to acknowledge what atheism is, be happy with it, and own it as such.

You imply that atheists are trying to avoid calling their atheism a belief for a tactical reason. The reason I see suggested most is to escape having to defend the straw man position that theists like to say we formerly held. If so, that is completely wrong. I never believed that, which is why I have adopted the contemporary definition of atheist.

If you assume that atheists have always believed what theists since at least as early as Noah Webster say we believe, then you'll see that as a change in claims when it never was, and assign all sorts of unflattering motives to a change that never happened. Atheists haven't changed because they have adopted new nomenclature. They still don't believe in gods, but now, they're telling theist that for most of us, it doesn't now and never did mean a belief that god's don't exist. That's the theists' definition, which always was and still is useless to the agnostic atheist.

 

[Colt]

It's called general religious debate forum, or is debate another word theists have their own version of? When religions stop peddling ethics and morality from bronze age patriarchal Bedouins, as if they are absolute truth, and trying to distort science and education with superstitious creation myths, then I will ignore them. If someone voices an opinion in public then others have the right to comment, Tedious isn't it, uppity atheists exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Theists in Afghanistan don't put up with this of course, food for thought, the Taliban, and of course the regime in Saud Arabia are also quite strict about atheists submitting religious beliefs to critical scrutiny. Luckily in the free west, we allow people freedom of expression, a lot of countries think this is quite important.

Food for thought here, but good ideas can withstand critical scrutiny, and I would love for someone to explain the rationale that atheists shouldn't have a voice, even a collective voice to challenge the worst excesses of religions.

Oh you should have a voice and feel welcome, I bet you are a swell person, I'm just pointing out that you have an agenda and a religious like belief in a godless universe, a doctrine of sorts that you are promoting.

 

[Sheldon]

Because I call out atheists who erroneously deny that atheism is a belief? That makes me a theist in your mind?

I agree, that doesn't make you a theist, just wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You said: I believe that there is not enough evidence to find God in the position of "existence."

It thus very much is a belief about the existence of god.



Why would I want to do that? As I've said repeatedly, I see the difference as grammatical rather than cognitive. For a given individual, stuff they don't think exists doesn't exist. We disagree on this point, it's fine.

But the main thing my dear Mote, given the OP, is that you have noted your atheism is indeed a belief, and that one is not lying when they say this

Unfortunately, you are STILL to be found disregarding my actual position, and attempting to make light of the FACT that you have misrepresented myself often and at length throughout this entire thread. I get why you are trying to dodge scrutiny on this (your desperate "thumbs up" emoji is not lost on me), but no - you shall not get away so easily. You have repeatedly stated that you will only accept that the position to be entirely "There is no God" centered - and this is you mis-stating the position. In the end - there is just about nothing in this universe (save mathematical principles perhaps), that one could not boil down to being a "belief" - either in axioms or in the state of what is being witnessed/perceived, etc. but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about a very specific instance of belief, and what it is targeted at. The target isn't "God" - the target is the evidence. I don't believe there to be enough evidence to warrant convicting God of "existence." It's not that I "believe God does not exist." No... again - I am shelving the idea - not willing to believe it positively, or believe that it does not exist - WITHOUT FURTHER CONFIRMATION BY WAY OF EVIDENCE EITHER WAY. You keep acting and stating that this position is impossible to hold, or only boils down to "grammar" (what the hell is this supposed to be anyway? it is just entirely weird that you took this route when you found your flagship crashing into a huge island of rocks).

Just answer this question (I know how little you like answering certain questions STRAIGHTLY, Augustus, so please try to stay on task here) - if you were one of the jurors who wanted to deliver the "guilty" verdict, but there was one hold-out, who would make it a hung jury, would you insist with that person that they believed the defendant were innocent? Is that a statement you would make to them when their actual, personal pronouncement was that they "were not convinced" that the defendant was guilty? To be sure, this is a "yes" or "no" question. In order to remain consistent with your abhorrent behavior in this thread, you must answer "yes." If you answer "no," then you admit to the plausibility of the exact scenario we self-professing atheists have been trying to get you to understand this entire time.

Remember... answer "yes" or "no" initially. After that, you can talk all the justification you want, I don't care. But a "yes" or "no" is what is being requested... if you have the balls. Seriously. If you have got the gumption, and are not afraid to do so, answer first "yes" or "no."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Aren't there other options than just those two?

wow! seriously? aren't you the one arguing this entire time that there are only two options in this whole "believe in God" versus "do not believe God exists" debate?

i don't think you get to make an appeal to there being "more options." you are the cut-and-dry-guy here. the master of "black and white."

oh... and i am just going to throw this in here like a complete idiot who has no idea what he is talking about might do: "you lost the debate." hahahaha!

 

[Sheldon]

I'm just pointing out that you have an agenda and a religious like belief in a godless universe, a doctrine of sorts that you are promoting.

If I have an agenda it is to try and believe only what is objectively true, by withholding belief from claims if they are unsupported by objective evidence. I'm not biased against any particular beliefs and that's why I set the same standard for them all.

My atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of one. I'm pretty sure eradicating religions theistic or otherwise is impossible, and nor am I sure I'd want to anyway. People clearly derive comfort and succour from such beliefs, rather I should like to curb any pernicious influence religions try to exert.

I know the natural physical universe exists, as do we all I assume. I just don't believe the addition of any deity is evidenced in any objective way, or adds anything to help us understand how the universe functions or came to exist. I am not intentionally promoting atheism, no. Though it might appear that way when I publicly submit theistic claims to critical scrutiny. I also think religious freedoms are better protected by a secular government, that doesn't interfere in what people choose to believe or disbelieve.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some questions for the group:

1. How would you distinguish 'atheism' from 'agnosticism'?

Not, as they deal with different subjects.

2. Atheists seem to be moving en-masse towards agnosticism.

Meaning: most atheists seem to be agnostic atheists.
As in: they don't believe gods exist and they don't pretend to know that gods don't exist or claim to be able to disprove the existence of gods.

I'm agnostic about extra-dimensional aliens in the exact same way.
I can't prove they aren't real and have no reason to believe they are real. So I don't believe them to be real.

So why are atheists so reluctant to re-identify themselves as agnostics?

Because most atheists are both.
They don't believe in gods, which makes them atheists.
They don't know gods don't exist so they are agnostic.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Why try instead to redefine the meaning of the word 'atheist' so that it essentially becomes synonymous with agnostic?

It isn't synynomous with it. One is a qualifier of the other.
You can be an agnostic theist also.

(a)gnosticism deals with knowledge.
(a)theism deals with beliefs (pertaining to theistic claims).

Java is a platform agnostic programming language. It doesn't know if it runs on a mac or a windows pc.

3. If atheism supposedly does not imply beliefs but only the lack of beliefs, why are atheists typically so full of beliefs on religion discussion boards?

Such as?

(They remind me of religious fundamentalists, always preaching.) There's supposedly no evidence for divine realities (a belief). Religious belief is supposedly "unfalsifiable" (a belief). Belief in divinities is supposedly equivalent to belief in invisible pink unicorns (a belief). Theism is supposedly the cause of no end of evils in human history (a belief). It would supposedly be a great step in human progress is we could just free ourselves from religion (a belief).

Atheists believe a lot of things, as do all humans.
None of these things you mentioned defines their atheism however.
What defines their atheism is their lack of belief in very specific claims of theism.

You need to believe specific claims to be a theist.
You are an atheist, when you don't hold those specific beliefs.

That's it. That doesn't mean you can't hold any beliefs about other things.

So isn't the insistence that atheism is nothing more than absence of belief a LIE?

No. At best, it's incomplete. It nothing more then the absence of belief of specific claims of theism.

4. Do you think that there's any philosophical value in maintaining the distinction between the epistemological position that transcendental matters aren't/can't be known by human beings, and the ontological position of whether or not religious style divinities exist? If there's value in the distinction, then doesn't it make sense to give them different names?

The distinction is that (a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and (a)theism pertains to beliefs concerning theistic claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure, of coarse, an atheist just looking for conversation, a place to discuss “ideas” and “current events” happens to join a “Religious Forum.”

Yep. Is there a problem?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have sympathised with state atheism in the past as a communist, but I shudder somewhat when I think about restrictions on religious freedom and the harms it would do the people personally for simply believing in something or pursuing their faith. There isn’t any real difference between communists doing it and nazis persecuting jews, or for that matter christians persecuting pagans, jews or burning witches.
As to your question of what happens, the USSR did ban Christmas and after intense repressions failed in the Stalin era ironically Christmas celebrations didn’t disappear but survived and evolved. People celebrated it on new years eve and new years day instead, with gift giving, new years “trees” and the Russian version of Santa delivering gifts to children. They had new years cards, which had a soviet twist with patriotic themes such as space exploration. The same thing happened in Eastern Europe as well and there continue to be new year celebrations in former communist countries.
The Christian faith was most definitely tested and, in the end, they won. So have a little more faith in yourself.

Thank you for the ^ above^ information.
'So-called Christians' persecuted pagans, Jews, etc. as Jesus said MANY would prove false at Matthew 7:21-23
Not just in the past, but I find state atheism as a communist still persecutes genuine 'wheat' Christians.
Seems as if that state is proving to be the modern-day biblical King of the North.
Changing December 25 to January 1 still makes so-called Christmas biblically wrong. Not biblical truth.
So, it may 'appear' that 'Christendom' (so-called Christian) was tested and won.
As soon as the modern-day political surprisingly turns on the religious world - 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 - then all will know how wrong the made-up celebration of Jesus' so-called birth day was and still is.

 

[Sheldon]

Not, as they deal with different subjects.



Meaning: most atheists seem to be agnostic atheists.
As in: they don't believe gods exist and they don't pretend to know that gods don't exist or claim to be able to disprove the existence of gods.

I'm agnostic about extra-dimensional aliens in the exact same way.
I can't prove they aren't real and have no reason to believe they are real. So I don't believe them to be real.



Because most atheists are both.
They don't believe in gods, which makes them atheists.
They don't know gods don't exist so they are agnostic.

I am an agnostic atheist.




It isn't synynomous with it. One is a qualifier of the other.
You can be an agnostic theist also.

(a)gnosticism deals with knowledge.
(a)theism deals with beliefs (pertaining to theistic claims).

Java is a platform agnostic programming language. It doesn't know if it runs on a mac or a windows pc.



Such as?





Atheists believe a lot of things, as do all humans.
None of these things you mentioned defines their atheism however.
What defines their atheism is their lack of belief in very specific claims of theism.

You need to believe specific claims to be a theist.
You are an atheist, when you don't hold those specific beliefs.

That's it. That doesn't mean you can't hold any beliefs about other things.



No. At best, it's incomplete. It nothing more then the absence of belief of specific claims of theism.



The distinction is that (a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and (a)theism pertains to beliefs concerning theistic claims.

Very good post, very well written and argued.

 

[Windwalker]

That's not how definitions are derived though. If we abandon common usage we lose clarity.

If we don't look deeper than common use, we lose meaningful understanding. Which furthers our understandings, which then eventually becomes common usage. If we just follow the lowest common denominator, which dictionary definitions generally represent, then knowledge and growth halts.

You do realize that language evolves, don't you? That words and their means are not fixed and static things, defined by the average lay person? That's not how language works. That's why we need to dig deeper than surface definitions. Dictionaries are not the Word of God. So why treat them as such? A hangover from fundamentalist Christianity?

Why is it so hard for theists to grasp there are different kinds of atheists, and atheism must necessarily encompass them all?

Why do you persist in assuming I'm a theist? I do understand atheism quite well, as I called myself one for at least 10 years of my adult life. It was around 10 years ago now that I dropped that label, as I realized the it did not reflect where I had grown to in my understandings. It was limited to the theistic question, which I now consider moot. I see both theism and atheism as flip sides of the same coin. They're both looking at the same thing, using the same language, one in favor, one opposed.

I don't have any problem however in recognizing such things as 'strong atheism', or 'weak atheism', or even 'agnosticism'. Yes, there is a spectrum that self-identified atheists will fall upon. I respect that. However, I absolutely reject such fallacious arguments that says all people who are not theists, are by default atheists! That is bogus. Children are NOT atheists. Babies are not atheists. Cats and cows, trees and rocks, are not atheists either. That's ridiculous.

What is this desperation to assign belief to all atheists?

The love of truth. Wishing to accept and face reality. Logic. Reason. Rationality. Language. I wouldn't call that desperation. I call that insistence. If an atheist claims any of the above as matters of integrity, then they need to follow them, not lie about their disbelief as somehow not a belief, because it makes them sound religious or something or other. I see all of that as an allergy to the word belief, and dishonest rationalizing to try not face the facts.

There is nothing wrong is accepting atheism is a belief. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Own it. Embrace it. I did. Certainly other atheists do. I see another poster who identifies as an atheist in this thread mirroring what I am saying. So why are you so desperate to deny it?

I accept there are all manner of theists, and if they tell me what they think or believe or don't believe for that matter, I take them at their word, yet they won't reciprocate.

You're not taking me at my word. You keep saying I'm a theist, when every time you say it, I tell you I don't identify myself as one. Nor do I identify as atheist anymore for the same reason. Why don't you accept that?

I've lost track of the number of theists on here who've claim all humans are born with an innate belief in the spiritual, and not once do I recall a theist protesting? Now this....

I would call that just as dishonest as claim atheism is the default position! As I said, all of that is just flipsides fo the same coin. "They're theists by default! No! They're atheists by default!" See?

 

[stevecanuck]

No, people with no god belief who recognize the limits of knowledge and the inability to rule gods out (and therefore haven't) are defining the word atheism in a way that includes them. Nothing sinister or dishonest there, as you imply. No effort to make defending atheism easier (atheists need no defense of their atheism, nor their avampirism). It's really of no concern to theists, but they seem to get bothered over it a lot. They seem to want to force atheists into a position most don't hold. One can only speculate why - how that benefits them or why they care.

I can explain the underlined when it comes to Islam. In the Qur'an Allah complains of disbelief in Him literally hundreds of times. For example, in verse 29:68 Allah asks the rhetorical question, "And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him?". Seriously? Is that really the worst wrong a person can do? It is according to Islam. As I said, there are many hundreds of similar verses, but this one really puts a bow on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because if they don't teach those things they aren't christian churches.

Try going to ChristianForums.com. You will find that there are definite belief requirements for who can identify as Chrsitian, beginning with a belief in God.

So what? I am a member there. That is only their definition of being a Christian. They are nowhere near the middle when it comes to Christianity. They are mostly a group of extremists.

 

[Augustus]

1. How would you distinguish 'atheism' from 'agnosticism'?

Bertrand Russell on whether he considered himself an atheist or an agnostic:

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go. When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.

 

[Sheldon]

Windwalker
If we don't look deeper than common use, we lose meaningful understanding. Which furthers our understandings, which then eventually becomes common usage. If we just follow the lowest common denominator, which dictionary definitions generally represent, then knowledge and growth halts.

Clarity through common usage is not "the lowest common denominator, that makes no sense, and accepting that there is a common usage doesn't stop anything, that is demonstrably false, since that is how dictionaries have always functioned and yet words and language still evolve. What we are talking about here is current common usage, that doesn't mean we can't examine other nuanced or deeper meanings.

You do realize that language evolves, don't you?

You do realise atheism has evolved into it's current definition because most people use it to mean a lack or absence of belief, don't you?

words and their means are not fixed and static things, defined by the average lay person?

Straw man, since I have never claimed they do, they are however derived from common usage, and dictionaries are reference tools to aid clarity. And it is clear that current common usage defines atheism as a lack or absence of belief. That definition also encompasses all nuanced positions atheists hold, whereas defining it as a belief demonstrably excludes atheists like myself, so whether we use the dictionary or reason here I'm not see how your claim makes any sense or is progressing our knowledge here.

Dictionaries are not the Word of God. So why treat them as such? A hangover from fundamentalist Christianity?

Another straw man I haven't remotely claimed, and that last sentence is hilarious. Your sophistry aside here, I could not have gone to much more trouble to explain the rationale of why the current definition makes sense. Though some people have resorted their absolute arbitrary opinion here, I certainly have not.

Why do you persist in assuming I'm a theist?

My apologies for the error.

I do understand atheism quite well, as I called myself one for at least 10 years of my adult life.

Ok, but you don't understand my atheism clearly, or that of many others here, as they have taken great pains to explain it does not involve a belief that no deity exists, and they and I have taken great pains to explain why?

It was around 10 years ago now that I dropped that label, as I realized the it did not reflect where I had grown to in my understandings. It was limited to the theistic question, which I now consider moot.

Well I am happy for you to believe or disbelieve as your reason dictates, ironically it is you and others who are not extending me that courtesy.

I see both theism and atheism as flip sides of the same coin. They're both looking at the same thing, using the same language, one in favor, one opposed.

Which you're entitled to, as I am entitled to not see it that way.

I don't have any problem however in recognizing such things as 'strong atheism', or 'weak atheism', or even 'agnosticism'. Yes, there is a spectrum that self-identified atheists will fall upon. I respect that. However, I absolutely reject such fallacious arguments that says all people who are not theists, are by default atheists! That is bogus. Children are NOT atheists. Babies are not atheists. Cats and cows, trees and rocks, are not atheists either. That's ridiculous.

Well they may seem ridiculous, but it is clear that atheism in its broadest sense encompasses anyone that lacks theistic belief. However if you disagree that's your call, but where we part company is when you insist my atheism is a belief as if I don't know my own mind, or how I arrived at my atheism.

The love of truth. Wishing to accept and face reality. Logic. Reason. Rationality. Language. I wouldn't call that desperation. I call that insistence.

If I tell you I do not believe in any deity or deities, and that my atheism categorically does not involve a belief no deity exists, which by the way would be an absolute, and you seem to arguing strongly against absolutes, then how is it a love of truth for anyone to deny that, as if you or they know better than me what I think?

an atheist claims any of the above as matters of integrity, then they need to follow them, not lie about their disbelief as somehow not a belief,

So you love truth so much, you even know what I consider to be true, even when I tell you categorically that is not the case? That doesn't sound like a love of the truth to me, that sounds like a closed minded bias, insisting you know better than me what I think.

I see all of that as an allergy to the word belief, and dishonest rationalizing to try not face the facts.

You're wrong, as that is not my rationale at all, and I think I know better than you or anyone else what I think, and how I arrived at my lack of belief.

There is nothing wrong is accepting atheism is a belief.

Well I disagree, and have explained exhaustively the reason is that it would exclude me and many other atheists from atheism, even though I and they, don't believe in any deity or deities, that is what is wrong with it, and again I am demonstrably not alone in that rationale. In this thread the majority of atheists have resoundingly pointed out you are wrong in labelling their atheism a belief.

It's nothing to be ashamed of. Own it. Embrace it. I did. Certainly other atheists do.

I'm not ashamed of anything no matter how many times you misrepresent me as such, and I have a mind of my own, and don't need to parrot the beliefs or rationale of others. My atheism is not a belief. What other atheists think or believe is up to them.

So why are you so desperate to deny it?

I am not desperate, but I deny it because it isn't true, since my atheism is not a belief. Why are you so desperate to tell me what I think? I don't tell you what to think. Again since this isn't sinking in, my atheism is not a belief. I get to decide that, not you, or anyone else. The desperation here is manifestly others trying to label me in line with what they think and believe, and in direct contradiction of what I have told them I think and believe or do not believe.

You're not taking me at my word. You keep saying I'm a theist, when every time you say it, I tell you I don't identify myself as one. Nor do I identify as atheist anymore for the same reason. Why don't you accept that?

I do accept it, I was mistaken and have apologised for the error.

As I said, all of that is just flipsides fo the same coin. "They're theists by default! No! They're atheists by default!" See?

Oh understand it, I just don't agree. A baby isn't born believing in anything, therefore it lacks theistic belief, ipso facto it is an atheist, it just didn't arrive at that lack of belief, as I and others have.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I dropped that label, as I realized the it did not reflect where I had grown to in my understandings... Babies are not atheists. Cats and cows, trees and rocks, are not atheists either. That's ridiculous.

so, with your now 'grown up' (i didn't miss this, by the way) labeling and what-not, windwalker, would you consider babies and cats and cows (trees and rocks notwithstanding because, as far as we can tell, they don't have things approaching the category of 'thoughts' in the first place), as "non-believers" when questioning whether or not they believe in god? i know they do not have exposure to the proposition, but as far as "belief in god" goes, what would you call them? simply ignorant of the notion?

now, consider that as a possible state to be in - simply ignorant of the notion of god or gods. this state obviously (even you would have to admit) does indeed exist. i think you would have to agree with me that certainly babies are there, in that state, where they have no belief about god - neither that he/she/it exists, nor that he/she/it doesn't exist. would you agree with all that?

such that, a position wherein one does not have a positive belief about god, in either sense, regarding his/her/its existence is a possible and real thing, right?

now - consider, once one has been exposed, you're saying it is then impossible to claim ignorance of this type (something that surely must exist as a possible state to be in) from that moment forward, such that you don't feel one can claim that they are ignorant of whether or not 'god exists' is a true statement on the question of 'belief' specifically. once exposed, they simply have to fall on one side of the fence you have proposed. that being that they either accept and support the proposition 'god exists' or that they accept and support the proposition 'god does not exist.'