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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A global watermark involves the 'water' in the many world-wide Flood legends of a few survivors in a boat.

A global watermark in this context refers to physical evidence of the entire earth being submerged, not assorted flood myths. There is compelling physical evidence both that this flood never occurred and that the ark also couldn't have existed (impossible to collect the animals, craft impossible to build without the technology Ken Ham had including 1000s of men, cranes, trucks bringing, and metal fasteners, and more). There isn't enough water on the earth including atmospheric water, aquifers, glaciers, etc. to submerge all dry land, and if there were, all land would be submerged now.

Biblical faith is Not credulity (blind faith) but 'confidence' in Scripture as Jesus had put his faith, his belief.

Confidence without sufficient supporting evidence is credulity. Belief can broadly be divided into two parts - that which is sufficiently supported by evidence and that which isn't. What you are describing is the latter, and believing in that manner is the very definition of credulity.

If that juror in question was undecided, then he is an agnostic not an atheist. If someone off the street who didn't even know what the trial was about was to be called a juror, then that's ridiculous. That is what is happening when an atheist claims people who don't even know what the question is, like young children, are atheists.

If we want to make the metaphor apt, we ask the question, "Do you believe the defendant is guilty?" Those who say yes play the role of the theist. Those who say no, the atheist. The latter group will include those who think the defendant is innocent and vote not guilty, those who can't decide and vote not guilty, and those who never heard of the defendant or the trial.

One can see that the most pragmatic way to group these four groups is into those who say guilty and those who don't think the defendant belongs in prison. To go on about the people who never heard about the trial and insist that they not be grouped with people who do not see guilt seems like a battle not worth fighting. What difference does it make if all unbelievers are called atheist? I suggest an answer to this question below.

What would an atheist answer to question: do you believe God does not exist? (Yes or no)

This atheist answers no for gods in general, yes for logically impossible gods, that is, gods described in mutually exclusive terms, like being perfect, yet making errors that it regrets and attempts to correct.

If you do not believe God exists, isn't it the very same as believing God doesn't exist?

No. Can't you imagine a third position that some people might take that is neither of these? Multiple atheists have articulated that third position in this thread alone.

Like I said. It's all tap dancing and a play on words in an attempt to make others think you are at a higher level than valuing beliefs which you are not.

But you don't understand what is being said, rendering your judgment of the quality of the claim irrelevant. You need to evaluate what is actually being said to be able to decide that it is tap dancing, not what you've changed it into.

You want atheism to be a belief because you want theism to be equally valid and reasonable when it is not.

I agree. Theists have a few reasons to make these arguments, yours being one. Toward that end, many also call science faith and atheism religion. That's to lower critical thinking to the level of faith.

Then, they'll also try to elevate faith to the level of science by presenting "scientific arguments," which convince no skeptics that know the actual science, but reassures theists that their beliefs have a strong empirical foundation. I saw an article from a creationist explaining how man could not be related to the other extant great apes because they have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man just 23, arguing that dropout of an entire chromosome would be lethal. I'm sure that's compelling to anybody that doesn't know about fused human chromosome 2, but only to them.

I suspect that the need to impose definitions on atheism as they do is to try to make the number of unbelievers appear small and insignificant. Of course, if you include the many euphemisms for atheist, such as skeptic, unbeliever, freethinker, agnostic (in place of agnostic atheist), you get a better sense of how many people live outside of theism and religion.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Nothing to disagree with there, I note as I have been saying much to the chagrin of others, Russel doesn't seem to think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Rather as agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism a lack of belief they can and do overlap.

"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."

Hmmm....

 

[Sheldon]

Of course what was perishable was destroyed with the Flood.
However, artifacts dating older than the Flood could survive.
The earth-wide Flood legends have a common thread of a few survivors in a Flood.

There was no global flood, let alone like the Noah myth, it is a falsifiable claim, and has been falsified, no geological record of it, and there simply isn't enough water on the earth to flood the entire globe 20ft above the highest mt peak, and where exactly would that go afterward, and of course vegetation would be utterly destroyed, as would all fresh water creatures.

The Noah myth is errant nonsense.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheism isn’t a belief. It is a worldview.

 

[Secret Chief]

Atheism isn’t a belief. It is a worldview.

Ooh good, another 40 pages

 

[Curious George]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

So after 40 pages have you come to realize that you cannot look up atheism in any dictionary and clearly see that atheism is not a belief?

 

[Augustus]

Nothing to disagree with there, I note as I have been saying much to the chagrin of others, Russel doesn't seem to think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Rather as agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism a lack of belief they can and do overlap.

Russell is very clearly discussing them as 2 distinct categories there. He would have just said "I'm an agnostic atheist" otherwise. He was speaking many years ago, before the modern redefinition of the terms so this is unsurprising.

His point is that from a philosophical standpoint he has to say we can never know, so technically he is agnostic.

However, he believes the existence of gods as such a tiny possibility that, in a practical sense, we can completely disregard it from having any influence on our lives.

That describes my atheism. Technically we can't know, but I believe its so unlikely I make no account for the existences of gods in any aspect of my decision making or worldview. That is why I think atheism is best described in terms of what we believe about the existence of gods, not some lack of belief.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism isn’t a belief. It is a worldview.

Don't be stupid.

It's not a worldview, it's a religion that leads to Communism

 

[Augustus]

No. Can't you imagine a third position that some people might take that is neither of these? Multiple atheists have articulated that third position in this thread alone.

Unsurprisingly for these threads, it's another completely subjective philosophical perspective though.

Is the difference simply linguistic, or does it relate to a meaningful difference between the positions?

What would it require to put something in a 3rd category and for this to be meaningful?

If people don't believe something exists and functionally operate under the assumption that it doesn't exist or at least don't make any allowances for the fact that it might exist, what are they doing that is different from a person who 'believes it doesn't exist'?

For a given individual, anything they don't think exists, doesn't exist (in a cognitive and practical sense).

If we have 3 groups, imo at least, they should they be:

a) People who takes no real account of X as they don't think it exists
b) People who may occasionally take account of X due to doubt/uncertainty about its existence
c) People who take account of X as they think it exists

In this practical sense, an atheist is anyone who doesn't take any account of the existence of gods, and there is no difference between 'believing god doesn't exist' and 'not believing god exists'.

The practical difference only becomes apparent when you give sufficient probability to the idea that gods might exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is the difference simply linguistic, or does it relate to a meaningful difference between the positions?

What would it require to put something in a 3rd category and for this to be meaningful?

The practical difference only becomes apparent when you give sufficient probability to the idea that gods might exist.

I gave an answer to the question asked, "If you do not believe God exists, isn't it the very same as believing God doesn't exist?" No, it's not. There is a third logically distinct category.

Meaningful? Yes. Two-thirds of most of these threads on the nomenclature surrounding atheism would disappear if that idea could be understood by most or all theists posting here. It's also meaningful to most agnostic atheists. I like to be correct. Neither saying that gods exist or do not is correct until one or the other can be ruled in or out. It is a non sequitur that doesn't follow from anything that might have preceded it, like so many other arguments that cull a candidate list of two or more logical possibilities down to one without cause (a leap of faith).

Practical? There's no practical difference between being an agnostic atheist and one who claims that gods do not exist. They live the same life - without a god belief and outside of religion. That single difference in opinion does not manifest in any way except when asked about belief. You cannot discern one from the other without getting an answer to that question, and after that, there are no other differences due to being atheist.

What meaningful to me is how many theists cannot conceive of the position of agnostic atheist, such as the poster I responded to. He doesn't make the distinction between the two kinds of atheists, and not because he rejects the claim of agnostic atheism, but because he cannot grasp the notion.

I find these things endlessly fascinating. I suppose it's because I still engage in false consensus, or the idea that we're all basically alike in the way we organize thought, some perhaps building more intricate mental maps, but the differences being mostly quantitative rather than qualitative.

But time on RF has shown me that this is not the case. I had originally assumed that if we were all roughly the same in the way we thought, it was just a matter of saying the right words the right way to get through, because the other guy had basically the same hardware and platform even if it were a less well developed version. Maybe that comes form school days, where we were all subjected to the same curriculum, and that we were all experiencing it the same way with varying degrees of intellect and interest, so that some of us got more than others.

Now I see that the differences are much more profound than that. Who knew what was really going on in these minds that cannot grasp such a simple idea as agnostic atheism? One simply cannot get these ideas into some heads to even be considered, much less rejected. That came as a surprise to me.

And I can see that it does with many other critical thinkers present. Their willingness to repeat a simple idea dozens of times suggests that they also think that they just haven't found the right words, that if they make it a little simpler and clearer, surely it will eventually be understood and considered.

But now I see that that is like not recognizing that someone is blind, and trying to teach him to read using printed material. He doesn't see your point. Nothing in his responses indicates that he has even read those words, much less understood them. He acts as if nothing were written.

So you simplify. He still doesn't see it. Of course, you and he are unaware of what the problem is. To keep the metaphor apt, you can't discern that he can't see, perhaps are unaware that blindness is even possible, and he can't discern that there are things he just can't see. He doesn't even know that some people can see.

You assume that the two of you are basically wired the same, but one of you has no visual pathway. And so, you just keep trying because of false consensus - the idea that he is fundamentally like you, when actually, he is radically different in a way you haven't yet discovered, nor even conceived to consider.

This is also meaningful to me, and has practical significance. Once I recognize that this is the case, I back off trying to get through. And it doesn't take long to see so once one has this concept in mind. Oh, here it is again.

 

[Augustus]

Practical? There's no practical difference between being an agnostic atheist and one who claims that gods do not exist. They live the same life - without a god belief and outside of religion. That single difference in opinion does not manifest in any way except when asked about belief. You cannot discern one from the other without getting an answer to that question, and after that, there are no other differences due to being atheist.

I'm basing this on the assumption that you can be an 'agnostic atheist' and believe gods don't exist. It's a statement of belief, not a claim of knowledge.

That's point, for me, is there is no practical difference, which suggests that the distinction is a linguistic construct.

If we spoke a language that didn't allow us to make such a distinction between 'believe doesn't' and 'doesn't believe', then it wouldn't exist.

So it comes down to a subjective judgment about whether linguistic distinctions with no practical difference are should be viewed as distinct positions.

What meaningful to me is how many theists cannot conceive of the position of agnostic atheist, such as the poster I responded to. He doesn't make the distinction between the two kinds of atheists, and not because he rejects the claim of agnostic atheism, but because he cannot grasp the notion.

The question doesn't relate to 'agnostic atheism' v 'gnostic atheism' though, it relates to a philosophical questions regarding belief, existence and logic.

I think there is often a failure to account for this in these debates which is why many people assume ignorance or bad faith as the only reason people could not accept their preferred judgements.

I think it is probable no gods exist to the extent I disregard their existence even though I accept I could be wrong on this. I also think this constitutes a belief no gods exist. Until I think I may actually consider accounting for the potential existence of gods, I think they don't exist

Another atheist who holds the exact same views about the existence of gods can see it as a grievous calumny to suggest this means the believe no gods exist or even that it constitutes a belief regarding the existence of gods at all.

They might well claim that other people who say their atheism is based on what they do believe rather than what beliefs they lack are lying, using a biased theist definition or claiming they 'better know better what I think than I do'.

But it's clearly just people basing their views on different, but legitimate, foundations.

 

[Windwalker]

What would it require to put something in a 3rd category and for this to be meaningful?

If people don't believe something exists and functionally operate under the assumption that it doesn't exist or at least don't make any allowances for the fact that it might exist, what are they doing that is different from a person who 'believes it doesn't exist'?

I think there is a subtle distinction to be made, but one I think might make a big difference in practice. That third possible category would be those who are simply unaware, or uniformed, or ignorant of the question, which would include all children under a certain age, or those who really were never exposed to religion much if at all. This group would be different from the atheist, defined as one who has consciously evaluated the God question and rejected it.

The reason they would not live life the same in practice is because the conscious atheist has rejected the idea, which limits and directs choices for them. It is a point of view that defined for them what reality is, and as such will play into determining where they go in the world of possibilities. The same thing applies for the theist. Both have created a filter system, in effect.

The 'unaware', or uninformed by contrast remain open, or unfiltered, or uncolorized. To me what best defines what an infant or a child is. The natural or 'default position' of a human being, is "openness". Natural wonder. Curiosity. Not being boxed into either theism or atheism. They are preprogrammed humans. Theism and atheism are programs. Those programs come later on. Once humans are programmed, possibilities become limited.

So functionally, even if some young person, say an adolescent who never really thought about God or religion is living their life, their responses to things in life will not be colorized by either an atheistic or theistic lens or filter. What is able to come through to the theist or the atheist will be limited by those filters. But not so with the unprogrammed, the filter-free perspective.

What they might see or think, might be novel to either the theist or the atheist because of this. And these subtle differences in view, can result in miles of difference in the end, as an inch shift in a direction at one point can take you to a whole other continent when you cross the sea. You get the general point.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism isn’t a belief. It is a worldview.

I agree with the first part, but the second part I'm dubious about. There is such a thing as an atheistic worldview, which is to say a worldview that encompasses atheism, but atheism isn't in itself a worldview, it is just the lack of belief in a diety or deities. How can an entire worldview be built around just the lack of one single belief?

At least that's definitely true for me anyway. My lack of belief in deities, has no more impact on my worldview than my lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster. My worldview is influenced by a wide variety of ideas, but lacking this one insignificant (to me) belief adds little, and would add nothing if religions (some of them) didn't wield such a nefarious influence globally.

 

[Sheldon]

So after 40 pages have you come to realize that you cannot look up atheism in any dictionary and clearly see that atheism is not a belief?

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

Oxford English
atheism
noun
Disbelief in the existence of God

Wiktionary
noun
3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist

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

 

[Sheldon]

Russell is very clearly discussing them as 2 distinct categories there.

Russel is very clear stating they are not mutually exclusive, he clearly states he was both an agnostic and an atheist depending on the concept of the deity imagined.

 

[Sheldon]

Don't be stupid.

It's not a worldview, it's a religion that leads to Communism

Ad hominem...athesim is a alck or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Communism is an economic ideology, and the former soviet union under Stalin used both the Russian Orthodox church and atheism to manipulate the populace. The Tsars ruled with the axiom that their absolute power was derived from "god", as of course have most monarchs throughout history, clearly the Bolsheviks used the concept of atheism to destroy that myth.

A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world, whilst it can encompassed the lack of belief in any deity, that is not in and of itself a worldview, not for me anyway, and I am an atheist, since I don't believe in any deity or deities.

 

[Sheldon]

there is no difference between 'believing god doesn't exist' and 'not believing god exists'.

I don't believe the idiocy of that claim. Both literally and metaphorically.

 

[Sheldon]

there is no practical difference, which suggests that the distinction is a linguistic construct.

It's a rational and epistemological distinction.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

So, as this thread starts to die out, and attempts are made to replace it, I still have lingering questions from the self proclaimed non-theiest, theists.

Can any of you self proclaimed theists, including @Windwalker , @PureX , answer this simple question?

I believe spirits of dead people that used to live on this land, visit me and guide me to artifacts and feathers and give me comfort in times of uncertainty by showing up in physical form when I am in distress or also in the most beautiful natural experiences I have experienced. (This is my true and self actualization of BELIEFS before not believing them).

1. Please explain if you are able, if you believe my experience and my beliefs are realistic.

2. Do you believe my claims about dead Native Americans being able to inhabit living wild animals and birds and henceforth manipulate the natural order of nature is true and factual?

If you do not believe my claims of dead people is true, what would you call that?

Would you be willing to go as far as to say, No Way is that belief true!

If you are not willing to commit to KNOWING my claim is false, what would you call that?

As a final note to the un-theist, non-believing, theists, with your own supposed superior word definitions, why should you be afforded the endless new definitions of beliefs in God, gods, spirits, universall consciousness, etc and only allow ONE definition of ALL of those who find insufficient EVIDENCE to believe ANY of you?

I'm making up for the other posters lack of capitalized letters.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ad hominem...athesim is a alck or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Communism is an economic ideology, and the former soviet union under Stalin used both the Russian Orthodox church and atheism to manipulate the populace. The Tsars ruled with the axiom that their absolute power was derived from "god", as of course have most monarchs throughout history, clearly the Bolsheviks used the concept of atheism to destroy that myth.

A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world, whilst it can encompassed the lack of belief in any deity, that is not in and of itself a worldview, not for me anyway, and I am an atheist, since I don't believe in any deity or deities.

@Augustus was being sarcastic.