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

[Sheldon]

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?

1. I don't believe the claim no, but only because you've offered no data or evidence to examine
2. No, I do not believe that, though again you have offered nothing beyond the bare claim.

The claims also seem unfalsifiable.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

An "-ism," by definition, is an adherence to a system or class of principles (see definition 3b below).

Definition of -ISM

Such an adherence manifests as a worldview based on a particular philosophical position, whether it be atheism, theism, apatheism, transtheism, agnosticism, etc. None of these are religions. They describe a prescribed set of principles that make up a philosophical position resulting wholly or in part in a worldview.

 

[Sheldon]

@Augustus was being sarcastic.

Sorry, I wasn't sure so thought it prudent not to assume.

 

[Sheldon]

An "-ism," by definition, is an adherence to a system or class of principles (see definition 3b below).

Definition of -ISM

Such an adherence manifests as a worldview based on a particular philosophical position, whether it be atheism, theism, apatheism, transtheism, agnosticism, etc. None of these are religions. They describe a prescribed set of principles that make up a philosophical position resulting in a worldview.

-ism

noun suffix
Definition of -ism (Entry 2 of 2)

1a: act : practice : process

The practice or process of withholding belief, as insufficient or no objective evidence has been demonstrated to justify belief.

 

[SalixIncendium]

-ism

noun suffix
Definition of -ism (Entry 2 of 2)

1a: act : practice : process

The practice or process of withholding belief, as insufficient or no objective evidence has been demonstrated to justify belief.

*smiles* I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I already pointed out in the first post of mine in this thread, which you quoted, that...

Atheism isn’t a belief.

 

[PureX]

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.

"Realistic" as compared to what? You have interpreted your experiences in this way. I have no criteria from which to judge. They are your experiences and your interpretation of those experiences. So why should you ask for my judgment? And why should I presume to do so? This makes no sense to me.

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?

I am neither dead, nor an animal. So I have no reason to concern myself with this claim. As to the manipulation of the "natural order of nature", I don't know what the natural order of nature is. If such spirits exist, I must presume they are part of the "natural order of nature".

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

That would depend on why I don't believe it. But as I've stated, I have no reason to bother myself about any belief regarding this claim. As it has no relation to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

There is no reason to argue one way or the other.
The scenario you describe would be your experience of what happen, that would not be my taste to disprove or prove, it's your personal experience.

The more important question would be, what did you, your self get out of this experience?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Sorry, that's just your confirmation bias fooling you. Bertie was pretty clear on it...

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

Bertrand Russell - What is an Agnostic

I did try to tell you he was using older definitions of the term

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.

I didn't believe anyone could have been credulous enough to think that an atheist stating 'atheism is a religion that leads to communism ' was making a serious point to be taken literally, but here we are

Also you very much seem to be the latest member to follow the long established RF tradition where the posters who cry fallacy the most often and the most loudly are the least likely to be able to use them correctly.

It's a rational and epistemological distinction.

So you agree there is no practical distinction between the 2 positions? If not, what is it:

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'?

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus was being sarcastic.

 

[Bird123]

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.



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 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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

As I said, if it was only "I don't believe you" they would not fight so hard to convince others their belief that God does not exist was true.

Now, I am not saying there isn't anyone just saying I don't believe and moving on, however I see that number as very very few.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Valjean]

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

Whaaaaa?!
Do you know what a worldview is? This is like saying not collecting stamps, being left-handed or being ignorant of Maimonides is a worldview.

 

[Valjean]

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

The difference is real. Whether it's "meaningful" probably depends on how you're defining or applying the term.

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'?

They are "doing" the same thing, but conceptualizing differently. There's an important epistemic difference. Affirming disbelief and simply lacking belief are not the same things.

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

How can you not see the difference??? It's not a "practical" difference. It's a cognitive, epistemic difference.

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

OK, but we're not claiming a practical difference. We're talking about ideas, not actions.

 

[lukethethird]

Sorry, that's just your confirmation bias fooling you. Bertie was pretty clear on it...

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

Bertrand Russell - What is an Agnostic

I did try to tell you he was using older definitions of the term

The question of atheism and theism concerns beliefs about God, whereas agnosticism concerns knowledge about any subject, including gods. One is a question of belief, the other of knowledge.

 

[lukethethird]

As I said, if it was only "I don't believe you" they would not fight so hard to convince others their belief that God does not exist was true.

No one on this thread cares about whether God exists or not, this is an endless thread among many about the definition of atheism.

Now, I am not saying there isn't anyone just saying I don't believe and moving on, however I see that number as very very few.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I'm just here for an argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

 

[Augustus]

The difference is real. Whether it's "meaningful" probably depends on how you're defining or applying the term.

A linguistic difference is real. It's a real linguistic difference

If it's a linguistic difference that carries no practical consequences, one may certainly chose to view it as having 2 ways to describe what is fundamentally the same thing though.

If you spoke a language that did not have the capability of expressing such a difference, then it couldn't exist.

They are "doing" the same thing, but conceptualizing differently. There's an important epistemic difference. Affirming disbelief and simply lacking belief are not the same things.

Well a lack of belief only occurs when you are completely ignorant of an issue. Disbelief is what happens when you choose not to accept it as true.

No atheist in this thread is ignorant of the issue, so everyone disbelieves.

But I understand you aren't using the terms that way.

Using your terminology though, you get the point. Linguistically, they are conceptualising the same thing in 2 different ways.

One group is conceptualising not being willing to make a definitive as expressing a lack of belief or withholding judgement.

The other group is conceptualising this as expressing a belief regard the proposition of god's existence and that this very much constitutes making a judgement rather than withholding one. If you can comprehend a proposition, you cannot withhold judgement.

Obviously I view the 2nd case above as being far more accurate, useful and in fitting with the standard way we use language to describe things, but it's pretty simple to understand the logic behind the 'lack of belief' example even if I disagree. It's quite obviously a subjective preference on numerous levels though.

It does seem like quite a few 'lack of beliefers' genuinely struggle to comprehend how anyone could disagree with their preferences for any reasons other than stupidity or theistic bias.

How can you not see the difference??? It's not a "practical" difference. It's a cognitive, epistemic difference.

As I've said, I see a linguistic difference. That's obvious.

If it doesn't impact anything beyond deliberately crafted linguistic descriptions that have no impact outside of this context, why should anyone view it as a meaningful cognitive difference though?

Even if you disagree, do you understand why people acting in good faith might logically a bit strange to conceptualise an epistemic stance taken towards a proposition as being best described in terms of the absence of one competing stance towards the same propositions? Or that people making a conscious judgement that they do not put gods into the category of things which exist should be viewed as holding a belief regarding the existence of gods?

OK, but we're not claiming a practical difference. We're talking about ideas, not actions.

And when people discuss the difference or lack thereof between ideas that have no tangible impact on anything other than the expression of these ideas, doesn't it seem likely that people will legitimately develop different attitudes towards the best way to conceptualise them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Then the exact same applies to the term "agnostic".
If you can't be an atheist when you don't even know about god-claims, then you can't be agnostic about said claim either.

This is a clear case of wanting to have it both ways.

You flatter yourself. This argument of yours is easy to punch a hole into, as I just did. "Hahahaha"??

You didn't punch a hole in anything. At best, you engaged in mental gymnastics to actually avoid answering the question.

The point is simple.
When a juror is unconvinced by the presented arguments and evidence that the accused is guilty, then that by no means means that that juror believes the accused is innocent.

This is why court cases are ruled with "guilty" or "not guilty" and never with "innocent".
Because only the question of guilt is being discussed, not the question of innocence.

The same goes for god claims.
The question of existence is being discussed. Not the question of non-existence.

The accused could be guilty (or not). It's just that the accuser failed to make a proper case to demonstrate guilt. And in that case, one is to be ruled not guilty. Which does not mean one is ruled innocent.


This is what the common denominator is in atheism. One considers the case FOR the existence of god to be too weak to be acceptable. That's it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Motey boy, you disbelieve in the existence of god. I'm fine with that definition and explanation. The point is that that reflects a stance one takes, not the lack of one. Remember what the OP is.

Beyond that, for any given individual, stuff they don't think exists doesn't exist.

For practical intents and purposes, yes.

If you don't think god exists then...

If you are unconvinced by the arguments and evidence brought forward that the accuser is guilty, does that then mean that you positively believe the accused is innocent?

The innocence of the accused hasn't been demonstrated. Neither was his guilt.
The result is that the accused is set free. As if he were innocent.

Yet he wasn't demonstrated to be such.

Same in atheism.

The case for the existence of god hasn't been made adequately. The atheist is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented. Neither was non-existence of god demonstrated.

Moving forward however, one will live as if god doesn't exist.
In the exact same way as one will set free the accused as if he were innocent.

Not because one necessarily believes the accused to be innocent. Rather because the case FOR guilt wasn't made adequately.

This comes down to the null-hypothesis / the assumed default.

Assumed innocent until demonstrated guilty.
Assumed non-existent until demonstrated to be existent.


The end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Some atheists will say yes and some will say no.
In my experience, the majority will say no.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

The phrasing of the question is extremely awkward and clumsy. It's like asking someone who does not collect stamps, "Do you enjoy not collecting stamps?"