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

[Augustus]

Hmm, so if I make a claim a deity doesn't exist that would carry a burden of proof, which I cannot meet as in its broadest sense the assertion a deity exists is unfalsifiable.

Thus I must be an agnostic (at least in that context) and since I lack belief that any deity or deities exist, I am by definition an atheist. Thus atheism and agnosticism (though different) are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is not a belief, though an atheist can hold a belief no deity exists, I however do not.

How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand we are discussing what BR said in 1950s and how he viewed the terms then? Saying how you view the terms today is irrelevant. He doesn't use them the way I would use them either, but we aren't discussing my opinions, but his explicit statements

Russell's teapot was a specific elucidation on the point we were discussing: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."

Link that to his definitions of the terms and it's perfectly obvious what he meant.

An atheist... holds that we can know whether or not there is a God...The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

 

[1213]

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?"

So, you can't answer the question?

 

[1213]

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

To me it means atheism is then a belief.

 

[Yazata]

That's the really weird thing about atheism. Ultimately it's just pointless negation. "I think nothing, I believe nothing, I claim nothing, but if you do ... YOU'RE WRONG!"

Which raises the question: Why are atheists always such loud (and often abusive) participants in internet religious discussions, if on their own account of themselves, they don't have anything to contribute to those discussions?

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, poetic expressions, metaphors are meaningless, telling someone precisely nothing. Got it.

Sophistry, you're ignoring the context and have misrepresented what I said as if I was speaking in absolutes, and not about word salad claims for a deity. The idea I was talking about all poetry is risible.

 

[Sheldon]

That's the really weird thing about atheism. Ultimately it's just pointless negation. "I think nothing, I believe nothing, I claim nothing, but if you do ... YOU'RE WRONG!"

Why is it pointless, given the pernicious behaviours of religions throughout the world still I think that's an asinine comment. The second sentnece is just a string of straw man claims, that are demonstrably untrue. Atheists clearly think, they cannot do otherwise, atheists hold beliefs, one cannot function without forming beliefs about the word all the time, the last part is just risible.

 

[Sheldon]

Which raises the question: Why are atheists always such loud (and often abusive) participants in internet religious discussions, if on their own account of themselves, they don't have anything to contribute to those discussions?

This forum is for debate, and it's risible nonsense to claim atheists are generally abusive. Who says we don't have anything to contribute, just because you don't like your beliefs being debated isn't the fault of atheists an if you find having your beliefs scrutinised and debated critically to be abusive, then a forum for general religious debates is an odd destination.

 

[Sheldon]

Russell's teapot was a specific elucidation on the point we were discussing: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."

I disagree, I can both not know there isn't a teapot and still disbelieve the claim, and Russel's point was that those making the claim carried the burden of proof. A burden of proof many of them seem keen to shift by misrepresenting my atheism as a positive claim and belief, when it is not.

 

[Sheldon]

So, you can't answer the question?

It was worded specifically to offer two positions, neither of which I hold, and I did answer it. I would say I don't believe in any deity or deities.

 

[Augustus]

I disagree, I can both not know there isn't a teapot and still disbelieve the claim, and Russel's point was that those making the claim carried the burden of proof. A burden of proof many of them seem keen to shift by misrepresenting my atheism as a positive claim and belief, when it is not.

None of which is relevant to how BR defined atheism and agnosticism.

He was saying even though you have to be technically agnostic on the teapot, it's so implausible you can assume it's not there (what he terms practical atheism).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"I think nothing, I believe nothing, I claim nothing, but if you do ... YOU'RE WRONG!"

Talking about intellectual dishonesty.................................
Misrepresenting people's stance on things is what is intellectually dishonest.

Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It is not at all what you are saying here, which seems to describe nihilism more then anything else (and it even fails at that).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Others disagree with you.

Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude”. Propositions are generally taken to be whatever it is that sentences express... A propositional attitude, then, is the mental state of having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is true

Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Are you saying that definition should be considered 'wrong'?

I think you should contemplate the thing I bolded and put in bigger font size and consider how it relates to the proposition "god exists".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me it means atheism is then a belief.

Is not playing soccer a sport?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which raises the question: Why are atheists always such loud (and often abusive) participants in internet religious discussions, if on their own account of themselves, they don't have anything to contribute to those discussions?

Right, because theists never are abusive in such discussions.

Maybe, just maybe, atheists are just reactionary to theists trying to stuff their superstitious beliefs down other people's throats?

Yes, when some muslim calls me a dog who should be executed for "insulting" his religion by not believing in it - you bet I will engage in strong wording.

Yes, when some christian says my gay friends are abominations and sinful scum - you bet I will engage in strong wording.

Yes, when some evangelical says that atheists are evil and deserver to be tortured for eternity - you bet I will engage in strong wording.


However, what any of this has to do with the subject at hand, is a mystery.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I once worked with an Evangelical Christian who insisted that Catholics aren't Christian.

It's almost a prerequisite for being Christian that some other group of Christians will call you "not Christian."

Generally speaking, the more fundamentalist a group, the smaller their circle of who is in th in, some going as far as to say only their particular denomination are "real Christians."

However, it is just as much of a mistake to go to the opposite extreme and say that Chrsitianity has no boundaries, that anyone who says they are a Chrsitain is a Christian regardless of what beliefs they hold to.

Christianforums.com is not a fundamentalist group. It is trying to define Chrsitianity in the broadest possible terms, without slipping into wishy washyness. It uses the Nicene Creed as the necessary list of beliefs.

CS Lewis is also no fundamentalist, and his book uses the New Testament and the Creeds to define what is "Mere Christianity."

At any rate, I know of no Christian organization that says one can be an atheist and be a Christian. There are churches who welcome atheists, in the hope that they will be influenced and come into "right belief." That is not the same thing as saying that atheism is an acceptable belief for a Christian.

 

[Augustus]

I think you should contemplate the thing I bolded and put in bigger font size and consider how it relates to the proposition "god exists".

As you are writing in a 2nd language, I'll forgive your poor comprehension in this case. I've highlighted the key parts seeing as you basically ignored everything before the bolded part last time

A propositional attitude, then, is the mental state of having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is true.

I can't be bothered to explain the green bit as it's not necessary to show you are wrong twice, just once. I take it you can now see your mistake now by reading the bolded part, correct?

So, now we've cleared that up, are you still saying that this popular philosophical definition should be considered 'wrong'?

 

[Sheldon]

None of which is relevant to how BR defined atheism and agnosticism.

He was saying even though you have to be technically agnostic on the teapot, it's so implausible you can assume it's not there (what he terms practical atheism).

So do you agree that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?

 

[Sheldon]

That's the really weird thing about atheism. Ultimately it's just pointless negation. "I think nothing, I believe nothing, I claim nothing, but if you do ... YOU'RE WRONG!"

An oddly incongruous claim next to your incessant rants that it is a belief? I think you just trod on your own tail there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As you are writing in a 2nd language, I'll forgive your poor comprehension in this case. I've highlighted the key parts seeing as you basically ignored everything before the bolded part last time

A propositional attitude, then, is the mental state of having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is true.

I can't be bothered to explain the green bit as it's not necessary to show you are wrong twice, just once. I take it you can now see your mistake now by reading the bolded part, correct?

So, now we've cleared that up, are you still saying that this popular philosophical definition should be considered 'wrong'?

I still think it makes zero sense to call non-belief / disbelief, a belief.

To believe a claim, means you consider the claim being believed as correct / true / accurate.

If not, then what is the difference between disbelieving something vs believing something?

It's like saying that "wet" is just another type of "dry".
If there is no distinguishing between both, then both words are meaningless.

You can continue arguing that disbelieving = believing, but I don't see how that could ever make any kind of sense.

Here's what the dictionary says:

I don't see how disbelieving a claim, fits any of these 4 definitions.


PS: I scanned through that article you linked to. It seems to me that it actually agrees with me and that you are just took that quote out of context. I didn't see anything in there which says that "philosophers of belief" would disagree with the statement that NOT believing something is not a belief. All examples it gives of people believing things, concerns people taken propositions as generally true / accurate. Exactly as I'm saying.

 

[Augustus]

So do you agree that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?

Depends on whose definitions you use.

I find it more useful to keep them as separate, non-overlappjng categories, but that's just a subjective preference like your's is (and basically everything else in this thread is)

If people clarify what they mean by the terms it's easy enough to understand what they mean which is the only thing that matters.