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

[Sheldon]

I don't get it.

For once I'm inclined to agree with you.

Great we agree then that

You don't get it? Yes. The rest were dishonest straw men.

Note: even your poll is dishonestly worded...

Given you started a thread based on your dislike of atheism, and used it to misrepresent many of the atheists here, some of whom have demonstrated you have misrepresented their position in the poll. I am going to clutch my belly and laugh now. Thanks for that...

twisting dictionary definitions to suit your beliefs,

I don't write the dictionaries, and the Oxford English (oldest and largest English dictionary) and Meriam Webster's largest US dictionary, and Wiktionary and Google the two largest online dictionaries seem to suggest you are grossly misrepresenting me again.

 

[Sheldon]

We are now going to quibble every word in the dictionary apparently

We? I'm not quibbling you made an erroneous claim, that is directly contradicted by the dictionary I pointed it out. maybe you'd be happier if each individual decide arbitrarily what words mean?

Most contemporary philosophers

Having used the dictionary to clarify your error, and been accused by you of quibbling, you now want to filter words through your opinion of what "most contemporary philosophers think" the irony is palpable. Is disbelieve defined as a choice? Only you said it was, and I challenged that, and now your self acclaimed expertise in philosophy is being wheeled out, again. Having accused me of quibbling, an hilarious enough assertion in a debate forum anyway, I guess the clock is ticking until you cite the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy for a definition that suits your purpose here again, then hilariously accuse me of bias, for citing the dictionary definition that reflects common usage.

belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

One more time then as you seem unwilling to accept I know what I think here, I don't hold the belief that no deity exists. I do not believe in any deity or deities, and am therefore an atheist by definition.

 

[Sheldon]

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."

That's ok I've got theists and atheists here trying to tell me I'm not an atheist, even though I lack belief in any deity or deities.

 

[Sheldon]

Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

Quibbling
noun

1. the action of raising objections about a trivial matter.

What do expert philosophers like yourself consider trivial? Apart from dictionaries obviously.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Are you saying an obscure philosophical encyclopaedia most people won't ever have read, more accurately reflect common usage than the largest and oldest English dictionaries in the world?

 

[Sheldon]

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

Are you saying the Oxford English dictionary and Meriam Webster's, Google and Wiktionary are wrong? You are the only one determined to look at this as that kind of black and white false dichotomy.

By the way kudos on your use of the word popular there, I think I squeezed a little pee out laughing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I don't write the dictionaries, and the Oxford English (oldest and largest English dictionary) and Meriam Webster's largest US dictionary, and Wiktionary and Google the two largest online dictionaries seem to suggest you are grossly misrepresenting me again.

A side note. You are aware that this is an international forum and that for some words the direct equivalent in another language doesn't have the same definition. E,g, science in English has different different definition in Danish for the word videnskab. Indeed in English there is not one word for the Danish word videnskab. The same with the word hygge.

So you have account for the funny fact that as to what science is the 2 languages. In English you are right and I am wrong. In Danish you are wrong and I am right. So who is objectively with evidence right? None of us, because it is subjectively relative due to different cultures.

The same is the case with atheism in the following sense. Depending on how you consider all the words and reasoning behind different definitions you get different results.
So here it is as simple as I can put it: If you and I think differently and we can both do it differently and act differently based on our different thinking, neither of us can claim objective evidence, because it is in both cases a case of subjective thinking.

So here is the limit of being wrong about something. If according to someone, that I am wrong about something, I am not wrong in the strong sense, if I can act based on it. It is sociology as the Thomas Theorem: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”
So you define atheism as real in your situation and that has consequences for how you act. I define atheism differently and that has different consequences for how I act.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Well that's all very well, but since you're not an expert philosopher or a theist you don't get to decide what you think, nor does common usage of words count.

I guess we will just have to accept it when people claim to know better than the dictionary, and know better about what we think and believe or don't believe.

I think there will be a world shortage of irony meters at this rate.

 

[Sheldon]

Depends on whose definitions you use.

How about the Oxford English and Meriam Webster's, those do you?

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)

How is mine subjective exactly? Do I decide what goes in Meriam Webster's and the OED? Or Google or Wiktionary?

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.

So you accept my atheism, does not involve a belief no deity exists then?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well that's all very well, but since you're not an expert philosopher or a theist you don't get to decide what you think, nor does common usage of words count.

I guess we will just have to accept it when people claim to know better than the dictionary, and know better about what we think and believe or don't believe.

I think there will be a world shortage of irony meters at this rate.

I don't know better or worse than you. I know differently that you. So your understanding doesn't make sense to me and mine doesn't make sense to you. That is a case of cognitive relativism in the end.

 

[Sheldon]

A side note. You are aware that this is an international forum

Yes I was, thanks for clarifying though, and welcome back.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know better or worse than you. I know differently that you. So your understanding doesn't make sense to me and mine doesn't make sense to you. That is a case of cognitive relativism in the end.

That was not addressed to you or any of your posts, and I was being facetious, a brief moment of levity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I was, thanks for clarifying though, and welcome back.

Then your cultural, social, sociological, cognitive and so on standard is not objective nor universal, Nor is mine and there is thus no one: This the best one for us all, because there is no us all. There is one for e.g. gravity, but not this subject. Atheism depends on how you think and I can do that differently and so in reverse. That is it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That was not addressed to you or any of your posts, and I was being facetious, a brief moment of levity.

No, but which one version of atheism is with objective evidence the best one?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, there is a linguistic difference. No one has been able to point out any other kind of difference.



I'm happy with that, as it makes no practical difference. You choose to not treat gods as existent as a result of your beliefs.

Same as me.

Worldviews are based on beliefs.

....and environment, and tradition, and convention, and religion, and personality. Worldviews are broad, intricate, comprehensive conceptions of the nature of reality and how the world works. A worldview's a whole lot more than a specific belief.

 

[Valjean]

No, but which one version of atheism is with objective evidence the best one?

Best for what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Best for what?

Well, if it is best for something, but not something else it is not objective.

 

[Valjean]

To me it means atheism is then a belief.

In what, specifically?

 

[Augustus]

Are you saying an obscure philosophical encyclopaedia most people won't ever have read, more accurately reflect common usage than the largest and oldest English dictionaries in the world?

No, and if you think that you might want to read more carefully next time as it is laughably wrong.

Are you saying the Oxford English dictionary and Meriam Webster's, Google and Wiktionary are wrong? You are the only one determined to look at this as that kind of black and white false dichotomy.

How can your comprehension be quite that bad? Seriously? It's quite an achievement to be that wrong having been told quite so many times.

I've said a dozen times that these definitions rely on numerous subjective contingencies and relate to subjective preferences. There are all kinds of perfectly acceptable usages. Meaning derives from context alone, that is how language works.

Also you also still haven't worked out the difference between the OED and any one of dozens of dictionaries published by Oxford yet despite the definitions being posted at least 3 times in this thread?

This is the OED definition of atheism, and it says nothing about a 'lack of belief' and refers to capital G God.

See the problem with your line of argument yet?

and here's agnostic

MW

Note the distinction between lack of belief and disbelief meaning they are separate positions.

If we forget about god v God, the point of overlap between the OED and MW is disbelief in gods, my preferred usage.

Not that I'm naive enough to think dictionary definitions are particularly important in establishing best usage though, or that we can identify which usage is the most common between disbelief and lack of belief via a dictionary.

By the way kudos on your use of the word popular there, I think I squeezed a little pee out laughing.

It is difficult to discuss things with someone whose reading comprehension is so bad they get almost everything wrong in every post.

This seems to be where you go wrong dictionary boy. People tend to derive meaning at the level of the clause, sentence, or even paragraph, whereas you don't seem to be able to think past one word at a time.

If you tried to think of more than one word at a time, you'd have got to 'popular philosophical definition'

Can you now understand why the statement - Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude” - would be evidence for something being a popular philosophical definition?

See, now you are learning something about language

now want to filter words through your opinion of what "most contemporary philosophers think"

Again, you fail to comprehend that those weren't my words, despite the fact a link was provided.

How is mine subjective exactly?

Ask the OED, you like dictionaries

Do I decide what goes in Meriam Webster's and the OED?

See above definitions from the 2 texts

So you accept my atheism, does not involve a belief no deity exists then?

I accept if we use your subjective linguistic preferences and philosophy of mind then that is how you would conceptualise your atheism.

Do you accept that if we use the common philosophical definition for belief quoted above and the OED definition of atheism that you have championed all thread, then your atheism does indeed constitute a belief?

 

[Augustus]

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?

Believe = your attitude is to accept it as true
Disbelieve = your attitude is to reject it as true

But ultimately belief is your attitude towards the (truth of the) claim: You can believe things are true, believe they are false, believe they are unproven, etc.

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

Not in the slightest.

Wet is wet, dry is dry.

You can believe things are true, believe they are false, believe they are unproven, etc.

Here's what the dictionary says:

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

It's stated in definition 1 - "an opinion or conviction"

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.

As I've said repeatedly, you cannot remain neutral on a proposition you have comprehended. There is a link to a scientific paper earlier demonstrating this, if you'd like me to repost it let me know.

You cannot have a 'lack of belief' on any proposition you can comprehend.

This is why pointing to dictionaries is so inane. There are so many contingencies involved in this issue that it's quite obviously contingent on a series of highly subjective value judgements to accept either position.