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

[Augustus]

True. These are the strong atheists who assert positively that God does not exist. In so doing they assume a burden of proof like anyone else making a positive assertion.

No one has a burden of proof for any personal belief unless they want to try to convince others it is true.

In that case, you have a burden of proof regardless as you are the one trying to change someone's mind.

They're still atheists, though, inasmuch as their belief -- that God doesn't exist -- also lack belief, as a subset, which is the one, unique feature common to -- and therefore definitive of -- all atheists.

Can be. Some people think it is important that atheism is a belief and a lack of belief, a position and the absence of a position, it involves ignorance and awareness, it is something and nothing.

Other find this a bit convoluted and think it makes the term less descriptive or reality and/or less useful.

Each to their own.

 

[Secret Chief]

@TagliatelliMonster
from post #952:

Not believing something exists is the same as believing it doesn't exist. (1)

No, it isn't.

"I don't believe X is true" is not the equivalent of saying "I believe X is false". (2)


I don't know if I'm in a philosophical mist here but it seems to me that (1) is indeed simply two ways of saying the same thing. (2) is not the same as (1). (2) is not relaying the same as (1). I can therefore agree with (1 - two ways of saying the same thing) and (2 - the second part does not follow from the first part).

I apologise for any linguistic thickness.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, this is the compelling feature of the people condemning atheists and atheism - they don't know what an atheist actually believes and they appear to be literally unable to conceive of agnostic atheism. They don't disagree with the position. They cannot conceive of it to disagree with it.

Assuming good faith, do you accept that the question of whether or not atheism is a belief ultimately depends on numerous scientific, philosophical and linguistic assumptions that are legitimately debatable?

 

[Augustus]

Most don't claim any such thing, again see the poll, and your agenda aside most dictionaries seem at odds with your position as well. Obscure philosophical encyclopedias aside.

Regardless of whether or not they claim it, they still believe it

So you can't give me an example of an atheist who holds the belief gods exist to be true? In which case I'll stick with my belief that every atheist who can comprehend the statement believes it is not true.

And we already established that the OED didn't contain your 'lack of belief' definition, so unfortunately that pisses on your dictionary worshipping chips

 

[Windwalker]

Apparently some Muslims call some people a revert rather than a convert, since everyone is born a Muslim.

Funny you mention that. I was thinking there was some claim that Muslims make about everyone being born is a Muslim by default. I know I've heard it before. As I've said, flipsides of the same coin! That apple hasn't fallen very far from the tree, as it likes to imagine itself as. No wonder they have such an allergy to calling it a belief. It's just a stage of being in denial.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Assuming good faith, do you accept that the question of whether or not atheism is a belief ultimately depends on numerous scientific, philosophical and linguistic assumptions that are legitimately debatable?

I see it as a purely semantic issue with the theists who understand the agnostic atheist's position, not anything substantive.

I also find arguments about it being a belief coming from people that don't know what most atheists believe pretty meaningless. For them, this issue begins by assuming that atheists are lying when the say they have no god belief, that they actually believe that gods don't exist and are looking for ways to avoid having to defend that position, so they lie about their beliefs calling them unbelief. They object to this imagined reality, and are trying to reveal that the atheist is lying.

For them, it is not a purely semantic issue - what to call something - but one of what that something actually is, a substantive issue. These are the people calling atheists liars. How many times have you read that in this thread alone?

But regarding those who do know what the agnostic atheist's position is, and want to call atheism a belief anyway, although I disagree with the usage of the word belief there, it's purely a semantic issue of no substantive relevance. Call it what you like. It makes more sense to me to call my atheism unbelief just as it makes more sense to call myself an agnostic atheist than to pick only one of those words, even if others choose to use the language differently.

There is a big difference between disagreeing about what something is and what to call it. If I say that Constance said something, and you insist it was Missy, there's a big difference between whether we are discussing two different people, in which case it's a question of fact, and whether we are talking about the same person using both a given name and a nickname, in which case it is a semantic argument, and not worth debating. You can go on calling her Missy because she is your sister, and I will go on calling her Constance because she is my supervisor at work. There is no substantive disagreement about what (who) we are talking about. There is nothing to debate.

So, no scientific and philosophical assumptions, so nothing to debate there, and yes to linguistic (semantic) preferences, so nothing to debate there, either, with the theist who actually understands the agnostic atheist's position. If that's you, then there is nothing else to resolve, so where does debate enter?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm completely dumbfounded that apparently this simple thing is so difficult to comprehend for some.

I am dubious that it is to be honest, we humans seem to have a propensity for employing desperate rationalisations in order to protect core beliefs we cherish. If we don't start from a default position of scepticism, and are not prepared to abandon any belief, if or when the evidence demands it, then that to me is the definition of closed minded.

The core idea of most theistic religion is that "absolute truth" has been revealed to some humans from a deity. Now I don't believe absolute truth is even possible, and the best we can achieve are facts supported by a weight of objective evidence that puts them beyond any reasonable or rational doubt. However even then no idea can be absolute, it must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence, else it is the very definition of closed minded.

 

[Sheldon]

Funny you mention that. I was thinking there was some claim that Muslims make about everyone being born is a Muslim by default. I know I've heard it before. As I've said, flipsides of the same coin!

Well if someone can demonstrate some objective evidence that a newborn baby has beliefs I'm all ears, but I remain dubious until they can. My understanding is that we start storing memories and creating beliefs about the world only once we are born, so unless this is wrong, their claims seems dubious to me.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, if just the rest of us would shup up and bow down to the atheists as a "we, the atheists" it would be much better. The joke is that atheists do 2 things. They claim that atheism is a lack of beliefs in gods and they go on to do all the rest that all other humans do. But somehow that is different because all atheists do is that they lack a belief in gods, yet they do ethics, politics, science and philosophy for what is the correct way to understand the world in total.
And whether that is religion or not, depends on how religion is defined.

I don't follow. Why would people who don't believe in God act any different from people who don't believe in Sasquatch or extraterrestrials?

 

[Valjean]

Believing a claim is not true is a belief according to a perfectly normal definition of belief.

I agree, but that applies only to strong atheists, doesn't it?

Many people would consider a stance you hold on an issue to be a belief.

Weak atheists hold no stance. They lack a stance.

 

[Sheldon]

No one has a burden of proof for any personal belief unless they want to try to convince others it is true.

The burden of proof is inherent in any belief, but yes one can just ignore it.

In that case, you have a burden of proof regardless as you are the one trying to change someone's mind.

Prima facie I'd have to agree, but with the caveat that you make claims or present arguments, the former would carry a burden of proof, and the latter would need to be rational. However if someone voices a belief, then explaining why you don't believe does not necessarily carry a burden of proof.

Some people think it is important that atheism is a belief and a lack of belief, a position and the absence of a position, it involves ignorance and awareness, it is something and nothing.

Well I just think it is nonsensical to broadly define atheism in a way that excludes any atheists.

Each to their own.

I'm fine with that as long as no one tries to tell me what I have to think or believe or not believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't follow. Why would people who don't believe in God act any different from people who don't believe in Sasquatch or extraterrestrials?

Because they are only atheists. All they do is to lack a belief in gods. Nothing else according to themselves as all the rest they do, is connected to them being atheists,
The problem is that there are at least 2 kinds of atheists. And one of these kinds do connect atheism into an overall world view:

...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision

So atheism is the lack of beliefs in gods and atheism is the comprehensive world view.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, if just the rest of us would shup up and bow down to the atheists as a "we, the atheists" it would be much better.

How so?

The joke is that atheists do 2 things. They claim that atheism is a lack of beliefs in gods and they go on to do all the rest that all other humans do.

Well it is in it's broadest sense, so I don't understand your objection, and I have no idea what it is you're saying atheists "do", or why you're claiming they can't do it? As far as I can see the only thing an atheist can't do is believe a deity or deities exist.

But somehow that is different because all atheists do is that they lack a belief in gods, yet they do ethics, politics, science and philosophy for what is the correct way to understand the world in total.

You're going to have to explain to me why you think any atheist can't "do" ethics, politics, science and philosophy?

And whether that is religion or not, depends on how religion is defined.

What atheism? Well a religion can be atheistic, such as Buddhism for example, but it is nonsensical to claim atheism is a religion, as again this would exclude many atheists from the definition, why would anyone do that, for what purpose?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
What atheism? Well a religion can be atheistic, such as Buddhism for example, but it is nonsensical to claim atheism is a religion, as again this would exclude many atheists from the definition, why would anyone do that, for what purpose?

This fits at least one definition of religion:

...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision

Just as Christianity has more than one version, so does atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

Assuming good faith, do you accept that the question of whether or not atheism is a belief ultimately depends on numerous scientific, philosophical and linguistic assumptions that are legitimately debatable?

Well everything is open to debate, but I have a question. I don't believe in any deity or deities, but since the claim for any extant deity in its broadest sense seem unfalsifiable, I don't hold a believe that no deity exists. So do you think I am an atheist? Only that is how I would describe myself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well everything is open to debate, but I have a question. I don't believe in any deity or deities, but since the claim for any extant deity in its broadest sense seem unfalsifiable, I don't hold a believe that no deity exists. So do you think I am an atheist? Only that is how I would describe myself.

As long as you don't claim that is the only form of atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

Just as Christianity has more than one version, so does atheism.

As I said this doesn't describe all atheists, thus why would you define atheism in it's broadest sense in a way that excludes many atheists?

My atheism is not a worldview, and it is not a belief or collection of beliefs. I don't believe in any deity or deities, and though my worldview must necessarily encompassed that lack of belief, my atheism is not in itself a worldview.

So are you saying I am not an atheist? Only if you insist atheism is a religion in a broad sense, that would exclude me.

 

[Sheldon]

As long as you don't claim that is the only form of atheism.

I have never done that, and have very carefully and specifically explained that a broad definition of atheism should be the lack or absence of belief, precisely because it encompasses different types of atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said this doesn't describe all atheists, thus why would you define atheism in it's broadest sense in a way that excludes many atheists?

My atheism is not a worldview, and it is not a belief or collection of beliefs. I don't believe in any deity or deities, and though my worldview must necessarily encompassed that lack of belief, my atheism is not in itself a worldview.

So are you saying I am not an atheist? Only if you insist atheism is a religion in a broad sense, that would exclude me.

I explain atheism as involving gods in some negative sense. There are different variations of that. That is all.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, this is the compelling feature of the people condemning atheists and atheism - they don't know what an atheist actually believes and they appear to be literally unable to conceive of agnostic atheism. They don't disagree with the position. They cannot conceive of it to disagree with it.

And yet, several of those objecting to this erroneous notion that atheism is not a belief, calls themselves atheists. I myself called myself an atheist for over 10 years, dropping that term about 10 years ago. We know very well what atheism is. Are you going to try to say they aren't True Atheists (tm) next?

I for one championed it. I still do applaud it for many things. I embrace the pursuit of reason over superstitions. I do not disown it from my own past, I embrace it as a positive. I do not condemn it, as you falsely state. It was positive for me. I see it as positive for many people. The only thing I object to, is someone not owning it as a belief. Why not own it? I did.

So as they say, strawman. What you say above is a strawman. It does not reflect @Augustus. It does not reflect me. It's a creation of fiction you are doing battle with. Not real people.