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

[Subduction Zone]

A question is no assumption. I await an answer. To question is to consider all possibilities.

Not so. A question may be an assumption. For example:

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

That is a very crude example that shows how a question can be an assumption. It is best not to ask leading questions if one can avoid it in a debate. If the person doing so is caught it does not look good for them.

 

[lukethethird]

Can I really assume there is no reason, purpose or goal? If not, then why do it at all?? Maybe you are hiding the reason. Is it to somehow feed your Ego??

I forget, what are we arguing about?

 

[Sheldon]

Do the experiment yourself

My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm not arguing anything. I was just attempting an explanation of non-belief of theist's claims (atheist) while at the same time not claiming to know for certain if the theist's claims are false, agnosticism.

What would you imagine it did for me? What other reason is there for beliefs in fairy tales or in gods or universal consciousness, other than to comfort all unknowing humans in times of doubt, sorrow, and need?

Of course it was comfortable, magical, mysterious and joyful. That is what beliefs are all about.

However, there can come a time in existence when imagination can no longer be validated as being realistic in the natural system we actually live in.

Do you still believe Santa is a real being? I don't. And although it was once cozy and comfortable, I just cannot talk myself into believing he is real. It is no different than disbelief in cozy comfortable gods and above natural happenings. I liked it, it was fun and exciting and comforting. I just dont find it real outside of my powerful human imagination.

To me, Santa is not real.
But also to me God is real.

 

[Curious George]

Irony?

Probably not the way you are thinking: You made a poll, with an intentional false dichotomy, under the assertion that ANY dictionary would support your idea that "atheism " was not defined as a belief. However, you were clearly wrong:

See https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374

atheism noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

atheism

Not to mention other sources given such as the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. All of these are reputable, and popular references. A user, some many pages ago, had offered that whether someone upheld that atheism was a belief depended on which definition they relied.

Now here you offering cherry picked definitions and arguing semantics within those definitions to bolster your original claim, or rather what's left of your original claim, because, surely, you cannot honestly hold to the statement that any dictionary supports your notion that atheism is not defined as a belief.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, sorry. I know you don't care about what people believe. Neither do I. And I don't actually believe what I used to believe either.

It was another unsuccessful attempt at analogy besides the marbles, coins, jurors or garage dragons using an actual belief as an example.

My attempt was to try to get you and your fellow Taoist to understand why I cannot believe your stories of Gods = atheists, while at the same time not confessing to know for certain if your claims are false = agnostic. Agnostic atheist.

However, I see it was not useful. I am no longer an atheist. I am an asupernatualist-secular humanist. I no longer need to deal with theist at all. I just don't believe in anything lacking evidence outside of human imagination.

I have no stories of God or any 'supernatural' feats for you to disparage with your lack of "evidence". I am a philosophical Taoist/Christian. Not a religious one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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!"

Do you understand the difference between "atheism is not a claim" and "atheists don't make any claims"?

Your post suggests that you don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The example was about a jury deciding upon a guilty, innocent, or undecided verdict. If they don't even know what the question is, then there aren't even on the jury. There are outside of the courthouse, outside of the debate. Hence, a child who has no knowledge of the question of God, cannot be called either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.

*I* call a baby an atheist, so apparently it *can* be done.

If you think that I've done the impossible and have decided that I'm your new god, let me know and I'll tell you where you can send your tithes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Weak atheists hold no stance. They lack a stance.

... on the existence of gods specifically.

IMO, for a weak atheist or an agnostic to maintain their atheism or agnosticism after giving a handful of gods (and the religions that proclaim those gods) serious reflection and investigation would require them to take up some pretty ardent positions around the issue of gods.

Generally, these people would have to adopt some version of the position "nothing in your religion that - if it were true - would serve as evidence that your gods were real is true or valid, including your religion's holy books, miracle claims, etc."

IOW, to still say "I have no evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods" after seeing all of some religion's case for their god involves deciding that none of that material is evidence for the god in question.

TL;DR: when approached honestly and openly, weak atheism and agnosticism can be very harsh critics of religion, even if they reserve judgement about the god of the religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Belief that God doesn't exist.

There are plenty of polytheists who don't believe in God, but do believe in gods. Do you consider them atheists?

 

[PureX]

Do you understand the difference between "atheism is not a claim" and "atheists don't make any claims"?

Your post suggests that you don't.

They claim the theist is wrong unless and until he can prove to the atheist that he is right. And they make this claim loudly and repeatedly, ad nauseum. Yet, somehow, they can't seem to admit that they are doing so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They claim the theist is wrong unless and until he can prove to the atheist that he is right. And they make this claim loudly and repeatedly, ad nauseum. Yet, somehow, they can't seem to admit that they are doing so.

Do you realize that your post didn't answer my question?

 

[PureX]

Do you realize that your post didn't answer my question?

The, "so have you stopped beating your wife, yet" question? Yes, I saw that. But as the antithetical to theism, atheism is a counter claim. As the claim is that theism is untrue unles and until it is proven true to the atheist's satisfaction.

Atheists also love to tell us all ad nauseum about their "unbelief" when in fact they believe that theism is untrue unless and until it can be proven otherwise. Atheists seem to have a hard time being honest with themselves about their own position.

 

[Windwalker]

*I* call a baby an atheist, so apparently it *can* be done.

A Muslim calls a baby a Muslim, so it can be done too. I could call a baby a communist, because it does not believe in democracies yet either (nevermind it is incapable even knowing what those are yet). Anyone can claim that their chosen ideologies are the default position of the human species. But those claims are all equally absurd.

If you think that I've done the impossible and have decided that I'm your new god, let me know and I'll tell you where you can send your tithes.

What you have done is certainly possible. But it doesn't make it rational or true. If you could find a baby who calls themself an atheist, then you might be able to impress me.

Personally, I don't believe any human under a certain age can be called either a believer or disbeliever in anything. They're just following programs, not really choosing. "My child of 5 is a Christian", or "My child of 5 is an atheist", is purely a projection of the parent, not a personalized view of the child themselves.

 

[Sheldon]

They claim the theist is wrong unless and until he can prove to the atheist that he is right.

I don't believe you, some might, but that statement is misleading as it dishonestly suggests all atheists do this.

And they make this claim loudly and repeatedly, ad nauseum. Yet, somehow, they can't seem to admit that they are doing so.

Indeed, the majority here have told you and others making this false claim that they don't do any such thing, I know I don't. Not believing a claim need not involve believing the opposite, to suggest otherwise is nonsensical.

Lets try the marbles again...

Imagine a jar of white and black marbles, Now the theist in this scenario claims they believe there are more white than black marbles. The atheist in this scenario says I can't believe you as there is no evidence, they do not however claim there are more black marbles.

 

[wandering peacefully]

To me, Santa is not real.
But also to me God is real.

Why? What is your reasoning?

 

[Sheldon]

I could call a baby a communist, because it does not believe in democracies

Firstly communism is an economic ideology, it thus need not necessarily be incompatible with democracy. Secondly the claim a baby is an atheist is predicated on the fact it can't hold beliefs, not on your assumption that it holds a contrary belief, so your analogy is erroneous and smacks of sophistry.

 

[Windwalker]

Probably not the way you are thinking: You made a poll, with an intentional false dichotomy, under the assertion that ANY dictionary would support your idea that "atheism " was not defined as a belief. However, you were clearly wrong:

See https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374

atheism noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

atheism

Not to mention other sources given such as the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. All of these are reputable, and popular references. A user, some many pages ago, had offered that whether someone upheld that atheism was a belief depended on which definition they relied.

Now here you offering cherry picked definitions and arguing semantics within those definitions to bolster your original claim, or rather what's left of your original claim, because, surely, you cannot honestly hold to the statement that any dictionary supports your notion that atheism is not defined as a belief.

This is brilliant. Of course, yes! If dictionaries are to be taken as divinely inspired source of authority on the truth, then which one reigns supreme? Is it the King James Version... oh I mean Webster's Edition? Is the the Revised Version... I mean Random House version?

I mean seriously, this underscores what I said about treating dictionaries as if they were Holy Scripture. It's like a dry drunk. You might not be believing in religion anymore, but you're sure are doing the same things as when you were in it. It's all about not using your own noodle, and relying on external sources as the final answer to complex questions that are best avoided.

It struck me how my first response was to cite an article on Stanford University's Philosophy site on Atheism, and that was shot down in favor of quoting an online dictionary one found. Basically saying "Dictionary said it, I believe it, that settles it for me."

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why? What is your reasoning?

Does it have to be a reason for a personal belief? Do I have to prove that what I personally believe is true for others?
Let's say, I have had experiences that to me show that what we call God does exist, but to someone who has no faith or believe in a God would see it as something very natural and none spiritual at all.

 

[Sheldon]

Personally, I don't believe any human under a certain age can be called either a believer or disbeliever in anything.

Disbelief
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

It is axiomatically true that a baby is unable to accept a concept they don't have the cognitive ability to understand. As several posters have claimed babies are not atheists because they can't contemplate the concept of a deity. I agree with the second part as it seems to fit the facts, but that would mean they lack belief in any deity or deities, and ipso facto are atheists. Not in the same way an adult who arrives at their lack of belief or even belief no deity exists through reasoning and observation of course, but then no one here is claiming that.