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

[Sheldon]

OK:
A definition involves a feature common only to the thing defined.
The only unique feature, among all flavors of atheism, is lack of belief.
Ergo, Lack of belief is the definition of atheism.

I'm inclined to agree of course, but besides my main objection here that the word is being misrepresented, is the obvious fact that people are being misrepresented. Atheism clearly includes differing viewpoints, but the one things they all have in common is they don't believe in any deity or deities, and that is true of atheists who also believe no deity exists. So claiming atheism must encompass a belief is demonstrably incorrect, while saying it must encompass a lack of belief is demonstrably correct. Several atheists on here have said clearly their atheism is just a lack or absence of belief, including me.

 

[Tiberius]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

And "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

Off is a TV channel.

Bald is a hair colour.

 

[Kenny]

I think what needs to be said is that there is a distinct possibility that you can be an atheist and can still be wrong. How we accommodate that capacity for doubt and honest reflection creates deep tensions on a central question for understanding the world. The philosophical challenges on how we debate the nature of truth, knowledge and how we employ evidence and reasoning to attain it make it really difficult to stick to a consistent definition of atheism.

I suppose that would be true in any thought or belief. Certainly the capacity to be wrong is not relegated to just atheists as I can include myself on that.

But, as I understood it, we were just viewing it within the context of definition and that "atheists is not a belief" and yet, in the strictest sense, it is a belief as any other in that it holds onto its own tenets of beliefs.

 

[Tiberius]

It's not a religious belief, but there's still arguing whether a disbelief is a belief that something isn't real or true.

I'd say the two are different. Not having a belief in a thing is not the same as believing the thing is not real.

For example, I do not currently believe there is a cat sitting outside my front door. But that doesn't mean I believe there is no cat sitting there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is the assent of the mind of the atheist of a proposition or statement that there is no God, for which their is not complete evidence... it is their belief in general.

Just that one, specific god (the god named "God"), eh?

 

[Kenny]

And how does this evidence your assertion atheists can alter dictionary definitions?

I think we are deviating from what we are really discussing

You seem to have done just that, and ironically enough chosen one that suits your own opinion...."The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled. Unlike typical language dictionaries, which only define words in terms of their current uses and meanings, the OED is a historical dictionary."

In a list of best online dictionaries Dictionary.com ranked 8th...

And, thus, the etymology is the best source as it is the foundation of the structure of the word.

Where a dictionary stands in its position of "favorites" doesn't change the reality of the root of the word which remains the belief that there is no God or gods. Thus, since it is not empirically verifiable, it is a position of "faith" as defined in the dictionary.

 

[Tiberius]

That's absurd,

Parmesan really? Stilton every time, start a thread with a poll, xmas is coming and I shall be cheese shopping soon.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Swiss cheese is holy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that Swiss cheese is holy.

That was a gouda joke.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That was a gouda joke.

Yep. Any way you slice it.

 

[F1fan]

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

​

Well, there you go. "I believe God does not exist" is a propositional belief. Everything I have been saying all along, even during the years I self-identified as an atheist. I speak the truth. There is nothing wrong in calling it a belief. Why are you ashamed to say that?

This is contextual. Atheists do not approach life assuming Gods exist. By their not assuming gods exist they can in some context assert Gods don't exist, but only because this is a natural function of language and logic.

But this is different that what an atheist will assert in a debate. The statements and language have to be precise. The theists who keep insisting that atheists mean and claim "God doesn't exist" because they don't assume Gods exist, or aren't convinced any Gods exist, is improper use of language, and poor faith in debate.

 

[The Hammer]

Jarlsberg

Gouda

 

[F1fan]

I understand your point... but I don't think you are the status quo. You sound more like an agnostic at this point. Certainly it doesn't fit into the proper definition of atheism.

entomology:
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;"

This is how atheists function, that there are no gods. This is much the same way adults function, that there are no unicorns.

It is reasonable to function in life as if unicorns don't exist. Can we prove unicorns don't exist? No.

It is reasonable that atheists function as if gods don't exist. Can we prove gods don't exist? No.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?
I voted yes, because if I were to lie, I wouldn't lie about that.

 

[Fool]

Well to be honest that very claim prompted me to start the thread.

disbelief
noun

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

Now I don't see anything in the definition there that suggests a belief to me? Parenthetically I am an atheist, because I don't believe in any deity or deities, thus I disbelieve in any extant deity, I do not hold a belief no deity exists, as I understand in its broadest sense the concept of a deity seems unfalsifiable to me, and I cannot meet the burden of proof for such a belief. I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and I remain agnostic about them, as I must.

That seem sound rationale to me, maybe someone else disagrees?

belief systems contain both positive and negative beliefs.so atheists have belief systems, everyone does.

Hindu atheism - Wikipedia

there are christian atheists

Christian atheism - Wikipedia.

 

[Tiberius]

That was a gouda joke.

I pray that one day you will find Cheeses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I pray that one day you will find Cheeses.

Some inspirational music.

 

[Heyo]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

Is it that time of year again? Guess I'll have to dust off a classic:

 

[Augustus]

OK:
A definition involves a feature common only to the thing defined.
The only unique feature, among all flavors of atheism, is lack of belief.
Ergo, Lack of belief is the definition of atheism.

That'a not really the way language works though.

When you have a disputed term, the one with the widest definition doesn't automatically become the correct one. The word just has more than one usage.

An example:

Some people think a white supremicist is a person who believes white people are inherently superior and thus should have a priviliged position in society.

Other people believe that a white supremicist is anyone who does not sufficiently support modern progressive Anti-Racist policy designed to create racial equity.

The only unique feature common to all white supremacists is they do not support modern progressive Anti-Racist policy designed to create racial equity, ergo this is the definition of a white supremacist.

Obviously though, they are just 2 different definitions of the term that developed with different philosophical underpinnings with no reason for one being The Definition™

With any disputed terminology, ultimately it's just disputed and people have their own justifications for using it in their preferred manner. No matter how much people try to wrap it up in a veneer of neutrality or objectivity, it just reflects a purely subjective personal preference that might be based on a deeper philosopical argument or might be purely whimsical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not a religious belief, but there's still arguing whether a disbelief is a belief that something isn't real or true.

By definition, disbelief is not a belief. It is the opposite.

You need to believe something before it can be called a "belief".
Atheism is the opposite: NOT believing something. A very specific thing. That thing being the claim of theism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difficult part is trying to decide what applies to all atheists.

Euh, no - that's the easy part.

There is one thing that ALL atheists have in common. No matter who they are or what their worldview is.
They ALL answer "no" to the question "do you believe god(s) exist(s)?".


Some atheists will go further and claim / believe that no gods exist.
But that is a separate claim.

It's like in court.
The accused is ruled either "guilty" or "not guilty". They accused is not ruled "innocent".

When someone is ruled "not guilty", then that does NOT mean they all believe the accused is "innocent".
It just means that the case being brought forward was found insufficient to establish guilt.


I rule god to be "not guilty" of existing.

But if other atheists start saying things like "There is no God", they start to risk having the burden of proof.

Off course. That's a claim and it has a burden of proof. And certainly there are atheists that make that claim.
But that claim doesn't define their atheism. What defines their atheism is their disbelief of theistic claims. That is the common denominator among ALL atheists.

Though probably quite a few meant to say, "I don't believe there is a God." and misspoke.

I think the confusion arises from the practical implications of not believing the claim that a god exists.

Because for all practical intents and purposes, that would result in you living your life as if no gods exist.
So people, theists in particular, consider that as "evidence" that atheists "believe" no gods exist.

It's a subtle, yet important, difference. A difference that theists tend to understand when it comes to any other subject.

When the accused in court is ruled "not guilty", then he is set free. For all practical intents and purposes, he is treated as if he is innocent. But he wasn't ruled to be "innocent". Instead, the conclusion of the case was just "there is insufficient evidence to give a guilty verdict". So you treat the situation as if he isn't guilty. As if he is innocent. This, however, was NOT established.


Is he actually innocent? We don't know. All we can say is that there's insufficient evidence to consider him guilty.

So people are assumed innocent until shown to be guilty.

The same goes for the existence of gods (or anything else, for that matter).
Non-existence of entities is assumed until existence has been demonstrated.


This is why we tend to say that atheism is the default position.
Because existence needs to be demonstrated and if that fails, non-existence is assumed. Which is not the same as believed.