I see no value in atheism

[Willamena]

Why is "acknowledgment" a requirement. The definition only requires a "lack of belief". There is no requirement for acknowledgement of the idea of God. That is not necessary to "lack" something. The guy on the island "lacks" a washing machine to wash his clothes in even if he isn't aware of it.

Because the truth that you don't know about is imagined.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And what does it mean to "accept" something?

In this context, accepting means "accepting the claim as being true" - i.e: believing the claim.

 

[Curious George]

You don't have to be certain, as we are speaking about belief, not certainty. You can certainly believe in God while still understanding that you could be wrong. I think anyone who doesn't realize this is foolish in their beliefs. But that is another topic.

So what does it mean to believe if we are not talking possibility and certainty?

 

[leibowde84]

Because the truth that you don't know about is imagined.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you ellaborate a bit?

 

[Willamena]

Wrong. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are different beliefs. Saying "I don't believe God exists" simply means you don't believe God exists, it DOES NOT mean you believe God does not exist. You don't have to hold a claim to be false in order to not accept it as true. I refer you back to the jelly bean jar analogy I used earlier. Saying "I don't believe the claim that the number of jelly beans in the jar is even" does NOT mean you MUST believe the number of jelly beans is odd, even though they are mutually exclusive in reality. You can have insufficient reason to believe either proposition "the number is even" or "the number is odd", and therefore not accepting one does not necessarily mean accepting the other.


How common its usage is is irrelevant. I care about the actual definition, and how it applies to the discussion.


Sure I do, just as I hear people referring to "The Specific ocean" or calling a baby horse a pony. Just because people use it doesn't mean it's correct, and just because I use it in a way that you don't like doesn't mean my definition is inaccurate.

You deny the words are used this way, but unconvincingly.

 

[Curious George]

In this context, accepting means "accepting the claim as being true" - i.e: believing the claim.

And if something is not true?

 

[leibowde84]

So what does it mean to believe if we are not talking possibility and certainty?

Belief, in this context, is defined as "trust, faith, or confidence that something exists". None of these options (trust, faith, or confidence) require certainty.

 

[leibowde84]

And if something is not true?

Then your belief is erroneous.

 

[leibowde84]

You deny the words are used this way, but unconvincingly.

But, aren't you trying to add in a requirement to the definition of "atheism" that isn't already present. Namely, that to "lack" something, there is a requirement that one understands it as a concept?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You deny the words are used this way, but unconvincingly.

When did I deny that people use words that way? I just said that those who do are using them inaccurately.

 

[Willamena]

The definition does not say "a belief in God's existence that is lacking". If it did, I would agree with you. However, it says that an atheist is one who "lacks a belief in the existence of God". There is no indication that it is referring to a "lack" of evidence or insufficient belief. It is defined in this context as being without the belief that God exists.

I didn't reference the phrase as definition, merely as an example.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And if something is not true?

Is irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not you BELIEVE it is true. The definitions of atheism and theism deal with beliefs, not facts.

 

[Willamena]

But, aren't you trying to add in a requirement to the definition of "atheism" that isn't already present. Namely, that to "lack" something, there is a requirement that one understands it as a concept?

I merely gave an example of word usage.

 

[outhouse]

I agree that we can find academic examples of the usage wherein we find strong and weak atheism, explicit and implicit atheism, positive and negative atheism- these modern views are dwarfed by the number of scholarly articles we can find that define atheism like this:
"Atheism is a-theism. So: 'a,' hyphen, 'theism.' An atheist is someone who does not subscribe to the central tenets of theism. The “a” is an alpha privans, it denies what follows. So an atheist denies what the theist tries to confirm."

Cliteur, P. (2009). The definition of atheism. Journal Of Religion & Society, 11

One sentence cannot define this concept. Sorry that doesn't work. I can find a hundred one liners, they would not count either, other then a partial description

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you ellaborate a bit?

Tea pots, orbiting Mars.

 

[Curious George]

Is irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not you BELIEVE it is true. The definitions of atheism and theism deal with beliefs, not facts.

And how may you not believe something is true without talking about degrees of certainty or possibilities?

 

[Curious George]

One sentence cannot define this concept. Sorry that doesn't work. I can find a hundred one liners, they would not count either, other then a partial description

If one sentence cannot describe atheism why are people content with one sentence descriptions of atheism?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And how may you not believe something is true without talking about degrees of certainty or possibilities?

I assume you can't - but that's not the point. We're talking about the definition of belief. Certainty doesn't enter into it: this is a discussion of belief vs. lacking belief.

 

[Curious George]

I assume you can't - but that's not the point. We're talking about the definition of belief. Certainty doesn't enter into it: this is a discussion of belief vs. lacking belief.

Yes, well how can we lack belief without dealing with degrees of certainty or possibilities?

 

[Nakosis]

I can't see how it makes any sense at all to imagine belief is a choice.

You have to choose which source of information is reliable. You have to choose how much validation is necessary. You have to choose what methods you will use to verify your belief. You have to choose what evidence to accept or reject. You have to choose whom to accept as an authority. You have to choose how much of you own research is enough to validate your belief.

If you don't choose for your self what to believe then I'd suppose you are left to allow others to do the choosing for you.