• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is atheism a belief?

Is atheism a belief?


  • Total voters
    70

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
That's it (well atheist, rather than atheism, as has been said). If you don't have any belief in god(s) you are an atheist. Some, but by no means all, atheists would also say that they believe there are no gods.

What's hard?
That’s clear enough. Of course some atheists are Hindu, Buddhist and Christian. Particularly within Hinduism and Buddhism atheism is a legitimate positive within these ‘faiths’. Although its not as accepted in Christianity, its become increasingly recognised that many Christians are atheists too.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Atheism is the desbelief in the existence of god(s).

What I have encountered is many theists erroneously referring to atheism as a religious belief.
I agree atheism isn’t a religious belief, but is it a belief?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As a followup to my previous post, there are also hard and soft agnostics:

1. Hard agnostic: someone who thinks knowledge about deities is absolutely impossible.

2. Soft agnostic: someone who thinks knowledge about deities might be possible, but we don't have such knowledge at this time.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That’s clear enough. Of course some atheists are Hindu, Buddhist and Christian. Particularly within Hinduism and Buddhism atheism is a legitimate positive within these ‘faiths’. Although its not as accepted in Christianity, its become increasingly recognised that many Christians are atheists too.

If those religious people don't believe in any gods, then they are atheists.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. You do tend to get a certain type of atheist on these sorts of forums but that doesn't affect the definition. You can be as superstitious, irrational, or religious as you want - if you don't believe in any gods, you are still an atheist.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Defining ‘Atheism’ by Stephen Bullivant, in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Edited by Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse, Nov 2013

[Portion of first Chapter]
ATHEISM AND AMBIGUITY

THE precise definition of ‘atheism’ is both a vexed and vexatious issue. (Incidentally, the same applies to its more-or-less equivalents in other languages: Atheismus, athéisme, ateismi, etc.) Etymologically,atheism is derived from the classical Greek a- (normally meaning ‘not’ or ‘without’) and theos (‘god’). Its first extant appearance in English occurs in the mid-sixteenth century, as a translation of Plutarch’s atheotēs (Buckley 1987: 9). Even from its earliest beginnings in Greek and English, however, atheism/ atheotes admitted of a variety of competing, and confusing, definitions—often bearing no straightforward relationship to its strict etymology. While these lie outside the scope of the present chapter, some of the more interesting definitions and applications are discussed elsewhere in this volume.
Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years:
  1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’ (Baggini 2003: 3)
  2. 'At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
  3. '[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
  4. '[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
  5. 'By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean—a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)
Of course, these definitions share certain features: all regard atheism as relating, in a negative way, to a thing or things called ‘god’, and all but one describe this relationship in terms of belief. But beyond this, it is obvious that these authors are not all talking about the same thing at all. The first and second include gods; the final three specify only one (which the final two give a capital G). The fourth definition, moreover, restricts this scope even further. Definitions two and three regard atheism as simply being the absence of a certain belief; the rest, contrariwise, see it as implying a definite belief. Moreover, the fifth definition also demands a level of intellectual—and perhaps also emotional —conviction, over and above simple believing.
Though our focus in this chapter is on scholarly usage(s), it is worth pointing out that everyday speech is no more monosemic. This is, perhaps, partly to be expected: after all, English is very much a global language, and is the native tongue of approaching 400 million people. Nevertheless, even relatively homogeneous groups often display a notable lack of uniformity. For instance, a 2007 study of over 700 students—all at the same British university, at the same time, with a clear majority being a similar age and from the same country—found that, from a list of commonly encountered definitions of ‘atheist’, the most popular choice was ‘A person who believes that there is no God or gods’ (Bullivant 2008). This was, however, chosen by only 51.8 per cent of respondents: hardly an overwhelming consensus. 29.1 per cent opted instead for ‘A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods’, 13.6 per cent took the broader ‘A person who lacks a belief in a God or gods’, and 0.6 per cent answered ‘Don’t know’. Thirty-five respondents, eight of whom had already affirmed one of the suggested meanings, offered their own definitions. These included:
  • 'A person who lacks a belief in supernatural forces, without suggesting that they might exist’.
  • 'Someone who denies the validity of using the word “God” to indicate anything (other than a concept) which might be said to “exist” ’.
  • 'A person who has no belief in any deity and finds that religion is not an important part of their life’.
  • 'Someone who isn’t a member of any religion that believes in one God’.
Once again, despite general similarities, it is clear that the word is used and understood in a wide variety of different ways, even in so relatively uniform a group. (Note too the introduction of wider concepts such as ‘religion’ and ‘supernatural forces’, rather than confining themselves to just God/gods, into these definitions.) Thinking more widely, it is also worth noting that both ‘atheism’ and ‘atheist’ can carry a considerable number of overtones and connotations, positive and negative: even among people agreeing on a given abstract definition, calling someone an ‘atheist’ might well communicate very different things in, say, McCarthy-era Dallas, post-communist Krakow, or twenty-first-century London.

THE BABEL HANDBOOK OF ATHEISM?

It is important to recognize that plurality of usage, as sketched above, need not imply that some scholars are right and others are wrong. Atheism simply possesses no single, objective definition: it can be used correctly in a number of related, sometimes overlapping, and often mutually exclusive ways. This is not necessarily a problem, so long as one is always clear how exactly each author is deploying the term. (There is also a valid case to be made for certain disciplines to use the word in their own, highly specialized senses.) That is not to say, however, that all definitions are equally useful: a too-narrow definition may inadvertently airbrush out all kinds of interesting potential data, while a too-broad one may capture a large number of ‘atheisms’ with few meaningful connections between them. Alternatively, a definition that is too idiosyncratic, or culturally bound, may obviate comparisons with other work ostensibly on the same subject. Furthermore, and quite obviously, the sheer lack of agreement creates a great deal of, at best, time-consuming effort, and at worst, hopeless confusion, for all concerned. There is, therefore, a great deal of utility to be gained from finding a generally agreed-upon, serviceable (if not perfect), scholarly definition of the word atheism. The merits of this may be grasped if one imagines this Handbook—drawing together dozens of scholars, from widely diverse disciplines, and several continents—as a microcosm of the scholarly study of atheism. Without a ‘standard’ definition, outlined and explained in a chapter such as this, each contributor would need to explicate his or her own definition at the beginning of their chapter—or else, as happens all too often, their readers would simply have to infer quite how he or she is using the term. The reader, of course, would need to remember this definition throughout the duration of the chapter, before consciously relearning and reremembering what would probably (but not necessarily) be a different definition for the next chapter. With different authors defining the term in different ways, like-for-like comparisons between chapters would become next to impossible: the ‘atheists’ whose psychological tendencies one learns about in one chapter may well be a different (and possibly mutually exclusive) set of ‘atheists’ whose demographic trends are charted in the next. Such a collection would not, it must be said, be without value: each individual chapter could well constitute an exemplary and illuminating piece of scholarship. Furthermore, every single one of its definitions of atheism might be perfectly valid (if not necessarily, for the reasons mentioned above, optimally useful): clearly and precisely defined, with a weight of historical usage behind it, and having sufficient consonance with popular usage. And yet, viewed as a whole, The Babel Handbook of Atheism would be a frustrating morass of contradictions and cross-purposes. Such, writ large, is the state of the scholarly study of atheism today.
Throughout this volume, by contrast, and unless otherwise stated, ‘atheism’ is defined as an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods. As with most mainstream definitions of the term, it is simply the fruit of two basic decisions: the meaning and scope of a-, and the meaning and scope of - theism. Neither decision, of course, is either straightforward or uncontroversial. So let me explain, explore, and defend each of them in turn, while giving special attention to the question of utility.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I fall short of a belief in God. But i do maintain that there is eternal natural intelligence, or an wild, ambivalent spiritual force in the universe.

My certainty that there is no perfect being is 1000% on a scale from 0 to 100%. It has increased a lot over the years. Especially this year.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.
Nice you ask this

IMHO: Atheism is a belief
The belief of one who believes there is no God or gods.

Why is it a belief? They also don't know for sure whether or not God(s) exist. They just choose to "not believe" whereas Theist choose to "believe".
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

Semantic games are not amusing
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Personally, I consider pure atheism a definitive statement that there is no God, period. Non-belief is not the same, in my view. That's agnosticism to me. Probably more common middle ground than we know. It's a non-belief. I don't believe in God, and I also don't believe in no God. The whole idea of God is irrelevant. Unfortunately, they sometimes get labelled as atheists. This comes form very 'this or that' mindsets.

Then there are people who can be either atheist or theist to various definitions of God. So it depends which God. So atheist today, theist tomorrow.
No, you are conflating belief and knowledge. Atheism is simply a statement of what one believes. Stating that one does not have a belief in gods is not quite the same as believing that there are no gods. It may be that you recognize that there is no reliable evidence for gods and you understand the rational conclusion.

Gnosticism on the other hand is about what one knows. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. They are not willing to say that they know that a God does not exist, but until reasonable, rational, and reliable evidence is given for one they simply cannot believe. I cannot believe in Bigfoot because no one has presented significant reasonable rational, and reliable evidence for one. I am a-Bigfoot-ist. But show me some evidence to the contrary and I will change my beliefs.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
That is correct.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

That's not at all "another way of phrasing" it.

The first is an expression of disbelief of a claim.
The second is a claim in itself, which happens to be the opposite claim of the first.

Not accepting X, does not automagically mean that the opposite of X will be accepted.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.
What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

There is only one red thread that defines all "types" of atheism and that is: lacking belief in theistic claims.

Atheism in essence is just a single position on a single issue.
Atheism is not a claim. If anything, it is a response to a claim.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nice you ask this

IMHO: Atheism is a belief
The belief of one who believes there is no God or gods.

Why is it a belief? They also don't know for sure whether or not God(s) exist. They just choose to "not believe" whereas Theist choose to "believe".
Nope. A person that reasons rationally cannot choose to believe. Your statement indicated that you think that religious belief is irrational. Perhaps you might want to rethink it.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?
Self Confidence is essential on the Spiritual Path
If I feel good, then it's good for me
But I don't impose my definition on Atheists:D

When imposing starts, things tend to get difficult
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.
Those aren't rephrasings of the same idea. I'm not sure if they were intended to be, though.


I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.
I'm not okay with the "rejection of belief" definitions, and for a few reasons:

- it doesn't reflect usage, since it would mean that it's virtually impossible to be an atheist, yet it's generally accepted that atheists exist. How can someone reject a god they've never even heard of?

- IMO, it's rooted in chauvinism. It's theists deciding that because their god is the most important thing in their belief system, the question of whether it exists must be overwhelmingly important to everyone else - they just can't fathom anyone responding to the most important idea in their worldview with "meh."

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?
It's not difficult to define at all. I think the roadblocks come from misunderstandings:

- I think a lot of people - especially many monotheists - approach theism in terms of belief in their god specifically. I think that these people pay enough mind to the countless many other gods humanity believes in to understand just how impossible it would be to reject "gods" as a category.

- I think that the question of God's existence is so central to the mindset of many theists that they simply can't relate to the response to God of "Laplace's atheism" ("I saw no need for that hypothesis").

- I think that for many theists, their idea of an atheist is inferred from people who tell them that they're atheists. In a way this makes sense, but you're going to end up with a wonky understanding of a term if you only consider people who self-apply the term. Imagine how it would be if we only applied the term "tall" to the people who were self-reflective and expressive enough to say "yes, I understand what it means to be tall and I recognize that I am tall."

- like I touched on earlier, I think there's a lot of chauvinism in how theists often approach non-believers. I think there's a common tendency among many theists to lump all atheists together; when someone responds to the question "what do you believe?" with "oh, lots of things, but not any gods," there's a tendency among many to see the "not any gods" part of that as critically important but ignore that the "lots of things" part will be wildly different from person to person. It's an example of the theist trying to define someone else's belief system in terms of what's important to them instead of what's important to other people.

- I think there are many theists who just don't get the concept of positivism, and who insist on there being this false dichotomy of acceptance and rejection without a middle ground of "I'm just not convinced."
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
IMHO: Atheism is a belief
The belief of one who believes there is no God or gods.

Wrong: atheism Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Why is it a belief? They also don't know for sure whether or not God(s) exist.

Many atheists acknowledge this.

They just choose to "not believe" whereas Theist choose to "believe".

Belief is not a choice - one is ether persuaded or not - and there aren't only two options - there are thousands of gods that humans believe in or have believed in.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Personally, I consider pure atheism a definitive statement that there is no God, period.

That would be "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism", if you wish.

"pure atheism" doesn't make much sense to me.


Non-belief is not the same, in my view. That's agnosticism to me.

Just about every atheist I am personally aware of, is an agnostic atheist.
Many people don't seem to understand that (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive at all. They are different answers to different questions. One is about what you (don't) know or what is(n't) knowable, while the other is about what is being believed.

I am an agnostic atheist.
I don't believe a god exists, and don't claim to know that no gods exist or that is even knowable that a god exists (or not).

I don't claim there is no god, because it's pointless and a trueism that I cannot support.
I don't claim that there are no unicorns for the same reason.

I might say that I consider it very unlikely that there are such things. But strictly speak, I can't know nore prove nore support it with positive evidence.


Probably more common middle ground than we know. It's a non-belief. I don't believe in God, and I also don't believe in no God. The whole idea of God is irrelevant.

Exactly

Unfortunately, they sometimes get labelled as atheists

Because they are. They don't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe a god exists"?

"Yes" makes you a theist.
Any answer, other then "yes", makes you an atheist.

It's pretty binary....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Why is it a belief? They also don't know for sure whether or not God(s) exist. They just choose to "not believe" whereas Theist choose to "believe".

I have *never* seen belief as a choice. I am either convinced or I am not.

If I am convinced, I believe. If I am not, I hold off on belief.

I don't see where 'choice' even enters into this.

In fact, I'll go further, to 'choose' in regard to belief seems, to me, to be 'play acting': you act *as if* you believe.

But I don't see that as actual belief. I see it as non-belief along with some dishonesty.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Atheism could be defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

There are two senses as you say and one is a "I dont care to talk about it" sort and the other is a "no one should bother with such nonsense" sort.

There may also be the "we dont need this any more" sort which sees something of value in God or gods but that value has been lost to a more mature perspective.

One more step brings us to the boundary line between theism and atheism where exist the sort that might say "we need something better, something like this but which does not strain credulity, something worth believing in...again".

Beyond this boundary zone are those who have found some success with belief but more and more fear to voice the inadequacies of their faith or the inscrutibleness of their God.
 
Top