Is atheism a belief?

[InChrist]

There is nothing wrong with belief. But people have to recognize it for what it is. It may be rational, it may be irrational. I am not a fan of irrational belief. I am a fan of the opposite. An irrational belief would be that there are fairies in my backyard because I saw a ring that I could not explain.

Just for you my rational forum friend...

"The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to “group-think” and other non-rational forms of cognition."
Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think - Religion News Service

 

[PureX]

My definition is lack of belief in a god or gods so according to my definition theists can be atheists.

Your definition is dishonest nonsense. You are describing nothing, and claiming nothing. when nothing needs no designation, nor proclamation.

And I don’t believe in big foot.

Sure, because you believe that if Bigfoot existed, you would somehow know it. So you do believe: that Bigfoot does not exist because if it did, you would know it. You are not an "unbeliever". You are an alternative believer. You believe your ignorance defines reality.

It’s not a rejection of a big foot belief

Yes, it is.

... it’s not based on an alternative belief

Yes, it is.

... it’s not a belief that if big foot existed I would already know it.

Yes, it is.

So my non big foot belief isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of. It’s really quite a simple concept.

It's flat out ignorance and dishonesty, is what it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you tell me where the word "agnostic" comes from then?

From Huxley, who realized that the term "gnostic" applied to a specific religious denomination:

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.

Also, word usage can change, and has in this specific example. "Gnostic" is not the same as "gnostic." One is a noun, the other an adjective. This is part of common word usage now.

No, it really isn't. AFAICT, people only use the term that way on religious discussion boards and atheist YouTube channels.

You may as well try to take back the word "catholic." After all, it originally just meant "universal:"

"I lost the clicker for my TV, so I had to buy a catholic remote."

If the "Gnostics" want to complain about it and tell everyone to stop using their word, they can have at it.

"Everyone" isn't using the word your way.

Just as the rest of us are completely free to ignore them and just use words for what we commonly understand them to mean for ourselves. The last thing they probably need, I am sure, is for you to lodge their complaints for them.

You're free to call yourself an ice cream sandwich if you want, but if you want to be understood, it helps to take the generally understood meaning of words into account.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

We can equally well label Christianity a non-belief, by simply stating it is the disbelief in the non-existence of God.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between belief and lack of it? Nobody has any trouble with the notion that a person who owes more money than he has is a debtor. We don't say, "he's not a debtor, he's the proud owner of negative $2,000 bucks!"

 

[JChnsc19]

Your definition is dishonest nonsense. You are describing nothing, and claiming nothing. when nothing needs no designation, nor proclamation.
Sure, because you believe that if Bigfoot existed, you would somehow know it. So you do believe: that Bigfoot does not exist because if it did, you would know it. You are not an "unbeliever". You are an alternative believer. You believe your ignorance defines reality.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
It's flat out ignorance and dishonesty, is what it is.

I completely believe that aliens, ghosts & big foot could exist & I wouldn’t know it. A million other earths may exist and I may never know it. I’m not even close to being so arrogant to say if a thing existed in the world- me, the repository of all knowledge- would know it. I’ll die maybe only knowing 0.5% of all General & scientific knowledge.

Schizophrenia is real, mental illness is real yet I can’t tell you the number or Pentecostals I know who believe it is all 100% false.

Flat earthers really don’t believe a round earth exists.

My grandma died thinking alcohol that is for drinking- wine, rum etc was poison. Not bad for you but -literally poison.

So just because a truth is obvious to one doesn’t mean it’s obvious to another. Big foot is very possible. I don’t believe in ghosts either and at the same time I may be surrounded by them & I may die never knowing they exist.

 

[PureX]

We can equally well label Christianity a non-belief, by simply stating it is the disbelief in the non-existence of God.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between belief and lack of it? Nobody has any trouble with the notion that a person who owes more money than he has is a debtor. We don't say, "he's not a debtor, he's the proud owner of negative $2,000 bucks!"

We do if we don't want to admit that any debt exists (or in this case, "belief").

 

[PureX]

I completely believe that aliens, ghosts & big foot could exist & I wouldn’t know it.

What could exist is not part of this issue. I could be an atheist, a theist, or simply indifferent. Any of us could be anything. What we could be is irrelevant to the term we are claiming to be, now.

So just because a truth is obvious to one doesn’t mean it’s obvious to another. Big foot is very possible. I don’t believe in ghosts either and at the same time I may be surrounded by them & I may die never knowing they exist.

If you don't know whether gods exist, or not, then why are you lying to yourself, and to others about it with all this "unbelief" nonsense. Why not just say "I don't know"?

 

[JChnsc19]

What could exist is not part of this issue. I could be an atheist, a theist, or simply indifferent. Any of us could be anything. What we could be is irrelevant to the term we are claiming to be, now.
If you don't know whether gods exist, or not, then why are you lying to yourself, and to others about it with all this "unbelief" nonsense. Why not just say "I don't know"?

I’m fine with saying I don’t see any evidence or I don’t have any belief. I don’t need to say I don’t know. Well, I don’t know of any evidence... I don’t take the hard atheist stance, im always open to new info & evidence or whatever like Zeus, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

From Huxley, who realized that the term "gnostic" applied to a specific religious denomination:

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.

This is interesting, and honestly probably aided in the term "gnostic" being adopted as an adjective term as an antonym to "agnostic."

No, it really isn't. AFAICT, people only use the term that way on religious discussion boards and atheist YouTube channels.

You may as well try to take back the word "catholic." After all, it originally just meant "universal:"

"I lost the clicker for my TV, so I had to buy a catholic remote."


"Everyone" isn't using the word your way.

Plenty of people are applying the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" outside of the realm you are referring to, as far as I have seen.

As a matter of fact, I work in the market research business, and the term "device agnostic" is thrown around all the time to refer to coding or setup that does not require knowledge or can't even know the type of device it is going to be displayed on, but works the same regardless.

Besides this, it is INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS that the word "gnostic" has the adjective usage I just outlined when I can look it up within a dictionary and find this:

adjective Also gnos·ti·cal.

1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

noun

1. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

See that first entry? ADJECTIVE. And the very first entry under that heading is the generic "pertaining to knowledge." And look at that wackiness... there is even another term "gnostical" listed. All evidence against your claim. Now, please cite the evidence/authority that demonstrates that the word "gnostic" is reserved for the usage you have chosen to champion.

 

[Heyo]

Please show any god that is not the creation of man's imaginings.
Gods are no different in their origin than Mickey Mouse or Superman. The only difference is in the intent of the creators. Micky and Superman were created to entertain. Gods were created to explain the unexplainable (Thor - Lightening; Death - Heaven); to control (don't eat the dirty pig; don't covet thy neighbors ***); to create a powerful class (witch doctor; advisor to kings).

If you disagree, please show any god that was not created by man.

You misunderstood my position. I don't think there are gods. My position is that without even knowing what a god is, it is useless to ponder if it exists.

But if you insist I can also prove that god exists (and is real/physical).
Premise: Clapton is god.
Evidence: Visit a concert. (Or see below.)
Conclusion: God exists.

 

[Nakosis]

I think atheism is an abnormal lust that is explained in my psychology
It is a point of desire that comes at a time when a person feels bored of his lifestyle and routine
He wants to play other roles, other actions, and another truth
Because of the absence of the excitement element in life that causes them depression

You understand here that you are trying to explain someone else's ideology.
I don't get the connection to lust.

Love change
Almost 50% of males do marital infidelity because they want to change and try another female
As well as females

Also don't get the connection to infidelity. Myself, I've been faithly married since 87.

 

[JChnsc19]

Your definition is dishonest nonsense. You are describing nothing, and claiming nothing. when nothing needs no designation, nor proclamation.
Sure, because you believe that if Bigfoot existed, you would somehow know it. So you do believe: that Bigfoot does not exist because if it did, you would know it. You are not an "unbeliever". You are an alternative believer. You believe your ignorance defines reality.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
It's flat out ignorance and dishonesty, is what it is.

Do you also call it dishonesty, ignorance & nonsense when I say I don’t believe in Santa Claus & tooth fairies?

 

[PureX]

Do you also call it dishonesty, ignorance & nonsense when I say I don’t believe in Santa Claus & tooth fairies?

What you don't believe is irrelevant, and presumably infinite. Which is why proclaiming what you don't believe is nonsensical.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think atheism is an abnormal lust that is explained in my psychology
It is a point of desire that comes at a time when a person feels bored of his lifestyle and routine

I can shoot you down right here. At no time in my entire life was I ever a theist. I never believed, never faithfully practiced under the heading of any religion. All notions of gods have always seemed too outrageous to be believed to me. Always.

Therefore your attempt to paint atheism as some sort of departure from religious/believer's "routine" is bogus. And because I never experienced what it was like to be a believer, there never could have even been a point at which I "lusted" after another lifestyle. That's quite an idiotic idea, by the way. I don't think any former-believer turned atheist that I have ever encountered would describe their departure from theism as some form of "lust." It's ridiculous, and is almost certainly you just choosing some word with negative connotations to try and paint atheism with your agenda.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your definition is dishonest nonsense. You are describing nothing, and claiming nothing. when nothing needs no designation, nor proclamation.
Sure, because you believe that if Bigfoot existed, you would somehow know it. So you do believe: that Bigfoot does not exist because if it did, you would know it. You are not an "unbeliever". You are an alternative believer. You believe your ignorance defines reality.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
It's flat out ignorance and dishonesty, is what it is.

Man... I can tell you are worked up. And you are just flat-out wrong.

Not believing in Big foot until there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief is a completely valid position to hold, and DOES NOT include believing that Big Foot doesn't exist. I don't know if Big Foot exists or not. I am not going to ACTIVELY BELIEVE THAT HE DOES though, until I see some kind of evidence that shows me that it warrants belief.

So, if you do not believe in Big Foot, would you say that it is because YOU KNOW that he does not exist? Is that your claim? That you KNOW Big Foot isn't real? I don't know that for certain... but again, I would not go around believing it. There is no need. I am withholding belief until compelled otherwise.

It would be just like someone running up to you claiming there was a white-haired, one-eyed monster chasing after them. You may not strictly believe them, but you may very well be holding that position until such time as you check it out for yourself and get some further evidence one way or the other. For all you know, maybe there is something like their description chasing after them. You don't make the claim that there is no such monster, you just withhold outright belief until you can confirm. We all do this with all sorts of information. Just because YOU like the idea of god does not make it special.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What you don't believe is irrelevant, and presumably infinite. Which is why proclaiming what you don't believe is nonsensical.

What an idiotic statement.

Based on your utter CRAP above, you must think that you should be able to TELL ME ANYTHING AT ALL, and that I can't say (simple as pie): "I don't believe you."

Is that right? You don't think that I can't believe something you say? Seriously? You believe it to be "nonsensical" if I say that I don't believe some claim you have made?

This is probably one of the dumbest things I have read in a while. You have no idea the amount of evidence I have accumulated in experience with theists that informs me that THEISTS DO NOT THINK BEFORE THEY SPEAK/WRITE. Chalk another one of those up on the board I guess.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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".

That's the winner answer.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, a lack of belief that you base on the belief that if gods existed, you would somehow know it. "Un"-belief is a rejection of belief, based on an alternative belief. An agnostic simply doesn't know what to believe. And that's not you. Is it.

Nope, that is not it at all. And you still do not seem to realize that most agnostics are atheists as well.

Your misusing the terms, here. Theism refers to the whole branch of philosophy associated with the existence and effects of an assumed deity. Some theists reject other theist's characterization of deity, and some don't. But they are all still theists because they all still engage in the philosophical proposition that deity is extant, and of some effect. They are not atheists.

Strange, you abused the terms atheist and agnostic and seemed to have no problem with that.

 

[JChnsc19]

What you don't believe is irrelevant, and presumably infinite. Which is why proclaiming what you don't believe is nonsensical.

What gives you the right to call my position of no belief ignorant, dishonest, nonsense? Do I not have that right? And how can you call it dishonest? How can you be in a better position to assess the honestness of my opinions/positions/statements than me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for you my rational forum friend...

"The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to “group-think” and other non-rational forms of cognition."
Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think - Religion News Service

You need to learn how to find reliable sources. By the way, I never claimed that atheists were perfect, but when it comes to religious views we are clearly more rational than many theists. Don't you deny reality for example? If I remember correctly you make the error of telling your God how he had to make the Earth rather than trusting your God's work that can speak on its own.