• 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

JChnsc19

Member
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
I did skim over that article & I agree. Since atheism is only agreement of 1 position- non belief in a dirty- you’re gonna find varying beliefs of all kinds, kinda like herding cats. I know atheists who are terrified of haunted houses, atheists who believe in aliens, atheists who still fear hell. Science didn’t drive any of my atheism but its an interesting read.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.

Think of it this way... if I can't even be sure whether or not to believe in something, do you think I am going to claim knowledge one way or the other? What do you take me for? A theist?!!
His problem may be that he is a "black and white" type of thinker and thinks that everyone one else is too. The Black and White Fallacy that he seems to be using is "If you do not believe in God then you believe that God does not exist".
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium 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".
IMO, YO is not valid.

I am perfectly capable of expressing myself accurately. I am able to write the sentence, "I do not believe in the existence of gods," and I am also able to write the sentence, "I believe that no gods exist." Whether you like it or not, these sentences express different ideas, and I hold to the first one, so the second does NOT define my atheism.

Now, the question for you is, are capable of reading as accurately as I am capable of writing? If not, what has scrambled that ability for you? Your own predispositions?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I was not referring to that post.

Regards Tony

Then you need to be clearer. From context you were clearly discussing this failed post:

"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"."
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You know, I just thought this...

Atheism, as I explained in page 4 of this thread, is not a belief as I understand those concepts.

But the realization that pretending to be a theists in order to conform to other people's expectations is worse than being outspoken as an atheist might well qualify as a belief, and be mistaken with atheism proper by some theists.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
You don't need to say anything. Yet you want to proclaim your "unbelief" as if it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. There are an endless number of things any one of us don't believe; don't care about, don't think about, don't know about. So it makes no sense to be proclaiming "unbelief" in gods, or in anything else. Which is why I simply don't believe you. I think you do believe that no gods exist. And I think you believe this because you, personally, have recognized no evidence to suggest to you that any gods do exist. Therefor, you believe that if any gods did exist, you, personally, would have recognized sufficient evidence of it, and would thereby have been convinced sufficiently to "believe" it. In effect, you "believe in" your own lack of information. As though your personal knowledge/ignorance were the defining factors in what exists and what does not.

I also think you know how myopic and irrational such a position would appear if it were stated as I have just stated it, and so you are trying to hide from it behind this nonsensical, non-committal smoke screen of "unbelief".
... 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
... But still assuming that what you don't know defines what doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
You know, I just thought this...

Atheism, as I explained in page 4 of this thread, is not a belief as I understand those concepts.

But the realization that pretending to be a theists in order to conform to other people's expectations is worse than being outspoken as an atheist might well qualify as a belief, and be mistaken with atheism proper by some theists.
As opposed to pretending that you're an agnostic so you can avoid having to defend your atheism, even as you demand that theists defend their theism according to your biased criteria? I think there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, here.
 

nPeace

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?
I don't think Atheism is difficult to define.
I think people change things based on preferences.
For example, certain words have changed to meet personal preferences - like gay. Why? I think people prefer things that sound nice, or less direct. Just a convenience.

To show that this is the case, imo, consider the reasoning below.

What is Atheism? | American Atheists
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

See... How complicated they make it, imo. Why. Personal preference, and convenience... imo.
So, in effect, the earlier dictionaries were incorrect, and so are some of the present ones.

atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.


I don't believe the sky is blue. I disbelieve the sky is blue.
Sound quite reasonable to me.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
As opposed to pretending that you're an agnostic so you can avoid having to defend your atheism, even as you demand that theists defend their theism according to your biased criteria? I think there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, here.
I am saying what I think that might be true.

If you see that as a reason to attack me, then so be it. I can hardly feel responsible for your judgement.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The real problem is that we keep insisting on using the term "belief" when what is actually the defining factor is NOT BELIEF, but acceptance. Theism is a category of philosophy based on the proposition that some form of deity exists, and through it's existence, it effects us in some way. Atheism is the rejection of that proposition. And is therefor the end of the philosophical discussion, ... UNLESS we want to debate WHY we accept or reject that proposition.

"Unbelief" is a dead end. An empty page full of non-dialogue. It's meaningless. And pointless. And a waste of everyone's time on a site like this.

So the moment an "atheist" declares themselves an atheist in a philosophical/theological context (like a web site designed for theological debate) the expectation is that the proclamation will come with some sort of reasoned justification. Not with "well, maybe, but I don't know, perhaps, I doubt it, but YOU'RE WRONG, for sure!"

Grow some balls, stand on a position, and defend it. No one cares what you "believe". All we care about is what you can reasonably defend. Because we can learn from your defense. We learn nothing from your "belief", and even less than nothing from your "unbelief".
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
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.

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?

Atheism a belief? Yes, but only if abstinence is a sexual position.

Ciao

- viole
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I am saying what I think that might be true.

If you see that as a reason to attack me, then so be it. I can hardly feel responsible for your judgement.
I wasn't attacking you, I was using the "you're" as a general pronoun. (I think that's what it's called.)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
2 issues:
1. You’re saying they choose not to believe. Do you have a religion? Did you choose it? You do not choose beliefs. You’re either convinced of something or you’re not. Did you choose to believe you are gay or straight? Did you choose to believe you like chocolate or vanilla better? Can you go to the roof of a skyscraper, CHOOSE to not believe in gravity & then step off the roof? No... of course not
2. Atheism is a belief? You do realize you’re an atheist right? You’re atheist towards all the gods you think aren’t real. Is your atheism towards the gods you don’t believe in a belief, or a lack of belief? The most basic of definition is it’s a lack of belief in a god or gods, simple as that
Thank you for your reply

I don't want to debate. I am fine if you see it different. You asked some questions, hence my reply. I like to share and read.
I share my view, you share your view
I feel no need to impose or be imposed

Many Atheists like to debate, if this is what you want, you better find someone else. Because I am not interested in debating, as I don't see right or wrong when talking about "(non)belief", "God", "(A)theism".

1) I don't have a definition of God
2) I don't have any image/idea of God
3) I don't know if God exists or not
Hence I choose to believe in God
Hence I choose to believe NOT in God
Both are equally irrational to me

Which one I choose depends on how I feel
Feelings depend on personal experiences
Feeling is not rational; God is not rational

I choose to believe that I will never be able to know God, IF God is defined with all these omni's. Because I don't posses these omni's, which I would need to determine God (and I don't expect getting them any time soon).

And I am totally senang "not knowing"
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Atheism a belief? Yes, but only if abstinence is a sexual position.

Ciao

- viole
Viole you are Great. You solved it thanks.

I do believe abstinence to be asexual position

Hence I can say "Atheism is a belief IMO"
 
Top