Is atheism a belief?

[stvdv]

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?

Clearly you misinterpret what I wrote, reading your defensive lines.

To make it abundantly clear:
When I write IMHO (even begin+end). What that means is, that this is how I define it for myself. For the days that I identify myself as an Atheist. I don't need, want, hope others to use my definition of Atheism.

1) IMO, YO is not valid.
* Thank you for your opinion
* FYI: I consider your opinion valid

2) I am perfectly capable of expressing myself accurately
* I know: I never said nor implied different

3) 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."
* I know, never doubted that, nor implied it

4) 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.
* Great, I love it when I can allow others to use different definitions than I use. Means I can also use my own

5) 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?
* I guess you forgot "you" in between "are" and "capable"? Correct?

 

[JChnsc19]

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"

I’m not trying to debate. But I did try back in February on here to get anyone to explain to me how any belief is a choice. I’m not aware of a single belief I have that I chose. But that may very well be a reality for you.

 

[JChnsc19]

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".
... But still assuming that what you don't know defines what doesn't exist.

I don’t need to say anything and yet I’m going to and I’m going to keep talking and keep talking and your toxic hateful attitude won’t shut me up. Wether or not a god exists is an important issue to me, idc if it’s not to you. But I’m going to keep talking & talking & talking until I find answers. Idk if you’re a theist & attend a church but if not I hope you become a theist and find a church because you need something... such anger & negativity what a shame

 

[JChnsc19]

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".

Not everyone sees disbelief as a waste of time but if you do, you’re free to leave or not engage right? Nothing has bound you here correct? And you were not made the arbiter of definitions right? So others can go on talking and you can keep spouting ignorant nonsense (that’s what you called my ideas earlier right? Ignorant nonsense?)

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Thanks for the information and comprehensive exposition on atheism that covers the topic more thoroughly and eloquently than I ever could. The above quoted passage appears a pragmatic approach where theists and atheists prepare for a meaningful dialogue without becoming hamstrung by semantics.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

It depends on your understanding of the word perfect.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Thanks for the information

Important note: The total post was quoted from Chapter 1 of the cited source. Getting it all into posting format was my effort.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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".

So can a belief be an established fact as well as something we believe on faith? If not, what level of evidence is required before a belief becomes fact? FWIW I understand belief to broadly encompass what we believe to know with certainty as opposed to what we consider to be true regardless. But I could be wrong!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Important note: The total post was quoted from Chapter 1 of the cited source. Getting it all into posting format was my effort.

Did you have to type it all out, rather than cut and paste?

 

[wandering peacefully]

And it IS A BELIEF because the atheist believes that he is and would be capable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed.

Not necessarily true at all. This is a real misrepresentation of atheism.

I have no idea what any god would look like, be like, or anything else about it. I just don't believe in any of the so far presented representations of gods that theists have proposed. Full stop. And the theists I believe the least are the ones who insist they literally know who gods are and exactly what they want with humans. It is absolutely ridiculous. No one can possibly know any of this. I would be considered an atheists who knows no one can know including me although I really can't see a path for such an ideal. As of this moment in time anyway.

The problem is with many theists who pretend they understand what non-belief is really don't no matter how many thousands of times they are told the same thing. They are the ones with a belief they cannot let go of.

Atheists just don't believe what theist tell them or the stories behind what theists tell them.. It definitely should not be that difficult but it is.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Semantic games are not amusing

I’m not playing games. I ask the question out of a sincere wish to better understand atheism and to be intellectually challenged.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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 agree they have different meanings. Do you think the statement “I don’t believe in god or Gods” is more reflective of strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism?

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.

Atheism may be a position on a single issue but is that position a belief?

Can I not claim to disbelieve or lack belief in god or Gods?

 

[wandering peacefully]

sincere wish to better understand atheism and to be intellectually challenged.

Some things are better left alone. If the simple concept of non-belief in theists stories by a-theists is too difficult to understand, any thoughts beyond that are probably out of reach also.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

When imposing starts, things tend to get difficult

I agree. The aim for me is the have a mutually agreed definition with atheists whom I converse about matters of belief and faith.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Those aren't rephrasings of the same idea. I'm not sure if they were intended to be, though.



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."


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."

You make some useful and valid points.

 

[Willamena]

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

The best way to see atheism is to see the world. For some, the world includes a god or gods, for others is does not. Regardless, we each believe in the world--so if the world is to be divided by meta-sets of atheist and theist, then yes, you've automatically made atheism a belief.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Did you have to type it all out, rather than cut and paste?

Copied, pasted, formatted in Word. When done, copied from Word to the posted message. Tedious, but not overwhelming.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, it's tough, and that's why I figure it might be futile. Within agnosticism, there is both an 'I don't know' and an 'I don't care' POV, and when you think about it, those two are rather different. In all of these there are both soft and hard stances, and ranges in between. If you asked people to put their belief in a %, there would be great variance. The phrase 'leaning towards ______ also come up some.

Yes, there are many stances in between. But only one is atheism.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. But "religious belief" really is not the same as the more colloquial use of the term as in "I believe gravity is what keeps me from floating into space".

The first is a blind (faith based) acceptance of religious dogma.
The latter refers to an acceptance of a scientific conclusion based on evidence.

Not all religious beliefs are blind or lacking in facts. The discourse around the historicity of religious founders considers evidence using established methods rather than take religious text at face value. In that sense many, though not all atheists consider Jesus existed as an historical person like Caeser or Socrates. I’ve never come across anyone whose seriously claimed the founder of my faith (Bahá’u’lláh) never existed. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that He did. Whether or not these Religious Founders were Prophets of God is a different discussion. Using language such as ‘blind’ faith appears anti-theist and simply sets the scene for an adversarial theist vs atheist debate.

 

[PureX]

Not necessarily true at all. This is a real misrepresentation of atheism.

No it isn't. Keep reading my posts, maybe you'll see it, eventually.