Atheism belief/not a belief derail from P&CE

Devil Ledbetter said:

No, atheism is not a belief. It is a non-belief.

Click to expand...

Devil got there first. But yes. Atheism is lack of belief.

Devil Ledbetter said:

No, atheism is not a belief. It is a non-belief.

Click to expand...

crunchyblanket said:

Devil got there first. But yes. Atheism is lack of belief.

Click to expand...

once one throws in 'theism' it's all belief.

A rock has non-beliefs and a lack of belief. (i believe)

But humans have beliefs, though different words are used to describe that term.
But certainly in the area of 'theism' they are known as beliefs.

Which, besides the semantics, is pretty important when separating beliefs from state. Because the danger is that Atheist can claim 'well, our viewpoint is not actually a belief, therefore our viewpoint can be excused from the state/ belief separation scenario

but as i say, in the area of theism, all are beliefs.



As a side note, it ties in with the proof issues regarding the existence or otherwise of God. (ie unprovable either way)

You can prove someone is free of cancer at any given time in their life. You can do that by subjecting the patient to a thorough round of tests that will determine the lack of of cancer anywhere in her body and the good health of all of her organs at the time of testing.

Kindly show me the battery of tests that cover the entirety of infinite existence and consciousness by which it is possible to prove that there is no god existing anywhere at a given time.

It is not possible to prove the negative that there is no god because there are no tools for doing so, thus if atheism states categorically that there is no god, atheism is acting on belief.

ETA: Note: I am not saying that atheism is a religion. Religion and belief are not inextricable and a belief can be secular.

Devil Ledbetter said:

You missed my point. Entirely. What I said was:
As you can see this has absolutely nothing to do with proving the absence of cancer.

You know that I can't. Just as I can't prove there aren't invisible purple unicorns dancing around in my backyard. Doesn't mean I feel a need to remain "open" to the possibility of their existence though. For all practical purposes, and for the purpose of simplifying my life down to what actually matters, I'm going to carry on without concern for whether or not those unicorns exist.

I'm not going to leave food out to them, pay rent to them or pretend to rub them for good luck.

Atheism does not state categorically that there is no god. The atheist states that she does not believe in god. It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

I read your original statement as a comment on the erroneous argument that atheism is a religion.

Your comment about that was predicated on the initial statement "she doesn't have cancer", which is a declaration which in the context I took to be equivalent to "there is no god." I would like to point out especially that your analogy did not say "I don't believe she has cancer." It said, "She doesn't have cancer." In context, surely that would be analogous to "there is no god," not "I don't believe in God." So did I really miss your point? Or perhaps was it not articulated well?

Second point, I, for one, am not asking you to remain open to anything you don't believe in. I am not an atheist myself, but neither am I an evangelist. Can't stand evangelism, personally, but that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is you will never get any argument from me about your refusal to pretend to believe things you don't, and I will always defend your right not to believe against anyone who would attempt to force you into conformity with their beliefs, such as by legislating religion into the law. However, I would appreciate from some quarters a little of the same courtesy in return in terms of tolerance for my right to believe as I wish.

Finally, regardless of what atheism might state if it had a mouth to speak with, I don't think any attempt to claim there are no atheists who state there is no god will be successful.

Does no one have a dictionary handy? Oh wait:

From Merriam Webster, online.

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Disbelieving (disbelief being the act of disbelieving)

Definition of DISBELIEVE

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

Doctrine:

Definition of DOCTRINE

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma

So, if you go with "disbelief", an atheist does not belief, or withholds a belief.

If you go with doctrine, the Atheist may do because of a principle based upon a system of belief.


So, is atheism based upon a belief? Well, maybe. Maybe not.

And was that really the point of the OP or overall discussion?

Devil Ledbetter said:

You've really so totally missed my point. And no, I don't think it was an issue with my articulation.

It wasn't about proving or disproving God (or cancer). It was about Paul's claim that the absence of theism was in fact another form of theism. Saying "The absence of theism is a type of theism" is as illogical as saying "The absence of cancer is a type of cancer."

Not having cancer isn't a form of cancer, and not believing in god is not a belief.

If this still doesn't make sense, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Click to expand...

Well, in return I think you are missing my point, which is that by your own choices of words, as well as the wording of many other atheists from time to time, the concept of atheism does indeed include the declaration that there is no god, and not just the absence of a concept of god in a person's mind. So if we go by what we hear atheists saying, then there is an assumption behind an assertion, i.e. that there's no such thing as a god. Clearly, that must be a matter of belief.

Now, you may argue that a lack of belief does not imply the existence of an alternative belief, and that is certainly possible. However, it seems that according to American Atheists, there is indeed a belief behind atheism, namely that there is no god:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

Click to expand...

Link to full text.

Further, according to Atheist Alliance International, an umbrella group of atheist and other secularist organizations, atheism involves a belief that there are no deities:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Click to expand...

Link to full text.

So my point, namely that atheism is a system of belief (but not a religion), stands because it seems that the general understanding of atheism among atheists is that there is no god. That is a declaration made without proof, and therefore, a belief.

Second, there is another point that is perhaps being missed -- Paul's statement that atheism is a theism does not necessarily suggest that atheism is a religion. Rather, it suggests that any system of thought ending in the suffix "theism" is a system of belief and/or intellectual inquiry on the subject of theos, i.e. deities. In such a reading, "theism" is separated from any assumption of belief. Granted this is not the normal usage, but if you can split hairs over whether not believing there's a god is different from believing there's no god, surely Paul can playfully tweak the usage of "theism."*

ETA: Paul's point, then, may be understood as being that any system of thought which draws conclusions on the subject of "god" or "deity" is dealing with something about which nothing can be proven. Thus, any conclusions anyone reaches on that subject is a matter of belief, rather than knowledge. /ETA

Did I show intolerance for belief? I certainly never intended to, and I'm not sure what I said that could be construed as intolerance for belief, or any attempt at forcing others to conform to my nonbelief.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't. I was referring to comments from other atheists, both in forum threads and in published sources from time to time. I do that sometimes -- refer to things beyond just myself and the person I'm talking with in order to keep a topical conversation broad rather than personal.

Let me put it this way: as far as I am concerned, there is no god.

Click to expand...

And I respect your belief.



* Also, of course, in "atheism," "theism" is not a suffix, but like I said, I think he was playfully tweaking the word for the sake of making a point.

absence of belief <> belief of absence

Devil Ledbetter said:

As an atheist, I couldn't disagree with this more. Have you any reference for this, say, any atheist doctrine declaring that might is the only right?

Click to expand...

Is there an atheist doctrine? I’m not familiar with atheist doctrines, or even that there was any. However, we all have heard of people who have that doctrine. My point isn’t that if you are an atheist, that you must believe Might Makes right. But a person who believes in God believes that in the end God will judge us all by our actions. Even things we have done that no one ever knew we did. Now many people will either ignore this, or again find ways to delude themselves that they are justified for whatever they do. No matter how heinous. However, for an atheist, they may not even feel the need to answer to that higher authority.

As the other point I made that it isn’t atheism that makes a person good or bad, a person who is bad will simply use the might makes right and there is no greater judgment to justify their actions. It wasn’t meant as a sleight towards atheists.

The fact is that we all have our own moral codes and however we got there, through a belief in God or not, that is what makes us a good or bad person.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I agree here. Bad people are bad. Religion can be an excuse, having a bad day can be an excuse, being ill-raised can be an excuse, and I suppose even atheism could be an excuse. Bad people are usually pretty good at excusing themselves.

Click to expand...

Sure. Or one could say that people need those moral codes. However they come to them.

Devil Ledbetter said:

Sorry, Vince, but not believing in something isn't based on faith. It takes faith to believe in the existence of something we can't prove. It does not take any faith at all to disbelief in the existence of something no one can prove. Hence my unicorn analogy. Do you need faith to disbelief there are invisible unicorns prancing about in my backyard? Or do you just dismiss it? Because when it comes to gods, I'm a dismisser and that doesn't require faith at all.

Williebee's post has a solid definite on of atheism. Check it out.
I've said this at AW before and I'll say it again. I respect people, not beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don’t think the Unicorns are a good analogy and here’s why.

What reason do I have to believe that Unicorns really do exist?

None really.

With God, there are plenty of reasons to believe. Our mere existence can be seen as a sign of God.

No one can fully explain the universe, or how it began, or what happens in the end.

I suppose a better analogy would be about intelligent life in outer space.

Some people believe they exist, some even believe they have visited us. Some believe that they don’t or even can’t exist.

But there really is no definitive answer. Maybe in the case of atheism, faith isn’t the right word like it is for people who believe in God. I’m not sure what the right word for it would be. You don’t believe in a God, but you can’t really 100% know there isn’t a God.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I respect you Vince, and Muravyets too.

Click to expand...

As I do you. My respect for a person isn’t as much based on their beliefs but on how they act on those beliefs and most of all, how they treat other people.

I also think that in the end, that will matter more than anything else.

ResearchGuy said:

For some of us, atheism is what is left when one can no longer persuade himself or herself that there is any conceivable basis for belief in a "God." For some, that is part of the logical progression of loss of any conceivable basis for belief in an "Easter Bunny," "Tooth Fairy," or "Santa Claus."

Strange how unsettling that is to believers in invisible beings.

--Ken

Click to expand...

It's so sweet how you clearly didn't intend to imply that religious people are childish. It just came out that way.

But whatever might be the case for some, the case for organized representatives of atheism seems to be that atheism is the belief that there is no god, i.e. atheism is a belief system.

Strange how unsettling that is to some believers in something they cannot prove either.

Devil Ledbetter said:

Ugh. Atheism is still not a belief. The absence of belief is not a belief. (Hmm, just as the absence of cancer is not a cancer.)

It doesn't matter how many times or how stridently god believers declare that lack of belief in god is a belief, it is still not a belief.

It's a non-belief.

Click to expand...

Keep on believing that if it makes you happy, but unless you can prove the negative you insist upon then your position is no more knowledge than religious positions are. By your own acknowledgement earlier in the thread, you cannot know for a fact that there is no god, thus if, as far as you are concerned, there is no god, that is something you believe to be true, not something you know. Thus your decision to discount the existence of god(s) is based on your belief that the claims for them are not true.

I have to say that I'm finding it somewhat amazing that some people seem unable to separate the meaning of the words "believe" and "belief" from a religious context. I wonder, when someone asks "Where is Peru?" and someone else answers "I believe it's in South America," does that sound like a religious discussion? Or if someone says "conservative beliefs in free enterprise often come up in opposition to liberal beliefs in social justice," does that sound like a discussion of a religious conflict? Of course not, obviously. Just because someone says "X is a matter of belief, not facts" that does not imply that X is religious in nature or like a religion.

I'd tried to write something about this never ending semantics debate over whether or not atheism is a "belief system," but I'm too tired and I'm getting confused, so I'd rather not embarrass myself trying.

Just one thing I'd like to observe in that vein: I had a long and painful discussion with someone who tried to convince me I was an atheist, based on what I told him about my own beliefs, which I'm not going to share here because it was plenty un-fun the first time around, and it really upset me because I suck at debating and can never form good arguments when I'm emotionally involved--and I tend to get emotionally involved when the subject is as personal as spirituality. It strikes me as similar to try to convince an atheist that their atheism is, in fact, a "belief." I imagine it's about as un-fun for them as that conversation was for me. Just throwing that out there.

Vince524 said:

I don’t think the Unicorns are a good analogy and here’s why.

What reason do I have to believe that Unicorns really do exist?

None really.

With God, there are plenty of reasons to believe. ...

Click to expand...

I agree with your points on this.

Some people believe because they trust those who told them whatever it is they believe. Others merely profess a belief without really testing themselves on it because joining the church, temple, etc., is part of their social conditioning.

But still others have personal experiences which they interpret as being an experience of something they understand as "the divine." Their own experience is their reason for believing in it. It is emphatically NOT a reason for anyone else to believe in it, but it is their reason.

Similarly, those who have experiences of things they perceive as unicorns, or Bigfoot, etc., will believe those creatures exist, even if they cannot prove it to anyone else.

Now some may argue that the believers are merely misinterpreting natural phenomena, but unless we can directly share their experience and their thoughts about it (and to do that, one would have to first believe in psychic powers ), then we cannot know exactly what it is they are interpreting as divine, and so we cannot say for certain their understanding of their experience is wrong.

So my position is that, while it is valid to say to a religious person, "Your experiences of god mean nothing to me, so I'm not going to base a belief of mine on what you say," it is not valid to say "Your experiences of god are false," because we cannot really know what their experiences were.

That's the way I see it, at least.

Why is it every single time a thread is started anywhere on this forum with atheism mentioned, atheists find themselves defending why they are atheists? Being interrogated about every little word use, and being told that actually, no, they are wrong in what they consider atheism to be.

Atheism wasn't the subject of this thread, the subject was is America turning atheist, and I'd answer no. At least from all that I've observed about the States, I can't see it happening any time soon.

Toothpaste said:

Why is it every single time a thread is started anywhere on this forum with atheism mentioned, atheists find themselves defending why they are atheists? Being interrogated about every little word use, and being told that actually, no, they are wrong in what they consider atheism to be.

Atheism wasn't the subject of this thread, the subject was is America turning atheist, and I'd answer no. At least from all that I've observed about the States, I can't see it happening any time soon.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone feel you should have to defend how or what you believe.

However, I think if you read back, several people have felt the need to defend their belief.

Funny how that is. Religion, or lack thereof, is a very personal thing. That's why when people discuss it, it's important to be very sensitive and choose their words carefully.

Look, nobody is demanding atheists defend why they are atheists. At least I'm not, and I think the record of my posts herein back that up.

And yes, I can certainly see how it would be irritating to the max when people tell atheists that atheism is really a religion anyway, because it frikkin' is not a religion. The claim that it is a religion is, basically, in my opinion, a snotty little attempt to (a) claim that religion is the default mindset and (b) get on atheists' nerves.

But what gets on my nerves -- and in the interest of letting air back into the thread, I'll leave my argument at this, if folks want -- is what I perceive as a defensive hackle-raising against the word "belief" as if there's something wrong with believing something, as if there's nothing non-religious that a person can believe in, etc. I simply do not understand why to say something is a belief is seen as pejorative. To me, it is simply an accurate description of the basis of the position.

I see atheism as a perfectly valid conclusion to reach, among many other valid conclusions, on the subject of deities and divinity, existence thereof. But it is not based on fact because there are no facts on this subject, except the facts of individual people's personal life experiences, which of course are not valid as evidence meant to persuade. I sincerely fail to see why that observation is seen as an attack.

Vince524 said:

I don't think anyone feel you should have to defend how or what you believe.

However, I think if you read back, several people have felt the need to defend their belief.

Funny how that is. Religion, or lack thereof, is a very personal thing. That's why when people discuss it, it's important to be very sensitive and choose their words carefully.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But I still maintain that threads here that have atheism mentioned but the topic isn't the definition of what it is (especially in the sub forum that is for atheists themselves), inevitably someone will come along asking why someone is an atheist, or correcting the way an atheist chooses to explain in response etc. You don't tend to see people asking "Why are you Christian/Jewish/Muslim?"

Now that doesn't mean that religious people don't have their own issues to contend with any time religion is mentioned but isn't the subject of a thread too. Religious people for some reason tend to have to defend why not all religious people are fanatics/stupid. And that is equally frustrating.

But it still gets really frustrating that people have to explain why they are what they are over and over.


ETA: muravyets, I understand your point, but it's the absolutism with which you say it isn't a fact that is part of the problem. Atheists truly think it IS a fact that there is no god. Agnostics are the ones who don't see it as fact. But Atheists? For them it's pretty much a certainty. I get that might drive you batty, but that's what they think. And so when you keep insisting it isn't a fact, then you are basically telling them what they think is wrong. And yes, that could be seen as an attack, even though you don't mean it as such. It's an agree to disagree situation, you see.

Toothpaste said:

I agree.

But I still maintain that threads here that have atheism mentioned but the topic isn't the definition of what it is (especially in the sub forum that is for atheists themselves), inevitably someone will come along asking why someone is an atheist, or correcting the way an atheist chooses to explain in response etc. You don't tend to see people asking "Why are you Christian/Jew/Muslim?"

Now that doesn't mean that religious people don't have their own issues to contend with any time religion is mentioned but isn't the subject of a thread too. Religious people for some reason tend to have to defend why not all religious people are fanatics/stupid. And that is equally frustrating.

But it still gets really frustrating that people have to explain why they are what they are over and over.


ETA: muravyets, I understand your point, but it's the absolutism with which you say it isn't a fact that is part of the problem. Atheists truly think it IS a fact that there is no god. Agnostics are the ones who don't see it as fact. But Atheists? For them it's pretty much a certainty. I get that might drive you batty, but that's what they think. And so when you keep insisting it isn't a fact, then you are basically telling them what they think is wrong. And yes, that could be seen as an attack, even though you don't mean it as such. It's an agree to disagree situation, you see.

Click to expand...

I completely agree, especially with the "agree to disagree" part.

However, I think if you check through the thread again, you'll notice there was a context in which this came up this time. In the course of varying points being answered, atheism somehow got represented as both not asserting its premise as a fact and not being a belief-based system. I was trying to resolve what I perceived as that logical inconsistency, while at the same time expressing my own opinion about the problem of thinking about deities and explaining why I conclude that all thoughts on deities are belief-based, and not factual. Of course, I recognize that people who hold beliefs do actually believe them and view them as facts -- hell, I believe what I believe -- but logically, when we analyze our own positions, we must admit when we are not working with facts. I mean, surely, right? Isn't that the rational approach?

I did go to some effort to make it clear that I am definitely not saying anyone's beliefs are wrong, though, because how would I know? So if I say outright I'm not challenging the validity of someone's view and even that I consider their view valid and reasonable, and they still think I'm saying their view is wrong, I guess there's nothing I can do about that. If indeed that's what's happening.

Oh, well.

I lack belief in gods in the same way I lack belief in yetis. Some people think they exist, but I don't take them seriously. Also, I don't think most the preceding discussion has much to do with demonstrating that atheism is on the rise in the US (which it is) or discussing the consequences of that trend (which will be culturally pervasive).

I believe in myself . . .and thats all there is to it