Atheism: A belief?

[Orias]

Alright, I've been having this discussion with a few atheists on a few different threads and decided it was time to make a thread directed and specified towards this concept.

Now, I have had atheists tell me that atheism isn't a belief (the weak ones), while I have had other atheists tell me that atheism is a belief (the strong ones). Now, weak atheists seem to agree (from what I have observed) that strong atheism is a belief.

Now...

fact n.1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.



______________________________________________________________________


be·lief n.1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

_____________________________________________________________________


From my understanding of these definitions (and perhaps a "weak" solipsistic viewpoint), everything "known" is believed.

One has tried to argue that, "If Atheism is a belief, then provide a belief that is specific to Atheism." It seems to me that this argument is excruciatingly narrow, yet concrete, and I suppose I have Kilgore Trout to thank for that.

But I also find this argument rather frail, since I could ask, what is a belief specific to Satanism, or Christianity, or Islam, etc. etc.

I have yet to find a unique position where a belief is specific to that "classification", since in reality, a thoroughly in depth explanation of one's sincere and honest belief can only concede that these specified beliefs would come in conflict with each other.

Which means, that belief isn't necessarily specified to the classification of the belief, rather to the specification of the beholder of the belief.

Enlighten me.

 

[Gloone]

Well since I am not ashamed in anything I believe in..

I think the only way you can be an atheist is by praying to a god and telling god how much you disapprove of everything that god does. That means if you have a problem with God whatever god it may be (Abrahamic ones – for example), you have to get down on your knees in prayer and tell that god how ridiculous you think it is and much you despise everything that it stands for. That is how I discovered my strong atheism and it led me to being a Strong – Atheist – Pagan. Since I was raise in a Christian household, that means to forsaken any savior and telling god you don’t need one. That you are your own and if god actually insisted on aiding you in life then life wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. The reason why I am a pagan now is because I hold many different multifaceted beliefs. That could actually send every religion back to the very land it originated from. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in god, it just means I don’t agree with the view many people have of god. I am very rebellious when it comes to religion and if god can’t accept me for that then to bad, that is gods lose.

 

[Copernicus]

I define atheism as rejection of belief in God, not a mere lack of belief. Babies are not atheists, but, once people define it as "lack of belief", they often insist that babies and people unaware of the god concept are also atheists. I think that that flies in the face of conventional usage of the term "atheist". Even weak atheists tend to believe that gods do not exist, but they prefer to rest on the argument that the burden of proof is on theists. I agree that it is, but I still see that position as a cop-out.

 

[Orias]

Even weak atheists tend to believe that gods do not exist, but they prefer to rest on the argument that the burden of proof is on theists.

So it is more like a facade, to protect their position?

 

[LuisDantas]

But I also find this argument rather frail, since I could ask, what is a belief specific to Satanism, or Christianity, or Islam, etc. etc.

I have yet to find a unique position where a belief is specific to that "classification", since in reality, a thoroughly in depth explanation of one's sincere and honest belief can only concede that these specified beliefs would come in conflict with each other.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If it is that there is no unifying belief among the non-Atheist beliefs, then I agree, there isn't.

I don't think that is very noteworthy either, but I have a hunch that you will disagree. It may help if you remember that Theisms aren't necessarily going to have any common ground on what a God is - and IMO they indeed lack such a common ground. For that matter, not all beliefs will necessarily avoid Atheism either - and again, I don't think they do.

Which means, that belief isn't necessarily specified to the classification of the belief, rather to the specification of the beholder of the belief.

Enlighten me.

Can you put this statement in some other wording? I'm having a real hard time making sense of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I define atheism as rejection of belief in God, not a mere lack of belief. Babies are not atheists, but, once people define it as "lack of belief", they often insist that babies and people unaware of the god concept are also atheists. I think that that flies in the face of conventional usage of the term "atheist".

Only because most (Western) cultures expect people to be Theists until they take a stance to show otherwise. Weak Atheism is indeed Atheism, and if we propose that people who never met the concept of a God nevertheless believe in it somehow we run into weird problems.

In other words: the conventional usage is wrong because there a cultural taboo against extending it properly to those who don't have a conception of God.

Even weak atheists tend to believe that gods do not exist, but they prefer to rest on the argument that the burden of proof is on theists. I agree that it is, but I still see that position as a cop-out.

It can't be a cop-out until and unless one has a duty to answer the question, now can it? It is not a fault of the weak atheists that they aren't born with a need to take a stance on the belief in God.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it is more like a facade, to protect their position?

To the extent that being pressured into "proving" why we don't believe in something that we never had any need of believing or even any convincing evidence that it exists to begin with is an attack, then I guess it is an effort to protect our position.

It can hardly be considered a facade unless you can provide a reason why atheists must care about whether God exists or not, however.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Kilgore's just Kilgore, is my take; I ain't gonna define nobody's position.

Where does this woffle come from? Believers. You know what a believer is. So, you got these atheists, they got something to say; they ain't gonna say it as believers. Who can blame 'em? I couldn't be a theist no more, the guilt by association was measurin' my backside for the chair.

The lack of understanding I have, in trying to find sympathetic alignment, is that I do not move in a direction defined by lack. Means I come to a place like religiousforums, cause I got a chip on my morality; got some irreligious to get rid of... As far as I'm concerned, someone comes here because of a philosophical imperative, takes sides; and sides against theism? That's a belief in atheism... but we don't hafta tell 'em.

 

[Gloone]

So it is more like a facade, to protect their position?

I don’t see why there is a split among atheist to be honest. Either you don’t believe in god(s) or you do. It is just that simple. I don’t even see it as a permanent position that one could take and live by unless they never had any previous experience of knowledge of god(s). Then it is just a dull sense of atheism. That people use for the lack of belief. I guess that is how you can call it weak atheism.

 

[Orias]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If it is that there is no unifying belief among the non-Atheist beliefs, then I agree, there isn't.

It's not so much that, more so that there really isn't any belief that is specific to a "classification" of a belief.

An example would be that there is no belief specific to Christianity, since a Christian belief may also be an Atheistic, or Islamic belief.

The point is that all beliefs intertwine, in a sense, and perhaps in the most ambiguous way.

I don't think that is very noteworthy either, but I have a hunch that you will disagree. It may help if you remember that Theisms aren't necessarily going to have any common ground on what a God is - and IMO they indeed lack such a common ground.

I agree to an extent.

They may not have a common ground on what "God" is, but the only needed coherence is that a God is self evident to one.

Of course, man tends to "justify" his "justifications", and because this lack of realization, man tends to segregate himself and claim condemnation. This is very distasteful.

For that matter, not all beliefs will necessarily avoid Atheism either - and again, I don't think they do.

I think it would be very foolish for one to avoid an atheist view point. There is a great sum to learn from such concepts.

Avoiding something only makes you weaker to it's existence.

Can you put this statement in some other wording? I'm having a real hard time making sense of it.

Alright...let's see here.

Belief isn't specified to the group (I mean yea the group may have specified beliefs), rather the individual, because the individual attaches meanings to what he wishes to.

So when one may say, "Atheism isn't a belief" that is a belief specific to the individual and not necessarily the group, since there is atheists that agree that atheism is a belief.

 

[Alceste]

I define atheism as rejection of belief in God, not a mere lack of belief. Babies are not atheists, but, once people define it as "lack of belief", they often insist that babies and people unaware of the god concept are also atheists. I think that that flies in the face of conventional usage of the term "atheist". Even weak atheists tend to believe that gods do not exist, but they prefer to rest on the argument that the burden of proof is on theists. I agree that it is, but I still see that position as a cop-out.

I am only "an atheist" in response to specific religious factual claims. It's not a defining characteristic. I don't sit around going "gods do not exist". I just listen to a specific factual claim and go "Um, no." Between the moments when somebody is making a factual claim about "gods" and their accomplishments, if you were to inspect the contents of my mind, belief or disbelief in god could not be found. It's not a subject I bother to think about at all, seeing as no factual claim regarding gods thus far encountered has stood the simplest test of rational scrutiny. The existence or non-existence of god/s is a subject no more worthy of thoughtful contemplation than the existence or non-existence of the bogey-man. That will continue to be the case until I encounter a factual claim about the existence of god/s that isn't obviously complete bollox.

I don't consider this a cop-out, personally. From where I'm sitting, it's an honest assessment of the value I attribute to the question of the factuality or non-factuality of our stories. To have to say, independently, out of the blue, "gods don't exist!" is as much of an exercise in foolishness to me as having to say "Willy Wonka doesn't exist!" What interests me more is what Willy Wonka and gods mean.

 

[LuisDantas]

Orias, in all honesty, I think that you are misreading what Atheism actually is due to a presumption that it must be some kind of belief. My gut feeling is that you are conditioned to read thoughts as beliefs, perhaps due to extensive experience with magical thought.

 

[Orias]

Orias, in all honesty, I think that you are misreading what Atheism actually is due to a presumption that it must be some kind of belief.

I disagree. I view Atheism for what the definitions of belief and fact are.

My gut feeling is that you are conditioned to read thoughts as beliefs, perhaps due to extensive experience with magical thought.

I am conditioned to do what my mind wills.

And what exactly do you mean by magical thought?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don’t see why there is a split among atheist to be honest. Either you don’t believe in god(s) or you do. It is just that simple.

I beg to differ. Belief in God is in fact a very ill-defined idea, mostly because God itself is about as ill-defined a concept as they can possibly come.

I don’t even see it as a permanent position that one could take and live by unless they never had any previous experience of knowledge of god(s).

And if we are going to be brutally honest about it, even most Theists are not quite sure that they have such experience. I would guess that nearly all Atheists do indeed lack any knowledge of God, although most will know of the existence of Theism (belief in God).

Then it is just a dull sense of atheism. That people use for the lack of belief. I guess that is how you can call it weak atheism.

Atheism is dull. It doesn't get in the way of less dull attitudes and beliefs, but in and of itself it is as dull as any other lack of belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

And what exactly do you mean by magical thought?

In a nutshell, the belief that the world is shaped by beliefs.

 

[Alceste]

I don’t see why there is a split among atheist to be honest. Either you don’t believe in god(s) or you do. It is just that simple. I don’t even see it as a permanent position that one could take and live by unless they never had any previous experience of knowledge of god(s). Then it is just a dull sense of atheism. That people use for the lack of belief. I guess that is how you can call it weak atheism.

You don't have to have encountered any god-concept to have a conception of the world that the word "atheistic" accurately describes. This is because our theistic culture came up with the word. Since "theism" means something to us, it also means something to us to describe belief systems with no supernatural deities as "atheistic": without belief in gods. It doesn't have to mean anything to them to be described as "atheistic".

Granted, "theistic" and "atheistic" are not words that can be usefully applied until a framework of belief has been constructed. So, infants are neither theists nor atheists: as they have no beliefs, adjectives relating to whether their beliefs do or do not contain gods are inapplicable.

Once a framework of beliefs exists, it becomes possible to look at that world view and assess whether or not gods are a part of it. If so, it is theistic. If not, it is atheistic.

 

[Orias]

In a nutshell, the belief that the world is shaped by beliefs.

Solipsism is a "sin" in my "belief", but particularly unavoidable.

Even the definition of "fact", lacks any real foundation for an objective stance.

If I were merely misreading what Atheism is, then I don't think I would have atheists that actually agree with me.

Unless of course you would claim that such people are not really atheists, but I highly doubt you would make such a statement.

 

[Alceste]

Solipsism is a "sin" in my "belief", but particularly unavoidable.

Even the definition of "fact", lacks any real foundation for an objective stance.

If I were merely misreading what Atheism is, then I don't think I would have atheists that actually agree with me.

Unless of course you would claim that such people are not really atheists, but I highly doubt you would make such a statement.

You have ONE atheist that doesn't disagree with you. Dozens of atheists disagree with you, and yet you present your esoteric idea of atheism being a belief as if it is universal to all atheists. Therefore, you're wrong. If you would only say "for SOME atheists, atheism is a belief", you'd be off to the races, but no. You've got to keep trolling and trolling, insisting you know better than others what they do or do not believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Solipsism is a "sin" in my "belief", but particularly unavoidable.

Even the definition of "fact", lacks any real foundation for an objective stance.

If I were merely misreading what Atheism is, then I don't think I would have atheists that actually agree with me.

Far as I can tell, you don't seem to have.

Unless of course you would claim that such people are not really atheists, but I highly doubt you would make such a statement.

No, I claim that misunderstandings and lack of clear, objective definitions of terms go a long way.

 

[Orias]

You have ONE atheist that doesn't disagree with you. Dozens of atheists disagree with you, and yet you present your esoteric idea of atheism being a belief as if it is universal to all atheists.

It can hardly be universal if it's esoteric.

I never expected atheists to agree with me, I expected them to prove me wrong, so far, none have been successful.

Therefore, you're wrong.

Prove it

If you would only say "for SOME atheists, atheism is a belief", you'd be off to the races, but no. You've got to keep trolling and trolling, insisting you know better than others what they do or do not believe.

Alright, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. I'm not the troll, YOU ARE.

The world is built off of self evident "truths", you seem to lack that understanding.

I never insisted I know better than others in what they believe, I merely provided the subjective stance that "belief" is what is.

I know that I know nothing.

But conceited people usually like to think other people are conceited as well.

No, I claim that misunderstandings and lack of clear, objective definitions of terms go a long way.

I just find it funny that fact is defined by belief. But I completely agree with you.