Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't atheism the ' belief ' that there is No God/god _____________

No, as that doesn't describe all atheists.
The only definition that describes all atheists, is that atheism is a disbelief that a god DOES exist.


So atheism can be a belief (commonly referred to as "strong atheism" - it needs a qualifier), but doesn't have to be.


The one thing that is true for ALL atheists, is that they all answer "no" to the question "do you believe god exists?".

But not all atheists will answer "yes" to the question "do you believe god does NOT exist"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand your point... but I don't think you are the status quo. You sound more like an agnostic at this point.

agnostic: not some "third" option between atheism and theism. Rather, a qualifier of both positions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I am to assume all atheists simply lack belief in gods or God in contrast to considering some atheists believe there is an absolute zero chance of any gods or Gods actually existing? Sheldon, you know what likely happens when I assume.

This statement is true:
ALL atheists lack a belief in the existence of gods.


This statement is false:
ALL atheists believe there is no god.


It's not rocket science.
I wonder why people find this simple thing so hard to comprehend.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can barely imagine anything more trivial than semantic quibbling about definitions with no practical difference (it can be fun to argue about, but that doesn't make it important).

I have no citation, it's just based on the obvious fact that most atheists don't engage in semantic discussions on the definition of atheism, aren't linguistic pedants, don't post on religious forums and don't consume atheist media because they have no interest in it. 'Active' atheists are a minority.

The rest generally don't care to and wouldn't note any difference between the 2 positions as semantic trivialities on unimportant issues don't matter to most people.

Do you really think most atheists care?



It's certainly not clear it is the 'primary definition' of the word.

It's a definition in common usage sure, but a more recent addition to the field.

In religious forums with debates about topics like belief, reason, faith etc.... I think the distinction IS important and not trivial at all.

I also don't think it's about semantics at all.
It's about the nature of belief and what "holding a belief" actually means (and doesn't mean!).

To me, this is no different from discussing why court cases are ruled with verdicts between "guilty" and "not guilty", but not "innocent".

That's not semantics or trivial either.

 

[Augustus]

I also don't think it's about semantics at all.
It's about the nature of belief and what "holding a belief" actually means (and doesn't mean!).

Philosophically, I'd say a conscious position taken in response to a particular issue constitutes a belief rather than the absence of a belief. You may disagree.

Can't say I get why someone who has adopted the epistemic position that, due to lack of evidence, they do not believe that gods exists considers it so important to insist this does not constitute an actual belief.

If a belief ultimately relates to particular kinds of neural activity, I'm pretty certain this does indeed constitute a belief in exactly the same way that someone adopting the epistemic position that, due to insufficient evidence, they believe gods don't exist.

I'd say the differentiation is entirely semantic/grammatical.

In religious forums with debates about topics like belief, reason, faith etc.... I think the distinction IS important and not trivial at all.

Can you give a situation in which making the distinction serves any meaningful practical benefit?

 

[Augustus]

I wonder why people find this simple thing so hard to comprehend.

People don't find it remotely hard to comprehend. They just prefer the older definition for a variety of reasons so reject it as untrue according to their usage of the term.

It is a subjective preference, just as yours is.

I wonder why people find this simple thing so hard to comprehend.

People differ in the way they use language. This is completely normal and healthy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not that it matters, apart from where such things often lead - as to atheism being a faith or belief system and all that - but I see such as not believing the claims as to any proposed God or gods (since such claims usually come with proposed properties and all the rest), and as such is a rebuttable of this, not a belief as such. Just as one might do with so many other claims - as to life after death, consciousness existing outside of lifeforms, Trump is a useful individual and exceedingly scrumptious, etc. But as pointed out by others, atheism does come in a variety of clothes.

 

[Firelight]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

Did you check the popular Cambridge dictionary? It’s definition is:
the belief that God does not exist

Like it, or not, Atheism will continue to be described in at least four different ways:

1) The belief that God does not exist.
2) The lack of belief in God or deity.
3) The denial of the existence of God or deity.
4) The disbelief in God or deity.

I prefer #3. However, I generally hear non-believers say, “I don’t believe in God” or “I don’t believe God exists.”
I’ve never heard, “I lack belief in God“ or “I deny the existence of God” or “I disbelieve in God.”

 

[Colt]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

Atheism is belief in a Godless universe when they join religious forums to promote the doctrine.

 

[Laika]

Atheism is belief in a Godless universe when they join religious forums to promote the doctrine.

I admit the ratio of non-believers to believers on RF does appear rather high (even if I am a non-believer myself).

 

[RestlessSoul]

I admit the ratio of non-believers to believers on RF does appear rather high (even if I am a non-believer myself).

I think it’s just that some of the non believers are particularly vocal - to the point that this place begins to look like the objective of an atheist crusade.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People don't find it remotely hard to comprehend.

I think it's pretty obvious that threads like these demonstrate the opposite.

They just prefer the older definition for a variety of reasons so reject it as untrue according to their usage of the term.

It is a subjective preference, just as yours is.

It isn't. This isn't about definitions or semantics. This is about other people (certain theists) trying to tell us atheists what it is that we supposedly believe and rejecting out of hand when we correct them and say "no, that is not what we believe".

In the other thread started by @PureX , which I gather gave the inspiration for this thread, that is exactly what was happening. It wasn't about semantics. It was about @PureX claiming that we believe this and that, with us continuously explaining to him that no, that isn't what we believe.
And him simply, stubbornly, insisting otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is belief in a Godless universe when they join religious forums to promote the doctrine.

what doctrine?

 

[Augustus]

I think it's pretty obvious that threads like these demonstrate the opposite.

They also tend to demonstrate that a small subset of atheists don't understand the difference between their personal linguistic and philosophical preferences and an objective fact that all reasonable people must agree with.

It isn't. This isn't about definitions or semantics. This is about other people (certain theists) trying to tell us atheists what it is that we supposedly believe and rejecting out of hand when we correct them and say "no, that is not what we believe".

Again, what is really happing is that they disagree with your use of language. They are not really "telling you what you think", but telling you how they use language and how this maps on to the issue being discussed.

It's not rocket science to understand this.

Philosophically, I'd say a conscious position taken in response to a particular issue very much constitutes a belief rather than the absence of a belief. You may disagree, but it is not an objective fact either way.

If someone has adopted the epistemic position that, due to lack of evidence, they do not believe that gods exists it is perfectly reasonable for people to consider that a belief, even if you do not personally agree as you have different linguistic and/or philosophical preferences.

If a belief ultimately relates to particular kinds of neural activity, I'm pretty certain this does indeed constitute a belief in exactly the same way that someone adopting the epistemic position that, due to insufficient evidence, they believe gods don't exist.

As such, at least imo, the differentiation is entirely semantic/grammatical and only exists because you happen to speak a language that enable such a difference to be expressed.

The distinction does not relate to a cognitive reality, but a linguistic quirk of English (and some other languages).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Philosophically, I'd say a conscious position taken in response to a particular issue constitutes a belief rather than the absence of a belief. You may disagree.

That makes no sense at all to me.

Someone flips a coin and hides the result.
He claims it is heads and asks if I believe that claim. Meaning: if I accept the claim as factually correct and accurate.

I say "no". I lack the information required to make that commitment.
This is not a belief. To call it a belief, is ... well... wrong. Don't know what else to say about this.

He then goes "ow, so you believe it is tails then?"
Well... still "no". I also lack the information required to make that commitment.
This again is not a belief. The position of not committing to accepting said claim as factually correct / accurate, is not a belief.

Can't say I get why someone who has adopted the epistemic position that, due to lack of evidence, they do not believe that gods exists considers it so important to insist this does not constitute an actual belief.

I just told you in the very post you are replying to.
It is important in context of discussions on religious forums where the topics are all about the nature of belief. About what constitutes a "belief" and what doesn't.

Non-beliefs / disbeliefs... are not beliefs.

When I consider something "likely" or "unlikely", I'm also not expressing a belief.
A belief is a commitment to accepting a claim as TRUE.
You have to accept a claim as TRUE in order to be able to call it a BELIEF.

If you aren't accepting a claim as TRUE, then you do not have a BELIEF concerning that claim.

It's not rocket science.

And in the atheism / theism context, the claim under discussion, at bottom, is: god exists.
An atheist does not believe that claim.
A theists does.

So the theist is the one with the belief.

Atheism is not a claim. It is a response to a claim.
The very notion of "atheism" would not exist if there weren't any theists making theistic claims.

Someone first needs to claim that a god exists, before I can disbelief said claim.

If a belief ultimately relates to particular kinds of neural activity, I'm pretty certain this does indeed constitute a belief in exactly the same way that someone adopting the epistemic position that, due to insufficient evidence, they believe gods don't exist.

How many times must I repeat the same thing?

There are atheists who believe gods don't exist.
There are also atheists who don't express that believe / make that claim.

The only thing ALL atheists have in common, is that they do not believe the claims of theism.
ie: that they do not accept those claims as TRUE

That is what "to believe" means: to accept as TRUE.

I'd say the differentiation is entirely semantic/grammatical.

It is not.

Can you give a situation in which making the distinction serves any meaningful practical benefit?

When one discusses what one believes and doesn't believe.
I like to be accurate. I think accuracy in expressing views is important.

If someone asks if I believe X and I say "no", if that person then walks away thinking that I positively believe the opposite of X, then that person might be walking away with an inaccurate view of what it is that I actually believe (or don't believe).

Does that bother me? Well.... yes. I don't think it is productive, or of any "meaningful practical benefit" when people misrepresent my views in debate contexts. Or any other context, for that matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you check the popular Cambridge dictionary? It’s definition is:
the belief that God does not exist

Like it, or not, Atheism will continue to be described in at least four different ways:

1) The belief that God does not exist.
2) The lack of belief in God or deity.
3) The denial of the existence of God or deity.
4) The disbelief in God or deity.

I prefer #3. However, I generally hear non-believers say, “I don’t believe in God” or “I don’t believe God exists.”
I’ve never heard, “I lack belief in God“ or “I deny the existence of God” or “I disbelieve in God.”

Maybe, just maybe,.... instead of imposing your "preference" on other people in relation to what it is that those other people believe or don't believe... perhaps you should leave it to those other people to tell you instead.

Wouldn't that give you a more accurate representation of what it is that those other people believe or don't believe?

What could possibly be good about you having a "preference" about what it is other people believe or don't believe?


Also, dictionaries list multiple meanings for words, because words can have multiple meanings. To then pick one definition and call it your "preferred one" and then apply that one across the board, seems to be pretty stupid to me.

Take the word "theory". It means different things in different sentences.
What possible good would it do to pick just one meaning, call it your "preferred" one and then pretend that it ALWAYS means that? Do you think that this will promote good communication and that you will always accurately interpret what people actually mean when they use said word in different contexts?

 

[oldbadger]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

Huh?


Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others.


An opinion is a belief, surely?

Does everybody who disagrees with you automatically gain the title 'liar'?
Nice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are not really "telling you what you think", but telling you how they use language and how this maps on to the issue being discussed.

You should read that thread I referred to.
Ad nauseum I was trying to explain to @PureX that "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe X is false". I didn't even mention the term "atheist" in those explanations.

He simply refused to accept that.

That is the root problem here. Not some term or linguistic thing.

Having said that, here's an "objective fact" for you:

Philosophically, I'd say a conscious position taken in response to a particular issue very much constitutes a belief rather than the absence of a belief.

Person 1: "Claim X. Do you believe this claim / accept this claim as true?"
Person 2: "No".


Is person 2 expressing a "belief"?
If yes, please explain.

 

[oldbadger]

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

Allow me to imagine what your answers might be.
You can adjust your given answers in your own post....OK?

OB.....Hi Sheldon!
Sheldon...Hi OldB.....
OB....Are you an atheist?
Sheldon....Yeah
OB....Is that your opinion....atheism is correct?
Sheldon....Yeah.
OB....So you believe in atheism?
Sheldon.... Nah!
OB....You don't believe in atheism?
Sheldon....I don't believe......!
OB...... OK Sheldon....... You don't believe in atheism....I get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion.

The only reason for that, is because there is such a thing as religion and because the majority of people are religious.

If theists were a marginal group like trekkies, or would not exist at all, there would be no need for such.

That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others.

Nope.
It's to protect a minority against a majority.
It's to protect the rights of a minority group from the beliefs of a majority group.