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

[Kenny]

Humans get many things wrong, Unicorns and Gods are just 2 examples.

That's good

Or....
you got two out of three wrong?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......, on what you claim to be your "unbelief"...............

Is unbelief a faith in the disbelief of God/god___________

 

[lukethethird]

Then you believe God doesn't exist. You therefore consider yourself an atheist because of that, correct?

Nor do I believe Leprechauns exist, therefore I consider myself a skeptic.

BTW, it's interesting your religion is listed as "xtian". Do you consider yourself a Christian Atheist? They do exist. I know some. Or are you keying in the notion of "out there", meaning external to one's self? If so, I think I get what you mean.

I consider myself a non-delusional Xian.

 

[Windwalker]

You missed his point. But a three year old is an atheist. You might want to learn what you are arguing about.

No. They. Are. Not. I do know very well what I'm am arguing for. Do you? A three year old has no belief about such things. They are neither a theist nor an atheist, which are the flip sides of the same belief-about-God coin. They are, at best agnostic, not knowing. But even that isn't correct, as God isn't even a question at all. Atheism is about the question of God. Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.
​

The article goes on to talk about the other 'softening' terms of atheism, but I don't see those as typically what someone means when they claim they are an atheist. In most cases, they are directly answering the question of whether they think, or believe God exists. The answer is a negative answer, but that answer is a belief about God, not a psychological state. It is improper to refer to a child as an atheist, and they are outside of the question altogether, and such a word applied to them is fallallacious at best, and outright dishonest at worst.

And that is problematic. Things that do not exist cannot be defined concretely either.

There are many things that actually exist, that cannot be defined concretely either. In fact, most things can't.

"Transcendent" is a term that is abused quite often. Exactly what do you mean by that? And what do you mean by "external"? You may be putting an even bigger burden of proof upon yourself.

I accept the standard dictionary definition for my purposes here: "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

By external, I mean those who have a view that "God" exists outside themselves, and is not to be identified with themselves, as they might identify you as other to themselves. Nothing complex here.

Well it is a good thing that atheists do not do that.

Do you believe God exists, or do you believe God does not exist? What is your answer?

Nope, Not even close. Theism is a belief in a god or gods. So A theism is without a belief in a god or gods. If you are going to try to play the etymology game at least do so properly.

No games at all. It is the what the word means. See the above article linked to explaining why. I am not making this up. This is more than reasonable to say this, and the proof is in you answering the question about theism. Do you believe God exists, yes or no? To answer in the negative, means you are expressing a belief about God. See above.

It is "traditional" since it is older than theism.

That's not what people mean when they are speaking of traditional theism. It has nothing to do with how old a view is. It's referring to how God is held traditionally religion in the Christian West.

And atheists do not "reject" all gods. They lack a belief. There is a huge difference. Show us reliable evidence and we will change our minds. It is theists that normally lack the ability to reason critically. Ask a creationist what evidence would change their mind and they would likely say that no amount of evidence will change their minds.

I have shown reliable evidence, and I was told that a dictionary is superior to philosopher and scholars, or that education is irrelevant and one's personal opinion is equal to experts, and that sort of response.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not having a god belief is different than saying someone is an atheist who disbelieves in God. Again, if I see a three year old playing with a doll, I don't call them an atheist because they don't believe in God. They also do not not-believe in God. They don't even question it. They are not 'atheists' because they lack belief in God. They are neutral. They are neither theists or atheists. They are not atheists by default. They are open to either belief, holding none at that point. They are not disbelievers, they are simply "none".

Yes, they're atheists by default. Atheism and theism form a MECE set: everyone belongs to exactly one of those two categories. Nobody is neither and nobody is both.

Being tall, is a physical feature, not a belief. So that's a red herring.

No, it's an analogy to try to get you to think about your argument a bit.

God is something that cannot be defined concretely.

That's trouble for you, then, because we would need the term "god" to defined concretely enough to reject every god in order to reject every god. If you can't do this, your approach to defining "atheist" doesn't work.

Remember: atheists exist. Whatever the criteria that makes someone an atheist, it's something practically possible for a human being to do. This means that any definition that implies that atheists do the impossible - e.g. define the undefinable - is necessarily wrong and does not reflect how we use the term in real life.

But most atheists when pressed to explain what it is they don't believe in, will describe the traditional theistic view of God they are familiar with, which reflects mainly the Christian God of the West, viewed through the lens of mythic-literal religion. They say they apply it to all gods everywhere, but when pressed, they really don't have an idea about those very much. It's pretty much the traditional theistic view of the mythic-literal Christian West God they have in mind, that they don't believe in.

So now you're saying that atheists don't have to reject gods in general, but only "the Christian West God"?

And you don't see the inherent chauvinism in all this?

I don't believe in that God either, except as an expression of a mythic-literal view of the Divine, which transcends definitions like that. In that sense, I am an atheist like you.

Well, no. It sounds like you believe in something that you consider a god, which makes you a theist.

How?

Just what I touched on before: it sure sounds like you're trying to imply that a person has to do the impossible to be an atheist.

If I were to press you, and you were to be honest in response to the question of describing for me what image you hold in mind that you see God as, that you don't believe in, chance are extremely high I'll be in agreement with you. But the difference between us is that I don't see that as the limits of understanding what God actually is. I don't limit my thinking to the theistic/atheistic coin. I have a different currency that I'm holding in my hand. That coin is tucked away in my bag of personal historical perspectives. I'm not still holding that coin in my hand and looking at it, calling myself either a theist or an atheist.

Why do you keep trying to narrow the conversation to God-with-a-capital-G? Theism and atheism are about gods, not just about your specific god.

I don't have a single image of what "god" means. I define "god" in terms of two discrete lists: one of things that are definitively gods and another in terms of things that are definitively not gods. For instance, the divine messenger Mercury is a god; the divine messenger Gabriel is not. Thor is a god; Superman is not. I don't see any rhyme or reason in why these things are or aren't gods, so I'm not able to define the term "god" in terms of general characteristics. IMO, a god is an object of worship, but there's more to it than that, because some objects of worship are not gods.

I thought I explained that. You said gods, and which god, but I said that theism in general is the belief that the God or gods are both external to yourself, and transcendent. "Other" to you, in other words. Other to the world. etc.

No, "theism" is the term for god-belief in general. Nothing about the god necessarily being "external" or "other."

Outright rejection is a belief. Holding no belief is leaving the question open. I used the term nontheism, but really agnostic might be an easier term. It's neutral. A child is agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving.

Agnosticism isn't neutral. Agnosticism is the assertion that the existence of gods is unknowable. It's not a default position.

Then they either remain that way, netural, or they believe and become a theist, or disbelieve and become an atheist. Being an atheist is not a lack of belief about God. It's very much a belief about the question of God. It's no longer neutral.

Atheism includes a lack of belief in gods.

Of course it is. It has theism in its very name. A-Theism. "Belief in No-God".

A-theism: not-theism.

(Not that etymology dictates definition anyway)

No, polytheism is not traditional theism. I only said it would fit under the theistic umbrella, because you tried to say that atheism rejects all gods. If so, that a-theism includes all gods.

I didn't say that atheism "rejects all gods." Rejection of gods isn't necessary for atheism; you're the one claiming that it does.

And I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by "traditional" if "traditional theism" doesn't include polytheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hopefully it doesn't; that's why I picked that as a random example.

I consider Buddhism an example of nontheism; I consider myself to be a Buddhist and hence, as a Buddhist I self-describe as a non-theist. Outside of Buddhism I have other opinions on lots of things, including regarding the existence (or not) of deities, but those opinions do not reflect the core teaching of Buddhism. Essentially what @Windwalker said: "Like I said before, Buddhism, for instance is NOT an atheistic religion. It's non-theistic. If a Buddhist says, "I am an atheist", then he is making a statement of belief, which goes outside of Buddhism, which issues no point of view, it simply just omits. It says nothing about God, either believing in or disbelieving in it. That is an example of true, 'absence of belief"."

I disagree with @Windwalker 's suggestion that someone saying "I am an atheist" is making a statement of belief.

In any case, you seem to be trying to overreach to something I didn't speak to. Someone who is a non-theist is an atheist. The term "non-theist" arose because of negative stigma associated with atheism (in a theist-dominated culture). IMO, a lot of the aversion to the idea that, say, babies can't be atheist comes from this sort of baggage: atheists are bad and babies are good, so there's a cognitive dissonance at the idea of babies being atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe that 'atheism' is a natural-kind in a philosophical sense. It isn't a reality that exists regardless of what people believe about it, where our task is to discover the true nature of 'atheism' in much the way that a physical chemist discovers the physical properties of atoms.

Atheism is a word that can be and has been given a variety of not always consistent definitions. As such, it doesn't have a fundamental nature to be discovered. Hence there's no fact of the matter regarding what an atheist is. There's just choices of word usage.

I prefer to use the words in what has long been the conventional academic way. I think that there are important reasons for continuing to do so, some of which I mentioned in an earlier post.



I'm an agnostic, so you are preaching to the choir.



The way I see it, agnosticism is an epistemological position, a position about knowledge or the lack of it. It comes in strong and weak variants. Weak agnosticism is the idea that I personally don't have knowledge of transcendental realities. Strong agnosticism is the idea that no human being has knowledge of transcendental realities. I'm something of a strong agnostic myself.

And my view of atheism is that it's an ontological position, a position about what does or doesn't exist. So atheism is the position that religious style deities don't exist. Theism is the position that they do.

Actually it can get more complicated than that. Since the gnostic/agnostic distinction and the theist/atheist distinction address different issues -- what can be known and what one believes exists or doesn't exist, there appear to be four permutations.

1. gnostic theist - one who believes both that deities exist and that humans can have knowledge of them. Most conventional theists belong in this category.

2. gnostic atheist - one who believes that deities don't exist and that people can know that they don't. I think that most atheists at least implicitly belong in this category. It may have become popular to deny they think this way, but they show that they do every time they characterize religion, religious belief and believers.

3. agnostic theist - this rather paradoxical sounding but surprisingly common one would encompass apophatic theology and many of the world's mystical traditions that hold that the divine exceeds the ability of human language to express and the ability of human minds and concepts to conceive. This move is usually made in order to preserve divine transcendence. As John Scotus Eriugena put it: "We do not know what God is. God himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being." Similar ideas are found in Islamic and Hindu theisms. In today's Christian world, the place where this kind of theology is most prevalent is Eastern Orthodoxy with its essence/energies distinction that holds that while God is unknowable in his essence, his actions (energies) in our plane can be known.

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

Essence–energies distinction - Wikipedia

Neti neti - Wikipedia

While I wouldn't call myself an agnostic theist, I have a great deal of interest in the position.

And finally, the one that probably best describes me:

4. agnostic atheist - These are people who don't believe that humans have any knowledge of supposed transcendent realities (the agnosticism) and who lack belief in any transcendent deities (your definition of atheism).

I perceive the reality around me as a profound impenetrable mystery. I think that the origin of reality, the origin of the universe's perceived order (logic, mathematics, the laws of physics) and the ultimate reason why there is something rather than nothing, are the ultimate metaphysical questions. I'm very aware that traditional natural theology has attributed these metaphysical functions to God. So to the extent that I feel that reality requires an explanation, I'm inclined to accept that kind of God. (Which makes me something of a deist, I guess.) Except that I don't conceive of it as a person or as an object of religious worship. It's just whatever the answer(s) is/are to the deepest outstanding metaphysical questions.

And that being said, I don't believe that any of the world's religious traditions bring me any closer to answering those questions. I simply can't believe that the ultimate explanation for the entire universe, for being itself, is the kind of blustering Jewish guy depicted in the Bible, whatever Mohammed thought he was channeling as he sat in a cave listening to voices, or anything from traditional Hindu mythology. So when it comes to the conventional theistic religions, I have to say that I'm an atheist (certainly in the weak and perhaps in the strong sense) in that I don't believe that these traditional named deities spoken of in scripture and tradition exist. I certainly live my life as if they don't.

Seeing how you were the one who just complained about people redefining terms to win arguments, I'm not sure why you're buying into this recent redefinition of "gnostic" as "someone who claims to know something" and not the specific religious movement.

 

[Secret Chief]

I disagree with @Windwalker 's suggestion that someone saying "I am an atheist" is making a statement of belief.

In any case, you seem to be trying to overreach to something I didn't speak to. Someone who is a non-theist is an atheist. The term "non-theist" arose because of negative stigma associated with atheism (in a theist-dominated culture). IMO, a lot of the aversion to the idea that, say, babies can't be atheist comes from this sort of baggage: atheists are bad and babies are good, so there's a cognitive dissonance at the idea of babies being atheists.

Fair enough. I don't think there's any more I need to say.

 

[Sheldon]

I am not wrong.

I would say you are, and that was all you offered, so my claim is as valid as yours, which was my point, that you apparently missed.

Do you disbelieve God exists?

You know I do, it's in my profile, if you have failed to read any of my posts in this thread.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is?

You have been reading exactly that from multiple atheists, and ignoring it for quite a while in this thread. Take a look at the poll results btw.

 

[Sheldon]

I'd only call them that if they said they didn't believe God exists. In which case, they are stating that they don't believe in God,

Atheism is not. It's a theistic belief itself, only that God does not exist.

Didn't believe, don't believe, then it's a belief. Can you really not see you're contradicting yourself there?

Not believing something, is not a belief. Anymore than not playing squash is a sport.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that the notion, the very idea of an invisible god out there, is silly. The idea of a god's existence or non-existence is just too silly to comment on.

Then you believe God doesn't exist.

Not actually what he said though is it, leaping to assumptions again.

You therefore consider yourself an atheist because of that, correct?

I am an atheist as I don't believe in any deity or deities, but I don't hold a belief no deity exists.

Some atheists hold a belief no deity exists, some simply don't believe any deity or deities exist, they're both atheists, and atheism in order to make sense would have to include both groups. It cannot do that if you exclude the latter group.

Google
Atheist
noun

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

Wiktionary
atheist

1. A person who does not believe in deities.

 

[Sheldon]

But, again, it isn't my definition but that which I found on multiple sites.

While ignoring many others. Oxford English and Merriam Webster's are the two largest, Google is ranked as the second best online dictionary and Wiktionary the first. Have you bothered with any of those reference tools? Oh and read what they say, don't just mine the first quote that confirms your bias here.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe what needs to happen is for atheist to get together and actually say what it is?

23 have voted in the poll in the OP, have you bothered to read it? Obviously not, you prefer to scour the internet for examples that fit your biased agenda.

 

[Sheldon]

Sure it is.


And?

If we all started calling ourselves non-theists, how long do you think it would be before theists redefine that word arbitrarily as they're doing here?

 

[Sheldon]

And it means something different. The artistic movement known as cubism is nontheistic, not atheistic - for the same reason. If one was a euphemism of the other this distinction could not be made using these two words.

non-theistic
adjective

1. not having or involving a belief in a god or gods.

atheistic
adjective

1. disbelieving or lacking belief in the existence of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. I don't think there's any more I need to say.

Okay.

FWIW, when it comes to things like religions or painting styles, I'd differentiate between "non-theistic" and "atheistic" like this:

- atheistic: no gods are involved.
- non-theistic: not theistic... i.e. gods are not necessarily involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While ignoring many others. Oxford English and Merriam Webster's are the two largest, Google is ranked as the second best online dictionary and Wiktionary the first. Have you bothered with any of those reference tools? Oh and read what they say, don't just mine the first quote that confirms your bias here.

Now, now, let's be fair, Yes, Christians can define what an atheist is. As long as atheists get to define what a Christian is.

 

[Sheldon]

The way I see it, agnosticism is an epistemological position, a position about knowledge or the lack of it. It comes in strong and weak variants.

Agnosticism
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Agnostics might come in weak and strong variants, but that is not what agnostic is defined as, odd that given how many people are insisting atheism can only mean a belief no deity exists, when atheists often don't hold any such belief.

My irony meter is on the blink....

 

[Kenny]

While ignoring many others. Oxford English and Merriam Webster's are the two largest, Google is ranked as the second best online dictionary and Wiktionary the first. Have you bothered with any of those reference tools? Oh and read what they say, don't just mine the first quote that confirms your bias here.

a more "modern and adjusted" definition? You still propose more the agnostic position. Who ranks them? Does that mean that the specific word is correct?

No... I go back to etymology.