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

[RestlessSoul]

I have sympathised with state atheism in the past as a communist, but I shudder somewhat when I think about restrictions on religious freedom and the harms it would do the people personally for simply believing in something or pursuing their faith. There isn’t any real difference between communists doing it and nazis persecuting jews, or for that matter christians persecuting pagans, jews or burning witches.

As to your question of what happens, the USSR did ban Christmas and after intense repressions failed in the Stalin era ironically Christmas celebrations didn’t disappear but survived and evolved. People celebrated it on new years eve and new years day instead, with gift giving, new years “trees” and the Russian version of Santa delivering gifts to children. They had new years cards, which had a soviet twist with patriotic themes such as space exploration. The same thing happened in Eastern Europe as well and there continue to be new year celebrations in former communist countries.

The Christian faith was most definitely tested and, in the end, they won. So have a little more faith in yourself.

Wonderful cards

 

[KWED]

Strong atheism is a belief.
Weak atheism (agnosticism) is not.

Perhaps in the middle of the atheist spectrum
would be those of us who are agnostics, but
speculate that there are no gods...a silly idea.
Just can't prove it.

"Strong atheism" (or gnostic atheism, as I prefer to call it) is not a belief if it is based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the gods of religion (theism) do not exist, therefore I am certain of them not existing (gnostic atheist).
It is only a more general, disbelief in non-specific supernatural forces (like deism) that is justifiably agnostic. I am not certain of the non-existence of such a thing (although on the basis of evidence and knowledge it seems highly unlikely), therefor I am an agnostic adeist.

However, if someone insists that there are no gods but fails to provide any reasoning or evidence for their position, that would constitute a belief - although I am yet to encounter any such atheist.

 

[KWED]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

Atheism is a belief in the same way that not playing tennis is a sport.

 

[KWED]

I'd like an option for favorite cheese.
(Parmesan for me.)

Japanese Sage Derby for me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hardly. How can one know if one believes something or not if the person making the claim will not even define it?

Rather easily, I would think. If someone asks me "do you believe in creationism?" then I don't need to know in which particular way they mean to assert which particular creator actually "created" the universe (life? Earth? etc.) in what particular manner in order to answer "no."
And more generally, if asked whether or not I believe in "boopleschmoop-doodlebops" I can still honestly and truthfully say "no" even if it later transpires that what is meant by "boopleschmoop-doodlebops" corresponds to "domestic cats".
Alternatively, if I ask someone whether or not they believe in elves, I would be surprised if they 1) did not believe that there exists no entity or entities they believe in that they call "elves" and 2) still said they couldn't answer the question until I specify all the different concepts of elves that exist in literature, mythology, various cultures, etc.
Instead, I would expect a "no" would suffice.

Because I lack a belief in a god or gods.

I find it interesting that searches for collocates through the best English corpora in existence all yield the same results when one searches for the "lack" within one or two lexemes of "belief". Namely, almost every single instance of the phrase "lack a belief" or something quite similar is limited to discussions about the "real" definition of atheism, precisely because in general this isn't how people speak or write or really think- it's a rhetorical device.

 

[ratiocinator]

So that's your opinion then.....your belief?

Is what my belief? If you mean the meaning of atheism, then no, it's from the dictionary definition. If you mean that I'm unconvinced by theist claims, then also no, because it's just a statement of fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather easily, I would think. If someone asks me "do you believe in creationism?" then I don't need to know in which particular way they mean to assert which particular creator actually "created" the universe (life? Earth? etc.) in what particular manner in order to answer "no."
And more generally, if asked whether or not I believe in "boopleschmoop-doodlebops" I can still honestly and truthfully say "no" even if it later transpires that what is meant by "boopleschmoop-doodlebops" corresponds to "domestic cats".
Alternatively, if I ask someone whether or not they believe in elves, I would be surprised if they 1) did not believe that there exists no entity or entities they believe in that they call "elves" and 2) still said they couldn't answer the question until I specify all the different concepts of elves that exist in literature, mythology, various cultures, etc.
Instead, I would expect a "no" would suffice.

Theists are the ones that make this argument necessary. Almost every single one of them tries to claim that their god is special and that it is irrational to not believe in him until one gets to know that particular god.

But even after giving them the benefit of the doubt it always turns out that their god is the same as other gods.

I find it interesting that searches for collocates through the best English corpora in existence all yield the same results when one searches for the "lack" within one or two lexemes of "belief". Namely, almost every single instance of the phrase "lack a belief" or something quite similar is limited to discussions about the "real" definition of atheism, precisely because in general this isn't how people speak or write or really think- it's a rhetorical device.

Then you have never spent much time with the scientific community.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a reflection of the Atheist doctrine of pessimistic despair in general:

"pessimistic despair"?

"TO THE UNBELIEVING materialist

Already wrong in the first 4 words. Atheism =/= materialism.

, man is simply an evolutionary accident

An "accident" is when one outcome was intended and another occurred without intention.
There is no intention in evolution. So calling any species an "accident" is a misrepresentation.

Having said that, plenty of theists -the vast majority actually- accept evolutionary biology.
So once again, this has nothing to do with atheism.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest. It's already clear where this nonsense is going.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While its true that there are many conflicting religious "beliefs" not to be confused with generic faith, Atheist use that as an excuse not to find God on their own. Its spiritual laziness and frankly an ego self that doesn't want to die. When one invests so much pride and attention seeking into the ultra individualistic identity of the Atheist, then it usually requires an existential crisis to bring about the birth of faith, of God consciousness. One who is overly impressed with themselves has no need for a God.

No.

The only reason I am an atheist is because theism can't meet its burden of proof.
The end.

You can keep on believing otherwise, but you will simply be incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, you can make subsets and subsets of subsets to qualify levels of atheism...

It just illustrates that "agnosticism" is not a mutually exclusive position to theism / atheism.
It is what it is.

(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs.

They are different answers to different questions.

But the strict definition of atheism is still the belief that there is not God... a belief.

No.

This statement is correct:
ALL atheists will answer "no" to the question "do you believe / accept as true that god exists?"

This statement is wrong:
ALL atheists will answer "yes" to the question "do you believe / accept as true that NO god exists?"

This is a case of "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs".

The only thing that ALL atheists have in common is that they don't accept the claim "god exists" as true.

That's it.
Sure, there are atheists (so called "strong atheists") who will make / accept the claim that no gods exist.
This is not true for all atheists.

So the definition of "atheism" can not be "the belief that no god exists", since that definition doesn't include all atheists.

It's not rocket science.

"The Four Tenets of Atheism"

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

4. Meaning comes from the living world.

Why do you quote a forum post as if it is gospel / fact?
Did you even read the post you are linking to.
Right after the list, it says: "If atheism had to have tenets, because we wanted to explain our worldview to outsiders, what do you think of these?"

It means that the author
1. recognizes that there is no such list and that he basically just made it up
2. just had some brainfart and is asking people's opinions about it

I, as an atheist, reject this as nonsense.

But, they don't have empirical and verifiable evidence

They don't need to, because the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And the claim, is theism.
having said that, indeed it is impossible to prove that there are no gods. Reason being primarily that gods are unfalsifiable claims. By definition, unfalsifiable claims can't be disproven.

This is why I am an agnostic atheist.
I can't disprove extra-dimensional unicorns either. So I'm also agnostic about extra-dimensional unicorns.

They don't even consider a spiritual world

Because I have no reason to. Why would I consider things that are indistinguishable from imagination?
I don't consider extra-dimensional unicorns either, even though I can't disprove them.
There's no reason to consider them.

Give me valid reasons and I'll be happy to consider it.
Until them, it is a waste of energy and brainpower.

(as per the tenets of beliefs)

You mean, as per the brainfart of some random poster on some random forum, who even acknowledges himself that he made it up.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am most surprised by your post, VM!
The next time you disagree with anything that I claim, will it be ok if I call you a liar?

If you've got as much evidence backing your claim that I am a liar as the OP has for what one of the actual definitions of atheism is, and you have your own repeated proclamations of which definition you hail under to point to in various threads, and then you can also point to complete and utter butt-hats who insist on INFORMING YOU that the position you are arguing is that you are literally arguing something that you have repeatedly stated you aren't trying to argue - yeah... then call me a "liar" all you want... because if I fit all that various criteria and was STILL INSISTENT on being a butt-hat and making my false proclamations and demands that you "Defend your actual position" then I would definitely be lying. I would definitely be misconstruing the situation purposefully for my own purposes. I would be a scumbag of a human being with little to no moral rectitude, and I should be entirely ashamed of my actions and accept the idea that there is little to no hope for me to ever produce anything of worth with my miserable life - which isn't even worth one single atom of the carbon my flesh is sculpted out of.

WHAP!!!!!

What total waffle!

HOW DARE YOU USE THE WORD "WAFFLE" IN A DEGRADING MANNER!?!?!! Waffles are delicious.

For instance, I am a Deist who does not believe in a theistic god, which makes me a kind of non-theist or atheist. Please don't deny this or you could be lying!

Sounds like a completely ridiculous position to hold to me... but I am not going to sit here and tell you that that isn't what you believe or argue for. All I will do is tell you why I think you shouldn't believe it or argue support of it (which I do think, by the way - what the hell do you think you are doing?). But the theist (or defender of the theist - which we've had a few of in this thread) who knowingly twists the definitions so that they can try and push you down, intellectually - mostly because THEY HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE OR AVENUE OR ARGUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO THEM - is literally trying to tell me what it is I am arguing. Screw that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The doctrine that unless God can be proven to exist one must assume (believe) that God doesn't exist.

1. that's not a doctrine
2. assumptions aren't beliefs.

3. the existence of undemonstrable entities is always rejected by default until existence can be demonstrated. Or do you accept my claim that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage?

And I see and hear atheists spouting this doctrine (dogma)

Not a dogma.
Just rational reasoning. Claims without evidence are to be rejected.

Also, that proof must be "objective"

Independently verifiable, yes.
Otherwise, me "testifying" that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage should be enough "evidence" for you to believe it.

; meaning that it must comport with their materialist definition of existence.

No. It must comport to the standard of evidence that ALL claims are to be held up to.

Or will you simply believe me on my word that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At this point, your position would classify you as an agnostic and not an atheist.

Why do you repeat this falsehood after it has been pointed out to you multiple times that agnosticism and (a)theism aren't mutually exclusive?

Different answers to different questions.
One deals with knowledge, the other deals with beliefs.

How many times must it be repeated?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By its very etymology:
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

It is a "belief".

atheism

You seem to have missed the word "not" there.

Not playing sports = not a sport.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the so-called absence of evidence, the evidence of absence __________

That requires context and isn't always the case.

For example...............
Take the biblical flood. A biblical literalist would say it occurred as written.
The story as written however, makes certain testable predictions. Like:
1. a global geological flood layer (such an event would leave geological evidence)
2. a universal genetic bottleneck in ALL species which can be dated to roughly the same period as that flood layer.

Neither of these exist.
In this case, the absence of evidence would be evidence of absence.
If the flood occurred as written, this evidence should not be absent.

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously an atheist does not believe in a deity but you believe there is no God other believe there is. I guess you could say you have faith there is no God.

"An atheist?"

I am an atheist, and I hold no belief there is no deity, I just don't believe those who claim there is, as humans demonstrably have a propensity for imagining non-existent deities, and cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Even theists disbelieve in all the deities I don't believe in, barring one of course.

 

[Sheldon]

If you called yourself an atheist, then you would have an idea of what that God would be in order to say you don't believe in it.

Which god, humans have created literally thousands?

 

[Sheldon]

In the passing decades, atheists have tried to change this definition into simply "not believing in God."

How do atheists decide what the Oxford English or Meriam Webster's put in their dictionaries?

This is undoubtedly in response to the arguments that theists have made that it is just as much faith to say there is no God as to say there is a God.

So you are saying you hold faith a deity exists, but then separate faiths for each and every deity you don't believe in? And separate faiths for everything else you don't believe in? Your disbelief in unicorns is based on faith? I have to say I'm dubious, but I can tell you now that I don't use faith, and I don't believe in any deity or deities, thus I am by definition an atheist.

So if you really are saying taht we cannot know, you should identify yourself as an agnostic.

If a god claim is offered as an unfalsifiable concept then I am agnostic about it, as I must be about all unfalsifiable claims, I also disbelieve them, as believing a claim one admits they can know nothing about is absurd. If you'd read the thread you'd already know this, and could've saved yourself the time of that straw man. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, they're not therefore mutually exclusive. If you redefine atheism as a belief it would exclude many atheists like myself, a nonsensical position.

On a related but different subject, we all have to choose whether to live our lives as though God exists or as though God does not exist.

In other news the sky is blue, and water is wet, I've no idea what this assertion is getting at? Do you substantially alter the way you live because you don't believe in mermaids or unicorns?

So if one says, "I don't believe in God because there is no proof," they choose to live their lives as though God does not exist. Thus, just as someone can be a practicing theist, one can also be practicing atheist.

I don't claim this, never have, and I am an atheist, I don't practice anything, in fact I only discuss it because religions have enormous influence, and often this has had a pernicious effect.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not convinced any gods exist. I therefore fall into the category: Atheist.

And the original form of Buddhism is non-theistic.

It once threw me in a conversation when someone referred to atheistic religion, but of course Buddhism for many Buddhists is atheistic. This does not make atheism a religion of course, but that also seems something many theists who know they can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, seem keen to peddle as if it somehow validates theist theism. It sees very much in vogue these day, with apologists like William Lane Craig peddling it for ages. The late Christopher Hitchens once took him to task over it in a debate, and thoroughly ruined him on the point. The real irony is that the Hitch professed publicly that he went farther than disbelief and made a claim.

 

[Sheldon]

It's pretty obvious most atheists couldn't give a **** about such academic trivialities. Almost everyone who bothers to make the distinction only do so because they have read/heard other 'active' atheists make the same point which requires exposure to a particular kind of atheist media or interaction with others 'active' atheists.

No it isn't "pretty obvious" at all. This just sounds like a sweeping unevidenced claim you are making. I love the condescension that atheists can't reason this for themselves as well, without recourse "active atheists" or atheist media, that's hilarious. Atheism has no doctrinal teachings or dogma, beyond not believing in any deity or deities an atheists is free to reason and believe as they choose. This ridiculous idea that atheism is some nefarious conspiracy is ludicrous paranoia.