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

[TagliatelliMonster]

OB.....Hi Sheldon!
Sheldon...Hi OldB.....
OB....Are you an atheist?
Sheldon....Yeah
OB....Is that your opinion....atheism is correct?
Sheldon....Yeah.

Bzzzzzzt.

The question is malformed and invalid.
Loaded even. It assumes atheism comes with claims.
It doesn't.

It's a single position on a single issue.
Theism is the claim.

OB....So you believe in atheism?
OB....You don't believe in atheism?

Theism is the thing that can be believed.
Atheism is when theism isn't being believed.

Atheism isn't a thing that can be "believed" or "disbelieved".
That would be theism.
And when theism isn't being believed, that's what atheism is.

OB...... OK Sheldon....... You don't believe in atheism....I get it.

No. Atheism = when theism isn't believed.

 

[Colt]

what doctrine?

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

"TO THE UNBELIEVING materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good." UB 1955

 

[Secret Chief]

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

You're just noisier!

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

All you've illustrated is the absurdity of trying to treat a position that isn't a belief as if it was. One doesn't "believe in" atheism (except in the sense that atheists exist). Atheism is being unconvinced by all the various forms of theism.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Looks like wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Secret Chief]

An opinion is a belief, surely?

Welcome to the roundabout.

 

[Revoltingest]

And "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

Off is a TV channel.

Bald is a hair colour.

Bigamy is having too many wives.
Marriage is....uh.....the same thing.

 

[Colt]

All you've illustrated is the absurdity of trying to treat a position that isn't a belief as if it was. One doesn't "believe in" atheism (except in the sense that atheists exist). Atheism is being unconvinced by all the various forms of theism.

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.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

I don't need an excuse to reject superstitious claims that come with no supporting evidence or reasoning.

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.

Baseless assertions and a very long way from being a description of my own experience. Ask for your money back from the mind-reading course.

Why is it that some theists need to pretend that they know how (all) atheists think and why they disbelieve? Is it insecurity, perhaps?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's try something a little meatier than some entry in Wikipedia. From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Atheism and Agnosticism:

“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).
​

Well, there you go. "I believe God does not exist" is a propositional belief. Everything I have been saying all along, even during the years I self-identified as an atheist. I speak the truth. There is nothing wrong in calling it a belief. Why are you ashamed to say that?

"God-with-a-capital-G" again.

I always find it interesting in discussions around the term "atheist" how unwilling many theists are to take off their monotheistic blinders.

I'm sure that your god is important to you personally, but it's not the be-all and end-all of theism. Your god is just one god in a vast spectrum of gods that humanity has believed in.

What you - and all the other posters in this thread who have tried to define theism or atheism just in terms of God-with-a-capital-G - are doing is chauvinism, that's all.

I think these discussions often break down simply because, for a whole lot of monotheists, they're just incapable of mentally stepping back and approaching things with a perspective where the world doesn't revolve around their particular belief system.

 

[Kenny]

This is how atheists function, that there are no gods. This is much the same way adults function, that there are no unicorns.

It is reasonable to function in life as if unicorns don't exist. Can we prove unicorns don't exist? No.

It is reasonable that atheists function as if gods don't exist. Can we prove gods don't exist? No.

The problem with this overused analogy is that it doesn't leave room for being wrong...
Real 'Siberian unicorn' remains found | CNN

OOPS! They found the remains of a real unicorn.

OOPS! Maybe there is a real God? Since what we know is so limited and finite in comparison to the knowledge to be discovered...

 

[Augustus]

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.

Things either potentially exist in your mind or they don't.

You are about to cross the road and someone says "Stop! Don't cross! There are 100 silent invisible rhinoceroses stampeding and they will kill you! Wait 30 seconds and they will pass and you can cross safely."

Whether you say "I don't believe they exist" or "I believe they don't exist", you cross the road as the 2 positions are functionally and cognitively identical and only linguistically distinct.

For me the distinction starts when they wait 30 seconds.

How many times must I repeat the same thing?

Probably until you start to understand some very basic conventions of human language use and so stop repeating the same elementary error

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

Here's an objective fact for you:

There is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published [recently]

1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’ (Baggini 2003: 3)
2. ‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
3. ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
4. ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
5. ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean—a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

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

Disbelief is a cognitive stance taken against the truth of a proposition. It is quite obviously a belief in this sense.

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.

Yes, of course they are (imo)

They are adopting a cognitive position regarding the truth of the claim which is a belief.

But it ultimately goes back to your subjective preference regarding how to define belief (and other things such as your philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and how these map on to neural activity in the brain, etc.)

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.

Do you not recognise you are also trying to impose your subjective preference on others and should listen to what they tell you instead?

The issue is very simple: people use language in different ways, there is nothing wrong with this and we can usually pretty easily understand each other despite this.

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

Many self-identified agnostics would debate this and reject your insistence that, like it or not, they are atheists.

Shouldn't you do them the same courtesy you demand from theists and respect their preferences regarding their own beliefs?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Indeed.

“To ask, ‘What exists?’ or, ‘What is real?’, is to ask how we wish to use a verb or an adjective.”

- Carlo Rovelli

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

"TO THE UNBELIEVING materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good." UB 1955

As in - “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.”? When in fact the good oft does remain - as to legacy, particularly when some exceptional mind has discovered something of unique interest to us humans and is passed on as knowledge, perhaps via science or culture.

I've seem a lot more despair in some religions - like to see the Taliban's view of life for all?

 

[Kenny]

View attachment 57396


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

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

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

"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.

"The Four Tenets of Atheism"

No God.

But, they don't have empirical and verifiable evidence. They don't even consider a spiritual world (as per the tenets of beliefs)

 

[ratiocinator]

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

No, it isn't look in a dictionary. And it's a lack of belief in gods in general, not your favourite 'God'.

"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.

None of these are required for atheism.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It's discriminatory against us apathetic atheists.

A new word: apatheist.

 

[Sheldon]

I think we are deviating from what we are really discussing

That's preposterous, it was your claim atheist could change the dictionary, now you're asked to demsonrate some evidence you just dismiss it with handwaving, that says a great deal to me?

And, thus, the etymology is the best source as it is the foundation of the structure of the word.

Ok, so christians are atheists then, as that is part of the etymology. I think your claim is arbitrary and nonsensical. however it is also irrelevant, and the thread if about the why the primary definition of atheism is so often misrepresented. You are just making an arbitrary decision to focus on part of the etymology because it suits your agenda to misrepresent atheism as a faith based belief. Except I have already explained I don't believe in any deity or deities, thus I am an atheist, and I don't hold a belief that no deities exist. So your sweeping claim is erroneous as it would exclude any atheists who shared that position form the definition of atheism, Whereas if we use the primary definition of atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, that would not exclude atheists who also go further and hold the belief no deity exists, so it would encompass all atheists.

Where a dictionary stands in its position of "favorites" doesn't change the reality of the root of the word which remains the belief that there is no God or gods.

Dictionaries sometimes offer the etymology alongside the current common usage, they don't compete and favourites is a silly misnomer here?

Thus, since it is not empirically verifiable, it is a position of "faith" as defined in the dictionary.

I have already explained I don't hold that position. I don't believe in any deity or deities, which makes me an atheist, your insistence it has to be a belief would mean I am not an atheist by your definition, so it makes no sense. Even were that the case, can you empirically verify that invisible unicorns don't exist? Does this mean you believe they exist?

 

[PureX]

what doctrine?

The doctrine that unless God can be proven to exist one must assume (believe) that God doesn't exist. And I see and hear atheists spouting this doctrine (dogma) all the time, here. Also, that proof must be "objective"; meaning that it must comport with their materialist definition of existence.

 

[Sheldon]

"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.

None of those are tenets of atheism, 1 is materialism not atheism, 2 initially makes a claim that is nonsensical, science is a method for studying and understanding the natural world and material universe that's all, and are you suggesting the universe is not knowable? Scientific laws don't exist, they're descriptive ideas science has created, in order to understand how the universe functions. Nothing in that disjointed rant has anything to do with atheism, they are again straw man fallacies you've created to misrepresent atheism as a claim. 3 That claim is a straw man you've created again, it has nothing to do with atheism.

I am an atheist, and I don't know if anything exists exists beyond the natural physical world and universe, but since no one can demsonrate any evidence for their superstitious belief in the supernatural I don't believe the claim. I do not make a contrary claim, as often these concepts are unfalsifiable.