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

[Augustus]

What has that to do with the idiotic idea that the definition of atheism should exclude many atheists?

As I explained previously, If you understood the basics of language, you'd realise why defining atheism as a belief does not exclude atheists like yourself based on an accepted usage of the term belief.

Your additional mistake about definitions was just a further correction.

Just how many words are theist going to sulk over, just because it exposes their religious beliefs are an empty bag?

I'm an atheist. Doesn't mean I have to agree with other atheists who prefer definitions that don't reflect the reality of human cognition.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The reason the "apple" bit was pertinent is specifically because you stated this:

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.

"Are we agreed?" that you actually stated this?

And the only reason I can think that you stated this is because you do not believe that "the distinction" is even real, and that people only make "the distinction" because they are parroting others who are only trying to draw "the distinction." In other words, you seem to downplay "the distinction" quite a bit, and characterize its continued propagation to be just a bunch of unoriginal minds all just reaching for the same false advertising.

I am sure you have your reasons for doing this... but my bringing up the "apple" scenario was to display that words can actually have multiple meanings, and be used in multiple ways. Even words as simple as "apple" - and so it seems as thought you want to pretend that the usage of a word as complex as "atheist" can only mean "one who positively states that god does not exist" UNLESS people are just parroting some original source who wanted to co-opt the word for their own nefarious purposes. That's basically what I saw your paragraph above as trying to characterize the situation as. Maybe I am wrong... but that's actually why I would say something to you in the first place, to either get you to further clarify or try to show you some other possibility.

You know... I bet those people who used the word "apple" to mean the tree instead of the fruit were all only bothering to do so because they were exposed to some particular kind of orchard media or interaction with other active apple growers and consumers.

Read the paragraph above - doesn't it seem like I am somehow trying to disparage people who use the word "apple" to describe the tree as having bought-in to some weird apple propaganda? Aren't I a genius for having done so? Hyuk hyuk.

 

[Sheldon]

What they are doing is defining the scope of the text, which is a common academic convention, not stating the definitive definition of atheism. Indeed, they specifically explain there is no agreed upon scholarly definition.

You now it's odd, but you seem to be taking a condescending tone there, even though your assertion doesn't support your preferred definition? Indeed you've offered nothing beyond histrionics, that insist atheists must think and believe in line with your preference, just so it creates some sort of imaginary parity between your belief in unevidenced archaic superstition, and those who don't share that belief.

Thanks for the link anyway, I may download that book as it looks interesting.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Look, if your beliefs exclude God's and Holinesses then it might be best for you not to use them? That's all.

So now you get to tell me which words to use and not use? Not only does my position not mean what I say that it means because you say so, but I am not allowed to use any words that someone else likes to use, unless I am part of the club. Is that about right? Give me a break. Why am I even talking to a badger in the first place? When did you guys learn to type?

If you were as immune to religious matters as you claim then I'm at a loss to guess why you take part in religious debates and forums. That's strange imo.

I am immune... hell yes. but OTHERS AREN'T. And I know this. I am out here trying to make sure this crap doesn't get as out of hand as I KNOW it can. Besides... can't you see that I enjoy this? I mean dang man.

 

[F1fan]

It once threw me in a conversation when someone referred to atheistic religion, but of course Buddhism for many Buddhists is atheistic.

Not many Western folks know much about Buddhism. Put simply it is a set of practices that helps a person manage their mind, both emotions and thinking. It's kind of yoga for the mind, to help bring discipline and balance. We don't hear people insist yoga is a religion.

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.

I think theists make a fatal error in this approach. Some insist that atheism is a religion. It's fatal for them because if they insist atheism is a religion, and atheism is wrong, then religions can be wrong. This puts even more burden on them to demonstrate how their religion isn't as flawed and wrong as atheism.

Of course theists have gotten evasive and vague in recent years. The less they reveal about their beliefs the less that can be criticized. This thread illustrates the language tricks theists try to get away with to 1. take the burden off of them, and 2. to create more confusion in debates. It's ironic they believe they can decide a complex thing like a God exists, but try to create confusion in debates, as if that helps anyone find clarity and a better basis for belief.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh their god, you used the word faith, they're going to leap on that like a frog on amphetamines.

Yeah... I used the word "holy" too... and that already happened. Except it was a badger (I think), and not a frog.

 

[Sheldon]

As I explained previously, If you understood the basics of language, you'd realise why defining atheism as a belief does not exclude atheists like yourself based on an accepted usage of the term belief.

Yeah, your explanation is idiotic, so I disregarded it.

I'm an atheist. Doesn't mean I have to agree with other atheists who prefer definitions that don't reflect the reality of human cognition.

It's your position that doesn't reflect "the reality of human cognition", since your definition isn't one that many atheists hold, 23 atheists have said so in the poll already, and explained why with evidence. If your claim is at odds with the two largest dictionaries in the English speaking world, I don't think you're in a position to question other's understanding of the basics of language.

Then again if you're arguing a lack of belief is in fact a belief, then that ship has pretty much sailed.

 

[Yazata]

Some questions for the group:

1. How would you distinguish 'atheism' from 'agnosticism'? Would you try to insist that they are the same thing? Would you try to insist that agnostics are really atheists without the courage to admit that they are? (I've heard atheists say this.)

2. Atheists seem to be moving en-masse towards agnosticism. Which as an agnostic is something that I welcome. Agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to take on these sorts of matters. So why are atheists so reluctant to re-identify themselves as agnostics? Why try instead to redefine the meaning of the word 'atheist' so that it essentially becomes synonymous with agnostic?

3. If atheism supposedly does not imply beliefs but only the lack of beliefs, why are atheists typically so full of beliefs on religion discussion boards? (They remind me of religious fundamentalists, always preaching.) There's supposedly no evidence for divine realities (a belief). Religious belief is supposedly "unfalsifiable" (a belief). Belief in divinities is supposedly equivalent to belief in invisible pink unicorns (a belief). Theism is supposedly the cause of no end of evils in human history (a belief). It would supposedly be a great step in human progress is we could just free ourselves from religion (a belief). So isn't the insistence that atheism is nothing more than absence of belief a LIE?

4. Do you think that there's any philosophical value in maintaining the distinction between the epistemological position that transcendental matters aren't/can't be known by human beings, and the ontological position of whether or not religious style divinities exist? If there's value in the distinction, then doesn't it make sense to give them different names?

 

[Sheldon]

Some questions for the group:

1. How would you distinguish 'atheism' from 'agnosticism'? Would you try to insist that they are the same thing? Would you try to insist that agnostics are really atheists without the courage to admit that they are? (I've heard atheists say this.)

2. Atheists seem to be moving en-masse towards agnosticism. Which as an agnostic is something that I welcome. Agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to take on these sorts of matters. So why not just identify yourselves as agnostics? Why try instead to redefine the meaning of the word 'atheist' so that it essentially becomes synonymous with agnostic?

3. If atheism supposedly does not imply beliefs but only the lack of beliefs, why are atheists typically so full of beliefs on religion discussion boards? (They remind me of religious fundamentalists, always preaching.) There's supposedly no evidence for divine realities (a belief). Religious belief is supposedly "unfalsifiable" (a belief). Belief in divinities is supposedly equivalent to belief in invisible pink unicorns (a belief). Theism is supposedly the cause of no end of evils in human history (a belief). It would supposedly be a great step in human progress is we could just free ourselves from religion (a belief). So isn't the insistence that atheism is nothing more than absence of belief a LIE?

4. Do you think that there's any philosophical value in maintaining the distinction between the epistemological position that transcendental matters aren't/can't be known by human beings, and the ontological position of whether or not religious style divinities exist? If there's value in the distinction, then doesn't it make sense to give them different names?

1. Personally I'd use a dictionary, or more than one, the two largest English dictionaries, The Oxford English and Meriam Webster's both define atheism as a lack o absence of belief. This need not exclude narrower definitions when and if they are apropos.
2. They are not mutually exclusive I am an atheist, but also an agnostic unless the concept of deity is falsifiable or some knowledge of it's nature or existence can be demonstrated.
3. I think that question my have misunderstood the thread argument, of course an atheist can hold a belief no deity exists, but there are also atheists who simply lack belief in any deity, if you define atheism in the first narrow way as a belief, it excludes many atheists. If it is defined as the lack or absence of a belief, in line with common usage as defined in the largest UK and US dictionaries, then it can encompass a belief, but it need not involve a belief, and so is not limited to that, thus it would include all atheists.
4. I don't really have a strong opinion, and I think you'd have to define what you mean by philosophical value here.

 

[Augustus]

And the only reason I can think that you stated this is because you do not believe that "the distinction" is even real, and that people only make "the distinction" because they are parroting others who are only trying to draw "the distinction." In other words, you seem to downplay "the distinction" quite a bit, and characterize its continued propagation to be just a bunch of unoriginal minds all just reaching for the same false advertising.

Most people are mostly unoriginal thinkers who largely get their ideas from those in their communities and from the media they consume. You obviously don't think YECs all independently think their way to the same ideas, do you?

As to my views on the distinction, I think it is grammatical, not cognitive. It only exists because the grammatical and syntactical rules of certain languages allow you to make such a distinction.

I am sure you have your reasons for doing this... but my bringing up the "apple" scenario was to display that words can actually have multiple meanings, and be used in multiple ways. Even words as simple as "apple" - and so it seems as thought you want to pretend that the usage of a word as complex as "atheist" can only mean "one who positively states that god does not exist" UNLESS people are just parroting some original source who wanted to co-opt the word for their own nefarious purposes. That's basically what I saw your paragraph above as trying to characterize the situation as. Maybe I am wrong... but that's actually why I would say something to you in the first place, to either get you to further clarify or try to show you some other possibility.

You know... I bet those people who used the word "apple" to mean the tree instead of the fruit were all only bothering to do so because they were exposed to some particular kind of orchard media or interaction with other active apple growers and consumers.

Read the paragraph above - doesn't it seem like I am somehow trying to disparage people who use the word "apple" to describe the tree as having bought-in to some weird apple propaganda? Aren't I a genius for having done so? Hyuk hyuk.

'

Again I agree words have different meanings and there is no "correct" usage. You are getting a bit excitable again with your 'propaganda' nonsense.

In short:

Do you think that average atheist when presented with the definition "an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods" would say "No! That is a lie! An atheist simply lacks belief!" or would they see it as acceptable?

It's simply not the kind of distinction most people make intuitively.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. How would you distinguish 'atheism' from 'agnosticism'? Would you try to insist that they are the same thing? Would you try to insist that agnostics are really atheists without the courage to admit that they are? (I've heard atheists say this.)

I see an "agnostic" as someone who may not answer whether or not they "believe" the accounts of others who make the claims, because they believe that they "cannot know" the truth of it either way. I am not sure if they feel that "no one" can know the truth of it - because if they felt that way, then I think that they would surely be intent on letting the theist know that they felt the theist couldn't possibly know the things they keep making claims about! But, as an atheist, I am entirely willing to tell people I simply do not believe them. Their accounts are not compelling, and the evidence they have is insufficient. That is, at least, the difference for me, personally. I don't just say "Well, I can't know either way, so no comment" - I say "Yeah - that doesn't ring true to me, sounds like you're making crap up, and I am going to need to see something pretty darn compelling to even continue listening to you."

2. Atheists seem to be moving en-masse towards agnosticism. Which as an agnostic is something that I welcome. Agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to take on these sorts of matters. So why not just identify yourselves as agnostics? Why try instead to redefine the meaning of the word 'atheist' so that it essentially becomes synonymous with agnostic?

So - as an agnostic, do you only believe that you, yourself cannot know the truth of these matters, or do you believe that no one can know the truth of these things? That you cannot obtain the knowledge, or that no one can obtain this knowledge? I am genuinely curious.

3. If atheism supposedly does not imply beliefs but only the lack of beliefs, why are atheists typically so full of beliefs on religion discussion boards? (They remind me of religious fundamentalists, always preaching.) There's supposedly no evidence for divine realities (a belief). Religious belief is supposedly "unfalsifiable" (a belief). Belief in divinities is supposedly equivalent to belief in invisible pink unicorns (a belief). Theism is supposedly the cause of no end of evils in human history (a belief). It would supposedly be a great step in human progress is we could just free ourselves from religion (a belief). So isn't the insistence that atheism is nothing more than absence of belief a LIE?

Just as you already stated "Agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to take" - which means that the theists position is NOT an as intellectually defensible one. You said this. And the theist, if trying to convince ANYONE of the correctness of their claims, must necessarily pronounce what they believe, and stick to it. From an argumentative standpoint, an atheist DOES NOT NEED to do this. They have no "positive prescription" for what should necessarily be accepted as reality. The atheist DOES NOT have this, necessarily, and doesn't need to bring it to the table. It can simply be a response of "No, I don't believe you." when someone makes an outrageous claim about a God or gods. You seem to think the atheist DOES have that burden... that they must necessarily disprove a person's god in order to keep their position intact. That simply isn't the case. In other words, you're just plain wrong.

4. Do you think that there's any philosophical value in maintaining the distinction between the epistemological position that transcendental matters aren't/can't be known by human beings, and the ontological position of whether or not religious style divinities exist? If there's value in the distinction, then doesn't it make sense to give them different names?

Haha! So here we go! You appear to believe that "transcendental matters aren't/can't be known by human beings". So I feel that you should be just as put off by anyone insisting that they KNOW things concerning "transcendental matters." How can you say that you literally don't believe that people can know these things, but be 100% fine with people running around blabbing their mouths about these things as if they know all about it? That would bug the absolute crap out of me. I mean... it already does.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you think that average atheist when presented with the definition "an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods" would say "No! That is a lie!

Again this is misrepresenting the thread argument, and ignoring the common usage reflected in mainstream dictionaries. It isn't just about atheists either, as common usage reflects everyone. One definition is narrow and excludes many atheists, the other is broad and includes all atheists. I shall leave it to others to decide why anyone would want to narrow the definition to exclude atheists.

And to answer your question I care when people try to tell me what I think or believe, and even more when I clarify what that is and they try to insist I am wrong, as if they know better than I do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Most people are mostly unoriginal thinkers who largely get their ideas from those in their communities and from the media they consume. You obviously don't think YECs all independently think their way to the same ideas, do you?

As to my views on the distinction, I think it is grammatical, not cognitive. It only exists because the grammatical and syntactical rules of certain languages allow you to make such a distinction.

'

Again I agree words have different meanings and there is no "correct" usage. You are getting a bit excitable again with your 'propaganda' nonsense.

In short:

Do you think that average atheist when presented with the definition "an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods" would say "No! That is a lie! An atheist simply lacks belief!" or would they see it as acceptable?

It's simply not the kind of distinction most people make intuitively.

Okay @Augustus, you big ol' genius you. Let me lay on you exactly what I have been saying to others in this thread... NONE of this matters. In the end, my position is not some parroting of what I have heard others say/do/blah-blah-blah-August-thinks-no-one-has-ever-had-an-individual-thought-in-their-heads-ever. I don't need to be called "an atheist" at all. I don't care. Literally do not care.

Here's my position:
Someone states that they know of a god, or believe that some god exists, I say "I don't believe you, got any evidence to back up those shenanigans?" And when I am presented with just more shenanigans, my response is "That is what I thought." That's it. Call it what you will. Were someone to actually somehow produce the actual goods in terms of evidence that could convince me of the existence of a god? Well okay then... things change. Until then... no. You don't have compelling evidence to convince me? Then who cares about your beliefs? Seriously? Not me. That's what I want people to understand. I don't care if you can't conscionably call that atheism or whatever your hang-ups are. I don't care. Get over it and understand that I couldn't give a flying crap about anyone's claims about a god existing who can't properly evidence the thing. Period.

 

[Augustus]

You now it's odd, but you seem to be taking a condescending tone there, even though your assertion doesn't support your preferred definition?

If you read more carefully, you might understand why the tone is condescending.

My point has always been there are no definitively "correct" usages, only subjective preferences held for a variety of reasons.

It's your position that doesn't reflect "the reality of human cognition", since your definition isn't one that many atheists hold, 23 atheists have said so in the poll already, and explained why with evidence. If your claim is at odds with the two largest dictionaries in the English speaking world, I don't think you're in a position to question other's understanding of the basics of language.

Polls on Fox news said Donald trump was the best president ever. Must be true then

My claim: there are multiple usages of words, none of which can be claimed as definitive correct for a variety of reasons including that they rest on numerous other subjective preferences
You: The 2 largest dictionaries and online polls decide correct usage and other usages are therefore wrong

If you think your view is a better description of language, you might want to read a bit more and think a bit more deeply about the subject.

Then again if you're arguing a lack of belief is in fact a belief, then that ship has pretty much sailed.

No, I'm noting the well established philosophical view that a belief is an attitude held in response to a proposition.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting things or, like the basics of language, this is beyond your wit to grasp.

Either way, I'll leave you to it

 

[Augustus]

Okay @Augustus, you big ol' genius you. Let me lay on you exactly what I have been saying to others in this thread... NONE of this matters. In the end, my position is not some parroting of what I have heard others say/do/blah-blah-blah-August-thinks-no-one-has-ever-had-an-individual-thought-in-their-heada-ever. I don't need to be called "an atheist" at all. I don't care. Literally do not care.

Here's my position:
Someone states that they know of a god, or believe that some god exists, I say "I don't believe you, got any evidence to back up those shenanigans?" And when I am presented with just more shenanigans, my response is "That is what I thought." That's it. Call it what you will. Were someone to actually somehow produce the actual goods in terms of evidence that could convince me of the existence of a god? Well okay then... things change. Until then... no. You don't have compelling evidence to convince me? Then who cares about your beliefs? Seriously? Not me. That's what I want people to understand. I don't care if you can't conscionably call that atheism or whatever your hang-ups are. I don't care. Get over it and understand that I couldn't give a flying crap about anyone's claims about a god existing who can't properly evidence the thing. Period.

Thanks for sharing.

So, do you think that average atheist when presented with the definition "an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods" would say "No! That is a lie! An atheist simply lacks belief!" or would they see it as an acceptable definition?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheist is a category. Anyone who doesn't believe in God falls into that category.

Assigning people to categories is not a particularly useful practice imo, especially for anyone genuinely interested in understanding the values and perspective of others.

 

[Colt]

On a religious forum Atheism is a destination for people seeking attention.

 

[PureX]

Yes, that too! But I would like to tack on in there somewhere that I am going to be extremely skeptical, to the point of needing monumental evidence to demonstrate a God, specifically, to me.

Extreme skepticism is called 'bias'. Otherwise, skepticism is just skepticism. It's the state of being unconvinced, but open to being convinced. If you are no longer open to being convinced, then you are no longer skeptical, you are opposed.

One again, the relative "largeness" of the claim is important here. I remain open to the possibility of being convinced there is a God... but again, the weight of the evidence is going to need to match the weight of the importance theists tend to place on God.

The problem you're having here is that you are allowing, in fact, insisting that the theist define 'God' for you. But he can only define God for himself, which is unlikely to correspond with any idea of God that will resonate with you. So you are throwing a giant illogical impasse into the exchange before it can even be sorted.

Just bring me actual, valid evidence of a god...

Sorry, but you have to determine what the evidence for 'God" would be, for yourself. Time to let go of that giant bias and face the question honestly, and for your own self. Stop using it as an excuse to attack what other people have chosen to think and believe. Of course, you can simply say you don't care, and move on. That, too, is a viable option. But attacking other people for their not convincing you is just childish and mean-spirited. And pointless.

In fact... if you reply to nothing else in my entire post, please reply to this:
Let's say I offer to sell you a bridge, and your interest is piqued. We talk about the bridge and discuss some of its features, etc. And then it comes to a point where, naturally, you ask to see the deed to the bridge. I say "Of course!", and then reach into my pocket and bring out a $500 note from the game Monopoly. That is what I present to you as "the deed." And then you ask "What is this?", to which I reply (enthusiastically) "That's the deed!"

Now... in the above situation, do you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that I am not the owner of the bridge? Do you? Can you state that? I don't think you can. But, now please speak to your level of belief that I own the bridge. Do you believe that I own the bridge? And, even more pointedly, are you leaning toward NOT BELIEVING that I own the bridge, based on my idiotic pronouncements and behavior - with my being generally enthusiastic in the face of a complete lack of being realistic? I know I would be leaning toward positively believing that such an individual DOES NOT own the bridge. I would hold out just that slightest amount of possibility that they actually did, because I know that I do not know for certain... but certainly I would suspect that they do not own that bridge.

You are asking all the wrong questions. I don't need to know anything about YOU. What I need to know is what "owning a bridge" means to me. Does it mean having a title? What kind of title? Does it mean taking physical possession? How does that work? Does it mean I can simply proclaim the bridge to be mine and move on? Then, once I know what "owning a bridge" means to me, and I determine for myself that I do want to own one, I can decide whether or not what you are offering will help me achieve my goal. What YOU think bridge-owning is, is irrelevant to me. Just as what I think bridge-owning is, is irrelevant to you. I have no reason to know or care what you believe about bridge-owning. And you have no reason to know or care what I believe about it. And none of us has any reason to know or care what anyone DOESN'T believe about it. All that matters is if what you are offering will help me gain something that I think I would like to possess.

Atheism as a 'position' is logically irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, we have these different words because they refer to different conceptual states of mind. Being atheist doesn't mean being skeptical, and being skeptical doesn't mean you are an atheist; because the atheist isn't skeptical. The atheist has chosen a determined position, even though they say their position could change if someone could convince them otherwise.

True, being an atheist does not necessarily mean that one is skeptical. But then you go off the rails again.

 

[PureX]

As opposed to ACTUAL states of mind.

There are no "actual" states of mind. The mind is a conceptual entity.