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

[Sheldon]

wouldn’t you agree that defining how we reject the God concept in atheism may be more complex and philosophically nuanced than a dictionary definition would allow?

Of course, I believe I have taken some pains to make that clear. Dictionaries are reference tools, not scientific manuals. However the primary dictionary definition of atheism as derived in mainstream dictionaries is a lack or absence of belief, I'm not saying that is the only way it is defined, only that it is dishonest to misrepresent what the primary definition is.

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't believe I claimed they were? In fact I'm not sure what you mean by outliers? Words change over time that is a fact, and if that happens I may have to stop calling myself an atheist, or qualify what I mean by it. However I would still lack any belief in any deity or deities, and it still wouldn't be a positive claim or belief.

Sorry. I meant the links were not to obscure or dubious sources.
If a person were to say "I lack belief in deities" or "I believe deities do not exist" I would think both communicated the same...er...meaning, consistent with describing oneself as an atheist.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am an atheist and I believe there is no god. I just occasionally want to do this during Christmas because I don’t really want to celebrate the birth of a two thousand year old cult leader. I’m not wrong, just different. ....

Fret not, you are Not celebrating the birth of Jesus because Jesus was Not born in December.
Christmas is a much older non-Christian celebration that long after the first century ended the label Christmas was placed on that very old non-Christian celebration or festival.
Besides, the Jews of Jesus' day did Not even celebrate one's birthday.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

I shan't engage with you again if you persist in making up straw man claims and assigning them to me. I have stated many times that I disbelieve in any deity or deities, I do not hold a belief they don't exist in any broad sense as they are an abstract concept and unfalsifiable in that broad sense. I am ashamed of nothing, If you want to indulge in dishonest point scoring on this topic them PureX already has a thread for that.

 

[Augustus]

Or for most atheists one would think, since common usage would surely change if that were the case?

Common usage did change to add the newer 'lack of belief' type definition 30 or so years ago.

I'm pretty sure most atheists couldn't give 2 ****s to differentiate between the 2 positions though.

Those that are insistent that atheism is not a belief are the small subset of atheists who bother to consume the kind of atheist literature that considers such trivialities important.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry. I meant the links were not to obscure or dubious sources.
If a person were to say "I lack belief in deities" or "I believe deities do not exist" I would think both communicated the same...er...meaning, consistent with describing oneself as an atheist.

Well both people are atheists true, but they are markedly different in that one makes a claim or assertion, and the other does not. What I am trying to do here is examine the dishonest misrepresentation of the primary definition of the word. Of course there are nuanced meaning beneath that primary definition, but that is not what I ma talking about in the poll.

Hope that makes sense?

 

[Augustus]

So you are a nullifidianist? Do you absolutely reject the notion of there possibly being a sims controller, a virtual reality programmer of human consciousness?

No, I believe on balance of probabilities that there are no gods.

 

[Kenny]

The first christians were called atheists, what's your point? Etymology is fascinating no doubt, but I am talking about the primary definition derived through common usage. maybe you think mainstream dictionaries are not the best reference tools for common usage? I'm inclined to disagree but by all means if that's your position you could explain why in this instance we should deviate from that standard? We don't seem to do it for other words.

I'm not sure what your first sentence has anything to do with the subject.

And, no, changing the definition of atheism doesn't mean that the definition is correct (unless you are a lawyer and want to squeeze your way out of something )

Then you also have the problem of two dictionaries with different definitions.

noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

So, then, ultimately just changing the definition so that one can make an agnostic the same as an atheist doesn't really mean it is correct.

I think the problem has been that atheists had to redefine their definition because they realized they were painting themselves into a hole. So, over time, they do try to change the usage to adjust with the logical position that ultimately it is a faith... a religion of sorts IMO.

Front Page (an atheist church where they can practice their religion)

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it wrong for all atheists and how do you define a belief? One (actually two) great atheist I knew before affirmed as true that it is certain that God does not exist, and not only that, she argued that it was impossible for God to exist. Is that not a belief? If not how do you define it [belief]?

First off a lack of belief is not a belief. For example I may not know anything at all about a subject. I may not even know that subject exists. I would have a lack of belief about that subject either way. This should be rather obvious.

Next there is a subject that I cannot have full information about. The rational path is not to accept a claim as true without sufficient evidence I do not believe people that make certain claims. That does not mean that I believe that they are wrong. They may be right, they may be wrong. I simply do not know enough to form an opinion either way. That is how most atheists are about the existence of gods. They lack a belief in them. That does not mean that they believe that they do not exist. That would take more information.

Now they may be able to refute the claims of some theists, or at the very least demonstrate that their beliefs are unjustified. For example when a theist makes the statement "I know that God exists". They put an enormous burden of proof upon themselves. Knowledge is demonstrable and if they cannot support that claim with clear evidence it becomes quickly apparent that all that person has is belief.

And yes, some atheists will gladly take on the burden of proof by claiming that "There is no God". I do not claim that. I simply state that I do not believe in god.

Let's take the Loch Ness Monster. There are many people that believe that they saw Nessie. They will even give examples of rather poor evidence for her. They are not that much different from theists that claim to know that God exists. I lack a belief in Nessie. I will say that she probably does not exist. But it is not the end of my world if she does turn out to exist. Do you know what it would take for me to change my mind? Just some clear evidence.

I will say almost the same thing about God. All it would take would be for some clear evidence for God and I would change my mind. The people that are being irrational are the theists that claim no amount of evidence would change their mind.

 

[Laika]

Of course, I believe I have taken some pains to make that clear. Dictionaries are reference tools, not scientific manuals. However the primary dictionary definition of atheism as derived in mainstream dictionaries is a lack or absence of belief, I'm not saying that is the only way it is defined, only that it is dishonest to misrepresent what the primary definition is.

that’s reasonable. Having had this debate many time before (and its a regularly reoccurring one on RF), I realise that the “lack of belief” definition of atheism is by far the more popular one for people who self-identify as atheists. Other versions can come across as very alien to the majority of atheists and probably represent entirely different philosophical traditions. But as long as we allow for a range of opinions, that’s absolutely fine.

Fret not, you are Not celebrating the birth of Jesus because Jesus was Not born in December.
Christmas is a much older non-Christian celebration that long after the first century ended the label Christmas was placed on that very old non-Christian celebration or festival.
Besides, the Jews of Jesus' day did Not even celebrate one's birthday.

Christmas is very much a pagan festival and I’m surprised more christians aren’t offended by how it is being abused to sell stuff and make money. If it was something more private that people did in their homes or their local church, I’d be ok with it. But I find the commercialism and way Christmas is embedded in our culture whilst betraying its christian meaning is problematic.

 

[osgart]

You could say atheism is the belief that there are no gods whatsoever.

I believe no gods exist. I don't think that there's proof that they don't exist.

The only god I can rule out is an omni-everything, supremely loving God. Why? Because an omni- everything God wouldn't make such a reality as this one. A God without limits is farcical. Also magical gods are farcical

 

[Sheldon]

Those that are insistent that atheism is not a belief are the small subset of atheists who bother to consume the kind of atheist literature that considers such trivialities important.

I'm dubious, do you have a citation to support that claim? I find it bizarre you think it a triviality, but hey ho not everyone finds semantics interesting, though I find it hard to believe "most atheists" see this distinction as trivial. I certainly don't, which is why I was minded to start this thread.

 

[sun rise]

@Revoltingest wrote for me but I will point out the absolute belief that there is no god in the wording of the title and questions that started off this thread.

 

[Lain]

First off a lack of belief is not a belief. For example I may not know anything at all about a subject. I may not even know that subject exists. I would have a lack of belief about that subject either way. This should be rather obvious.

Next there is a subject that I cannot have full information about. The rational path is not to accept a claim as true without sufficient evidence I do not believe people that make certain claims. That does not mean that I believe that they are wrong. They may be right, they may be wrong. I simply do not know enough to form an opinion either way. That is how most atheists are about the existence of gods. They lack a belief in them. That does not mean that they believe that they do not exist. That would take more information.

Now they may be able to refute the claims of some theists, or at the very least demonstrate that their beliefs are unjustified. For example when a theist makes the statement "I know that God exists". They put an enormous burden of proof upon themselves. Knowledge is demonstrable and if they cannot support that claim with clear evidence it becomes quickly apparent that all that person has is belief.

And yes, some atheists will gladly take on the burden of proof by claiming that "There is no God". I do not claim that. I simply state that I do not believe in god.

Let's take the Loch Ness Monster. There are many people that believe that they saw Nessie. They will even give examples of rather poor evidence for her. They are not that much different from theists that claim to know that God exists. I lack a belief in Nessie. I will say that she probably does not exist. But it is not the end of my world if she does turn out to exist. Do you know what it would take for me to change my mind? Just some clear evidence.

I will say almost the same thing about God. All it would take would be for some clear evidence for God and I would change my mind. The people that are being irrational are the theists that claim no amount of evidence would change their mind.

I agree entirely with this post (or rather for the most part, the differences aren't important now), but I was interested in how it is wrong for all atheists that it is not their belief that God does not exist? I do not mean those who claim to be unconvinced, but those who claim to know, it is wrong to say that that is their belief?

 

[Sheldon]

I just occasionally want to do this during Christmas because I don’t really want to celebrate the birth of a two thousand year old cult leader. I’m not wrong, just different.

My late dad, though a lifelong atheist, went nuts at xmas, if you stood still long enough you'd be decorated with tinsel and xmas decorations. I just looked forward to spending time with family and a break from work. I'm also a little anti xmas, not in a bah humbug way, I'm all for people enjoying themselves when ever and however they can, but the way people go completely nuts, buying and consuming everything in sight is deeply depressing to me. You can feel the collective stress levels rising day by day...I want no part of that insanity...

 

[Secret Chief]

Well both people are atheists true, but they are markedly different in that one makes a claim or assertion, and the other does not. What I am trying to do here is examine the dishonest misrepresentation of the primary definition of the word. Of course there are nuanced meaning beneath that primary definition, but that is not what I ma talking about in the poll.

Hope that makes sense?

Ok, for you they are markedly different, for me they seem to be expressing the same thing ie atheism. The poll seems to address that non-belief/belief idea : the "lie" is just one say to say "I am an atheist."

 

[Secret Chief]

My late dad, though a lifelong atheist, went nuts at xmas, if you stood still long enough you'd be decorated with tinsel and xmas decorations. I just looked forward to spending time with family and a break from work. I'm also a little anti xmas, not in a bah humbug way, I'm all for people enjoying themselves when ever and however they can, but the way people go completely nuts, buying and consuming everything in sight is deeply depressing to me. You can feel the collective stress levels rising day by day...I want no part of that insanity...

I hate xmas as much as I hate aubergines.

 

[Augustus]

I'm dubious, do you have a citation to support that claim? I find it bizarre you think it a triviality, but hey ho not everyone finds semantics interesting, though I find it hard to believe "most atheists" see this distinction as trivial. I certainly don't, which is why I was minded to start this thread.

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?

What I am trying to do here is examine the dishonest misrepresentation of the primary definition of the word.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't know they had bacon flavored parmesan. Learn sumpin new every day.

There's Parmesan that isn't bacon flavored?

 

[Sheldon]

I think the problem has been that atheists had to redefine their definition because they realized they were painting themselves into a hole.

Sorry but that is preposterous do atheists create the Oxford English dictionary, or Merriam Webster's now?

I'm not sure what your first sentence has anything to do with the subject.

It was a direct response to part of your post, which I quoted for context.

So, then, ultimately just changing the definition so that one can make an agnostic the same as an atheist doesn't really mean it is correct.

Words are not correct in that sense, but they do have a primary definition that reflects common usage. The best reference tools for this are the largest mainstream dictionaries.

So, over time, they do try to change the usage to adjust with the logical position that ultimately it is a faith... a religion of sorts IMO.

That's preposterous sorry, how can atheists change the dictionary exactly?

Religion
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I don't see anything in that link that comes close to that definition. I also fail to see what this has to do with the primary definition of atheism? Google atheism definition, and link what comes up for me. Which do you think samples a larger demographic dictionary,com or Google? I'm guessing it's Google.