Is atheism a belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@adrian009 - another thing I've seen: I often see theists conflate many of the concepts around atheism, like:


- lack of belief in gods vs. lack of belief about gods
- rejection of an argument for a god vs. rejection of the god itself
- "you don't need to reject gods to be an atheist" vs. "atheists never reject gods"

 

[stvdv]

They don't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe a god exists"?
IMHO:
"Yes" makes you a theist.
Any answer, other then "yes", makes you an atheist.

It's pretty binary....

IMHO:
I agree that "Yes" makes you a Theist

"Silence" makes you an Atheist
"Any other" answer only confuses things

 

[stvdv]

I am an agnostic atheist.
I don't believe a god exists, and don't claim to know that no gods exist or that is even knowable that a god exists (or not).

TOP
This makes totally sense to me

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you think the word belief is specifically about religion?

No. But "religious belief" really is not the same as the more colloquial use of the term as in "I believe gravity is what keeps me from floating into space".

The first is a blind (faith based) acceptance of religious dogma.
The latter refers to an acceptance of a scientific conclusion based on evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just think of it this way...

Jane says: "There are tiny, fairies (tiny people with wings) living in my garden."
John says: "I don't believe you."

Do you think that John's disbelief of Jane's claim about fairies represents a belief itself? Note that John didn't say "There are no fairies in your garden, Jane." - which would represent a hard-line belief. John can simply not know one way or the other, and withhold belief until such time as a demonstration of the truth is made.

An atheist is just someone who says "I don't believe you." to every person claiming that they know there is a god or that there are god(s), and this is usually because the claimant can't provide any compelling evidence for their claims. I would dare say that an atheist is prone to adopt this stance of disbelief, regardless the god-claim, unless it comes packed with strong supporting evidence of a compelling/reproducible/inter-subjectively verifiable nature. It just so happens that no one has ever provided such evidence (unless you count semantically playful goof-balls who do things like claim that "reality" or "the universe" is god - which I don't count, because that's ridiculous), and so it becomes very, very easy for one to maintain their atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

on the whole agnostic <> atheism thingy, this chart might be usefull:

 

[Audie]

@adrian009 - another thing I've seen: I often see theists conflate many of the concepts around atheism, like:


- lack of belief in gods vs. lack of belief about gods
- rejection of an argument for a god vs. rejection of the god itself
- "you don't need to reject gods to be an atheist" vs. "atheists never reject gods"

I suppose it is because to some, "god" is as embedded
in their minds as up and down, hot and cold.

They simply cannot conceive of "non belief",
any more than they could someone oblivious to gravity.

Hence all the nonsense about "atheists want
to be their own god", or "deep in their hearts,
everyone believes in god".

 

[stvdv]

If I am convinced, I believe. If I am not, I hold off on belief.

That's how I do it.
I believe what I have experienced.

With certain things I keep an open mind. I might not be able to experience it now; maybe tomorrow.

With certain things I expect, that soon I might believe them, as they are similar to other previous experiences.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheism could be defined as:

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

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

"A religion where blind (non-omniscient, cannot prove an absolute negative) faith is employed to worship oneself or another idol, replacing God."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IMHO:
I agree that "Yes" makes you a Theist

"Silence" makes you an Atheist
"Any other" answer only confuses things

No. Consider this... Asymmetrical vs symmetrical.

A shape needs to comply to certain criteria in order to be symmetrical. Not complying to those criteria makes it asymmetrical.

Now consider theism vs atheism.

You need to believe something to be a theist. That's literally what makes one a theist: to positively believe the claims of theism.

Not believing those claims (for whatever reason, with whatever motivation, with whichever qualifier) makes you "not a theist". And "not a theist" equals an atheist.

Just like "not symmetrical" equals asymmetrical.

Confusing or not in your opinion, is irrelevant.
You either believe theistic claims or you don't.

You need to believe them to be a theist.
If you're not a theist, then you are by definition an atheist.

 

[HonestJoe]

I do like the phrase ‘honest Joe’

You realise I wasn’t using that as a phrase, it is literally my username? I was pointing out that we should all be seen as the individuals we are, not just lumped in to any generic groups.

Regardless of the difficulty around the use of the word atheism its necessary to use the religion, particularly around the whole discussion about religious beliefs. Of course atheism isn’t a religious belief but is important to many sociopolitical narratives. So if we want to be meaningfully engaged in this conversation we need to use language and certain technical terms the best we can.

Is it really necessary though? I don’t think there are any legitimate circumstances where referring in such very generic terms to non-belief in gods is necessary or beneficial (especially given the difficulties of definition you asked about in the first place). References to specific beliefs in context may well be, but that can (and generally should) be described in more detail.

I have the same opinion of related generic terms too – Christians, Muslims, believers, evangelists, extremists etc. As I said, I don’t think they’re used for anything constructive, just rhetorical attacks or biased generalisations. Maybe if we spoke more to and less about each other, we might realise that we all have much more in common than we have that differs.

 

[bobhikes]

Atheism could be defined as:

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

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

An atheist can be a person identified by another person.

A person that claims atheism and defends atheism is making the claim that atheism is their belief.

A person that goes through life ignoring religion and atheism, would be classified as an atheist by another but would be without belief.

 

[Heyo]

Atheism could be defined as:

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

That's how most people who profess to be atheists see it. (The colloquial definition.)

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

That is how a philosophical dictionary might define it. (They'd be a bit more precise, though.)

Atheism := is the position that there are no gods.
Atheist := someone holding the position of Atheism.

Simply saying that "I don't believe there are gods" is a statement about yourself. It is not a position. That's why the philosophers don't recognize the colloquial definition.

We are no philosophers (armchair philosophers at most) so outside of a philosophy class, the colloquial definition is just fine.

It's just a word that has different meanings depending on the context. Ask an English major and a maths major about the definition of hyperbolic and you also get different definitions.

 

[Mindmaster]

Atheism could be defined as:

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

Another way of phrasing it could be one who believes there is no God or gods.

I’m good with either definition but not everyone is. Maybe I shouldn’t be either.

What is the best definition of atheism and why can it be so difficult to define?

It's a rather interesting position, but I'd say, "yes". Of course, the reason being that the atheist doesn't know many of the same whys. For example, the atheist and the theist both stop at The Big Bang -- the theist idea that something was the root cause makes more sense, in lieu of contradictory evidence, but to attribute that to an anthropomorphic "god the father" is somewhat ridiculous -- it's certain if such a thing existed it'd not exist in the mannerism we do. (It'd be very likely to be able to exist outside of our dimensional limitations -- or effectively not-exist even though it "does"... )

But, the other argument of the fact that it's a belief is they do not know whether or not the divine exists and they believe it doesn't. They will of course cite that there is no proof as a reason for that condition, but like I said before it's arguable that such a thing could never be proved even if it were the case. As a result, they're not really capable of non-proving it any more than the theist is capable of proving it. Then there are the "rational questions" that don't make sense even for atheists like: "Does it make sense that the universe popped into being with no root cause or reason?" I think even the most rational mind will struggle with that proposition.

 

[Audie]

That's how most people who profess to be atheists see it. (The colloquial definition.)

That is how a philosophical dictionary might define it. (They'd be a bit more precise, though.)

Atheism := is the position that there are no gods.
Atheist := someone holding the position of Atheism.

Simply saying that "I don't believe there are gods" is a statement about yourself. It is not a position. That's why the philosophers don't recognize the colloquial definition.

We are no philosophers (armchair philosophers at most) so outside of a philosophy class, the colloquial definition is just fine.

It's just a word that has different meanings depending on the context. Ask an English major and a maths major about the definition of hyperbolic and you also get different definitions.

A theist is a person who cannot comprehend atheism.

 

[Augustus]

Regardless of the difficulty around the use of the word atheism its necessary to use the religion, particularly around the whole discussion about religious beliefs. Of course atheism isn’t a religious belief but is important to many sociopolitical narratives. So if we want to be meaningfully engaged in this conversation we need to use language and certain technical terms the best we can.

It generally makes no functional difference whichever definitions you use so doesn't really matter.

The 'no belief in gods' v 'belief in no gods' distinction is grammatical rather than cognitive, and other than pointlessly arguing online about whether or not babies and rocks are atheists or other equally vapid pursuits, 'lack of belief' v 'belief' makes no real difference either.

 

[Audie]

It generally makes no functional difference whichever definitions you use so doesn't really matter.

The 'no belief in gods' v 'belief in no gods' distinction is grammatical rather than cognitive, and other than pointlessly arguing online about whether or not babies and rocks are atheists or other equally vapid pursuits, 'lack of belief' v 'belief' makes no real difference either.

As in silly semantic games

 

[metis]

I voted "yes", but that's because I have a more specific definition because I don't want it confused with "agnosticism". So, here's my homemade definitions:

atheism: a belief that there are no deities.

agnosticism: unsure if there are any deities, or don't care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

on the whole agnostic <> atheism thingy, this chart might be usefull:

View attachment 32669

I personally can't stand the terms "gnostic atheist" and "gnostic theist."

Gnosticism is a very specific religious movement. It isn't a general term for any and every person who claims knowledge about something.

There's no such thing as a gnostic atheist, and the only gnostic theists are actual Gnostics.

 

[stvdv]

No. Consider this... Asymmetrical vs symmetrical.

A shape needs to comply to certain criteria in order to be symmetrical. Not complying to those criteria makes it asymmetrical.

Now consider theism vs atheism.

You need to believe something to be a theist. That's literally what makes one a theist: to positively believe the claims of theism.

Not believing those claims (for whatever reason, with whatever motivation, with whichever qualifier) makes you "not a theist". And "not a theist" equals an atheist.

Just like "not symmetrical" equals asymmetrical.

Confusing or not in your opinion, is irrelevant.
You either believe theistic claims or you don't.

You need to believe them to be a theist.
If you're not a theist, then you are by definition an atheist.

Aha, thank you. You explained it very clear. Now I understand why I never understood the difference.

My focus was on the "belief definition"
Your focus is entirely on "Theist definition"
I just could not believe an Atheist never believes.

Just to verify if I totally understand now.

An Atheist can believe sometimes. As long as it has nothing to do with Theism, correct?

Hypothetical: You had sex yesterday and it was good for you. For her it was not that good. She gives you some pointers. So now you believe next time it will be good for her also.