Is atheism a belief?

[Augustus]

But that's not the only thing that can be said about god. "I don't believe god exist or that no god exist." That's different from "I believe no god exist or that god exist." If you believe that no god exist, then you can't believe that god exist. And if you believe that god exist, then you can't believe that no god exist. That's the difference between "belief" and "disbelief."

Bertrand Russell said if he was speaking purely from a philosophical perspective he'd consider himself agnostic on a technicality. From a practical perspective though he considered himself an atheist as he considered the existence of gods to be ludicrously improbable and makes no account for their existence in his thoughts or actions (he was using the classical definitions of both of these terms).

It all comes down to whether or not you focus on textbook technicalities or real-world practicalities. I prefer the latter, you the former as is our prerogative.

 

[Willamena]

But that's not the only thing that can be said about god. "I don't believe god exist or that no god exist." That's different from "I believe no god exist or that god exist." If you believe that no god exist, then you can't believe that god exist. And if you believe that god exist, then you can't believe that no god exist. That's the difference between "belief" and "disbelief."

To say, "I don't believe god exists," is to say that "I believe there is no god." In regular English, there's no difference except grammar. It's just another way of saying the same thing. ("I don't believe no god exists," is a declaration of belief in god.)

It's true that I can't believe in things I have no knowledge of, but that's not the case when declaring that I don't believe in god. I have at least a very superficial knowledge that there is something called "god" that some people believe in. And that's not even what I'm "not believing" in: I'm "not believing" in the incredible stories, impossible characteristics, and magical attributes of this "god." Those are what make this god's existence impossible, and make it safe to say that, "I don't believe god exists," meaning that I believe there is no god.

 

[Willamena]

Does this mean that if one person says "gods exist" and another says "gods don't exist" I am forced to believe number two if I disbelieve number one?

There is no obligation to believe in other people's words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the denial has been made without any positive argument/reason and with conviction.

Regards

Not believing something, is not a belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are trying to make one word, have 'different meanings', even when used without specification. In other words, there are going to be contradictions in "inherent meaning", for that one word.

Even if always used with specification, if there are 'different meanings', then there is a 'meaningless word'.

Most words can have multiple meanings. Which meaning is applicable is then determined by the context they are used in.

However, if you are talking about the label "atheism", then that is not such a word. It means just one thing: disbelief of theistic claims.

 

[MikeDwight]

I think you're all Ridiculous. In practice, a positive assertion exists with a belief that there are no Gods from atheism, anybody talking on it. I voted yes. That's why the word agnostic exists, agnostic is the position like I haven't thought about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about a God image that isn't an entity, and has never been defined or described?

Unless you define / describe the thing you talk about, you aren't actually talking about something.

So, do you go around believing in undefined and undescribed things?
Do you for example believe that 'gobblyduckugoogooblaccus' is real?

 

[Willamena]

I think you're all Ridiculous. In practice, a positive assertion exists with a belief that there are no Gods from atheism, anybody talking on it. I voted yes. That's why the word agnostic exists, agnostic is the position like I haven't thought about it.

Close. Agnostic is either the position, "I don't know," or, "I know that I can't know."

 

[Willamena]

Unless you define / describe the thing you talk about, you aren't actually talking about something.

Is the unknown defined/described? Yet, I can talk about it as if it were something.

The word "something" is a placeholder, holding the place for something to talk about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you're all Ridiculous. In practice, a positive assertion exists with a belief that there are no Gods from atheism, anybody talking on it. I voted yes. That's why the word agnostic exists, agnostic is the position like I haven't thought about it.

In practice not believing the claim "X exists", will indeed for all practical intents and purposes be almost indistinguishable from also actively claiming that "x does NOT exist". But to pretend that both are the same, is not really honest.

The fact that you had to add "in practice", is actually already an acknowledgement that you are aware of this.

I could for example claim that there is an undetectable dragon about to eat you.
You wouldn't believe me, off course.
But you would also not be able to show it false. That means that if you were to claim that this dragon does NOT exist, you'ld take on a burden of proof that you would not be able to meet.

So strictly speaking, you won't make that claim because you couldn't possibly know that this dragon does not exist.

However, for all practical intents and purposes, you will live your life as if there is no such dragon. You won't go into hiding or run for cover, to make the dragon you don't believe in stop you from eating you.
Your behaviour would instead be consistent with the idea that there is no such dragon.

Realise that my attitude towards your god, is the exact same as your attitude towards this dragon. Or pixies. Or the easter bunny.

I don't believe these things are real because I have no valid reasons to think they are real.

And as the saying goes: "the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike"

If the thing being claimed is indistinguishable from non-existant things, then for all practical purposes, you might just as well treat the thing being claimed as being non-existant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the unknown defined/described? Yet, I can talk about it as if it were something.

The unknown is more a concept then a thing.
You don't know what is unknown. There might be something there, or there might be nothing.

Whenever you wish to talk about a specific thing, one needs to share the specifics of the thing. Otherwise, you're talking about nothing. Or at least: the thing you are referring to is indistinguishable from "nothing" or, indeed, the concept of the unknown.

The word "something" is a placeholder, holding the place for something to talk about.

And even that requires specifics.
"I'm holding something in my hand".

There're specifics there.... The something fits a hand and/or is light enough for a human to lift. It's something physical, since it can be held by a human hand. Etc.

If your something is utterly "unknown", undefined, undescribed... and worse still: the descriptions that ARE given are actually negative attributes (like it's NOT physical, it is NOT subject to time, it is NOT part of space-time,...), then that something is indistinguishable from nothing - both empirically as well as conceptually.

 

[Augustus]

I could for example claim that there is an undetectable dragon about to eat you.
You wouldn't believe me, off course.
But you would also not be able to show it false. That means that if you were to claim that this dragon does NOT exist, you'ld take on a burden of proof that you would not be able to meet.

So strictly speaking, you won't make that claim because you couldn't possibly know that this dragon does not exist.

That only matters if you are making a claim of objectively verifiable fact though. Belief is just what you think to be true. "I believe the dragon doesn't exist" doesn't require any burden of proof as it's just your belief.

It's also perfectly rational, and absolutely essential to our ability to function, to believe things based on balance of probabilities even lacking objective proof.

 

[Jedster]

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?

Hi adrian

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To say, "I don't believe god exists," is to say that "I believe there is no god." In regular English, there's no difference except grammar. It's just another way of saying the same thing. ("I don't believe no god exists," is a declaration of belief in god.)

It's true that I can't believe in things I have no knowledge of, but that's not the case when declaring that I don't believe in god. I have at least a very superficial knowledge that there is something called "god" that some people believe in. And that's not even what I'm "not believing" in: I'm "not believing" in the incredible stories, impossible characteristics, and magical attributes of this "god." Those are what make this god's existence impossible, and make it safe to say that, "I don't believe god exists," meaning that I believe there is no god.

You don't need to declare your atheism to be an atheist.

And since we're talking about grammar, when you say "I have at least a very superficial knowledge that there is something called 'god' that some people believe in," even though you didn't capitalize "god," your phrasing suggests that you're using the term as a proper noun... i.e. that you're describing one particular god.

Being an atheist isn't just a matter of disagreeing with monotheism.

 

[Willamena]

The unknown is more a concept then a thing.
You don't know what is unknown. There might be something there, or there might be nothing.

Whenever you wish to talk about a specific thing, one needs to share the specifics of the thing. Otherwise, you're talking about nothing. Or at least: the thing you are referring to is indistinguishable from "nothing" or, indeed, the concept of the unknown.



And even that requires specifics.
"I'm holding something in my hand".

There're specifics there.... The something fits a hand and/or is light enough for a human to lift. It's something physical, since it can be held by a human hand. Etc.

If your something is utterly "unknown", undefined, undescribed... and worse still: the descriptions that ARE given are actually negative attributes (like it's NOT physical, it is NOT subject to time, it is NOT part of space-time,...), then that something is indistinguishable from nothing - both empirically as well as conceptually.

The "something" is given implied characteristics by context, yes, as context impacts everything--that's how we can talk about the unknown, and even nothing.

 

[Willamena]

You don't need to declare your atheism to be an atheist.

And since we're talking about grammar, when you say "I have at least a very superficial knowledge that there is something called 'god' that some people believe in," even though you didn't capitalize "god," your phrasing suggests that you're using the term as a proper noun... i.e. that you're describing one particular god.

Being an atheist isn't just a matter of disagreeing with monotheism.

I just meant "god" in general. However, it is the case that I, most decidedly, am a monotheistic atheist.

 

[Willamena]

You don't need to declare your atheism to be an atheist.

It's not that I declare that makes me an atheist.

PS: It's what I believe that makes me an atheist.

 

[j1i]

If you believe that the universe exists without a Sane source (reasonable), you are not Sane reasonable because your life cycle is probably 100 years, while the universe has the ability to survive billions of years.

The complete presence did not start from scratch because you could not get out without a factory, designer or engineer
But as I currently exist, can start from minus or zero. and start from scratch

Existence began from the One, which is God and is one indivisible

He is the first source. The first designer. And through him everything was found in the universe, he is the Creator

An atheist loves the complexity of dialogues because his desires are not based on logical, scientific or even realistic grounds

It imposes for itself and for others the logic of self-denial and things and this is what others oppose not because they have religions

But because this also makes no sense that man is arrogant and transcendent and believes that he understands and cannot survive more than 130 years or a little more

While the universe remains and conquers man and has the ability to survive billions yeaes
The traditional argument for atheists is (believers' lack of science and religion is not part of science but in fact the religion is the basis of science if religion is true of God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not that I declare that makes me an atheist.

PS: It's what I believe that makes me an atheist.

Okay - so what you said here was irrelevant:

It's true that I can't believe in things I have no knowledge of, but that's not the case when declaring that I don't believe in god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just meant "god" in general.

You did it again. Unless "god" is a mass quantity like "gravel," to talk about the general case, it would be "gods," not "god."

However, it is the case that I, most decidedly, am a monotheistic atheist.

If you say so.