Atheism is a belief.

[electrafixtion]

I'm 27, so I guess I'm right on the borderline...

You are the prime!

OK, thanks for the lecture. Doesn't forward your position in any way, but thanks all the same.

No lecture, just a simple exemplification of value. Not designed to "teach", bur rather, to alert.

How so? Simply put, your position is that faith does not equate to belief, but on the other hand you must believe in something in order to have an opinion on it; ie your position that if I say I do not believe in God, I must believe that there is no God.

J, this is where you are mistaken with respect to your perception. My position is that ALL cognitive function that results in an individually determined cogent position, requires belief. I tried, and forgive me for not making it more clear, to underline the fact that "belief" is merely the mental act of an acceptance of that which we know or speculate, to be reality.

Let me clear something up. I am neither a "true believer" nor am I an Atheist. These two polarized end positions, that do in fact require belief to determine and accept, are extreme absolutes. To me, I (humbly) contend that each is as ridiculous as the other. In light of the subconscious mind, we arrive at the aforementioned ends in like fashion with respect to the mental process. PLEASE, I ask you in all respectful earnestness, don't jump to conclusions with respect to what I just expressed. Study the mechanics of the 3 part ego. Understand the mechanics and connection one to the other with respect to the formation of mental constructs and you will begin to recognize the infusion of instinct into the mental processes.

Without attempting to foolishly influence you as to an ends concerning your beliefs (in all things), this understanding will better illuminate (not according to myself, but those much more adept than myself) how the animal human that we all are, operates. Cognitively speaking.

I would love to indulge you on this, but I have no idea if there is a God or Gods. So I can't answer.

ah, you are an Agnostic.

 

[phlogistician]

The only problem I have with your definition of "atheism" is that it incorporates a word that you will not define for yourself.

That's not correct, I don't have to have a rigid definition of god(s) to not believe, I don't believe in any god, and their descriptions vary widely.

It is strange that you have a definition for yourself for something you don't acknowledge.

It's not a definition, it merely says I am not a member of the set of believers. It makes no definite statement about me regarding anything but this.

I would be more comfortable with your stance if you stated that you only incoporated things in your life, or lifeview, that could be somehow scientifically proven, or by whatever means are "proof" for you. Otherwise, you will cause much confusion for theists, I believe.

I'm a skeptic, so pretty much that is how I am. If a TV advert tells me a product will do something for me, I want to know how. I want to know it's true before I buy. I want the numbers, not a pretty advert.

 

[phlogistician]

O.k. we'll agree to disagree, but my opinion is that a lack of faith fosters disbelief - i.e. the negative of belief (to "not believe").

It may foster it, but it does not equate to it. I think too many people assume it does.

 

[phlogistician]

We have common usage, many philosophers, theologians, dictionaries opposing your view. Why should I take you as an expert? What is the authority you think you command to say that people are using the word wrong?

Because myself, and many other atheists are claiming the word back.

1) Let's take your etymology as correct - which it is not. Without faith. Both the person who lacks a belief in God AND the person who believes there is no God are without faith. So your own etymology does not back up your disagreement with me. There is no reason not to include both kinds of atheist under atheism.

Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists not necessarily anti-theists. It is not a bijection. Therefore we need to have separate terms. That simply is the point.

2) It actually means without belief (in God), which also covers both strong and weak atheists.

There are no 'strong' or 'weak' atheists, there are atheists and anti-theists.

3) You claimed elsewhere that it was a recent trend started by fundies. Back this up. This belief on your part is not supported by the OED. The reason I went to the library to look at the full edition OED is that it looks at usage over time. It does not support your belief, in fact it directly contradicts it.

The allegation that atheists are anti-theists is becoming far more popular amongst theists, as theists love to argue that their freedom to practice their religion is under attack, and they can't do that without an oppressor, and guess who they decided that is? Can't have the Ten Commandments at the courthouse? Why, it's those darned oppressing Atheists eroding our right to practice religion again, ...

4) Atheists do not own the word, neither group of them.

You should notice a movement to claim the word back. Just like lesbians took control of the word 'dyke' that was previously a slur.

There are some atheists who want the term atheism to simply mean a lack of belief. But these people, including yourself, have no special authority. And your authority is undermined further by making claims like it was fundies who made the word mean other things. This is simply incorrect.

You yourself said the word was used as an insult, and that was by fundies. It's now effectively being revisited as an insult, by demonising atheists as people who oppress others freedom to practice religion.

You'll notice that the most rabid promoters of the definition of atheism to mean denying God, are theists. Answer me why they are so interested in defining a group as such?

 

[MarcAC]

I know you enjoy believing you can pigeonhole atheists into the same kind of mindless belief that you employ, but it just doesn't work that way.

But I'm not doing the pigeonholing! You are! You sound near religious with statements akin to "only atheists will understand it." It's like it's a personal belief system, well, actually - it is.

It's not our fault you can't wrap your head around this concept.

Neither is it my fault that you choose to adopt to such an ambivalent position as "lack of belief." And the statement you make sounds religious.

I'm done here.

 

[Simon Anders]

Because myself, and many other atheists are claiming the word back.

Which means that you and some other people want the word to mean something. You have no authority to say others are using the word wrong.

Anti-theists are atheists, but atheists not necessarily anti-theists. It is not a bijection. Therefore we need to have separate terms. That simply is the point

Again, your wishes for the terms. You are not the authority to say others are using it wrong. I also pointed out earlier the problems with anti-. Even your example, earlier, of anti-imflammatories which 'reduce' or 'work against' imflammation. Many people who believe there is no God do not reduce or work against theism.

There are no 'strong' or 'weak' atheists, there are atheists and anti-theists.

Again, you would like the terminology to be one way. Others use a different one. You have no authority to say they are wrong.

The allegation that atheists are anti-theists is becoming far more popular amongst theists, as theists love to argue that their freedom to practice their religion is under attack, and they can't do that without an oppressor, and guess who they decided that is? Can't have the Ten Commandments at the courthouse? Why, it's those darned oppressing Atheists eroding our right to practice religion again, ...

I am not taking the position that all atheists believe there is no God. Nor do people who use strong and weak atheist.

4) Atheists do not own the word, neither group of them.

You should notice a movement to claim the word back. Just like lesbians took control of the word 'dyke' that was previously a slur.

A word I would not use to describe a lesbian. Me, not being one. Bad example. Also they did not take it back. They did not have it before. Others did.

Further dyke means something different when they use the term and when non-lesbians use the word, just like the word 'nigger'. Using this example opens the door to Wittgensteinian ideas about language and that is a door you do not want to open because it cuts against your *I am right, common usage is wrong* stance.

And again, there are many atheists who believe there is no God. Or strong atheists. They are quite happy with the word covering both strong and weak atheists. You will also have to convince them that they are wrong and must start using anti-theist if they want to be 'correct.' I assume that a number of them will also challenge your authority to say what is the right meaning of the word.

You yourself said the word was used as an insult, and that was by fundies. It's now effectively being revisited as an insult, by demonising atheists as people who oppress others freedom to practice religion.

Actually it was used as an insult in Greek. Which cuts against your silly statement that it is a recent word usage. It was used by religious people. Fundamentalists is not a good term to describe pagan Greeks or any of the other enormous variety of religious people who have used the word. I suppose you would now like the word Fundie to cover all relgious groups. Is this another place where you think common usage and expert usage is incorrect and that you are the authority?

You are also not addressing the number of people who call themselves atheists and BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD. This is quite common. I have family members who are in this position. I do not think they would like or use the term anti-theist which you are selling.

Can you admit you were wrong about the use of the word being CHANGED by fundies RECENTLY? Or will you just gloss over the things you say that are wrong?

You'll notice that the most rabid promoters of the definition of atheism to mean denying God, are theists. Answer me why they are so interested in defining a group as such?

I am not promoting the definition as meaning ONLY denying the existence of God. I am simply pointing out that the word has been used for a very long time to cover both those who deny God (and gods!) AND those who simply lack a belief. It has been used this way recently by both atheists, religious people, in common usage and by many philosophers and theologians. I have several family members who believe there is no God. I have others who lack a belief in God. BOTH groups use atheist to describe themselves.

I am an a-believer in your theory that it is a recent trend by fundies to change the meaning of the word.

I am an a-believer that people are using the word incorrectly when they do not use it as you would like.

I am a-believer in relation to your implicit claim to be an authority on the words correct use.

You are simply a person who wants the word to mean a certain thing.

 

[Balerion]

You are the prime!

God, it does not feel like it.

J, this is where you are mistaken with respect to your perception. My position is that ALL cognitive function that results in an individually determined cogent position, requires belief. I tried, and forgive me for not making it more clear, to underline the fact that "belief" is merely the mental act of an acceptance of that which we know or speculate, to be reality.

Perhaps, but speculation isn't belief. You can propose a theory without believing it yet. I don't think to take a position requires you to precisely believe it, especially when you consider that the D. None of the above position is an option.

ah, you are an Agnostic.

It is possible that an atheist has a very strong belief that god does not exist, but I don't think it is inherent to the position. I tend to believe that atheism is a non-belief rather than a belief. I'm atheistic toward the spaghetti monster, as Dawkins likes to say so often, as well. I mean, perhaps my definition of the word is wrong, but that is how I see atheism, and that's how I think atheism should be seen.

I don't like the term "agnostic". I think it is a cop-out. I understand why someone felt the need to call themselves that, but I really think people assume too much of atheism and atheists. If anything, I propose that those who have an active belief that there is no god (as in, they can say with certainty that god is not real) should have the special terminology, not me. That's why I call them anti-theists.

But at the end of the day, what does it matter? You and I are both (and I hate this phrase, but it fits) Atheists in practice, are we not?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If pagan Greeks used atheist as an insult, they were being ridiculous. Any descriptive can be used as an insult by idiots. This whole thing is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that people believe things without evidence. We shouldn't need arguments like this. People who do require proof shouldn't need to defend themselves against those who don't.
Humanity is frigging bonkers!

 

[electrafixtion]

God, it does not feel like it.



Perhaps, but speculation isn't belief. You can propose a theory without believing it yet. I don't think to take a position requires you to precisely believe it, especially when you consider that the D. None of the above position is an option.



It is possible that an atheist has a very strong belief that god does not exist, but I don't think it is inherent to the position. I tend to believe that atheism is a non-belief rather than a belief. I'm atheistic toward the spaghetti monster, as Dawkins likes to say so often, as well. I mean, perhaps my definition of the word is wrong, but that is how I see atheism, and that's how I think atheism should be seen.

I don't like the term "agnostic". I think it is a cop-out. I understand why someone felt the need to call themselves that, but I really think people assume too much of atheism and atheists. If anything, I propose that those who have an active belief that there is no god (as in, they can say with certainty that god is not real) should have the special terminology, not me. That's why I call them anti-theists.

But at the end of the day, what does it matter? You and I are both (and I hate this phrase, but it fits) Atheists in practice, are we not?

Great response. I believe you are correct for the most apart above except for the last little bit concerning myself which I will comment on at the end of this post. There most certainly is a time or point where an idea is not a belief. For instance at the point of that idea's discovery or recognition. There are also cases more common to the typical psychological processes than would be imagined, where ideas or "fleeting occurrences that the conscious mind does not take formal "hold" of, or disturbances to the psyche that are deemed a threat, arrive at the mind's forefront and are dismissed prior to contemplation. Either due to environmentally induced peripheral distractions or internally derived basic survival related instinctual reaction.
When we bring a powerful consideration, such as whether we accept a God into our reality, or whether our reality consists of no God/Gods, to the forefront of our conscience mental processes, through this refinement of our considerations we come to believe either stance as the reality we have chosen.

concerning "Atheists in practice":

No, I would not say that I am an Atheist in practice anymore than I am a religious individual in practice. I agree that being an Agnostic is an exceptionally "safe" position to choose, but I do commend those that are honest enough to admit that they just don't know. I guess behind the forefront, it translates to a noble motive of desire. I mean, why would anyone declare themselves an Agnostic if they didn't feel a need to know whether God is Real or not? No matter the Agnostic's motives for adopting such a position, nor whether it is their intention to resolve such an issue, I just don't feel it serves any real purpose to judge a man's (human) self perceived juxtaposition to God or a complete lack thereof (God)

What I strive to be is better with respect to finite undertaking. I simply feel that I am all too mortal not to, which I would imagine is attributed to a basic reckoning with my survival instinct itself. I believe in both a higher consciousness within humanity, as well as a higher intelligence in the Universe itself. This makes sense from a relative naturalist's stance because the physical body can be attuned until decay yields to death. Made better through specific applied effort. Therefore the mind in all it's higher composite workings must also. As man looks to nature, he all too quickly sees himself as it's obvious evolutionary pinnacle achievement (primitive ego at work). Yet is that view, with respect to it's "illusion of grandeur" not shattered when said man finds himself devoured by a large predator? This being through his regal carelessness by that which has been perceived as so much less than himself. So as surely as man can perceive that which is a false natural superiority, man must be able to recognize a true perception of superiority within his environment. Note just for a second how the bear or lion is all too real evidence of mankind's pseudo natural physical superiority. We aren't talking superstition here as there are no false fears in nature. So it would make sense for our natural environment to contain and demonstrate absolute unequivocal superiority over us in a mental prowess and consciousness sense as well. Could these be UFOs? Maybe UFOs don't come from a long way away. Maybe man is presently, evolutionarily speaking, incapable of truly fathoming the true extent of his natural environment's dimensional depth. Maybe his environment's true representative of that which demonstrates and constitutes a mental/consciousness superiority over him are UFOs or their occupants. I don't know. It has become my belief however that man is within a situation that ideally brings him to a highly cogent and accurate recognition of the undeniable nature that he perceives around himself. Through that process it's possible that we can best understand the reality we all live within. Both externally and internally. I have found duality to be a powerful key to in effect generate a better understanding of reality for myself. It's as if duality teaches us that as the refined considerations within our perceived surroundings become composite, we begin to see that even polarized opposites are merely perspectives that are observer dependent, and in fact, everything works as one process contributing to a whole. I know it sounds corny, but it does come out sounding like a many times afore described "oneness". It's in this process that I realize there really can be no end to this natural perceptive expansion process. So I do in fact believe in something greater than man's present clusterfuck.

 

[rjr6]

That's not correct, I don't have to have a rigid definition of god(s) to not believe, I don't believe in any god, and their descriptions vary widely.



It's not a definition, it merely says I am not a member of the set of believers. It makes no definite statement about me regarding anything but this.



I'm a skeptic, so pretty much that is how I am. If a TV advert tells me a product will do something for me, I want to know how. I want to know it's true before I buy. I want the numbers, not a pretty advert.

The entirety of this thread has covered my response.

Most thesitic doctrines, if taken in their entirety, would fall about 5 cans short of a six pack of a pretty advert.

 

[Vkothii]

Most of the posters here seem to have the same ideas about belief, and in particular how belief (whatever that is) attaches to a certain concept (this certain concept is however, difficult to pin down, or describe, or agree on what it is).

So returning to this belief thing - what is it?

If I have ideas, do I believe I think? If I have an idea, is believing it to be the case, to have a real existence, to apply, the same as disbelieving it is the case, i.e. believing it doesn't have a real existence, it does not apply? Are the two equivalent sides of the coin, opposite outcomes when it comes to having ideas?

Is it possible that I can have an idea, and then have 'no' belief one way or the other??
Wouldn't I at least be required, having had the idea, to believe it wasn't important? I could concern myself with its validity another time? I don't think we deal with ideas by ignoring them; instead we file them under 'contingent' or 'applicable' say.

For instance, if the idea in question is the requirement for fuel in modern combustion engines. If your car's fuel gauge is low, do you believe it's probable you will need to visit a gas-station that day if you're driving around?
Would you consider that it isn't necessary to have a belief in this idea?

If the idea is about some personality you can't see, who runs the world (let's call it 'god'), then why is belief in some abstract idea suddenly different to believing something mundane? Either you have an idea or you don't. Belief follows from ideas, and disbelief is the same thing as belief (except the converse).
The relation between the two is 1 to 1, not 0 to 1. If you believe something, or believe in something, you mean you believe it is the case, it does apply or exist. Disbelief means the converse: you believe it isn't the case, etc.

Disbelief is not the absence of belief, that requires the absence of ideas, of concepts, i.e. any experience of or connection with in any way shape or form.

 

[Balerion]

Great response. I believe you are correct for the most apart above except for the last little bit concerning myself which I will comment on at the end of this post. There most certainly is a time or point where an idea is not a belief. For instance at the point of that idea's discovery or recognition. There are also cases more common to the typical psychological processes than would be imagined, where ideas or "fleeting occurrences that the conscious mind does not take formal "hold" of, or disturbances to the psyche that are deemed a threat, arrive at the mind's forefront and are dismissed prior to contemplation. Either due to environmentally induced peripheral distractions or internally derived basic survival related instinctual reaction.
When we bring a powerful consideration, such as whether we accept a God into our reality, or whether our reality consists of no God/Gods, to the forefront of our conscience mental processes, through this refinement of our considerations we come to believe either stance as the reality we have chosen.

First of all, thank you for the kind words.

Yes, I suppose it is possible that there is some cognitive acceptance of our stance one way or the other, regardless of how we actually think we feel. But I think that would fall under the mechanics of the brain, rather than the substance of the mind...if that makes any sense at all. I guess what I'm saying is that there may very well be a subconscious acceptance and belief in a certain way, but I'm saying I don't believe that it tethers your conscious mind in any way. Yes, maybe our everyday routine, or even our attitude toward the side of the argument that we don't agree with is affected by our subconscious belief, but I'm not sold that it totally ties us to either side of the argument in reality.

Of course, I'm really just making that up as I go along. I could be totally wrong.

No, I would not say that I am an Atheist in practice anymore than I am a religious individual in practice. I agree that being an Agnostic is an exceptionally "safe" position to choose, but I do commend those that are honest enough to admit that they just don't know.

I think my assertion the entire time is that we shouldn't require the term "agnostic" to redefine our position on the matter. Saying "I don't know" should very well fall under the atheist umbrella. Why wouldn't it? After all, atheism is non-belief in a deity, and if you "don't know", then you don't believe, do you? At least, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm not giving atheism its due, and maybe it really does mean an active and certain belief that god(s) does not/do not exist. But that is not how I ever saw it.

And again, when I say atheist in practice, I mean that you do not practice any particular religion, you do not adhere to the dogmas set by any religion, so how are you not an atheist in practice? All atheism is, in my opinion, is non-belief, so wouldn't not practicing a religion make you an atheist in practice?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

There's no such thing as a theist.

 

[Simon Anders]

There's no such thing as a theist.

I am hoping you are serious, though I took it as a joke and enjoyed it. How so?

I love the idea that someone would believe there are no theists. What an interesting position.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Atheist = without god
Theist = with god
Show me someone who's with god.

 

[superluminal]

...the absence of belief, that requires the absence of ideas, of concepts, i.e. any experience of or connection with in any way shape or form.

Bull cookies.

I already demonstrated to you the difference. "Do you believe I live in Colorado?"

Now stick within the confines of the simple question (don't go on about living on earth or some nonsense) and give me an answer.

If yes, why? If no, then why not? Or is there a third option - simple lack of belief in the proposition? You can easily entertain the notion (the idea) of me living in Colorado or not without forming any level of belief or disbelief whatsoever.

Until you have information that can help confirm or deny the proposition you can have a perfectly legitimate "lack of belief".

So give it up already.

 

[Simon Anders]

Atheist = without god
Theist = with god
Show me someone who's with god.

Well, it actually comes from a word based on Thea, and meant someone who worshipped Thea and then spread to mean someone who believe in the gods, and then someone who believed in one transcendant God and so on.

But it has to do with the beliefs of the person designated rather than the presence of God.

In fact some theists might say they were not in the presence of God - perhaps due to their own shortcomings - but would still claim to be theists and would be correct in this if they believe in God.

 

[Vkothii]

I already demonstrated to you the difference. "Do you believe I live in Colorado?"

I believe you are probably living, since I see these posts appear with a certain moniker on them.

As I said elsewhere, the truth or falsity is what I form a belief about - it's contingent.
That's what I believe - that the contingency needs to be met, concerning the validity of such a statement.

Now stick within the confines of the simple question (don't go on about living on earth or some nonsense) and give me an answer.

You mean: "is it true that you live in Colorado" is the simple question?
I believe that the statement contains a contingency; I cannot believe or disbelieve a contingency. Therefore, the 'simple' answer is: I neither believe or disbelieve that you live in Colorado; where you live is an unknown.
I don't lack belief, or have no belief; I assign an equivalent 'amount' of belief either way to it.

... is there a third option - simple lack of belief in the proposition?

Simple lack of belief, is simple lack of knowledge; I lack knowledge, but I don't lack belief - see above: with contingent information I assign belief 'either way', and file it under 'relevant' or 'irrelevant'.

You can easily entertain the notion (the idea) of me living in Colorado or not without forming any level of belief or disbelief whatsoever.

Yes, that's what contingent belief is. And I do form a level of belief - I assign the same level of disbelief and belief to contingent information. I don't form a definite belief one way or the other, but the 'level' assigned depends on the status I give the information, not just its contingent nature. How important is forming a definite (i.e. non-contingent) belief about this information to my current circumstance?

Until you have information that can help confirm or deny the proposition you can have a perfectly legitimate "lack of belief".

No, you can't lack belief unless you lack knowledge (ideas, statements from others, direct experience).

So give it up already.

Give up what?

Do we believe everything the same 'way'?

Are there different kinds of belief, or contingent belief?

Is knowledge the same thing as belief?

Did Kant answer any of those three questions? Can you?

 

[Simon Anders]

I don't lack belief, or have no belief; I assign an equivalent 'amount' of belief either way to it.

This seems to give a lot of weight to his living in Colorodo. Aren't the odds much lower than 50%.

 

[Vkothii]

Um, so what?
What does 'the odds' have to do with it? We either form a belief or we don't; contingent belief is essentially 50/50, or equivalent belief in the truth/falsity of the information.

Can you think of an example you would not assign a 50/50 probability to, say like: "there is a tribe living in the Brazilian rainforest that modern humans have never seen"?