I feel that @Belaqua was very disingenuous during our exchange. I mentioned science and the scientific method multiple times early in our exchange only to have him/her later be surprised (exclaiming, "Finally, an answer!") that I was talking about scientific evidence in relation to god. However, if you read through our exchange, it's obvious I was talking about scientific evidence the entire time. This is the type of disingenuous nonsense we need to avoid in these conversations and I find it tiring to be completely honest.

(March 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief.  I say there's Skydaddy.   You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud.  Show me."  You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Well, ignoring for the moment that it's a question of truth, and such questions are typically worth arguing for, I guess the only way I can make sense of your remark is that you're not sympathetic to those who argue that atheism is not a belief. That much seems plain from your position and what you've posted here. I for my part am not arguing either case so much as pointing to flaws in the arguments made for the proposition that atheism is a belief. I haven't followed your back and forth with Gae to determine what your specific argument is, as I rather quickly formed the impression that you were being your usual, special, contrarian self, but if you feel that I have overlooked the significance of your argument, I'd appreciate a summary of what you feel your argument is. As far as I am aware, there are both atheists who lack belief as well as atheists who believe that certain propositions are likely false. I myself used to belong to that latter category, with qualifications, but no longer do so. That being the case, there are both atheists who believe that certain propositions are likely false and there are those who do not hold that position, therefore it would be incorrect to generalize and claim that all atheists believe certain propositions likely false. At least, that's my current understanding (with an important qualification which I am not going to go into at the moment). If you feel otherwise, then I have to say that I, if no one else has, have not gotten a clear understanding of why you feel this way from your posts.

(March 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief.  I say there's Skydaddy.   You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud.  Show me."  You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Atheism = without belief in god

Asexuality = without sexual attraction to others

Amorality = without morality

What's the issue? There is no issue. The disingenuous attempt to push atheism as "a belief" is simply a sad attempt by theists to paint atheism as requiring just as much faith as theism.

A + theism = without theism. Without a belief in a god or gods. It's truly simple.

I cannot force myself to believe in god as I cannot force myself to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You can scream and shout that I have a "belief" that 2 + 2 = 4, but unfortunately for you your efforts would be in vain. I don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, I simply accept it as the fact of what my senses and logic are telling me.

(March 3, 2019 at 10:38 am)PRJA93 Wrote:

(March 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief.  I say there's Skydaddy.   You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud.  Show me."  You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Atheism = without belief in god

Asexuality = without sexual attraction to others

Amorality = without morality

What's the issue? There is no issue. The disingenuous attempt to push atheism as "a belief" is simply a sad attempt by theists to paint atheism as requiring just as much faith as theism.

A + theism = without theism. Without a belief in a god or gods. It's truly simple.

I cannot force myself to believe in god as I cannot force myself to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You can scream and shout that I have a "belief" that 2 + 2 = 4, but unfortunately for you your efforts would be in vain. I don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, I simply accept it as the fact of what my senses and logic are telling me.

The semantics are a little off, there, as only one of those is an -ism.

There are two ways of deriving atheism:
1) atheos (no god) + ism (a belief) = A position that there is no god.
2) a (not) + theism (belief that god exists) = A lack of a position that there is a god.

The former is sometimes called hard atheism, and the latter soft atheism. The other words don't really break down as ambiguously as that, precisely because they are not -isms.

It's clear that hard atheism represents a belief. But what about soft atheism? If you are just saying, "Hey, dude, I don't subscribe to theistic thought," then is this a lack of belief?

It seems to me that normally, an "-ism" suffix is generally applied last. For example, "polytheism" isn't a collection of theistic traditions (poly + theism). It's an ism formed on the idea of multiple gods, (polytheos + ism). "Pantheism" isn't saying that theistic traditions are everywhere (pan + theism); it's a formation of an everywhere-god (pantheos) with the systematizing noun former, "-ism" added to it. Linguistically, then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who declares as atheist holds to the position that God does not exist-- and, in fact, I'm pretty sure that this is how the term was originally intended.

Add to this my former complaint, that one normally doesn't look for things one lacks a belief in to identify with (I'm an a-unicornist, a-spaghetti-monsterist, a-magic-space-monkey-ist, and a million other not isms), then I think the expectation that there's some kind of belief, either explicit or implicit, in this particular -ism is a fair one.

I suspect that modern atheists like the ones in these forums often use the term to mean "not a theist," without much consideration for the actual God idea at all. But in that case, rather than identifying as atheists, I think it would be clearer if they identified as non-theists.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: The semantics are a little off, there, as only one of those is an -ism.

Not true. But also not really the point, so let's move on.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: There are two ways of deriving atheism:
1)  atheos (no god) + ism (a belief) = A position that there is no god.
2)  a (not) + theism (belief that god exists)  = A lack of a position that there is a god.

We can argue semantics and etymology all day long. That's not really the point. The point is a + theism = without a belief in god or gods.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: The former is sometimes called hard atheism, and the latter soft atheism.  The other words don't really break down as ambiguously as that, precisely because they are not -isms.

"Hard atheism" and "soft atheism" are not my concern here. All you're describing is gnostic atheism versus agnostic atheism. Atheism, however, is a broad definition meaning the absence of a belief in a deity or deities. Atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of a belief. Whatever each personal atheist decides from there on out is up to them.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: It's clear that hard atheism represents a belief.

No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you choose to repeat this. I've edited out the rest of your semantic nonsense because it's beside the point.

Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Or do you accept it as the most accurate version of reality based on what you observe? Would you describe "not jogging" as one of your hobbies?

Stop being silly.

(March 3, 2019 at 10:38 am)PRJA93 Wrote:

(March 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief.  I say there's Skydaddy.   You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud.  Show me."  You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Atheism = without belief in god

Asexuality = without sexual attraction to others

Amorality = without morality

What's the issue? There is no issue. The disingenuous attempt to push atheism as "a belief" is simply a sad attempt by theists to paint atheism as requiring just as much faith as theism.

A + theism = without theism. Without a belief in a god or gods. It's truly simple.

I cannot force myself to believe in god as I cannot force myself to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You can scream and shout that I have a "belief" that 2 + 2 = 4, but unfortunately for you your efforts would be in vain. I don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, I simply accept it as the fact of what my senses and logic are telling me.

Right. There is a need, or desire, or a failure of thought that drives theists to assume that if an atheist doesn't believe in god then he/she must believe in something else. Finding that there is no atheist belief/dogma/creed they desparately make crap up out of whole cloth and proceed to instruct us as to what we believe and why.

This is simply another example of the towering arrogance of the faithful. And hypocrisy.

Sure they will rock up playing the humble and contrite card. but in a second, they will turn a declaim that they know exactly what is in your head even better than you do. And it is your head, not his/hers. Somehow that doesn't matter.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:35 am)PRJA93 Wrote:

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: It's clear that hard atheism represents a belief.

No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you choose to repeat this.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you might want to look up hard atheism.

(March 3, 2019 at 12:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 3, 2019 at 11:35 am)PRJA93 Wrote: No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you choose to repeat this.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you might want to look up hard atheism.

And you might want to look up set theory. Hard atheism <> all atheism.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:35 am)PRJA93 Wrote: All you're describing is gnostic atheism versus agnostic atheism

Hard atheism is a specific term with a specific meaning. Hard atheism is (atheos + ism), i.e. the assertion that God does not exist. Now, you could be agnostic on that assertion, or gnostic.

As for soft atheism-- if it's not a belief, then you can't really be gnostic or agnostic about it-- that would mean you do know or don't know whether you lack a belief, which would be a pretty convoluted position to take.

I'm not taking a position on the merits of different flavors of atheism, but the terms are there, and they have definite meanings. Try here maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_a...ve_atheism

Also, for a look at closely related terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

It strikes me that many here may be well described as apatheists.

(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 3, 2019 at 10:38 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Atheism = without belief in god

Asexuality = without sexual attraction to others

Amorality = without morality

What's the issue? There is no issue. The disingenuous attempt to push atheism as "a belief" is simply a sad attempt by theists to paint atheism as requiring just as much faith as theism.

A + theism = without theism. Without a belief in a god or gods. It's truly simple.

I cannot force myself to believe in god as I cannot force myself to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You can scream and shout that I have a "belief" that 2 + 2 = 4, but unfortunately for you your efforts would be in vain. I don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, I simply accept it as the fact of what my senses and logic are telling me.

The semantics are a little off, there, as only one of those is an -ism.

There are two ways of deriving atheism:
1)  atheos (no god) + ism (a belief) = A position that there is no god.
2)  a (not) + theism (belief that god exists)  = A lack of a position that there is a god.

The former is sometimes called hard atheism, and the latter soft atheism.  The other words don't really break down as ambiguously as that, precisely because they are not -isms.

It's clear that hard atheism represents a belief.  But what about soft atheism?  If you are just saying, "Hey, dude, I don't subscribe to theistic thought," then is this a lack of belief?

It seems to me that normally, an "-ism" suffix is generally applied last.  For example, "polytheism" isn't a collection of theistic traditions (poly + theism).  It's an ism formed on the idea of multiple gods, (polytheos + ism).  "Pantheism" isn't saying that theistic traditions are everywhere (pan + theism); it's a formation of an everywhere-god (pantheos) with the systematizing noun former, "-ism" added to it.  Linguistically, then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who declares as atheist holds to the position that God does not exist-- and, in fact, I'm pretty sure that this is how the term was originally intended.

Add to this my former complaint, that one normally doesn't look for things one lacks a belief in to identify with (I'm an a-unicornist, a-spaghetti-monsterist, a-magic-space-monkey-ist, and a million other not isms), then I think the expectation that there's some kind of belief, either explicit or implicit, in this particular -ism is a fair one.

I suspect that modern atheists like the ones in these forums often use the term to mean "not a theist," without much consideration for the actual God idea at all.  But in that case, rather than identifying as atheists, I think it would be clearer if they identified as non-theists.

non theists -are- atheists, lol. "non" is the modern english prefix analog for "a" ;

non-Dictionary result for non-
/nän/Submit
prefix
1.
expressing negation or absence.
"nonaggression"
2.
(added to adverbs) not in the way described.

Would you feel better if I said that you, like many other agnostic non-theists, find reason to clarify for others that you're not expressing a positive belief?