What is Atheism?

[Simon Moon]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

Sorry that your knowledge of the rules of logic is so lacking that you believe this, but that does not mean it is true.

When defending or debating atheism, taking the position that theist's claims have not met their burden of proof, is the only stance that is required to be defended. If a particular atheist wants to make the case that gods don't exist, they are welcome to do so, and they now have the burden of proof.

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".

Under my definition of atheism, this is not true, since babies don't have cognitive abilities and agency.

The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Sure, I never made the claim that I do not have an opinion whether gods exist or not. My opinion is that they don't. My opinion is provisional and based on the claim not being supported by theist's arguments.

[Whateverist]

Oh and "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive terms by any means.  Neither are "theist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive, though it is much harder to find and probably because agnosticism requires more cognitive integrity.  Only "atheist" and "theist" are mutually exclusive, and of this dichotomy I am definitely the former.

[SteveII]

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief.

But it isn't a positive claim.  I make no claims regarding the undefined term 'gods' because I know nothing about them.  I know that the descriptions of those who do claim to know gods do not agree.  

No one requires a permit not to believe in claims regarding poorly defined absurdities.

How does that differ from being agnostic? You can hold a belief (atheism) without making your own claims because simply not agreeing with the claim "There is a God" is what makes you an atheist.

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".

But they are atheists until they become programmed to believe, they don't.  They are thus non-believers.  Of course the kinds of things about which it is possible for them to form a belief will change over time.  But by the time they are old enough to formulate a belief regarding gods, their communities will already have already instilled that belief.  

No, babies are not atheists because they can neither agree nor disagree with the claim "There is a God".  While it is true they do not believe in God, it is also true that they don't believe there is no God. 

The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Yes, my opinion is that it is silly nonsense.  The phenomenon of god belief does reveal something interesting about the nature of human consciousness, but that has nothing to do with whether or not any particular concretization of that instinct is true.  None of them are literally true.  But of course none of this means anything to you because you are encased in a belief filter.

And having an opinion is fine. I also have an opinion on the question and, for me, have sufficient data/reasons to believe. Your belief filter reasoning would not apply to new adult converts--of which there are millions per year.

---

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

Sorry that your knowledge of the rules of logic is so lacking that you believe this, but that does not mean it is true.

When defending or debating atheism, taking the position that theist's claims have not met their burden of proof, is the only stance that is required to be defended. If a particular atheist wants to make the case that gods don't exist, they are welcome to do so, and they now have the burden of proof.

See my bold

While an atheist can take that stance, it is no different that the same stance an agnostic will take--so, what is the difference? 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief".

Under my definition of atheism, this is not true, since babies don't have cognitive abilities and agency.

The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Sure, I never made the claim that I do not have an opinion whether gods exist or not. My opinion is that they don't. My opinion is provisional and based on the claim not being supported by theist's arguments.

I'm confused. I was replying/arguing against the "lack of belief" is the threshold for being an atheist. You, like most self-identified atheists, have reasons for holding the belief and those reasons are open to examination.

---

Oh and "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive terms by any means.  Neither are "theist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive, though it is much harder to find and probably because agnosticism requires more cognitive integrity.  Only "atheist" and "theist" are mutually exclusive, and of this dichotomy I am definitely the former.

I don't believe that is the case. They are all very clear positions on the same question: does God exist.

[Simon Moon]

But it isn't a positive claim.  I make no claims regarding the undefined term 'gods' because I know nothing about them.  I know that the descriptions of those who do claim to know gods do not agree.  

No one requires a permit not to believe in claims regarding poorly defined absurdities.

How does that differ from being agnostic? You can hold a belief (atheism) without making your own claims because simply not agreeing with the claim "There is a God" is what makes you an atheist.

Agnosticism is the position on what one claims is UNKNOWN and/or UNKNOWABLE.

Atheism is the lack of BELIEF in the existence of gods exist.

They are not mutually exclusive positions.

But they are atheists until they become programmed to believe, they don't.  They are thus non-believers.  Of course the kinds of things about which it is possible for them to form a belief will change over time.  But by the time they are old enough to formulate a belief regarding gods, their communities will already have already instilled that belief.  

No, babies are not atheists because they can neither agree nor disagree with the claim "There is a God".  While it is true they do not believe in God, it is also true that they don't believe there is no God. 

Yes, my opinion is that it is silly nonsense.  The phenomenon of god belief does reveal something interesting about the nature of human consciousness, but that has nothing to do with whether or not any particular concretization of that instinct is true.  None of them are literally true.  But of course none of this means anything to you because you are encased in a belief filter.

And having an opinion is fine. I also have an opinion on the question and, for me, have sufficient data/reasons to believe. Your belief filter reasoning would not apply to new adult converts--of which there are millions per year.

---

Sorry that your knowledge of the rules of logic is so lacking that you believe this, but that does not mean it is true.

When defending or debating atheism, taking the position that theist's claims have not met their burden of proof, is the only stance that is required to be defended. If a particular atheist wants to make the case that gods don't exist, they are welcome to do so, and they now have the burden of proof.

See my bold

While an atheist can take that stance, it is no different that the same stance an agnostic will take--so, what is the difference? 

Agnosticism/gnosticism concern KNOWLEDGE, or what is UNKNOWN.

Atheism/theism concerns BELIEF in gods, or lack thereof

Under my definition of atheism, this is not true, since babies don't have cognitive abilities and agency.


Sure, I never made the claim that I do not have an opinion whether gods exist or not. My opinion is that they don't. My opinion is provisional and based on the claim not being supported by theist's arguments.

I'm confused. I was replying/arguing against the "lack of belief" is the threshold for being an atheist. You, like most self-identified atheists, have reasons for holding the belief and those reasons are open to examination.

---

Oh and "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive terms by any means.  Neither are "theist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive, though it is much harder to find and probably because agnosticism requires more cognitive integrity.  Only "atheist" and "theist" are mutually exclusive, and of this dichotomy I am definitely the former.

I don't believe that is the case. They are all very clear positions on the same question: does God exist.

Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions concerning gods.

Agnosticism concerns whether the existence of gods is UNKNOWN or possibly, UNKNOWABLE.

Atheism definies someone that lacks BELIEF that gods exist.

Notice that throughout this reply, I have been writing KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF in upper case in order to accentuate the terms and their differences.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Hello, SteveII. Out of curiosity, regarding the concepts of god and scientific truth, are you familiar with the concept of an isomorphism from mathematics?

Please forgive me, but essentially, suppose we have two groups, A and B, which appear to be different; however, if we can rename the elements of group A so that they coincide with the properties and patterns of the elements of group B, then we have effectively transformed A into B.  In essence, A and B are actually the same groups and the only difference is that they have different names for their elements.  Hence, A and B are isomorphic to each other; we can equivalently say that there is an isomorphism from A to B.

With that said, is it possible that the pursuit of scientific truth and the pursuit of god, despite being different ways of interpreting reality, could ultimately lead humanity to the same conclusion (or perhaps multiple conclusions?); however, because this conclusion was pursued via different modes of thought, could people actually be calling it something different when it is actually not? 

 Does gaining an accurate understanding of reality extend beyond humanity's current level of thought, whether it be via god concepts, a lack of god concepts, or some other current means of understanding the world around us?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Of current gods proposed we do, yeah. But as it would currently be impossible to assign any value of certainty to the hypothesis that a 'god' (undefined?) exists some form another (or whether that even makes sense) lacking a belief is 100% accurate in the assessment. Ultimately it's not a claim to say, either, i have no formed belief of a given 'deity or indeed 'I don't believe you'. If you're forming the hypothesis about the 'god', Therein lies the burden. It's really not difficult, and opponents of this very easy to understand notion tend to be those trying to obfuscate their way to the truth.

And Whilst technically true that a baby or a bench or a planet also 'lack a belief' in a deity, it would seem absurd to start stretching the limit of what we ascribe the label 'capable of forming a belief or having a lack thereof' to.

[SteveII]

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Hello, SteveII. Out of curiosity, regarding the concepts of god and scientific truth, are you familiar with the concept of an isomorphism from mathematics?

Please forgive me, but essentially, suppose we have two groups, A and B, which appear to be different; however, if we can rename the elements of group A so that they coincide with the properties and patterns of the elements of group B, then we have effectively transformed A into B.  In essence, A and B are actually the same groups and the only difference is that they have different names for their elements.  Hence, A and B are isomorphic to each other; we can equivalently say that there is an isomorphism from A to B.

With that said, is it possible that the pursuit of scientific truth and the pursuit of god, despite being different ways of interpreting reality, could ultimately lead humanity to the same conclusion (or perhaps multiple conclusions?); however, because this conclusion was pursued via different modes of thought, could people actually be calling it something different when it is actually not?  [1]

 Does gaining an accurate understanding of reality extend beyond humanity's current level of thought, whether it be via god concepts, a lack of god concepts, or some other current means of understanding the world around us? [2]

1. I agree.  If God exists, then all truth is God's truth and while we might use different methods to examine different areas, it would have to lead to the same conclusions. 
2. I believe that God create the universe to be explored and figured out (that's why science flourished better under a Christian worldview than a worldview that imbued nature with supernatural qualities). I also think he has given us enough revelation (natural and revealed) to understand him as much as we are capable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To quote myself from another thread, it seems rather odd when a proposition like "'God exists' is true" can be considered either true or not true because it is a belief, whereas its negation, "'God exists' is not true", cannot be either true or not true because it isn't considered a belief. How can any given proposition, P, be true or not true while it's negation, not-P, cannot be true or not true? How can anyone claiming to be a paragon of logic say the first proposition is a belief but the second is not?

Suppose the proposition in question is "That 'natural selection occurs' is true." Now it either is or it isn't. Does the same hold for the proposition "That 'natural selection occurs' is not true?" Presumably the supporters of evolution, which include me BTW, will present data and observations they believe confirm the proposition. While there will always be a group of people who don't care, those deniers who do will raise objections, i.e. present beliefs about how the data should be interpreted and the observations suggest something else. To the degree that they find the data inconclusive they are justified in saying that the proposition "That 'natural selection occurs' is untrue." If they are going to say the proposition is not true then they have a burden of proof with respect to their objections of the evidence presented.

These debates do not happen in some gnostic vacuum. Any atheist who claims there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God is tacitly admitting that they have reasons to reject the evidence offered and by extension are indeed claiming that the proposition "God exists" is not true.

[Whateverist]

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Of current gods proposed we do, yeah. But as it would currently be impossible to assign any value of certainty to the hypothesis that a 'god' (undefined?) exists some form another (or whether that even makes sense) lacking a belief is 100% accurate in the assessment. Ultimately it's not a claim to say, either, i have no formed belief of a given 'deity or indeed 'I don't believe you'. If you're forming the hypothesis about the 'god', Therein lies the burden. It's really not difficult, and opponents of this very easy to understand notion tend to be those trying to obfuscate their way to the truth.

And Whilst technically true that a baby or a bench or a planet also 'lack a belief' in a deity, it would seem absurd to start stretching the limit of what we ascribe the label 'capable of forming a belief or having a lack thereof' to.

Especially when you consider that xtian youth already harbor blind-faith belief in God when they arrive at the age where the exercise of reason becomes possible.  For them it would be necessary to hear a convincing argument that the God their entire community has always worshiped does not exist.  They feel no more need to consider the justification for that faith than they do the assumption that the sun will rise in the morning.  So to say millions of believers do believe in God is not to say that any one of them became convinced of that reasonably.  They have simply been conditioned to.

[Neo-Scholastic]

EXACTLY THIS:

I was replying/arguing against the "lack of belief" is the threshold for being an atheist. You, like most self-identified atheists, have reasons for holding the belief and those reasons are open to examination.