Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

[quote pid='1888053' dateline='1551341180']
Again, my main point is just to get past the fact that atheism is pure lack. Adult atheists hold certain things to be true, use these things to evaluate claims, and reach conclusions based on that. 

Has anyone ever said atheism is "pure lack" ?
It is by definition a lack of one thing.
How one arrived at that position is not part of the lack, and no one ever said it was.
It may be an informed position or an uninformed position.
The definition remains the lack of one thing.

[Belacqua]

The problem with that is, if you share the criteria such as evidence based and so forth with a theist, who also employs that reasoning in evaluation of claims, then it isn't the criteria themselves that are doing the work in separating the theist from the non-theist.  In order to meaningfully assert that atheism or non-theism were a belief, the beliefs in question must be both relevant and necessary to forming that conclusion.  In this case, one can hold the standards and not come to the same beliefs or lack thereof, so the belief in these criteria is accidental, not a necessary part of the identity.  Accidental properties do not define a thing.

That's good, yes.

The criteria themselves are not the distinguishing feature. Reasonable people may use similar criteria and reach different conclusions. 

Atheism is the conclusion, based on premises, that certain claims are unpersuasive. It is a belief (a thing held to be true) based on prior beliefs (things held to be reasonable criteria).

---

The definition remains the lack of one thing.

Yes, but in adults who live in a society, that lack is a belief that certain claims are untrue, based on prior premises.

[Bucky Ball]

The definition remains the lack of one thing.

Yes, but in adults who live in a society, that lack is a belief that certain claims are untrue, based on prior premises.

No.
It's a description of a present condition. Nothing else.
If YOU (or anyone) wants to make more of it than the person whose state is described, that's your prerogative, but what you are describing is yourself, not the one with no belief. You don't know how they arrived at the present state, or what that involved. The "certain claims" do not even have to be addressed, nor do they necessarily merit (even) being addressed. You don't get to tell other people how they are thinking. The fact that others in the society, (even a majority) possess beliefs does not necessarily require a response, nor does it merit one.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same observation jor offered before applies to this statement as well

Atheism is the conclusion, based on premises, that certain claims are unpersuasive. It is a belief (a thing held to be true) based on prior beliefs (things held to be reasonable criteria).

The faithful can -agree- with the atheist, based on the same premises, that certain claims are unpersuasive.  It's not doing the work that differentiates them, necessarily.

[Belacqua]

You don't get to tell other people how they are thinking.

I agree that in some cases, a person's beliefs concerning god or the lack thereof may NOT be reasoned conclusions based on conscious premises. 

A person might believe that there is no reason to believe in a god based on a whim, or a prejudice, or force of habit. We might call such things reasons, but bad ones. 

The point I am trying to make is that calling such a condition a lack does not mean that the atheist has nothing to defend.

[The Grand Nudger]

Defend about what?  What we do and don't believe?  I'm not in control of that.

[Angrboda]

The atheist doesn't have to defend anything if those criteria and the related beliefs are held in common with the theist. You don't need to defend points of agreement, only points of disagreement, and those points of disagreement don't necessarily include the criteria, and quite often don't.

[fredd bear]

Defend about what?  What we do and don't believe?  I'm not in control of that.

Of course not.

Atheism is not an homogenous position. I'm not sure there even is a 'we', except in the broadest sense. 


I get fed up with apologists and other arrogant ignoramuses (ignorami?)  presuming to tell me what I believe and do not not believe. Then insisting that I must have gone through some process or other to arrive at my position, which I need to demonstrate or explain.

 I'll stop here lest I say some thing very unkind about the ignoramuses. Then I'll feel horrible.

[Belacqua]

The atheist doesn't have to defend anything if those criteria and the related beliefs are held in common with the theist.  You don't need to defend points of agreement, only points of disagreement, and those points of disagreement don't necessarily include the criteria, and quite often don't.

OK, if nobody challenges you I guess you're not going to defend it.

Still, if you have premises and have used them to reach a conclusion, those are things which may be challenged and defended.

---

Then insisting that I must have gone through some process or other to arrive at my position, which I need to demonstrate or explain.

I acknowledge that some atheists may not have gone through a defensible process. They may believe what they believe based on a whim or force of habit. You may be such a person, I don't know.

[Angrboda]

The atheist doesn't have to defend anything if those criteria and the related beliefs are held in common with the theist.  You don't need to defend points of agreement, only points of disagreement, and those points of disagreement don't necessarily include the criteria, and quite often don't.

OK, if nobody challenges you I guess you're not going to defend it.

Still, if you have premises and have used them to reach a conclusion, those are things which may be challenged and defended.

Only if those things are not held in common. If they are, and he challenges it, then he is guilty of special pleading and can be summarily dismissed. You seem not to grok the point that if the standards and criteria aren't specific to atheism, then they aren't a part of atheism proper, contrary to what you seem to have been arguing this whole time. What the hell is your point?