Is atheism a belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

You could fairly say that I have a belief that divine beings are improbable.

Monontheists consider divine beings to be so rare that there has only ever been one.  Or, you know, three.  Same thing.

[Belacqua]

It's not a matter of belief. There's no real evidence to support the claims made in the Bible. 

Again, I am using the term "belief" in its simplest sense: something one holds to be true.

You have very specific criteria which you hold to be true concerning what constitutes good evidence. Other people disagree with you. When talking with such people, you would have to defend your beliefs concerning what constitutes good evidence. 

I'll guess (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that when you say "evidence" you mean input of the type that scientists use. Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics. They may be wrong to do so. But the position you hold and the position they hold are both criteria by which you reach conclusions, and require support. 

I won't pretend to know what "every single adult atheist" thinks, but by definition, they do not have a belief in any god or gods.

By definition, they hold it to be true that the claims they have heard concerning god are unpersuasive. Do you have an argument against this? 

The entire concept of religion requires you to fit reality into your preconceived notions, not the other way around. 

That's an interesting assertion. Is it true in every single case? Are all religious people, of every type everywhere, operating in the way you say? 

Right now I'm reading the autobiography of a very intelligent and wise scholar. She studied biology at Cambridge in the 1930s, during the time when Russell and Wittgenstein's views of religion were at their most influential. None of the undergraduates in her circle took religion seriously, all of them thought that a purely materialist view of the world was the only truth and the only thing possible for honest people in the future. 

If you're into poetry at all, it will be meaningful for you to know that in those days Yeats was considered laughable while William Empson's poetry was seen as the wave of the future. 

Cambridge in the '30s pretty much pioneered the kind of beliefs that are popular on this forum.

Anyway, that scholar discovered that the purely rationalist view of things failed to explain the events of her life. After decades of conflict based on trying to retain this science-only view of things, she was reluctantly forced to change. She became an important scholar of Neoplatonic philosophy--including its religious aspects--and a wise spokesman for the value of such a view. To his credit, William Empson, who despised Christianity, continued to value her advice. 

So there is an example of a profoundly intelligent woman who doesn't fit your description of what religious people are like. And I think it's better to examine the ideas of intelligent people rather than stupid ones. 

because religious folks refuse to even define what god is.

This is downright false. This is something you believe which is blocking your ability to analyze things clearly. 

There are any number of reasons to fight with religious people. It's true that different views give different and incompatible definitions. It's true that many of the definitions are not persuasive. It's true that the older definitions are incompatible with good science. But to say they "refuse to even define" it is false. 

An example: actus purus. This is an important definition in the Christian tradition. It may be good and it may be terrible, but it is a definition.

[bennyboy]

I don't believe you have a hundred dollar bill in your left front pants pocket. It does not follow from that, that I believe you don't have a $100 in that pocket. You could, but absent more information, the smart bet would be against it. You could fairly say that I have a belief that you having a $100 bill in that particular pocket is improbable.

I consider the odds of some God or god existing to be very low; but not zero. You could fairly say that I have a belief that divine beings are improbable.

You wouldn't identify by that belief for no reason.  You'd wait until I claimed I had $100 in my pocket.  Then you'd take a position-- you believe it, you don't believe it, or you would need more information in order to form a coherent belief.  It would strike me as very strange if at that point you claimed to "lack that belief."

[EgoDeath]

Again, I am using the term "belief" in its simplest sense: something one holds to be true.

You have very specific criteria which you hold to be true concerning what constitutes good evidence. Other people disagree with you. When talking with such people, you would have to defend your beliefs concerning what constitutes good evidence.

Well, that's the thing; a belief doesn't necessarily require evidence and therein lies the issue. I don't have to defend any beliefs or lack thereof. The burden of proof is on theists to present their evidence. I don't have to present evidence for the nonexistence of something we have not yet even defined - that's complete nonsense and not at all how a scientific proof works.

I'll guess (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that when you say "evidence" you mean input of the type that scientists use. Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics. They may be wrong to do so. But the position you hold and the position they hold are both criteria by which you reach conclusions, and require support.

So, you're invoking NOMA here? Suggesting that god and science operate under two different realms? What exactly are you suggesting? If I, by personal revelation, come to realize that their are underwear gnomes that sneak into my drawers at night and steal my boxers, does that mean anything to anyone else? No, of course not. My claims would not be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. I would be laughed at if I then suggested that science couldn't do a thing to prove or disprove the existence of such gnomes, that you have to learn about them through tradition, personal revelation or "the logic of metaphysics."

Just because someone can come up with an idea through some random set of criteria doesn't mean that idea deserves to be taken seriously

By definition, they hold it to be true that the claims they have heard concerning god are unpersuasive. Do you have an argument against this?

If you are an atheist, or call yourself one, I have to assume you do not hold a belief in any god or gods.

That's an interesting assertion. Is it true in every single case? Are all religious people, of every type everywhere, operating in the way you say?

Yep, pretty much. They're looking at the world through the lens of religion, rather than taking the evidence that exists and letting it lead them to conclusions. Instead, religious people start with the conclusion and work backwards to find what evidence fits their conclusion.  

Right now I'm reading the autobiography of a very intelligent and wise scholar. She studied biology at Cambridge in the 1930s, during the time when Russell and Wittgenstein's views of religion were at their most influential. None of the undergraduates in her circle took religion seriously, all of them thought that a purely materialist view of the world was the only truth and the only thing possible for honest people in the future. 

If you're into poetry at all, it will be meaningful for you to know that in those days Yeats was considered laughable while William Empson's poetry was seen as the wave of the future. 

Cambridge in the '30s pretty much pioneered the kind of beliefs that are popular on this forum.

Anyway, that scholar discovered that the purely rationalist view of things failed to explain the events of her life.

Someone not being able to "explain the events of [their] life" doesn't mean anything in relation to science or religion. It just means that this person cannot PERSONALLY explain certain events - which tells us nothing about anything except her own comprehension.

After decades of conflict based on trying to retain this science-only view of things, she was reluctantly forced to change. She became an important scholar of Neoplatonic philosophy--including its religious aspects--and a wise spokesman for the value of such a view. To his credit, William Empson, who despised Christianity, continued to value her advice.

So there is an example of a profoundly intelligent woman who doesn't fit your description of what religious people are like. And I think it's better to examine the ideas of intelligent people rather than stupid ones. 

Just because you cite one example of someone who possibly came to religion later in their life doesn't mean you've proved anything. You've painted a very incomplete picture to prove a point that you haven't even really proved.

This is downright false. This is something you believe which is blocking your ability to analyze things clearly. ]

Okay then. What real, working definitions of god do we have that?

There are any number of reasons to fight with religious people. It's true that different views give different and incompatible definitions. It's true that many of the definitions are not persuasive. It's true that the older definitions are incompatible with good science. But to say they "refuse to even define" it is false. 

An example: actus purus. This is an important definition in the Christian tradition. It may be good and it may be terrible, but it is a definition.

Okay, now you're just saying nothing a bunch of times in a row. Do you really think this is clever?

[Belacqua]

I don't have to defend any beliefs or lack thereof.

You do if you are asserting something to be true. 

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god. Is this true? You have so far made no argument to this effect. You just assert it. Does this mean we are free to reject it out of hand?

What's that mantra the New Atheists like? "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Why does that apply to them and not to you? Where is your proof that your definition of evidence is the only good one? 

And since you generally respond by changing the topic, please note that I am in no way arguing for the existence of god or any other religious claim. I am talking about your beliefs. You believe that your beliefs about what constitute good evidence are true. Please prove this. 

Or is this something you believe to be true for no reason?

[Peebothuhlu]

I don't have to defend any beliefs or lack thereof.

You do if you are asserting something to be true. 

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god.

 Wait?

Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?

 Okay => (      )

An empty set. As close to doing such on a computer screen that I can come up with on spur of the moment.

But asking some one to 'Present no evidence.' seems... wrong and even a tad dishonest, some how.....

[EgoDeath]

You do if you are asserting something to be true.

The thing I'm asserting is that no evidence for god has been presented, as you go on to say. I don't have to defend the assertion that something which hasn't even been defined doesn't exist."

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god. Is this true? You have so far made no argument to this effect. You just assert it. Does this mean we are free to reject it out of hand?

Where is this evidence then?

What's that mantra the New Atheists like? "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Why does that apply to them and not to you? Where is your proof that your definition of evidence is the only good one?

I'm not concerned with what "new atheists" think or don't think or what mantras anyone likes to use. What I'm concerned with is evidence. And, despite your implication to the contrary, I'm not claiming my evidence is the only "good one." The scientific community by-and-large is what defines good evidence, and good scientific evidence is empirical and should be in accordance with the scientific method. Personal revelation does not fit into this definition of scientific evidence, and as we know, the scientific method is the best way we've come up with so far of understanding the world around us in a verifiable, observable way.

This has nothing to do with what "my" version of evidence is. Good evidence is good evidence, regardless of what any one person thinks. Before any hypothesis is accepted as a theory, mounds of scientific evidence has to be given in support of that theory, experiments have to be conducted and different aspects of the hypothesis have to be tested. The scientific community has to come together almost completely in agreement on something for a hypothesis to be proven as a theory. This is why the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact; there is an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE in support of the original hypothesis.

Do you not understand how the scientific method works?

And since you generally respond by changing the topic, please note that I am in no way arguing for the existence of god or any other religious claim. I am talking about your beliefs. You believe that your beliefs about what constitute good evidence are true. Please prove this. 

Or is this something you believe to be true for no reason?

How am I changing the topic? I've responded almost line for line to everything you've said to me. Please don't be disingenuous. Once again, I've explained why we use scientific evidence to understand the world around us. Empirical evidence is observable, verifiable and repeatable. This is why things like "personal revelations" are not considered empirical evidence. The scientific community works this way for a reason. The ability to test others hypotheses and verify their claims for yourself is the entire reason that science is what it is. I cannot verify your personal revelations and vice-versa, so while you may have a had a "spiritual experience" that showed you god was real, no one else has to take your claim seriously. At most, we can take your word that you had a "spiritual experience," whatever that even means, but we cannot verify what that says about objective reality and might as well assume it says nothing about objective reality at all. It's not repeatable, verifiable or subject to experiment.

Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated why the things you listed shoud be considered valid forms of evidence, yet you insist that I have to defend why scientific evidence is superior. You are really something.

You do if you are asserting something to be true.

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god.

Wait?

Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?

Okay => ( )

An empty set. As close to doing such on a computer screen that I can come up with on spur of the moment.

But asking some one to 'Present no evidence.' seems... wrong and even a tad dishonest, some how.....

I guess they're trying to suggest that forms of evidence besides scientific evidence should be considered evidence for god. He/she is trying to say that "personal revelation, the logic of metaphysics (whatever that means?), and traditions" should be considered as just as valid a form of evidence as empirical evidence, which is nonsense. Belaqua's suggestion that I should "prove" that "my" form of evidence is the only good one is a testament to the fact that they clearly do not understand how the scientific method works.

As if the scientific method is something I personally came up with and now need to defend. SMH.

[Belacqua]

I've explained why we use scientific evidence to understand the world around us. Empirical evidence is observable, verifiable and repeatable. This is why things like "personal revelations" are not considered empirical evidence. The scientific community works this way for a reason.

Finally! An answer! 

Yes, I was guessing that this is your belief. When you say "evidence" what you mean is evidence of the type that you consider to be good. But earlier you didn't specify which type that is. 

Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated why the things you listed shoud be considered valid forms of evidence, yet you insist that I have to defend why scientific evidence is superior. 

I have asserted nothing about the quality of evidence. I did not say that those things should be considered valid forms of evidence. And I do not insist that you defend why scientific evidence is superior. Please try to read more carefully and not accuse me of saying things I haven't said.  

The issue I want to address is not about quality of evidence. It is that you derive your conclusion from a belief. This belief is that there is no evidence. The belief that there is no evidence is derived from your belief that only empirical evidence counts. Your atheism, therefore, is derived from beliefs. 

So I guess we can split hairs and say that atheism is only a lack. But it is a lack derived from, supported by, and maintained according to, beliefs.

---

Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?

No not at all. 

I am asking him how he defines evidence, which is a different question. 

He apparently has reasons to assert that there is no evidence. Can he give reasons for this? Or does he believe it for no reason? 

He says there is none. Believers say there is. I want to know why I should believe him. 

He has now kindly elaborated by specifying which kind of evidence he allows. This view of what is good evidence and what isn't is something he holds to be true. He believes it. If he ever made an effort at anything, he could even make a good case for it. But that's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asserting is that his atheism derives at least in part from this belief that he has. It's still a belief.

[EgoDeath]

Finally! An answer! 

Yes, I was guessing that this is your belief. When you say "evidence" what you mean is evidence of the type that you consider to be good. But earlier you didn't specify which type that is. 

What type of evidence would I be talking about? Don't act as if I've been avoiding answering this or something, it's completely disingenuous. What type of scientific evidence we would need would depend on how we are defining god, which is the problem. God hasn't been defined yet so we don't know what type of evidence we would need. Certainly that evidence would be scientific in nature, but there are a vast number of types of scientific evidence.

Once again, this is not the evidence that I find to be good. This is how the entire scientific community operates.

I have asserted nothing about the quality of evidence. I did not say that those things should be considered valid forms of evidence. And I do not insist that you defend why scientific evidence is superior. Please try to read more carefully and not accuse me of saying things I haven't said.  

You said, and I quote...

Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics.

...you go on to say that they me be wrong to suggest these things as evidence, but you act as if they could be right on par with scientific evidence, which they are not. This is not my belief. The scientific community does not operate on "revelation, authority, tradition," etc. So while you give yourself a little backdoor to escape out of, you've essentially suggested that these things are possibly just as valid as scientific evidence.

So until you've proven why these other types of evidence should be considered valid, they can be dismissed.

The issue I want to address is not about quality of evidence.

And yet you are constantly asking me to prove why "my" version of evidence is superior. What you're missing AGAIN AND AGAIN is this is not my definition of evidence.

It is that you derive your conclusion from a belief. This belief is that there is no evidence.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I'll continue to assert there is no evidence.

The belief that there is no evidence is derived from your belief that only empirical evidence counts. Your atheism, therefore, is derived from beliefs. 

This is, once again, not my belief. This is how the entire scientific community works. This is what the facts show. Empirical evidence is used to develop medicines and vaccines, it is used to discover new species and unearth mysteries of the past. The scientific method is, objectively, the best way we have of understanding the world around us.

So I guess we can split hairs and say that atheism is only a lack. But it is a lack derived from, supported by, and maintained according to, beliefs.

Nope. See above.

---

You seem to have an issue with defining atheism as a belief or as being AT LEAST rooted in beliefs. I'm not sure what your obsession with this is, to be honest. And if atheism was a belief, which is isn't, I'd sleep tight knowing that it's a belief which would be rooted in empirical evidence, which is much more than any religious person can say about their religious beliefs.

[Peebothuhlu]

Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?

No not at all. 

I am asking him how he defines evidence, which is a different question. 

 That is, indeed, a different question. Sorry didn't see it in the post I was responding too.