Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

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?

Nope. "Agnostic" is a better descriptor for me, tyvm. Check it out:

Q: Do you believe in a God / gods?
Me: I don't know.

I can, upon further questioning, explain why I feel the term agnostic suits me better, and have. I can also provide dictionary or wikipedia posts showing that my use of the word "agnostic" is among accepted definitions, but I'd assume you know that already.

Of interest, perhaps, as that "agnostic" itself can be viewed in a couple of ways. It can be (agnosis + ic = adjectival form of not knowing) or (a + gnostic) as in "not among those who claim a gnostic tradition." This is interesting because it is something that the wooiest Christians and the most materially-minded have in common: they have some sense of knowledge, and in a way that I consider faithful. A Christian will point to Genesis. A material monist will point to the Big Bang, and will never say "We don't know, and can't," but something more qualified and hopeful, like "We don't know. . . yet!" or "We don't know. . . but if we ARE going to know, science is the best vehicle for arriving at that knowledge." I shy away from this kind of talk, because it's not at all clear that the latter is the case.

[fredd bear]

"Not your post, Bels bucket of crap.

ETA: Although since you put your post inside the quotes, I had a weird moment of recognising my own trajectory to the extent that I had to wonder. Did I post that?

Do yourself a favour. Put your text insertion point after the quotes. Putting them in the middle simply adds to the fog of war. My time is precious. So is yours. So is everyones on here and everywhere else. It takes not unconsiderable time to unpick which bits are yours and which bits are not, and even then there is no guarantee that one is correct. Let me be clear. So far, I am not arguing the content of what you post (we largely align in that regard). It is merely the presentation. It might sem like a petty quibble, but you want to say whatever it is you want to say. If I can't tell which are your words from your respondents, what am I to do then?"

 
Oh. I didn't realise. Thank you for pointing that out. No, it's not a petty quibble . I think it's perfectly reasonable I will try to fix that. 

 Is this reply better ?

[Angrboda]

This is something I tried, multiple times, to get across to Belaqua in saying that "I won't pretend to know what 'every single adult atheist' thinks." But they did not accept this as an answer and kept trying to hammer the point home about what, supposedly, "every single adult atheist" thinks.

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards.

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person?

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists.

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive.

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason.

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

Atheism is not a lack such that an atheist need not defend it.

[Abaddon_ire]

"Not your post, Bels bucket of crap.

ETA: Although since you put your post inside the quotes, I had a weird moment of recognising my own trajectory to the extent that I had to wonder. Did I post that?

Do yourself a favour. Put your text insertion point after the quotes. Putting them in the middle simply adds to the fog of war. My time is precious. So is yours. So is everyones on here and everywhere else. It takes not unconsiderable time to unpick which bits are yours and which bits are not, and even then there is no guarantee that one is correct. Let me be clear. So far, I am not arguing the content of what you post (we largely align in that regard). It is merely the presentation. It might sem like a petty quibble, but you want to say whatever it is you want to say. If I can't tell which are your words from your respondents, what am I to do then?"

 
Oh. I didn't realise. Thank you for pointing that out. No, it's not a petty quibble . I think it's perfectly reasonable I will try to fix that. 

 Is this reply better ?

Bang on mate. Be aware that like all fora, this one has it's odd quirks. You can't know in advance. The autoformat annoys seven shades out of me.

[EgoDeath]

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

My apologies, I misread you here.

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.

Regardless of how many definitions you throw out or how you try to argue the semantics, atheism = an absence of a belief in deities. That definition stands. Where any individual atheist chooses to go from there is up to them, but atheism is an absence of belief. If someone chooses to identify as as a gnostic atheist, that's up to them. If they choose to identify as a gnostic theist, that's also up to them.

You seem to think that arguing semantics is going to get you what you want, but unfortunately, atheism is what is is, an absence of a belief in deities.

For someone who believes in god, they hold a belief in a deity. For me, that belief isn't there. It's honestly very simple.

Nope. "Agnostic" is a better descriptor for me, tyvm.

Then you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

[Belacqua]

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards.

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person?

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists.

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive.

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason.

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

Atheism is not a lack such that an atheist need not defend it.

Thank you for putting these quotes together. 

It should be obvious by this time that the latter, shorter quote is the inevitable conclusion from the outline you posted above it. 

If that isn't clear then our communication hasn't been effective.

[bennyboy]

Regardless of how many definitions you throw out or how you try to argue the semantics, atheism = an absence of a belief in deities. That definition stands. Where any individual atheist chooses to go from there is up to them, but atheism is an absence of belief. If someone chooses to identify as as a gnostic atheist, that's up to them. If they choose to identify as a gnostic theist, that's also up to them.

That's kind of like saying "A dog is a brown mammal with four legs that says arf arf." Yes, some dogs are brown. But the overall definition of dogs is greater than that-- and, in fact, some do not meet that definition.

Then you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Nope. Neither of those terms describes me, as I do not default to an atheist position, and I'm not espousing a view on the existence of God. I default to a position of not knowing, and I would never apply an "-ism" to myself that doesn't represent a systematic belief. You don't declare as an a-unicornist, do you? I'd hope that you'd wait until someone describes a belief in unicorns, and then say: "No. . . I don't believe such a thing exists."

[EgoDeath]

That's kind of like saying "A dog is a brown animal."  Yes, some dogs are brown.  But the overall definition of dogs is greater than that.

No, it isn't anything like saying that.

Nope.  Neither of those terms describes me, as I do not default to an atheist position.  I default to a position of not knowing, and I would never apply an "-ism" to myself that doesn't represent a systematic belief.  You don't declare as an a-unicornist, do you?

So you're an agnostic atheist. Thanks. You don't hold a belief in god and you don't claim to have knowledge of one. Agnostic atheist.

[bennyboy]

For someone who believes in god, they hold a belief in a deity. For me, that belief isn't there. It's honestly very simple.

Really? You have no stance on whether say the Christian creator God exists? You just happen to lack a positive belief that it does.

I think that's a philosophical cop-out. I don't believe that such a God exists, and I can explain why. In fact, given all the definitions of God I've been presented with, I'd say I'm either gnostic atheist-- I'm quite sure those gods cannot exist-- or as ignostic, in cases where I think the definition is too incoherent to even allow the formation of a belief around it.

---

So you're an agnostic atheist. Thanks. You don't hold a belief in god and you don't claim to have knowledge of one. Agnostic atheist.

Meh, you can say that if you want, but my beagle and the thing growing on my ass are agnostic atheists in pretty much the same way. It's not a particularly useful semantic.

[EgoDeath]

For someone who believes in god, they hold a belief in a deity. For me, that belief isn't there. It's honestly very simple.

Really?  You have no stance on whether say the Christian creator God exists?  You just happen to lack a positive belief that it does.

I never said I have no stance on it. I said, for me, the belief in a creator just isn't there.

I think that's a philosophical cop-out.  I don't believe that such a God exists, and I can explain why.  In fact, given all the definitions of God I've been presented with, I'd say I'm either gnostic atheist-- I'm quite sure those gods cannot exist-- or as ignostic, in cases where I think the definition is too incoherent to even allow the formation of a belief around it.

So you are an agnostic atheist, or possibly a gnostic atheist. Interesting.