Is atheism a belief?

[Simon Moon]

You can call it whatever you like, rude, bad semantics, I'm not concerned with what you think when what you're describing is literally an agnostic atheist. Call yourself a blue unicorn for all I care, it doesn't make you a blue unicorn. But you ARE describing yourself as an agnostic atheist. Don't want to call yourself that? That's fine. That's a weird aversion to have, but okay.

Nope.  I'm describing myself as agnostic.

So do the majority of atheists here.

I think that's pretty clear.  I don't believe in weak atheism as a position worth taking

Please explain what you think the problem with weak atheism is?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is, just not being convinced that gods exist. That seems like the standard

and I'm not a strong atheist.

If by strong atheism, you mean being convinced, with certainty, that gods do not exist. Then I, and many atheists also hold that position.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

If you don't know if you believe then the answer is that you do not believe and are in fact an agnostic atheist.

It is binary, it could change from second to second but at any given time you are either and atheist or a theist.

[bennyboy]

That's right.  You can believe to the extant that    X is true, but have no way of knowing whether X is true.

What does that have to do with you (not) knowing what you actually believe?  
The word "know" in this sentence has nothing to do with the content of your belief, just with your belief per se. In your quote "know" is used in relation to the content. This is not the same.

Unless I have a pragmatic reason for believing in something (like the sentience of others than myself), my beliefs are an expression of my knowledge.  For example, I know that people fly in jet planes all over the world; therefore, if you start talking about Skydaddy, then I will say, "I believe God as you describe it cannot represent reality."  It COULD be that Skydaddy is invisible, or wiped out everyone's memory of having seen him in the sky, but I have sufficient knowledge that I'm willing to declare as gnostic atheist about that particular definition.

Now, either you know what Schrodinger's Cat is, or you don't.  If you do, then you'll understand a conditional belief depending on knowledge.  Since the cat itself is in a state of superposition, then if you ask me "Do you belief the cat is alive?" I will be unable to answer you-- I believe it either is or isn't alive, dependent on whether a radioactive particle has decayed; I must hold my beliefs to a superposition.  If I was able to get knowledge about that particle, then I'd be able to form a VERY strong belief, like say 90%, that the cat was alive.  The 10% would depend on my assessment of the reliability of the mechanism, and maybe suspicions about whether the tester was actually willing to kill a kitty.

Let's take a simpler question. I say, "I have an apple on my desk. Do you believe I have an apple on my desk?" You will rely on various bits of knowledge: apples are very common objects, and can often be found on desks but not usually. People don't normally lie for no reason about mundane things, but this guy seems to be trying to make a point. bennyboy is a tricky and dishonest debater, so I think he's likely to lie about having an apple. You will then arrive at a belief with a degree of confidence.

But what if I say, "I have X on my desk. Do you believe I have X on my desk?" You COULD say "Not knowing what X means, I lack a belief in that." But in my opinion, that would be a silly thing to do. What I would do in this case is reserve a belief statement until I collected more information: what does X mean? If it means elephant, I'd say that I believe you do NOT have X on your desk, because I know that elephants are much bigger than desks. If it means pen, I'd say that I believe you DO have X on your desk, since I know that pens are very commonly found on desks. If you refuse to tell me, or are unable to articulate X, then I'd say that I didn't know if X was on your desk, and please stop wasting my time.


This can all be very simply resolved. You tell me what God means, and I will probably be able to formulate and express a coherent belief. Unless you will do that, then I will remain agnostic. Not agnostic atheist, just agnostic.

---

If you don't know if you believe then the answer is that you do not believe and are in fact an agnostic atheist.

It is binary, it could change from second to second but at any given time you are either and atheist or a theist.

Who's this "you" you are referring to? It's a shorthand for the verbal expression of a very complex organism, the brain. It's perfectly possible for parts of a brain to disagree on some question of existence. The experience of the conscious ego is this: When faced with a question, you wait for the various parts of your brain to present an answer to your conscious awareness, and then verbalize it. Sometimes, this is difficult-- not because of a lack of anything, but for quite the opposite reason.

A rock lacks a belief. A person in conflict doesn't lack a belief. They have conflicting beliefs which they cannot resolve down to a single answer.

---

Please explain what you think the problem with weak atheism is?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is, just not being convinced that gods exist. That seems like the standard

I have no problem with people taking a weak atheist position. However, for me personally, identifying with the lack of an idea is pointless. I don't like being railroaded into a semantic which, while literally possible, is such a poor descriptor of my own state of belief.

If by strong atheism, you mean being convinced, with certainty, that gods do not exist. Then I, and many atheists also hold that position.

Me too, about most God ideas I've been presented with. I consider myself a gnostic Atheist with regard to the Christian God idea/ideas, for example.

[fredd bear]

"I have no problem with people taking a weak atheist position. However, for me personally, identifying with the lack of an idea is pointless. I don't like being railroaded into a semantic which, while literally possible, is such a poor descriptor of my own state of belief."

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I'm an agnostic, or soft atheist. I state that I do not believe in gods due to lack of proof. This position is in no way logically weak or unsound. I need prove nothing..

However, the position of the hard atheist is problematic: Stating " I believe there is no god" is a positive claim, attracting the burden of proof. Just as much as the theist who asserts "I believe in god". It is also belief without knowledge. As far as I'm aware, nobody in recorded history has proved the existence of god, or his non existence. An absence of evidence is not proof of absence, although absence is implied, and may be the case.

Imo the hard atheist is actually in an intellectually weak position compared with the soft atheist. I can probably back it up, but I'm simply expressing my opinion, not setting out to change anyone's mind.

But they, you believe whatever. I suggest to perhaps refrain from making general claims unless you have proof of such claims. IE right now, all you can reasonably assert is your own position.

[bennyboy]

However, the position of the hard atheist  is problematic:  Stating " I believe there is no god" is  a positive claim, attracting the burden of proof. Just as much as the theist who asserts "I believe in god". It is also belief without knowledge. As far as I'm aware, nobody in recorded history has proved  the existence of god, or his non existence.   An absence of evidence is not proof of absence, although absence  is implied, and may be the case.

I'm perfectly comfortable proving that specific gods do not exist. For example, omni-3 god is logically incoherent, and therefore I would be happy saying I'm gnostic on the non-existence of that god. The idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, all knowing god who lets babies get killed by malaria and teen boys get raped in churches absolutely does not exist, and I'm willing to claim that I know enough about this world to assert that positively.

I'm also quite certain that the Greek gods do not exist. I know what thunder is, and how it comes to exist, and Zeus isn't it. I will state that I'm a gnostic atheist about that god as well.

[EgoDeath]

@bennyboy But then, why give any gods a pass? Who even says the idea of any god is logically plausible? Just because someone proposed it? Or just because a bunch of people believe it? Why give any gods a pass when you're so sure that specific gods do not exist?

[bennyboy]

@bennyboy But then, why give any gods a pass? Who even says the idea of any god is logically plausible? Just because someone proposed it? Or just because a bunch of people believe it? Why give any gods a pass when you're so sure that specific gods do not exist?

It's a fair enough question.  I think it's very unlikely that any proponent of a religious god idea will be able to convince me that it represents reality.

However, there are some more spiritual or philosophical definitions which I find plausible or even likely.

It's possible that there are very large-scale physical systems which are so massively intelligent that they dwarf us as much as we do an ant.  These aren't all-powerful creator gods a la Christianity, but I'd say that I'd call such an entity a god.

It's possible that the Universe is panpsychic-- i.e. that all material has associated with it some small-scale consciousness.  If so, we could debate whether the Universe in that case could be said to be the totality of all possible conscious states, and I might be tempted to call that God also.

It's possible that I'm in some kind of simulation, and that the Universe and all the story around it really WAS created by an intelligence.  It's even possible that we humans might be able to create alternative realities so convincing that they seemed limitless.  Such a person, while not big-G god in the way that the Christian God is, could definitely be said to be god of this reality.

This is all speculative, and it's all conditional-- I do not know if something super-massive (like say a collection of galaxies) can have the kinds of data flow and motivations that I'd associate with an sentient being.  I do not know if material is intrinsically dualistic.  I don't know if this is a simulation or not.

I would say this, though.  I believe that SOME part of our reality, if we came close enough to it, would be so overwhelming philosophically and mentally, that we would be very tempted to call it God.  I just have no idea what that quantity or entity would be.

[EgoDeath]

It's a fair enough question.  I think it's very unlikely that any proponent of a religious god idea will be able to convince me that it represents reality.

However, there are some more spiritual or philosophical definitions which I find plausible or even likely.

It's possible that there are very large-scale physical systems which are so massively intelligent that they dwarf us as much as we do an ant.  These aren't all-powerful creator gods a la Christianity, but I'd say that I'd call such an entity a god.

An interesting thought, but with nothing to back this up, it's just thought - an interesting thought.

It's possible that the Universe is panpsychic-- i.e. that all material has associated with it some small-scale consciousness.  If so, we could debate whether the Universe in that case could be said to be the totality of all possible conscious states, and I might be tempted to call that God also.

Another interesting thought.

It's possible that I'm in some kind of simulation, and that the Universe and all the story around it really WAS created by an intelligence.  It's even possible that we humans might be able to create alternative realities so convincing that they seemed limitless.  Such a person, while not big-G god in the way that the Christian God is, could definitely be said to be god of this reality.

Eh, an interesting idea that I've personally grown tired of. The whole "simulation" thing makes for good click-bait - but that's about it.

This is all speculative, and it's all conditional-- I do not know if something super-massive (like say a collection of galaxies) can have the kinds of data flow and motivations that I'd associate with an sentient being.  I do not know if material is intrinsically dualistic.  I don't know if this is a simulation or not.

I would say this, though.  I believe that SOME part of our reality, if we came close enough to it, would be so overwhelming philosophically and mentally, that we would be very tempted to call it God.  I just have no idea what that quantity or entity would be.

So yea, none of these ideas have any more merit than really any other version of god that has been proposed. At best, they're a little more palatable for the modern deist than the god of the Bible or the Quran. At best.

[bennyboy]

So yea, none of these ideas have any more merit than really any other version of god that has been proposed. At best, they're a little more palatable for the modern deist than the god of the Bible or the Quran. At best.

The problem with these ideas is that they are plausible enough philosophically, but there's really no way to gain the knowledge required to sensibly form an actual belief around them. One might believe on a hunch, but there's nothing more to go on.

[EgoDeath]

So yea, none of these ideas have any more merit than really any other version of god that has been proposed. At best, they're a little more palatable for the modern deist than the god of the Bible or the Quran. At best.

The problem with these ideas is that they are plausible enough philosophically, but there's really no way to gain the knowledge required to sensibly form an actual belief around them.  One might believe on a hunch, but there's nothing more to go on.

Right, I'm of the opinion that if we don't know, we should just say we don't know. Though, we can all speculate:

A personal belief of mine - I think we simply live in a "dead" universe. I think life/consciousness is basically a growth; give it the right conditions and it will take root. I think we are like mold on a sandwich and we are "eating the sandwich," so to speak.

I don't think it's at all improbable that we live in a mostly empty, albeit very interesting, universe. I'm sure there is other life out there, due to statistical probability and logic, but I think we simply live in a universe that just 'exists.' We HAPPEN to have evolved and are conscious, intelligent beings so our existence SEEMS very important and SEEMS to beg some extraordinary explanation - but in reality it probably doesn't.

Just my thoughts.