Atheism is not a belief!!

[Dawud]

Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge.

This is why I think believe means "hold to be true" - I have been using the philosophy usage and not AF general usage but I'll happily change for this context...

[Little Rik]

Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in God; however that lack of belief itself entails certain other beliefs, not all of which are fully justified.

Please, do inform me about these things I believe. I'd simply love for you to educate us atheists about the contents of our own minds. Because we simply have no way of knowing ourselves, the things you think we believe must be true, because your vast telepathic skills have allowed you to reach into our minds and pluck the things we think about right out of our heads.

Okay, but seriously: stop trying to tell us about the things we believe. We're quite capable of informing you ourselves. This shit drives me nuts.

But does anyone here believe that they are atheists.

Yeah, I believe that. And my belief is justified because I'm in my own head and I can say, with surety, that I am an atheist. It's demonstrable.
Where are you going with this?

Atheism born in order to counter the religions so if you want to knock down religious beliefs you must have other types of beliefs in your mind.
It does not make sense to say that religions must first prove their beliefs when you yourself can not prove anything of your beliefs.
It does not matter if your enemy is wrong.
If you want to win the war you must go and fight with some weapons.
As far as i can see you have no weapons to fight with.
So far physical science can prove religious dogmas wrong but as far as God existence or not nothing at all.
But i predict an eternal struggle between you two.
As soon as religions see their dogmas collapse they will invent a new dogmas (false truth) and as soon as they do that you will be at their throat try to knock down the new dogma.
At the end none of you will get anywhere because both of you miss the real point which is to reach human emancipation.

[Esquilax]

Atheism born in order to counter the religions so if you want to knock down religious beliefs you must have other types of beliefs in your mind.

I believe in many things. Atheism is a position on the singular issue of gods, nothing else. However, my beliefs are demonstrable in physical reality, and though my position is a reaction to religious claims, it's not an antagonistic position: I will believe religious claims at precisely the moment they are able to comprehensively demonstrate them, and not a second before.

It does not make sense to say that religions must first prove their beliefs when you yourself can not prove anything of your beliefs.

But my sole atheist belief is that I don't know whether there is a god or not, but that religious groups have not demonstrated that the one they believe in exists. How would I go about proving to you that religious claims aren't convincing to me? It's a personal stance.

I am not, however, making a claim. Religious groups are, and therefore they need to prove it. That's the way things work.

It does not matter if your enemy is wrong.

Sure it does, if your enemy is the only one actually claiming something to be true.

If you want to win the war you must go and fight with some weapons.

Except I'm not going to war. I'm neutral. I've got no sword with which to brandish. In your analogy religion would be an invading force, while my country is over here just trying to live.

We do have a shield though: not one of the weapons our religious antagonists have have ever been proven to exist.

As far as i can see you have no weapons to fight with.

Because we're not fighting.

So far physical science can prove religious dogmas wrong but as far as God existence or not nothing at all.

Good thing my position isn't "no gods exist," then. And a good thing atheism is a position on gods, not creator beings.

But i predict an eternal struggle between you two.

Just so long as you understand that it's only the fundamentalist religious side that feels the burning need to extinguish those that disagree with them.

As soon as religions see their dogmas collapse they will invent a new dogmas (false truth) and as soon as they do that you will be at their throat try to knock down the new dogma.

Who's knocking anything down? I don't think it's too crazy to expect that the religious demonstrate that their dogmas are true. Why do you?

At the end none of you will get anywhere because both of you miss the real point which is to reach human emancipation.

See, this is the problem I have with other people telling me what I believe: they're almost always wrong on one point or another (or all of them, in your case) and then I have to spend time explaining what I actually believe point by point, when you could have just asked. It's rude.

[The Reality Salesman01]

More people throwing around 'fallacy'? TIBERIUS: give these people a logic school. They appear to be in desperate need of it.

I'm beginning to understand your thinking process...

Anyway, I hope you haven't mistaken your possessing knowledge to be anything more than ignorance.

In the words of Socrates, "I am the wisest of men as I am at the least aware of my own ignorance." He's not saying he doesn't know anything, he's just aware of that which he doesn't or possibly cannot know. You should tighten up your definitions.

I could nanny you into understanding why I made the word choice I made, but I prefer to let children explore the world, and come to their own conclusions.

Only when its convenient or...

TIBERIUS: give these people a logic school. They appear to be in desperate need of it.

...just as long as its not you doing the thinking?

Insult schminsult, irrelevant. We probably couldn't spend all day disagreeing upon what constitutes knowledge, given how I'd accept your definition of knowledge under the notation that it's not what I'm arguing, then invent a new word to explain what I am arguing. It'll probably be 'Tusfencain'.

More amusing dribble...

Probable and possible, the first is a likely possibility, the latter is only that it can happen.

Just to split hairs, your definition of probable is probably closer to the definition of potential. There is a difference between potentialities and probabilities. Probabilities are determined by inductive reasoning through observable things. Potentialities can be devised from deductive inference. A priori principles work in science because there is no reason to believe they are not true due to the consistency of the principles. You seem to be suggesting that such principles require faith, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Dedcutive inferences are made by eliminating that which we have no reason to believe as a potentiality. This is why I do not believe in God. I have no reason to believe in a God. The major disagreement, I think, would come in when we begin to use these words in sentences as qualifiers for knowledge. Especially since it seems as though you reject logic and its applications to obtaining knowledge in any rational sense.

If faith is irrational, we are all irrational.

Faith is irrational- Yes
Those that hold beliefs based purely on faith all hold irrational beliefs-Yes, it logically follows.

Using logic on gods is very shortsighted, as it pigeonholes them into an existence as we might be able to understand it.

I think that you are being a bit short sighted when you throw logic out the window in hopes of maintaining an irrational belief. You seem to suggest that God cannot be understood rationally. Then you are saying that knowledge of a God is irrational. If God can be understood rationally, then he is contingent upon certain logical restrictions just like everything else. God cannot be both God and Not-God at the same time. I realize your not a fan of logic, and so I am not holding my breath for any arguments from you that strengthen your opinion of God(s). Although it would raise the question as to why you would even attempt to argue your opnion when the very measurement of a valid argument relies on whether or not its logical.

what's a logical standpoint worth? You don't use it for science (you take it on faith under the weight of evidence you have also taken on faith

This is false. You either have evidence, or you don't. If you don't, its faith. I take nothing on faith. I make decisions based on experience and my level of expectations are gauged accordingly. I do not expect to know what is going to happen all the time, but I have good reason for the decisions I make and the level of expectations I place on the outcome. If I did not have a good reason to believe in something, I would stop believing it. Faith is not having a good reason to believe in something and believing it anyway (this is going back to that to proper applications of the words possible/potential/probable with respect to knowledge and beliefs.)

I don't see how anyone logically accepts anything. They might use logic as their reasoning behind their acceptance of a thing, but it is ultimately faith which bridges the gap between acceptance and nonacceptance.

Again, you seem to be conflating faith (believing in something purely because it's possible and having zero evidence) with probablility (Having a subjective expectation based on measurable results) is not the same as faith. In Science, it is these assumptions that drive the theories. If they cannot be tested, and results or data cannot be measured, then it is not accepted. Faith is quite different.

Long story short, an Atheist rejects God theories as they cannot be tested, do not produce measurable, tangible results. I do not believe in Atheism, I am an Atheist as a result of not being swayed by theism of any kind.

Saying an atheist believes that God is not real, is kind of a play on words and by doing so you take on a creative liberty with your inference.

Do christians belive they are the Anti-Christ if they themselves are not Christ?
Or are they simply Not-Christ?

---

But does anyone here believe that they are atheists.

I'm using the normal definition if believe - I.e. considering it to be true...

I like most people assume that people believe what they know...

So: do you believe you are atheist?

(Or do you change words' meanings to try to win arguments online?)

Yes. I believe I'm an Atheist. Why would I change the meaning of belief in that context?

[frz]

Atheism born in order to counter the religions so if you want to knock down religious beliefs you must have other types of beliefs in your mind.

says you. My mind is clear. All I want is to not be harassed about some mumble jumbo that I do not subscribe to.

But i predict an eternal struggle between you two.

Ah! another prophet amongst us, this shit never ends.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Any word you like that deals with the ignorant claims of having knowledge of such things is not of any interest to me.

So... you're still talking, towards something I've said, though you've no interest in anything I have to say?

Did I say I wasn't interested in anything you had to say or did I say
Any word you like that deals with the ignorant claims of having knowledge? If that was confusing, here are 2 examples of the words I was referring to-gnosticism/agnosticism

So, again...I am an Atheist because I have no reason to believe any God claims.

No, you're an atheist because you don't believe in any gods. There's a difference,

That's really just an aside. You've lost track of your path because of your own herrings. What happened to the creative inference that-my lack of belief in Gods, also implies that I believe no Gods exist. Remember...The entire premise of your original post?

[frz]

Using logic on gods is very shortsighted, as it pigeonholes them into an existence as we might be able to understand it.

How can you believe in something then that you can't prove exist or able to understand how it can exist?

[Godscreated]

---

But does anyone here believe that they are atheists.

I'm using the normal definition if believe - I.e. considering it to be true...

I like most people assume that people believe what they know...

So: do you believe you are atheist?

(Or do you change words' meanings to try to win arguments online?)

---

Everyone knows atheism is a lack of beliefs. It's not even a belief in science, because in science everything can, in theory, be proved wrong (apart from mathematics, the one TRUE science) HOWEVER... Atheism is not a belief, it is a pursuit, a pursuit of knowledge, understanding and truth.

Also, consider this, Belief is only in something that is merely possible, with a sliver of doubt. For example, There is a cup on my desk. I don't BELIEVE there is a cup, because there is, it is undoubtable, therefore I KNOW there is a cup. I am an atheist, and there is no doubting I am an atheist, because I know what I think. Just the same as you ARE a Muslim, it's not just POSSIBLE that you are. Therefore I KNOW I am an atheist just as much as you KNOW you are a Muslim. there is no doubting the matter.

And before you ask: If science, one day, proved the existence of a God, we would be the first to hold our hands up and say 'we were wrong' but until the evidence is found, we can't do that logically. However, if God was proven NOT to exist without a shadow of a doubt, I doubt religion would turn around and say 'oops, we were wrong'. If that day comes, I hope they will surprise me. I just want everyone to be happy without the Muslims fighting the Christians and vise versa and everyone being at each others' throats all the time? Is that too much to ask?

In another post you stated that you knew there was no God, make up your mind please, those of us with low IQ's you're confusing us.

---

---

Yes, but that is not hot like fire and as I stated they do not know how far above their heads the sun is, all they really know is the sun is above them.

---

I don't see how that matters at all.

They make a fire, they feel warmth.

They come out of the cave into the sun, they feel the same warmth.

They come out of the cave NO SUN, NO WARMTH.

What's your issue with the assumptions made by my ficticious characters?

I have no problem with fictional characters, I have a problem with the supposed logic given them.

---

What's your issue with the assumptions made by my ficticious characters?

They ring too uncomfortably close to the truth for our local resident fundamentalist.

They ring of confusion, and illogical assumptions. Truth is left out.

[Simon Moon]

Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in God; however that lack of belief itself entails certain other beliefs, not all of which are fully justified.

My lack of belief in the existence of a god does not entail other beliefs.

If we define belief as ' the psychological state of accepting a proposition as true', then I have no beliefs that are unjustified.

If someone is able to demonstrate that I hold a belief that is not fully justified, do you know what i"d do? I'd stop believing it. That's what intellectually honest people do.

[Mister Agenda]

Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in God; however that lack of belief itself entails certain other beliefs, not all of which are fully justified.

I almost agree. Atheism entails other lacks of belief: I lack a belief that God will send me to Cleveland after I die; I lack a belief that God caused the Boxing Day Tsunami; and so on.

Beliefs that aren't a logical implication of there probably not being a God aren't beliefs entailed by atheism.

---

But does anyone here believe that they are atheists.

I'm using the normal definition if believe - I.e. considering it to be true...

I like most people assume that people believe what they know...

So: do you believe you are atheist?

(Or do you change words' meanings to try to win arguments online?)

Good one! Everyone here believes they are an atheist. However, not everyone who is an atheist knows they are, so not everyone who is an atheist believes they are an atheist; therefore the belief that you are an atheist is not entailed by atheism.

If you would do us the courtesy of paying more attention to what we (atheists) are than to what atheism is, you'd learn a lot more. Your insistence that we agree with you that atheism itself is more than we think it is, holds you back. At any time you could just agree to disagree with us on this and move forward...but most theists never get past the point where you're at now.

Chad is an example of an exception. He still lingers a bit at the definition, sometimes; but it isn't a barrier for him.

---

Now you have Jane working up scientific experiments while they're still making fire from rubbing sticks.

Jane not having the cognitive tools to effectively critique Bill's assertions are why theism is prevalent today. Critical thinking is a skill that has to be learned, making up stories is very natural to us.

As is defending stories. You don't get how they might have known the sun is hot? Really?

Go outside on a hot day. Step into some shade. Step out of the shade. Step back in. Repeat until you start to wonder how you could have thought they woudn't know the sun is hot.

---

Yes, but that is not hot like fire and as I stated they do not know how far above their heads the sun is, all they really know is the sun is above them.

It would be obvious to cavemen, if not to you, that the sun is hot. Walk away from a fire and see how quickly the feeling of heat fades away with distance. They don't have to know how far away the sun is, they just have to know it's too high to hit with a rock and you can still feel the heat coming off of it.

---

This is why I think believe means "hold to be true" - I have been using the philosophy usage and not AF general usage but I'll happily change for this context...

I think that use is fine, a few of us have a 'thing' about saying we believe stuff, but belief the way you're using it is fine (as far as I'm concerned) as long as you don't switch it up on us.