Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

That assumes the default valid position is theism. 

Not at all.

Both sides make claims. Everyone evaluates the claims based on the standards that he believes are best.

An atheist makes the claim: "there is insufficient evidence to believe in God." He believes this statement because of the evaluative premises which he believes are best. A believer hears that claim and evaluates it based on the evaluative premises he believes are best. 

Granted, a lot of people have evaluative premises which are not very good. But everyone hears claims and then accepts or rejects them.

Nope. 
Maybe some do. All do not. 

1. You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking, nor do you get to project on others how you think that are thinking. 

There is no "god". There are hundreds or thousands of gods. The fact that you converse with the term "God" proves your position is biased with respect to YOUR god. 
There is no difference among ALL god claims. I don't have to even agree to talk about YOUR god. I don't care about your god. Your god is not even coherently defined. 

2. IF, in fact you are equating THAT position with the position of someone of "faith" it's a pretty damning comparison. 
There can't *be* any evidence for something, until the *thing* is defined. It is not defined.

[GrandizerII]

That assumes the default valid position is theism. 

Not at all.

Both sides make claims. Everyone evaluates the claims based on the standards that he believes are best.

An atheist makes the claim: "there is insufficient evidence to believe in God." He believes this statement because of the evaluative premises which he believes are best. A believer hears that claim and evaluates it based on the evaluative premises he believes are best. 

Granted, a lot of people have evaluative premises which are not very good. But everyone hears claims and then accepts or rejects them.

No, an atheist does not necessarily make that claim. They might just not care to evaluate the evidence, or they might want to know first who/what the heck is "God".

Also, just because atheists have beliefs, even if shared by many atheists, does not mean that atheism itself is a belief-position.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not at all.

Both sides make claims. Everyone evaluates the claims based on the standards that he believes are best.

An atheist makes the claim: "there is insufficient evidence to believe in God." He believes this statement because of the evaluative premises which he believes are best. A believer hears that claim and evaluates it based on the evaluative premises he believes are best. 

Granted, a lot of people have evaluative premises which are not very good. But everyone hears claims and then accepts or rejects them.

Nope. 
Maybe some do. All do not. 

1. You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking, nor do you get to project on others how you think that are thinking. 

There is no "god". There are hundreds or thousands of gods. The fact that you converse with the term "God" proves your position is biased with respect to YOUR god, is biased. 
There is no difference among ALL god claims. I don't have to even agree to talk about YOUR god. I don't care about your god. Your god is not even coherently defined. 

2. IF, in fact you are equating THAT position with the position of someone of "faith" it's a pretty damning comparison. 
There can't *be* any evidence for something, until the *thing* is defined. It is not defined.

1. Incorrect.  Validation of one thing does not automatically validate or invalidate the existence of something else.  If you subjectively attribute a name or title to someone, it doesn't mean another subject can't maintain that same name or title.  Additionally, saying something isn't coherently defined isn't even of the ballpark of being correct.  We have dictionaries, encyclopedias that define things, including "God" or "gods."  So if you find those definitions incoherent, then it's a personal malfunction of your ability to comprehend something.  Heck, I can comprehend who "Zeus" is supposed to be, even though I don't assert any special meaning to him that dictates my own life.

2. It is defined.  See 1.  Do we need to start referencing said literature for definitions?  Maybe then we can have a definition YOU can understand.

In all that, you did get one thing right.  "You don't get to tell other people what they are thinking."  He can't read your mind  and you can't read his.  The rest of that statement is subjective based on authority.  It's not automatically assumed, but it can be presumed.  If the person asks you to, then based on that, you can attempt to tell them what they are thinking, even though your answer may be incorrect.

[LastPoet]

At least I am grounded to reality, not fantasias.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At least I am grounded to reality, not fantasias.

Because you said so.

[Belacqua]

The fact that you converse with the term "God" proves your position is biased with respect to YOUR god. 
There is no difference among ALL god claims. I don't have to even agree to talk about YOUR god. I don't care about your god. Your god is not even coherently defined. 

Here I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not at all religious. This thread is about how we form beliefs.

I'll use a small g on this thread in the future, if it will help avoid confusion.

2. IF, in fact you are equating THAT position with the position of someone of "faith" it's a pretty damning comparison. 

There can't *be* any evidence for something, until the *thing* is defined. It is not defined.

This seems like a reason a person might have to reject claims about gods. If they believe that something undefined is not believable, then they would reject the concept for that reason.

---

[quote pid='1873255' dateline='1546100753']

No, an atheist does not necessarily make that claim. They might just not care to evaluate the evidence, 

[/quote]


Yes, that's true. I guess I've let my original narrow claim get lost in the mix. 

Originally, I said that any adult who has heard and rejected religious claims has reasons for rejecting those claims. By "reject" I meant that they actively consider those claims and conclude that they are not persuasive. 

So I am talking only about such people. This doesn't include people raised by wolves, infants, brain-dead stroke victims, rocks, lizards, space aliens, etc. 

But I'll try to be clearer about this in the future. 

or they might want to know first who/what the heck is "God".

Yes, if they feel the term has no meaning, that would be a good reason to withhold belief.

[Bucky Ball]

1. Incorrect.  Validation of one thing does not automatically validate or invalidate the existence of something else.  If you subjectively attribute a name or title to someone, it doesn't mean another subject can't maintain that same name or title. 
Additionally, saying something isn't coherently defined isn't even of the ballpark of being correct.  We have dictionaries, encyclopedias that define things, including "God" or "gods."  So if you find those definitions incoherent, then it's a personal malfunction of your ability to comprehend something.  Heck, I can comprehend who "Zeus" is supposed to be, even though I don't assert any special meaning to him that dictates my own life.

2. It is defined.  See 1.  Do we need to start referencing said literature for definitions?  Maybe then we can have a definition YOU can understand.

YOU, troll,  have no coherent definition of a god. There is no coherent definition, and that is why Igtheism is a thing. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Christians claim they have a "timeless" "eternal" deity ... yet ascribe to it all sorts of temporal acts. THAT is incoherent. 
EVERY quality or property of their god(s) requires time. YOU have no coherent definition of any god. 

BTW, it's "not IN the ballpark", not "of the ballpark". You're in WAY over your head.

---

[T0 Th3 M4X]

1. Incorrect.  Validation of one thing does not automatically validate or invalidate the existence of something else.  If you subjectively attribute a name or title to someone, it doesn't mean another subject can't maintain that same name or title. 
Additionally, saying something isn't coherently defined isn't even of the ballpark of being correct.  We have dictionaries, encyclopedias that define things, including "God" or "gods."  So if you find those definitions incoherent, then it's a personal malfunction of your ability to comprehend something.  Heck, I can comprehend who "Zeus" is supposed to be, even though I don't assert any special meaning to him that dictates my own life.

2. It is defined.  See 1.  Do we need to start referencing said literature for definitions?  Maybe then we can have a definition YOU can understand.

YOU, troll,  have no coherent definition of a god. There is no coherent definition, and that is why Igtheism is a thing. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Christians claim they have a "timeless" "eternal" deity ... yet ascribe to it all sorts of temporal acts. THAT is incoherent. 
EVERY quality or property of their god(s) requires time. YOU have no coherent definition of any god. 

BTW, it's "not IN the ballpark", not "of the ballpark". You're in WAY over your head.

---

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

[Peebothuhlu]

Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me.  If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).   That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant.  Next.

Okay... sorry to step in here but...

"Not coherent to you, which makes you incoherent, not me."

This sentence? It makes no sense. Some one finding something incoherant... makes them incoherant? What?

"If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)"

Bucky is totally saying the things you're pointing to are incoherant. Bucky even gave you an example of why they found said things/examples incohernat.

That there is a description of a diety that is "Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent." which has been shown to be completely... wonky...

Since a diey with those attributes doesn't match what happens/could happen within reality.

"Because those things define the subject(s)."

Uhm... no. Some of those things simply describe said subjects. Really a Dictionary is descriptive of how words are used. Hence they keep revising them as people change what words mean.

"That doesn't make me a troll.  It makes you inaccurate, incoherent, incorrect, and potentially ignorant..."

True... such things dont' necesarily make you a 'Troll'.

Your reply doesn't seem to indicate or prove that Bucky was inacurate.

Bucky's post was understandable... so they aren't incoherant.

Incorrect? Well... maybe a better counter post would help your side here?

Ignorant? Not reading anything to indicate Bucky's ignroant. Least ways about the things in this thread.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

If you're arguing that there's no coherent definition at all, then I would direct you to dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals, the Bible (if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, etc...)  Because those things define the subject(s).

Yes, I think there are two ways that someone might believe in God or gods, even though a consistent world-wide definition is lacking. 

First, the person might select a given definition from among the many available. Such a person could believe in, say, the God of Spinoza but reject the claims made by Martin Luther. 

Or a person might believe despite not having a coherent definition. This is a well-established view among theologians, especially the Cappadocian Fathers and other apophatics. There is an analogy here with some terms from science. Physicists can tell us with great precision what gravity does, but not what gravity is. Apophatic theologians think they have reason to see some of what God does even without knowing what he is exactly. 

(And I'm aware this is an analogy and like all analogies imperfect. Also we can rewrite the sentence with a small g if that seems less misleading. Also I am not saying that I personally agree with any of these arguments, only that this is what I have read concerning definitions of god, or the lack thereof.)