Is atheism a belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not all that you're claiming, Bel..or, if it is, then you need to pursue more accurate language.  You're claiming that a bunch of people who don't hold the beliefs that I do....do.

They don't. I don't know what else to say...do you think I'm just lying to you for shits and giggles....what? I...and every other human being alive, is capable of positively disbelieving some story you tell about breaking the sound barrier..without that necessitating that they hold some antithetical belief against the existence of supersonic jets. Your god is fucking stupid. OFC there are people who positively disbelieve in that nonsense...that doesn't mean that they positively disbelieve in gods. They tell you that...I, as a person who's argued with them...tell you that...you...maintain otherwise.

Honestly, wtf? What's the point?

[Belacqua]

That's not all that you're claiming, Bel..or, if it is, then you need to pursue more accurate language.  You're claiming that a bunch of people who don't hold the beliefs that I do....do.

They don't.  I don't know what else to say...do you think I'm just lying to you for shits and giggles....what?  I...and every other human being alive, is capable of positively disbelieving some story you tell about breaking the sound barrier..without that necessitating that they hold some antithetical belief against the existence of supersonic jets.  Your god is fucking stupid.  OFC there are people who positively disbelieve in that nonsense...that doesn't mean that they positively disbelieve in gods.  They tell you that...I, as a person who's argued with them...tell you that...you...maintain otherwise.

Honestly, wtf?  What's the point?

You're bringing in a lot of concepts that aren't relevant to the point I'm making. I don't know why you're doing that.

I'll try to state it another way, in simple language, and then I'll give up.

A religious person makes an argument regarding the existence of God. Do you find this argument persuasive? 

If no, you are still an atheist. 

If yes, you are no longer an atheist.

If you chose no, did you find the argument unpersuasive because you have reasons to find it unpersuasive? Or did you reject it for no reason? 

This is the only claim I have been making: those atheists who have heard and rejected religious claims have reasons why they reject them. And that these reasons are the things that they believe. 

For example, if a religious person made an argument for the existence of God based on what it says in scripture, you might reject that argument because you hold that scripture is not a reliable guide to what is true about the world. In this case, your belief is that scripture is not reliable, and you have used this as a standard by which to judge the claim. 

Different arguments would demand different reasons to reject them. But in each case, if you find the argument unpersuasive, and you aren't just rejecting it on a whim, you have reasons and the reasons reflect what you believe.

[GrandizerII]

Still not sure what point you're really making, Belaqua.

Atheism, the term itself, indicates a mere lack of belief, nothing more.

What varying attitudes atheists have regarding the proposition "God exists" says nothing about what atheism itself literally means.

Atheists are not atheists because they think the above proposition is bullshit; atheists are atheists for not accepting that proposition as true (whether actively or passively). That's all. Whatever else they think is irrelevant to what atheism is fundamentally.

[Belacqua]

atheists are atheists for not accepting that proposition as true

Do you personally not accept "that position" for reasons, or for no reasons.

[Gwaithmir]

This is the only claim I have been making: those atheists who have heard and rejected religious claims have reasons why they reject them. And that these reasons are the things that they believe. 

For example, if a religious person made an argument for the existence of God based on what it says in scripture, you might reject that argument because you hold that scripture is not a reliable guide to what is true about the world. In this case, your belief is that scripture is not reliable, and you have used this as a standard by which to judge the claim. 

Different arguments would demand different reasons to reject them. But in each case, if you find the argument unpersuasive, and you aren't just rejecting it on a whim, you have reasons and the reasons reflect what you believe.

Wrong! It's because I find that theistic claims do not pass rational scrutiny. Hence, I do NOT believe them. This is a rational conclusion, not a belief.

[Belacqua]

This is the only claim I have been making: those atheists who have heard and rejected religious claims have reasons why they reject them. And that these reasons are the things that they believe. 

For example, if a religious person made an argument for the existence of God based on what it says in scripture, you might reject that argument because you hold that scripture is not a reliable guide to what is true about the world. In this case, your belief is that scripture is not reliable, and you have used this as a standard by which to judge the claim. 

Different arguments would demand different reasons to reject them. But in each case, if you find the argument unpersuasive, and you aren't just rejecting it on a whim, you have reasons and the reasons reflect what you believe.

Wrong! It's because I find that theistic claims do not pass rational scrutiny. Hence, I do NOT believe them. This is a rational conclusion, not a belief.

Well, I'm using the term "belief" in the general sense, to mean "something I hold to be true." If you want to use a different definition, I can work with that. 

If you find that theistic claims do not pass rational scrutiny, it certainly means you are scrutinizing them based on what you hold to be rational standards. These rational standards are things you hold to be true. If you don't want to call them beliefs, OK, we can call them something else. 

How do you differentiate things you hold to be true which are beliefs from things you hold to be true which are rational conclusions?

[Gwaithmir]

How do you differentiate things you hold to be true which are beliefs from things you hold to be true which are rational conclusions?

Things which I rationally conclude are true are beliefs. Things which I rationally conclude are untrue are disbeliefs. A disbelief is not a belief. Absence of belief is not a belief.

https://www.define-atheism.com/

[GrandizerII]

atheists are atheists for not accepting that proposition as true

Do you personally not accept "that position" for reasons, or for no reasons.

As me (Grandizer), I have very good reasons for consciously not accepting theism. But that's not what makes me (or anyone) an atheist. What makes an atheist an atheist is their lack of belief in god, and that is it.

Note, by the way, I'm a strong atheist. I believe there is no god.

[Belacqua]

How do you differentiate things you hold to be true which are beliefs from things you hold to be true which are rational conclusions?

Things which I rationally conclude are true are beliefs. Things which I rationally conclude are untrue are disbeliefs. A disbelief is not a belief. Absence of belief is not a belief.

https://www.define-atheism.com/

The question I'm working on here is: by what standards do you reach these beliefs? 

I hold that you have intellectual commitments according to which you make judgments. These are the tools or standards by which you accept or reject religious claims. Therefore, in your case, your atheism is a lack of belief (in God) which is determined by your belief in other things. 

I don't know exactly what these other things are, in your case. If I made a guess, I'd say it's something to do with the type of evidence which you believe is worthy of being believed. It's common, for example, to say that repeatable empirical evidence is more trustworthy, while revelation or scripture is less trustworthy.

---

As me (Grandizer), I have very good reasons for consciously not accepting theism.

That's good. It's good to be aware of the standards and reasons by which we accept or reject things.

But that's not what makes me (or anyone) an atheist. What makes an atheist an atheist is their lack of belief in god, and that is it.

And I am only claiming that people who hear and reject religious claims tend to do so for reasons. The reasons they have may of course vary.

I can certainly concede that there are probably atheists who do not judge religious claims according to any standards. They just reject all such claims out of habit or bigotry. These people are prejudiced non-thinkers. I hope that no one like that is posting here.

---

Just to be as clear as I can, let me give an additional example.

Let's imagine a certain atheist, whom I'll call Possible Atheist A. I'll try to make him a believable example.

PAA believes that the collected works of science give us the most reliable way of knowing about the world. Not perfect, perhaps abstractly phenomenal in some Kantian way, but the best knowledge that we have. He believes that since the Bible was written a long time ago when people were less knowledgable about scientific topics, the Bible is not a reliable source of information about the world. And since, as far as he knows, science gives no evidence at all for the existence of God, he sees no reason to believe in God. He lacks belief in God for these reasons.

So he is a textbook atheist: he lacks a belief in God. But how did he get to that position? His position is based on his belief that science is pretty reliable and the Bible isn't. If his beliefs were different, his conclusion might be different.

So he is an atheist whose lack of belief in God relies on, or derives from, logically prior beliefs about evidence and its relation to the world.

I feel that this is a standard example of how thinking people come to lack belief in God.

[Angrboda]

"Flat" and "spherical" aren't orientations, dumbass.