Is atheism a belief?

[Simon Moon]

We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.

You do understand that words do not have some sort of absolute definitions, right? Words change as usage changes. Fag means cigarette in England, and a derogatory term for homosexuals in the US. Boot means a cars trunk on England, and footwear that comes up high on the leg in the US.

Dictionaries do not have absolute definitions, they define word usage.

If you picked up a Webster's dictionary from the early 20th century, atheism was defined as "godlessness". It did not even define atheism in way that is agreeable to you.

I define atheism as, "not being convinced that a god or gods exist". Do you have any problems with that definition?

It covers the following: people that claim to know gods don't exist, people that believe no gods exist, people that disbelieve gods exist, people that claim not to know if gods exist or not, lack of belief, disbelief. All those examples have one thing in common, they are not convinced that gods exist.

[Bucky Ball]

Whenever I say that atheism is based on belief just like theism is I get a strong rejection from atheists. 
Some give me these twisted definitions while others claim that i cannot be agnostic without being an atheist.

So I want to start by getting the definition correct.
Am I right in saying atheists "believe there are no Gods" or "don't believe there are Gods"?
Am I right in saying atheism is based on belief? If yes then why do so many atheists reject this?
If not then Why? What is it then based on?

Both.

An Atheist can be:

1-Some one who knows God does not exist.
2-Some one who believes God does not exist.
3-An atheist can also be someone, who doesn't believe or know one way or the other. His lack of belief one way or the other, would still classify him as an atheist, since he doesn't posses a belief in God, like the other two examples.

Some people might know I'm not single.
Some people might believe I'm not single.
And some people might not believe or know one way or the other.

What they all have in common, is that they a lack a belief in that I'm married.

Atheism is label that can incapsulate all three under one umbrella.

It's very funny that non-atheists think they can tell atheists how they think.

There are those who have or take no position at all with respect to the subject.
They are not a-theists, as for them, theism is meaningless.
A-theism is a specific position with respect to another specific position. No theism.
A-theism is not a general position.  

Are the Piraha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3
atheists ? They have no conception of a god.

If someone does not recognize the specific position (theism) as coherent, there is no position to lack, (for them).
Therefore igthesim is a far more accurate label, for them.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.

You do understand that words do not have some sort of absolute definitions, right? Words change as usage changes. Fag means cigarette in England, and a derogatory term for homosexuals in the US. Boot means a cars trunk on England, and footwear that comes up high on the leg in the US.

Dictionaries do not have absolute definitions, they define word usage.

If you picked up a Webster's dictionary from the early 20th century, atheism was defined as "godlessness". It did not even define atheism in way that is agreeable to you.

I define atheism as, "not being convinced that a god or gods exist". Do you have any problems with that definition?

It covers the following: people that claim to know gods don't exist, people that believe no gods exist, people that disbelieve gods exist, people that claim not to know if gods exist or not, lack of belief, disbelief. All those examples have one thing in common, they are not convinced that gods exist.

Yep, I know definitions change or are added.  That why I said it depends what definition.  

It was originally a term used to describe people who didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.  Later it also became a loosely used derogatory term that could be applied to anyone, including theists.   Nobody wanted to be labeled as an "atheist" because it was like labeling someone a fool.  But it wasn't necessarily related to belief/disbelief in God.  It could've been being upset with someone who opposed you for political reasons.  Today it's a mix of a bunch of different things.  Often times lumped in with "agnostic" that used to be used independently.  Now it's religion/non-religious, agnostic/non-agnostic, soft/hard, militant, mystics, and lots more.

---

Both.

An Atheist can be:

1-Some one who knows God does not exist.
2-Some one who believes God does not exist.
3-An atheist can also be someone, who doesn't believe or know one way or the other. His lack of belief one way or the other, would still classify him as an atheist, since he doesn't posses a belief in God, like the other two examples.

Some people might know I'm not single.
Some people might believe I'm not single.
And some people might not believe or know one way or the other.

What they all have in common, is that they a lack a belief in that I'm married.

Atheism is label that can incapsulate all three under one umbrella.

It's very funny that non-atheists think they can tell atheists how they think.

There are those who have or take no position at all with respect to the subject.
They are not a-theists, as for them, theism is meaningless.
A-theism is a specific position with respect to another specific position. No theism.
A-theism is not a general position.  

Are the Piraha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3
atheists ? They have no conception of a god.

If someone does not recognize the specific position (theism) as coherent, there is no position to lack, (for them).
Therefore igthesim is a far more accurate label, for them.

Welp, new label for me.  Guess I'm a "Igbuckiest" and practice "igbuckiesm."

[The Grand Nudger]

It was originally a term used to describe people who didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God. 

We've had this conversation before.  The romans were calling christians atheists before christians started calling other pagans atheists.

As an amusing aside, they also -were- the heathens before they decided to take the word and push it back out into the aether..calling others heathens.

When you put it into perspective, the historiy of christianities involvement with other religions is a neverending series of "nu uh, you are!"'s.

: shrugs :

[Acrobat]

Both.

An Atheist can be:

1-Some one who knows God does not exist.
2-Some one who believes God does not exist.
3-An atheist can also be someone, who doesn't believe or know one way or the other. His lack of belief one way or the other, would still classify him as an atheist, since he doesn't posses a belief in God, like the other two examples.

Some people might know I'm not single.
Some people might believe I'm not single.
And some people might not believe or know one way or the other.

What they all have in common, is that they a lack a belief in that I'm married.

Atheism is label that can incapsulate all three under one umbrella.

It's very funny that non-atheists think they can tell atheists how they think.

There are those who have or take no position at all with respect to the subject.
They are not a-theists, as for them, theism is meaningless.
A-theism is a specific position with respect to another specific position. No theism.
A-theism is not a general position.  

Are the Piraha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3
atheists ? They have no conception of a god.

If someone does not recognize the specific position (theism) as coherent, there is no position to lack, (for them).
Therefore igthesim is a far more accurate label, for them.

Lol, you claim to not be an atheist as well, so what gives you the right to tell atheists what they think?

[EgoDeath]

We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

The fact that some theists try to use semantics to cloud the waters means nothing. Having a belief in a god or gods is active. NOT having a belief in a god or gods is inactive. It simply isn't there.

Calling oneself an atheist is not equivalent to saying you know there isn't a god. Being an atheist simply means that you, the theist, have proposed there's a god. To date, we have zero evidence to back the proposal. So while what you're proposing might be true, there is not yet enough evidence to decide that it is. It could be true, but it simply hasn't been proven, so a final conclusion is being withheld until evidence for said proposal has been presented.

Atheism is an inactive position.

Let's say, in court, Mark is being charged with murdering Greg. There was enough evidence of Mark being a suspect that he was indicted and brought into court. Maybe there was an eye-witness or something that reported him to the police. But unfortunately, there's no hard evidence that Mark murdered Greg; no gun, no fingerprints, Mark has an alibi, he had no motive to murder Greg, etc. etc. So the case never goes to trial and is dismissed. The court is not saying that Mark didn't murder Greg, that would be an active position on the matter, they're simply saying that there is no evidence, currently, that Mark is the murderer, so, for now, the case is dismissed. If new evidence is presented that changes the circumstances, Mark can be brought up on charges again.

The issue is, the case by theists has never even been brought to court. The atheists haven't even been indicted. You guys haven't even begun the case yet, because there's no evidence to even present a case to the court. So our inactive position is this: When you have some evidence, we can talk about it.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It was originally a term used to describe people who didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God. 

We've had this conversation before.  The romans were calling christians atheists before christians started calling other pagans atheists.

As an amusing aside, they also -were- the heathens before they decided to take the word and push it back out into the aether..calling others heathens.

When you put it into perspective, the historiy of christianities involvement with other religions is a neverending series of "nu uh, you are!"'s.

: shrugs :

Yes, we went through this before and you didn't have a source that validated your statement.  That's when you went on a tangent about how the encyclopedia I cited was wrong.  Glad to look at a different citation if you have one now?

---

We get a new definition of "atheism" all the time, so it just depends who you ask and what definition they're using.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

The fact that some theists try to use semantics to cloud the waters means nothing. Having a belief in a god or gods is active. NOT having a belief in a god or gods is inactive. It simply isn't there.

Calling oneself an atheist is not equivalent to saying you know there isn't a god. Being an atheist simply means that you, the theist, have proposed there's a god. To date, we have zero evidence to back the proposal. So while what you're proposing might be true, there is not yet enough evidence to decide that it is. It could be true, but it simply hasn't been proven, so a final conclusion is being withheld until evidence for said proposal has been presented.

Atheism is an inactive position.

Let's say, in court, Mark is being charged with murdering Greg. There was enough evidence of Mark being a suspect that he was indicted and brought into court. Maybe there was an eye-witness or something that reported him to the police. But unfortunately, there's no hard evidence that Mark murdered Greg; no gun, no fingerprints, Mark has an alibi, he had no motive to murder Greg, etc. etc. So the case never goes to trial and is dismissed. The court is not saying that Mark didn't murder Greg, that would be an active position on the matter, they're simply saying that there is no evidence, currently, that Mark is the murderer, so, for now, the case is dismissed. If new evidence is presented that changes the circumstances, Mark can be brought up on charges again.

The issue is, the case by theists has never even been brought to court. The atheists haven't even been indicted. You guys haven't even begun the case yet, because there's no evidence to even present a case to the court. So our inactive position is this: When you have some evidence, we can talk about it.

-The problem isn't the "theists", but rather the "atheists" wanting to change it from meaning what it really means.  That's why we have a bazillion new definitions that not even the atheists can agree on.

-Your claim of "zero evidence" is nonsense.  More likely a lack of your understanding.

-Saying "atheism" is "inactive position" sounds like an empty claim.  Maybe expand on it if you believe it to be true.  If it's inactive, please also explain why you demanding religious rights?  If it's "inactive" why would you need special protections and tax exemptions?

- If the court had no evidence about Mark, then it would be "agnostic" or "ignorant."  It doesn't have to necessarily be out of intent.  I could be agnostic about a view, but it may be due to unintentional lack of consideration of it because I was focused on something else.

 
- Your position isn't "inactive" it's competing.  Not only that, it's a lot of copying.  The difference between atheists and theists is you say "no god", theists say "God" or "gods."  Everything else, you pretty much copy.  We have churches, you have churches.  We have religious rights, you demanded and received religious rights.  We sing hymns in churches, you sing hymns in churches.  We talk about God, and you do the same.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

[EgoDeath]

-The problem isn't the "theists", but rather the "atheists" wanting to change it from meaning what it really means. That's why we have a bazillion new definitions that not even the atheists can agree on.

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change the definition. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Show me one atheist that would disagree with that. You can't. On to your next point.

-Your claim of "zero evidence" is nonsense. More likely a lack of your understanding.

Do you have evidence for a god? If so, you're the first theist in history to obtain such evidence. Please show us the evidence now so we can all stop the debating/discussing. Except, I'll bet everything I own you have no evidence, so let's move on to your next point.

-Saying "atheism" is "inactive position" sounds like an empty claim. Maybe expand on it if you believe it to be true. If it's inactive, please also explain why you demanding religious rights? If it's "inactive" why would you need special protections and tax exemptions?

Atheism is an inactive position. Are you actively not believing in magical space elves? No. You simply live your life as if they do not exist. Are you actively not being a coin collector? Are you actively not being a car salesman? No. So let's move on.

I'm not "demanding religious rights," what are you talking about?

- If the court had no evidence about Mark, then it would be "agnostic" or "ignorant." It doesn't have to necessarily be out of intent. I could be agnostic about a view, but it may be due to unintentional lack of consideration of it because I was focused on something else.

Except that gnosticism versus agnosticism addresses the issue of knowledge. Theism versus atheism addresses the issue of belief. If you're gnostic about god's existence, you have knowledge that god exists. If you're agnostic about god's existence then you do not have knowledge that god exists. If you're a theist, you have a belief that god exists, if you're an atheist, you do not have a belief that god exists.

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive ideas. While "agnostic" has, in recent years, taken on a colloquial meaning that's different from the technical definition, the correct way to identify yourself would technically be either an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, and an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

Is this honestly that hard for you to understand? If so, you're way out your depth in this conversation. Now that we've cleared that up, on to the next point.

- Your position isn't "inactive" it's competing. Not only that, it's a lot of copying. The difference between atheists and theists is you say "no god", theists say "God" or "gods." Everything else, you pretty much copy. We have churches, you have churches. We have religious rights, you demanded and received religious rights. We sing hymns in churches, you sing hymns in churches. We talk about God, and you do the same. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Dude, what are you talking about? I do not attend a church or sing hymns or anything that you're saying. What the fuck are you talking about?

[Simon Moon]

Yes, we went through this before and you didn't have a source that validated your statement.  That's when you went on a tangent about how the encyclopedia I cited was wrong.  Glad to look at a different citation if you have one now?

Every source I can find online, and there are several, say the word atheism originated in the 5th century BCE by the Greeks.

That seems a bit earlier, and from the wrong area of the planet, to refer to people that didn't believe in the the Judeo-Christian god.

[The Valkyrie]

Nope.

It's a non belief in deities.