Is atheism a belief?

[Deesse23]

Boot means a cars trunk on England, and footwear that comes up high on the leg in the US.

[EgoDeath]

I also previously cited that 1 in 5 self identifying atheists also claim to believe in God.

Where is your source for this information? You do realize that that would be like saying, "I have cited that 1 in 5 self-identifying Christians believes in Zeus instead of God." An "atheist" who believes in a god or gods is a paradox. Like a spherical square or saying the Earth is upside-down in space. It's a nonsensical statement. That's like saying, 1 in 5 cats are dogs.

So there’s a lot more than the guy who wrote that book.

There are also plenty of agnostic who don’t accept the typical definitions of atheism/agnosticism often presented in places like this, like Neil Tyson, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, Huxley etc...

They define their agnosticism as distinct from atheism.

I hold to this distinction and definition, because the distinction most theists find useful, is between belief and lack of belief, not between knowing and not knowing, which exists in the traditional agnostic/atheist distinction, but not in the newly formulated ones.

If most people here merely lack a belief one way or the other when it’s come to the question of God, they’d fall under the category of agnostic. If they believe God doesn’t exist, they’d fall under the category of atheist.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Agnosticism towards the question of god means you do not have knowledge of a god existing. Atheism means you do not have a belief in a god or gods. One can be an agnostic atheist; or an agnostic theist for that matter. Agnostics and atheists are not mutually exclusive. I'm really not sure why this is so hard for you guys to understand. "Agnostic" and "atheist" address two different concepts entirely. Agnostic addresses knowledge, or rather, lack thereof. Atheism addresses belief, or rather, lack thereof. The proper ways to identify oneself when discussing the question of god are as follows:

Gnostic Theist - you know and believe that god exists
Agnostic Theist - you do not know whether or not god exists, but you believe that it does
Gnostic Atheist - you know that god does not exist and you do not believe it exists
Agnostic Atheist - you do not know whether or not god exists and you do not believe it exists either

I mean, how many times can this be explained to you?

I think you find people like Neil deGrasse Tyson are hesitant to label themselves because that's not what they want to be known for. NDT is an astrophysicist and probably wants to focus on astrophysics, not arguing about the existence of a supernatural sky daddy. I would argue that NDT is an agnostic atheist, but I think he describes himself as an agnostic (here he's using the colloquial, non-technical definition of agnostic).

[Acrobat]

I also previously cited that 1 in 5 self identifying atheists also claim to believe in God.

Where is your source for this information? You do realize that that would be like saying, "I have cited that 1 in 5 self-identifying Christians believes in Zeus instead of God." An "atheist" who believes in a god or gods is a paradox. Like a spherical square or saying the Earth is upside-down in space. It's a nonsensical statement. That's like saying, 1 in 5 cats are dogs.

So there’s a lot more than the guy who wrote that book.

There are also plenty of agnostic who don’t accept the typical definitions of atheism/agnosticism often presented in places like this, like Neil Tyson, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, Huxley etc...

They define their agnosticism as distinct from atheism.

I hold to this distinction and definition, because the distinction most theists find useful, is between belief and lack of belief, not between knowing and not knowing, which exists in the traditional agnostic/atheist distinction, but not in the newly formulated ones.

If most people here merely lack a belief one way or the other when it’s come to the question of God, they’d fall under the category of agnostic. If they believe God doesn’t exist, they’d fall under the category of atheist.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Agnosticism towards the question of god means you do not have knowledge of a god existing. Atheism means you do not have a belief in a god or gods. One can be an agnostic atheist; or an agnostic theist for that matter. Agnostics and atheists are not mutually exclusive. I'm really not sure why this is so hard for you guys to understand. "Agnostic" and "atheist" address two different concepts entirely. Agnostic addresses knowledge, or rather, lack thereof. Atheism addresses belief, or rather, lack thereof. The proper ways to identify oneself when discussing the question of god are as follows:

Gnostic Theist - you know and believe that god exists
Agnostic Theist - you do not know whether or not god exists, but you believe that it does
Gnostic Atheist - you know that god does not exist and you do not believe it exists
Agnostic Atheist - you do not know whether or not god exists and you do not believe it exists either

I mean, how many times can this be explained to you?

I think you find people like Neil deGrasse Tyson are hesitant to label themselves because that's not what they want to be known for. NDT is an astrophysicist and probably wants to focus on astrophysics, not arguing about the existence of a supernatural sky daddy. I would argue that NDT is an agnostic atheist, but I think he describes himself as an agnostic (here he's using the colloquial, non-technical definition of agnostic).

No I get those are your defintion, these are mine:

Atheism: a belief God does not exist
Agnosticism: a lack of belief one way or the other in God’s existence.

Others groups use similar definitions to mine, including agnostics, your groups uses your.

I’m under no compulsion to accept yours over mine and theirs.

Why should I have to rely on 20 different terms, when two terms are sufficient for my purposes.

[Mister Agenda]

[quote="Mister Agenda" pid='1879663' dateline='1548349131']
So 20% of people who identify as atheist either filled out the poll incorrectly or don't know the definition of atheist. That's not uncommon, to hear some preachers tell it, an atheist is someone who drinks, fornicates, and doesn't go to church. If you believe that preacher and stop going to church and start fornicating and drinking, you may think that you're an atheist even if you still believe in God. It turns out, evangelical preachers are not a good source for accurate information on atheism. We get some people coming here claiming to be -ex-atheists' who don't seem to have a clue about what atheism is and likely never were actually atheists. Being 'mad at God' doesn't make you an atheist, either (though you might be a maltheist).

[quote="Acrobat" pid='1879669' dateline='1548349566']
Or people take atheism to mean whatever they feel it means, sort of like gender identity. If he believes in God, but feels more like an atheist, he is an atheist.

Who am I to deny how they feel?

It's not that kind of identity. It's just one of two possible answers to the question 'Do you believe in any gods or God?'. What's usually happening when they give the wrong answer about what THEY believe is that they don't understand the question or they're being dishonest.
[quote="Acrobat" pid='1879669' dateline='1548349566']
It’s like “it’s raining, but I don’t believe it’s raining”

I'll give this comment all the attention it deserves.
[quote="Acrobat" pid='1879669' dateline='1548349566']
But we should also keep in mind that Christians were often labeled atheists for rejecting the Gods of the majority.

So perhaps they’re using it in this sense.

The meaning of atheisms has changed throughout history, and multiple meanings of it are still in use today. Some people see their defintions as holy scripture, inerrant, and needs to be accepted by everyone.

You are correct that in ancient times , the word was used differently. However, 'you don't believe in my gods' is no longer current usage. The usage of 'without God' dates back at least to the 16th century, and it seems to have caught on. I don't see how it advances the conversation to pretend the word is still used the way it was over a thousand years ago. What's wrong with the dictionary definition based on current usage? Neither the Koran nor the Bible nor the Book of Mormon contain the words 'atheism' or 'atheist' so what scriptural definitions are you referring to? In the Bible it says the 'fool says in his heart, there is no God'. I don't agree with the 'fool' part, but it doesn't seem to conflict with the definition of an atheist as a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

[EgoDeath]

No I get those are your defintion, these are mine:

Atheism: a belief God does not exist
Agnosticism: a lack of belief one way or the other in God’s existence.

Others groups use similar  definitions to mine, including agnostics, your groups uses your.

I’m under no compulsion to accept yours over mine and theirs.

Why should I  have to rely on 20 different terms, when two terms are sufficient for my purposes.

Okay, those definitions are simply inaccurate. If you're comfortable with that, that's on you.

And I see you're going to willfully ignore my request that you cite your source on the claim about 1 in 5 atheists believing in god.

Cool. The theists have represented themselves very well in this thread I see.

What a joke.

[Mister Agenda]

Why should I have to rely on 20 different terms, when two terms are sufficient for my purposes.

When in doubt, current dictionary usage is very helpful to avoid confusion. You should however, avoid the dictionary if you want confusion. In conversation, you can use any definition you want for any world you want, as long as you can get your audience to go along with it. You can say 'I define parrots as suitcases' and if you can get the people you're conversing with to agree to use that definition, you can move on with your conversation. Otherwise you're going to be stuck.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

---

Abour 20% of people who identify as atheist, also believe in God.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...a42b25118a

Digging into the article a bit, it's 18% who say they believe in a 'higher power', which does not necessarily mean a deity, for example 'the Force' in Star Wars could be called a higher power, but it's not a deity. In twelve-step programs, a 'higher power' can be lots of things besides a deity: nature, consciousness, existential freedom, science (from Wikipedia). 'Higher power' is a vague term that can, and often does, mean something besides 'God'.

The most reasonable conclusion from the survey, is that since respondents were first asked 'do you believe in God' before being asked the follow-up question 'do you believe in a higher power' if they answered 'no', is that the 18% who say they believe in a higher power are not taking about God.

[Acrobat]

So 20% of people who identify as atheist either filled out the poll incorrectly or don't know the definition of atheist. That's not uncommon, to hear some preachers tell it, an atheist is someone who drinks, fornicates, and doesn't go to church. If you believe that preacher and stop going to church and start fornicating and drinking, you may think that you're an atheist even if you still believe in God. It turns out, evangelical preachers are not a good source for accurate information on atheism. We get some people coming here claiming to be -ex-atheists' who don't seem to have a clue about what atheism is and likely never were actually atheists. Being 'mad at God' doesn't make you an atheist, either (though you might be a maltheist).

Or people take atheism to mean whatever they feel it means, sort of like gender identity. If he believes in God, but feels more like an atheist, he is an atheist.

Who am I to deny how they feel?

It's not that kind of identity. It's just one of two possible answers to the question 'Do you believe in any gods or God?'. What's usually happening when they give the wrong answer about what THEY believe is that they don't understand the question or they're being dishonest.

It’s like “it’s raining, but I don’t believe it’s raining”

I'll give this comment all the attention it deserves.

But we should also keep in mind that Christians were often labeled atheists for rejecting the Gods of the majority.

So perhaps they’re using it in this sense.

The meaning of atheisms has changed throughout history, and multiple meanings of it are still in use today. Some people see their defintions as holy scripture, inerrant, and needs to be accepted by everyone.

You are correct that in ancient times , the word was used differently. However, 'you don't believe in my gods' is no longer current usage. The usage of 'without God' dates back at least to the 16th century, and it seems to have caught on. I don't see how it advances the conversation to pretend the word is still used the way it was over a thousand years ago. What's wrong with the dictionary definition based on current usage? Neither the Koran nor the Bible nor the Book of Mormon contain the words 'atheism' or 'atheist' so what scriptural definitions are you referring to? In the Bible it says the 'fool says in his heart, there is no God'. I don't agree with the 'fool' part, but it doesn't seem to conflict with the definition of an atheist as a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

I already cited the source, the previous poster quoted me citing it in a post or so above me.

Secondly these other definitions are not inaccurate. They're just a different definition than the one you're promoting.
When self identifications surveys are formed by polling agencies, they place agnostic and atheist in distinct categories. Those that identify as agnostic, outnumber those that identify as atheists. Those that identify as agnostic, seem to rely on the definitions similar to the one I provided, not the one you're promoting.

For atheists, particularly one's on the internet, one definition might be more prevalent than others, while for groups outside of them, like self identifying agnostics, this doesn't seem to be true. They reject your labels.

This doesn't mean your definition is false, it's just that there's more than one definition of atheism and agnosticism.

In fact it doesn't even seem to be true that yours is the prevalent one. When it comes to usefulness, as far as drawing an actual distinction, it's relatively stupid, because it would require multiple fields (agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, strong agnostic atheist, weak agnostic atheist) etc.. when the only distinction of any real usefulness is between those who believe God doesn't exist (traditional atheism), and those who lack a belief one way or the other (traditional agnosticism).

Most people here would classify as agnostic under the traditional labels, but they seem to want to wear those red A lapels so bad, that they're eager to define themselves as agnostic atheist, kind of like atheist theist.

---

Why should I  have to rely on 20 different terms, when two terms are sufficient for my purposes.

When in doubt, current dictionary usage is very helpful to avoid confusion. You should however, avoid the dictionary if you want confusion. In conversation, you can use any definition you want for any world you want, as long as you can get your audience to go along with it. You can say 'I define parrots as suitcases' and if you can get the people you're conversing with to agree to use that definition, you can move on with your conversation. Otherwise you're going to be stuck.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

When in doubt check out an Encyclopedia:

"Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

Or how about this dictionary definition:
atheism
(eɪθiɪzəm )

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Compare agnosticism.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dic...sh/atheism

You have your sources to defend your definition, and I have mine.

Digging into the article a bit, it's 18% who say they believe in a 'higher power', which does not necessarily mean a deity, for example 'the Force' in Star Wars could be called a higher power, but it's not a deity. In twelve-step programs, a 'higher power' can be lots of things besides a deity: nature, consciousness, existential freedom, science (from Wikipedia). 'Higher power' is a vague term that can, and often does, mean something besides 'God'.

Higher Power is synonymous with the term God, or indistinguishable from god:

"higher power noun
Definition of higher power
: a spirit or being (such as God) that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people
belief in a higher power"

Saying you believe in a higher power but don't believe in God, is like those christians who claim christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most people here would classify as agnostic under the traditional labels, but they seem to want to wear those red A lapels so bad, that they're eager to define themselves as agnostic atheist, kind of like atheist theist.

Which is exactly what most people™ here identify as.  Agnostic atheists. People who do not believe, but also do not claim to know.

An agnostic atheist is a coherent description of a position held, an "atheist theist" is an incoherent bit of rambling.

There's This Steve, and there's That Steve, but no Non-Steve Steve's.

[Abaddon_ire]

You keep spamming that book even though you haven't read it. Have a quote from the author...


Perhaps that might give you a hint at his chosen title. 

But I doubt you have the wit. Or the honesty.

I also previously cited that 1 in 5 self identifying atheists also claim to believe in God.

If true then those 1 in 5 are not atheists by definition.

So there’s a lot more than the guy who wrote that book.

Whoosh. That was the sound of the point flying over your head. Schaeffer's father was a high flying Evangelist pastor who was consulted by Presidents. As a result, Schaeffer was raise fundie Evangelical. He was brainwashed. Even as an atheist, that upbringing still resonates in him and he can't shake it off. Hence his use of ambiguous titles for his writings.

That you are incapable of figuring this out for yourself tells everyone more about you than anything else.

There are also plenty of agnostic who don’t accept the typical definitions of atheism/agnosticism often presented in places like this, like Neil Tyson, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, Huxley etc...

They define their agnosticism as distinct from atheism.

1i think you will find that

A. Not true.
B. People have other reasons to fudge the definitions and usages because of believers like yourself and Max who trade in dishonest dictionary games.

You seem to have the childish belief that atheism should be some ideological monolith like your religion of choice. Wake up. It isn't. Organising atheists is akin to herding cats. No two have the same ideology and we like it that way. Each individual can express themselves however they like and it is all fine and dandy.

Religionists, in contrast, are required to conform. You "think" you are non-conformist (and will likely object to this post on those grounds) but you are a conformist. You believe in the Abrahamic god. That is conformity for a start, as a foundational belief, and it also sets parameters and rules. What does your god want? What is your god's plan? And so forth. You are desperate to somehow nail down "atheist ideology" because you simply cannot consider that such a thing does not exist.

I hold to this distinction and definition, because the distinction most theists find useful, is between belief and lack of belief, not between knowing and not knowing, which exists in the traditional agnostic/atheist distinction, but not in the newly formulated ones.

No, you clearly don't hold any such thing.

If most people here merely lack a belief one way or the other when it’s come to the question of God, they’d fall under the category of agnostic. If they believe God doesn’t exist, they’d fall under the category of atheist.

Atheism is a privative. Oooo, complex word. But it has a simple definition. Go look it up, or shall I hand hold you.

For the record, here it goes again...

Atheism/Theism: This addresses belief, not fact or truth.
An atheist believes in no gods, an theist believes in one or more gods.

Agnostic/gnostic: This addresses knowledge/lack of knowledge.
An agnostic claims not to know. a Gnostic claims to know. (Regardless of topic)

Thus we have...

A gnostic theist claims not only that there is a god, but he/she KNOWS there is a god

A gnostic Atheist claims not only that there is no god, but he/she KNOWS there is not a god

An Agnostic theist claims not only that there is a god, but he/she KNOWS that there is no evidence for any such and believes anyway.

A gnostic Atheist claims not only that there is no god, but he/she KNOWS there is not a god.

We can circle this drain forever, but it seems to me that whatever god is claimed is pretty useless if it has to rely on a dictionary and a thesaurus to hope to define itself into existence. Even worse, he/she/it/housecat has to rely of the rubes willing to undertake such an effort. After all it isn't even his/her/its/chosen language.

[unfogged]

Most people here would classify as agnostic under the traditional labels, but they seem to want to wear those red A lapels so bad, that they're eager to define themselves as agnostic atheist, kind of like atheist theist.

In the older usage, agnostic connotes somebody who has either not considered the question seriously or who has no opinion or who has a 50/50 view on it. That would mischaracterize my position and that of many others. Although I don't claim to know with certainty that no god exists, I do not believe that one does which makes "atheist" a better choice.

Under the newer usage, I usually label myself as an agnostic atheist because that is as close as I can come to a succinct yet acceptably accurate approximation of my position:
I am confident that the god of the bible does not exist and is no different than Shiva, Ra, Odin, Zeus, or any of the thousands of other gods people have believed in. If and when somebody provides compelling evidence to the contrary I will re-evaluate it but many years of reviewing all arguments provided so far has led me to the conclusion that it is all nonsense. Regarding this narrower question I am effectively a gnostic atheist.

Beyond that, I find no reason to believe that ANY god exists or even that such a thing is possible but I am open to evidence of something, somewhere that qualifies for the label "god". Regarding the broader question I'm an agnostic atheist.

In my experience, using atheist/agnostic/theist divides people into 3 buckets with the middle one being rather small and the other two very broad while using agnostic/agnostic and atheist/theist pairs divides people into 4 more equal buckets and requires less explanation to understand the basic position. The newer usage seems to me to be more useful because of that and I'm hoping that it becomes the defacto default usage even among theists so I try to use it as much as possible.

All that said, the important thing is not which set of definitions are used as long as everybody in the conversation understands how they are being used. If I'm talking to somebody who insists that only the older usage is valid then I will use that. Language is sometimes an inexact tool for pinning down concepts and anybody insisting that only one usage is correct is going to waste a lot of time arguing over nothing. I'd rather get to the substance of the debate than worry about the fluff.