Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

What you say here is true. It also is tangential to what I'm talking about.

An atheist accepts or rejects claims based on reasons, which may be good or bad, but which should be examined.

You might care to examine their reasons, but unless they have a compelling reason to do so, I would in fact say that they should NOT bother to examine them themselves. This is because there are very many (like, millions) of claims which one might respond to, and examining your personal motivations in your positions on each of them would bring your ability to move through life to a grinding halt.

The most efficient way to move forward is an evolutionary process-- move ahead with your current world view, and examine it only when it proves faulty, insufficient, or incomplete in important ways. The first and primary reason by which one might reject any claim which demands a change in world view is "meh," which can be elaborated as something like, "I don't think the changes you are implying will solve any of the cognitive or practical problems I have right now, so I'm not going to invest the effort in seriously considering it."

The reasons don't have to be rational, because most atheists probably have fairly little interest in changing your opinion about the God idea; if they do not intend to persuade, then they do not need to formulate a compelling response to it.

That's the thing I want to express-- that religious arguments between religious-minded and atheist folks are asymmetrical: one party cares more than the other, bears a greater burden of proof, requires much tighter arguments and better evidence, and so on. If atheists really had a vested interest in changing YOUR mind, then they'd have a much harder time of things.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a claim that's only accurate with respect to some atheists being insisted as true for all atheists despite direct contradiction.

No doubt there are also atheists who hear and reject the claims of religious people for bad reasons. Maybe force of habit, or a prejudgment that any religious claim must be silly. Or there could be personal psychological reasons, like unhappy childhood memories of church. 

These would be reasons to reject religious claims, though not good reasons.

You're using "reason" colloquially again.  If I reject gods because it's a tuesday that would be an example of "rejecting religions because of reason", in this use.  

I was grateful that a little earlier you demonstrated your own case of the pattern I'm talking about. When I typed out the sound-bite version of claims by Cusanus and Boehme, you read these, considered them briefly, rejected them, and kindly told us the reasons for which you rejected them. So at least in your case what I say is true.

I told you how they could be categorically rejected out of hand, sure..obviously I wasn't doing that when I was five, and I was an atheist then, too.  What's the point of suggesting that people consider the underlying cause and reason for their state of belief if you're going to reject the product of that same consideration because it doesn't fit some lazy cause you've created by waffling back and forth between reason and reasons™?

[Belacqua]

You might care to examine their reasons, but unless they have a compelling reason to do so, I would in fact say that they should NOT bother to examine them themselves.  This is because there are very many (like, millions) of claims which one might respond to, and examining your personal motivations in your positions on each of them would bring your ability to move through life to a grinding halt.

Well, I just think that whenever we evaluate and accept or reject a claim, it is good for us to know why we do that. 

Granted, no one has time to evaluate every claim in the world. And we all use filters -- I don't bother with the claims of Ken Ham. 

Again, my main point is just to get past the fact that atheism is pure lack. Adult atheists hold certain things to be true, use these things to evaluate claims, and reach conclusions based on that. 

That's the thing I want to express-- that religious arguments between religious-minded and atheist folks are asymmetrical: one party cares more than the other, bears a greater burden of proof, requires much tighter arguments and better evidence, and so on.  If atheists really had a vested interest in changing YOUR mind, then they'd have a much harder time of things.

But I have always been an atheist, and I feel a responsibility to improve my thinking as much as possible. Maybe this is just me -- I have some personal motivation to understand things well. Maybe my fellow atheists are content to accept or reject claims on a whim, but I hope we can all do a bit better than that.

[bennyboy]

Again, my main point is just to get past the fact that atheism is pure lack. Adult atheists hold certain things to be true, use these things to evaluate claims, and reach conclusions based on that. 

Oh, I grok you now. I 100% agree.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, having always been an atheist, what were your criteria and reasons at age five?

[Belacqua]

If I reject gods because it's a tuesday that would be an example of "rejecting religions because of reason", in this use.  

That would be a very bad reason to reject or accept a proposition. I hope you don't do that.

[bennyboy]

I wasn't doing that when I was five, and I was an atheist then, too.

Yeah, I consider this a pretty serious abuse of the suffix "-ist." At the very least, an ism should express some kind of position. "I do not believe in any gods" is fine, but atheist as simply lacking a belief means that my beagle and my bunions are atheist in about the same way-- I don't think that's a particularly good use of that terminology.

Unless, that is, you're saying that at five, you had an opinion about the existence of a deity-- and that you found evidence for said existence lacking-- then I'd I wouldn't say that "atheist" was a good descriptor of you.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is that it's not reason at all, Bel.

[Belacqua]

So, having always been an atheist, what were your criteria and reasons at age five?

That was quite a while ago. My thinking has moved on a lot since then.

Please note that throughout this discussion I have been talking about adult atheists who live in a society, who have heard, evaluated, and rejected the claims made by religious people.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wasn't doing that when I was five, and I was an atheist then, too.

Yeah, I consider this a pretty serious abuse of the suffix "-ist."  At the very least, an ism should express some kind of position.  "I do not believe in any gods" is fine, but atheist as simply lacking a belief means that my beagle and my bunions are atheist in about the same way-- I don't think that's a particularly good use of that terminology.

Unless, that is, you're saying that at five, you had an opinion about the existence of a deity-- and that you found evidence for said existence lacking-- then I'd I wouldn't say that "atheist" was a good descriptor of you.

If your beagle and your bunions -could- possess god beliefs, but didn't..then yes, they'd be atheists same as you or I.   Plenty of kids believe in gods, I wasn't one of them.


I didn't have evidentiary standards at age five, I wouldn't have known what that meant.  Conveniently, I believed in all sorts of shit without evidence (and still do).  If we're using terms like reason very loosely, the likely cause for my atheism has nothing to do with evidentiary standards or any process of reasoning.   I was exposed to alot of different religious narratives as a kid.  That probably framed how I viewed the christian stories differently than I might if they'd been presented to me as the only story either by indoctrination or cultural dominance.

---

So, having always been an atheist, what were your criteria and reasons at age five?

That was quite a while ago. My thinking has moved on a lot since then.

Please note that throughout this discussion I have been talking about adult atheists who live in a society, who have heard, evaluated, and rejected the claims made by religious people.

It doesn't matter with respect to your claim.  The cause of your atheism must be at least as old as your atheism (unless causality flows backward through time)..so if the things you offer today aren't that, then they simply cannot be the cause for your atheism.

How do you know that your thinking actually has "moved on" since then unless you can identify that impetus in it's own preceding timeframe? It's at least possible that all of the reasons you have command of now are rhetorical flourishes for a position that you didn't arrive at rationally. This is almost certainly true in my own case, at least. I know how a person might arrive at my position rationally, today, but that isn't how I got here all those yesterdays ago.