Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

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.

Unless you're arguing against physical determinism, then "could" is a sticky wicket. Could some kid deep in the jungle who's not been exposed to the idea of a Biblical God (for example) be theist about that God idea, any more than my beagle or my bunions?

For that matter, could the atheists here? Was there some alternate timeline in which their experiences were not what they were, and their beliefs?

[Belacqua]

The cause of your atheism must be at least as old as your atheism

Not at all. 

The cause of an infant's atheism may be different from the reasons that an adult has for rejecting the claims of religious people. 

For example, an infant may reject ideas of god out of ignorance, fear, puzzlement, etc. An adult, if he's at all interested in the question, will have formed more mature reasons. 

Do you really want to claim that your mind now is exactly as it was when you were an infant?

[The Grand Nudger]

There's at least one thing that's been the same for as a long as I can remember, and apparently it's been that way for you as well.  If what you're looking for are refinements to the position then it's unremarkable that you would express your atheism differently as you got older and as you acquired more and more knowledge of the subject matter, but cause and refinement are not the same thing...an, yes, if you;re looking for the cause of your atheism, or more braodly the cause of all adult atheism (which is what you've made claim to) I think you probably need to continue making refinements.

---

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.

Unless you're arguing against physical determinism, then "could" is a sticky wicket.  Could some kid deep in the jungle who's not been exposed to the idea of a Biblical God (for example) be theist about that God idea, any more than my beagle or my bunions?

Arguing?  I'm observing that children can and do possess god beliefs, and that I wasn't one of them.  Yes, people deep in the jungle can and do believe in gods, and theistic gods, too.  That's also been observed.  

I have absolutely no clue what physical determinism is supposed to have to do with any of that. We could live in an indeterminate universe made of spirit marshmallows and those would still be observed states of affairs in our reality.

For that matter, could the atheists here?  Was there some alternate timeline in which their experiences were not what they were, and their beliefs?

If we have to refer to alternate timelines we're already spiraling around the moon. Maybe in the Kelvin timeline I'm a starship captain!

[bennyboy]

If we have to refer to alternate timelines we're already spiraling around the moon.  Maybe in the Kelvin timeline I'm a starship captain!

If there are no alternate timelines, then by what criteria do you establish that one might believe other than one already does? You talk about capacity, but what does that mean to you? That an entity capable of language lacks a belief (because that's mainly what differentiates my beagle from me)? Say. . . the google mainframes? Are they atheist? I'd say no, because they aren't people, and because when I say "-ist," I'm talking about a person who is a proponent of a position.

You, so far as you've defined it, would say yes-- unless there's something more than language by which you'd establish the capacity for being a theist. Care to elaborate? Cuz I think you're going to have a hard time detailing those entities which should / shouldn't be called atheist.

[Belacqua]

There's at least one thing that's been the same for as a long as I can remember, and apparently it's been that way for you as well.  If what you're looking for are refinements to the position

But for me it's not like some continuing characteristic of myself, like having blue eyes. It's just the position I currently hold based on the best input that I've gotten.

I used to think the Clintons were good, once upon a time. Then when new information came in I changed my mind. 

When I was in kindergarten I thought that Goldwater should win the election, and I thought I had a good reason: Johnson had already been president, and as a kindergartener I thought that it was important for people to take turns. My reasoning then is not at all relevant to my reasoning today.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we have to refer to alternate timelines we're already spiraling around the moon.  Maybe in the Kelvin timeline I'm a starship captain!

If there are no alternate timelines, then by what criteria do you establish that one might believe other than one already does?  You talk about capacity, but what does that mean to you?  That an entity capable of language lacks a belief  (because that's mainly what differentiates my beagle from me)?  Say. . . the google mainframes?  Are they atheist?  I'd say no, because they aren't people, and because when I say "-ist," I'm talking about a person who is a proponent of a position.

You, so far as you've defined it, would say yes-- unless there's something more than language by which you'd establish the capacity for being a theist.  Care to elaborate?  Cuz I think you're going to have a hard time detailing those entities which should / shouldn't be called atheist.

I'm not debating that at all, why would I? I note that if something can possess a state of belief in gods, and that something does not - then the term atheist accurately refers to it. I don;t know whether or not dogs can, but if so, then it would fit. I don't know that bunions can, but if so, it would fit. I don't know that google can, but if so, it would fit. On and on.

Can people believe in gods? Clearly. Do we all? Clearly not. There's nothing to argue here. People have the capacity to be theists or atheists.

There's at least one thing that's been the same for as a long as I can remember, and apparently it's been that way for you as well.  If what you're looking for are refinements to the position

But for me it's not like some continuing characteristic of myself, like having blue eyes. It's just the position I currently hold based on the best input that I've gotten.

I used to think the Clintons were good, once upon a time. Then when new information came in I changed my mind. 

When I was in kindergarten I thought that Goldwater should win the election, and I thought I had a good reason: Johnson had already been president, and as a kindergartener I thought that it was important for people to take turns. My reasoning then is not at all relevant to my reasoning today.

That's cool, I don't know what it was like for you, if you had some identifiable reason for being an atheist when you were that young then your description of some 1.2.3 being the cause of atheism at least with respect to you would be accurate.  

I wonder what it is (or even could be) because that's just not how I came to be an atheist so far as I can tell.  It wasn't like that for me.  I didn't reason myself into the position, so there's no reason from then to be relevant to reason from today, and it would simply be untrue to state that some bit of knowledge I now possess, that I didn't then, is the cause for a state of being that precedes my acquisition of that knowledge.

[Little lunch]

If you grow up with atheist parents then the chances are you'll be atheist and if your parents were x-tian you'd most likely be x-tian.
It's natural to trust that they know more then you when you're young.
If you grew up with x-tian parents and you were an atheist then you're probably not that smart as you didn't trust you're parents who obviously knew more than you.
If you grow up with atheist parents and you were a x-tian then you're also not that smart as you trusted others more than your own parents.
I'm not sure what happens when you have one of each and this is all just conjecture of course.


If you're an agnostic atheist then your atheism must be a belief.
There's no way for me to tell if god is real or not, but I believe he isn't.
Why are we so scared of having similarities to the thinking processes of other human beings?

Is it because we feel that we are above them and any similarities would pull us down to their level?
I think that if atheists were more humble, we'd have twice as many in our ranks by now.

[bennyboy]

I'm not debating that at all, why would I?  I note that if something can possess a state of belief in gods, and that something does not - then the term atheist accurately refers to it.  I don;t know whether or not dogs can, but if so, then it would fit.  I don't know that bunions can, but if so, it would fit.  I don't know that google can, but if so, it would fit. On and on.

There are a lot of things I'm not, but I don't identify myself by them or join forums about them. Clearly, there's something unique about atheism in this regard-- clearly, religious beliefs, traditions, and cultural influence are sufficient that the "-ist" must really refer to more than a lack.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, it's the status of god beliefs themselves that extend the helping hand there.  You may not be a tooth fairy believer, but since this is common to us all it doesn't differentiate anything about us in the slightest and being an atoothfaryist just doesn't seem to have any consequence.  Similarly, whenever you consider your atheism (or atheism in general) or whenever we find ourselves discussing atheism..it's understood that we're probably not talking about gods already subjected to cultural abandonment.  The conversations and objections and comments swirl around the dominant god claims in our respective cultures. If there weren't dominant god claims we'd be unlikely to notice that we didn't believe in them in the first place.

My recalling the pledge of allegiance, for example, only makes sense where people say it and believe it.

I don't know if it's unique in it's status or consequence, I can think of a few other things like it offhand, but it can certainly be profound and associated with tons of other equally consequential beliefs.

[Angrboda]

You do see where this is going, I hope.

Here's where I think this is going. 

Criteria for judgment are something, not nothing. They may lead to a lack of belief in god, but they are themselves beliefs (in the sense of something you hold to be true). 

A simple example:

Suppose someone, let's call him Mr. A, asserts the following: "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore I reject the claims of religious people that there is a god." 

While the result is a lack of belief, the assertion in fact involves several truth claims. 

First, the claim that there is in fact no evidence. Personally, I think this claim is true, but the point I'm making is that it is a truth-claim, and as such may be challenged or defended.

Then there is the meaning of the term "evidence" which is implied in the claim. Let's say that for Mr. A, the only type of input that he is willing to call "evidence" is empirical observation that is intersubjectively repeatable -- that is, science-type evidence. Mr. A is here making a truth-claim, that only such input is worth considering. Christians, of course, also consider revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of "natural theology," and the logic of metaphysics also to be evidence. They may be silly for doing so, but to debate them Mr. A would have to make certain claims considering the value of evidence. Thus his position depends not merely on a lack but on positive beliefs (things he holds to be true) concerning evidence. 

He is also arguing from the position that god is something that science-type evidence could possibly detect. While this is probably a reasonable position to hold, it is in fact a truth-claim, and may be challenged or defended. Since early on (Plato, Aristotle, the Cappadocians, etc.) some people have argued that god is a metaphysical "ground of being" or something like that, which by definition is not a sense-detectable object. Their claims may be rubbish, but Mr. A's claim that they are wrong, and that only science-detectable things are real, is a truth-claim, and may be challenged or defended. 

In other words, what seems like merely a lack to Mr. A in fact involves a number of beliefs (things he holds to be true) concerning the issues involved. He has reached his conclusion -- that the claims of believers may be rejected -- based on these things he holds to be true. 

He has a position, which is not the only possible position, which has led him to his atheism in its current state. 

Please note, once again, that I am making no statements concerning the quality of anybody's arguments. Only that people reach their conclusions based on intellectual commitments that they hold. And this includes atheists.

The problem with that is, if you share the criteria such as evidence based and so forth with a theist, who also employs that reasoning in evaluation of claims, then it isn't the criteria themselves that are doing the work in separating the theist from the non-theist. In order to meaningfully assert that atheism or non-theism were a belief, the beliefs in question must be both relevant and necessary to forming that conclusion. In this case, one can hold the standards and not come to the same beliefs or lack thereof, so the belief in these criteria is accidental, not a necessary part of the identity. Accidental properties do not define a thing.