Is atheism a belief?

[Peebothuhlu]

Uhm.... Yes and no.

Well, you say "yes and no," and then everything else you say is perfectly in agreement with me. So I'm not sure where we're fighting. 

[quote pid='1888230' dateline='1551412188']
1) Lots of diety propositions have come to/been brought to my attention. None match the reality around me.

Zeuss does not live atop Mount Olypus (Unless the whole pantheon is really good at hiding).
Odin does not seem to have a 'World tree' any where in the Scandinavian countries (Again, possibly really good at hiding)
Abrahamic deity's can not be omnicient not omnepresent with out breaking things such as relativity and even, possible, causality. 

2) My understanding of reality is good enough that can I put my pants on one leg at a time. I can walk and chew gum etc.   

3) Yes. I posted why the propositions so far presented do not match the reality around me. Though as I've pointed out before. There's nothing preventiong some different type of diety that does match the reality around me to come along and present itself. 

1) You know what Zeus and Odin would be like if they existed. You have to know this to think about whether they could exist or not. 

2) You have a perfectly functional grasp of reality. And even the most esoteric philosopher operates the same way when he gets dressed in the morning.

3) Given #1 and #2, above, you are perfectly reasonable to conclude that they don't match up. 

I've never said you were unreasonable in your conclusions. Only that you need some prior concepts in order to reach them.

[/quote]
 
Yes.
"?"
Glad we've come to an understanding.
Well... at least I thnk you've come to an understaning of where a part of my mind is.
Please be careful with it. I might want that bit back some day.
 CHEERS!
 Not at work.

[Angrboda]

if the standards and criteria aren't specific to atheism, then they aren't a part of atheism proper, contrary to what you seem to have been arguing this whole time.  What the hell is your point?

That's right. There are standards and criteria which aren't themselves atheism, which lead some people to conclude that atheism is the correct view of things. These people have reached their beliefs concerning religious questions according to their prior beliefs. (Logically prior, not necessarily temporally prior) 

Therefore they have beliefs (things they hold to be true). Therefore when they assert that their beliefs concerning god are good beliefs, they do have things which can be challenged and discussed. Atheism is not a lack such that an atheist need not defend it.

So close. If atheism is not these standards and criteria, and it is these standards and criteria which are the things that need defending, then your last statement, that, "Atheism is not a lack such that an atheist need not defend it," does not follow. It may nonetheless be true, but it can't be concluded based upon what you have argued because you have argued that the things that an atheist must defend are not atheism. The fact that an atheist has beliefs that can be challenged and discussed becomes little more than a red herring.

[bennyboy]

Maybe we can refine the OP question to arrive at a better agreement.

Maybe atheism is a belief, but rather than about gods, it's a belief about the value of religious institutions (i.e. a lack of value). Maybe it's a belief that talking about gods is a waste of time. In other words, maybe it's a slightly more apathetic anti-theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe we can refine the OP question to arrive at a better agreement.

Maybe atheism is a belief, but rather than about gods, it's a belief about the value of religious institutions (i.e. a lack of value).

Theists can agree with atheists about the lack of value of religious insistitutions.

Maybe it's a belief that talking about gods is a waste of time.

Theists can agree.'

In other words, maybe it's a slightly more apathetic anti-theism.

You don't have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist.  

Maybe atheism is exactly what it purports to be? Atheists can believe in any number of things, the only thing that makes a person an atheist, however, is one thing they don't believe in.

I asked you to start with some example of something that -was- a lack of belief because I strongly suspect that you're working with semantics under which there is no such thing, and if that's the case, if there are no states of belief described by not possessing the belief, then it would be unsurprising for you to think that atheism was not a nonexistent state. However, by semantics that don't allow for such states of belief, you'll have made it impossible to be an atheist.

Like above. Atheists aren't atheists - they don't like religions and they think talking about it is a waste of time. Atheism, you posit, isn't about god belief.

[bennyboy]

I asked you to start with some example of something that -was- a lack of belief because I strongly suspect that you're working with semantics under which there is no such thing, and if that's the case, if there are no states of belief described by not possessing the belief, then it would be unsurprising for you to think that atheism was not a nonexistent state.  However, by semantics that don't allow for such states of belief, you'll have made it impossible to be an atheist.

Like above.  Atheists aren't atheists - they don't like religions and they think talking about it is a waste of time.  Atheism, you posit, isn't about god belief.

Really?

Religious guy: "Let me tell you about God X." (describes God X)
Atheist: "Oh. . . I think God X is probably not a real thing, as I've seen no evidence which would show it to be one. Sorry."

Religious guy: "Well. . . do you believe in any kind of God?"
Atheist: "No. . . of the definitions I've heard, I would say that I believe none of them is likely to represent truth. Given no evidence to prove they exist, I'm going to have to say I think they are probably mythological stories or outright frauds."

I just don't see any semantic use in identifying a position against an "-ism," and then just pretending than you lack the "-ism." If I believed there were no gods, I'd declare as atheist. If I believed there were gods, I'd declare as theist. I'm not sure if there are gods or not, so I declare as agnostic. This stuff about beliefs not being connected to a sense of knowledge is kind of pointless-- if you don't have sufficient knowledge to support a view (pro or anti-), then why say you believe anything at all?

Let's say I'm a Christian. I'll say, "I know enough about science to know that cosmogony is beyond it, and I have enough evidence to believe that will always be the case. If this is so, then something necessarily stands above nature, and I will declare myself a theist."

Let's say I'm an atheist. I'll say, "I've heard many definitions of the God idea, and I know enough about the world and about people to identify those ideas as anthropomorphic myths. I will therefore declare myself an atheist."

Let's say I'm an agnostic, as I am. I'll say, "I know enough about science to know that it answers most questions better than religious traditions, but that it leaves some very important questions unanswered. I've heard enough God ideas to suspect that they are all myths and therefore not representative of real beings, but I also find it plausible that some intelligence is responsible for the Universe and the order in it. I cannot collect enough information to determine whether some kind of God exists or not, so I will declare as agnostic."

In all cases, I consider what I know in forming a belief. It never happens that I'm walking down the street and just suddenly start believing in something for no reason at all: "Never heard of God before, have no knowledge of God ideas or of the world. . . but for some reason I'm hearing this word in my head: a. . . theist." Sounds like a nice word!

[The Grand Nudger]

Really?

Religious guy: "Let me tell you about God X."  (describes God X)
Atheist: "Oh. . . I think God X is probably not a real thing, as I've seen no evidence which would show it to be one.  Sorry."

-and another atheist responds "I don't believe in gods."

Religious guy: "Well. . . do you believe in any kind of God?"
Atheist: "No. . . of the definitions I've heard, I would say that I believe none of them is likely to represent truth.  Given no evidence to prove they exist, I'm going to have to say I think they are probably mythological stories or outright frauds."

"no, i just told you that I didn't."  

The only time I can think of where you identify as a lacking-belief atheist is on a form, where there are: "Hindu ☐; Muslim ☐; Christian ☐; Jewish ☐; Buddhist ☐; Atheist ☐"

An atheist doesn't believe in gods, it doesn't matter which god, or how many are/aren't under consideration, or why, or even if there is a why. In your examples above you excluded any semantics that would allow for a state in which a person lacks a belief.

Limiting ourselves to those semantics, as you did, it's unsurprising that atheism cannot be atheism - that it's actually something else, and we can repeat the example with absolutely anything - it's not a quirk of any particular object or concept. As I've already discussed with Bel, it's likely true that some atheists predicate their position on positive beliefs. It remains a fact that those beliefs can be shared by people who reach different conclusions, that there are other ways to any given conclusion, and that a person can occupy conceptual space accidentally.

Is atheism a belief in something? No. By definition it's the opposite of that. Are there other beliefs in other somethings that can refer to atheism or effect it? Sure. Any agnostic atheist can understand how this happens. We've seen examples in thread. People rattle off a list of "defined gods" and say they have positive beliefs that leave them in a gnostic position with respect to those gods...but then we hit the category of the nondescript god alike, and thres no specific reason that they don;t believe in those gods, and are far more open to those sorts of descriptions..but, still, they're atheists. They don't believe in those gods despite having no specific reason not to.

[bennyboy]

Atheism-- a belief that God ideas do not represent real beings. If that's not your position, why mention it at all? How about just, "Hi. . . my name's Dave"?

I lack a belief in magic space monkeys, but I don't go around claiming to be an a-magic-space-monkeyist. I wouldn't come up with that term until someone said, "Hey. . . have you heard about the Magic Space Monkey who died for your banana?" Then I'd say, "Ermmm. . . based on my knowledge of space and monkeys, and my general disbelief in magic, I believe that this Magic Space Monkey you are talking about is probably not real." And if I had to choose between Space Monkeyist or a-space-monkeyist on a form, I'd choose the latter.

I really don't see the semantic advantage in saying it with kid gloves: "Well. . . I happen to lack that belief in Magic Space monkeys. Not saying I believe it's false, but definitely not saying I believe it's true. Just a general lacking in my sense of space-monkey-ness." It really doesn't make sense to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheism-- a belief that God ideas do not represent real beings.  If that's not your position, why mention it at all?  How about just, "Hi. . . my name's Dave"?

An atheist can believe that gods represent real beings.  I do.

I lack a belief in magic space monkeys, but I don't go around claiming to be an a-magic-space-monkeyist.

Do you, though?  Or is your a-space-monkeyism actually about something else, some other positive belief you have?

"Ermmm. . . based on my knowledge of space and monkeys, and my general disbelief in magic, I believe that this Magic Space Monkey you are talking about is probably not real."

---

I really don't see the semantic advantage in saying it with kid gloves: "Well. . . I happen to lack that belief in Magic Space monkeys. Not saying I believe it's false, but definitely not saying I believe it's true. Just a general lacking in my sense of space-monkey-ness." It really doesn't make sense to me.

Clearly, you do.

Let's say I'm an agnostic, as I am. I'll say, "I know enough about science to know that it answers most questions better than religious traditions, but that it leaves some very important questions unanswered. I've heard enough God ideas to suspect that they are all myths and therefore not representative of real beings, but I also find it plausible that some intelligence is responsible for the Universe and the order in it. I cannot collect enough information to determine whether some kind of God exists or not, so I will declare as agnostic."

---

And if I had to choose between Space Monkeyist or a-space-monkeyist on a form, I'd choose the latter.

Would you?

I just don't see any semantic use in identifying a position against an "-ism," and then just pretending than you lack the "-ism." If I believed there were no gods, I'd declare as atheist. If I believed there were gods, I'd declare as theist. I'm not sure if there are gods or not, so I declare as agnostic. 

Agnostic atheists aren't sure either..nor are agnostic theists. Apparently, your shared agnosticism is an accidental property of your respective positions on the status of your belief.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't believe you have a hundred dollar bill in your left front pants pocket. It does not follow from that, that I believe you don't have a $100 in that pocket. You could, but absent more information, the smart bet would be against it. You could fairly say that I have a belief that you having a $100 bill in that particular pocket is improbable.

I consider the odds of some God or god existing to be very low; but not zero. You could fairly say that I have a belief that divine beings are improbable.

[EgoDeath]

I'm sure you believe this very strongly. 

It's not a matter of belief. There's no real evidence to support the claims made in the Bible.

You have already said you don't believe that god is real. How can you decide that without having an idea of what you are talking about? 

You've heard many people claim that god is real, and you have judged that their claims are unpersuasive. What reasoning did you use to decide this?

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? How do you prove the existence of something you can't define? Furthermore, how do you decide that you believe in something you cannot define? This is quite the paradox, isn't it?

But every single adult atheist in the world believes exactly the same thing: that claims for the existence of god are unpersuasive.

I won't pretend to know what "every single adult atheist" thinks, but by definition, they do not have a belief in any god or gods.

I see that you believe this very strongly. You seem to know what reality is, and to judge based on that belief that no god has been proved. You have quite a few beliefs which you haven't proved yet. Perhaps you are correct in every particular. You are certainly a true believer in your point of view. 

Reality is reality; it's up to us to try and remove any preconceived notions that we have and simply see things for what they are. This is something that is completely antithetical to the concept of religion. The entire concept of religion requires you to fit reality into your preconceived notions, not the other way around.

And it is true that no god has been proved, because religious folks refuse to even define what god is. We cannot even begin to have the conversation until we understand what it is we're defining. So until we've defined god, we can assume it's not worth having a conversation about; we can pretty much assume that there is no god. Saying there is no god is a good as saying that something we cannot even define does not exist. Until we have a reasonable definition to work with and evidence to support that defined entity/thing there's no reason to assume such a thing is real.