Is atheism a belief?

[Belacqua]

What type of scientific evidence we would need would depend on how we are defining god, which is the problem. 

Right, you take it as axiomatic that evidence is only scientific evidence. This is a strong belief that you have. 

I don't think you were trying to avoid answering the question. I think you didn't understand my question, due to the fact that you consider the answer self-evident. 

It's certainly true that if we begin with the axiom that only scientific evidence is good, then there is no evidence for the existence of god. 

As for how we are defining god, there are many definitions given over the millennia. I offered one, and you claimed that I had said nothing. That seemed odd to me. There are definitions. Again, you may be taking it as axiomatic that they are not good definitions. Or you may be unaware of them. 

You said, and I quote...

Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics.

Please read that sentence carefully. It says that religious people hold those things to be good evidence. It does not say that I agree with them. 

The point I am making is that YOU have a belief about what constitutes good evidence. You apparently have reasons for believing this. (Unless you want to assert that you believe it for no reason.) 

So you are making a positive claim. You are claiming that only one type of evidence is good. And if you are making a positive claim, this is something which you need to defend to people who disagree with you. 
Therefore, a key element on which your lack of belief in god rests is a positive assertion requiring defense. 

So it may be true that your atheism is only a lack, but it is a lack resting in a web of beliefs concerning what constitutes good evidence. And if that web of beliefs were to go away, your atheism might well go with it.

[EgoDeath]

Right, you take it as axiomatic that evidence is only scientific evidence. This is a strong belief that you have.

You choosing to call this a belief doesn't make it a belief no matter how many times you repeat it. This is how the entire world of science works, i.e. how the world works, this isn't some personal thing I came up with. Science is responsible for almost everything around you in one way or another. The scientific method is, so far, the best way we have of understanding the world around us. I don't "believe in" the scientific method, I accept it as fact, because it is.

The word "belief" implies that there is faith involved, which there isn't.

I don't think you were trying to avoid answering the question. I think you didn't understand my question, due to the fact that you consider the answer self-evident.

You never asked if I was talking about scientific evidence. It wasn't a matter of me "misunderstanding" anything.

It's certainly true that if we begin with the axiom that only scientific evidence is good, then there is no evidence for the existence of god. 

What other types of evidence are "good?" What other types of evidence would be on par with scientific evidence to prove the existence of god?

As for how we are defining god, there are many definitions given over the millennia. I offered one, and you claimed that I had said nothing. That seemed odd to me. There are definitions. Again, you may be taking it as axiomatic that they are not good definitions. Or you may be unaware of them. 

You never produced a definition for god.

Please read that sentence carefully. It says that religious people hold those things to be good evidence. It does not say that I agree with them. 

And yet, you suggest them as a possible alternative to scientific evidence, implying that those things could be just as good as scientific evidence to some people. The point you're missing over and over and over again is it does not matter what one person thinks in their head is good evidence, it's about a community as a whole coming together and deciding what is verified through repeated observation and experiment. Facts are facts, whether or not you call them beliefs.

This isn't my "personal belief" about evidence, this is how the world works by-and-large.

The point I am making is that YOU have a belief about what constitutes good evidence. You apparently have reasons for believing this. (Unless you want to assert that you believe it for no reason.) 

Calling something a belief doesn't make it a belief, no matter how many times you repeat it or how you try to twist it.

So you are making a positive claim. You are claiming that only one type of evidence is good. And if you are making a positive claim, this is something which you need to defend to people who disagree with you. 
Therefore, a key element on which your lack of belief in god rests is a positive assertion requiring defense.

And yet, I still don't need to defend the scientific method, which is what you ARE asking me to do, regardless of how you try to filter it through the false narrative of it being "my belief."

So it may be true that your atheism is only a lack, but it is a lack resting in a web of beliefs concerning what constitutes good evidence. And if that web of beliefs were to go away, your atheism might well go with it.

So, once again, this is just a round-about way of trying to call atheism a belief, which is some strange obsession you have.

---

You're really trying to walk me down here and I won't let it happen. Your incessant need to define atheism as a belief is an inevitable attempt to claim that atheism requires faith, which it doesn't not. So if that's the point you're trying to get to, let's just cut the bullshit.

[Peebothuhlu]

So, once again, this is just a round-about way of trying to call atheism a belief, which is some strange obsession you have.

 Well.... One can use the language that way, if they must.

That Belaqua wants to insist upon their narative, often without better use and explanations of the words they are using is something that I find (1: ........).

See, I can't even easily put a word into the brackets. 'Unpleasant'? 'Irritaiting'? 'Uncomfortable'?

Lots of desciptors come to mind, but nothing 'Fits' as apt.

Perhaps a word will come to mind. Will continue to mull it over.

PRJA93.

[EgoDeath]

So, once again, this is just a round-about way of trying to call atheism a belief, which is some strange obsession you have.

 Well.... One can use the language that way, if they must.

That Belaqua wants to insist upon their narative, often without better use and explanations of the words they are using is something that I find (1: ........).

See, I can't even easily put a word into the brackets. 'Unpleasant'? 'Irritaiting'? 'Uncomfortable'?

Lots of desciptors come to mind, but nothing 'Fits' as apt.

Perhaps a word will come to mind. Will continue to mull it over.

PRJA93.

It's bizarre to watch. If atheism isn't a belief, then it must be rooted in belief! If it isn't rooted in belief, it must be rooted in something similar to belief! If it isn't rooted in something similar to belief, it's rooted in something that's rooted in something that's similar to belief!

It's a bizarre attempt at comparing atheism to being very much akin to the faith that religious people hold, which atheists often criticize, which is transparent enough as it is.

[Belacqua]

The word "belief" implies that there is faith involved, which there isn't.

I have said a dozen times so far that I use the term "belief" to mean "something one holds to be true." I have defined it this way over and over so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. 

I know that on sites like this one, people tend to define "belief" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons I like," and "knowledge" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons that I like." Unfortunately this can get us into trouble down the road, so I am always careful to define the term. I'm sorry you didn't see that.

As for the rest of your post, you're still responding to things I haven't said.

I'm interested in people's passionate desire to keep any kind of belief away from their personal atheism. Even the beliefs that they use to argue in favor of it. 

The whole thing has been very clarifying for me. It's puzzled me why so few people are willing to say that they have any positive beliefs which lead to this unsullied lack which they find so important. I'm very confident now, based on this thread, that any adult atheist has an atheism that is so wrapped up in things that he holds to be true that calling it a mere lack is semantics at best, avoidance at worst. 

To be careful we can call it a conclusion based on things we hold to be true, which we accept as criteria according to reasons (which may be good or bad, logical or emotional, more or less consciously stated), and which are necessary for the lack we hold dear. This does not apply to babies, rocks, and lizards. 

Anyway, that's all. I'll end my part of the conversation here. 

Thank you all for chatting with me.

[EgoDeath]

The word "belief" implies that there is faith involved, which there isn't.

I have said a dozen times so far that I use the term "belief" to mean "something one holds to be true." I have defined it this way over and over so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. 

I know that on sites like this one, people tend to define "belief" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons I like," and "knowledge" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons that I like." Unfortunately this can get us into trouble down the road, so I am always careful to define the term. I'm sorry you didn't see that.

As for the rest of your post, you're still responding to things I haven't said.

I'm interested in people's passionate desire to keep any kind of belief away from their personal atheism. Even the beliefs that they use to argue in favor of it. 

The whole thing has been very clarifying for me. It's puzzled me why so few people are willing to say that they have any positive beliefs which lead to this unsullied lack which they find so important. I'm very confident now, based on this thread, that any adult atheist has an atheism that is so wrapped up in things that he holds to be true that calling it a mere lack is semantics at best, avoidance at worst. 

To be careful we can call it a conclusion based on things we hold to be true, which we accept as criteria according to reasons (which may be good or bad, logical or emotional, more or less consciously stated), and which are necessary for the lack we hold dear. This does not apply to babies, rocks, and lizards. 

Anyway, that's all. I'll end my part of the conversation here. 

Thank you all for chatting with me.

So, you hold a personal belief that California is in the United States? Or is it a fact? Do you hold a personal belief that Italy is in Europe? Or is it a fact?

Unfortunately for your ego, it doesn't really matter what conclusions you feel like you've come to. Atheism is not a belief. And even if it was, it's far more based in reality and scientific fact than any religion has ever been.

The only way that you could have found this conversation to be "clarifying" is that you're not listening to what anyone has to say to you; rather than taking people's word for how they're telling you they think, you're warping whatever everyone says to you to fit into your idea that 'atheism is a belief.' You're so fixated on the idea that atheism is a belief that you refuse to believe anyone who tell you otherwise. I mean here we are, an entire website full of atheists telling you, "This is not a belief," but you've somehow warped that into not only being a belief, but a confirmation that you've been right all along and we've just "clarified" this for you.

How delusional are you?

I've literally responded to you almost line for line, but you're still insisting that I'm responding to things you haven't said. But I literally am, almost line for line. You're being insanely disingenuous but luckily your posts are right here on record, next to mine, and luckily I trust the people of AF, for the most part, to judge the conversation realistically based on what has been said.

[GrandizerII]

The word "belief" implies that there is faith involved, which there isn't.

I have said a dozen times so far that I use the term "belief" to mean "something one holds to be true." I have defined it this way over and over so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. 

I know that on sites like this one, people tend to define "belief" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons I like," and "knowledge" as "stuff people hold to be true based on reasons that I like." Unfortunately this can get us into trouble down the road, so I am always careful to define the term. I'm sorry you didn't see that.

As for the rest of your post, you're still responding to things I haven't said.

I'm interested in people's passionate desire to keep any kind of belief away from their personal atheism. Even the beliefs that they use to argue in favor of it. 

The whole thing has been very clarifying for me. It's puzzled me why so few people are willing to say that they have any positive beliefs which lead to this unsullied lack which they find so important. I'm very confident now, based on this thread, that any adult atheist has an atheism that is so wrapped up in things that he holds to be true that calling it a mere lack is semantics at best, avoidance at worst. 

To be careful we can call it a conclusion based on things we hold to be true, which we accept as criteria according to reasons (which may be good or bad, logical or emotional, more or less consciously stated), and which are necessary for the lack we hold dear. This does not apply to babies, rocks, and lizards. 

Anyway, that's all. I'll end my part of the conversation here. 

Thank you all for chatting with me.

Still on hiatus (sort of), but I needed to respond to this one because I feel like you might be misunderstanding some of us here. Atheism is generally a conclusion for atheists of the intellectual type, I certainly agree. However, I think you might be missing the point that atheism happens to be the default conclusion when examining the overall evidence. To get to theism, you have to make a big leap (an unwarranted one in my perception). If you do not make that leap, you're generally going to stop at atheism because atheism doesn't require any such leap. And it's this point that we're really trying to emphasize here that atheism is a lack of that leap to theism. For atheists, without sufficient evidence and/or reasoning leading us to theism, there can be no intellectual path to that destination.

It's not like theists generally start with different initial assumptions than we do. Both sides value reason and evidence, but one side also values other so-called means to knowledge, but they don't normally use that means until they've exhausted all reason.

[Belacqua]

atheism happens to be the default conclusion when examining the overall evidence. To get to theism, you have to make a big leap (an unwarranted one in my perception). If you do not make that leap, you're generally going to stop at atheism because atheism doesn't require any such leap. 

Thank you for being civil! It's a pleasure to have a conversation with you.

I'm thinking about atheism as the default condition. This sounds to me as if we grow up in total ignorance of religious claims and then, after our reason is up and working (if it ever gets there) start to consider the problems. 

But aren't the majority of people in the world raised with religious ideas floating in the environment? Being raised in ignorance of religion or by atheist parents must be pretty rare, maybe until quite recently. So for a lot of little ones, religion will be the default, and getting out of it will require some rethinking. For them, that's where the big leap comes in. As always, it will be easier for some than for others. And I suspect some people ditch religion for bad reasons (the nuns were mean), and then rummage around for better reasons after.

without sufficient evidence and/or reasoning leading us to theism, there can be no intellectual path to that destination.

I agree that if someone were already an atheist when he started thinking seriously about these things, it would require some persuasive input to believe in god. A good argument, or a mystical experience, or some kind of personal epiphany. 

And this is where the talk about evidence comes in. It would be harder to switch if one took it as totally given that only science-type evidence counts. But people have been persuaded by logical arguments of a metaphysical type. Or mystical experiences. The scholar I was writing about earlier, who went from total rationalist to her own brand of Neoplatonism, found that the explanations offered by Plotinus and Thomas Taylor, which were not scientific but very subtle ideas concerning consciousness and the structure of the universe, were the best fit she found to explain her own various experiences. 

It's not like theists generally start with different initial assumptions than we do. Both sides value reason and evidence, but one side also values other so-called means to knowledge, but they don't normally use that means until they've exhausted all reason.

Again, if they were raised to be entirely comfortable with religion, their assumptions might be pretty different than mine were as a pre-age-of-reason little skinny kid with a bad haircut. I heard religious stuff vaguely at school, but it was never offered to me as an answer to anything. (I'm old enough that the whole Moral Majority takeover hadn't happened yet. We still thought it was rude to bring up politics or religion.) Kids maybe don't have anything as conscious as conceptual assumptions about reality, but just memories of how other people behaved when they got confused by life, or passive vocabulary that gets "activated" when they're looking around for answers. 

If a person grows up in a society in which nearly everybody assumes religious ideas to be true, it is reasonable for that person to be religious. The explanations he gets for things directly or indirectly reinforce that foundation. Just as every sailor who used Ptolemaic star charts to sail safely to port reinforced confidence in a geocentric universe. 

but they don't normally use that means until they've exhausted all reason.

This I'm not sure about. 

It kind of sounds as if you're setting up a thought experiment with two groups of adults, who were raised in isolation, possess basic reasoning skills, and are now being confronted with these things for the first time. Kids who are raised with religion in the environment, though, may find it easy to accept non-scientific evidence. In fact, what kid doesn't accept non-scientific evidence? I didn't do a science experiment until I was in high school. Before that, it was all from the authority of the text book. 

I hope this doesn't sound as if I'm fighting with you. It occurs to me that I have something like "resting bitch face" in the way I write. I try to be clear and dispassionate, but it may come across as aggressive. 

Anyway, I'm not sure about atheism as a default setting, but I agree that changing from one view to another does require reasons, good or bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

For a conversation you began to stress the value of critically investigating ones beliefs and the cause or justification for them.....you're doing alot of reasserting.

Theists -also- accept scientific evidence. The notion that science is the best way to find evidence or the credible set of evidence is a position that can be, and is, equally held by the faithful. If this is the criteria that you propose forms the belief, then it's not the criteria doing work to separate atheists from theists.

[downbeatplumb]

I'm thinking about atheism as the default condition. This sounds to me as if we grow up in total ignorance of religious claims and then, after our reason is up and working (if it ever gets there) start to consider the problems. 

But aren't the majority of people in the world raised with religious ideas floating in the environment? Being raised in ignorance of religion or by atheist parents must be pretty rare, maybe until quite recently.

I think you only think that because you are raised in a religious country. As a brit religion is not a thing that is talked about. Some people believe and they mostly keep quiet about it, most do not.

So for a lot of little ones, religion will be the default, and getting out of it will require some rethinking. For them, that's where the big leap comes in.

This only holds for countries that are not only heavily indoctrinated but also forceful in prompting their religion. in the UK for example the C of E is very unobtrusive. Richard Dawkins said it inoculates you from religions.

 As always, it will be easier for some than for others. And I suspect some people ditch religion for bad reasons (the nuns were mean), and then rummage around for better reasons after.

I have never "ditched" religion because I have never for one second been religious. Your thing here seems to be that people reject religion after being religious, for many people that just is not the case.

I agree that if someone were already an atheist when he started thinking seriously about these things, it would require some persuasive input to believe in god. A good argument, or a mystical experience, or some kind of personal epiphany. 

And this is where the talk about evidence comes in. It would be harder to switch if one took it as totally given that only science-type evidence counts. But people have been persuaded by logical arguments of a metaphysical type. Or mystical experiences. The scholar I was writing about earlier, who went from total rationalist to her own brand of Neoplatonism, found that the explanations offered by Plotinus and Thomas Taylor, which were not scientific but very subtle ideas concerning consciousness and the structure of the universe, were the best fit she found to explain her own various experiences. 

Science is the only method that works to find truth. Being convinced by mystical experiences or arguments is I'm afraid worthless unless backed up by science.

Anyway, I'm not sure about atheism as a default setting, but I agree that changing from one view to another does require reasons, good or bad.

Not belief in something IS the default for you to believe in something there must be something that leads you to that belief but to NOT believe it you just need to not have had the experience that leads you to belief. Again I am a prime example of that. I have never believed and have never seen a reason to start so I am an atheist.