Is atheism a belief?

[Abaddon_ire]

The real problem here is that Belaqua has chosen to believe what the thoughts, reasoning and motivations of all atheists actually are. Having made that choice (extracted from fundament) he/she feels justified in dictating what you, I, anyone of us. all of us really think. So committed to this choice is Belaqua that he/she cannot see beyond that choice. This is simply another reframing of the claim "It takes more faith to be an atheist".

It is also a common trope among the religious that it simply is not possible to NOT believe in something. They don't understand it. They can't.

It is also a common claim of the presuppositionalists, that we all actually believe in god but as atheists are in denial about that "fact".

Belaqua is simply trying to extract an admission that atheists "believe" things as a means to shoehorn in religion into atheism.

[Deesse23]

You guys still feeding the wannabe-intellectual troll?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Likewise.

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.

I agree the default position (from childhood) for many would be theism (due to tradition and authority and such). But my point is that when children or adults start to think about this subject intellectually, and go about it by "resetting their thoughts" and starting with common assumptions that both sides generally make (without presupposing either theism or atheism), what happens is that atheism is naturally the default conclusion, so those who are not prone to think "theistically" will stop at atheism. Those who are prone to think "theistically" will not be satisfied with atheism because their intuition strongly disagrees with such a conclusion, so they go for the best explanation that satisfies them (but to get there they have to make a leap that is not based on reason but more on their intuition).

As for presuppositionalist theists (like Sye Ten Bruggencate), I don't think they're thinking about the subject in an intellectual manner. So they may as well be in the same category as the child who is a theist because they were raised as such.

That's how I personally see it, at least.

ETA: All that said, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, even if intellectual atheists hold beliefs that lead them to atheism as the conclusion. No one is saying that atheists don't hold beliefs that cannot be adequately backed up by science itself (or at least I think no one is).

[bennyboy]

Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief. I say there's Skydaddy. You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud. Show me." You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

[Abaddon_ire]

Still not sure what the problem is with saying atheism is a belief.  I say there's Skydaddy.   You say, "Yeah. . . I doubt it, bud.  Show me."  You believe Skydaddy isn't real, but you're always willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Well, thats easy. The god botherers keep on wheleling out accusations that us atheists have beliefs we simply do not hold. As long as they wheel out such baloney, atheists are going to complain that this is a lie.

Would you accept that I claim that you are the spawn of your mother mating with beelszbub? Of course not.

Why should anyone treat the religious claims otherwise? Are those claims somehow "special"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Perhaps because the majority of them are, like you, agnostic atheists?

[Abaddon_ire]

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Perhaps because the majority of them are, like you, agnostic atheists?

No.

[fredd bear]

Perhaps because the majority of them are, like you, agnostic atheists?

No.

I'm not sure. It could be an emotional things, as beliefs about religion tend to be. The proud atheist claim that our lack of belief is due to reasoning alone, I think is nonsense as a generalisation. We human beings are simply not that rational. Of course, we DO have reason and facts on our side, which religious believers do not.  

Who can say the why of anything for any other person, even ourselves at times.?

Making a claim about God/supernatural/ paranormal/ psychics, etc etc attracts the burden of proof. The agnostic and 'soft' atheist does not have that burden , he states a position, but makes no claims.

A person who asserts 'there is no god" or "I believe there is no god" may be asked to prove those claims, just as much as the same demand is made of theists..

[Bucky Ball]

Belaqua Wrote:

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

You're dishonestly equivocating the word "belief".
Religious belief and and a well-founded evidence-based position concerning what is reliable in reality are not even remotely similar.

[bennyboy]

Why are atheists fighting so hard to be seen as people who simply lack a belief, and not as those who believe certain propositions are likely false?

Perhaps because the majority of them are, like you, agnostic atheists?

I'm not an agnostic atheist.

I'm gnostic atheist on all normal definitions of God that I've heard, and agnostic in general.  I don't accept the term "atheist" as a descriptor of myself in general, because I believe there is almost certainly either some philosophical principle or quantity, or some massive intellect so beyond our own, that it could be called God.  Whether you would  call it that is a different issue.

---

Would you accept that I claim that you are the spawn of your mother mating with beelszbub? Of course not.

If you made that claim, I wouldn't say I lacked that belief. I'd say I believed otherwise, or that I believed you were wrong.