Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

Belaqua Wrote:

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

That's actually precisely false.
Every atheist in the world has a different opinion on the truth claims and value of the concept of a "god" and religions.
Joseph Campbell, (an atheist) thought that every religion was true in it's own way ... although not literally true.
I happen to think many arguments for a god may be persuasive, (obviously they are, as many buy into them ...
and many who find they are not ultimately finally persuasive, find them useful, secondary to their result, ... "the ends justify the means") ... so yeah,
your generalization is false.

[Abaddon_ire]

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..

Sure but that is a straw man. The majority of atheists, if they think about it, (and most have) get right down to being unconvinced by the claims of the various claims of the thousands of bizarre claimants. All of those claimants cannot be simultaneously be correct, yet all of those claimants are somehow the only true answer. None have any modicum of evidence.

What is one to make of that ball of baloney?

[EgoDeath]

Belaqua Wrote:

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

That's actually precisely false.
Every atheist in the world has a different opinion on the truth claims and value of the concept of a "god" and religions.
Joseph Campbell, (an atheist) thought that every religion was true in it's own way ... although not literally true.
I happen to think many arguments for a god may be persuasive, (obviously they are, as many buy into them ...
and many who find they are not ultimately finally persuasive, find them useful, secondary to their result, ... "the ends justify the means") ... so yeah,
your generalization is false.

This is something I tried, multiple times, to get across to Belaqua in saying that "I won't pretend to know what 'every single adult atheist' thinks." But they did not accept this as an answer and kept trying to hammer the point home about what, supposedly, "every single adult atheist" thinks.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

There's no need for me to bicker with you about what you do and don't believe in, only to point at the fact that you've felt the need to clarify, as others have felt the need to clarify.

[Belacqua]

This is something I tried, multiple times, to get across to Belaqua in saying that "I won't pretend to know what 'every single adult atheist' thinks." But they did not accept this as an answer and kept trying to hammer the point home about what, supposedly, "every single adult atheist" thinks.

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards. 

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person? 

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists. 

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive. 

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason. 

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

[EgoDeath]

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards. 

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person? 

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists. 

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive. 

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason. 

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

I've already answered this multiple times in our previous exchanges and other people have also addressed this.

[Belacqua]

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards. 

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person? 

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists. 

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive. 

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason. 

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

I've already answered this multiple times in our previous exchanges and other people have also addressed this.

OK. Never mind.

[fredd bear]

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..

Sure but that is a straw man. The majority of atheists, if they think about it, (and most have) get right down to being unconvinced by the claims of the various claims of the thousands of bizarre claimants.** All of those claimants cannot be simultaneously be correct, yet all of those claimants are somehow the only true answer. None have any modicum of evidence.

What is one to make of that ball of baloney?

Make what you will of it.  I speak only for myself.  

My journey from devout Catholic to atheist took over 30 years.  It began with rejecting some of the more fatuous claims of the Catholic Church. Over decades, I read voraciously, and spoke to  members of other Christian flavours, as well as some Muslims. (whileI  lived in a Muslim country).

Also did some formals studies at University about aspects of Islam(plus lived in a Muslim country) and Hinduism, plus  a bit on some of the weirder Christian sects. So I guess your idea is probably pretty close to the process I went through, over all those years.

However,  I am unable to say what  'the majority of atheists ' think about anything. With respect, neither do you.  I keep saying this ,and it keeps getting ignored: ATHEISM IS NOT AN HOMOGENEOUS  POSITION. One can no more speak meaningfully about Atheists as a group than one can about Christians as a group.

I don't understand why my short explanation of the burden of proof is a straw man.  I think it's pertinent because  Christian apologists have  that burden. Agnostic atheist do not

To which ball of baloney do you refer? If you refer to my post, I'd appreciate if you would explain my errors. It will help me avoid the same mistakes in future. Or not...


**Sounds a lot like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me ,but I may be wrong.

[downbeatplumb]

I'm honestly surprised that there is any disagreement about what I've been saying. I'll try once more.

You are making a statement about every single atheist in the world: they do not believe in god. This is true by definition. I have never argued against that.

I am talking about a subset of all atheists. I am talking about adult atheists who live in a society. To be extra careful, I can also specify: atheists who are capable of language and conscious thought. That is, not babies, rocks, or lizards. 

What I claim about such atheists is this:

1) All of them have heard claims made by religious people. e.g. "There is a god."

Do you agree with this so far? Is it possible for an adult who lives in a society and comprehends language not to have heard any claim by a religious person?

But the word god on its own is useless isn't.
I have not heard a good explanation of what a god is supposed to be so I feel I have incomplete information.

Its like saying "Brexit means Brexit" its not helpful.

2) They have found this claim unpersuasive.

Does this make sense to you? If they had found the claim persuasive, they wouldn't be an atheist. But the didn't, so they are still atheists. 

well yes but see my above and define god.

3) They had reasons for finding the claim unpersuasive. 

This has been the big sticking point. Somebody earlier accused me of being "anti-science" for claiming this!!??

But god has not been defined in any coherent way.

God
[ɡɒd]

NOUN
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:
God · the Father · Jehovah · the Almighty · the Supreme Being · [More]
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god" · [More]
synonyms:
deity · goddess · divine being · celestial being · supreme being · [More]

So what is a god?

God
[ɡɒd]

I claim this because when a person hears a religious claim and decides that it's not persuasive, there has to be some prior idea. It may be a good idea (e.g. I have reason to think that only scientific evidence is good, and I have heard none for this claim, therefore I don't find it persuasive.) Or it may be a bad reason (e.g. The nuns were mean to me therefore it must be wrong). But unless the atheist wants to claim that he dismissed the idea for no reason at all--that is, he wants to claim he is a totally unthinking person--there will have been some reason. 

There is a black cat sat in my garden!


Do you believe me yes or no?

No clues.

Which particular thing have I said which is wrong?

You have made many assumptions.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sure but that is a straw man. The majority of atheists, if they think about it, (and most have) get right down to being unconvinced by the claims of the various claims of the thousands of bizarre claimants.** All of those claimants cannot be simultaneously be correct, yet all of those claimants are somehow the only true answer. None have any modicum of evidence.

What is one to make of that ball of baloney?

Make what you will of it.  I speak only for myself.  

My journey from devout Catholic to atheist took over 30 years.  It began with rejecting some of the more fatuous claims of the Catholic Church. Over decades, I read voraciously, and spoke to  members of other Christian flavours, as well as some Muslims. (whileI  lived in a Muslim country).

Also did some formals studies at University about aspects of Islam(plus lived in a Muslim country) and Hinduism, plus  a bit on some of the weirder Christian sects. So I guess your idea is probably pretty close to the process I went through, over all those years.

However,  I am unable to say what  'the majority of atheists ' think about anything. With respect, neither do you.  I keep saying this ,and it keeps getting ignored: ATHEISM IS NOT AN HOMOGENEOUS  POSITION. One can no more speak meaningfully about Atheists as a group than one can about Christians as a group.

I don't understand why my short explanation of the burden of proof is a straw man.  I think it's pertinent because  Christian apologists have  that burden. Agnostic atheist do not

To which ball of baloney do you refer? If you refer to my post, I'd appreciate if you would explain my errors. It will help me avoid the same mistakes in future. Or not...


**Sounds a lot like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me ,but I may be wrong.

Not your post, Bels bucket of crap.

ETA: Although since you put your post inside the quotes, I had a weird moment of recognising my own trajectory to the extent that I had to wonder. Did I post that?

Do yourself a favour. Put your text insertion point after the quotes. Putting them in the middle simply adds to the fog of war. My time is precious. So is yours. So is everyones on here and everywhere else. It takes not unconsiderable time to unpick which bits are yours and which bits are not, and even then there is no guarantee that one is correct. Let me be clear. So far, I am not arguing the content of what you post (we largely align in that regard). It is merely the presentation. It might sem like a petty quibble, but you want to say whatever it is you want to say. If I can't tell which are your words from your respondents, what am I to do then?