Is atheism a belief?

[Belacqua]

I think that's a philosophical cop-out.  

This whole thing has been really interesting to me. 

And I can plug it into a Neoplatonic framework as an allegory, that clarifies things for me. Probably no one else will like it.

The Neoplatonics say that our true home is in the One -- the undivided source of reality. While in the One we see the world in an unmediated way. That is, we see directly what's true. 

The Fall, for these people, isn't to do with sin, it's about division. We fall when we are divided from the One, lose our direct sight, and begin to perceive things as separate. They often write as if this were an ontological or even a spatial fall, but in fact it is purely perceptual. Truth is that things are One, but after the Fall we don't see that. We become divided and our knowledge is always mediated. 

Since at least the time of Proclus, the main metaphor people use to describe becoming something new at the point of the fall is weaving. Blake, especially, makes a lot of how at the moment of our separation from reality we have new bodies woven for us -- not scooped out of clay or chiseled, but woven. Now I see how useful this is.

I've been thinking here about the many many beliefs, assumptions, frameworks, metaphysical guesses, etc. etc. that go into our conclusions about what the world is. If we are atheists, we are so because of this elaborate and fairly inextricable mesh of concepts and assumptions. So I see why all those smart guys talk about weaving -- when we lose this mythical state of direct perception, we fall instead into a web, a net, a tangle of beliefs and assumptions and half-understood concepts. This web is what our mind is, which is largely what we are. 

The Neoplatonists say that during the time we are embodied in this way (in the particular web of ideas that we have), our view of the world seems unquestionable. What we see is so completely determined by this web that we can't imagine it being any other way. For us in that condition, that is what is true, and we will fight to defend it. We will even claim that our view is somehow NOT contingent, doesn't have a history, is in fact what Nagel calls a "view from nowhere." Meaning, a view that is not dependent on the many accidents of what we happen to be. 

The myth usually implies that we can come unwoven from this net, and return to direct vision. Plotinus said it can happen momentarily in this life, and then permanently after death. Blake said it can happen in this life and when it does it means we have reached heaven, and become one with God. It is purely perceptual. 

Anyway, the insistences on this thread have brought home to me the appropriateness of weaving as a metaphor. The web of beliefs that we live in, and which are responsible for all our beliefs and non-beliefs, is what our minds are. 

Please note I've used "myth" to describe all this. I do not take it as literally true, and it's hard to say how much Plotinus and Blake did so.

[Peebothuhlu]

You're quite right Belaqua.

I do kind of find your explanation rather lack-luster.

[Angrboda]

Thank you for putting these quotes together. 

It should be obvious by this time that the latter, shorter quote is the inevitable conclusion from the outline you posted above it. 

If that isn't clear then our communication hasn't been effective.

It's not your communication which is ineffective. The latter statement doesn't follow from the former statements. This has already been pointed out to you, and that you persist in thinking it does is remarkable.

[bennyboy]

I never said I have no stance on it. I said, for me, the belief in a creator just isn't there.

Once you've been presented with an existential idea, the lack is no longer a thing. Someone says "I think there's a Skydaddy watching us and he's built an eternal paradise in which we might live when we die."

And you just lack this belief, huh? You don't-- oh, I don't know-- think it's complete horseshit? Are you telling me that you don't hold the belief that they are wrong?

[EgoDeath]

I never said I have no stance on it. I said, for me, the belief in a creator just isn't there.

Once you've been presented with an existential idea, the lack is no longer a thing.  Someone says "I think there's a Skydaddy watching us and he's built an eternal paradise in which we might live when we die."

And you just lack this belief, huh?  You don't-- oh, I don't know-- think it's complete horseshit?  Are you telling me that you don't hold the belief that they are wrong?

I never said any of that. These are your projections, not mine.

Do you believe 2 + 2 = 4? If so... Could you choose to believe otherwise?

[Belacqua]

The latter statement doesn't follow from the former statements.

I lack agreement with what you say.

My lack is for no reason. I don't have to explain why.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never said I have no stance on it. I said, for me, the belief in a creator just isn't there.

Once you've been presented with an existential idea, the lack is no longer a thing.  Someone says "I think there's a Skydaddy watching us and he's built an eternal paradise in which we might live when we die."

And you just lack this belief, huh?  You don't-- oh, I don't know-- think it's complete horseshit?  Are you telling me that you don't hold the belief that they are wrong?

.......a-theism..not a-christianity.  You're allowed to know that the christian god is garbage and still be an agnostic atheist, lol. Neither atheism nor agnosticism are comments on the christian god specifically. What gnostic and agnostic atheists have told you in thread and the comments you yourself have offered demonstrate as much.

The latter statement doesn't follow from the former statements.

I lack agreement with what you say.

My lack is for no reason. I don't have to explain why.

 More to the point, you couldn't, if it were.  Just as I told you that there was no specific reason involved in my being an atheist.  Don't know why, just the way it was. There are probably reasons™ for you to equivocate over from here to the end of time, but I'm unaware of whatever they would have been.

You two are a trip, lol. You've got a grudge against a word.

[Deesse23]

Nope.  "Agnostic" is a better descriptor for me, tyvm.  Check it out:

Q: Do you believe in a God / gods?
Me: I don't know.

You dont know if you believe something?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a possibility, we're complicated.  A person could be agnostic about a given proposition -and- the contents of their beliefs.

[Deesse23]

So you're an agnostic atheist. Thanks. You don't hold a belief in god and you don't claim to have knowledge of one. Agnostic atheist.

Wrong, imho.

Since he claimed not to know if he believes in a god. Not knowing if he believes in a god, would make him something other than a theist or atheist, which is imho not possible.
We all either believe something or we dont. We either claim to know something is true, false or we say "i dont know". The issue of belief has two position, the position of knowledge three. Thats why i asked him how he cant know what he believes, in order to point out the fallacious (imho) position of "i dont know if i believe x".