Is atheism a belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

I could go a step further saying, is there really any other type of belief?

How is belief in something proven? Doesn't the mouth speak what the heart is full of?

Good point!

People here may want to separate belief and knowledge. Normally what they mean by this is that knowledge is something I hold to be true based on reasons I think are good ones, and belief is something someone else holds to be true based on reasons I think are bad ones. 

But I think you're closer to the real situation. Very few things are proven, what we hold to be true is based on any number of assumptions, prejudices, desires, and habits, and in the end the heart is boss. Even if our belief seems like assent to us, it's likely to be commitment.

I think Hume said something along these lines. The reason is servant of the passions, and that's how it should be. Or maybe just how it must be.

The things that people know and the things that people believe are likely..at least by them, both thought to be held for good reason.  It's not really unique to people here to separate belief and knowledge, that's been an active topic for about as long as human beings have been writing about the subject.   The jtb description of knowledge adds true precisely because a belief can be justified without being true, which is why people have proposed additional qualifiers.  Some of those qualifiers attempt to explain how it is that something can be said to be proven...whether it's through methodological construction, reliability, both, additional criteria, or other un-described criteria.  

I believe that I'm going to meet my goals, I know my name.  

There's something to be said for knowledge as a conceit, something we have, for this or that reason™, undue confidence in (because we want it to be true, for example) but if that's a uniform rule when it comes to knowledge and applies to all knowledge then it also applies to the knowledge of our own names.  I don't actually know my name, I only believe that it's my name because I really really really want it to be my name, for example.  Maybe that's true..but, on the face of it, it seems as though it's profoundly off-base and I still can't help but separate the two items. A deepity.

For you, catharsis, atheism is simple. It's a term that describes any person who doesn't believe in gods, for any reason, or no reason at all. It's a single line item, a comment on a persons status of belief in gods, not the reasons for them or any certification that there is one. As interesting as a discussion between belief and knowledge may be, it's irrelevant to the term and in this thread that discussion has only been initiated in order to posture over novel positions and use of the term. A person who contends to know that there are no gods..by default, doesn't believe in gods and is an atheist.... just as a person who doesn't contend to know and doesn't believe is - no matter what difference there may be between the two, if there is a difference. If we want to contnd that everything is a belief, then..fine..still, some beliefs are different than others, and a gnostic and an agnostic still don't believe the same things. The difference between those two has nothing to do with gods, it's a difference in what people believe about their own knowledge. Between the two, only the gnostic is directly commenting on the existence of gods as they see it. Agnostics are only telling you about themselves.

Either they know what they do and don't believe, or they don't..they are aware of what they do and don't know, or they aren't...we can either take them at their word in those assessments or not...but let's be clear, here, about exactly what it is we're doing, lol.

[Belacqua]

The things that people know and the things that people believe are likely..at least by them, both thought to be held for good reason.  It's not really unique to people here to separate belief and knowledge, that's been an active topic for about as long as human beings have been writing about the subject.   The jtb description of knowledge adds true precisely because a belief can be justified without being true, which is why people have proposed additional qualifiers.  Some of those qualifiers attempt to explain how it is that something can be said to be proven...whether it's through methodological construction, reliability, both, additional criteria, or other un-described criteria.  

I believe that I'm going to meet my goals, I know my name.  

There's something to be said for knowledge as a conceit, something we have, for this or that reason™, undue confidence in (because we want it to be true, for example) but if that's a uniform rule when it comes to knowledge and applies to all knowledge then it also applies to the knowledge of our own names.  I don't actually know my name, I only believe that it's my name because I really really really want it to be my name, for example.  Maybe that's true..but, on the face of it, it seems as though it's profoundly off-base and I still can't help but separate the two items.  

This is quite a good summary. You might consider holding on to this and re-posting it when those intemperate and emotional anti-theists make claims about belief that aren't so careful.
I try to explain all this to them, but they are more likely to listen to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

+1 for pretending that you've been trying to explain the above and using that as an opportunity to shitpost about intemperate and emotional inaccuracy, lol.

Honestly, pick a stream and swim in it.

"Hurr-durr, atheists -are too- believers!"
"Hurr-durr, emotions!"

[Catharsis]

+1 for pretending that you've been trying to explain the above and using that as an opportunity to shitpost about intemperate and emotional inaccuracy, lol.

Honestly, pick a stream and swim in it.

"Hurr-durr, atheists -are too- believers!"
"Hurr-durr, emotions!"

You know them by their fruits.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sure atheists believe in some things, or am I wrong about that?

Yah, you can believe in anything except divine beings and still be an atheist, and the beliefs don't even have to be rational. There are atheists who believe in ancient astronauts, astrology, cryptids, ESP, homoeopathy, and trickle-down economics. Atheism is the state of not having a belief that any divine deities are real, full stop.

The atheists in this forum tend to cluster around humanism and rational skepticism, so you'll see us having a lot in common based on those positions, rather than atheism itself. Atheists who come here and assert that hoodoo works without divine intervention through the will of the practitioner are going to be asked for evidence, just as we would from a theist who claims Krishna is real.

[bennyboy]

I'm sure atheists believe in some things, or am I wrong about that?

Yah, you can believe in anything except divine beings and still be an atheist, and the beliefs don't even have to be rational. There are atheists who believe in ancient astronauts, astrology, cryptids, ESP, homoeopathy, and trickle-down economics. Atheism is the state of not having a belief that any divine deities are real, full stop.

The atheists in this forum tend to cluster around humanism and rational skepticism, so you'll see us having a lot in common based on those positions, rather than atheism itself. Atheists who come here and assert that hoodoo works without divine intervention through the will of the practitioner are going to be asked for evidence, just as we would from a theist who claims Krishna is real.

Wait. . . you think Krishna isn't real?!?!?

[Catharsis]

Yah, you can believe in anything except divine beings and still be an atheist, and the beliefs don't even have to be rational. There are atheists who believe in ancient astronauts, astrology, cryptids, ESP, homoeopathy, and trickle-down economics. Atheism is the state of not having a belief that any divine deities are real, full stop.

The atheists in this forum tend to cluster around humanism and rational skepticism, so you'll see us having a lot in common based on those positions, rather than atheism itself. Atheists who come here and assert that hoodoo works without divine intervention through the will of the practitioner are going to be asked for evidence, just as we would from a theist who claims Krishna is real.

Wait. . . you think Krishna isn't real?!?!?

Since I like to believe God (Creator) exists I figure the burden is on me to prove this god to you. I'd be delusional when I can't, right?

Creation is not proof of the creator.

Personal experience? hm.. of what?

God, well yea, it'll always be an out of the box concept, not?

All I can do is be me.

[Bucky Ball]

I'm sure atheists believe in some things, or am I wrong about that?

Just because it's disbelief or the conviction there's no possibility a creator god exists doesn't mean they don't believe in other things, I think, things like loyalty or servitude.

Yes they do, however the meaning of the word "belief" isn't really the same in both instances.
Once means to profess acceptance as real, even though there is no direct evidence for it, and the other means to "value" something.
They are different. Trying to get away with saying they are the same is the equivocation fallacy.

[Catharsis]

I'm sure atheists believe in some things, or am I wrong about that?

Just because it's disbelief or the conviction there's no possibility a creator god exists doesn't mean they don't believe in other things, I think, things like loyalty or servitude.

Yes they do, however the meaning of the word "belief" isn't really the same in both instances.
Once means to profess acceptance as real, even though there is no direct evidence for it, and the other means to "value" something.
They are different. Trying to get away with saying they are the same is the equivocation fallacy.

It's a kind of magic?

[The Grand Nudger]

A persons response to existential claims and value setting aren't the same thing, though we employ similar language in both cases.  If someone told you that they didn't believe in loyalty, for example..they're saying something like "loyalty is a suckers game" - likely not that they don't believe that loyalty exists. Similarly, a person saying that they believe in loyalty is unlikely to be making an existential claim, whereas a person telling you that they believe in god is.

Academic, really, since atheists do "believe things" in the existential sense. Tons of things. Atheism is a single line item...it would be legitimately surprising that there are ever any questions beyond that, were it not for the weird ass shit that theists imagine atheism is. Telling a person that atheism is about whether or not a person believes in gods answers -every- other question about atheism.

Ala

Okay, so, atheists don't believe in gods...does it mean that they don't believe in loyalty?
-Atheists don't believe in gods.
Okay, so, do atheists think that other people are people?
-Atheists don't believe in gods.
Okay, so, do atheists dance counterclockwise around ritual bonfires on the sabbath?
-Atheists don't believe in gods.

Notice a pattern?