Is Atheism A Belief?

NotReally

@Swolliw

Swolliw said:

Some theists, usually out of desperation or through arrogant posturing try to push the argument that atheism is a belief. Of course, most four-year-old children can see through the twisted logic of deliberately confusing the word "belief" (in its generic sense) with "religious belief".

--I concur--

Atheism is purely and simply not having religious belief and is a neutral position in relation to religion. Unlike theism, there are no degrees of atheism although there may be different motivations for being an atheist ranging from ignorant hatred of religion through indifference to informed choice.

--Atheism is a bit more than blind, non-evidence belief, it shows why so, even though I disagree. It is not a religious belief, it is not a religion, but it is sure a belief, and for those who find it satisfactory, a truth.--

So what are the traits, "three Rs" that distinguish an informed, thinking atheist?

Reality: Atheists will normally accept what is known to exist rather than a contrived, wishful version.

--Through personal experience, yes.--

Reason: This is the innate ability to evaluate a situation without being clouded by biased thought.

--Again true, although some are a bit biased. Don't be hurt though. Almost all theists are biased--

Responsibility: Atheists have the responsibility to advance civilisation and the human species in a positive way rather than solipsistic, hateful view of theists that everything we do for science, medicine, learning history, geology is fruitless in the light of the world ending.

--Not all Theist think like that, but still I partially agree. Generalisation is not really good, but I have done it, so I won't teach you not to.--

--Have a G'day!--

--Why is my reply not considerate enough ;-;--

Swolliw

@NotReally

Not all Theist think like that

I think they do. The reason is that, for starters, not many are going to admit to being solipsistic and hateful but, by its very nature, religion is elitist, and it promotes hatred towards minority groups. Since religion is based on many untruths and vague speculations, theists will persistently lie in order to defend their position. Any theist who says he "doesn't think like that" is lying. A common defense of many theists is that, "Well, yes, those sorts of thinking and behaviour go on in my (church) but I'm not like the others". Nonsense; if you subscribe to a particular belief you are, by default, subscribing to all the beliefs and doctrines that go with it by reason of guilt by association.

excon

Swolliw said:

Some theists, usually out of desperation or through arrogant posturing try to push the argument that atheism is a belief.

Hello S:

Yes..  Yes it is, but don't tell anybody..  I belong to the World Wide Atheist Church of America and the World..   Every week we have services where we tell each other what we DON'T believe..  I'm a minister in the church because I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't believe.  The guy who's above me REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY doesn't believe..

excon

Swolliw

@excon

I belong to the World Wide Atheist Church of America and the World

So?....Are you trying to intimate that tidbit of information somehow makes atheism a belief?

So, what do you do instead of passing around a collection plate.....pass around a bong?

ZeusAres42

NotReally said:

@Swolliw

Swolliw said:

--Atheism is a bit more than blind, non-evidence belief, it shows why so, even though I disagree. It is not a religious belief, it is not a religion, but it is sure a belief, and for those who find it satisfactory, a truth.--

That's right, we identify as atheists, we sit around tables and have discussions about our atheist ideologies, hey we even have atheist churches and even celebrate things such as Atheistmas. Satire!

excon

Swolliw said:

@excon

Are you trying to intimate that tidbit of information somehow makes atheism a belief? 

Hello S: 

Really??  Are you that THICK? 

excon

MayCaesar

It seems to me to be the manifestation of one of the base human irrationalities. We tend to think of others as much more similar to ourselves than they actually are. When someone adores apple pies, for example, it is almost inconceivable to them that someone else might not like them.
Same here: someone whose worldview is based on a set of religious beliefs might not comprehend that it is possible to have a different world view, one that does not involve any religious beliefs whatsoever. "But you must believe in... something! Maybe you do not believe in god, but if you do not believe in anything at all, then how can you function in this world?"

I cannot think of anything that I really "believe" in. There are certain axioms that I accept, because one cannot build their worldview without starting somewhere, and that start, by definition, cannot be justified by something else. I suppose the closest thing to a belief I have is the assumption that the world is fundamentally guided by the rules of logic. This is not really a belief, as I can rationally explain why I think this way - but nor is it a hard fact: logic, after all, is a human construct build out of considerations of practicality, not out of some scientifically derived low. As my friend put it, "Logic cannot be logically derived".

It seems to me that believing in anything is fundamentally irrational. And while no human is perfectly rational, one's general worldview can be. One can look at the world, for example, as I do, as a large experimental dataset for hypothesis testing. They do not have to believe in anything, they can just accept or reject various hypotheses based on logical considerations. When someone tells me a story and I accept the claim that their story actually took place in the real world, it is not that I "believe" that their story is true - rather, the hypothesis that their story is true seems better aligned with evidence in my eyes than the alternative. I may accept their story as genuine, but I also realize that it might not be.

"Belief" is a violation of this procedure. "Belief" is when you do not have enough evidence to conclude that something is true, yet you accept the hypothesis that it is true 100%. It is when, say, the hypothesis is true with 60% probability and false with 40% probability, and you just accept it as true and internalize it, completely rejecting the alternative. And then, if the hypothesis turns out to be false, your entire worldview is shattered and you are lost in the intellectual abyss.
It is like going to a casino to play Blackjack and being absolutely, completely sure that you will walk out with an extra $100,000 on your bank account, to the point where you start making plans on what you will do with this money, shopping for a house and so on. And then you go to a casino and your bank account gets wiped out, and now you are done for, not as much because you just lost all of your money, as because the world turned out to not at all work the way you thought it did, and now you do not know how you are going to function in it.

So I do not think, as some people like Brian Greene think, that belief is an innocent little irrational thing. I think that belief is a very dangerous and harmful concept to the individual having it, with a potential to wreak havoc in one's life. Now, belief in god, perhaps, is not that bad, because it is just a fantasy: god existing or not existing does not make a lot of difference in this world. Belief in more tangible things is much worse. Christians and Muslims once both believed that Jerusalem was the holy land intended for them and them alone, and that it was their holy duty to take and keep it - and set the entire continent on fire for centuries battling it out. Many Muslims still believe in it, and most Judaists too; no wonder that region is still the primary source of military conflicts in modern times.

NotReally

@Swolliw

Swolliw said:

@NotReally

Not all Theist think like that

I think they do. The reason is that, for starters, not many are going to admit to being solipsistic and hateful but, by its very nature, religion is elitist, and it promotes hatred towards minority groups.

--Yes, without the knowledge of their subjects. It's like a subject that is taught without mentioning the demerits and evil it can bring, like a cup that is clean only on the outside.(Bible reference. The irony...)--

Since religion is based on many untruths and vague speculations, theists will persistently lie in order to defend their position. Any theist who says he "doesn't think like that" is lying. A common defense of many theists is that, "Well, yes, those sorts of thinking and behaviour go on in my (church) but I'm not like the others".

--I created my own belief that is mixture of Deism and Christianity, so I am not sure if I fall into that category. Could you elaborate on what qualities makes a person fall into sucha category?--

 Nonsense; if you subscribe to a particular belief you are, by default, subscribing to all the beliefs and doctrines that go with it by reason of guilt by association.

--I am more of the sample reader. Bits from here and there joined to create a custom belief.--

Have a G'day!

Sonofason

NotReally said:

@Swolliw

Swolliw said:

Some theists, usually out of desperation or through arrogant posturing try to push the argument that atheism is a belief. Of course, most four-year-old children can see through the twisted logic of deliberately confusing the word "belief" (in its generic sense) with "religious belief".

--I concur--

Atheism is purely and simply not having religious belief and is a neutral position in relation to religion. Unlike theism, there are no degrees of atheism although there may be different motivations for being an atheist ranging from ignorant hatred of religion through indifference to informed choice.

--Atheism is a bit more than blind, non-evidence belief, it shows why so, even though I disagree. It is not a religious belief, it is not a religion, but it is sure a belief, and for those who find it satisfactory, a truth.--

So what are the traits, "three Rs" that distinguish an informed, thinking atheist?

Reality: Atheists will normally accept what is known to exist rather than a contrived, wishful version.

--Through personal experience, yes.--

Reason: This is the innate ability to evaluate a situation without being clouded by biased thought.

--Again true, although some are a bit biased. Don't be hurt though. Almost all theists are biased--

Responsibility: Atheists have the responsibility to advance civilisation and the human species in a positive way rather than solipsistic, hateful view of theists that everything we do for science, medicine, learning history, geology is fruitless in the light of the world ending.

--Not all Theist think like that, but still I partially agree. Generalisation is not really good, but I have done it, so I won't teach you not to.--

--Have a G'day!--

--Why is my reply not considerate enough ;-;--

Haha, that is so funny..."Atheism is purely and simply not having religious belief and is a neutral position in relation to religion."  Yet they believe there is no God.  How outrageous and desperate the atheist is in their quest to confound the truth with their lies.

piloteer

@Swolliw

It is not empirically sound to declare atheism is not a belief. If you do not believe that our entire existence is a simulation which was created by somebody, and that person is not our God, then it is only a belief that it's not true. But it's very possible that it is true.  

Barnardot

LOL it does sound funny but he was saying that people get mixed up about believing things and what is a belief in terms of a religion and I think that you got mixed up because when something is true it isn’t a belief it is the facts. Strange people believe a lot of strange things and that is why god is a belief.@Sonofason

NotReally

@Sonofason

Haha, that is so funny...

--Huh? What I said or what @Swolliw said?

"Atheism is purely and simply not having religious belief and is a neutral position in relation to religion."  Yet they believe there is no God.  How outrageous and desperate the atheist is in their quest to confound the truth with their lies.

--Oh this is for @Swolliw. But I disagree with you. Just because you don't believe God exists doesn't mean you have partaken in another religion. 

The definition of religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Atheism is purely based on facts and is limited to the natural world. It is a belief, but not a religious belief.--

Have a G'day!

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

LOL it does sound funny but he was saying that people get mixed up about believing things and what is a belief in terms of a religion and I think that you got mixed up because when something is true it isn’t a belief it is the facts. Strange people believe a lot of strange things and that is why god is a belief.@Sonofason

There are as many facts to support belief in God as there are facts to support disbelief in God.  You believe there is no God, because there are no facts that would negate the existence of God.  It's all belief.  You either believe there is a God, or you believe there is no God.  Or I suppose you could also be agnostic and have no belief with regard to the existence of God.

Barnardot

I really don’t think to much about god anyway but I didn’t think there is any evidence about go and that’s why it is called a belief. But what are the facts about god you are talking about because there just isn’t any which is why you are mistaken.@Sonofason

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

LOL it does sound funny but he was saying that people get mixed up about believing things and what is a belief in terms of a religion and I think that you got mixed up because when something is true it isn’t a belief it is the facts. Strange people believe a lot of strange things and that is why god is a belief.@Sonofason

And honestly, this is .  When something is true, it is indeed a fact.  Facts do not require belief.  Facts are facts regardless who believes the facts.  Do you believe in the truth?  Do you believe in facts?  What you believe is true, is in fact a belief, regardless whether or not what you believe is a fact.

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

I really don’t think to much about god anyway but I didn’t think there is any evidence about go and that’s why it is called a belief. But what are the facts about god you are talking about because there just isn’t any which is why you are mistaken.@Sonofason

You should actually read what I said.  I said, "There are as many facts to support belief in God as there are facts to support disbelief in God."

But correct me if I am wrong.  Which facts disprove the existence of God?

Barnardot

There are many facts that show there is no God like evolution and books like the Bible are wrong and that God has never been seen and that creation is a load of baloney. But there is no facts to prove God exists. There are plenty of facts to support the belief in God but that is just being diverting and the main fact to support the belief in god anyway is if you are a bit weird or insecure you are going to believe that baloney to make you feel better. @Sonofason

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

There are many facts that show there is no God like evolution and books like the Bible are wrong and that God has never been seen and that creation is a load of baloney. But there is no facts to prove God exists. There are plenty of facts to support the belief in God but that is just being diverting and the main fact to support the belief in god anyway is if you are a bit weird or insecure you are going to believe that baloney to make you feel better. @Sonofason

Actually, evolution does not show that there is no God.   Evolution does not show that the Bible is wrong about anything.  

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

There are as many facts to support belief in God as there are facts to support disbelief in God.  You believe there is no God, because there are no facts that would negate the existence of God.  It's all belief.  You either believe there is a God, or you believe there is no God.  Or I suppose you could also be agnostic and have no belief with regard to the existence of God.

Sure, but the same can be said about anything. There are as many facts to support belief in sirens as there are to support disbelief in sirens. Does that imply that, in terms of validity, a theory stating that there are sirens who lure sailors with their songs into crashing their ships against reefs is equal to a theory stating that there is no such thing as a "siren"?

When there are zero observations indicating existence of something, it makes sense to assume its non-existence as the default. Any other position leads one to necessarily assume possible existence of an infinity of very wacky entities, leading to a complete mess in one's head. Think of it as a practical necessity: either you adopt the Occam's razor and cut off everything that does not have to exist in order for your theory of the world to make sense, or you are plunged into an intellectual abyss with no way out.

Religion is one such abyss. The only reason it is not as deep of an abyss as it could be is because its followers do not take its postulates to their logical end. If someone truly thought, say, Christianity through, accepted all of its tenets and all of their implications... they would be a complete intellectual wreck. In this sense, intellectual laziness of theists is their saving grace.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

There are as many facts to support belief in God as there are facts to support disbelief in God.  You believe there is no God, because there are no facts that would negate the existence of God.  It's all belief.  You either believe there is a God, or you believe there is no God.  Or I suppose you could also be agnostic and have no belief with regard to the existence of God.

Sure, but the same can be said about anything. There are as many facts to support belief in sirens as there are to support disbelief in sirens. Does that imply that, in terms of validity, a theory stating that there are sirens who lure sailors with their songs into crashing their ships against reefs is equal to a theory stating that there is no such thing as a "siren"?

When there are zero observations indicating existence of something, it makes sense to assume its non-existence as the default. Any other position leads one to necessarily assume possible existence of an infinity of very wacky entities, leading to a complete mess in one's head. Think of it as a practical necessity: either you adopt the Occam's razor and cut off everything that does not have to exist in order for your theory of the world to make sense, or you are plunged into an intellectual abyss with no way out.

Religion is one such abyss. The only reason it is not as deep of an abyss as it could be is because its followers do not take its postulates to their logical end. If someone truly thought, say, Christianity through, accepted all of its tenets and all of their implications... they would be a complete intellectual wreck. In this sense, intellectual laziness of theists is their saving grace.

I think you missed the point.  There are no facts that show there is no God.  If it could be shown that there is no God, someone would have done it...and no one has.  There are also no facts to prove the existence of God, and that is why there is still disbelief in the existence of God.

I say there is no fact that proves the existence of God.  But there is certainly evidence for the existence of God.  You choose the evidence that suits you.  I will choose the evidence that suits me.  And that is the way it is for all things.  If you are not convinced by the evidence, you won't believe the evidence.

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

And, like I said, "god" is not special in this respect; same argument applies to any other imaginable entity. As such, you have a choice: either to adopt a world view according to which every imaginable entity should be seriously considered - which necessarily leads one into the intellectual abyss - or to adopt an alternative world view according to which nothing the evidence of existence of which exists is assumed to exist. There is nothing special about "god" here, other than the fact that it is one of the most popular fictional entities. Few people worship goblins, for example, but billions worship "god". However, there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

No, that is not how it works. You are free to choose the evidence that suits me, but that is a horrible approach to knowledge. I prefer to consider all evidence and subject it all to the same set of standards. I do not select evidence based on what is most likely to confirm my biases; in fact, I love disconfirming them, as that teaches me something that I did not know before.

If there is "evidence for the existence of god", then the people who have found it certainly are terrible at presenting it to the public. In physics, when we have evidence of something, we publish it and propose a set of experiments any independent group of researchers can perform and test this evidence. In religion, it is always some cryptic mantras about revelations and the like; nothing concrete.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

@Sonofason

And, like I said, "god" is not special in this respect; same argument applies to any other imaginable entity. As such, you have a choice: either to adopt a world view according to which every imaginable entity should be seriously considered - which necessarily leads one into the intellectual abyss - or to adopt an alternative world view according to which nothing the evidence of existence of which exists is assumed to exist. There is nothing special about "god" here, other than the fact that it is one of the most popular fictional entities. Few people worship goblins, for example, but billions worship "god". However, there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

No, that is not how it works. You are free to choose the evidence that suits me, but that is a horrible approach to knowledge. I prefer to consider all evidence and subject it all to the same set of standards. I do not select evidence based on what is most likely to confirm my biases; in fact, I love disconfirming them, as that teaches me something that I did not know before.

If there is "evidence for the existence of god", then the people who have found it certainly are terrible at presenting it to the public. In physics, when we have evidence of something, we publish it and propose a set of experiments any independent group of researchers can perform and test this evidence. In religion, it is always some cryptic mantras about revelations and the like; nothing concrete.

People such as myself experience God.  That is sufficient evidence for me.  My evidence is not for you, and therefore you are left without evidence.  Not my problem.

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

What does it mean to "experience god"? Can you propose an experiment that will let me also "experience" it with a high degree of confidence? If not, it might as well be that your imagination plays tricks with you. That is what imagination's tricks are: they make you conflate reality with fantasy. Only an independent experiment that a third party can perform can settle such matters.

ZeusAres42

I don't see what the point is in debating what atheism means or doesn't mean. I think it is more beneficial to ask what is meant by someone when they talk of the word atheist. For myself, I am not someone that possesses a belief that there is no God but I am someone that does not possess a belief that there is a God. In other words, I am without a belief that there is a God as opposed to being with a belief that there is no God. Some people may say that is the standard definition of atheist though and I agree. Others may disagree and say that is not what Atheist means. Either way, that is what I and most other people who call themselves atheists mean when they say this.

The OP on the other hand has made it quite clear that he knows that there is no God and that he knows all theists are plebeians. That is what @Swolliw means when he uses the term "atheist."

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

@Sonofason

What does it mean to "experience god"? Can you propose an experiment that will let me also "experience" it with a high degree of confidence? If not, it might as well be that your imagination plays tricks with you. That is what imagination's tricks are: they make you conflate reality with fantasy. Only an independent experiment that a third party can perform can settle such matters.

I am content experiencing God as I do.  I do not really care if I am able to share that experience with someone else.  I don't much care what you believe.  I have no need that you believe in God.  As I said, it's your problem, not mine.

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

Suit yourself. But I do not see what you are trying to accomplish by stating these things here, if, from your own words, they are only true for you and no one else can possibly examine their validity. To me, that seems completely delirious and inconsequential.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

@Sonofason

Suit yourself. But I do not see what you are trying to accomplish by stating these things here, if, from your own words, they are only true for you and no one else can possibly examine their validity. To me, that seems completely delirious and inconsequential.

I am here to refute the false statements that are made by atheists...statements such as the one Barnardot made when he said, "There are many facts that show there is no God like evolution and books like the Bible are wrong."  The fact is, there are no such facts.

dallased25

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

There is plenty of evidence contradicting claims made in the Bible. Of course, if you believe that what is told in the Bible is all metaphorical and such, then, perhaps, you can reconcile claims such as a woman made from a man's rib with modern science... But if that is how the Bible is to be read, then it can be reconciled with anything and is meaningless.

Sonofason

dallased25 said:

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

dallased25

dallased25 said:

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

@Sonofason
Perhaps not all gods, but most are indeed foundationally a part of some religion, cult or belief system. Even the ancient early cults had systemized their gods. And I'm also sorry to say, but I already covered this in my last post. Someone can lack a belief in a god, but not firmly believe there is no god, just that there's no evidence to justify one. Big difference. Let me simplify it for you so hopefully you understand. 

Let's say I have a jar of marbles. You say "I believe there's 536 marbles in that jar". I say "I'm not sure that's true, we should count them." You say, "So you're saying that you believe there's not 536 marbles in that jar! That's a belief!" Do you see the difference yet? I'm not saying there's not 536 in the jar, I'm saying I'm not convinced until you can prove there's 536 in the jar. That's not a belief, it's skepticism of your unproven claim, which describes agnostic atheism, which is the non-belief in a god because a lack of sufficient evidence, but does not rule out the possibility. Now a strong atheist will definitively say "There is no god" and that is a belief that needs justification, but that's not all atheists, "strong atheists" are actually in the minority. Hopefully you finally see the difference. 

ZeusAres42

Sonofason said:

dallased25 said:

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

@Sonofason. Ok, so what would you call it then when someone who calls themselves an Atheist says that they have no belief in either God's existence or God's non-existence? Who cares for semantics? The fact is that I like most other people are of this position. We don't make knowledge claims with respect to things that are unfalsifiable.

And yes, beliefs are also knowledge and vice versa. Some hundred + plus years ago everyone knew that we were the center of the universe. And there were smart scientists around this time that also had good reasons as to why they knew we were the center of the universe. Then one day, Nicolaus Copernicus came along and changed all that. Thanks Nicolaus Copernicus.

Barnardot

Your so wrong about evolution and anyway you just cant say something is true without saying why. Evolution proved that the bible is full of so much made up stuff that you cant believe anything in it. Like the bible says god made everything in a week 6000 years ago and the evolution scientists proved this wrong with carbon dating because the universe is over 13 billion years old. And the experts know that all life came from evolution but the bible says god made life which is wrong also you did not give any evidence as to what you mean. And the reason is that you cant find any evidence because there is none so what your saying is a load of baloney. @Sonofason

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

I think this might be an indication of a fundamental difference in how some people (the majority) and others (the minority) look at the world. Some people cannot allow for any vacuum in their world view: they have to either think that something is true, or that something is false; no ambiguity allowed. Others, on the other hand, are okay with saying, "I do not know", or, sometimes, "I do not care", leaving the question unresolved for the time being.

One can absolutely lack belief in god and lack belief in absence of god at the same time. That it does not seem that way to you tells me that you belong to the first group of the two I described.

Barnardot

If one can believe 2 completely different things at the same time he must be some pretty scrolled up multitasker I think you got it wrong because you cant lack believe in god and lack belief in absence of god at the same time and if you did you probably believe in god anyway because your mind is not there. @MayCaesar

Sonofason

dallased25 said:

dallased25 said:

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

@Sonofason
Perhaps not all gods, but most are indeed foundationally a part of some religion, cult or belief system. Even the ancient early cults had systemized their gods. And I'm also sorry to say, but I already covered this in my last post. Someone can lack a belief in a god, but not firmly believe there is no god, just that there's no evidence to justify one. Big difference. Let me simplify it for you so hopefully you understand. 

Let's say I have a jar of marbles. You say "I believe there's 536 marbles in that jar". I say "I'm not sure that's true, we should count them." You say, "So you're saying that you believe there's not 536 marbles in that jar! That's a belief!" Do you see the difference yet? I'm not saying there's not 536 in the jar, I'm saying I'm not convinced until you can prove there's 536 in the jar. That's not a belief, it's skepticism of your unproven claim, which describes agnostic atheism, which is the non-belief in a god because a lack of sufficient evidence, but does not rule out the possibility. Now a strong atheist will definitively say "There is no god" and that is a belief that needs justification, but that's not all atheists, "strong atheists" are actually in the minority. Hopefully you finally see the difference. 

Surely, I understand what it is to lack a belief in a god.  Infants and people who have never given it a thought would fall into such a category.  But what does it mean to "not firmly believe there is no God"?  If it were me saying such nonsense, it would mean that I believe that there is no God, but I have no justification for such a belief...I have no evidence to support such a belief.  I have blind faith, if you will, that there is no God.  I think that is the category in which most atheists fall.  They believe there is no God, but for argument's sake, they pretend they lack a belief.  But I know the truth, that it is a farce, and a lie.

Barnardot

Atheists don’t pretend if they don’t believe because there is nothing to pretend about but theists pretend all the time because what they believe isn’t there so all they can do is pretend anyway. @Sonofason

Sonofason

ZeusAres42 said:

Sonofason said:

dallased25 said:

Well I think the confusion here is that religious people try to conflate a belief, with a belief system. Religions have entire belief systems that prescribe everything from moral rules, to beliefs on life, purpose, the universe, etc....and they are almost all centralized within those denominations with very little variation. The thing with atheists is...the only thing we all have in common is what we don't believe, which is in no gods. Gods are the claim, not believing those claims isn't actually a belief itself. Now if an atheist says, "I believe there are no gods", then that is indeed a belief, but atheism in of itself is not a belief system. There's no central doctrine, or common core beliefs on the universe, or life, or purpose, or anything like that. I've literally met some atheists who were republican, democrat, anti-vax, flat earth, etc. So no religious person should assume anything about an atheist until they speak with us and actually ask us what we believe. Unfortunately so often...they don't. They assume everything and are almost always wrong. 

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

@Sonofason. Ok, so what would you call it then when someone who calls themselves an Atheist says that they have no belief in either God's existence or God's non-existence? Who cares for semantics? The fact is that I like most other people are of this position. We don't make knowledge claims with respect to things that are unfalsifiable.

And yes, beliefs are also knowledge and vice versa. Some hundred + plus years ago everyone knew that we were the center of the universe. And there were smart scientists around this time that also had good reasons as to why they knew we were the center of the universe. Then one day, Nicolaus Copernicus came along and changed all that. Thanks Nicolaus Copernicus.

If you have no belief that there is a god, and you have no belief that there is not a god, then you are clearly agnostic.  Such a person would say, with all honesty, they just don't know if there is a God.  And that setting aside of course those who have never seen nor heard, nor imagined some concept of a god.

There is no known fact that has determined that we are not at the center of the universe.  For all we know, the universe is infinite, and if it is, you tell me...where is the center?   As a father, my children are at the very center of my universe.  Who is at the center of God's universe...I'll tell you what I know...and that is that you don't know.

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

Your so wrong about evolution and anyway you just cant say something is true without saying why. Evolution proved that the bible is full of so much made up stuff that you cant believe anything in it. Like the bible says god made everything in a week 6000 years ago and the evolution scientists proved this wrong with carbon dating because the universe is over 13 billion years old. And the experts know that all life came from evolution but the bible says god made life which is wrong also you did not give any evidence as to what you mean. And the reason is that you cant find any evidence because there is none so what your saying is a load of baloney. @Sonofason

No, the Bible does not say that God made everything in a week.  It says that God made everything in 6 days...And the Bible defines exactly what a day is in Genesis 1:5  where we learn that, "...God called the light Day".  It does not say each day of creation was a 24 hour day.  For God's sake, on the first few days of creation there wasn't even a sun, so how could there have been a 24 hour day?  A day is a time of light...and clearly we learn from Genesis 1:3 that God is capable of speaking light into existence.  If you will recall from verse 3, God said, "let there be light".  Stars are not required for light to exist.

The Bible does not say that God snapped His fingers and created life.  The fact is, according to the Bible, which you should perhaps read again, since you've got it all wrong, God said, "let the waters bring forth..." life, and "let the earth bring forth..." life... from Genesis 1:20 & 24.  There was no abracadabra.  God is the engineer of everything that exists.  It is God that enables the earth and water to bring forth life that is capable of evolving.  It is God that gives matter a reason to exist.

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

Atheists don’t pretend if they don’t believe because there is nothing to pretend about but theists pretend all the time because what they believe isn’t there so all they can do is pretend anyway. @Sonofason

For the record, for those of you who believe that atheists do not believe that there is no God, look here at what Barnardot just said...He said, " because what they (believers) believe isn't there.  That is a direct denial of the existence of God.  So please stop pretending that atheists have no beliefs about God.  Atheism is the most devout religion of the day.  And the faith they have in what they believe is pure and blind faith.  They all believe there is no God.

And all that you all have to do is keep yapping, because eventually you too will say something that enables me to prove that you too have blind faith in the non-existence of God.

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

If one can believe 2 completely different things at the same time he must be some pretty scrolled up multitasker I think you got it wrong because you cant lack believe in god and lack belief in absence of god at the same time and if you did you probably believe in god anyway because your mind is not there. @MayCaesar

You are so smart Barnardot...do you think an infant might lack a belief that there is a God?    Do you think that the very same infant might also lack a belief that there is no God?  How many beliefs do you think an infant has?

To lack a belief is not believing..I think it is you who are a bit mixed up.  Please think it through.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

Belief in the existence of God has nothing at all to do with knowing or following the doctrines of religion.  And I am sorry to say, if you do not have a belief in God, then you absolutely do have a belief that there is no God.  You can try to twist it any way you want, but the fact is, atheists have a belief in no God.  And their faith is more devout than most believers.

I think this might be an indication of a fundamental difference in how some people (the majority) and others (the minority) look at the world. Some people cannot allow for any vacuum in their world view: they have to either think that something is true, or that something is false; no ambiguity allowed. Others, on the other hand, are okay with saying, "I do not know", or, sometimes, "I do not care", leaving the question unresolved for the time being.

One can absolutely lack belief in god and lack belief in absence of god at the same time. That it does not seem that way to you tells me that you belong to the first group of the two I described.

I am not saying that if a person lacks a belief in God that they must believe in a lack of God.  You are right...a person can lack belief in God, and at the same time lack disbelief in God.  I am saying that atheists...most atheists...believe there is no God, and this toying around with the lexicon of belief is a ploy, a diversion, a rouse.  And the rouse is set into play because they understand that without it, they are hopelessly categorized as a person who believes without evidence.  God forbid an atheist is accused of having blind faith in their belief in the absence of God.  But that is in fact what most of them have.  Perhaps you are an exception...I hope that is true.

Barnardot

I did think it through and that’s why I caught your mistake with the double negative. Doesn’t you not understand @Sonofason

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

I did think it through and that’s why I caught your mistake with the double negative. Doesn’t you not understand @Sonofason

Please recall what I said...I said, "for those of you who believe that atheists do not believe that there is no God..."
You must understand that this is not a double negative.  To not disbelieve in God, does not mean that you do believe in God.  It means that you do not have a belief that there is no God.  But the fact is, YOU do.  And YOUR belief in the absence of a God is unjustifiable.

Barnardot

Your really confused now because you think that the double negative means the opposite but it doesn’t. It means the baby still doesn’t know there is god which is the status quote. You see the point is that god believers think that not believing means believing something which is not wright and that’s because they get freaked out if they can’t make something out of nothing. Which is why they make up god anyway because they can’t stand the thought that they are nothing but a heap of mess that accidentally came along then they feel all insecure like orphans or being adopted just because they don’t know where they come from. So you see that’s the reality of the situation because you just have to learn to deal with it instead of making things up and saying that lackinga belief means that you believe something else. @Sonofason

CYDdharta

@Sonofason

That is inaccurate.  Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Sonofason

Barnardot said:

Your really confused now because you think that the double negative means the opposite but it doesn’t. It means the baby still doesn’t know there is god which is the status quote. You see the point is that god believers think that not believing means believing something which is not wright and that’s because they get freaked out if they can’t make something out of nothing. Which is why they make up god anyway because they can’t stand the thought that they are nothing but a heap of mess that accidentally came along then they feel all insecure like orphans or being adopted just because they don’t know where they come from. So you see that’s the reality of the situation because you just have to learn to deal with it instead of making things up and saying that lackinga belief means that you believe something else. @Sonofason

I believe if you were fluent in the English language you would have understood that is exactly what I did not say.

Sonofason

CYDdharta said:

@Sonofason

That is inaccurate.  Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Agnostic:  a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

broadly:  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

If you consider that I am using the term agnostic in broad terms, then I am not at all inaccurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

I am not saying that if a person lacks a belief in God that they must believe in a lack of God.  You are right...a person can lack belief in God, and at the same time lack disbelief in God.  I am saying that atheists...most atheists...believe there is no God, and this toying around with the lexicon of belief is a ploy, a diversion, a rouse.  And the rouse is set into play because they understand that without it, they are hopelessly categorized as a person who believes without evidence.  God forbid an atheist is accused of having blind faith in their belief in the absence of God.  But that is in fact what most of them have.  Perhaps you are an exception...I hope that is true.

I think "belief" is not the best word to use here. "Belief" is something that, by definition, you do when you lack proper evidence and reasoning to logically conclude it to be true. But you may have this reasoning and conclude it to be true, even when you cannot be 100% certain that it is true. People make this kind of conclusions all the time in their everyday lives: it is very rare when you know something with absolute certainty, but it is quite common to know something with enough certainty when thinking it to be true is the most practical choice.

I personally think the idea of "god" to be childish and preposterous. It is not a blind faith or anything of this sort: I actually can provide a logical argument that makes existence of god as it is commonly defined metaphysically impossible.
Do I know for a fact that there is no some kind of an unbelievably powerful sentient being that is not a subject to the known laws of the Universe and can bend it? No. However, existence of such a being does not make a lot of logical sense to me, and as such the possibility of its existence seems just as reasonable to take into account to me as existence of the Santa or ghosts or invisible unicorns.

Are there atheists who espouse blind faith in lack of god? Certainly. I would imagine that quite a few disgruntled former theists may assume such a position simply to spite their former religious associates. But I am not at all confident that it is true for most atheists. As biased as my sample is, in my experience most atheists, like me, just do not take the idea of god seriously, attributing it to the same set of fantasy entities as those found in the Lord of the Rings books. Again, it may be hard for many theists to understand this mindset for the difference in backgrounds, but a person who was not brought up in a religious household generally does not have any reason to differentiate religion from other mythologies or fiction.

CYDdharta

Sonofason said:

Agnostic:  a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

broadly:  one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

If you consider that I am using the term agnostic in broad terms, then I am not at all inaccurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Agnosticism is a belief.  Webster's "broad" definition includes most atheists.