"atheism is a belief"

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only way that you get a this lack of belief about God is if there isn't a G in the life that
an Atheist is in. Once one is presented with the possibility of God, than the variable is
either a yes or a no, with a no there is a rejection so all of them reject God who are
confronted with Him. They believe that He isn't real so that belief resides in them.

I don't agree. Many things are possible, but I feel no obligation to evaluate each possibility to a 'yes or no' conclusion.

Feel free to do this in your own intellectual life if you wish, though I fear we won't hear from you again if you do... 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only way that you get a this lack of belief about God is if there isn't a G in the life that
an Atheist is in. Once one is presented with the possibility of God, than the variable is
either a yes or a no, with a no there is a rejection so all of them reject God who are
confronted with Him. They believe that He isn't real so that belief resides in them.

Actually, I do believe that the cartoon god in which you profess belief doesn't exist. The god of the bible is hilariously ridiculous to me. Religion based on scripture just seems laughable. That doesn't mean I don't believe in god, though. Just your version thereof. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand how an ostensibly rational person can ever accept scriptural authority.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only way that you get a this lack of belief about God is if there isn't a G in the life that
an Atheist is in. Once one is presented with the possibility of God, than the variable is
either a yes or a no, with a no there is a rejection so all of them reject God who are
confronted with Him. They believe that He isn't real so that belief resides in them.

No. This is wrong.

There are three possible states of belief about a claim.

A positive belief that the claim is true.

A neutral lack of belief that the claim is true or false.

A negative belief that the claim is false.

For example, take the proposition that "There are other intelligent beings in the galaxy".

You could believe that the proposition is true, and hold a positive belief that "There are other intelligent beings in the galaxy".

You could believe that the proposition is false, and hold a negative belief that "There are NOT other intelligent beings in the galaxy".

OR, you might not have a belief either way, and lack a belief about whether "There are other intelligent beings in the galaxy".


To hold this last position you do not need to 'reject' the idea of other intelligent beings existing, you simply need to lack a belief,
or a "firm conviction", that such beings actually do exist. While also not having a firm conviction that they do not exist.


This is blindingly obviously true.

Which is why it's so baffling how so many theists seem to have so much trouble with the idea that you can simply lack a belief
in something without needing to either believe or disbelieve it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I don't agree. Many things are possible, but I feel no obligation to evaluate each possibility to a 'yes or no' conclusion.

Feel free to do this in your own intellectual life if you wish, though I fear we won't hear from you again if you do... 🙂

I agree there are many things I don't give a 2nd thought too, but God isn't one of them.
Atheist define themselves by this lack of belief in God, or out right rejection of Him. If it were
so meaningless to them that they had no view on the topic, there wouldn't be a term
describing themselves that they spend so much time defending.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Actually, I do believe that the cartoon god in which you profess belief doesn't exist. The god of the bible is hilariously ridiculous to me. Religion based on scripture just seems laughable. That doesn't mean I don't believe in god, though. Just your version thereof. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand how an ostensibly rational person can ever accept scriptural authority.

I don't care that you reject the God of the Bible, what is that to me what you do with Him,
that is completely between you and Him.
I also get that you feel at a loss that people don't share your views on the topic, if you are
so sure you right how could others be so wrong.
Not sure what you think would be evidence for God, or what you think is God's roll in the
universe is, I'm sure you have some idea since you reject others out of hand.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. This is wrong.

There are three possible states of belief about a claim.

A positive belief that the claim is true.

A neutral lack of belief that the claim is true or false.

A negative belief that the claim is false.

For example, take the proposition that "There are other intelligent beings in the galaxy".

You could believe that the p ...[text shortened]... you can simply lack a belief
in something without needing to either believe or disbelieve it.

So you believe the choices are only Atheist, Theist, or Agnostics?
Trying to understand you, not put words in your mouth, correct me where I'm wrong.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you believe the choices are only Atheist, Theist, or Agnostics?
Trying to understand you, not put words in your mouth, correct me where I'm wrong.

The only options are theist or atheist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you believe the choices are only Atheist, Theist, or Agnostics?
Trying to understand you, not put words in your mouth, correct me where I'm wrong.

I struggle to believe that you are trying to understand me, given how many times I have explained exactly this topic.

I even have an explanation in my Bio of exactly this issue.


A theist is a person who believes [has a firm conviction that] a god or gods exist.

An atheist is a person who is NOT a theist. And thus does not have a belief [a firm conviction that] a god or gods exist.


Given that a person thus can only be a theist or an atheist by definition, the choices cannot be
"Atheist, Theist, or Agnostic" but only 'theist or atheist'. Agnostic means something else entirely.

This is the text from my bio:

If you believe in a god or gods and claim to know it or they exist then you're a "gnostic theist".

If you believe in a god or gods and don't know if it or they exist then you're an "agnostic theist".

If you don't believe in a god or gods and don't know if it or they exist then you're an "agnostic atheist".

If you don't believe in a god or gods and claim to know if it or they doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".

If you want to be picky, the third on the list "agnostic atheist" can be broken down into "agnostic weak atheist"
and "agnostic strong atheist". The distinction being between people who merely lack a belief in gods "agnostic weak atheist"
and those who believe in a lack of gods "agnostic strong atheists".

And if you want to be really picky, you can split agnosticism into two different strengths.

Weak agnosticism, where they simply claim that it isn't known, or that they personally don't know, if a god or gods exist.
and
Strong agnosticism, where they make the stronger claim that it cannot be known if a god or gods exist.

However those are subtleties that are probably unnecessary to this discussion.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]atheism is a belief Thread 154278 (33 Pages)
Original post by apathist [on 13 Jul '13 14:01.Last moved 614 days 14 hours and 38 minutes ago]

"There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it t ...[text shortened]... ______________________________

Your opinions, speculations and/or latest insights pro or con?[/b]

Babies are implicit atheists, as are all people who have never heard of god or who are incapable of conceiving of him. This status is worth noting because babies can be expected to grow up to be either theists or explicit atheists. A rock, by contrast, is incapable of ever believing anything, under any circumstances. As such, it makes no sense to refer to a rock as an atheist. Just as it would make no sense to say, for example, that hydrogen is an atheist.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think many Christians 'want' atheism to be understood as a belief system, to establish a 'defensive equilibrium.' This way when an atheist rejects God or challenges a Christian about their faith they can simply say, 'well it's just a question of belief. We have our believe system and you have yours.'

But atheists really are just like rocks when it ...[text shortened]... ink atheism is a belief, rather than quoting a post from antiquity. There is strength in directness.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"I think you would have been better off GB in stating clearly that you think atheism is a belief, rather than quoting a post from antiquity. There is strength in directness."
____________________________________

GD, my perspective with regard to apathist's thread title is as follows: An atheist is a person who believes in some manner by which the universe, the pyramidal food chain and human populations came into being; who believes in some standards of morality; who believes in some unifying code of social conduct, principles of civility or work ethics; who believes in some political system or form of governance; who believes in the trustworthiness of some family members and/or close friends; but who does not believe the proposition that any supernatural being or gods exist.

Some think logically on the basis of rationalism or empiricism; others arbitrarily and dogmatically say, "I do not believe God exists". We all share belief or faith as a third mean of perception based on confidence in the authority of someone whose veracity we explicitly trust [a parent, teacher, coach, law emforcement or military officer, surgeon, attorney. or God Himself]. Atheists believe but not in God. Thanks for your objective post.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
What do you imagine the atheist believes? That there isn't a god? I don't believe that. I just don't believe there is one. I accept that I could be wrong. Do you accept that you could be wrong in your belief that there is one?

avalanchethecat, please see my reply to Ghost of a Duke moments ago on page two.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have noticed a trend in your threads where you respond to most of the questions with demand for patience and promises that all will be revealed in due time, but it never is. I think you are just avoiding answering the question. (yes, I know this is a subjective off topic personality focused comment and not a question at all - but it is still probably true).

Please cite your questions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You should have started with the biggest and best encyclopaedia in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

It turns out that atheism does not require belief.

Original post by apathist [on 13 Jul '13 14:01.Last moved 614 days 14 hours and 38 minutes ago]

twhitehead, apathist "started" this thread two years ago.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Let G = "One or more gods exist".

Some atheists say there is insufficient evidence for G. That sort of atheism is best described as a lack of belief.

Some atheists say G is false. That sort of atheism can be described as a belief in not-G.

Fair enough; in both instances objective rationalism is involved in arriving at a decision regarding the existence of God.

Originally posted by rwingett
The only options are theist or atheist.

Agnostics is not a choice, or one you like?