• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
RD seems like the place to discuss this.

Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods and that’s it. There is nothing fundamentally systematic about it in any way. Protestantism consists of a whole set of beliefs, doctrine and rules managed by a formal leadership. It is very much systematic (though even then arguably not one system given the extensive diversity world-wide). As I said, atheism is the opposite of theism, not specific religions. Atheism is no more a system than theism is.

The trouble is a) it’s factually wrong and b) it’s typically used as a tool for generalised attacks, which happen to include me.

No, it’s like saying a cocktail is almost always a bar. Cocktails can be part of what makes a bar and can even be a core element of a bar but the cocktail alone is not itself a bar.

A guess is conscious, a belief is sub-conscious.

That’s what you believe. ;) If it is the case, you can demonstrate it by choosing to believe in God for a short period. Can you do that?

I disagree with almost everything you said here...but this is NOT the thread for it.l

If you want to discuss it...start a thread...and I will stick with that thread for as long as it takes to get you to understand how wrong you are.

But no more discussion of it here...other than a link to a new thread.

I think we should do that.
 
Here's my take:

There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."

However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.
 
Here's my take:

There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."

However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.

I disagree completely...but I think, as I have said several times now...that it is a discussion for another thread.

I'm not interested in starting that thread...but I commit to attending it and sticking with it for as long as necessary. If you start it...I promise I will handle the topic you just raised first thing.
 
All I can do is offer my opinion on this again.

In word definition terms... Theism is the belief in God or Gods, and Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods.

Problem is in practical terms they are both beliefs as neither is really all that provable in the context of systems of process (science) for this subject. That makes Atheism and Theism flip sides of the same coin in terms of being able to prove their position. Thought exercise, as a substitute for process, does not account for all the potential of that debate from either side.

Agnostics tend to be the practical thinkers then by saying we cannot know for sure there are or are not God or Gods, in a context other than believing in them or not believing in them. Either way a choice has been made, and rather ironically both sides claim to be right in an argument they cannot possibly know everything about in the very context both sides claims to be talking about.

If we knew everything about the universe, origin, consciousness, time, dimension, and beyond those then perhaps that would be another matter where we could attempt to really validate Theism or Atheism. But we clearly do not know everything, making Atheists militants to Theism far more than some form of "evidence" of God or Gods not existing.
 
RD seems like the place to discuss this.





I think we should do that.

Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).
 
Oops...I just recognized that we went from the other thread to this one.

I will post on the topic here.

Lemme think this out for a bit.
 
The contention wasn’t whether atheism is a belief but whether it is a belief system (e.g. a religion in the original context).

Atheism and theism are equal opposites in this context. They’re just labels of singular characteristics, indicating an individual doesn’t or does believe in the existence of a god or gods. Alone they mean nothing more than that (and are actually fairly pointless without context, which is probably why they cause so much controversy). Clearly everyone has much wider and deeper ideas in relation to the nature and existence of gods but by definition, those wider ideas are above and beyond the basis labels of atheism or theism. They will be part of those views, maybe even a major part but they don’t define the views themselves.

A key reason for this is that every individual has their own view, their own belief system. I’d suggest it’s even questionable to call any given religion a belief system since even members of a single physical church/mosque/synagogue or whatever will have differences of opinion of particular aspects of their faith (and there’s nothing wrong with that IMO). Ultimately, a whole belief system will be unique to an individual. No other person in the world will have the same set of experiences or the same brain structure and so the conclusions we each reach will inevitably be different.

In conclusion, atheism isn’t a belief system and it isn’t a belief system. That just leaves belief. :)
 
All I can do is offer my opinion on this again.

In word definition terms... Theism is the belief in God or Gods, and Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods.

Problem is in practical terms they are both beliefs as neither is really all that provable in the context of systems of process (science) for this subject. That makes Atheism and Theism flip sides of the same coin in terms of being able to prove their position. Thought exercise, as a substitute for process, does not account for all the potential of that debate from either side.

Agnostics tend to be the practical thinkers then by saying we cannot know for sure there are or are not God or Gods, in a context other than believing in them or not believing in them. Either way a choice has been made, and rather ironically both sides claim to be right in an argument they cannot possibly know everything about in the very context both sides claims to be talking about.

If we knew everything about the universe, origin, consciousness, time, dimension, and beyond those then perhaps that would be another matter where we could attempt to really validate Theism or Atheism. But we clearly do not know everything, making Atheists militants to Theism far more than some form of "evidence" of God or Gods not existing.

The only comment I want to make on this OS...has to do with the second paragraph.

Theism almost universally is defined as "a belief in a god or gods."

Atheism is not so universally defined. Some define it as a lack of belief in gods...and some as a belief that there are no gods.

I want to say here that there is a HUGE difference between the following two assertions:

One: "I believe there are no gods"

Two: "I do not believe there are any gods."

One can logically say: "I do not believe there are any gods"...and...can at the same time logically say, "I do not believe there are no gods."

There is no contradiction there.

In fact, in the case of my agnosticism...it states my position.

I do not have a "belief" that there are gods.

I also do not have a "belief" there are no gods.

That same thing cannot be said for the first assertion. One cannot logically say, "I believe there are no gods" and "I believe there are gods."
 
Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.
 
Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).

Actually, Jo...I could cite dictionaries that have it one way...and others that have it the other way.

The etymology of the word favors a "belief" that there are no gods...rather than simply a lack of belief in gods.

As I pointed out above...there is a difference between saying, "I do not believe there are any gods" and "I believe there are no gods."

That difference often is lost in casual conversation...but in a discussion such as is happening here...it is vital.
 
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.

We have a disagreement again here.

I say it is vital.

If a person is saying "I believe there are no gods"...that is acknowledgement of a "belief."


If a person says, "I do not believe there are any gods" (although it sounds like the same thing is being said)...it is quite different.
 
All I can do is offer my opinion on this again.

In word definition terms... Theism is the belief in God or Gods, and Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods.

Problem is in practical terms they are both beliefs as neither is really all that provable in the context of systems of process (science) for this subject. That makes Atheism and Theism flip sides of the same coin in terms of being able to prove their position. Thought exercise, as a substitute for process, does not account for all the potential of that debate from either side.

Agnostics tend to be the practical thinkers then by saying we cannot know for sure there are or are not God or Gods, in a context other than believing in them or not believing in them. Either way a choice has been made, and rather ironically both sides claim to be right in an argument they cannot possibly know everything about in the very context both sides claims to be talking about.

If we knew everything about the universe, origin, consciousness, time, dimension, and beyond those then perhaps that would be another matter where we could attempt to really validate Theism or Atheism. But we clearly do not know everything, making Atheists militants to Theism far more than some form of "evidence" of God or Gods not existing.

I agree completely which is why I identify as a godless agnostic. It is my opinion that atheists are just too sure about something that cannot be proven: that there are no gods.

That said, I still think it is valid to state that those who insist there is no god stand on firmer ground than those who insist there is one. Again, I base that on the fact that it is more rational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence than it is to believe in it. And, we do know that there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist. Hence, not believing in them is completely rational.
 
The only comment I want to make on this OS...has to do with the second paragraph.

Theism almost universally is defined as "a belief in a god or gods."

Atheism is not so universally defined. Some define it as a lack of belief in gods...and some as a belief that there are no gods.

I want to say here that there is a HUGE difference between the following two assertions:

One: "I believe there are no gods"

Two: "I do not believe there are any gods."

One can logically say: "I do not believe there are any gods"...and...can at the same time logically say, "I do not believe there are no gods."

There is no contradiction there.

In fact, in the case of my agnosticism...it states my position.

I do not have a "belief" that there are gods.

I also do not have a "belief" there are no gods.

That same thing cannot be said for the first assertion. One cannot logically say, "I believe there are no gods" and "I believe there are gods."

We are not that far apart in opinions on this I suspect.

Agnosticism boils down to "believing" in neither Atheism or Theism, it is never about believing both conditions. It is about taking a practical position in the suggestion that within today's range of knowledge and understanding we cannot know for sure that there are or that are not God or Gods.

Atheists though generally have a different take, even though there are splinters of that opinion. "Belief" is usually discarded for a statement on "there is no God or Gods." To then say Atheism is a lack of belief in God or Gods is fairly accurate method to describe the group as a whole. A good bit towards universal definition for the idea of Atheism, even if some have gone from "I do not believe there are any Gods" to the certainty of "there are no Gods." Logic and thought exercise then becomes argumentative positions in the motivation to say something with such certainty. The core part of the definition is still there as a constant, a lack of belief.

Theism is vary complex, with a rich history of varying God and Gods to belief in over human history. We get a universal definition for the word because of the inclusiveness of all the God and Gods humanity has believed in as far back as we can determine.

That shore it up, some?
 
We have a disagreement again here.

I say it is vital.
As I said previously, calamity misunderstood the contention. I never said atheism isn’t a belief, I said it isn’t a belief system. The only thing to two working definitions of the word does is provide another reason that it can’t refer to a singular system.
 
Here's my take:

There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."

However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.

Now that I am straight on the fact that this is the new thread, allow me to comment on that Calamity, because I think they are identical...except headed in different directions.

Let me ask you this: There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol...not one shred of indication that any sentient life exists on any of those planets...

...so, would you actually say that a guess (or belief) that there is NO LIFE ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS...is any better or more logical than a guess (or belief) that there is none.

My personal take is that any guess in either direction would be a pure blind guess...with neither being more logical.
 
I agree completely which is why I identify as a godless agnostic. It is my opinion that atheists are just too sure about something that cannot be proven: that there are no gods.

That said, I still think it is valid to state that those who insist there is no god stand on firmer ground than those who insist there is one. Again, I base that on the fact that it is more rational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence than it is to believe in it. And, we do know that there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist. Hence, not believing in them is completely rational.

Once again...I have no problem with someone "not believing" in them. But anyone who INSISTS THERE IS NO GOD...is not standing on any firmer ground than someone INSISTING there is.

Both are simply making blind guesses about whether they exist or not.l
 
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.

A lack of belief makes it hard to say it is a belief, while believing something to be other than stated is obviously a belief.
 
Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).

I tend to agree that atheism is a position which is a bit more certain that there are no gods versus agnosticism which simply states the existence of gods is an unknown.
 
Actually, Jo...I could cite dictionaries that have it one way...and others that have it the other way.

The etymology of the word favors a "belief" that there are no gods...rather than simply a lack of belief in gods.

As I pointed out above...there is a difference between saying, "I do not believe there are any gods" and "I believe there are no gods."

That difference often is lost in casual conversation...but in a discussion such as is happening here...it is vital.

I think there is a difference in having no idea whether or not there is a God and believing there is one or there is none.
 
We are not that far apart in opinions on this I suspect.

Agnosticism boils down to "believing" in neither Atheism or Theism, it is never about believing both conditions. It is about taking a practical position in the suggestion that within today's range of knowledge and understanding we cannot know for sure that there are or that are not God or Gods.

Atheists though generally have a different take, even though there are splinters of that opinion. "Belief" is usually discarded for a statement on "there is no God or Gods." To then say Atheism is a lack of belief in God or Gods is fairly accurate method to describe the group as a whole. A good bit towards universal definition for the idea of Atheism, even if some have gone from "I do not believe there are any Gods" to the certainty of "there are no Gods." Logic and thought exercise then becomes argumentative positions in the motivation to say something with such certainty. The core part of the definition is still there as a constant, a lack of belief.

Theism is vary complex, with a rich history of varying God and Gods to belief in over human history. We get a universal definition for the word because of the inclusiveness of all the God and Gods humanity has believed in as far back as we can determine.

That shore it up, some?

I understand where you are coming from...but we differ a bit...and I think it important to discuss that difference.

Here is my personal agnosticism, which I will talk about as this discussion proceeds:


I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


That last part is very important to me, OS...and it will play a part in my further discussion.
 
I think there is a difference in having no idea whether or not there is a God and believing there is one or there is none.

There is a huge difference. We agree there completely.

And that forms the heart of what will be discussed here.
 
The contention wasn’t whether atheism is a belief but whether it is a belief system (e.g. a religion in the original context).

Atheism and theism are equal opposites in this context. They’re just labels of singular characteristics, indicating an individual doesn’t or does believe in the existence of a god or gods. Alone they mean nothing more than that (and are actually fairly pointless without context, which is probably why they cause so much controversy). Clearly everyone has much wider and deeper ideas in relation to the nature and existence of gods but by definition, those wider ideas are above and beyond the basis labels of atheism or theism. They will be part of those views, maybe even a major part but they don’t define the views themselves.

A key reason for this is that every individual has their own view, their own belief system. I’d suggest it’s even questionable to call any given religion a belief system since even members of a single physical church/mosque/synagogue or whatever will have differences of opinion of particular aspects of their faith (and there’s nothing wrong with that IMO). Ultimately, a whole belief system will be unique to an individual. No other person in the world will have the same set of experiences or the same brain structure and so the conclusions we each reach will inevitably be different.

In conclusion, atheism isn’t a belief system and it isn’t a belief system. That just leaves belief. :)

I've seen arguments which seem valid that show evangelicalism among the atheists. The selling of the idea that there are no gods is pretty close to making a religious argument, IMO.
 
One of the things we are going to have to deal with in order for this discussion to go forward reasonably...is to determine what each of us means when we use the word "believe" (or "belief).

In the context of a discussion about what does or does not exist in the REALITY of existence...

...a "belief" is nothing more than a guess about an unknown that is being disguised by the use of the word "belief."

We have to hash that out.

Those who disagree...let me hear what you think the word means when you uses it in this context.
 
As I said previously, calamity misunderstood the contention. I never said atheism isn’t a belief, I said it isn’t a belief system. The only thing to two working definitions of the word does is provide another reason that it can’t refer to a singular system.

But, is it not a belief system--albeit not on where there are rituals, worship or prayers--when a group of people hold onto a position which is absent of evidence supporting it? Granted, it gets complicated because proving a negative: there is no god; is impossible. But, saying there is no god anywhere in the universe is not the same as saying there are no purple unicorns on mars. At some point, holding fast to a position which is unknowable is a belief system.
 
I agree completely which is why I identify as a godless agnostic. It is my opinion that atheists are just too sure about something that cannot be proven: that there are no gods.

That said, I still think it is valid to state that those who insist there is no god stand on firmer ground than those who insist there is one. Again, I base that on the fact that it is more rational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence than it is to believe in it. And, we do know that there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist. Hence, not believing in them is completely rational.

The only problem with that statement is the potential for inverse.

Godless agnostic is basically a contradiction, you've made a decision at least to some degree on the "godless" part which points you to atheism. I am sure we can find some source that tries to classify people who lean atheist but claim agnostic, but that tends to invalidate the position on not being able to know that there is or is not God or Gods. The fundamental position from Agnosticism is that we cannot know. It would be like saying a "belief in God" version of agnosticism. Which is really just some other form of Theism, perhaps just unorganized or classified in other Theism terms (as in organized religion.)

Rational consideration for this subject (which is just like saying thought exercise) is a scope that is more or less outside of systems of process (science.) Or, the difference between theory and theory, to process, to conclusions, to review.

Where we are really stuck is in the practical use of the term atheist, in being able to prove that position. From my chair because of human confines in our knowledge and place, that makes Atheism as "lack of belief" really some other form of belief. The belief that something does not exist in a manner that cannot be proved anymore than Theists can prove the existence of God or Gods. A conundrum both sides of that coin face, proving their position.

I have to say it again then. To keep things practical, you cannot have a "godless agnostic." You are either Agnostic, or you belief even by lean Atheists or Theists have some merit in their position. The godless part suggests that lean to atheism, the decision for whatever reason if even from mild thought exercise that there is no God or Gods.
 
Back
Top Bottom