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

[HonestJoe]

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

You know we hold exactly the same position. The differences are semantic. If your answer to the yes/no question; “Do you believe in any gods?” is no (which it would have to be), you are atheist by one of the standard definitions (whether you like it or not ).

This is why I object to statement about atheism being a belief system or similar characterisations. I don’t think such discussions benefit from generalisations (even if any of them were accurate). There is more to be gained from talking about what we actually believe, think and do as a consequence rather than trying to attach generic labels to each other.

 

[mbig]

RD seems like the place to discuss this....

It's NOT the place to discuss this.
It's is a Philosophical issue, AND....
anyone/an atheist wishing to say there is no god or why, would be Breaking the rules in This section.
I was going to make my 4th posting of an old post in response, but cannot because it Is in the Religion section.

and of course, this is the 100th Repetition of the 100th Repetition of the Monthly.. Is Atheism a Religion/Atheism is a religion/Why are you an Atheist/For Atheists, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc,

 

[calamity]

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.

It depends on several conditions. Are there planets in those star systems with water that are within the temperate zone of their suns? The answer to that question would go a long way in swaying the thoughts on that position.

Absent any such variables which push the equation one way or the other, then neither position is more rational than the other, per se. But, it would be irrational to argue that there is life out there simply by glancing at the nearest star and asserting there are cities and states with kings and queens hiding in the darkness. Whereas it is not irrational to say I do not believe there is life out there, because there is no evidence to suggest that there are even planets with water and decent weather circling that there unknown star.

On the god thing, it is my view that the same argument holds. On the surface either of the two positions are equally irrational. However, there is a clear divide, and therein lies the rational. God believers insist that there is a god out there, absent any evidence whatsoever to that effect. The non-believer says, "Hold on a minute. I see no physical evidence supporting this concept of a god. Therefore, I do not believe." A much more rational position. No?

 

[calamity]

It's NOT the place to discuss this.
It's is a Philosophical issue, AND....
anyone/an atheist wishing to say there is no god or why, would be Breaking the rules in This section.

and of course, this is the 100th Repetition of the 100th Repetition of the Monthly.. Is Atheism a Religion/Athiem is a religion/Why are you an Atheist/For Atheists, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ec, etc, etc, etc, ete, etc, etc, etc,

perhaps the mods can move it if I chose the wrong forum...lord knows there are so many to choose from, all with funny little rules attached, that I do sometimes ponder-- for hours--- where exactly a potential thread ought be placed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

You are missing (ignoring?) some very important ideas.

1) Knowing that X (a proper way to behave, a frog or an ocean) exists indicates that some very powerful force caused, made or created X.

2) Not understanding or being sure of what that force controls X does not mean that force does not exist, any more than denying that X exists because you can't say why.

3) When educating, guiding or raising a child you say "because I said so" or "because that is how it should be done" based on parental authority which is exactly what religion does, using god in place of a parent, as the authority for those assertions.

One cannot know, investigate or prove all concepts, flora, fauna or natural things that "are" so we must accept that "void" as either simple ignorance or write that "void" off as not requiring any further investigation because that is just the way things are (reason = no reason?).

If you assert that natural "scientific" laws or principles caused X that often requires relying on non-existent proof (faith?). When you that claim a belief in god or religion is wrong (unwarranted?) based on that same non-existent proof (faith?) are you any really any better or different?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You know we hold exactly the same position. The differences are semantic. If your answer to the yes/no question; “Do you believe in any gods?” is no (which it would have to be), you are atheist by one of the standard definitions (whether you like it or not ).

I am glad we have at least one area of agreement.

The fact that I would answer the question "Do you believe any gods exist?" with "NO" no more makes me an atheist than my answer to "Do you believe no gods exist?" (NO) would make me a theist.

The definition to which you alluded is truly not a definition...but rather an indication of how it is used by some people. Some atheists want to pretend that "atheism" comes to English by dint of "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in god) = without a belief in god.

That is NOT how atheism came into the English language. In fact, atheism pre-dates theism in the English language...so it could not possibly have come that way.

Atheism came to English from the Greek through the French...and derives from "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = without a god.

One cannot be without a god unless there are no gods.

Huxley coined the word in great part to differentiate himself from the classical atheists with whom he partied...all of whom specifically were asserting that there are no gods. That is what the word has meant throughout its history...until a few debating atheists decided they wanted the word to mean without a belief...so they would be relieved of having to deal with the charge that asserting "there are no gods" is unsustainable...and that asserting "I believe there are no gods"...is merely stating a "belief."

This is why I object to statement about atheism being a belief system or similar characterisations. I don’t think such discussions benefit from generalisations (even if any of them were accurate). There is more to be gained from talking about what we actually believe, think and do as a consequence rather than trying to attach generic labels to each other.

I prefer no labels.

 

[pinqy]

You are missing (ignoring?) some very important ideas.

1) Knowing that X (a proper way to behave, a frog or an ocean) exists indicates that some very powerful force caused, made or created X.

Why do you think it indicates that? And if such a force existed, that would indicate an even more powerful force caused, made, or created it. Turtles, all the way down.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It depends on several conditions. Are there planets in those star systems with water that are within the temperate zone of their suns? The answer to that question would go a long way in swaying the thoughts on that position.

Absent any such variables which push the equation one way or the other, then neither position is more rational than the other, per se. But, it would be irrational to argue that there is life out there simply by glancing at the nearest star and asserting there are cities and states with kings and queens hiding in the darkness. Whereas it is not irrational to say I do not believe there is life out there, because there is no evidence to suggest that there are even planets with water and decent weather circling that there unknown star.

We do not know if there are life sustaining planets anywhere, Calamity.

So how does that impact.

On the god thing, it is my view that the same argument holds. On the surface either of the two positions are equally irrational. However, there is a clear divide, and therein lies the rational. God believers insist that there is a god out there, absent any evidence whatsoever to that effect. The non-believer says, "Hold on a minute. I see no physical evidence supporting this concept of a god. Therefore, I do not believe." A much more rational position. No?

There is no physical evidence of many things (such as life on those planets). Respectfully as possible, to suggest a guess that there because of the lack of evidence it makes more sense to guess "no" than "yes"...does not hold water.

 

[Frank Apisa]

perhaps the mods can move it if I chose the wrong forum...lord knows there are so many to choose from, all with funny little rules attached, that I do sometimes ponder-- for hours--- where exactly a potential thread ought be placed.

I hope they do. What forum are we in now? I had made a pledge to one of the moderators never to enter the religion forum...so I hope it is not that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Okay...I see at the top that this IS the religious forum.

Gotta bail for now.

I hope you can get one of the moderators to move it to philosophy.

 

[calamity]

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

I'd agree if the "there is a god, there is no god" argument ended at the simple assertion of: there is a god out there or no there is not. But, we do not see that simple argument in real life.

What we see is the believers in god conjuring up a wealth of back stories for their god. It is this which takes the believers beyond the rational. It really is staring up in the sky and saying there be a land of honey ruled by may favorite king up there. Clearly an irrational position when compared to the person looking up and, in response, saying "Bullcrap. There is no land of milk and honey up there which is ruled by an all knowing king who brings home his flock upon death."

 

[Iamjesus]

I'm glad I'm in the sciences.

There are no word police. Thus why a word is defined in a context or one starts to compare apples and oranges.

Atheism in MY definition. No belief In a god.

I am an atheist. If someone defines the word differently then, according to the their definition, I may be something else.

Someone can define atheism. Someone can define belief. The answer to the question of the OP is only logical within those definitions.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

I wouldn't say so. A system involves more than one thing working together. The legitimacy of a belief doesn't make any difference to that, it is still a singular element.

Regardless, that would be a system involving a subset of atheists, not atheism being a system in itself.

 

[HonestJoe]

The definition to which you alluded is truly not a definition...but rather an indication of how it is used by some people. Some atheists want to pretend that "atheism" comes to English by dint of "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in god) = without a belief in god.

Words are defined by their usage, not their creation. Both definitions of atheism have been long established and the word is commonly recognised as meaning either (or both) depending on context. Note that neither definition refers to any "system" though.

I prefer no labels.

Then why did you try to label atheism as a "belief system"? Why didn't you instead challenge the poster who labelled all atheists in the first place? You can't eliminate labels - they will always exist. You can rise above them though.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm glad I'm in the sciences.

There are no word police.

Really? Is Pluto a planet? :2razz:

 

[Iamjesus]

I wouldn't say so. A system involves more than one thing working together. The legitimacy of a belief doesn't make any difference to that, it is still a singular element.

Regardless, that would be a system involving a subset of atheists, not atheism being a system in itself.

Agreed, if I am understanding this correctly.

Substitute something else for 'God'. Such as 'talking penguins'.

Is not believing in talking penguins a belief system...not really. It could be if it involved more that the simple dismissing of the idea of talking penguins but, in itself, it is not.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

To the average person on the street an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods. They don't draw a distinction between a lack of belief in gods and believing gods don't exist.

Once you start drawing that distinction you need to use the more specific definitions of atheism.

Strong/hard/positive atheism: explicitly asserts that gods do not exist.
Weak/soft/negative atheism: is the lack of belief in gods without explicitly asserting they don't exist.

 

[Iamjesus]

Really? Is Pluto a planet? :2razz:

Ha!

Depends. Who is doing the labelling and what is their definition of a planet.

The Planetary Society first 'defines' what a planet is then Pluto fits that definition or not. They would never claim that calling Pluto a planet is right or wrong outside of the definition they use as a planet.

If someone else has a different definition , then Pluto is a planet. I call Pluto a planet.

The same with 'atheism'.

 

[Iamjesus]

To the average person on the street an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods. They don't draw a distinction between a lack of belief in gods and believing gods don't exist.

Once you start drawing that distinction you need to use the more specific definitions of atheism.

Strong/hard/positive atheism: explicitly asserts that gods do not exist.
Weak/soft/negative atheism: is the lack of belief in gods without explicitly asserting they don't exist.

Yes and thus why language is about the contemporary. It is communication, not what the origin of a word is.

Forty years ago we would discuss atheism. A lot of people who today we call agnostics would call themselves atheists. Why? Because the Word agnostic culturally was more an ambivalent stand on the existence of Christ...not about the existence of 'something'. It's a bit like the Constitution and freedom of religion. Some argue that when people heard that term in the 1780s they meant it to mean freedom to choose Christian faiths, sects, etc. Nobody was thinking about Wiccan or Hinduism.

 

[calamity]

I wouldn't say so. A system involves more than one thing working together. The legitimacy of a belief doesn't make any difference to that, it is still a singular element.

Regardless, that would be a system involving a subset of atheists, not atheism being a system in itself.

Fair enough. One atheist standing alone in the desert certain that there are no gods is not a belief system. But, several atheists on an internet forum arguing the position that there are no gods, for whatever reason, is a belief system.

 

[calamity]

Yes and thus why language is about the contemporary. It is communication, not what the origin of a word is.

Forty years ago we would discuss atheism. A lot of people who today we call agnostics would call themselves atheists. Why? Because the Word agnostic culturally was more an ambivalent stand on the existence of Christ...not about the existence of 'something'. It's a bit like the Constitution and freedom of religion. Some argue that when people heard that term in the 1780s they meant it to mean freedom to choose Christian faiths, sects, etc. Nobody was thinking about Wiccan or Hinduism.

In fact, if I interpret what happened correctly, when the Plains Indians began their ghost dance--clearly an expression of their religion---few people at the time argued, "Freedom of Religion," in their defense.

 

[calamity]

Ha!

Depends. Who is doing the labelling and what is their definition of a planet.

The Planetary Society first 'defines' what a planet is then Pluto fits that definition or not. They would never claim that calling Pluto a planet is right or wrong outside of the definition they use as a planet.

If someone else has a different definition , then Pluto is a planet. I call Pluto a planet.

The same with 'atheism'.

But, then, to remain logically consistent, you would also have to call that other rock (eris?) which I believe is larger than Pluto a planet as well. No?

 

[OrphanSlug]

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'm down with where we are going with this.

It is very possible and even practical for someone who is rooted in agnosticism to then go out and question or explore the potential for the existence of God or Gods (even if in some new context of the phrase,) the same is true for going through some effort to question or explore the potential that there are no God or Gods.

The issue then becomes the need for that effort either way, and as you point out without the enough "evidence" there may be little reason to guess one way or the others.

Others are right though, if this thread is moved to Philosophical Discussions we will be better off to continue.

 

[HonestJoe]

Fair enough. One atheist standing alone in the desert certain that there are no gods is not a belief system. But, several atheists on an internet forum arguing the position that there are no gods, for whatever reason, is a belief system.

Possibly I guess. If it is though, that belief system doesn't define atheism in itself, just a system involving atheism. After all, several theists arguing from the position that a god does exist doesn't define theism in itself either.

 

[ludin]

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 is still a believe.

there is no objective proof or evidence that supports the claim.
just as believe in God is a belief.