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

[joG]

it is still a believe.

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

Absolutely. Atheism is a belief.

 

[calamity]

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.

That is a good point. At some point atheism would require dogmatic adherence to the faith that gods do not exist, perhaps even ignoring evidence to the contrary, in order to be equated to most common religious belief systems.

It goes back to my assertion that a guy staring up at the sky saying there is no life up there is more rational, even if completely wrong, than someone looking at the same sky saying, "Up there be kings and queens ruling over perfect little worlds where no one ever dies or grows old."

 

[Visbek]

I prefer terms like materialist or physicalist or naturalist.

Legally speaking, these philosophies are all protected.

One notable difference between theisms and materialism is that materialism makes its appeals predominantly to empirical evidence. Of course, this relies on certain fundamental beliefs, like "there is a real world" and "human beings are able to perceive and measure reality."

IMO, this is a very different type of belief than "I believe in ghosts." YMMV.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Absolutely. Atheism is a belief.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one. It is a belief in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

 

[Iamjesus]

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one. It is a belief in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

I don't know if I agree or not but that made me laugh. I'll have to borrow your example when discussing things with friends.

 

[Nilly]

As long as the term 'god' or 'gods' is ill defined this will forever be topic that devolves into semantics every time. When someone adequately defines the 'god' they are talking about then I will state my belief on it. 'Gods' is a term that holds no meaning because it could mean anything from Thor to Sauron to Ganesh to Yahweh to a deistic god, all of which have different definitions. It is possible to actively believe in the non-existence of some gods and hold a lack of belief about other gods.

 

[X Factor]

"There is no God" is a statement of belief.

 

[David_N]

"There is no God" is a statement of belief.

Atheists reject the existence of something that has absolutely no evidence. "There is no invisible pink unicorn" is a statement of belief.

 

[Eric7216]

I consider this a silly topic. Some claim that atheism means no belief in god(s) while others claim that atheism means that there is no god. Have no problem with the former but some who take the latter position bother me. Some of those will get real pedantic or dogmatic and will fiercely attack those who oppose their belief and condemn them for their ignorance. At some point, these atheists begin to act like any other religious fundamentalist and should be considered religious. When they proselytize and attack non-believers they become religious.

There is really not much to say if you are simply an atheist of the "no belief in god" type. No reason to attack other faiths.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The prefix "a" reverses the meaning of a word. Systole means heartbeat, asystole - no heartbeat. Pyrexia means elevated temperature, apyrexia - no elevated temperature. Political of a political nature, apolitical - no political nature. Theist, belief in God(s), atheist - no belief in God(s). It's not a difficult concept, Christians lack belief in thousands of gods, just like I do, except for one.

 

[RAMOSS]

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.

I will also say that the reason people try to make the distinctions is the whole 'burden of proof' issue. There is no evidence for the lack of gods, except for the issue of there being no evidence for Gods, and some people take idea that you believe in something unless there is positive evidence for it.

 

[Nilly]

I will also say that the reason people try to make the distinctions is the whole 'burden of proof' issue. There is no evidence for the lack of gods, except for the issue of there being no evidence for Gods, and some people take idea that you believe in something unless there is positive evidence for it.

Absence of evidence often is evidence of absence.

If we look in places that we would expect to find evidence of a deity but find no such evidence, that is evidence of absence.

For example, the fact that Zeus, who supposedly lives on Mt Olympus is not, in fact, on Mt Olympus, is evidence against his existence.

 

[Visbek]

The prefix "a" reverses the meaning of a word. Systole means heartbeat, asystole - no heartbeat. Pyrexia means elevated temperature, apyrexia - no elevated temperature. Political of a political nature, apolitical - no political nature. Theist, belief in God(s), atheist - no belief in God(s). It's not a difficult concept, Christians lack belief in thousands of gods, just like I do, except for one.

The problem is that if you don't believe in a God, then you are still believing something -- e.g. naturalism or science. You are still believing in (for example) the efficacy of of science, the validity of induction, the veracity of axioms like conservation laws, the stability of causal relations, the ability to properly distinguish between mere correlation and proximate causes and genuine causality, and so forth.

Again, I'd say these are different than supernatural beliefs, but they are beliefs all the same.

Or, to put it another way: It is an immense mistake to define numerous philosophies based not on their underlying structure, but on the semantics of a single name.

 

[Manc Skipper]

No theist merely believes in god, they have all sorts of parallel beliefs too. Atheists are no different, but my belief that my football team might win the league this year is in an entirely different category to belief in a supernatural ant farmer. The word theist is specific only to one type of belief, and atheist merely means that that specific belief is absent in some people. The absence of a belief doesn't mean that it leaves a space that must be filled with any old crap.

 

[Chagos]

The prefix "a" reverses the meaning of a word. Systole means heartbeat, asystole - no heartbeat. Pyrexia means elevated temperature, apyrexia - no elevated temperature. Political of a political nature, apolitical - no political nature. Theist, belief in God(s), atheist - no belief in God(s). It's not a difficult concept, Christians lack belief in thousands of gods, just like I do, except for one.

In fact one can go back to Greek in which atheos means without god(s).

 

[Chagos]

The problem is that if you don't believe in a God, then you are still believing something -- e.g. naturalism or science. ...................

Sez who?

Where I agree with the likelihood of what you state, that hardly precludes those people that believe in absolutely nothing.

And believing, for instance, in science is really not the same ballpark number as believing IN a deity. It should, for greater precision, also be seen a believing science (not in) where science shows merit or appears to.

Thus I'm likely to believe the maths of something, believing in maths gets to worship it.

 

[Visbek]

Sez who?

Says basic logic.

Where I agree with the likelihood of what you state, that hardly precludes those people that believe in absolutely nothing.

No one truly believes in absolutely nothing.

Even if you are a committed agnostic, you still hold beliefs of some sort. Is the world real, or not real? If you walk in the path of a speeding truck, and it hits you, will you survive?

Even if you profess to adhere to no belief system whatsoever, the fact that you breathe and eat and sleep show that you hold some beliefs about the world, and how your body works.

Someone who believes in science does not believe in "nothing." They hold an entire series of beliefs required to validate the entire scientific project.

And believing, for instance, in science is really not the same ballpark number as believing IN a deity. It should, for greater precision, also be seen a believing science (not in) where science shows merit or appears to.

I explicitly stated that the beliefs supporting science are not the same as belief in the supernatural. My point is that accepting science still requires holding a series of beliefs, that in a meaningful sense cannot be proven. After all, using empirical claims to prove the veracity of empirical claims is circular.

Further, the problem of induction cannot be waved away. As Hume pointed out, induction is an assumption, not proof.

Thus I'm likely to believe the maths of something, believing in maths gets to worship it.

Well, good luck explaining what mathematics actually is; brilliant minds have tried and failed.

I can tell you this much, though. Math is not empirical. It's a priori, and you cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of a mathematical proof by looking at the world.

 

[Tuatara]

The OP is asking if not believing in something is a belief. It's an odd question. I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe my next meal will be prepared by a rat with a french accent. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe leprechauns are hoarding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe I can jump to the moon while wearing a pair of Air Jordans. Would anyone consider that a belief?


I think you all get the picture.

 

[Your Star]

This basically boils down to an agnostic vs atheism thing, and no one discuses this topic better than Penn Jillette.

 

[akrunner88]

The OP is asking if not believing in something is a belief. It's an odd question. I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe my next meal will be prepared by a rat with a french accent. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe leprechauns are hoarding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe I can jump to the moon while wearing a pair of Air Jordans. Would anyone consider that a belief?


I think you all get the picture.

This would be my thought process. If there was any shred of proof that pointed towards religious belief, then that would be one thing. But man-made religion is based on scientific illiteracy and human's innate nature to answer the questions we can't solve. Modern day science and the methods didn't start to form until the last millennium. I don't fault the people thousands of years ago for wanting to come up with solutions for the questions they had in their minds, but those days are long gone and we can rely on scientific methods, hypothesis, theories, models etc to describe or come up with the answers to the physical universe.

So no, atheism is not a belief system, just like acknowledging gravity is not a belief system. Atheism just is.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

You guys seem to have a poor understanding of the burden of proof. By your logic, we have to blindly accept EVERYTHING until explicitly proven otherwise. I can't not believe in the lack of unicorns inside saturn until we've scanned every square centimeter. Until then, it must be just a wild belief of mine right? I guess I must accept the existence of Harry Potter until I've verified he doesn't exist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If and when evidence is presented that god exists, we can change our world view accordingly. Until then it's just another fictional character people created. Calling lacking a belief in something a belief is like calling abstinence a sex position.

This would be my thought process. If there was any shred of proof that pointed towards religious belief, then that would be one thing. But man-made religion is based on scientific illiteracy and human's innate nature to answer the questions we can't solve. Modern day science and the methods didn't start to form until the last millennium. I don't fault the people thousands of years ago for wanting to come up with solutions for the questions they had in their minds, but those days are long gone and we can rely on scientific methods, hypothesis, theories, models etc to describe or come up with the answers to the physical universe.

So no, atheism is not a belief system, just like acknowledging gravity is not a belief system. Atheism just is.

The OP is asking if not believing in something is a belief. It's an odd question. I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe my next meal will be prepared by a rat with a french accent. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe leprechauns are hoarding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Would anyone consider that a belief? I don't believe I can jump to the moon while wearing a pair of Air Jordans. Would anyone consider that a belief?


I think you all get the picture.

This all stems from the innate desire of the theist to draw black and white lines in the sand and categorize everything. It's always good vs evil, black vs white, up vs down, etc. So for their beliefs to make sense they think there needs to be an opposing force, and they figure if they can write off atheism as "just another subjective belief like theirs" it makes it easier to throw stones at.

You know, because in their mind not fabricating a fantastical story is just as intellectually dishonest as fabricating a fantastical story.

 

[akrunner88]

You guys seem to have a poor understanding of the burden of proof. By your logic, we have to blindly accept EVERYTHING until explicitly proven otherwise. I can't not believe in the lack of unicorns inside saturn until we've scanned every square centimeter. Until then, it must be just a wild belief of mine right? I guess I must accept the existence of Harry Potter until I've verified he doesn't exist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If and when evidence is presented that god exists, we can change our world view accordingly. Until then it's just another fictional character people created. Calling lacking a belief in something a belief is like calling abstinence a sex position.

To the religiously oriented, they can't accept the whole burden of proof argument because they think the proof is all around us and use their holy books as a reference. That's not how science works. I wouldn't trust a medical book written by "doctors" 3,000 years ago, so therefore it makes logical sense that I won't trust a book on the origins of the universe written by sheep herders 3,000 years ago.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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.

Do you believe that there are no tooth fairies?

 

[akrunner88]

You guys seem to have a poor understanding of the burden of proof. By your logic, we have to blindly accept EVERYTHING until explicitly proven otherwise. I can't not believe in the lack of unicorns inside saturn until we've scanned every square centimeter. Until then, it must be just a wild belief of mine right? I guess I must accept the existence of Harry Potter until I've verified he doesn't exist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If and when evidence is presented that god exists, we can change our world view accordingly. Until then it's just another fictional character people created. Calling lacking a belief in something a belief is like calling abstinence a sex position.





This all stems from the innate desire of the theist to draw black and white lines in the sand and categorize everything. It's always good vs evil, black vs white, up vs down, etc. So for their beliefs to make sense they think there needs to be an opposing force, and they figure if they can write off atheism as "just another subjective belief like theirs" it makes it easier to throw stones at.

You know, because in their mind not fabricating a fantastical story is just as intellectually dishonest as fabricating a fantastical story.

I personally don't mind religious folk, especially those that can reconcile scientific truth with their religion and don't interpret their texts literally. I'd say that applies to most Christians in Europe, and many, if not almost the majority of Christians in America. I think there is a degree of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy there, but I respect that religious belief stems from a multitude of factors including home, social, fear of death, etc. Whatever.

I really only concern myself with religious fundamentalists. They go beyond the level of intellectual dishonesty into the dangerous category because of their impact on social policy in US law. You can directly attribute these folks to the high unplanned births in the south, the rise of AIDS in Africa, the turmoil in the Middle East, etc.

 

[DDD]

My definition:

Atheism = No belief that "god's" exist because there is no actual empirical evidence to claim otherwise.