Is Atheism a belief?

[RedOrange823]

even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods

But the question was "is atheism a belief?" and you have answered positively in your last statement.

But that particular "belief" is denial, thus, yet again, it is the absence of a belief.

Article: Is Atheism A Belief

Some important parts from the article...

The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of "belief" is:

1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge:

Those definitions are basically saying that a "belief" is not formed by critical scientific investigation but by emotions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinion.

As a child I can hold a "belief" that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters...and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are also real.

As an adult I can hold a "belief" that any one of the numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal "soul". Some even have a "belief" in UFO's, the power of crystals and a myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.

Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not a "belief", it is just lack of scientific evidence in their support.

The religious and others have a "belief" that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.

Atheist see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and therefore reject the notion as one only originating from our ignorance.

There is absolutely no similarity between the Atheist philosophical stance in life and that of the religious. Atheists accept only facts, whereas the religious et al find no need for them.

 

[just me]

This so reminds me of the definition of darkness: is it not the absence of light?

Does the way a person believes something to be true, or untrue, in itself not define a manner of believing or not believing in something?

What is a catechism? Is the original question a form of one? Can it be? Can it be used without the distinct use of the word "religion"? Is the absence of religion a form of darkness? It is to many, but not to all. Those that choose to believe in no God: can they be defined without the use of the word "religion" or words pertaining to religious beliefs in a manner others can understand?

"Light" is to be used in consideration of all our understanding. We have so many different forms of light, but darkness is still defined as the absence of light. We can call it science without the "ism".

I would prefer calling a non-believer an atheist. If there are more than one, they are atheists. Atheism sounds as difficult to swallow as would be religionism. Just my take on the subject at the moment's notice I gave it...

copied from above.."But that particular "belief" is denial, thus, yet again, it is the absence of a belief."

 

[RedOrange823]

Light vs. Darkness is not the right analogy. It's more like...

Taken from here

Is "bald" a hair color?
Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?
If you no longer believe in Santa Claus, do you call yourself an "Anti-Santa-Clausian?"
Is there some doctrine you follow pursuant with your non-belief in the existence of the tooth fairy?

Theists often claim that atheism is a belief. They use this characterization to claim among other things, false premises such as:
"It takes just as much faith to not believe in god as it does to believe in god."

This is wrong. It takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?
No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

 

[RedOrange823]

If atheism is a belief, then any conclusion we can't be 100-percent certain of is a belief. And that's not a very useful definition of the word "belief." With the exception of certain mathematical and logic conclusions (along the lines of "if A and B are true, then C is true"), we don't know anything with 100-percent certainty. But we can still make reasonable conclusions about what is and is not likely to be true. We can still sift through our ideas, and test them, and make reasonable conclusions about how likely or unlikely they are. And those conclusions are not beliefs. If that's how you're defining belief, then just about everything we know is a belief.

A few atheists do say, "Yes, I'm 100-percent persuaded that atheism is correct." But when you press them on it, they almost always acknowledge that yes, hypothetically, there might be some God hypothesis that's correct... when pressed, even the ardent "100-percenters" acknowledge that there's a minuscule, entirely hypothetical possibility that God exists. When they say they're 100 percent convinced of their atheism, they mean that they're 100 percent convinced for all practical purposes, given the best information they currently have. And that's still a conclusion -- not a belief.

There is another problem concerning the word "belief," however. The word "belief" has multiple meanings. It can mean a basic tenet -- in other words, a doctrine or dogma -- especially in a religious context. But it can also simply mean an opinion or conviction: something thought to be true or not true. It can mean "trust or confidence" -- such as, "I believe in my marriage." Religious people often conflate these different meanings of the word "belief." They mix up the "opinion or conclusion" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any reasonably plausible conclusion seem like unsupported dogma.

If atheists say, "I don't believe in God," religious people will reply, "See? Atheism is a belief!" (Overlooking the fact that "Not believing in X" isn't the same as "Believing in Not X.") If atheists say, "I believe in evolution" -- meaning, "I think evolution is true" -- religious people will jump all over it, saying, "See? Atheists believe in evolution, just like I believe in God!" (Overlooking the fact that evolution is a conclusion supported by a massively overwhelming body of hard physical evidence from every relevant branch of science, and that religion is supported primarily by logical errors, cognitive errors, misunderstandings of probability, an excessive tendency to trust authority figures and things we were taught as children.) If atheists say, "I believe in something bigger than myself," religious people will reply, "See? See? You have beliefs! Therefore, your atheism is a belief!" (Overlooking the fact that atheists having beliefs is not the same as atheism being a belief.)

In summary, an "Atheist" may have beliefs, opinions, etc., but "Atheism" in and of itself is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

 

[Tamagochi]

Is there a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in the bathroom at your home right now"?
No? Why not? So you take it on faith that there isn't a large pink elephant sitting on the toilet in your bathroom at home? Do you think your lack of belief in this concept requires faith, or maybe it's the other way around? You only require faith to believe IN something that defies the laws of logic.

and what laws of logic does believing in God defies exactly?

 

[NeverAmI]

Atheism focuses around the fact that God does not exist. That is not a proven fact, and therefore it is a belief. One believes God does not exist.

Being unsure (I.E. not believing anything to be true) concerning God is agnosticism.

 

[Cecilff2]

it is a lack of belief.

Only possible if you have no concept of the idea in question.

Knowledge of a concept forms beliefs. Agree/Disagree/matters/doesn't matter, etc. Your first sentence is by very nature what faith is. The belief that something is true without conclusive evidence.

define:belief

"any cognitive content held as true"
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"

Proposition: God does not exist.

An Atheist holds this proposition to be true.

 

[RedOrange823]

and what laws of logic does believing in God defies exactly?

We cannot see God and have been given absolutely no evidence to believe in a god, yet some choose to believe in God. I would call that pretty illogical.

We cannot see gravity, but we are given proofs and evidence of its existence, therefore it is logical to believe in gravity.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[RedOrange823]

Atheism focuses around the fact that God does not exist. That is not a proven fact, and therefore it is a belief. One believes God does not exist.

Being unsure (I.E. not believing anything to be true) concerning God is agnosticism.

Again, the Atheist does not believe in God, Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. A theist has beliefs, just as religion is a set of beliefs. Do you see the difference here?

 

[NeverAmI]

Again, the Atheist does not believe in God, Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. A theist has beliefs, just as religion is a set of beliefs. Do you see the difference here?

You are arguing semantics here.

Belief, by definition, attributes to one feeling that a fact is true without concrete evidence. An atheist has belief in the fact that God does not exist.

Since the existence of god has not been objectively proven as true, it remains as a belief. A lack of belief in any fact regarding ontological origin remains agnosticism.

I am not talking belief as it pertains to religious faith. I am talking epistemologial considerations towards knowledge, truth, and belief.

 

[RedOrange823]

define:belief

"any cognitive content held as true"
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"

Proposition: God does not exist.

An Atheist holds this proposition to be true.

Yes the Atheist holds this to be true. Atheism is defined as a lack of any set of beliefs all together. You yourself are again blending the two separate definitions of belief. You mix up the "opinion or conclusion" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any reasonably plausible conclusion seem like unsupported dogma. That is to say you are mixing up the atheist's opinion with the supposition that this must mean that atheism becomes a doctrine. This cannot happen. Atheism is not a doctrine because a doctrine is "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party or other group." To say that atheism is a dogma/doctrine is to rid atheism of it's own meaning. That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[NeverAmI]

Knowledge of a concept forms beliefs.

Belief + truth = knowledge

 

[RedOrange823]

Belief + truth = knowledge

This belief and truth would be subjected to the atheist, not atheism. The atheist would carry the belief that God does not exist, however by it's very definition, atheism does not have a belief.

 

[NeverAmI]

This belief and truth would be subjected to the atheist, not atheism. The atheist would carry the belief that God does not exist, however by it's very definition, atheism does not have a belief.

What separates atheism form agnosticism?

 

[Cecilff2]

Yes the Atheist holds this to be true. Atheism is defined as a lack of any set of beliefs all together. You yourself are again blending the two separate definitions of belief. You mix up the "opinion or conclusion" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any reasonably plausible conclusion seem like unsupported dogma. That is to say you are mixing up the atheist's opinion with the supposition that this must mean that atheism becomes a doctrine. This cannot happen. Atheism is not a doctrine because a doctrine is "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party or other group." To say that atheism is a dogma/doctrine is to rid atheism of it's own meaning. That doesn't even make any sense.

Consider set J.
J includes one member {A}.
A represents the statement "Gods do not exist".

A is a belief, therefore J is a set of beliefs.

Your definition of Atheism is completely wrong. Atheism is not a position about beliefs. It is a position about gods. That position being the one stated above. As NAI stated, what you're talking about doesn't differentiate it from Agnosticism.

Belief + truth = knowledge

Prefer Plato's definition I see.

Perhaps it should read more like "Conception forms belief". Trying to believe in something you haven't conceived of isn't possible. It's like saying null is true.

 

[RedOrange823]

Trick question.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

 

[Tamagochi]

We cannot see God and have been given absolutely no evidence to believe in a god, yet some choose to believe in God. I would call that pretty illogical.

We cannot see gravity, but we are given proofs and evidence of its existence, therefore it is logical to believe in gravity.

Do you see the distinction?

Well scientific method requires evidence to hold something true but not logic itself. And we can all safely agree that religion is not a science From my point of view God is absolutely logical.

Furthermore regarding the pink elephant - I think the correct answer should be "I believe there's no elephant". But we usually skip the "believe" part because we can easily check this and the probability is quite unlikely. We cannot check the same way for existence of God and the probability is 50%. So it's a special case.

I could agree that "Not believing in X" isn't the same as "Believing in Not X." But it then usually implies "I choose neither" or "I do not care about X". And if one applies it for the existence of God then by definition it is agnosticism. Atheism is commonly defined as "believing that there is no God".

Anyway it might be that we're simply using different definitions. Maybe you can clarify how do you call the following cases:
a) a person who is indifferent to the existence of God? Like in "I do not want to waste my time believing in things that cannot be proven therefore I do not believe in them."
b) a person who denies the existence of God? Like in "There's no God nor afterlife. There's just vast empty space out there"

 

[NeverAmI]

From an etymological standpoint A+theism makes sense as being defined as a lack of theism, depending upon whom you talk to.

This definition of Atheism depends on how one interprets the prefix of A, which can either be not or against, in this case those two are VERY different.

I don't quite understand the idea of saying agnostic theism, it is like saying non-committal belief, a contradiction.

For me, the existence of a diety is either, true (theist), false (athiest), or unkown(agnostic).

There needs to be a better definition made for one who believes God does not exist.

I think atheism got this convoluted so people can back out from a clearly negative connotation. To me, I define atheism as (against+theism) which would imply being against the existence of a diety, which would imply the belief that a diety does not exist.

 

[NeverAmI]

agnostic agnosticism

non-commitment to being non-commital.

 

[RedOrange823]

Well scientific method requires evidence to hold something true but not logic itself. And we can all safely agree that religion is not a science From my point of view God is absolutely logical.

Furthermore regarding the pink elephant - I think the correct answer should be "I believe there's no elephant". But we usually skip the "believe" part because we can easily check this and the probability is quite unlikely. We cannot check the same way for existence of God and the probability is 50%. So it's a special case.

I could agree that "Not believing in X" isn't the same as "Believing in Not X." But it then usually implies "I choose neither" or "I do not care about X". And if one applies it for the existence of God then by definition it is agnosticism. Atheism is commonly defined as "believing that there is no God".

Anyway it might be that we're simply using different definitions. Maybe you can clarify how do you call the following cases:
a) a person who is indifferent to the existence of God? Like in "I do not want to waste my time believing in things that cannot be proven therefore I do not believe in them."
b) a person who denies the existence of God? Like in "There's no God nor afterlife. There's just vast empty space out there"

Firstly, the probability of there being no pink elephant and the probability of there being no God are the same. If we do not find a single pink elephant on earth it does not mean that there never was one or that any given place on earth is being watched 100% of the time to ensure that there is no pink elephant.

As for your definitions, a would be an agnostic atheist and b would be a strong atheist.