Is Atheism a belief?

[NeverAmI]

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.

We could run some statistics on 1) the probability of a naturally occuring genetic pigment mutation in an elephant, and 2) the probability of a geneticist modifying the pigment in an elephant to be pink.

The two probabilities are quite different imo. One relies on a tangible entity with clear definition versus a concept. Although I understand the basis behind the idea of a pink elephant, I think that also needs rephrased.

 

[RedOrange823]

Agnostics are just quite simply unsure either way. Agnostic Atheists are unsure but still do not believe. Agnostic Theists are unsure yet still believe. Strong Atheists are sure in their minds and do not believe. Strong Theists are sure in their minds and believe without a doubt.

That being said, it applies to the Atheists themselves. The sure/non sure part is separate from atheism itself as it is simply defined as a lack of belief in a god/gods. Therefore, atheism is not a belief.

 

[Tamagochi]

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.

But with elephants we can check and we can count statistical probability etc. We cannot detect God even if we would monitor the entire lifespan of earth 100% of the time. So these are different cases.

Next, it's obvious that the group you call "strong atheists" does have a certain belief. The other group does not. Earlier you have defined that atheism is an absence of a belief rather than negation of it. Logically this implies that group (b) does not follow atheism. Then why are they called atheists? The adjective "strong" confuses even further because it suggests that they are better at atheism than group (a) - which they are not.

 

[NeverAmI]

Agnostics are just quite simply unsure either way. Agnostic Atheists are unsure but still do not believe. Agnostic Theists are unsure yet still believe. Strong Atheists are sure in their minds and do not believe. Strong Theists are sure in their minds and believe without a doubt.

That being said, it applies to the Atheists themselves. The sure/non sure part is separate from atheism itself as it is simply defined as a lack of belief in a god/gods. Therefore, atheism is not a belief.

A+theism = not+theism = not + a believer of gods

Apurpleskyism = Not + purpleskyism = lacking in belief that the sky is purple

I am pretty comfortable stating that Apurpleskyism assents to the belief that the sky is not purple. Am I making an error in logic?

 

[IndigoSensor]

I smell semantics.

It's a belief as you choose to subscribe to it, or not.

/thread.

 

[RedOrange823]

Absence vs. Negation does not matter at all. The point is that atheism does not have a belief in god. As for group a and b...

1) Group A is still considered atheist because they do not believe. They just admit that they could be wrong about it.

2) Group B is not so much a strong atheist as they are a firm non-believer. There is no doubt in their minds that there is nothing to believe in.

Both are still Atheists. You can agnostically or strongly believe in a non-belief as Atheists do, but the very nature and definition of atheism is non-belief.

 

[RedOrange823]

I smell semantics.

It's a belief as you choose to subscribe to it, or not.

/thread.

That would make atheism a belief system which it is not.

 

[RedOrange823]

A+theism = not+theism = not + a believer of gods

Apurpleskyism = Not + purpleskyism = lacking in belief that the sky is purple

I am pretty comfortable stating that Apurpleskyism assents to the belief that the sky is not purple. Am I making an error in logic?

Sure. Point being?

 

[IndigoSensor]

That would make atheism a belief system which it is not.

It is though, you choose to believe it or not.

Not going to argue this though, it will lead to no where and it is just splitting hairs that don't need to be split.

 

[RedOrange823]

It is though, you choose to believe it or not.

Not going to argue this though, it will lead to no where and it is just splitting hairs that don't need to be split.

As I already said, it is not a belief system because...

A belief system is a "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a group of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system. Both theism and atheism are part of belief systems, though.

Again with the mixing of definitions. I will add more to what I said before...
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."

This opinion would be of the atheist, but the doctrine or dogma would be of atheism.

People often make the mistake of mixing up the atheist's opinion with the supposition that this must mean that atheism becomes a doctrine of some kind. 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.

 

[myself]

Is Atheism a belief?

Yes.

 

[just me]

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?

Can we see darkness in its purest form?

 

[RedOrange823]

The claim that cold "doesn't exist" due to the fact that the laws of physics say it's merely "the absence of heat" is semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon (thermal energy). Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply to describe the relative temperature of things.

The same applies to light (in this context a noun), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," what we're actually describing is a relative absence of light in the vicinity. But that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we're mistaking it for a thing that "exists." We're merely describing the degree of illumination we perceive.

So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities, only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really name an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.

 

[Tamagochi]

So in short you claim that statement A 'There is a God' is a belief and statement B 'There is no God' is not a belief? Even if they have the same probability of happening.

It sounds logically contradicting to me. Furthermore how do you call statement B? An assumption?

 

[rawr]

Atheism:

the doctrine or belief that there is no God

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

is not a lack of belief in a particular matter still a belief not to think that matter true?

belief:
any cognitive content held as true

impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

simply put, yes.

 

[RedOrange823]

So in short you claim that statement A 'There is a God' is a belief and statement B 'There is no God' is not a belief? Even if they have the same probability of happening.

It sounds logically contradicting to me.

Statement B is sets up a false pretence in regards to what atheism actually means. "Lack Of Belief" does not equal "Believes Otherwise." The atheist does not assert with absolute verisimilitude that God does not exist, it is indifference to the possibility of a god. The only atheist that would assert the statement "There Is No God" would have to be one that completely denies the possibility of one. Such an atheist would be a Gnostic Atheist. However, since there can be such a person described as an Agnostic Atheist, or one who does not believe, yet admits they cannot be sure, the term Atheism cannot be said to be a belief. Gnostic Atheism can be a belief, Agnostic Atheism cannot be a belief.

As I have said multiple times in this thread, Atheism is not an "-ism" as in it is not something to which one can subscribe to. The suffix "ism" also means a "state, condition, attribute, or quality" like pauperism, astigmatism, heroism, anachronism, or metabolism. Is astigmatism a theory? Is metabolism a doctrine? Is anachronism a practice? Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean it. The very essence of Atheism being in a state of non-belief, it is not a subscription to believing that God does not exist. Atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs.

In this way, a baby is in a state of atheism because it is not actively believing in God. It can have no perception of a god, thus it cannot believe one exists, nor can it believe that one does not exist. Grown adults who have never heard of a god are no different.

 

[RedOrange823]

The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Atheism cannot be a doctrine. A doctrine is "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group," that is to say that a doctrine is an Ideology. Atheism is not an Ideology. An ideology is any "body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves.

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Ergo, not a belief.

Is not a lack of belief in a particular matter still a belief not to think that matter true?

Absence of belief in a proposition is not equivalent to belief in the negation of the proposition.

Belief defined as: Any cognitive content held as true

This applies to the Atheist, not Atheism. Atheism is a state of being; a state of being cannot have cognitive ability.

Belief defined as: Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Again, this applies to the Atheist. An impression/feeling can only be applied to a person. Atheism is a state of being; a state of being cannot be personified to hold opinions.

 

[Tamagochi]

According to you atheism is absence of belief. However people who apply it are allowed to have a belief as long as it's anti-God. Pro-God believers are theists.

In conclusion I would say that your definition of atheism differs from one that is applied commonly - as far as I know. It might be so because we live in different cultures.

 

[RedOrange823]

According to you atheism is absence of belief. However people who apply it are allowed to have a belief as long as it's anti-God. Pro-God believers are theists.

In conclusion I would say that your definition of atheism differs from one that is applied commonly - as far as I know. It might be so because we live in different cultures.

I have bolded the commonly applied definition which you have already used in your post. The definition people keep mistakenly asserting on this thread is to define Atheism as "Believing God Does Not Exist." Believing God does not exist is up to the Atheist; Atheism is a lack of belief one way or the other, not a belief in the denial of the assertion that there is a god.

 

[Tamagochi]

I have bolded the commonly applied definition which you have already used in your post. The definition people keep mistakenly asserting on this thread is to define Atheism as "Believing God Does Not Exist." Believing God does not exist is up to the Atheist; Atheism is a lack of belief one way or the other, not a belief in the denial of the assertion that there is a god.

The majority of people here used the other definition. It hints that it is a common one in a society. Yet you claim that yours is a common one even if there are very few people here to support it. So one of those must be true:
- either people here do not represent what is "common" (that is quite possible actually as INFJs usually do not fit in very well)
- either your definition is not common

EDIT: As an opposition to your case I can bring forward religious views of Albert Einstein who have claimed that he does not believe in God yet refused to be called an atheist.