Is Atheism a belief?

[RedOrange823]

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

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god" or "without theism," therefore it means without a/lack in a belief. That is concretely, undisputedly what the word means.

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.

Quote from Einstein:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

This quote proves Einstein's belief in a god. Einstein merely claimed to not believe in a Christian god. Einstein was a deist. Deism is the knowledge (agnostically) of God based on the application of reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature." Therefore, it is just another form of theism.

 

[nickioki]

Ah, sorry to be jumping into this thread part way through. But thought this quote from Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen is good food for thought.

"Atheism is every bit of a religious commitment as Christianity itself.

"It represents the latest version of the human assault on God, born out of resentment that we do not in fact rule the world and that God calls on us to submit our lives to Him. It is a form of idolatry in which we worship ourselves."

So here peter jensen is saying that Atheism not just a belief, but a religion. BTW, I wouldn't normally get into a debate about this. I'm a "don't rock the boat" ENFP. But i thought this quote is good food for thought.

The quote's from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...latry-of-atheism/story-e6frg6nf-1225849066232

 

[Poetic Justice]

I haven't read all the posts so sorry if this has already been said.

A distinction needs to be made between those who believe god does not exist and those who don't have an opinion.

Belief that god does not exist = Atheism

Not having an opinion/lack of belief either way = Agnosticism

If this is not the case then how do you distinguish between the two?

 

[RedOrange823]

I've already refuted this. But for the sake of redundancy, here we go again...

\"Atheism is every bit of a religious commitment as Christianity itself.

Atheism= without theism= without religion. This is such a bullshit quote.

"It represents the latest version of the human assault on God, born out of resentment that we do not in fact rule the world and that God calls on us to submit our lives to Him. It is a form of idolatry in which we worship ourselves.

Um, atheists don't believe that we rule the world. We just don't think a god does either. We do not worship ourselves. We worship nothing, actually we do not worship "nothing" we simply do not worship.

So here peter jensen is saying that Atheism not just a belief, but a religion.

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 (this belief being a denial, therefore absence of belief) and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system.

 

[RedOrange823]

I haven't read all the posts so sorry if this has already been said.

A distinction needs to be made between those who believe god does not exist and those who don't have an opinion.

Belief that god does not exist = Atheism

Not having an opinion/lack of belief either way = Agnosticism

If this is not the case then how do you distinguish between the two?

I posted this in the Atheism and Certainty thread, but it does apply here too...

Theism is about belief in a god or gods. For any claim about the existence of a god or gods, theists accept that this claim is true. One way of stating this is that theists have the positive belief that the god claim is true.
Atheism literally means "without theism". An atheist is someone who does not accept, as true, claims that assert the existence of gods.

Considering the claims regarding the existence of a god, there are two possible claims:
1) God exists
2) God does not exist

For either claim, there are two positions one can take with regard to belief:
1) belief or acceptance of the claim
2) disbelief or rejection of the claim

For claim number 1 (God exists), the theist's position is one of belief, while the atheist's position is one of disbelief.
For claim number 2 (God does not exist), the theist's position is one of disbelief, while atheists can hold either position.

---------------------------------------------

Some atheists actively believe that no god exists while others hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported to justify acceptance. These positions are often labeled strong atheism and weak atheism, respectively.

Gnosticism (in the sense used here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim about the existence of god, gnostics are individuals who claim to know that the claim is true. An agnostic is, literally, someone who does not claim to know that such claims are true.

Therefore, as the terms aren't mutually exclusive, it's possible to combine them into four descriptions:

1. Agnostic Atheist (does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know whether this is actually true)
2. Agnostic Theist (believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true)
3. Gnostic Atheist (believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true)
4. Gnostic Theist (believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true)

---------------------------------------------

It obviously can and will be argued that we can never truly "know" anything, yet we constantly make claims of knowledge — you may "know" who your birth mother is, for example, but you could be wrong. For many gnostic atheists (strong atheists), their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that "gods don't exist" can be made, and said to be "known", in the same spirit as the statement that "leprechauns don't exist". The same applies to gnostic theists in that their claim of knowledge also stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that "god indeed does exist" can be made and said to be "known", in the same spirit as the statement that "leprechauns do exist". (I know leprechauns isn't the best analogy here, but I can't think of anything better to use. Sorry)


EDITED TO RE-ADD: Atheism does not= belief that god does not exist.
Atheism= without god, without theism, therefore it means without a/lack in a belief. That is concretely, undisputedly what the word means.

 

[nickioki]

[MENTION=3299]RedOrange823[/MENTION] - I'm guessing peter jensen's quote in context would contain more of an explaination as why he concludes that atheism leads 'self worship'. His explaination as I understand is long, and cause I'm enfp, and it's late, I'm gonna chicken out from trying to explain it now

That said, I realise that quote is a inflamitory. It was said around the time there was an international atheist convention in Australia. And I'm guessing peter jensen was at the point of laying it all out on the table.

 

[Praefect]

I'm with RedOrange on this.

The lack of a believe does not a believe make.

What doesn't seem to be taken into account here at all is what the nature of believe is, and more importantly, what it does, which purpose it serves as part of human cognition. There is a world of difference in the perception of a person that believes something, the person that doesn't, and a person that doesn't partake in the game at all.

 

[Tamagochi]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god" or "without theism," therefore it means without a/lack in a belief. That is concretely, undisputedly what the word means.

I would not agree to that. Fact takes precedence over origin. There are various examples when a certain word was used in one meaning a thousand years ago and now it has a very different meaning.

According to you all babies are atheists. As well as monkeys, trees etc. I think very few people would agree to such a definition.

Sadly we can't have an intelligent conversation if you'll just keep repeating your statements all over again without admitting the possibility that other people might be right.

 

[RedOrange823]

[MENTION=3299]RedOrange823[/MENTION] - I'm guessing peter jensen's quote in context would contain more of an explaination as why he concludes that atheism leads 'self worship'. His explaination as I understand is long, and cause I'm enfp, and it's late, I'm gonna chicken out from trying to explain it now

That said, I realise that quote is a inflamitory. It was said around the time there was an international atheist convention in Australia. And I'm guessing peter jensen was at the point of laying it all out on the table.

Actually, I guess I don't really have to do any research on this as what he said was already refuted in the linked article itself.

"The Atheist Foundation of Australia said yesterday that Dr Jensen's claims were "preposterous"... "He seeks out a scapegoat and attacks atheism without any understanding of what he is saying," foundation president David Nicholls said. "To state we hate his god or are attacking his god is nonsense. How does one hate or attack that which does not exist?"

In regards to atheism as self-worship, I already stated that atheists do not worship anything, this would include the self. Worship is "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity," since the atheist lacks a belief in the deity, worshiping themselves as deities makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Praefect]

Ah, sorry to be jumping into this thread part way through. But thought this quote from Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen is good food for thought.

"Atheism is every bit of a religious commitment as Christianity itself.

"It represents the latest version of the human assault on God, born out of resentment that we do not in fact rule the world and that God calls on us to submit our lives to Him. It is a form of idolatry in which we worship ourselves."

So here peter jensen is saying that Atheism not just a belief, but a religion. BTW, I wouldn't normally get into a debate about this. I'm a "don't rock the boat" ENFP. But i thought this quote is good food for thought.

The quote's from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...latry-of-atheism/story-e6frg6nf-1225849066232

It's not inflammatory, it's hilarious. You can easily tell from what perspective he was writing this, and that it is filled with hatred and fear. It's makes the archbishop seem ludicrously out of touch with the real world. He's creating an enemy image that only exists in his own mind. I wonder what he would say if confronted with the notion that a true believer needs the non-believer in order to exist at all. That without atheists there would be no theists.

 

[nickioki]

Yeah, so I'm new here. Great way to introduce myself - comment on Atheism... :]

Anyhow. I think I'll butt out now. The boat's getting too rocky.

As Ringo Starr says, peace and love to you all!

 

[RedOrange823]

I would not agree to that. Fact takes precedence over origin. There are various examples when a certain word was used in one meaning a thousand years ago and now it has a very different meaning.

Atheism does not have a very different meaning now. The only people who use the alternative "Believes God does not exist" are theists themselves, or those who have done no research on the topic. They twist the meaning of the word to try to imply that Atheism is a belief system. But like I have said repeatedly in this thread Atheism cannot be a belief system. Atheism cannot depart from its etymology because something has to be asserted to it, that is either a positive or negative assertion.

According to you all babies are atheists. As well as monkeys, trees etc. I think very few people would agree to such a definition.

Yeah, actually saying babies are atheists doesn't work either way, because they cannot cognitively comprehend what it is they are or are not believing. That was my bad.

Sadly we can't have an intelligent conversation if you'll just keep repeating your statements all over again without admitting the possibility that other people might be right.

I'm not repeating myself intentionally, I'm just refuting the same argument with the same evidence. Since the beginning of this thread, I think a total of 3 arguments have been posed at me, and I have refuted these arguments logically time and time again. Then somebody else comes along and poses the same argument, and I refute it in the same way as before. Nobody is offering up a better alternative explanation to what I have to say.

 

[RedOrange823]

Many have trouble comprehending that "not believing X" doesn't mean the same as "believing not X." The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X is false (or put another way, that the contradictory proposition is true). The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.

Defining atheism as Believing In Not God is blending the true definition of atheism with the the definition of agnosticism and calling them the same. As I already showed above, these terms are not mutually exclusive. And by blending the two definitions you create a sub-category ie. Agnostic Atheism, etc.

EDIT FOR EVEN FURTHER CLARIFICATION: You cannot change the etymology of atheism because of the "a" in front of "theism." The "a" literally means without/lack of so, in order to change the definition, you must change the word.

 

[Praefect]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk"]YouTube - Lack of belief in gods[/ame]

 

[Poetic Justice]

Yeah, so I'm new here. Great way to introduce myself - comment on Atheism... :]

Anyhow. I think I'll butt out now. The boat's getting too rocky.

As Ringo Starr says, peace and love to you all!

Yeah these types of thread often devolve into petty one upmanship fairly quickly so i usually say my bit then leave them to it. Getting the last word doesn't mean they're right. Meh

 

[NeverAmI]

EDITED TO RE-ADD: Atheism does not= belief that god does not exist.
Atheism= without god, without theism, therefore it means without a/lack in a belief. That is concretely, undisputedly what the word means.

Source?

 

[arbygil]

Maybe the real question is: Is it important enough to even make a distinction? You can't even categorize atheism, because even atheists will disagree on exact terminology (well, according to Wikipedia). So perhaps you *will* get some atheists saying its a belief, and others saying its not.

Truth is, you won't be able to sway the minds or convince those who see it as a belief to see differently, and there's nothing new here for those who believe atheism is not a belief.

And...hate to say it, it *is* sounding like a religious argument, at least in the way its presented. It reminds me of hardcore Christians trying to convince folks that God exists, except we're coming from the opposite perspective. Not to make anyone upset by that, but...I'm just sayin'. It's the same fervor.

 

[NeverAmI]

This quote proves Einstein's belief in a god. Einstein merely claimed to not believe in a Christian god. Einstein was a deist. Deism is the knowledge (agnostically) of God based on the application of reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature." Therefore, it is just another form of theism.

From a logical standpoint agnostic knowledge is a complete contradiction!

Knowledge requires truth so it is either true or not true and the person either believes or doesn't believe!

Unless you have a different definition of knowledge as well?

 

[Jill Hives]

YouTube - Lack of belief in gods

I have been following along this thread and listening to both sides in order to better understand where my own opinion on this subject lies before chiming in, and I find myself agreeing with you and RedOrange823. Lack of a belief does not a belief make. That video summed up to a T how I have felt on this subject since I was younger, more eloquently than I have ever managed.

 

[RedOrange823]

From a logical standpoint agnostic knowledge is a complete contradiction!

Knowledge requires truth so it is either true or not true and the person either believes or doesn't believe!

Unless you have a different definition of knowledge as well?

Yeah, that should have read Deism it he knowledge (gnostically) of God based on the application of reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature." Therefore, it is just another form of theism. Thank you for correcting me. It was 5am here when I wrote that.