No. Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is a television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv.In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God. Doesn’t this essentially equate to a belief in “nothing?” — Pinprick
Like the pseudo-question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" can be reformulated more coherently as "Why anything at all?" (or less speculatively "How did the universe come-to-be, does it continue-to-be, and will it (ever) cease-to-be?"), positive / strong / explicit atheism's "belief there are no g/Gs" can be reformulated e.g. "disbelief that there are any g/Gs".So, my question would be ”What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism?”
I would say that I don’t believe that there is a stegosaurus in my room.Is there a stegosaurus in your room right now? Probably not. So which do you believe: that there is a stegosaurus in your room, or that there's not?
Agreed.Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv.
Everyone has things about which it is perfectly logical to say I do not believe X exists. And by the way my above possible examples are not a list of things I am saying are real or not. Just choosing some things that many people do not believe are real. — Coben
problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness. — Frank Apisa
If I say that I do not believe that any God exists, that isn’t a false statement. There’s no pretending. Conversely, couldn’t it be said that the issue actually is non-Atheists trying to define Atheism in a way that better serves their needs? Also, wouldn’t those people who identify as Atheists be the people best suited to define what Atheism is in the first place? I am not a Theist. Therefore I have no right to try to tell people who identify as Theists that actually they are defining Theism wrong. I have to accept whatever definition they provide.The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness.
On the question of "Is there at least one god...or are there no gods"...the best anyone can do is to make a blind guess. There is no way whatsoever that one can get to a "yes there is at least one" or "no, there are none" using logic, reason, science, or math. It just cannot happen that way right now.
If I say that I do not believe that any God exists, that isn’t a false statement. There’s no pretending. Conversely, couldn’t it be said that the issue actually is non-Atheists trying to define Atheism in a way that better serves their needs? Also, wouldn’t those people who identify as Atheists be the people best suited to define what Atheism is in the first place? I am not a Theist. Therefore I have no right to try to tell people who identify as Theists that actually they are defining Theism wrong. I have to accept whatever definition they provide. — Pinprick
How does confidence equate to belief? As an example, an Atheist could say the following. “Theists have been unable to convince me that at least one God exists. Therefore, I do not believe a God exists, and am confident that I am right.” — Pinprick
I think saying it is a blind guess is exaggerated. Atheists and Theists alike both have reasons for their stance. Something must have convinced them one way or the other. — Pinprick
I think you've muddled up ontology and epistemology. It is true that a statement of what does not exist doesn't say anything much about what does exist. But it's an indirect way of saying something like:my question would be ”What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism?” — Pinprick
Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it?The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.
That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits...Atheists are defining "atheism" in a way that requires people like me to be considered an atheist.
I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought.They are defining "atheism" in a way that requires every newborn baby, every infant, every toddler...to be considered an atheist.
Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief.My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."
Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.
Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it? — Pinprick
That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits... — Pinprick
I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought. — Pinprick
Pinprick
25
↪Frank Apisa
My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."
Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief. — Pinprick
tim wood
3.9k
All the non-atheists posting here will please tell us what they mean whenever they use the word "god." In substantive terms, so that everyone can tell if they're on point in commenting, or off on a tangent, or on a woods-path. — tim wood
tim wood
3.9k
↪Frank Apisa Hmm. I have to ask what you mean in your !), 2) 3) by "existing," "Beings" and again, "Beings."
If by these you mean idea, that god corresponds exactly (i.e., no more and no less) to what mind(s) think he is, then I have no problem. Is that what you mean? — tim wood
I would say that I don’t believe that there is a stegosaurus in my room. — Pinprick
The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs" — Frank Apisa
On the question of "Is there at least one god...or are there no gods"...the best anyone can do is to make a blind guess. There is no way whatsoever that one can get to a "yes there is at least one" or "no, there are none" using logic, reason, science, or math. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.