Is Atheism a Belief?

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just to correct some false descriptions of atheism (by some self proclaimed atheists on this forum).

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god due to lack of evidence proving the existence of God. That passive position is in fact agnosticism. Meaning you don't know either way and therefore aren't actively promoting a specific position on the matter.

Atheism, in contrast, is the active advocacy of the view that there is no God. Meaning that you believe the evidence points to the lack of existence of a God.

Many people who claim to be atheists (therefore, those that are passive about the issue due to the lack of evidence), are in fact agnostics.

[Stubby]

Just to correct some false descriptions of atheism (by some self proclaimed atheists on this forum).

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god due to lack of evidence proving the existence of God. That passive position is in fact agnosticism. Meaning you don't know either way and therefore aren't actively promoting a specific position on the matter.

Atheism, in contrast, is the active advocacy of the view that there is no God. Meaning that you believe the evidence points to the lack of existence of a God.

Many people who claim to be atheists (therefore, those that are passive about the issue due to the lack of evidence), are in fact agnostics.

Nope. Atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms. This has been set out here ad nauseum, but it seems it is necessary to do it again. With respect to God:

Gnostic = Claims knowledge of god's existence

Agnostic = Does not claim knowledge of god's existence

Theist = Believes in god's existence

Atheist = Does not believe in god's existence

It is perfectly consistent to describe oneself as a combination of the two. I do not claim to know there is no god so I am agnostic. I do not believe in the existence of god so I am atheist. Essentially, I am an agnostic atheist.

Your definition does not take into account the nuance between a claim of knowledge - which is what gnostic means - and a claim of belief - which is what theism means.

[TrueMetis]

Wrong on pretty much all fronts Northman

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Lack of belief is not actually a passive position, there is no passive position in this case. You either do or do not believe. And while it's possible to believe there is no god in a positive sense, this is such a rare position that it is functionally non-existent. Even those considered the most hardcore of atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens did not take this position.

Agnosticism: The claim that knowledge on a particular subject is unknown or unknowable. In the case of deities you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. So you can say "there's no evidence one way or the other so I'm not going to believe." or "there's no evidence one way or the other but I believe." Agnostic is the primary position for both atheists and theists. though unlike atheists gnostic theists are actually a thing.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Stubby

Your response prompted me to Google it and it seems the definition has developed over time. Just the philosophical arguments between the Implicit and Explicit atheism, followed by the arguments between Positive and Negative atheism, is enough to make your head spin.

It would seem though that at a basic level, an agnostic feels you cannot know either way, while an atheist feels there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief that there is no God.

I would say though that from the many different positions taken by many different philosophers, even if you just look at the wiki page on the issue, it is not as clear cut as you make it out in the post above.

(Neither is it as clear cut as I put it in my original post, I hasten to add).

[TrueMetis]

Stubby

Your response prompted me to Google it and it seems the definition has developed over time. Just the philosophical arguments between the Implicit and Explicit atheism, followed by the arguments between Positive and Negative atheism, is enough to make your head spin.

It would seem though that at a basic level, an agnostic feels you cannot know either way, while an atheist feels there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief that there is no God.

I would say though that from the many different positions taken by many different philosophers, even if you just look at the wiki page on the issue, it is not as clear cut as you make it out in the post above.

(Neither is it as clear cut as I put it in my original post, I hasten to add).

No, an atheists feels there is not enough evidence to justify a belief that there is a god. Atheists with a belief that there is no god are so rare as to be essentially non-existent.

[Stubby]

Stubby

Your response prompted me to Google it and it seems the definition has developed over time. Just the philosophical arguments between the Implicit and Explicit atheism, followed by the arguments between Positive and Negative atheism, is enough to make your head spin.

It would seem though that at a basic level, an agnostic feels you cannot know either way, while an atheist feels there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief that there is no God.

I would say though that from the many different positions taken by many different philosophers, even if you just look at the wiki page on the issue, it is not as clear cut as you make it out in the post above.

(Neither is it as clear cut as I put it in my original post, I hasten to add).

It really is that clear cut.

ETA this is not the thread for this discussion.

[Free Northman Reborn]

TrueMetis

I never claimed atheism was a passive position. In fact, what I was claiming is the opposite. Namely that atheism is the active belief that there is no god. That statement is in fact the one that is under fire now.

It would still seem to me that the broadest definition of atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. Which is a very different position, in my view, to one which says "there is not sufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of a deity, and therefore I don't know either way".

[Free Northman Reborn]

According to Wikipedia's opening three lines on the issue:

"Atheism in a broad sense is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrow sense, atheism is the specific position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is absence of belief that any deities exist."

So it would seem that both the broad and narrow sense requires an active disbelief in the existence of God, and only the most inclusive definition allows for a mere absence of belief.

[Jon Flow]

Free Northman,

I disagree. That may be the definition, but in practical terms I think the main difference between Agnostic and Atheist is in how you live your life. Both sides agree there is no evidence of a god. Agnostics however will often say, "...but I believe in something spiritual." Whereas Atheists tend to say "... there is no afterlife so make hay while the sun shines."

[Happy Ent]

There are plenty of people who self-identify as atheists that would accept the existence of god.

Christopher Hitchens would be a good example. His position (which I would characterise as anti-theist) is that God, even if He existed would be a vile entity deserving our contempt, rather than our worship. In this conceptualisation, theism is not so much a question of belief in God’s existence, but a profession of worship of said entity.

By analogy, many Christians believe in the Devil’s existence. But they don’t worship him. And they wouldn’t start worshipping Him even if irrefutable proof of the Devil’s existence were presented to them.

For anti-theists, God’s existence is a non-issue. Instead, the issue is ethical rather than epistemological: should I worship God, or the concepts He represents?

There’s another variant of agnostic atheism that is sometimes referred to as apatheism. They simply don’t care. For an apatheist, questions of God’s existence are simply beneath them, much like questions about the existence of Santa Claus – it’s simply an embarrassment for an adult to seriously ponder the existence of God.

[Castel]

Free Northman,

I disagree. That may be the definition, but in practical terms I think the main difference between Agnostic and Atheist is in how you live your life. Both sides agree there is no evidence of a god. Agnostics however will often say, "...but I believe in something spiritual." Whereas Atheists tend to say "... there is no afterlife so make hay while the sun shines."

What you mean to say is that the stereotypical Agnostic is more willing to be conciliatory and less absolutist socially than the stereotypical atheist, which matches my experience of people's views of the stereotype.

What this is backed by...who knows? Probably television.

In terms of actual concrete differences created by this position? Eh.

[Ormond]

No, an atheists feels there is not enough evidence to justify a belief that there is a god. Atheists with a belief that there is no god are so rare as to be essentially non-existent.

I'd like some scientific polling data on that one. I really find the second sentence above highly unlikely.

[Castel]

I'd like some scientific polling data on that one. I really find the second sentence above highly unlikely.

Regardless of any data, all that will be claimed is that those atheists are using the common "phrase" there is no god as a sort of shorthand that doesn't truly conflict with the skeptical view. We've been here before.

[Egalitarianism Always]

There a God

and

There is no God

Both are beliefs because the question of a God's existence or non-existence is all nonsense.

Like debating the existence of the yellow tangerine monster with someone.

It's more interesting to look at the nuance and the reasons why people think the way they do.

[Jon Flow]

Castel,

I'm just speaking about people I know. There are tons of people who say, "Well the Christian/Muslim/Jewish version of God is silly, but there is definitely "SOMETHING otherworldly" out there that binds us all together. The hardcore atheists that I know (and I count myself among their number) say the only thing binding us together are Universal Constants like gravity.

The practical difference is noticible. Just a personal Anecdote to illustrate this:

My wife found a photo of her mother and father at their wedding on the floor in our room. She went on for thirty minutes about how their spirits wanted her to find this photo and she nearly broke out a Oujiji board. When she came to me breathless to tell me about the incredible experience she was having, I said, "Hey... didn't you clear a bunch of boxes out of the attic last night? I bet it fell out of one of those boxes." Mystery over....

[straits]

Atheists don't have to prove anything because they're not making a claim. Atheism is the lack of belief, this there is nothing to prove. Religious people are making a claim, and thus, are charged with proving what they say is true.

But religious people are claiming a belief. They should be able to explain why they believe in it in some way shape or form. Otherwise they're just believing for the sake of it.

Arguing in favour of scientific fact would need proving - belief is internal. If what "they say" were provable, it would go down as a fact. I don't need to say I believe in Newton's 3rd law to indicate that I hold it true.

Maybe you are referring to belief within the context of a religious person's argument with an atheist?

[Chaircat Meow]

Nope. Atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms. This has been set out here ad nauseum, but it seems it is necessary to do it again. With respect to God:

Gnostic = Claims knowledge of god's existence

Agnostic = Does not claim knowledge of god's existence

Theist = Believes in god's existence

Atheist = Does not believe in god's existence

It is perfectly consistent to describe oneself as a combination of the two. I do not claim to know there is no god so I am agnostic. I do not believe in the existence of god so I am atheist. Essentially, I am an agnostic atheist.

Your definition does not take into account the nuance between a claim of knowledge - which is what gnostic means - and a claim of belief - which is what theism means.

I agree with FNR, these distinctions seem pretty pointless. I have never heard anyone claim they were gnostics because they had knowledge God existed. There is a difference between knowing and believing of course, but there is little point in emphasizing it in this case. If you believe God does not exist you need some basis for that belief and therefore evidence.

[Stubby]

I agree with FNR, these distinctions seem pretty pointless. I have never heard anyone claim they were gnostics because they had knowledge God existed. There is a difference between knowing and believing of course, but there is little point in emphasizing it in this case. If you believe God does not exist you need some basis for that belief and therefore evidence.

Ray Comort is gnostic.

Disbelief is based in not seeing any evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to accept that. I will illustrate it with a question. I have a pet sphinx - do you believe me?

[Dicer]

Disbelief is based in not seeing any evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to accept that. I will illustrate it with a question. I have a pet sphinx - do you believe me?

It amazes me too!

Has no one heard of Russell's teapot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Obama makes a statement on the deaths after getting scolded by Erdogan

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/13/statement-president

[Chaircat Meow]

Ray Comort is gnostic.

Disbelief is based in not seeing any evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to accept that. I will illustrate it with a question. I have a pet sphinx - do you believe me?

That's not relevant though. You can have no evidence for something and still have no warrant to have a belief either way wrt its truth or falsity. For instance, I see no evidence it's not raining in Ottawa. That doesn't provide me any warrant to believe or disbelieve the proposition, 'it is raining in Ottawa.' The absence of evidence only amounts to rational grounds for asserting or denying a proposition in certain circumstances and I don't live in Ottawa.

It never ceases to amaze me that atheists can't get their heads around this.