Is Atheism a Belief?

[Jo498]

Russell's teapot (even if the point may be a shift of burden of proof) also induces a shift from metaphysical arguments (first cause, necessary being etc.) to pseudo-empirical arguments. Of course, there is a bunch of theist apologetics (like intelligent design etc.) who argue empirically, so it is not completely misguided. It is misguided, though, when engaging traditional metaphysical arguments from Aristotle to Leibniz or Plantinga. Those arguments might be faulty but they are not be thwarted by teapot analogies.

I do not think that radical skepticism is a coherent position, but in any case prominent atheist are usually far from radical skeptics. More often they are adherents of some simplified and unhistoric idea of "the scientific method" and have hardly ever engaged with metaphysical arguments in fields besides "natural theology". So the whole mode of thinking is rather foreign to them and seems bunk.

[Chaircat Meow]

For fucks sake. Disbelief is not a belief.

Have you read none of the posts nearly everybody has made on this topic?

I have read then them all. I don't see any need to distinguish between a belief and a disbelief. In my book people believe or disbelieve propositions. So I believe the proposition God exists and you believe the proposition God does not exist.

I do not say "there is no god". If I did, I'd be claiming that I know that. I say I do not believe there is a god. It is not a positive statement.

This is only about the degree of certainty with which you hold opinions. If you believe there's no God you're still asserting there is no God, just not with maximal certainty. It is no more or less a positive statement than anything else.

Please, never serve on a jury.

The presumption of innocence isn't some kind of logical/epistemological rule. It's just a judicial convention. We decide we don't want people to have to prove their innocence because when your life/liberty are on the line we think it's right the onus rests on the accuser. In theory he or she is supposed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. much more than a 51% likelihood, before you're guilty in a legal sense. The reason for this though isn't that there are things called positive assertions which always need proof and negative ones which don't. It's because that's the way we want our courts to operate.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Russell's teapot (even if the point may be a shift of burden of proof) also induces a shift from metaphysical arguments (first cause, necessary being etc.) to pseudo-empirical arguments. Of course, there is a bunch of theist apologetics (like intelligent design etc.) who argue empirically, so it is not completely misguided. It is misguided, though, when engaging traditional metaphysical arguments from Aristotle to Leibniz or Plantinga. Those arguments might be faulty but they are not be thwarted by teapot analogies.

But Russell's teapot was never intended to engage with or thwart metaphysical arguments (Russell did offer other responses to metaphysical arguments). Objecting to it on the grounds that it doesn't respond to arguments it was never intended to respond to is terribly unfair to it.

[Drogon'sWrath]

I have read then them all. I don't see any need to distinguish between a belief and a disbelief. In my book people believe or disbelieve propositions. So I believe the proposition God exists and you believe the proposition God does not exist.

This is only about the degree of certainty with which you hold opinions. If you believe there's no God you're still asserting there is no God, just not with maximal certainty. It is no more or less a positive statement than anything else.

Both sides are making a proposition. However, the burden of proof is still on the one making the positive claim, in this case the one saying that god exists. You can't prove a negative, you can only disprove it by proving the positive.

Let's look at the sphinx example that was brought up earlier. You wouldn't believe someone who tells you they have a pet sphinx because there is no evidence that sphinxes exist. You wouldn't believe because of absence of evidence. Now, let's look at the counterexample of the dog that you brought up. We all know dogs exist, and owning a dog is common. I know many people with dogs and I'm sure you do as well. Owning a dog is common enough that we wouldn't assume someone is lying if they tell us they have a dog.

Now, for sake of argument, let's assume the god you believe in is the Christian god (though if that isn't the faith you prescribe to, just replace it with whatever deity or deities you choose to believe in). And you accept his existence without any tangible evidence. However, if you believe in the Christian god, there are countless other gods you don't believe in, again due to lack of evidence that any of those gods exist. You may take for granted that they don't exist, but if you really analyze why you don't believe in, let's say, Odin, I think you'll find it has a lot to do with the fact that there is no evidence for his existence.

[The Fallen]

If you're asserting that atheism is true you're the one making the positive assertion. Like if I say the Sahara desert isn't real I'm the one who needs to provide the evidence.

Shouldn't atheism be the default pisition?

[Chaircat Meow]

Shouldn't atheism be the default pisition?

No. No more than a-Sahara is the default position on the existence of the Sahara desert.

[The guy from the Vale]

But aSaharaism is only not the default position because of the huge evidence in favor of the Sahara existing. There are photographs, travelogues, sattelite images, etc. of the Sahara desert. I know people who were in the Sahara desert. I know nobody who can bring a photograph of god or tell me of meeting Him.

[AverageGuy]

or tell me of meeting Him.

I've met a few homeless people who've claimed to.

[lacuna]

Hear me Meow:

Where's the £ 200 you owe me?

[Seli]

If every proposition is false you will also have to accept contradictions. Like the sun is a ball of gas and the sun is not a ball of gas can't both be false at the same time.

...

That is when you go to the evidence. There is a sun, so it is worth checking in more detail. We can determine its composition and the state of matter it is in and we can tell it is not a gas (it is a plasma). Easy

[The Fallen]

No. No more than a-Sahara is the default position on the existence of the Sahara desert.

So, I assume that I would have to show you proof that the Sahara desert exists. Shouldn't it work that way for a God also?

[Errant Bard]

What of the existence of unicorns in the Sahara desert? What's the default position on that?

[Larry of the Lawn]

How could you have unicorns in an imaginary desert?

[Seli]

What of the existence of unicorns in the Sahara desert? What's the default position on that?

Wrong desert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_oryx#Unicorn_myth

[felice]

No. No more than a-Sahara is the default position on the existence of the Sahara desert.

The default position on the Squiggleplonk Desert should definitely be that it does not exist. Why is the Sahara Desert a different matter? Because we're well past the default stage. There is a great deal of evidence to support the claim that it exists.

[DireWolfSpirit]

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.

Bingo!

You are exactly correct on each point here.

I myself am a agnostic/weak atheist.

We shouldn't forget about ignosticism either, which

is considered yet another definition-

Ignostic or Ignosticism

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] whereas others have considered it to be distinct.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Here's Cristina Rad tackling the chore

of disproving God/gods because she

actually has become bored with the usual circle discussion that

always predictably plays out.

I think she does a good job making it entertaining.

http://youtu.be/rC2Nvo_I3os

[Rockroi]

No. No more than a-Sahara is the default position on the existence of the Sahara desert.

Well, that's crap because if you asked a child if he believed the Sahara desert existed, the default would be "No," and it would remain that way until that child was at least marginally informed of the Sahara's existence. Same would be true for the Dune Sea (the desert on Tatooine in Star Wars). Belief or non-belief in either desert would not make either desert real. They are real or not irrespective of belief.

The default setting should be- but for cultural and historical reasons - be atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural god or gods (or spirit, force, power, presence, etc). The lack of belief is based entirely- usually- on the complete lack of reliable evidence of any kind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; lacking the evidence should equate to a lack of belief. But it usually does not, again, because of cultural and historical reasons not related to actual evidence.

"Atheism" is not a belief; at least its not a belief in the same way "Christian" is a belief or "Neo-Conservative" is a belief. Its no more accurate to say Atheism is a belief than it is to say "Bald is a haircut" or "The 'Off' switch is a TV Channel."

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.

First, I want to thank the poster who included these definitions.

Secondly, however, this is the only part of the discussion I am quibbling with. I have heard these phrases bandied about for a while now, but I cannot really believe that they are a sort of "Lego-Blocks" for labeling personal belief. How could it be "perfectly consistent" to say that you were an "Gnostic Atheist?" But even something as seemingly rational as "Agnostic Theist" seems boarder-line absurd. You do not claim to know if X is real, but you believe in X? I mean, if you believe in something, doesn't that mean, by definition, you believe it exists? Who hear believes in something but they do not claim whether it exists or not?

​Agnosticism has been mis-defined for ages; an agnostic IS NOT a whisky-washy atheist. An agnostic is somebody who states that not only can THEY not claim to know if God exists or not, but that NOBODY can know if God exists or not; that man can only master the laws of the Natural world, and that the question of God's existence lies squarely in the Supernatural.

Martin Amis claimed that the only intellectually honest position to take about the existence of God is to be an agnostic.

But of you are an agnostic, you are saying that man cannot know if God exists, so to claim you are an agnostic-theist is not quite a contradiction in terms, but seems not quite right.

[Wise Fool]

Secondly, however, this is the only part of the discussion I am quibbling with. I have heard these phrases bandied about for a while now, but I cannot really believe that they are a sort of "Lego-Blocks" for labeling personal belief. How could it be "perfectly consistent" to say that you were an "Gnostic Atheist?" But even something as seemingly rational as "Agnostic Theist" seems boarder-line absurd. You do not claim to know if X is real, but you believe in X? I mean, if you believe in something, doesn't that mean, by definition, you believe it exists? Who hear believes in something but they do not claim whether it exists or not?

I believe I'm getting sick. I don't know for a fact that I am getting sick.

There you go.

[Bryanfury]

Maybe atheism covers both the belief there is no god and the lack of belief there is no god, an as such whether or not atheism is a belief is determinant on the individual calling themself atheist