Is Atheism a Belief?

[The Marquis de Leech]

An atheist is literally someone who is not a theist. That's what the word means: a-theist.

And people always overlook the third dimension of this: misotheism (hatred of God) vs theophilia (love of God). It's perfectly possible to be a misotheistic gnostic theist - you claim that God exists and is Evil (or more strictly, worthy of hate).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Has anyone yet thrown out the old "Atheism isn't a TV channel choice; it's just not watching TV" analogy?

Never heard that one (the one I'm familiar with is "Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair colour").

[Stubby]

I don't think the "atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby" one has been trotted out yet.

Oh wait...

[Errant Bard]

Once upon a time, I owned a "I don't have a car" car.

[Castel]

An atheist is literally someone who is not a theist. That's what the word means: a-theist.

Yes. And some of the reasons for this are certain beliefs. I wouldn't look at the so-called Four Horsemen and consider them barren,beliefs-wise.

[Errant Bard]

Yes. And some of the reasons for this are certain beliefs. I wouldn't look at the so-called Four Horsemen and consider them barren,beliefs-wise.

Even if your lack of conviction is informed by prior beliefs, it does not mean that that lack of conviction is a belief. Shintoists do not believe the Christian god exist, so following your logic they partake in that atheism "belief" of yours, right?

[Castel]

Even if your lack of conviction is informed by prior beliefs, it does not mean that that lack of conviction is a belief. Shintoists do not believe the Christian god exist, so following your logic they partake in that atheism "belief" of yours, right?

No. But the prior beliefs or assumptions are important if they're the ground for other beliefs no?

The point is simply that such a broad and philosophically bland definition of atheism is technically right but mean that there isn't a position here when it comes to a lot of the atheists we (or at least this poster)want to talk about. Someone could be an atheist under that definition because of a squared circle or cheesecake, but I'm not really concerned about them.

[Jo498]

Atheism is a belief in the trivial sense that it is based on firmly holding one (usually a bunch of) belief/s more plausible than their negations. It is not automatically an elaborate system of beliefs that is really similar to religious beliefs.

(But neither is it usually refraining from stating any positive beliefs. Most atheists are not Pyrrhonic sceptics or Middle way Buddhists.)

But very often some kind of system is sketched or suggested by outspoken atheists. (The not outspoken ones will probably often prefer the term agnostics or will not really care either way.)

Usually this includes both a high trust in science, progress, a set of (usually progressive) ethic stances and a pronounced skepticism about a bunch of beliefs that is not exhausted by the statement that there is/are no God(s). There are even attempts to capture some of the emotive or social force of traditional religion by coining concepts for themselves like "Brights", "Rationalists", "Free thinkers" or emotional texts about admiring the vastness of the universe or the powers or human achievements in Art, Science, Philosophy (like Russell's "A free man's worship"). If the last three aspects are combined I think it is fair to say that Atheism in this sense is quite close to a belief in the sense of a religious belief. This may still be somewhat atypical comparted to Xtianity or Islam, but this is also true of several "new age beliefs", Confucianism, Zen, and probably a few other religions.

[Hello World]

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.

What? So not believing in a god is the same as believing in the No-God?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Atheism is a belief in the trivial sense that it is based on firmly holding one (usually a bunch of) belief/s more plausible than their negations. It is not automatically an elaborate system of beliefs that is really similar to religious beliefs.

(But neither is it usually refraining from stating any positive beliefs. Most atheists are not Pyrrhonic sceptics or Middle way Buddhists.)

But very often some kind of system is sketched or suggested by outspoken atheists. (The not outspoken ones will probably often prefer the term agnostics or will not really care either way.)

Usually this includes both a high trust in science, progress, a set of (usually progressive) ethic stances and a pronounced skepticism about a bunch of beliefs that is not exhausted by the statement that there is/are no God(s). There are even attempts to capture some of the emotive or social force of traditional religion by coining concepts for themselves like "Brights", "Rationalists", "Free thinkers" or emotional texts about admiring the vastness of the universe or the powers or human achievements in Art, Science, Philosophy (like Russell's "A free man's worship"). If the last three aspects are combined I think it is fair to say that Atheism in this sense is quite close to a belief in the sense of a religious belief. This may still be somewhat atypical comparted to Xtianity or Islam, but this is also true of several "new age beliefs", Confucianism, Zen, and probably a few other religions.

This is only the case under an a-historical definition of religion. It groups quite possibly any positive belief system about ethics or aesthetics- here you're referring to what I'd term secular humanism- as religion. Of course, you're free to define religion however you like, but defining it this way looks to me like it proceeds backwards; it attempts to define religion such that it includes secular humanism (sweeping up probably quite a bit else in the process), rather than defining religion by its historical features- under which secular humanism would clearly not fit.

Under an historical definition of religion we'd note that religions make claims about the supernatural (gods, spirits, transcendent values), have specific injunctions to act certain ways and perform certain rituals, are pervasive and dominant to the extent that they form loci for robust cultural identities, and take institutional form commanding actual authority, often state authority.

Is secular humanism anything like this? Clearly not.

[sj4iy]

I'm an atheist. But I don't see it as a 'belief'. I believe in science in the same way that I believe the sky is blue and the grass is green...there's a way to prove it. I also don't believe in ghosts, apparitions or souls.

However, I would call myself a humanist- I care about people. I want to help them because that's the right thing to do. And I'm highly moral. I just don't need religion to tell me what's right and what's wrong. Hurting others is wrong. Live and let live.

I have friends of all religions, so I have nothing against religion. I do have a problem with people who think it's okay to hurt others because their religion condones it, though (or they think their religion condones it).

[Chaircat Meow]

If you assert that the Sahara desert knowably (as in, for a certainty) does not exist you need to prove that. You would have to show why it could not possibly be the case that the Sahara desert exists to prove this.

If you assert that the Sahara desert has not been proven to exist, it would not be an appropriate response for me to demand that you prove it knowably does not exist. Instead I should offer evidence which proves its existence.

I find this confused. There is little need for your 'knowably' qualifiers. It is quite rational to say you believe a proposition even if you are not 100% certain it's true. For instance, I'm pretty certain Islam is a fraud, and I might perhaps assert I know this. But to know implies an ironcast certainty we rarely have, so I might not say 'I know Islam is a fraud,' even though I'm pretty certain it is.

On your first paragraph, if I assert the Sahara does not exist I would expect to be called on to back up my assertions. But it would not necessarily be the case that I would have to prove that it did not exist for a certainty as we are sometimes willing to accept certain positions are more rational than others even if they are not certain. I also would not need to show it could not possibly be the case the Sahara exists, unless my assertion was, 'the Sahara could not possibly exist.'

The last paragraph is correct, although I'm still bemused at the knowably business you have going on.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I find this confused. There is little need for your 'knowably' qualifiers. It is quite rational to say you believe a proposition even if you are not 100% certain it's true. For instance, I'm pretty certain Islam is a fraud, and I might perhaps assert I know this. But to know implies an ironcast certainty we rarely have, so I might not say 'I know Islam is a fraud,' even though I'm pretty certain it is.

On your first paragraph, if I assert the Sahara does not exist I would expect to be called on to back up my assertions. But it would not necessarily be the case that I would have to prove that it did not exist for a certainty as we are sometimes willing to accept certain positions are more rational than others even if they are not certain. I also would not need to show it could not possibly be the case the Sahara exists, unless my assertion was, 'the Sahara could not possibly exist.'

The last paragraph is correct, although I'm still bemused at the knowably business you have going on.

You find it confused and yet it took you a day to respond to it? I believe instead that it so clearly explicates the difference between claiming certain non-existence of a thing versus claiming that a thing's existence is not proven that it took you some time to formulate a tortured response to it. I'm not certain of that though.

You will carry on being bemused until you can understand the concept of certainty. As we wade through the slog that is your latest post, it will be helpful to consider the starting point of this exchange. You called atheism a positive belief, like the claim that the Sahara desert does not exist. At this point it became necessary to make the distinction between what would be a positive claim requiring argument or evidence (it is knowably/certainly the case that the Sahara desert does not exist) and what would not (the Sahara desert's existence has not been positively proven). In the first, something must be advanced to make the point true. In the second, the mere absence of proof makes the statement true. To avoid further confusion on your part: atheism is like the second, not the first.

Everything about your ability to make statements of belief without certainty may be true, but is a complete non-sequitur.

[Jo498]

Is secular humanism anything like this? Clearly not.

I think it depends. I did not say it was exactly like a religion, only that it shares a lot of features once it gets systematized and organized. If people are meeting for Solstice celebrations, coin self-descriptions like "Brights", have secular vows for e.g. marriage ceremonies (or coming of age as in some former socialist countries) etc. it seems obvious to me that they want to capture quite a few aspects of religion.

IMO the role of the "Supernatural" seems exaggerated if one looks at history. For one thing, to delineate what's "supernatural" presupposes a rather elaborate and usually very modern understanding of what's "natural". If, as in animistic religion everything has some kind of "soul" that could be manipulated, pacified (rather with material offerings than with prayers), if the "dead" or ghosts are among us (or in some cave far down below), nothing is really natural and nothing supernatural in our sense.

And I have very often seen claims by "new atheists" that e.g. national socialism and communism were like religions, although at least the latter is as atheist as it gets.

[TrueMetis]

Well, religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Since atheism only pertains to deities you can accept other supernatural claims and still be a atheist. And there are religions that don't include gods. So the claim that communism is a form of religion isn't wrong just because they tend to be atheistic. Indeed the cult of personality and claims of truth seems heavily religious to me.

[Chaircat Meow]

You find it confused and yet it took you a day to respond to it? I believe instead that it so clearly explicates the difference between claiming certain non-existence of a thing versus claiming that a thing's existence is not proven that it took you some time to formulate a tortured response to it. I'm not certain of that though.

You will carry on being bemused until you can understand the concept of certainty. As we wade through the slog that is your latest post, it will be helpful to consider the starting point of this exchange. You called atheism a positive belief, like the claim that the Sahara desert does not exist. At this point it became necessary to make the distinction between what would be a positive claim requiring argument or evidence (it is knowably/certainly the case that the Sahara desert does not exist) and what would not (the Sahara desert's existence has not been positively proven). In the first, something must be advanced to make the point true. In the second, the mere absence of proof makes the statement true. To avoid further confusion on your part: atheism is like the second, not the first.

Everything about your ability to make statements of belief without certainty may be true, but is a complete non-sequitur.

I assumed your peculiar ideas about positive statements and certainty had some bearing on your argument. It is not difficult to see how I came by this opinion, and you're still repeating the claims in this post.

Now, apparently this is merely tangential to your point. I see now that your argument was really just a very poorly expressed re-assertion of the old 'atheism is really agnosticism' claim FNR was trying to counter. And as I've said before, there's no reason to categorize beliefs about God in such a way. Atheism is not the assertion that God's existence has not been proven, it's the assertion God does not exist.

[sj4iy]

Well, religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Since atheism only pertains to deities you can accept other supernatural claims and still be a atheist. And there are religions that don't include gods. So the claim that communism is a form of religion isn't wrong just because they tend to be atheistic. Indeed the cult of personality and claims of truth seems heavily religious to me.

Agreed.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I think it depends. I did not say it was exactly like a religion, only that it shares a lot of features once it gets systematized and organized. If people are meeting for Solstice celebrations, coin self-descriptions like "Brights", have secular vows for e.g. marriage ceremonies (or coming of age as in some former socialist countries) etc. it seems obvious to me that they want to capture quite a few aspects of religion.

IMO the role of the "Supernatural" seems exaggerated if one looks at history. For one thing, to delineate what's "supernatural" presupposes a rather elaborate and usually very modern understanding of what's "natural". If, as in animistic religion everything has some kind of "soul" that could be manipulated, pacified (rather with material offerings than with prayers), if the "dead" or ghosts are among us (or in some cave far down below), nothing is really natural and nothing supernatural in our sense.

And I have very often seen claims by "new atheists" that e.g. national socialism and communism were like religions, although at least the latter is as atheist as it gets.

I would agree that you can probably find some similarities between secular humanists and religion. It may even be the case that they are making active attempts at capturing aspects of religion. But it's very easy to draw some comparison between religion and other organizations- Congress has oaths and rituals, but I don't think Congress is a religion. I think to qualify as a religion in the historical sense there must be a set or a sufficient number of a set of qualities met.

It may be the case that delineating natural and supernatural presupposes a modern understanding, in the sense that pre-modern people would not recognize the distinction, but that doesn't mean we can't look back and recognize it. Belief in spirits is a belief in the supernatural that a secular humanist clearly does not hold.

I assumed your peculiar ideas about positive statements and certainty had some bearing on your argument. It is not difficult to see how I came by this opinion, and you're still repeating the claims in this post.

Now, apparently this is merely tangential to your point. I see now that your argument was really just a very poorly expressed re-assertion of the old 'atheism is really agnosticism' claim FNR was trying to counter. And as I've said before, there's no reason to categorize beliefs about God in such a way. Atheism is not the assertion that God's existence has not been proven, it's the assertion God does not exist.

You took up a point I made on the subject of Russell's teapot, the point of which I said was to show that the burden of proof rests on whoever is making the positive claim. Russell's teapot is not in itself an argument for a specific definition of atheism. As I said in my first post, it applies equally to any positive assertion, whether related to god or whatever else.

Since your interest appears only to be in simply disputing the definition of atheism, and yet you chose to respond to my post, you have only yourself to blame if you consider a discussion of the difference between positive assertions of knowledge and assertion of lack of proof tangential.

[Chaircat Meow]

You took up a point I made on the subject of Russell's teapot, the point of which I said was to show that the burden of proof rests on whoever is making the positive claim. Russell's teapot is not in itself an argument for a specific definition of atheism. As I said in my first post, it applies equally to any positive assertion, whether related to god or whatever else.

Since your interest appears only to be in simply disputing the definition of atheism, and yet you chose to respond to my post, you have only yourself to blame if you consider a discussion of the difference between positive assertions of knowledge and assertion of lack of proof tangential.

What I discovered was tangential was your weird series of claims about the necessity of certainty, and the weirder demand all statements about non-existence had to include the proof of the non-possibility of existence. These were so strange I assumed they were an important part of the argument. Apparently they were not.

Wrt the teapot, as I pointed out, atheism is also a claim which needs backing up before we'd accept it as true. So it has no burden of proof advantage. Incidentally, we can say with reasonable certainty that there is no teapot in orbit, as we know how teapots are made and have reasons to think we would not waste time launching one into space.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

What I discovered was tangential was your weird series of claims about the necessity of certainty, and the weirder demand all statements about non-existence had to include the proof of the non-possibility of existence. These were so strange I assumed they were an important part of the argument. Apparently they were not.

You discovered nothing of the sort, as I've made no claim about the "necessity of certainty" or demanded that "all statements about non-existence had to include the proof of the non-possibility of existence." Your utter inability to grasp my point carries on.

I pointed to two crucially different kinds of statements on non-existence. One was that something certainly does not exist, requiring proof. The other was that something's existence had not been proven, not requiring proof, but being required to yield to proof.

Wrt the teapot, as I pointed out, atheism is also a claim which needs backing up before we'd accept it as true. So it has no burden of proof advantage.

This is just so much foot-stomping that your definition of atheism must be accepted. I don't accept your definition. Agree to disagree, or continue foot-stomping, but I don't see any reason to continue on with this point.

Incidentally, we can say with reasonable certainty that there is no teapot in orbit, as we know how teapots are made and have reasons to think we would not waste time launching one into space.

Ah, but you see, God put it there. Indeed, he finely tuned the universe with just the right physical laws such that it would be possible for his teapot to orbit around our specific sun. This is the kind of thing God likes to do.