Atheism is not a belief?

[Guest]

Please note: atheism is a lack of belief it is not a belief.

I probably really do not open this can, but the assertion was made and it is intriguing.

How can there be an idea that one can believe, yet at the same time it not be?

There has to be some criteria which would have to be used to create this "not a belief" Yes? No?

[Poverello]

I believe I'm going to need to amend my reply, not that I've have a moment to think about it. I'll amend it here when I'm ready, but I wanted to let you all know.

[Fallibleone]

This is off the top of my head. Please rip it to shreds if you can.

An atheist who truly "lacks belief in a God or gods" is one who has never even conceived of such a thing as God or gods; But a man who calls himself an atheist is actively rejecting understood assertions about God or gods as false on a daily basis.

It is true that those who have never conceived of God are atheists. All you need is a lack of belief. But one who does not believe assertions need not be actively rejecting them. It could be the case that the assertion simply does not have enough evidence behind it in order for it to be accepted as true. So it is not really a rejection of an assertion, but a withholding of a decision on the matter. I can say 'I don't believe that to be true' without meaning 'that is false'. All I am saying is that I withhold judgement. I still lack belief, but do not have an active belief in the other direction.

I believe I can say this because the idea of God includes universal claims regarding our perception of everything, and when a man consistently perceives the world as godless, he is making a positive assertion in practice that the concepts about God or gods he has once understood are positively false.

I disagree with this. Say I live my life, experiencing as I go, and yet God appears nowhere in my perception. I don't need to make any positive assertion that the concepts about God I have heard are false. I can certainly do that if I want to, but I wouldn't be being very honest, and I don't need to. My perception of the world shows no god, and so my experience is one of a world where God does not appear. I think we are mixing up the existence of God with assertions that others make about God.

Therefore it can be said that atheism, when claimed, is necessarily an active belief that God/gods does not exist.

I don't think it can, since as you say yourself, an atheist can truly lack belief in a god or gods. The thing which I believe you have got wrong is that even if I assert that I am an atheist, I do not necessarily have an active belief that God is not real. Rather, from my own experiences, I lack the information that shows that God is there. This does not inevitably lead to a necessity to believe that God does not exist, it only means that I have no reason to believe.

Also, rejecting claims made by others does not mean that I have to inevitably believe that God does not exist. I am simply saying 'well, I don't believe you, and so I will refrain from accepting what you say as true for now'.

Consider this: There might be a beautiful beetle living half a mile under my house. Then again, there might not. Since I can't see it and probably never will, I don't waste my time wondering if it's there or not. Its impact on my life is nil. I don't believe in the beetle, but I don't actively assert it isn't there, either.

[Poverello]

Fallibone,

Since editing my last reply would probably be silly now, I'll just say that I do agree with some of the things you've said. The idea that rejection of an assertion is equal to an assertion of it's opposite is nonsense and I know better. In fact, not three days ago I was reading (and smacking my forehead) at Bourdin's objections to Descartes in which Bourdin makes precisely the same mistake--now here I've done it myself.

I do have a new question, however: Regarding the word 'atheism', what constitutes the '-ism' suffix?

[Treefur]

I think the only thing constituting the -ism to atheism is the same that constitutes magnetism, alcoholism, hypnotism, or terrorism, nationalism, or anarchism.

It's just linguistic structure. It's not an ideology.

[Guest]

That it is too confusing to you does not change the fact that there are two distinct kinds of atheism. The basic label refers to simple non-belief. The other refers to an extra belief (that God does not exist) on top of that.

So, 10 is "hard" and 1 is "soft".

Step right up and rate an atheist: 10 is high score and 1 is low. If a theist tried to apply such a rating atheists would cry foul.

Everyone who is not a theist does not believe in God. This includes agnostics too. The only agnostic who is not also an atheist is an agnostic theist.

Gonostic theist - 'knows' that God exists.
Agnostic theist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is there.
Agnostic atheist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is not there.
Gnostic atheist - 'knows' that God does not exist.

Most atheists fit into the agnostic atheist category. They allow the tiny (they think) possibility that God might exist because one cannot realistically rule it out 100%, and so they don't claim to know that God does not exist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, because one is based on lack of belief, and the other is based on lack of knowledge. Two different things. .

I am presuming that means something to you. Its still a rating system.....you might be breaking down the "hots' and the "colds" but really have not chanced the rating system any.

[bernee51]

Fallibone,

Since editing my last reply would probably be silly now, I'll just say that I do agree with some of the things you've said. The idea that rejection of an assertion is equal to an assertion of it's opposite is nonsense and I know better. In fact, not three days ago I was reading (and smacking my forehead) at Bourdin's objections to Descartes in which Bourdin makes precisely the same mistake--now here I've done it myself.

I do have a new question, however: Regarding the word 'atheism', what constitutes the '-ism' suffix?

It refers to the theism part of the the word. If theism did not exist neither would atheism. Atheism is reliant on theism. If humankind was magically cured of the need to conceive of gods there would be no atheists.

[bernee51]

That it is too confusing to you does not change the fact that there are two distinct kinds of atheism. The basic label refers to simple non-belief. The other refers to an extra belief (that God does not exist) on top of that.

So, 10 is "hard" and 1 is "soft".

Step right up and rate an atheist: 10 is high score and 1 is low. If a theist tried to apply such a rating atheists would cry foul.

Which it is why it is reasonable to seek out how atheists describe themselves.

Everyone who is not a theist does not believe in God. This includes agnostics too. The only agnostic who is not also an atheist is an agnostic theist.

Gonostic theist - 'knows' that God exists.
Agnostic theist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is there.
Agnostic atheist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is not there.
Gnostic atheist - 'knows' that God does not exist.

Most atheists fit into the agnostic atheist category. They allow the tiny (they think) possibility that God might exist because one cannot realistically rule it out 100%, and so they don't claim to know that God does not exist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, because one is based on lack of belief, and the other is based on lack of knowledge. Two different things. .

I am presuming that means something to you. Its still a rating system.....you might be breaking down the "hots' and the "colds" but really have not chanced the rating system any.

And....?

[Fallibleone]

Fallibone,

Since editing my last reply would probably be silly now, I'll just say that I do agree with some of the things you've said. The idea that rejection of an assertion is equal to an assertion of it's opposite is nonsense and I know better. In fact, not three days ago I was reading (and smacking my forehead) at Bourdin's objections to Descartes in which Bourdin makes precisely the same mistake--now here I've done it myself.

I do have a new question, however: Regarding the word 'atheism', what constitutes the '-ism' suffix?

Well, I think that this has become misunderstood over time. If you want to go way back, the word 'atheism' means 'without God(s)' in ancient Greek. 'A' (without) 'theos' (God). So the word 'atheism' actually has a prefix (a-, meaning 'without') rather than a suffix ('ism').

Basically, it was originally meant to be seen as 'a-theism' - 'without theism', not 'athe-ism'.

I hope that makes sense.

[Fallibleone]

That it is too confusing to you does not change the fact that there are two distinct kinds of atheism. The basic label refers to simple non-belief. The other refers to an extra belief (that God does not exist) on top of that.

So, 10 is "hard" and 1 is "soft".

I'm not aware of any 1-10 scale.

Step right up and rate an atheist: 10 is high score and 1 is low. If a theist tried to apply such a rating atheists would cry foul.

It's really fairly simple. To be an atheist, all one needs is a lack of belief in any gods. Some atheists also assert that there are no gods on top of that. That's all, really.

Everyone who is not a theist does not believe in God. This includes agnostics too. The only agnostic who is not also an atheist is an agnostic theist.

Gonostic theist - 'knows' that God exists.
Agnostic theist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is there.
Agnostic atheist - does not know for sure, but lives life as if God is not there.
Gnostic atheist - 'knows' that God does not exist.

Most atheists fit into the agnostic atheist category. They allow the tiny (they think) possibility that God might exist because one cannot realistically rule it out 100%, and so they don't claim to know that God does not exist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, because one is based on lack of belief, and the other is based on lack of knowledge. Two different things. .

I am presuming that means something to you.

Obviosuly, or I would not have written it.

Its still a rating system.....you might be breaking down the "hots' and the "colds" but really have not chanced the rating system any.

It is not my intention to change anything. If you say you know God exists, you are a gnostic theist. If you say you know God does not exist, you are a gnostic atheist. Anything else, and you are agnostic. If you believe in God but do not say you know that God exists, you are an agnostic atheist. If you lack belief in God but do not claim to know that God does not exist, you are an agnostic atheist.

[McCulloch]

If theism did not exist neither would atheism. Atheism is reliant on theism. If humankind was magically cured of the need to conceive of gods there would be no atheists.

Not quite. If all humans were atheist then there would be no need for the term atheist. It is not quite the same thing.