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?

[McCulloch]

You appear to be being careful not to say you do not have reason to believe God exists for lack of reasons. Which would be a belief about the credibility of any reason you have been presented.

Does this help? The reasons I do not believe that there is a God are

1. The lack of reasons to believe that there is a God. I have had no unambiguous personal experience with God.
2. The alleged reasons to believe provided by believers separately or together, are insufficient logically to convince me to believe.

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.

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.

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

Only so much as aleprechaunism is an active believe that leprechauns do not exist.

[Sotomone]

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?

As our ever so diligent bernee said there is many types of atheism and several brands of it. And the fact it says its definition is a absence of belief. (Nice to see you still active Bernee) Well Atheism is not the only lack in belief. There is another its simple a None Believer but there is a major difference between a None Believer and a Atheist. This difference is a None Believer may be converted or impossible to convert due to them not even caring about religion and live life in ignorance. While an Atheist is one that seeks knowledge. But is this just another way to add onto Atheism from its original definition?

Well yes its some thing most Atheist have come too the group of Atheist all seek knowledge in some way and wish to separate them selfs from the ranks of none believers. Atheist do not believe in things unless they are proven. The Criteria to make it a None Belief is simple. Its the fact that we know there is no higher power than man kind. Sure religions would argue with this, but this is from most Atheist. I hope this will help a little.

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 personally rule out the existence or to put it more bluntly I know god does not exist because there is no evidence to prove his existence. But then what if someone could truly and utterly prove his existence without a single doubt? Well I have decided that if this was to ever come to light I would accept it and accept any punishment from him. Heres the confusing part. If Im willing to accept it if proof is brought forth does this make me a Agnostic Atheist? But yet I say he does not exist because there is no proof of his existence. I would love this ones answer.

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.

I guess in so many ways this is true. Since if there is one there must always be an opposite. So Bernee is right here. Yes Atheism would not have been created if theism did not exist in the first place. If religion did not exist there wouldnt be debates and churches now would there? So there must always be an opposite to some thing. Always someone to challenge some thing its the way the world works.

[Guest]

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

It apparently went over your head. I think the comments speak for themselves so will leave it at that.

[Guest]

You appear to be being careful not to say you do not have reason to believe God exists for lack of reasons. Which would be a belief about the credibility of any reason you have been presented.

Does this help? The reasons I do not believe that there is a God are

1. The lack of reasons to believe that there is a God. I have had no unambiguous personal experience with God.
2. The alleged reasons to believe provided by believers separately or together, are insufficient logically to convince me to believe.

You believe they are logically insufficient? Or are you trying to claim some kind of higher expertise?

[Guest]

As our ever so diligent bernee said there is many types of atheism and several brands of it.

Now there's several "brands>"?? I presume oldstyle and new improved? OK, well this thread is going the way I was afraid it might, with all kinds of definitions on the various brands of atheism. I accept Kierkegaards observation about how people join a group, or identify with a group based on the "reflection" then spend more time trying to redefine themselves up from it.

But for an ism that is not a belief the atheists sure have a lot of beliefs about what is is and what it is not.

[Poverello]

So far it's been established here, at least in my own conversation, that the word 'atheist' means "without belief in a God or gods" or simply "not theist".

I have another question:

Is it possible to hold a belief in God (Monotheistic) without any sort of anthropomorphic assertion or even any assertable conception of God whatsoever?

[Angel]

So far it's been established here, at least in my own conversation, that the word 'atheist' means "without belief in a God or gods" or simply "not theist".

I have another question:

Is it possible to hold a belief in God (Monotheistic) without any sort of anthropomorphic assertion or even any assertable conception of God whatsoever?

A general theist or deist may fit. These theists may generally believe that a higher being exists but don't ascribe much specifics to him unless it's theoretical perhaps. I've encountered very few of these types and they tended to go only by philosophy and some science and most likely would not follow or accept much of religion.

[McCulloch]

You believe they [reasons to believe provided by believers] are logically insufficient? Or are you trying to claim some kind of higher expertise?

I have no special expertise. I simply look at the claims and at the standard rules of logic. Take the cosmological argument for example. It uses a form of special pleading, God is exempt from having to have a cause. To some, God exists outside of time and space, yet they cannot explain what it means to exist without reference to time and space. Furthermore, even if valid, this argument makes no attempt to identify the first cause or even to provide any means by which one could identify the first cause.

[Celestial Dragon]

You believe they [reasons to believe provided by believers] are logically insufficient? Or are you trying to claim some kind of higher expertise?

I have no special expertise. I simply look at the claims and at the standard rules of logic. Take the cosmological argument for example. It uses a form of special pleading, God is exempt from having to have a cause. To some, God exists outside of time and space, yet they cannot explain what it means to exist without reference to time and space. Furthermore, even if valid, this argument makes no attempt to identify the first cause or even to provide any means by which one could identify the first cause.

I don't really think that the First Cause argument (i.e. the cosmological argument) is valid any longer due to the known laws governing molecular physics. For example... gas molecules can bounce off each other as well as the walls in a closed room, without any physical necessity to start or end this random process. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not discount the requirement of any first cause, or action, in the universe?

Now if we move this question to apply to outside the universe, any conclusions would be questionable as the laws of physics and even logic are unlikely to remain identical to the ones in this universe. Thus it could still easily be possible for something to come from nothing ex nihilo (as many physicists are agreeing on), and for movement to come from non-movement.

[Jrosemary]

So far it's been established here, at least in my own conversation, that the word 'atheist' means "without belief in a God or gods" or simply "not theist".

I have another question:

Is it possible to hold a belief in God (Monotheistic) without any sort of anthropomorphic assertion or even any assertable conception of God whatsoever?

A general theist or deist may fit. These theists may generally believe that a higher being exists but don't ascribe much specifics to him unless it's theoretical perhaps. I've encountered very few of these types and they tended to go only by philosophy and some science and most likely would not follow or accept much of religion.

In Judaism, we have a notion of God called Ein Sof. This Ein Sof is thoroughly transcendent, attributeless (as we understand attributes, at any event) beyond humanity's ability to categorize and utterly impersonal. I think the notion of Ein Sof is our way of saying "we don't know anything about what God is like."

You will meet some synagogue-going Jews who only hold with the Ein Sof notion of God--they don't hold with the more personal notion of God that coexists in Judaism. (Every synagogue also has its token atheists, but that's another story. )

Hinduism, likewise, has the notion of Brahmam, which is similar to Judaism's Ein Sof. Hinduism, like Judaism, also has an intensely personal notion of God (personified in Shiva, Durga, Vishnu, and so forth) that coexists with that transcendent, impersonal notion. I don't know if there are Hindus who focus just on Brahman and reject the personal notion of God. I'd be interested to hear the answer if anyone here happens to know.

We had a discussion about Ein Sof vs. a personal notion of God over the breakfast table after Sunday minyan one morning at my shul. One guy was giving very good arguments for just sticking with the idea of Ein Sof. But my physchiatric make-up isn't prepared for that. I seem to require a personal God to argue with, so I much prefer a balance between the two notions.

Hope this helped . . .