Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

Miss_Leah wrote:

Snowy Aftermath wrote: I did not ask for and do not want this thread, Goken. I don't come to TotJO to tell other people who they are. I didn't show up here to tell this guy how to be a Christian or that guy how to be a Pagan. It doesn't matter what Cable or anyone else says on the matter, they aren't living it and certainly express no real interest in learning about it, they just want to dictate to me who I am. To show up and INSIST that something that they aren't living or experiencing is a certain way is nothing but arrogance. How would they know?

So everybody have fun arguing about something you aren't even interested in learning more about. Have fun making assumptions about other people and dropping generalizations. Have fun being part of the group that trusts rapists more than atheists . What do I care?

I have to deal with this ignorant BS in the real world, I'm not going to stand alone in yet another thread. You all claim to be open-minded. Use your mind. Go google it and study it in actual places where we roll.

I will not be run out of here like you all did to Mahogany.

I'm assuming here, but I think that the thread is not to discuss if atheism is valid or not, but whether it can be called a "belief" or not, seeing as strictly speaking, it means an absence of belief in God.

I personally think it's irrelevant, because everyone has beliefs, whether they have a name for the dogma, or a deity, or prophet, etc.

Either way, I don't think it's meant to be a dig at atheists.

Seems to me this thread was just created to hold a friendly discussion. And as usual....People are blowing things out of proportions and letting their sensitivities get tangled up.

rugadd wrote: Alright, if we can accept that, why then, would people call atheism a belief? Perhaps because their own perspective is seen through that lens? Their "wired" to see it as one?

I think it's because there isn't a term for the opposite of a "belief". It's uncommon enough (a small enough minority of the population) that the language has failed. I have been confronted several times with "well if it's not a belief, what is it?"

The word doesn't exist. It's like "cisgender" before there was a word for that. They just called it "normal people", which was so offensive for transgender people.

I don't think we are any more...

I think it is fair to say that much of the confusion associated with labeling yourself as a Christian or Atheist or Jedi or Muslim or Spaghetti Monster is that people change.

Christians can believe that there is no such thing as an Atheist because they have seen a self-title Atheist be 'born again' and become Christian. In their experience, the Atheist simply hadn't been introduced to God yet. They then can apply that assumption to every other Atheist in their mind. There is no such thing as an Atheist, only someone who doesn't know their God yet. This is one of the main motivations for missionary work, to introduce God to the 'non-believers'.

In the same way, a Christian can become disillusioned and declare that 'there is no God'. So, being that they previously believed in God, can they truly be considered Atheist? Some Atheists would say 'no', but others might say that this person finally came to their senses and realized that God cannot be proven and so He doesn't exist. *POOF* You're now an Atheist.

Either way, in every moment of your life you believe something, even if it is that you do not believe in something else. The fact that an Atheist can be defined as someone who does not believe in God because there is no proof could be said to believe in the scientific method or logic that would provide that very proof.

I really don't feel like that needed brought up again Trisskar. It had been dealt with and the conversation had moved on. There's no reason to pile on.

...Which I just contributed to...

Let's just move along with the discussion at hand.

Trisskar wrote: And as usual....People are blowing things out of proportions and letting their sensitivities get tangled up.

And as usual, your reaction, Trisskar.

Edit: I agree with the others who I didn't read until this edit I'm doing right now, and I'm moving forward.

rugadd wrote: Alright, if we can accept that, why then, would people call atheism a belief? Perhaps because their own perspective is seen through that lens? Their "wired" to see it as one?

That would be a good way to put it, yes.

Luthien wrote:

rugadd wrote: Alright, if we can accept that, why then, would people call atheism a belief? Perhaps because their own perspective is seen through that lens? Their "wired" to see it as one?

That would be a good way to put it, yes.

I can safely say that I would, from now on, say that Atheism is not a belief, which was not my stance three pages ago.

Goken wrote:

Luthien wrote:

rugadd wrote: Alright, if we can accept that, why then, would people call atheism a belief? Perhaps because their own perspective is seen through that lens? Their "wired" to see it as one?

That would be a good way to put it, yes.

I can safely say that I would, from now on, say that Atheism is not a belief, which was not my stance three pages ago.

So are you saying you now believe Atheism is not a belief? :laugh: :evil:

Senan, I don't think a lack of one belief automatically assumes another, say, belief in science or logic or what not.

Also, I'm with Goken. I thought Atheism was a belief until this thread too.