Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

Goken wrote: It is an interesting question. Does the label really change anything? The length of this discussion seems to imply that to some it does, to others maybe not. I do believe that it is a semantic issue more than anything, but, similar to how I treat transgender people, I like to know what people prefer to be called so that I may do so accordingly.

The two definitions are actually quite different. That is what I was trying to convey in my first post.

The first is a claim that there is no God
The second is a rejection of claims that there is a God.

The first definition is a belief while the second is not but I think you will find those that claim Atheism under either definition. As to why it matters, we could ask the same thing about any thread on this board. It matters because it matters. Its another form of our individual attempts to get as close to objective truth as possible. How else do we do this other than through the discourse of discussion and debate?

It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

Being that they are different types of belief and do not cancel each other out... I disbelieve in the belief in God is not the same as I disbelieve in my belief. The later being at the same level of analysis. It's just one the problems of being smart enough to know we don't know things for sure but not smart enough to know how smart we are!! We nest things to build 'order' and then confused about how it all relates. At least that is my excuse...

Khaos wrote: Certainly here, it has taken its own life, but from another thread apparently, so I am wondering, what has been gained ultimately?

Other then exercising critical thinking.... I dunno, entertainment maybe!!!?

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Same dif to me :ohmy: :pinch:

As to why it matters, we could ask the same thing about any thread on this board. It matters because it matters. Its another form of our individual attempts to get as close to objective truth as possible. How else do we do this other than through the discourse of discussion and debate?

I could ask of any thread, but I asked specifically of this one, and if your looking to get as close to the objective truth as possible[a bold claim, given how much people here seem to prize there subjective truths over the objective.] Then you could see this as simply a progression of that from the original topic. More discourse, discussion, and debate for your search.

You see, this question comes up somewhat regularly here, so I , bored with that, want to take into deeper, or perhaps just different, waters.

Also, "it matters because it matters" is not only a cop out, but a silly response to a perfectly valid question.

I could ask of any thread, but I think on threads that tend to repeat, as do the same responses, and counter arguments,why it matters, is ultimately of value, should be explored along with it.

These types of topics always get the biggest thread counts, so it is seemingly very important to people, so I would like to explore that import.

Snowy Aftermath wrote: Atheism is a belief as much as bald is a hair color.

I'm in a Lebowski mood.

If there are two classes of bowlers, pro and amateur, and someone has never bowled in their life, are they automatically amateur bowlers?

No, it's silly. They aren't participating in the game at all. Why classify them as though they were?

Atheism is a paradox. A belief in non-belief.

Personally, it doesn't make sense to me. After all, how does reality or any form of existence happen by accident?

Adder wrote:

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Same dif to me :ohmy: :pinch:

Okay, so I won't argue over definitions anymore. You're a big boy; use the tools available to you to understand why they are truly different.

I think it's important because as humans we mostly think in terms of language. Language is only labels for ideas, pointers to concepts rather than actually concepts in and of themselves. That's why some things can get "lost in translation" because the words represent an idea but aren't that idea. Since we mostly think in terms of said labels and can't speak in anything but those labels it's important to discuss and understand what those labels mean to everyone. Even if at the end of it we don't agree on each other's meaning behind the label it's good for us to figure out what we all use those labels for.

Khaos wrote: I could ask of any thread, but I asked specifically of this one, and if your looking to get as close to the objective truth as possible[a bold claim, given how much people here seem to prize there subjective truths over the objective.] Then you could see this as simply a progression of that from the original topic. More discourse, discussion, and debate for your search.

You see, this question comes up somewhat regularly here, so I , bored with that, want to take into deeper, or perhaps just different, waters.

Also, "it matters because it matters" is not only a cop out, but a silly response to a perfectly valid question.

I could ask of any thread, but I think on threads that tend to repeat, as do the same responses, and counter arguments,why it matters, is ultimately of value, should be explored along with it.

These types of topics always get the biggest thread counts, so it is seemingly very important to people, so I would like to explore that import.

The answer I gave, that you feel was a cop out, I feel was an appropriate response to an essentially irrelevant question. However since you seem to feel it was not, let me expound on why it matters...

As cognitive beings we form concepts in our minds. But if we want to share those concepts, they can only take on a value outside ourselves when we are able to communicate them to others. We use definitions to do this. The formation of a concept isn’t really complete until you have a definition that you can communicate outside yourself. These definitions are typically expressed in words and they attach the specifics and necessary sufficient conditions for the concept (which can also be expressed in a word or words, Atheist as an example) to be a member of a specific set. Basically a definition can be taken to be a statement of the essence of a thing.

For example, A Christian can principally be defined as a follower of the teachings of Christ (a Deity). This is the essence of a Christian. The details and interpretations of those teachings and the myriad of sects that evolve out of those details is irrelevant. Any Christian, no matter whether they call themselves Baptist or Catholic or Evangelical and all the descriptions that entail those denominations, can still basically be defined as a follower of the teachings of Christ. This is a basic, core, universal representation of what a Christian is no matter the details of his or her personal belief or interpretation of those teachings.

Definitions allow us to define and quantify our reality. If someone tells you they are an honest person, how would you know what they meant without a definition of what Honest was? By having the definition of honesty clear in one’s mind it helps us to comprehend that when one is a liar, they are not an honest person. The behavior of the individual will conform to the actual reality of them either being honest or being a liar as defined by the definition. So one cannot truly call themselves honest while they are a liar.

So an accurate definition of a term allows us to define the reality of that concept. If I call myself an Atheist and I have a definition of Atheist I cannot then behave as a Christian and yet call myself Atheist. The two are mutually exclusive since the definitions we use to describe them differ. This is important because when I identify myself as Atheist to others I want them to have the most accurate definition that most closely conforms to reality of what it means to be an Atheist. The accurate definition of Atheist is the way to communicate to others what an Atheist is so they can distinguish one who belongs to the set of Atheist from one who belongs to the set of Christian, as an example.

In order to be practically functional, this definition of Atheist must be at the most basic level, universal and describe the necessary conditions and specifics that are to be included in the set of Atheist. This is a definition that confirms most closely to the reality of what an atheist is without defining any details or specifics of individual belief or experience and can be recognized universally by anyone in possession of the definition. Anything outside these parameters becomes muddled and confusing to communicate or interpret. The attempt to confuse such definitions, as in the case of a Christian (for example) claiming that an atheist is not what he claims to be in order to further his position is a deception that corrupts the essential definition of what an atheist is. If this Christian claims the atheist is actually holding a belief but in denial of that belief, this is a fallacy. This thread and the ensuing discussion is an attempt to correct the fallacy. Now in the end its not my place to make you accept my position. I could really care less what you "believe" but if even one person that has never heard this argument before reads this thread and comes to a better understanding of what an Atheist is, that is the reason it matters.

Is that better?