No, we are not all born atheist. We are born neither atheist nor theist. We must learn either stance.
... And I mean, one of my pet peeves is when people try to pull in people into their religious stance who are not of that religious stance, and you're taking it to a whole new level. "Rocks are atheist?" Seriously?
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
Of course they're making claims about reality. If I say that I don't believe the statement 'god exists' it means I don't believe god exists. (or, alternatively, I'm saying that I don't believe it can be known if god exists (or not) which makes me an agnostic). If the athiest is lying about their athiesm then their just lying and it's irrelevant to what actual athiests believe.
Athiesm isn't a religion, and it's not a belief *structure* in that - unlike, say, buddhism - there's not a defined set of beliefs to be an athiest.
It can be a philosophy, but doesn't have to be, but it *is* a belief. Are we getting confused about the difference between 'belief' as in faith and 'belief' as in 'thing that is believed?' Because to my mind, the statements 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'the statement 'I believe their is a god' is false' are pretty damn equivalent.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
But without the introduction of the question of whether you are holding the pen or not, it is a non-issue and no opinion or conclusion about it was formed.
Because you are adhering to a different and much stricter definition of "disbelief" than most atheists.
You didn't answer the question. Demonstrate that a person can be an atheist in a manner other than the way I have described.
No it isn't. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists.
Which is, again, ridiculous. By this logic, Buddhism is an atheist religion. It is most certainly not. When you're worshiping and venerating a divine being, it is a divine being regardless of whether or not it is semantically a "deity."
Highroller, you can't call something belief in god unless it is belief in god. If atheists don't believe in gods, Buddhists are atheists, because they don't believe in gods. QED. If you would like to propose a definition of god that encompasses buddhism, you're welcome, but you can't simply call atheism whatever you want to call atheism, you need to use a definition.
Quote from DJK3654 »
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using,
Except that is a completely wrong-headed definition of the word "atheism."
I'm sorry to tell you, but it's a definition many people use with a perfectly useful function.
As I've said before, one can lack belief in gods by disbelieving in gods, or by neither believing nor disbelieving in gods. The latter cannot possibly be said to be atheist. As Blinking Spirit said, a rock can neither believe nor disbelieve in gods. It truly holds no beliefs either way. However, a rock is not atheist. It holds no beliefs on religion whatsoever.
A rock is only not an atheist if the definition of atheist does not correspond to it, you cannot say that a definition is invalid because it labels something under it that is not that thing because that can only be true if you already define atheist in another way, which makes such a comment a blatant failure to acknowledge the point. What you can do is appeal to the common use of the term, but that only speaks to how useful a definition is, it cannot invalidate a definition.
Regardless, the definition I provided and you quoted specifically addresses the rock example, something you have completely failed to address in turn.
Now let me remind you that if you define atheism as requiring a belief in the negation, then many public figures of atheism and many more private individuals are no longer atheists. Take Dawkins again, he does not believe that god does not exist, he does not believe that god does exist, he finds the idea unlikely and lives on the practical assumption that god does not exist. Is Dawkins an atheist?
Perhaps we could define atheism as having an active disconsideration of god or somesuch.
That's actually the point. "Atheist" shouldn't convey much information.
I suppose, then, that what we disagree on is the fundamental ethics of discourse. I say that when you use words in such a way as to convey minimal information, you waste the time of the other parties.
All being an atheist says about me is that I don't hold one very very specific belief. Period. It says nothing about my values, my beliefs, my attitude, my sense of morality, NOTHING else.
Yes, you can use words in any way you like -- but the price for endorsing this broad-minded-sounding platitude is that sentences like "The square of the atheist is the sum of the squares of the two remaining atheists." start to become true. Don't be so openminded that your brain falls out of the hole.
Which does not necessarily mean they do believe the proposition that a god does not exist. Some atheists certainly do, but that's not a prerequisite for atheism.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
Of course they're making claims about reality. If I say that I don't believe the statement 'god exists' it means I don't believe god exists. (or, alternatively, I'm saying that I don't believe it can be known if god exists (or not) which makes me an agnostic). If the athiest is lying about their athiesm then their just lying and it's irrelevant to what actual athiests believe.
Athiesm isn't a religion, and it's not a belief *structure* in that - unlike, say, buddhism - there's not a defined set of beliefs to be an athiest.
It can be a philosophy, but doesn't have to be, but it *is* a belief. Are we getting confused about the difference between 'belief' as in faith and 'belief' as in 'thing that is believed?' Because to my mind, the statements 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'the statement 'I believe their is a god' is false' are pretty damn equivalent.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
I don't actually believe you can lack belief in something you have heard of. You have three options: Believe it (thiesm), believe it is not true (athiesm) or not have sufficient evidence (agnosticism).
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
But without the introduction of the question of whether you are holding the pen or not, it is a non-issue and no opinion or conclusion about it was formed.
Did you believe that I was holding a red pen before I said it? You didn't did you? You lacked belief. You did not believe that I was holding a red pen, you did not believe that I was not holding a red pen.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
But without the introduction of the question of whether you are holding the pen or not, it is a non-issue and no opinion or conclusion about it was formed.
Did you believe that I was holding a red pen before I said it? You didn't did you? You lacked belief. You did not believe that I was holding a red pen, you did not believe that I was not holding a red pen.
The statement which started all this was that atheism was a belief, not that it was that belief. When someone stands up and says, "I am an atheist", they're affirming some proposition about the universe -- at the very minimum, they're affirming some proposition about themselves, and they are part of the universe. So it is wildly misleading to describe atheism as as an absence of belief, and to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls it a belief. You know what has an absence of belief? A rock. Rocks don't affirm propositions. And we don't often describe rocks as atheists. An atheist human being is doing something different than a rock, and that something is perceiving, thinking, affirming believing.
I don't see this logic following through. The nature of atheism is not necessarily to do with the nature of atheists. If atheism is defined as 'the conscious state of lacking belief in gods', as Lithl essentially appears to be using, you don't have to believe anything, just as long as you don't believe that god exists. Under this definition, there is utterly no constraints on what you actually do believe what so ever other than what you consciously do not believe. A rock isn't an atheist then because it's not conscious, we can simply add consciousness into the definition of atheist to account for such attributions that we could consider hollow in meaning and/or tangential to the use of the term. But even without such an alteration, atheism is still not a belief, and whether or not you might like the definition without such a change, it is still a perfectly valid definition because it's just a definition. Either way, extreme skeptics can easily be described as atheists, and they believe nothing. Of which note, it is a mistake to claim that someone saying they are atheist is making any claims about ultimate reality, because acting according to some idea is not the same as believing it, as can be supported with the simple observation of people lying and acting according to that lie.
Of course they're making claims about reality. If I say that I don't believe the statement 'god exists' it means I don't believe god exists. (or, alternatively, I'm saying that I don't believe it can be known if god exists (or not) which makes me an agnostic). If the athiest is lying about their athiesm then their just lying and it's irrelevant to what actual athiests believe.
Athiesm isn't a religion, and it's not a belief *structure* in that - unlike, say, buddhism - there's not a defined set of beliefs to be an athiest.
It can be a philosophy, but doesn't have to be, but it *is* a belief. Are we getting confused about the difference between 'belief' as in faith and 'belief' as in 'thing that is believed?' Because to my mind, the statements 'I do not believe there is a god' and 'the statement 'I believe their is a god' is false' are pretty damn equivalent.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
I don't actually believe you can lack belief in something you have heard of. You have three options: Believe it (thiesm), believe it is not true (athiesm) or not have sufficient evidence (agnosticism).
If you hold any other position than believing it, then you lack belief in it. It's not complicated.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
But without the introduction of the question of whether you are holding the pen or not, it is a non-issue and no opinion or conclusion about it was formed.
Did you believe that I was holding a red pen before I said it? You didn't did you? You lacked belief. You did not believe that I was holding a red pen, you did not believe that I was not holding a red pen.
I lacked belief, and I lacked disbelief.
Exactly. An god is a proposition about which such a position can held. And having that stance is often called atheism. It is not a belief, it is the alternative to a particular belief.
No it isn't. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists.
Which is, again, ridiculous. By this logic, Buddhism is an atheist religion. It is most certainly not. When you're worshiping and venerating a divine being, it is a divine being regardless of whether or not it is semantically a "deity."
No, it's not ridiculous. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Many Buddhists do not believe in a god. Those Buddhists are atheists.
As Blinking Spirit said, a rock can neither believe nor disbelieve in gods. It truly holds no beliefs either way. However, a rock is not atheist. It holds no beliefs on religion whatsoever. And that's the point. We can conceive of something that holds no religious beliefs whatsoever and yet is not atheist. We just did that. THEREFORE, "holds no religious beliefs whatsoever" =/= atheism.
I'm willing to accept a definition of atheism that requires conscious cognition, which would exclude rocks and newborns from the conversation. Mostly, it's not useful to discuss the beliefs of things which are incapable of communication. (Beyond something like "I'm hungry" in the case of an infant.) I also agree that "holds no religious beliefs whatsoever" is not atheism, because as I've already said despite you calling it ridiculous, many Buddhists are atheists, despite having religious beliefs. The only belief you can't have in order to fall into the atheist category is belief in a god.
There's also someone who just has never heard of the concept of deities and has never actually thought about it one way or the other. Not atheist. Not theist.
However, this I disagree with. A thinking adult that was somehow never exposed to the idea of a deity (and never came up with the idea on their own) would be an atheist using the definition of atheist I ascribe to.
That's actually the point. "Atheist" shouldn't convey much information.
I suppose, then, that what we disagree on is the fundamental ethics of discourse. I say that when you use words in such a way as to convey minimal information, you waste the time of the other parties.
It's not that the word is being used in a way to specifically convey minimal information, it's that the word describes a singular, specific characteristic of an individual.
It's not that the word is being used in a way to specifically convey minimal information, it's that the word describes a singular, specific characteristic of an individual.
I hardly think the words "specific" or "singular" are applicable to a situation where the information being conveyed is insufficient to distinguish between a rock, a person, the side of a right triangle, the color purple, the taste of umami, or the feeling of a spring breeze -- but there I go again, thinking words are more useful when they have clear and distinct meanings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Generally speaking I've seen atheist as a specific lack of belief in a god. People who have no stance, positive or negative, on god to me are agnostic, and is typically how I've seen it used. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism seems a bit odd, though I get the reasoning being used I suppose.
Also, on the subject of Buddhism, there is definitely atheist Buddhist practitioners, and it's not about arguing about whether or not Buddha's are considered gods (especially since the definition of god is certainly applicable to the bodhisattva or the like), but because there are definitely branches of Buddhism that don't worship the Buddha. They see him as a teacher, but not something to be worshipped.
It's not that the word is being used in a way to specifically convey minimal information, it's that the word describes a singular, specific characteristic of an individual.
I hardly think the words "specific" or "singular" are applicable to a situation where the information being conveyed is insufficient to distinguish between a rock, a person, the side of a right triangle, the color purple, the taste of umami, or the feeling of a spring breeze -- but there I go again, thinking words are more useful when they have clear and distinct meanings.
You are applying the adjectives I've used to the wrong noun.
Generally speaking I've seen atheist as a specific lack of belief in a god. People who have no stance, positive or negative, on god to me are agnostic, and is typically how I've seen it used. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism seems a bit odd, though I get the reasoning being used I suppose.
The issue is that "agnostic" is an answer to a different question than the one being asked.
It's not that the word is being used in a way to specifically convey minimal information, it's that the word describes a singular, specific characteristic of an individual.
I hardly think the words "specific" or "singular" are applicable to a situation where the information being conveyed is insufficient to distinguish between a rock, a person, the side of a right triangle, the color purple, the taste of umami, or the feeling of a spring breeze -- but there I go again, thinking words are more useful when they have clear and distinct meanings.
You are applying the adjectives I've used to the wrong noun.
Generally speaking I've seen atheist as a specific lack of belief in a god. People who have no stance, positive or negative, on god to me are agnostic, and is typically how I've seen it used. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism seems a bit odd, though I get the reasoning being used I suppose.
The issue is that "agnostic" is an answer to a different question than the one being asked.
Is this the knowledge belief thing that was brought up earlier or something else?
Exactly. An god is a proposition about which such a position can held. And having that stance is often called atheism. It is not a belief, it is the alternative to a particular belief.
You could argue that Atheism is a counterbelief, and a belief in itself, that there are no gods. It would be pretty hard to say that someone can truly choose not to form a belief one way or the other once it's been introduced, you either do or you don't. The do or don't could be conditional, but it's still a stance even if it is subject to change.
*sigh* It's a stance on a religious question. Your atheism doesn't become "tainted" by acknowledging that it's technically a form of religious belief. You don't have to fight over the label.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
Yes, you can lack belief in a proposition and also lack belief in its negation. Nobody here is saying that "I don't believe there is a God" implies "I believe there is no God". That is a strawman. If you think that's what's being discussed here, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the disagreement. Here's what's actually going on: if you affirm that disbelief in P and disbelief in not-P is your mental state, that is itself a belief.
*sigh* It's a stance on a religious question. Your atheism doesn't become "tainted" by acknowledging that it's technically a form of religious belief. You don't have to fight over the label.
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
Yes, you can lack belief in a proposition and also lack belief in its negation. Nobody here is saying that "I don't believe there is a God" implies "I believe there is no God". That is a strawman. If you think that's what's being discussed here, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the disagreement. Here's what's actually going on: if you affirm that disbelief in P and disbelief in not-P is your mental state, that is itself a belief.
Even if I buy your premise that atheism requires belief, which I really, really don't, that does not make atheism itself a belief anymore than it makes a gorilla a belief if you hold the belief it exists.
To the former point, there is nothing about the definition of atheism as provided that requires you to belief you yourself exist, or that you are an atheist, or anything other thing for that matter. Lacking belief is not a belief, atheism is by definition purely a specific lack of belief, therefore atheism is not a belief.
Why is this relevant? Two reasons. One of which is that it puts the term as defined into it's proper context as a category for beliefs which describe worldviews incompatible or dubious under a god. The other is that this definition specifically allows for extreme skeptics to be atheists, and that is because under this definition atheism is not a belief. To add a crucial note which I already covered earlier, belief and action are distinct, so one can identify in practice as an atheist and an extreme skeptic without incongruence to their having no beliefs.
Even if I buy your premise that atheism requires belief, which I really, really don't, that does not make atheism itself a belief anymore than it makes a gorilla a belief if you hold the belief it exists.
You're (presumably unwittingly) implying that the gorilla "requires belief".
To the former point, there is nothing about the definition of atheism as provided that requires you to belief you yourself exist, or that you are an atheist, or anything other thing for that matter. Lacking belief is not a belief, atheism is by definition purely a specific lack of belief, therefore atheism is not a belief.
There are multiple definitions of atheism. According to that definition, atheism is not a belief. Also according to that definition, rocks are atheists. If you want to call rocks atheists, I can't tell you that you're wrong to do so. However, I can note that most people do not call rocks atheists, and would find it confusing if you did.
The other is that this definition specifically allows for extreme skeptics to be atheists, and that is because under this definition atheism is not a belief. To add a crucial note which I already covered earlier, belief and action are distinct, so one can identify in practice as an atheist and an extreme skeptic without incongruence to their having no beliefs.
The only "incongruence" here would be somebody who has no beliefs identifying as anything. A self-identity is a belief about oneself. But this is strictly a theoretical quibble, because in practice, of course, no conscious human has no beliefs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I read to catch up and I think Blinking Spirit may be falling or leading readers into an equivocation fallacy.
Specifically, the use the the term "belief".
Are you perhaps using the word in two different ways and acting as if they're are equivalent?
In one case belief seems to mean a specific proposition about the existence of something. I.E. a theist beliefs in god. In another case you seem to be equating it with any propositional statement for reasons of some kind of "indeterminably"...
That is, for me to say, "I believe the table is 30 inches high" means that were we to measure it and remove all reasonable doubt (plus or minus the uncertainty of our measuring device) I would be rather surprised to see the measure reading 300 inches or 3 inches... But I would not be surprised to discover it was 28, 29, 30, 31, or even 32 inches...
Also, once measured, I can say, "It measures, 30 inches". This is also not a "belief". Note, I could continue to say, "I believe it to be 30-inches" to respect the "uncertainty" of the measuring device, my memory, or even some change to the table since I measured. But this is again not a "belief" in the sense of ...I'm not making a claim about how I imagine the world to be... I'm not describing a "hope" of something I'm claiming exists.
Further, you seem to be saying that even a tautological claim is something akin to a belief. So if I say a "triangle has three sides linked end-to-end in a closed polygon"...that such a claim represents a "belief".
But it is not a belief... ...it is a fact, at least with a quick search to make sure there was no mathematical reference frame where that was untrue.
Second, I also share the definition of theist-atheist :: and gnostic-agnostic the other debater is using. This is also reasonable. It is not some strange use of language.
There are multiple definitions of atheism. According to that definition, atheism is not a belief. Also according to that definition, rocks are atheists. If you want to call rocks atheists, I can't tell you that you're wrong to do so. However, I can note that most people do not call rocks atheists, and would find it confusing if you did.
Most people don't typically use set theory when discussing things. And, most people struggle significantly with matters of "negation". In set theory, it's easy to speak of the set of all things WITHOUT X (and in set theory this also means something). And very often it means rocks and babies and squares...oh and even the beliefs that squares are 4 sided polygons with right angles...and even wrong beliefs about squares...can all be in the same set.
However, let me turn this to you. What term would you use to say... "I'm not a member of any group that believes in a god/dess and/or multiple gods/goddesses/divine entities/powers?"
What term would you use to describe someone who...upon taking an "x-ray" of their beliefs finds there is no active belief about god...including no active belief that god doesn't/cannot exist?
And if you say that's an "agnostic". Please tell me what a gnostic is by your understanding.
A self-identity is a belief about oneself. But this is strictly a theoretical quibble, because in practice, of course, no conscious human has no beliefs.
This is an example of where you seem to be using "beliefs" in those two ways and suggesting they're equivalent. Again, if I say I'm adopted. This is not a "belief". It is a part of my identity. It is a statement describing part of my identity. I do "believe" it to be true in the most trivial sense. But it would seem altogether insulting if after I said, "I'm adopted" someone replied. "That's just you're belief..."
This is an example of where you seem to be using "beliefs" in those two ways and suggesting they're equivalent. Again, if I say I'm adopted. This is not a "belief". It is a part of my identity. It is a statement describing part of my identity. I do "believe" it to be true in the most trivial sense. But it would seem altogether insulting if after I said, "I'm adopted" someone replied. "That's just you're belief..."
While an example like this may seem strange at least in casual English conversation, I don't think Blinking Spirit is particularly wrong about his usage of "belief".
Obviously, I can't speak for him directly, so I'll simply speak for myself, but I think that my position on this is reasonably close to his.
I believe something if I accept it as being true.
I know something if I'm justified in believing it to be true, and it is true.
I believe the table is 30 inches tall. I measure it, and it comes out to 30 inches. Now I know it's 30 inches tall. Prior to the measurement, the table still was 30 inches, but I wasn't necessarily justified in my belief without some evidence; the measurement is one form of evidence in this case.
Anything you know is something you believe, because knowledge is a subset of belief.
Except atheism isn't a religious stance?
What would consider about the statement that I am right now holding a red pen? Do you believe me? Might it be said that you are unsure, that lack belief in the statement and it's negatiom? One can lack belief in something without believing it's negation. You can lack any belief on a statement. If you disagree with this statement then you have a different definition of belief than is usually used in academic circles. If you disagree that simply lacking belief in god is a form of atheism, then you have a diferrent definition of atheist than a lot of atheists. Both of these are entirely valid positions to hold, but it does not make the point wrong that under certain commonly used definitions of atheism and belief, atheism is not a belief, because that point is inarguable.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
But without the introduction of the question of whether you are holding the pen or not, it is a non-issue and no opinion or conclusion about it was formed.
Highroller, you can't call something belief in god unless it is belief in god. If atheists don't believe in gods, Buddhists are atheists, because they don't believe in gods. QED. If you would like to propose a definition of god that encompasses buddhism, you're welcome, but you can't simply call atheism whatever you want to call atheism, you need to use a definition.
I'm sorry to tell you, but it's a definition many people use with a perfectly useful function.
A rock is only not an atheist if the definition of atheist does not correspond to it, you cannot say that a definition is invalid because it labels something under it that is not that thing because that can only be true if you already define atheist in another way, which makes such a comment a blatant failure to acknowledge the point. What you can do is appeal to the common use of the term, but that only speaks to how useful a definition is, it cannot invalidate a definition.
Regardless, the definition I provided and you quoted specifically addresses the rock example, something you have completely failed to address in turn.
Now let me remind you that if you define atheism as requiring a belief in the negation, then many public figures of atheism and many more private individuals are no longer atheists. Take Dawkins again, he does not believe that god does not exist, he does not believe that god does exist, he finds the idea unlikely and lives on the practical assumption that god does not exist. Is Dawkins an atheist?
Perhaps we could define atheism as having an active disconsideration of god or somesuch.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I suppose, then, that what we disagree on is the fundamental ethics of discourse. I say that when you use words in such a way as to convey minimal information, you waste the time of the other parties.
Yes, you can use words in any way you like -- but the price for endorsing this broad-minded-sounding platitude is that sentences like "The square of the atheist is the sum of the squares of the two remaining atheists." start to become true. Don't be so openminded that your brain falls out of the hole.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I don't actually believe you can lack belief in something you have heard of. You have three options: Believe it (thiesm), believe it is not true (athiesm) or not have sufficient evidence (agnosticism).
Did you believe that I was holding a red pen before I said it? You didn't did you? You lacked belief. You did not believe that I was holding a red pen, you did not believe that I was not holding a red pen.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I lacked belief, and I lacked disbelief.
If you hold any other position than believing it, then you lack belief in it. It's not complicated.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Exactly. An god is a proposition about which such a position can held. And having that stance is often called atheism. It is not a belief, it is the alternative to a particular belief.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, it's not ridiculous. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Many Buddhists do not believe in a god. Those Buddhists are atheists.
I'm willing to accept a definition of atheism that requires conscious cognition, which would exclude rocks and newborns from the conversation. Mostly, it's not useful to discuss the beliefs of things which are incapable of communication. (Beyond something like "I'm hungry" in the case of an infant.) I also agree that "holds no religious beliefs whatsoever" is not atheism, because as I've already said despite you calling it ridiculous, many Buddhists are atheists, despite having religious beliefs. The only belief you can't have in order to fall into the atheist category is belief in a god.
However, this I disagree with. A thinking adult that was somehow never exposed to the idea of a deity (and never came up with the idea on their own) would be an atheist using the definition of atheist I ascribe to.
It's not that the word is being used in a way to specifically convey minimal information, it's that the word describes a singular, specific characteristic of an individual.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I hardly think the words "specific" or "singular" are applicable to a situation where the information being conveyed is insufficient to distinguish between a rock, a person, the side of a right triangle, the color purple, the taste of umami, or the feeling of a spring breeze -- but there I go again, thinking words are more useful when they have clear and distinct meanings.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Also, on the subject of Buddhism, there is definitely atheist Buddhist practitioners, and it's not about arguing about whether or not Buddha's are considered gods (especially since the definition of god is certainly applicable to the bodhisattva or the like), but because there are definitely branches of Buddhism that don't worship the Buddha. They see him as a teacher, but not something to be worshipped.
The issue is that "agnostic" is an answer to a different question than the one being asked.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Is this the knowledge belief thing that was brought up earlier or something else?
You could argue that Atheism is a counterbelief, and a belief in itself, that there are no gods. It would be pretty hard to say that someone can truly choose not to form a belief one way or the other once it's been introduced, you either do or you don't. The do or don't could be conditional, but it's still a stance even if it is subject to change.
Yes, you can lack belief in a proposition and also lack belief in its negation. Nobody here is saying that "I don't believe there is a God" implies "I believe there is no God". That is a strawman. If you think that's what's being discussed here, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the disagreement. Here's what's actually going on: if you affirm that disbelief in P and disbelief in not-P is your mental state, that is itself a belief.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Even if I buy your premise that atheism requires belief, which I really, really don't, that does not make atheism itself a belief anymore than it makes a gorilla a belief if you hold the belief it exists.
To the former point, there is nothing about the definition of atheism as provided that requires you to belief you yourself exist, or that you are an atheist, or anything other thing for that matter. Lacking belief is not a belief, atheism is by definition purely a specific lack of belief, therefore atheism is not a belief.
Why is this relevant? Two reasons. One of which is that it puts the term as defined into it's proper context as a category for beliefs which describe worldviews incompatible or dubious under a god. The other is that this definition specifically allows for extreme skeptics to be atheists, and that is because under this definition atheism is not a belief. To add a crucial note which I already covered earlier, belief and action are distinct, so one can identify in practice as an atheist and an extreme skeptic without incongruence to their having no beliefs.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
There are multiple definitions of atheism. According to that definition, atheism is not a belief. Also according to that definition, rocks are atheists. If you want to call rocks atheists, I can't tell you that you're wrong to do so. However, I can note that most people do not call rocks atheists, and would find it confusing if you did.
The only "incongruence" here would be somebody who has no beliefs identifying as anything. A self-identity is a belief about oneself. But this is strictly a theoretical quibble, because in practice, of course, no conscious human has no beliefs.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Specifically, the use the the term "belief".
Are you perhaps using the word in two different ways and acting as if they're are equivalent?
In one case belief seems to mean a specific proposition about the existence of something. I.E. a theist beliefs in god. In another case you seem to be equating it with any propositional statement for reasons of some kind of "indeterminably"...
That is, for me to say, "I believe the table is 30 inches high" means that were we to measure it and remove all reasonable doubt (plus or minus the uncertainty of our measuring device) I would be rather surprised to see the measure reading 300 inches or 3 inches... But I would not be surprised to discover it was 28, 29, 30, 31, or even 32 inches...
Also, once measured, I can say, "It measures, 30 inches". This is also not a "belief". Note, I could continue to say, "I believe it to be 30-inches" to respect the "uncertainty" of the measuring device, my memory, or even some change to the table since I measured. But this is again not a "belief" in the sense of ...I'm not making a claim about how I imagine the world to be... I'm not describing a "hope" of something I'm claiming exists.
Further, you seem to be saying that even a tautological claim is something akin to a belief. So if I say a "triangle has three sides linked end-to-end in a closed polygon"...that such a claim represents a "belief".
But it is not a belief... ...it is a fact, at least with a quick search to make sure there was no mathematical reference frame where that was untrue.
Second, I also share the definition of theist-atheist :: and gnostic-agnostic the other debater is using. This is also reasonable. It is not some strange use of language.
Most people don't typically use set theory when discussing things. And, most people struggle significantly with matters of "negation". In set theory, it's easy to speak of the set of all things WITHOUT X (and in set theory this also means something). And very often it means rocks and babies and squares...oh and even the beliefs that squares are 4 sided polygons with right angles...and even wrong beliefs about squares...can all be in the same set.
However, let me turn this to you. What term would you use to say... "I'm not a member of any group that believes in a god/dess and/or multiple gods/goddesses/divine entities/powers?"
What term would you use to describe someone who...upon taking an "x-ray" of their beliefs finds there is no active belief about god...including no active belief that god doesn't/cannot exist?
And if you say that's an "agnostic". Please tell me what a gnostic is by your understanding.
This is an example of where you seem to be using "beliefs" in those two ways and suggesting they're equivalent. Again, if I say I'm adopted. This is not a "belief". It is a part of my identity. It is a statement describing part of my identity. I do "believe" it to be true in the most trivial sense. But it would seem altogether insulting if after I said, "I'm adopted" someone replied. "That's just you're belief..."
Obviously, I can't speak for him directly, so I'll simply speak for myself, but I think that my position on this is reasonably close to his.
I believe something if I accept it as being true.
I know something if I'm justified in believing it to be true, and it is true.
I believe the table is 30 inches tall. I measure it, and it comes out to 30 inches. Now I know it's 30 inches tall. Prior to the measurement, the table still was 30 inches, but I wasn't necessarily justified in my belief without some evidence; the measurement is one form of evidence in this case.
Anything you know is something you believe, because knowledge is a subset of belief.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)