Atheism is not a belief.

I have a question, and I guess it's more of a matter of opinion, but I'm curious nonetheless.

I got in a bout with some "friends" a while back, and ended with me pissing off a bunch of people for "attacking" another friend's belief.

Which was really nothing more than him saying that he was upset about something, and that he was praying for it to be better--to which I replied that there is no God, but that if praying made him feel better, to go right ahead.

So, world war III erupted, and I was being "rude" and "attacking his beliefs".  (Ironically enough, the friend I was replying to really didn't give a shit, and was the only person who really had any right to be angry at me).

I do not understand how I was attacking his beliefs, nor how I was being rude.  But nevertheless, I ended up trying to defend myself, and was accused of trying to force my beliefs on others.

I don't think that atheism is really a "belief", though.  Belief by definition is, something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.  Atheism isn't the "belief" that there is no God.  Atheism is more about seeing the world as it truly is, without the hand-waving and mysticism that has plagued our consciousnesses for the last several thousand years.

It is difficult to portray the non-belief in a God as something that isn't a belief to these people.

Do you all think that there is a way to expel this stereotype of atheism?

Well, you're wrong, atheism is a belief.  But the people who got mad at you are ridiculously closed-minded it seems.  Oh well.  But yes, atheism is a belief.  Specifically, it's a disbelief and a belief.  Traditionally, somebody who believes in a god is a theist, somebody who believes there is no god is an atheist, and somebody who withholds judgment about the matter (does not believe in a god and does not believe that there is no god) is agnostic.  That's just how the words usually work.

I agree that atheism isn't a belief.  I also think your argument sounds stupid.  Surely you weren't trying to physically make this other person follow your beliefs or lack there of.  Surely you were just telling them what you think - there is nothing forceful in that.  We should all be able to defend our beliefs and if we can't they aren't very good beliefs to have.  Obviously some people don't like getting in arguments and in my opinion those people are weak and usually stupid too.  If somebody tells me they don't want to discuss an issue, unless it's something I really think should be discussed (like the fact that I don't want to go out with you any more) then I'll just drop it.  If you don't want to be in an argument don't respond to the person.  If you don't want to be in the argument but you can't help yourself - you deserve the consequences of the argument.

I agree that atheism isn't a belief.

The very nature of the rest of your post suggests that there can be some sort of discussion/debate between people with opposing beliefs.  If atheism is not a belief, then there cannot be any sort of debate between atheism and theism, because one would be a belief and the other wouldn't.  If atheists say: "I don't believe in a god" yet don't say "I believe there is no god" then I'm pretty sure that they'd be considered agnostic (at least traditionally that's how that works).  Agnostics don't believe either way, but atheists do believe that there is no god.  That's a belief.

No. Agnostics are undecided. We are not. Atheists have concluded, from the available evidence, that there is no god; but we are willing to revise that conclusion should more evidence become available. We (or at least those of us who have seriously thought this through), do not explicitlly say "There is no god," because we realize that god is unfalsifiable. That does not, however, imply indecision.

I guess it depends on how you define belief.

You could say that atheism is a belief that we shouldn't believe in god.  Typically atheists are also called "non-believers".

You can call atheism a belief if you really want, but I think classifying it as a lack of belief is better.  Belief that something does not exists is ultimately the same as not believing that something does exist.  Fairly meaningless discussion.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with both beast and dysfunction here.

Weak Atheism: absence of a belief in God.

Strong Atheism: belief in an absence of God.

Weak Atheism: absence of a belief in God.

I'm pretty sure that would fall under agnosticism.

Strong Atheism: belief in an absence of God.

I don't think it really counts as "belief" when atheists have considered the alternatives and have found through rigorous examination that there is no God.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Weak Atheism: absence of a belief in God.

I'm pretty sure that would fall under agnosticism.

Would someone who has never heard of God be called an Agnostic?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Strong Atheism: belief in an absence of God.

I don't think it really counts as "belief" when atheists have considered the alternatives and have found through rigorous examination that there is no God.

Well, I believe that I exist. Is that a belief?


By the by, the people who "attacked" you were unreasonable. Somewhat like some people on this forum.

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Weak Atheism: absence of a belief in God.

I'm pretty sure that would fall under agnosticism.

Would someone who has never heard of God be called an Agnostic?

Well, they pretty much have to withhold judgment on God if they've never heard of one.

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Strong Atheism: belief in an absence of God.

I don't think it really counts as "belief" when atheists have considered the alternatives and have found through rigorous examination that there is no God.

Well, I believe that I exist. Is that a belief?

Philosophical crap aside, I'm pretty sure your existence is fact, rather than opinion (belief).  You can gain plenty of observational evidence that you exist.

Philosophical crap aside, I'm pretty sure your existence is fact, rather than opinion (belief).  You can gain plenty of observational evidence that you exist.

But isn't something that is believed a belief? Or a belief something that is believed?

There are two senses arising here.

I'm pretty sure your existence is fact, rather than opinion (belief).  You can gain plenty of observational evidence that you exist.  That is something based on observable fact, thus not belief.  What part of it aren't you understanding?

Speaking as a strong atheist and a scientist, I think that atheism is a belief. I agree with your definition of belief:

Belief by definition is, something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

However, I think that this definition does apply to atheism. While I agree that there is ample evidence which supports the conclusion of the nonexistence of god, this is not rigorous proof, and I don't think a rigorous proof of the nonexistence of god is even, in principle, possible.

Atheism isn't the "belief" that there is no God. Atheism is more about seeing the world as it truly is, without the hand-waving and mysticism that has plagued our consciousnesses for the last several thousand years.

You say that atheism is seeing the world as it really is, but how can you know beyond all possibility of doubt that this is correct? How does anything in science, nature, or human experience discount the possibility of a watchmaker god who set things up just right for the big bang to happen, and everything thereafter was a consequence? Science tells us to accept only what we have evidence for, and so there is no scientific justification for a belief in god, and even scientific justification for atheism, but this is not, and never can be, proof.

Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically an agnostic in that he can't say that he's 100% sure that God doesn't exist, but he's as sure as he can be given the evidence.  However he says that considering how sure he is, it's better to call him an atheist since as you say, there is no reason to believe in god and lots of reasons not to.  I would put myself in the same boat.  God hasn't been disproved, but the evidence that has been presented is very strong and I would say I'm about 99% sure that God doesn't exist.  If other evidence comes up later on, that percentage might change.  So, like Richard Dawkins, I would not say that I'm 100% sure that God does not exist, but that that's the direction all the evidence points.  You can call that belief in absence if you like, belief in evidence if you like, belief in whatever.

Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically an agnostic in that he can't say that he's 100% sure that God doesn't exist, but he's as sure as he can be given the evidence.  However he says that considering how sure he is, it's better to call him an atheist since as you say, there is no reason to believe in god and lots of reasons not to.  I would put myself in the same boat.  God hasn't been disproved, but the evidence that has been presented is very strong and I would say I'm about 99% sure that God doesn't exist.  If other evidence comes up later on, that percentage might change.  So, like Richard Dawkins, I would not say that I'm 100% sure that God does not exist, but that that's the direction all the evidence points.  You can call that belief in absence if you like, belief in evidence if you like, belief in whatever.

I hate to go "me 2 lol", but...  Me too.  haha.

Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically an agnostic

How come he always calls himself an atheist?

Quote from: "beast"

Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically an agnostic in that he can't say that he's 100% sure that God doesn't exist, but he's as sure as he can be given the evidence.  However he says that considering how sure he is, it's better to call him an atheist since as you say, there is no reason to believe in god and lots of reasons not to.  I would put myself in the same boat.  God hasn't been disproved, but the evidence that has been presented is very strong and I would say I'm about 99% sure that God doesn't exist.  If other evidence comes up later on, that percentage might change.  So, like Richard Dawkins, I would not say that I'm 100% sure that God does not exist, but that that's the direction all the evidence points.  You can call that belief in absence if you like, belief in evidence if you like, belief in whatever.

I hate to go "me 2 lol", but...  Me too.  haha.

To me that sounds like saying "atheism is a belief". A well supported belief with good reasons, unlike the pure faith that religious people have to support their beliefs, but belief nonetheless.

In truth, The ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is agnostic by definition. The word broken down means without knowlege.

The Theist does not have direct knowlege of a supreme being, just a belief in such. Same with an Atheist, they have no direct knowlege of the absence of a supreme being, just the belief that there is none.

For the average christian to actually claim to know is an improper saying, as they have no personal knowlege of a god, now of course you have the nut job that chanted for hours, hyping themselves up into a self hypnotic freak-out mode episode, then they think, but still have no actual knowlege of it.

This topic seems ridiculous.  I've already mentioned that, historically, if you do not believe in a god yet you also do not believe that "god does not exist," then you are agnostic (not atheist).  Somebody (I think Ubuntu) called it "weak" or "soft" atheism.  That's just another term for agnosticism.  If you believe "god does not exist" then you are an atheist and it is a belief.

From what I've picked up, many people here seem to be agnostics yet they call themselves atheists.  If you're making the claim "god does not exist" you're an atheist, and if you're not believing in either the existence or non-existence of god yet then you're agnostic.

The word broken down means without knowlege.

The roots of agnostic mean "without knowledge", but "agnostic" does not mean lack of knowledge, it means agnostic. Just like weekend doesn't mean the end of the week, it means the days saturday and sunday.

I've already mentioned that, historically, if you do not believe in a god yet you also do not believe that "god does not exist," then you are agnostic (not atheist). Somebody (I think Ubuntu) called it "weak" or "soft" atheism. That's just another term for agnosticism. If you believe "god does not exist" then you are an atheist and it is a belief.

From what I've picked up, many people here seem to be agnostics yet they call themselves atheists. If you're making the claim "god does not exist" you're an atheist, and if you're not believing in either the existence or non-existence of god yet then you're agnostic.

Strong atheism is belief in the nonexistence of god. Weak atheism is absence of belief in the existence of god. Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is in principle unknowable whether god exists. Weak agnosticism is the absence of knowledge of the existence of god. It is therefor possible to be an agnostic of either variety and an atheist of either variety at the same time. I would say I am both a strong atheist and a strong agnostic, by these definitions.

There's the stereotypical view of atheists, who aren't skeptics, but cynics.

There's also atheists who are skeptics.

this is in reference to dysfunction's first post here.

Quote from: "beast"

Richard Dawkins considers himself to be technically an agnostic

How come he always calls himself an atheist?

"Les us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty.  The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

1. Strong theist.  100 per cent probability of God.  In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.  Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.  'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.  Exactly 50 per cent.  Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5.  Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.  Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.  'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.  'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7.  Strong atheist.  'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I included it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.  It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).  Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.  Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants.  I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. "

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006.  Pages 50 - 51.

You would know this already, Ubuntu, if you read the book instead of watching the movie...

I don't think it's truly possible as of right now to truly either be category 1 or category 7.  I thought about claiming I was seven, but then as soon as someone said, "Well, how do you know there is no God?" I would just be self-incriminating myself as a hypocrite.  I myself feel I "know" there is no God, but that is still just a conviction not immediately verifiable by rigorous examination.

So I concede that Atheism could be considered a "belief", but I still "believe" that it is not.  

While I agree that there is ample evidence which supports the conclusion of the nonexistence of god,

What evidence is this, exactly? There is evidence against the Christian god, and against most if not all of the specific deities, but no evidence against the baord category of god. There is evidence that god is superfluous, but no evidence that one does not existence.

What evidence is this, exactly? There is evidence against the Christian god, and against most if not all of the specific deities, but no evidence against the baord category of god. There is evidence that god is superfluous, but no evidence that one does not existence.

Fair enough. But the whole point of Occam's razor is the lack of evidence for an assumption, if the assumption introduces added complexity, should be construed as evidence against the assumption. We could assume that the laws of phyics are constant and unchanging, or we could assume that they are constant and unchanging except when Chuck Norris really wants to break them. Both equally well explain observed phenomena, since there is no direct evidence that Chuck Norris has broken the laws of physics, but also no direct evidence that he hasn't. However, there's no question about which we should believe to be true.

To me, a universe with no god seems simpler than a universe with a god, so I construe the lack of evidence for a deity to be evidence against a deity.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

What evidence is this, exactly? There is evidence against the Christian god, and against most if not all of the specific deities, but no evidence against the baord category of god. There is evidence that god is superfluous, but no evidence that one does not existence.

Fair enough. But the whole point of Occam's razor is the lack of evidence for an assumption, if the assumption introduces added complexity, should be construed as evidence against the assumption. We could assume that the laws of phyics are constant and unchanging, or we could assume that they are constant and unchanging except when Chuck Norris really wants to break them. Both equally well explain observed phenomena, since there is no direct evidence that Chuck Norris has broken the laws of physics, but also no direct evidence that he hasn't. However, there's no question about which we should believe to be true.

To me, a universe with no god seems simpler than a universe with a god, so I construe the lack of evidence for a deity to be evidence against a deity.

This is fine as a philosophical argument, so long as you recognize it is not a scientific one.

So, getting back to the issue of belief -- I can believe this paper is red (false) or I can believe that it is not red (true), or I can not believe that it is red (difficult to objectively prove).  There are several stances a person can take on any statement about the world:  he can believe it, disbelieve it (believe it to be false), or suspend judgement on it (take neither of the other two stances).

If you take the stance that there is no god, you are expressing a belief.  If you do not take the stance either that there is or is not a god, you are simply not taking a stance.

Thus is is possible to not believe in god (presumably many persons and animals who have beliefs might simply lack a belief in god), but it is also possible to believe that there is no god (obviously people have this belief).  The latter set of people say "I believe X", where X is a statement about the universe.  They are unquestionably expressing a belief.

I would suggest that it is improper to refer to as "atheist" a person who does not take a stance on the question, simply because he has not expressed a belief in god.  As such "atheism" is the stance that there is no god, which is quite certainly a belief, and as such, atheism is also a belief.

This is fine as a philosophical argument, so long as you recognize it is not a scientific one.

Certainly it is not a scientific argument. That is why I referred to myself as both a strong atheist and a strong agnostic - not only do I understand that the argument I gave does not scientific proof, I do not believe that any scientific proof is possible.

I would suggest that it is improper to refer to as "atheist" a person who does not take a stance on the question, simply because he has not expressed a belief in god.  As such "atheism" is the stance that there is no god, which is quite certainly a belief, and as such, atheism is also a belief.

I completely agree, although I refer to what you call "atheism" as "strong atheism", which is a belief, and I would say "weak atheism" is the absense of belief in a god, which is not a belief but an absense thereof.

I can believe this paper is red (false) or I can believe that it is not red (true), or I can not believe that it is red

I liked the example here.

When I first read this I did think of a philosophical point that I wanted to make (even though it's off-topic).  If you know something to be true (the paper is not red), then you cannot believe it to be false.  Knowledge of a subject is within the realm of belief.