Is Atheism a belief?

Memnoch

Okay, I know this might seem like a ridiculous question on this forum, but let me elaborate.

I used to think it was. The arguement being that 'there is no god,' is a belief and requires a leap of faith without any evidence to support it. But having held this view for a while and therefore considering myself an agnostic, since I don't believe in blind belief, I got to thinking recently and have come to the conclusion that it's logically false to consider Atheism a belief.

In fact, I think the whole Atheism is a belief thing is not too far from 'evolution is just a theory,' thing. It's an attempt of the religious movement/lobby to reduce the validity of any thought/idea challenging their doctrine by diluting it's strength or potency or at the least equating it to their religion so that they can claim it is no different from religion to begin with.

i.e. Evolution is a theory, just like creationsim is a theory, i.e. both are equally suitable alternatives as an explanation to how we got here.

Similarly, Atheism is a belief, just like Catholicism is a belief, and therefore there is no difference between people who believe in either or their thoguht processes because both conclusion are arrived at by leaps of faith.

In trying to be tolerant and politically correct, I've fallen into this religious trap, which now that I think about it, has very little merit.

Let's get to the meat and bones here. Why do I think that Aethism is not a belief?

I start with the assumption that the existence of god, is a belief, for which there is no tangible evidence. It is a theory, but a very lose one, and not at all based in scientific observation or fact. How then, can the non-acceptance of such a theory, which has very little real data to support it, be considered a belief?

Analogy.

The existance of santa clause for example, is a belief held by children. Not believing in Santa Clause, because there is no evidence of his existence, is not a belief, it's simply not accepting a fantastical explanation for which there is no evidence. The same can be held for any delusion or fantasy. They aren't real until there is evidence that there are. There is no leap of faith involved here. No blind belief.

I think the root of the problem lies in the manipulation of semantics by the religious. The word 'belief,' does not have a singular meaning. There is the belief of religion, which is essentially, blind faith. Or faith without any tangible evidence to support it, except the so called 'personal evidence' that many believers claim to have witnessed, which in reality has no greater emperical weight than the claims of a schizophrenic.

Then there is the other definition. Where belief = opinion. Yet the two meanings are very seperate and imply completely different things.

To conclude, I have to accept that Atheism and Agnosticism are one and the same. A lack of belief. A - theism. The lack of theism. There is no/should not be any obligation on those who do not believe in the theory of religion to supply a credible alternative, simply because we do not yet have sufficient scientific knowledge to provide a definative answer to the questions of origin.

biko

Communism and Democracy are forms of government

IMO: Atheism is Agnosticism in the extreme. An atheist cannot prove the non-existence of deities and therefore not rule them our completely. We just live as if there was no god/gods.

Pompey Magnus

No, Atheism is the same as Agnosticism

A nice analogy I read once was with the Loch Ness Monster.

200 years ago the people who lived near Loch Ness considered it a normal, run of the mill loch and there was no suggestion that a monster lived in it. One day Hamish comes along and claims to have seen a monster in the lake, then Dougal thinks he saw something strange in the lake so he accepts that it must have been the monster. Soon there is a new phenomenon of belief in the monster and believers are called Nessieans. The number of Nessieans starts to grow and soon they become the majority and the people who had held views peviously considered normal become the minority. The believers then call the people who don't believe "Anessian".

The point is that the Anessians do hold a set of belief when it comes to the Monster, but their set of beliefs have always existed and were so banal and unexceptional that they did not require a special title. Similarly for Atheists when it comes to God. I suppose if you are being absolutely technical then it is a belief, but only in the broadest sense of the word.

Zombrex

Atheism is a rejection of an assertion made by others than the human concept of "gods" exist in the real world.

Whether or not that is a belief or not really depends on what a person means by a belief.

For example, if someone makes the assertion "I believe Star Wars is the best film ever made" and you say "That is nonsense", i guess that is a belief that it the assertion is nonsense.

I think it is important to keep the concept of the original assertion when discussing the "belief" of atheism. this (hopefully) stops the snow ball effect of people asserting that atheism is a belief system or religion in of itself.

limerick_woody

No, Atheism is the same as Agnosticism

My spin on Atheism is that is it simple the assertion that there is no evidence worthy of belief in God, gods, or any supernatural being influencing the universe, or life on our planet. As a result, i am an A-theist. No belief is required, it is the antithesis of belief (by definition surely.)
As many people have said, the burden of proof for fantastical ideas lies with the proponents of those ideas. I am open to belief in anything but i do insist on at least the semblance of evidence.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Communism and Democracy are forms of government

I'm going to paraphrase what's been said in a previous thread, I can't remember by whom but the quote is something like this:

"Atheism is a belief as much as not playing tennis is a sport"

JCB

Memnoch wrote: »

It's an attempt of the religious movement/lobby to reduce the validity of any thought/idea challenging their doctrine by diluting it's strength or potency or at the least equating it to their religion so that they can claim it is no different from religion to begin with.

In trying to be tolerant and politically correct, I've fallen into this religious trap, which now that I think about it, has very little merit.

I think the root of the problem lies in the manipulation of semantics by the religious.

Where belief = opinion. Yet the two meanings are very seperate and imply completely different things.

Darn, we almost had you fooled, 'religion' almost pulled a fast one on you. Bravo.
One for conspiracy theories perhaps?

Memnoch wrote:

we do not yet have sufficient scientific knowledge to provide a definative answer to the questions of origin.

Wouldn't this be failing into the belief of scientism?

On a tangent, how could science possibly provide a definative answer anyway, since if the universe did have a big bang, how can science measure what's outside our universe - in existance and time - before the big bang anyway.

You never know though, Scientism may be right! Astronauts may yet find us an astroide with the inscription 'God woz ere'!

eoin5

No, Atheism is not a belief

Atheism is a belief. Its also the default postition on god. Just because youve never heard of something doesnt mean you dont have a position on it. You either believe that there are walking rainbows or you believe that there are no walking rainbows. I think the real issue is whether it requires any kind of leap of faith, which it does not.

Dades

JCB wrote: »

Wouldn't this be failing into the belief of scientism?

What is it with the religious, always trying to peg some sort of faith system to non-believers?!

JCB wrote: »

On a tangent, how could science possibly provide a definative answer anyway, since if the universe did have a big bang, how can science measure what's outside our universe - in existance and time - before the big bang anyway.

Not having an answer does not require we MAKE SOMETHING UP!

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

Atheism is a belief. Its also the default postition on god. Just because youve never heard of something doesnt mean you dont have a position on it.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. How can you have a position on something you have never heard of.

The nature of describing something to someone forces a position, even if that position is neutral. But until the person has encountered the concept they are expect to have an opinion on, it is hard to see how they would have an opinion.

An opinion is after all simply an assessment. You can't assess something you have never heard of.

This is why things can get confused with "atheism" as a default position.

I would consider someone who has never heard of gods as an atheist, because they don't believe in gods (how can they, they have never encountered the concept). This causes issues with what a lot of people say that atheism as belief, in terms of a rejection of the concept of gods that a person has been introduced to.

Others may consider someone who has never encountered the concept of gods an agnostic, because until they encounter a concept they cannot reject it.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

Wouldn't this be failing into the belief of scientism?

Only if someone hopes the point of "scientism" is to provide an answer no matter what we actually can examine and test. Luckily it isn't.

Recognizing what we currently don't know, and refusing to fill in the blanks with guesses and superstition, as religion does, is a plus for science, not a failing.

JCB wrote: »

On a tangent, how could science possibly provide a definative answer anyway, since if the universe did have a big bang, how can science measure what's outside our universe - in existance and time - before the big bang anyway.

It is part of the nature of science that we cannot answer that question at the moment, either way (you can't say science will be able to or won't be able to).

JCB wrote: »

You never know though, Scientism may be right!

Depends on what you mean by "right" ... Science is so far the best, most accurate, method humans have come up with for discovering how the natural world around us works.

It is vastly superior to earlier systems such as religion or superstition

JCB

Dades wrote: »

What is it with the religious, always trying to peg some sort of faith system to non-believers?!

Not having an answer does not require we MAKE SOMETHING UP!

Hi Dades, I can understand that my comments may come across as frustrating but it's only because I try to raise challenging questions in order to make people think, that's all!

Atheists don't have to peg their views onto a belief, but as seen by Memnoch's post some obviously do.

Re-read what he has said:

we do not yet have sufficient scientific knowledge to provide a definative answer to the questions of origin

This is a belief that science can answer those questions definatively, which is accepted by scientists very very unlikely since we can't get outside of our universe or outside of time. All we can have is theories. Throwing your weight onto one of those theories is belief.

In case someone throws the evolution *theory* in here, they are not the same since we can observe our own universe.

If the atheist holds a - I just don't know - opinion regarding science on this question then true to claims they may not actually hold a belief. That is not what I have witnessed here though.

eoin5

No, Atheism is not a belief

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make a lot of sense. How can you have a position on something you have never heard of.

The nature of describing something to someone forces a position, even if that position is neutral. But until the person has encountered the concept they are expect to have an opinion on, it is hard to see how they would have an opinion.

An opinion is after all simply an assessment. You can't assess something you have never heard of.

This is why things can get confused with "atheism" as a default position.

I would consider someone who has never heard of gods as an atheist, because they don't believe in gods (how can they, they have never encountered the concept). This causes issues with what a lot of people say that atheism as belief, in terms of a rejection of the concept of gods that a person has been introduced to.

Others may consider someone who has never encountered the concept of gods an agnostic, because until they encounter a concept they cannot reject it.

A postion is not an assessment. The default postion on a belief in something is always going to be nay, except if youre very odd.

Bill has never heard of walking rainbows.

Jake asks Bill:

Did you believe in walking rainbows before I started this sentance?

Bill answers: No, I'd never heard of them.

So Bill believed that there were no walking rainbows.

JCB

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if someone hopes the point of "scientism" is to provide an answer no matter what we actually can examine and test. Luckily it isn't.
...........................

Wicknight, are you seriously claiming that science - which is by its nature limited to what humans can observe - can *definitively* explain origins outside of this universe and time? Can science observe the unobservable?

I don't care whether science is better than religion and I suspect you know that I don't see a conflict anyway.

JCB

wicknight wrote:

It is part of the nature of science that we cannot answer that question at the moment, either way (you can't say science will be able to or won't be able to).

Perhaps because it's not a question concerning science at all? But rather one of philosophy...

You are correct when you say - 'at the moment' but that is also the case when one realises that the answer to question is never.
Otherwise it is not science.

Obni

No, Atheism is the same as Agnosticism

I've always reckoned that belief in god and the belief in the special role of humanity in the universe are inextricably linked. If you don't think that humans are separated from the rest of the life on this planet by the possession of a soul and therefore a special relationship with god, then we're just another life-form.
Considering all known life-forms, atheists form by far the largest group; if you interpret the term as those who live their various forms of lives without reference to a supernatural being. In fact, by the quantity of individual lifeforms or total biomass, the atheist group is so large that the other forms of life would be considered as negligible in any reputable galactic census.

Memnoch

Communism and Democracy are forms of government

JCB wrote: »

Hi Dades, I can understand that my comments may come across as frustrating but it's only because I try to raise challenging questions in order to make people think, that's all!

There is nothing challenging or thought-provoking about the 'questions' you ask. In fact, I find them redundant and based on severely rudimentary logic. Like your attempts to equate Atheists views on homosexuality and gay marriage to incest in another thread.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinion in whatever form you chose. Just don't expect everyone else to laud it as some great philosophical insight, when it clearly isn't.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

A postion is not an assessment. The default postion on a belief in something is always going to be nay, except if youre very odd.

Bill has never heard of walking rainbows.

Jake asks Bill:

Did you believe in walking rainbows before I started this sentance?

Bill answers: No, I'd never heard of them.

So Bill believed that there were no walking rainbows.

I would consider a position to be an assessment. By the nature of the word "position" is it placing one's opinion in one camp or the other. I am over here on that issue, I am over there on another.

One has to be aware of an issue before they can do this. Before Bill was asked the question he had no position on walking rainbows because he had never considered them because he wasn't aware of the concept.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

science ...can *definitively* explain origins outside of this universe and time?

No

JCB wrote: »

I don't care whether science is better than religion and I suspect you know that I don't see a conflict anyway.

That is probably because you are religious. It all depends upon priorities, what someone wants to get out of any search for knowledge

JCB wrote: »

Perhaps because it's not a question concerning science at all? But rather one of philosophy...

Everything concerns science. Philosophy is rather useless at determining facts about the natural world, though it can be very helpful in how humans think about those facts.

JCB wrote: »

You are correct when you say - 'at the moment' but that is also the case when one realises that the answer to question is never.
Otherwise it is not science.

What is not science is to say never to that question. We do not have enough information to be able to know, at the moment, if we can or cannot carry out tests or observations on things outside of the universe.

We certainly can't do it now, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Communism and Democracy are forms of government

JCB wrote: »

Wicknight, are you seriously claiming that science - which is by its nature limited to what humans can observe - can *definitively* explain origins outside of this universe and time? Can science observe the unobservable?

Well the principle of relativity would explain why we can't observe 'outside' of our universal frame.

SeanBM

No, Atheism is the same as Agnosticism

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay, I know this might seem like a ridiculous question on this forum,

I do not think it is ridiculous to ask a question, especially a good question.
It depends on the individual, some imature teenagers hack religion in some vain attempt at rebellion.
But I think that the more mature atheists have questioned religion and were not satisfied with the answers.
I have not read all the comments on here, I liked Richard Dawkins "God delusion" and this sight http://www.venganza.org/ Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
well good luck

Dades

JCB wrote: »

This is a belief that science can answer those questions definatively, which is accepted by scientists very very unlikely since we can't get outside of our universe or outside of time. All we can have is theories. Throwing your weight onto one of those theories is belief.

I think what was said was not that science will answer those questions, but may answer those question in the future, and at the very least is certainly our best shot at getting those answers.

Obni wrote: »

In fact, by the quantity of individual lifeforms or total biomass, the atheist group is so large that the other forms of life would be considered as negligible in any reputable galactic census.

I would agree - except only as far as an earthly census is concerned! I wouldn't like to speculate as to what an galactic alien neighbours believe. Xenu, anyone?

18AD

It's a belief in no god as much as it's a non-belief in god.

Just as a belief in god is the same as a non-belief in no god.

Everyone's a disbeliever/believer bepending on how you want to look at it.

:pac:
AD.

eoin5

No, Atheism is not a belief

Wicknight wrote: »

I would consider a position to be an assessment. By the nature of the word "position" is it placing one's opinion in one camp or the other. I am over here on that issue, I am over there on another.

Thats a personal way of looking at it. I'd have a more third party view on it. Bill is over there on that issue, hes over somewhere else on another. On a yay or nay belief issue such as theism Bill is either a yay or nay, whether hes heard of the issue or not.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

Thats a personal way of looking at it. I'd have a more third party view on it. Bill is over there on that issue, hes over somewhere else on another. On a yay or nay belief issue such as theism Bill is either a yay or nay, whether hes heard of the issue or not.

How can be be nay if he hasn't considered it?

Surely if you want to think of it in a third party abstract way, he "is" the position he eventually arrives at, even if he hasn't got there yet. So all theists would be yay even before they were theists.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Atheism isn't really a belief. It is only to some people who engage in word games. 'Atheist' is an unfortunate label that some people feel they have to adopt in a world so heavily soaked in religion that 'faith' is almost expected of you. It's just a way of saying 'count me out'.

Religious belief is so widespread that to actually be a non-believer is seen by some as holding a belief. That should not be the case, and it's no more true than 'holding the belief' that santa doesn't exist. Let's call that 'ASantism'. Or how about the 'belief' that computer monitors are not in fact treehouses in disguise. Let's name that one 'AMontreehousism'.

Since the burden of proof is on the theist, atheists can't honestly be the ones holding the 'belief' in my opinion.

eoin5

No, Atheism is not a belief

Wicknight wrote: »

I would consider a position to be an assessment. By the nature of the word "position" is it placing one's opinion in one camp or the other. I am over here on that issue, I am over there on another.

One has to be aware of an issue before they can do this. Before Bill was asked the question he had no position on walking rainbows because he had never considered them because he wasn't aware of the concept.

Youre repeating yourself, so allow me to do the same. On a yay or nay issue of belief you are either yay or nay for one reason or another, and one of the reasons might be that you have never encountered the concept. You either believe in a theistic personal god or you dont, theres no grey area for that one.

Zombrex

eoin5 wrote: »

Youre repeating yourself, so allow me to do the same.

No I'm not, you are quoting me again even though I have a later post

eoin5 wrote: »

On a yay or nay issue of belief you are either yay or nay for one reason or another, and one of the reasons might be that you have never encountered the concept. You either believe in a theistic personal god or you dont, theres no grey area for that one.

Ah ok, I get you now.

Your saying that if someone has never heard of something they can't, obviously believe in it, and that this is in itself a position because they are firmly in the "I don't believe camp", even if they didn't arrive at that position through an assessment, they still don't believe.

Its clear now. I think the issue I had was with how "position" is used sometimes, as in to take a position. But I agree with you, it can be used for someone who doesn't take the position themselves, but just finds themselves at that position by default (third party as you said)

Dave!

"I'm gonna go with noooo, Scott, okay?"

eoin5

No, Atheism is not a belief

Wicknight wrote: »

No I'm not, you are quoting me again even though I have a later post



Ah ok, I get you now.

Your saying that if someone has never heard of something they can't, obviously believe in it, and that this is in itself a position because they are firmly in the "I don't believe camp", even if they didn't arrive at that position through an assessment, they still don't believe.

Its clear now. I think the issue I had was with how "position" is used sometimes, as in to take a position. But I agree with you, it can be used for someone who doesn't take the position themselves, but just finds themselves at that position by default (third party as you said)

Bingo. Sorry about misreading your posts, damn this befuddlement . What I'd add to that is on an unprovable yay or nay issue such as theism you either believe one way or the other. You either believe in a personal god you you believe that there is no personal god. The logic involved forces you to hold a belief on something you may never have even heard of.