# Is religion just wish-fulfillment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775 "2010-02-05T07:59:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/101 "2010-02-08T18:11:30Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > BTW, it’s worth noting that when a theist makes an argument which supposedly betrays scientific ignorance, you can expect a dogpile from the skeptics around here. Yet when an atheist makes a claim that demonstrates naivete regarding the nature of science, you get responses like “Good job arguing against a strawman argument that no one with any scientific background has made.” I guess it’s fair game to point out these errors when they come from one side, but not from the other. Both sides are pointing out the mistakes of the other side-where is this imbalance you speak of? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/102 "2010-02-08T18:12:52Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Again, **Fantome** , can you please show us where ANY of the references you cited affirm that atheism is defined as “lack of belief in God or gods”? I examined every single one, and none of them mention any lack or absence of belief. Quite the contrary; they consistently affirm it to mean the doctrine that there is no god. This is pretty much purely semantical. If someone said “there are no invisible/nonobservable fairies”, would you jump on them for incorrectly declaring that they can prove a negative? Essentially, “there is no god” in this context means “there is no evidence for your specific bearded guy in the sky who your holy books claim made these interventions in our universe”. To hold their words to an interpretation that’s semantic to a silly degree and logically impossible is just playing the silly semantics/philosophy games that theists always hit in these debates because they know they can’t argue on substance. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/103 "2010-02-08T18:15:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I think you misinterpret his meaning. “To the extent that anything can be proven not to exist” is important here. It goes along with all the prove a negative stuff. No, science cannot prove God’s non-existence because the supernatural is beyond its scope. You’re citing entirely the wrong reason for why science cannot prove God’s existence. The qualified, “to the extent that anything can be proven not to exist” is indeed important, but it’s ultimately irrelevant. It amounts to saying that we use science to disprove God’s existence to the same extent that we can disprove ANYTHING. That’s a mighty strong claim, to say the least. > [@](#): > > Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist in the same sense it can’t prove anything that’s asserted to be unobservable to exist. **Smithee** ’s statement said nothing about “asserted to be unobservable.” Rather, his claim was that God’s existence has been disproven to the extent that ANYTHING can be disproven. You’re tacking on extra verbiage in order to make the claim more palatable – a reverse strawman, if you wish. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/104 "2010-02-08T18:18:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Both sides are pointing out the mistakes of the other side-where is this imbalance you speak of? I already cited the imbalance. Atheists pile on theists for supposedly making scientifically inaccurate statements, but when a theist points out the scientific inaccuracy of an atheists claim, it is greeted with a response like “Good job arguing against a strawman argument that no one with any scientific background has made.” An honest atheist would simply acknowledge that his teammate had said something stupid. Instead, the theist’s rebuttal is treated as something that should never have been uttered, despite the atheist’s error. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/105 "2010-02-08T18:19:14Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, science cannot prove God’s non-existence because the supernatural is beyond its scope. You’re citing entirely the wrong reason for why science cannot prove God’s existence. By declaring something beyond natural/super natural, you automatically put it beyond any sort of reason or observability or bounds of logic. Anything goes. > [@](#): > > The qualified, “to the extent that anything can be proven not to exist” is indeed important, but it’s ultimately irrelevant. It amounts to saying that we use science to disprove God’s existence to the same extent that we can disprove ANYTHING. That’s a mighty strong claim, to say the least. How is that a strong claim? The default assumption of anyone scientifically minded is to simply not invent things out of thin air. If there’s no evidence of something at work, no phoenomina that we need a hypothesis to explain, then there’s no reason to create the attributes of something. > [@](#): > > **Smithee** ’s statement said nothing about “asserted to be unobservable.” Rather, his claim was that God’s existence has been disproven to the extent that ANYTHING can be disproven. You’re tacking on extra verbiage in order to make the claim more palatable – a reverse strawman, if you wish. I think he’s just throwing it into the same boat as anything else we generally accept not to exist lacking any reason to think it does. Why is God special in this regard? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/106 "2010-02-08T18:21:00Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This is pretty much purely semantical. If someone said “there are no invisible/nonobservable fairies”, would you jump on them for incorrectly declaring that they can prove a negative? It’s a semantical distinction that our own atheists are quick to emphasize. They refer to “hard atheism” (the belief that there is no God) and “soft atheism” (a mere lack of belief in God). Some of them have been quite strident in making this distinction. So when an atheist draws this distinction, it’s considered valid. But when an theist points out the difference between belief in absence and an absence of belief, it’s considered “purely semantical.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/107 "2010-02-08T18:21:05Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, science cannot prove God’s non-existence because the supernatural is beyond its scope. You’re citing entirely the wrong reason for why science cannot prove God’s existence. Actually, _you_ are. Science cannot prove God’s existence because Science does not deal with blind speculation and wishful thinking. When you add the “supernatural” to the equation, you are merely adding more blind speculation and wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/108 "2010-02-08T18:24:49Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It’s a semantical distinction that our own atheists are quick to emphasize. They refer to “hard atheism” (the belief that there is no God) and “soft atheism” (a mere lack of belief in God). Some of them have been quite strident in making this distinction. > > So when an atheist draws this distinction, it’s considered valid. But when an theist points out the difference between belief in absence and an absence of belief, it’s considered “purely semantical.” I think it’s invalid either way. Both terms are really just exploiting a semantical misunderstanding. I don’t think even the hardest of hard atheists is actually implictly claiming “I know everything there is to know about existance, and there is no possible room for some sort of god-like entity”, what they’re saying is more in line with “almost certainly your specific beliefs about a bearded sky dude are wrong”. It’s not really a distinction worth making, because so few people subscribe to “hard atheism” as defined as logically impossibly proving a negative. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/109 "2010-02-08T18:32:05Z")
I want to add that “God” tends to take a very specific image depending on the dominant religion of your culture. So when someone says “there is no God” they’re generally saying “whatever you think of as God, with your specific creation stories and rule books etc. doesn’t exist” rather than “no entity that we don’t/can’t understand” exists. A lot of the confusion of this thread comes from, again, that double definition of God. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/110 "2010-02-08T19:24:16Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, science cannot prove God’s non-existence because the supernatural is beyond its scope. You’re citing entirely the wrong reason for why science cannot prove God’s existence. > > The qualified, “to the extent that anything can be proven not to exist” is indeed important, but it’s ultimately irrelevant. It amounts to saying that we use science to disprove God’s existence to the same extent that we can disprove ANYTHING. That’s a mighty strong claim, to say the least. > **Smithee** ’s statement said nothing about “asserted to be unobservable.” Rather, his claim was that God’s existence has been disproven to the extent that ANYTHING can be disproven. You’re tacking on extra verbiage in order to make the claim more palatable – a reverse strawman, if you wish. He’ll have to come back and tell us which definition of God he was using. The tri-omni god can easily be disproven from evidence, and I think even the bi-omni God can be disproven. The God of the infallible Bible can be, given that it is full of errors. The God that oozes through the cracks can’t be. But I’ll dispute that the supernatural is beyond the scope of science. Science can, and has, studied the supposed projection of the supernatural upon the natural world. What Rhine did was definitely scientific. Looking for traces of the Flood is scientific. Studying folk culture to see if anyone noticed the sun stopping is scientific. That the Bible keeps coming up short has nothing to do with a supposed weakness of science. Now, if your God stays in the supernatural world and never has a measurable impact on our natural world, then there is indeed nothing to study. But I wonder why you think you have any glimmering of what God wants from us. Even God inspiring us can be studied, since we can collect the impressions of all those supposedly inspired and compare them. There is plenty of scientific study of things that exist only inside our heads, after all. So, I don’t give much support to your attempt to hide God in the supernatural realm. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/111 "2010-02-08T19:36:17Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I want to add that “God” tends to take a very specific image depending on the dominant religion of your culture. So when someone says “there is no God” they’re generally saying “whatever you think of as God, with your specific creation stories and rule books etc. doesn’t exist” rather than “no entity that we don’t/can’t understand” exists. A lot of the confusion of this thread comes from, again, that double definition of God. Well, deists or agnostics might think this way, but they wouldn’t say “there is no god”. And atheists (who generally don’t make statements like that either), don’t just disbelieve specific gods. They lack belief in all gods by the normal definition of “god”. I don’t need to go through all the religions one by one, and hear about the wonderous properties of god X before deciding that I don’t believe in X: I don’t believe in any of them by default. Of course, you _could_ define a “god” that exists: e.g. “God is love”. But this is just typical weasling. Regardless of statements like “god is love”, 99.9% of theists believe in a sentient supernatural being that carries out actions that affect humans. And I don’t believe that there’s any evidence for such an entity. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/112 "2010-02-08T19:40:16Z")
Back to the OP: “Is religion just wish fulfillment?” Well, it might be… **If all religions promised us the same desirable thing.** But they don’t. Not all religions promise us any kind of afterlife at all. Many a devout Jew has followed Mosaic law without expecting any kind of life after death. \*\*If the religions that promise pie in the sky when we die made no unpleasant demands on us. \*\*But they do. If my beliefs were mere wish fulfillment, I’d be going to a church that promised eternal life for sitting on my butt, watching football, listening to music and eating pizza. Instead, I believe in a religion that puts demands on me, that requires me to do things I’d rather not do, that prevents me from doing things I’d LIKE to do. That’s not a dream come true. Laziness and selfishness come naturally to most of us (myself most definitely included). Altruism doesn’t. My beliefs are sometimes a great comfort, but not always. Sometimes, they lead me to ask myself tough questions, like “Am I really living up to my professed ideals?” The answer to the cliché question, “What would Jesus do” is not always an easy one, to put it mildly. \*\*If Non-belief weren’t just as convenient for many of the people who embrace it. \*\* If there IS a Heaven for the just and a Hell for the wicked, yeah, that’s awfully convenient for those of us who fancy ourselves “just.” But if there ISN’T, well, THAT’S’s awfully convenient for the wicked, too. Whichever of those propositions is true (for now, I’ll just assume that those are the only two possibilities; we’ll leave aside reincarnation, et al.), it’s the fulfillment of SOMEBODY’S wish! ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/113 "2010-02-08T20:01:35Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > \*\*If the religions that promise pie in the sky when we die made no unpleasant demands on us. \*\*But they do. If my beliefs were mere wish fulfillment, I’d be going to a church that promised eternal life for sitting on my butt, watching football, listening to music and eating pizza. Instead, I believe in a religion that puts demands on me, that requires me to do things I’d rather not do, that prevents me from doing things I’d LIKE to do. That’s not a dream come true. Laziness and selfishness come naturally to most of us (myself most definitely included). Altruism doesn’t. My beliefs are sometimes a great comfort, but not always. Sometimes, they lead me to ask myself tough questions, like “Am I really living up to my professed ideals?” The answer to the cliché question, “What would Jesus do” is not always an easy one, to put it mildly. I agree with your essential point: religion isn’t just about wish fulfilment (for one thing they generally include threats also). But as I pointed out earlier: the most successful religions are those that give their followers busywork and arbitrary restrictions. You’ll never hear someone say “I wish I wasn’t a Muslim; then I wouldn’t have to pray 5 times a day” because it’s doing activities like that that makes one feel a part of the religion and give a warm fuzzy feeling. What I’m saying is, for the religious minded, the demands of religion _is_ something they “LIKE”. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/114 "2010-02-08T20:10:34Z")
If you give people a placebo that they have to taste, they actually report better outcomes if you give them a liquid that tastes bad and bitter. There’s some expectation that the worse it is going down, the better the payoff will be. I wonder if that’s one of the things at work here. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/115 "2010-02-08T20:41:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think many educated non-believers claim that science can disprove the existence of supernatural beings – only that it can disprove the _necessity_ for them to explain specific phenomena. It can demonstrate claims about them to be impossible according to known physical laws; which is about as close to disproof about entities with no evidence for their existence as science can get. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Really, this in part boils down to the silly double standard that theists like to use in arguments about god. They will tell you “This is God, and this is how he created the universe, and this is his holy word, and this is his prophet, and these are the rules he laid out for you, and this is how he has shaped our history”… but then when you get into an argument for the existance of the God, suddenly they flip the switch and now they’re defending a vague non-interventionist god-like entity that you can’t disprove. It goes from “this is my very specific idea of god” to “uh, god is whatever vague notion anyone wants to ascribe to him and therefore you can’t prove he doesn’t exist!” Yes. The maximally-vague God that gets brought up in arguments like this is not the God that most ( any ? ) people actually believe in. It exists primarily as a defense against sceptics, and is abandoned the moment they aren’t arguing. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > If you give people a placebo that they have to taste, they actually report better outcomes if you give them a liquid that tastes bad and bitter. There’s some expectation that the worse it is going down, the better the payoff will be. I wonder if that’s one of the things at work here. Makes sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/116 "2010-02-08T20:49:19Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You’re missing the point. **Contrapuntal** didn’t merely claim that atheism CAN be used to mean an absence of belief in God. Rather, he insisted that this WAS the traditional definition. It is not. He didn’t claim it was the “traditional” definition. He said this: > [@](#): > > Less traditional? It’s the very definition of atheism. Atheism as a concept is incoherent until someone asserts the existence of a god. > [@](#): > > At no point did I declare that the word “atheism” cannot be used in that manner. After **Contrapuntal** said what I quoted him saying above, you said this: > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t. Atheism has been traditionally defined as the active belief that there is NO God. In more recent times, people have been wont to use it to mean a mere lack of belief, but that is not the traditional definition. (Cites: _The Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ and any number of dictionaries.) You said “no, it isn’t.” That’s not saying it’s not the definition? > [@](#): > > I was saying that it’s not the traditional usage, despite the fervent protestations of certain people. You haven’t proven this. Your own cite says that it comes from the French _athéiste_, and then goes into the etymology of that word. None of this proves anything about the traditional _ **usage** _ of the word _atheism_. And again, other cites say differently. (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > Quite the contrary; they cite usage such as “the doctrine that there is no deity” and “the belief that there is no God, **or denial that God or gods exist**.” Not a single one declares that it is merely the absence of belief. Denial that gods exist is the absence of belief. > [@](#): > > de⋅ni⋅al >   1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent’s charges. > 2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like. > 3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing. > 4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it. > 5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor’s denial of his country; Peter’s denial of Christ. > 6. Law. refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary’s plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial. > 7. sacrifice of one’s own wants or needs; self-denial. > 8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. My very first entry: > [@](#): > > a disbelief in the existence of deity How is that not the absence of belief? I’m not sure what nit you’re picking here. > [@](#): > > One of them does talk about “disbelief” in God, but as I’ve pointed out in previous discussions, this is not the same as mere lack of belief. Quite the contrary; the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as “mental rejection of something as untrue,” so that usage doesn’t support your claim either. Ah, that nit. You don’t think it’s fair to define disbelief as lack of belief? You omitted the first part of Merriam-Webster’s definition of _disbelieve_. > [@](#): > > the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue So what is the act of disbelieving? Well, lets look up _disbelieve_ using Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > transitive verb: > to hold not worthy of belief : not believe > intransitive verb : > to withhold or reject belief > [@](#): > > Besides, remember that **Contrapuntal** specifically declared that an absence of belief is “the very definition of atheism.” Not merely a possible definition, but THE only possible one. Are you serious? You think he stressed “the” and doesn’t believe that a strong atheist is part of atheism? Really? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/117 "2010-02-08T21:31:14Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > He didn’t claim it was the “traditional” definition. He said this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Less traditional? It’s the very definition of atheism. Atheism as a concept is incoherent until someone asserts the existence of a god. Your objection supports my point. If anything, he went far beyong merely asserting that it’s the traditional definition. He said that it’s the VERY definition of atheism – not merely a possible definition, but THE definition. That’s simply wrong. > [@](#): > > You said “no, it isn’t.” That’s not saying it’s not the definition? That’s right, as I’ve said numerous times now. It is not THE definition. At best, it only constitutes one possible usage of the term, and not the traditional one. > [@](#): > > You haven’t proven this. Your own cite says that it comes from the French _athéiste_, and then goes into the etymology of that word. None of this proves anything about the traditional _ **usage** _ of the word _atheism_. My cite shows that the etymology is different from what **Contrapuntal** claims. As for traditional usage, I’ve already covered that. Heck, one of your own atheist allies posted multiple dictionary entries, all of which agree with what I said. > [@](#): > > And again, other cites say differently. Which is why I emphasized that a dictionary entry carries more weight than some anonymous website that cites no sources. > [@](#): > > Denial that gods exist is the absence of belief. My very first entry: How is that not the absence of belief? Denial is more than just absence of belief, as the proponents of the strong/weak atheism dichotomy here are quick to emphasize. Denying a belief means affirming that it’s false. In contrast, merely having no opinion – or for that matter, a non-committal position – would indicate an absence of belief. The two are not synoymous, as folks such as **Dio** have emphasized numerous times. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what nit you’re picking here. Ah, that nit. You don’t think it’s fair to define disbelief as lack of belief? Exactly right. Again, this is a distinction that many atheists here have argued for, as they argued for a distinction between strong and weak atheism. > [@](#): > > You omitted the first part of Merriam-Webster’s definition of _disbelieve_. So what is the act of disbelieving? Well, lets look up _disbelieve_ using Merriam-Webster: I cited the definition of **disbelief** (a different word from the one you cited), which Merriam-Webster defines as the mental rejection of something as untrue. This same source apparently softens that usage when it comes to “disbelieve,” which indicates a lack of consistency on it’s part. In any event, other dictionaries are more consistent and affirm that it indicates an active rejection, not merely a lack of belief. The American Heritate Dictionary, for example, defines “disbelieve” as “To refuse to believe in; reject.” In other words, not merely having an absence of belief, but actively rejecting that belief. > [@](#): > > Are you serious? You think he stressed “the” and doesn’t believe that a strong atheist is part of atheism? Really? Of course he did. That’s exactly the point. He considers it to be PART of atheism, whereas the traditional viewpoint is that it IS atheism. Obviously, the two claims are not synonymous. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/118 "2010-02-08T23:15:59Z")
> [@](#): > > He said that it’s the VERY definition of atheism – not merely a possible definition, but THE definition. That’s simply wrong. It’s not wrong. It is the definition of atheism. By you capitalizing “the” you are claiming he said it was the one and only. He didn’t. > [@](#): > > That’s right, as I’ve said numerous times now. It is not THE definition. It’s the definition. Whether or not it’s THE definition is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > At best, it only constitutes one possible usage of the term, and not the traditional one. You have failed to prove what the traditional definition is and what is traditional (however you’re defining ‘traditional’) is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > My cite shows that the etymology is different from what **Contrapuntal** claims. I’m not getting the nitpick of the difference between ‘without gods’ and ‘without theism.’ > [@](#): > > As for traditional usage, I’ve already covered that. Where? I didn’t see where you provided anything regarding traditional usage and I don’t get why you think it matters. > [@](#): > > Denial is more than just absence of belief Wrong, and I’ve proven it to you. > [@](#): > > Denying a belief means affirming that it’s false. Not necessarily, and I’ve proven this to you also. Back to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). Take a look at entry #5 which specifically defines _deny_ in the context of belief in gods. > [@](#): > > de⋅ny >   /dɪˈnaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-nahy] Show IPA > –verb (used with object), -nied, -ny⋅ing. > > 1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation. > 2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition. > 3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information. > 4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar. > 5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one’s gods. > 6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments. > 7. Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept. > —Idiom > 8. deny oneself, to refrain from satisfying one’s desires or needs; practice self-denial. > [@](#): > > I cited the definition of **disbelief** (a different word from the one you cited) You’re grasping at straws and I don’t believe for a second you don’t realize your position here has been defeated. You omitted the very first part of the definition that said “the act of disbelieving.” I showed you what _disbelieve_ means using the same dictionary. I’ll post it again: > [@](#): > > transitive verb: > to hold not worthy of belief : not believe > intransitive verb : > to withhold or reject belief > [@](#): > > which Merriam-Webster defines as the mental rejection of something as untrue. And I showed you what _disbelieve_ means. Relying on just one part of one entry from one dictionary and claiming it’s the only possible definition is showing your intellectual dishonesty. From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) (two entries): > [@](#): > > dis⋅be⋅lief >   /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-bi-leef] Show IPA > –noun > > 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. > 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. > [@](#): > > dis·be·lief (dĭs’bĭ-lēf’) > n. Refusal or reluctance to believe. > [@](#): > > This same source apparently softens that usage when it comes to “disbelieve,” which indicates a lack of consistency on it’s part. You don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s nothing inconsistent with words having slightly different meanings. There aren’t only one way to use each word in the English language that’s written in stone. > [@](#): > > In any event, other dictionaries are more consistent and affirm that it indicates an active rejection, not merely a lack of belief. Why do you keep stressing the word “active”? If I reject a belief, then all you know is that lack that belief but know that that belief exists. > [@](#): > > The American Heritate Dictionary, for example, defines “disbelieve” as “To refuse to believe in; reject.” In other words, not merely having an absence of belief, but actively rejecting that belief. Not getting this or its relevance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/119 "2010-02-09T01:44:54Z")
At any rate, not all religions are wish-fulfillment equally. Who would **want** to live in the universe of Aztec mythology? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775/120 "2010-02-09T08:45:32Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It’s a semantical distinction that our own atheists are quick to emphasize. They refer to “hard atheism” (the belief that there is no God) and “soft atheism” (a mere lack of belief in God). Some of them have been quite strident in making this distinction. Woah - careful with the broad brush there - I don’t make this distinction at all. In fact, I had to be talked down from using atheist in the original Greek sense of “against the Gods even if they exist”, too. As far as I’m concerned , “hard” vs “soft” is semantic nitpicking, and I equate lack of belief with belief in lack from a functional point of view, which is all that matters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-religion-just-wish-fulfillment/527775.md?page=7)