# Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281 "2010-12-15T20:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/181 "2010-12-17T00:53:23Z")
Unicorns are real, they are big and gray and we call them rhinoceroses. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/182 "2010-12-17T01:05:05Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Unicorns are real, they are big and gray and we call them rhinoceroses. Yeah, and if I call my personal emotions “God”, God exists. Shame you’ll all be without a god when I die too. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/183 "2010-12-17T01:07:35Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Such logic-parsing is usually the opening move of an argument that uses the absence of \*absolute proof \*to attack the strong atheist position. Such arguments conveniently overlook a similar lack of _absolute proof_ for common, everyday knowledge such as the existence of giraffes. Yes, even Dawkins, poster-boy of modern atheism, has stated that he cannot know for certain that no god exists, but believes that the probability is nearly indistinguishable from zero and that he lives his life on the assumption that there is no god. This seems very similar to the Bertrand Russel quote up-thread where Russell draws the distinction between being (technically) agnostic to an audience of philosophers and an atheist to the general public. > [@](#): > > I disbelieve in God to the same degree I believe in giraffes. I guess that makes me a soft giraffist as well as a soft atheist. Having seen, smelt, touched, and fed giraffes at the zoo I’m prepared to treat them as real for all practical purposes – which I guess make me a hard-giraffist… along with being a hard-automobilist, hard-gravityist, etc. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/184 "2010-12-17T01:16:13Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > It’s my _hunch_ that whatever caused the universe to come into existence was not an intelligent being… Does that make me even a deist? Of course not. Agreed. Although if you had started the same piece by saying that you had a hunch that it \*was \*an intelligent being then Deist wouldn’t be a bad label. > [@](#): > > And there is **NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS AT ALL** , even though **THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY IF IT WAS TRUE**. Excuse my shouting, but I think it is important. Indeed. And the explanations for why not aren’t exactly convincing are they? Skeptic: “If god wanted us to know these were the commandments why didn’t he just carve them into a mountain in 300 foot high letters of ever-burning flame?” Theist: “Proof would undermine faith”. Or, “god works in mysterious ways”. Or, “don’t put god to a test!” Skeptic: “Oh pull the other one, it’s got bells on!” Or, perhaps, Pragmatic Skeptic: “Can I interest you in this genuine holy relic?” 🙂 ---
**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:** [December 17, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/185 "2010-12-17T01:19:00Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It’s the same old argument. Do you think Jerry Falwell was motivated by theism? No, he was motivated by Christianity. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Atheists are just as capable of doing wrong as theists. They are less likely to do wrong because they have fewer reasons and fewer excuses. Atheism isn’t a _good_ thing; religion however is a _bad_ thing, and that makes atheism better. > [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m not claiming that atheism is a belief _system_ about God. I’m saying that some atheists respond to the claim that they believe in no God in the same way that some theists react to the claim that there is no God. Nonsense. Atheists only react that way when it is an obvious attempt (such as this thread) to pretend that atheism and religion have equal plausibility by using the same label for them. An attempt to pretend intellectual equality between the two positions. I’ve been known to refer to atheism as a belief\* - but _not_ when someone is clearly using the term as a rhetorical trap, and will jump in and say “Ah-HA! you _admit_ that atheism is just another religion!” if I use that word. - Mainly because referring to it as a “non-belief” is usually needlessly confusing. Normally, phrases like “I don’t believe in vampires” and “I believe there are no vampires” are interchangeable. But religious apologists like to play semantic “gotcha” games. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/186 "2010-12-17T01:28:16Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Agreed. Although if you had started the same piece by saying that you had a hunch that it \*was \*an intelligent being then Deist wouldn’t be a bad label. I’d agree with that. And I would give Darwin a big thumbs up for getting rid of most of that kind of thinking. Why Christians would think evolution is a dangerous idea… well, that’s what you get when your ideology is not based in reality. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/187 "2010-12-17T01:46:21Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Skeptic: “If god wanted us to know these were the commandments why didn’t he just carve them into a mountain in 300 foot high letters of ever-burning flame?” > > Theist: “Proof would undermine faith”. Or, “god works in mysterious ways”. Or, “don’t put god to a test!” > > Skeptic: “Oh pull the other one, it’s got bells on!” I hate this excuse. Beyond the bounds of the historical record God parts the water, burns bushes, and Jesus walks on water and acts like a traveling BevMo. But anyplace where the claim can be check God starts acting shy. I can press a ton, but I only do it when no one is watching. Give me my Olympic Gold Medal, already. Why is it that theists use the same kinds of arguments that get five-year-old kids laughed at? ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/188 "2010-12-17T02:05:02Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Since our continued existence hangs in the balance, don’t you think that belief in the universe-destroying trolls is profoundly important? Do you think that it is profoundly important? Does anyone? My point was this: Theists have beliefs, and atheists have beliefs. And those beliefs affect how we address big ideas and big issues. In another thread, [Most people are agnostic](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=571124), you say: > [@Most people are agnostic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-people-are-agnostic/546977/2): > > Atheists \*\*believe \*\*there is no God. That’s not the same as being certain there’s no God. (Emphasis yours.) And this: > [@The Hamster King](#): > > Generally when I encounter someone who says they’re agnostic, it’s not a coherent, well-thought-out believe. It’s just someone with strong atheist leaning who doesn’t want to admit it. (I’m pretty you just made a small mistake in writing “believe” instead of “belief”.) The implication is that atheism is a coherent, well-thought-out belief. We agree in principle. 🙂 Also, I found it amusing that, in that same thread, you said: > [@](#): > > And agnostics believe that the question of whether there is a God or not is unanswerable. That’s considerable stronger than just believing it’s unanswered. Furthermore it’s an epistemological claim, not an ontological one. And, in this thread, I said: > [@](#): > > If some of those theists stop believing in God, there’s little else that they need to explain. Perhaps they are more interested in distancing themselves from religious ideas and customs than they are in the deeper ontological and epistemological issues. When you brought up universe-destroying trolls, were you making ontological or epistemological claims? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/189 "2010-12-17T02:06:14Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > And I would give Darwin a big thumbs up for getting rid of most of that kind of thinking. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. IIRC in Darwin’s day the clergy (at least the Church of England clergy) were very interested in the natural world and the great chain of being; trying to deduce truths about God by observing and understanding his creation. Evolution and Deism don’t seem in conflict – or even have anything to do with each other – until you want to discuss the possible causes of abiogenesis. > [@](#): > > Why Christians would think evolution is a dangerous idea… well, that’s what you get when your ideology is not based in reality. But many, many Christians don’t think evolution is dangerous, or that it endangers their religion. (My father-in-law is a Methodist minister and theistic evolutionist). Aside: I’ve come across this odd idea on the 'Dope before, and it seems to come from the US-centric nature of the board, where I understand acceptance of evolution is actually a minority view… something that continues to boggle my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/190 "2010-12-17T02:11:26Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I think your post is an example of how all-pervasive the “god” meme is. > > It seems like you think that the universe has to have a meaning and a purpose. Why? Where did I say that I think that the universe has to have a meaning and a purpose? My post included some comments on the role of “god-belief” in theists’ lives. Athiests have other beliefs. > [@](#): > > It isn’t for me to show that god is unnecessary, it for theists to show that he is. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/191 "2010-12-17T02:16:02Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Simple belief in the existence of a creator god still doesn’t say anything about the nature of that being does it? I agree. > [@](#): > > It’s the fact that other believers claim to have insight into the nature of god that makes a difference; that they claim to have a line of communication through which they can divine what god wants / hates / rewards / punishes. Many theists believe that. But not all. In any case, their beliefs affect their outlook and their actions. Same as with atheists. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/192 "2010-12-17T02:22:54Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. IIRC in Darwin’s day the clergy (at least the Church of England clergy) were very interested in the natural world and the great chain of being; trying to deduce truths about God by observing and understanding his creation. That sort of thing comes and goes, it always ends with the believers deciding it’s a bad idea because of how awful the brutality of nature makes God look and because it rubs into their face just how unnecessary gods are to explain anything. > [@Apollyon](#): > > Evolution and Deism don’t seem in conflict – or even have anything to do with each other – until you want to discuss the possible causes of abiogenesis. Deism is carefully designed so that it is as irrelevant to the real world as possible. A deistic universe looks like the real universe, so it doesn’t conflict with evolution, but neither are most believers deists. Nor is deism consistent with the Bible. > [@Apollyon](#): > > But many, many Christians don’t think evolution is dangerous, or that it endangers their religion. (My father-in-law is a Methodist minister and theistic evolutionist). Historical revisionism. Evolution devastated Christianity by destroying one of its major claims and justifications for believing in it (the lack of any other explanation for the complexity of life than “goddidit”). People like your father in law are basically sitting in the rubble of their religion and telling themselves it has always been rubble. Evolution (and science in general) not only endangers religion, it has beaten it half to death in much of the world. > [@Apollyon](#): > > Aside: I’ve come across this odd idea on the 'Dope before, and it seems to come from the US-centric nature of the board, where I understand acceptance of evolution is actually a minority view… something that continues to boggle my mind. America is a very religious country, and therefore heavily invested in the denial of reality. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/193 "2010-12-17T02:29:48Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. IIRC in Darwin’s day the clergy (at least the Church of England clergy) were very interested in the natural world and the great chain of being; trying to deduce truths about God by observing and understanding his creation. Evolution and Deism don’t seem in conflict – or even have anything to do with each other – until you want to discuss the possible causes of abiogenesis. I meant that Darwin - in addition to earlier naturalists, but Darwin really was the last big pint in the bucket - more or less destroyed the refuge of the deist proposition - which was the proposition of the majority of Christian-seeming scientists at the time - by demonstrating there was no need for a divine plan. Darwin also exploded the “great chain of being” at the same time. I am not talking about the general theistic populace, since they can’t - and probably shouldn’t - be persuaded by evolution at all, unless they’re biblical literalists, in which case, they’re just - and probably willfully - ignorant. > [@](#): > > But many, many Christians don’t think evolution is dangerous, or that it endangers their religion. (My father-in-law is a Methodist minister and theistic evolutionist). Theistic evolution is a myth that explains nothing, but yeah it’s compatible with theism to a point. > [@](#): > > Aside: I’ve come across this odd idea on the 'Dope before, and it seems to come from the US-centric nature of the board, where I understand acceptance of evolution is actually a minority view… something that continues to boggle my mind. I’m European, so it takes some effort for me too. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/194 "2010-12-17T02:42:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > People like your father in law are basically sitting in the rubble of their religion and telling themselves it has always been rubble. Evolution (and science in general) not only endangers religion, it has beaten it half to death in much of the world. This would be such a part of the world. 🙂 I’m not sure about rubble exactly, but I do agree that compared to the sweeping Gothic cathedrals of yesteryear religion around these parts is more a tiny country chapel. > [@](#): > > America is a very religious country, and therefore heavily invested in the denial of reality. Yes, as a 'Doper explained it to me some time ago, this is why the US needs such a strong and high wall between church and state. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/195 "2010-12-17T04:26:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > First Evangelical Baptist Church of Gain, Missouri Synod (Reformed). In that case, go ahead and jump. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/196 "2010-12-17T04:34:48Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Sometimes atheists say that not believing in God is the same as not believing in various imaginary creatures. But, the comparison is missing a key point about the belief in God, namely, that God created everything, or is the Prime Mover, or the Source of All Life. (I’m talking about the \*belief \*in God and not about the validity of that belief.) Whether a unicorn exists or not, there’s little relevance to a person’s thoughts and behavior. But, a belief in God can have a profound impact on a person’s life. Well then in that case, Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, and Thor all must exist because people believe/believed in them in a way that changed their lives. If people stop believing in God will he not exist? He’s starting to sound more like Santa. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/197 "2010-12-17T05:45:17Z")
The evolution thing vs. the creationist thing is all wrong. There is nothing contradictory in believing that there is a god and that evolution is real. The conflict arises from people who want to look at a book and the cult built around it and say “it is written, therefore it is so”. When you talk to more liberal folk the answer is “the bible is a collection of stories designed to help us move towards god” then we get closer to what I am talking about. The science that is mentioned in the bible has to take into context the Roman era and to a lesser degree the Iron Age of the first testament. So do I think that a being said “poof” here is the universe? No I don’t, but doesn’t stop me from being religious. It does stop me from being a batty American style literal Christian. Atheists in the past have had a go at me, saying that how can I only accept the bits of the bible that I want to? There is no pleasing a fundamental Atheist. All I can say is that I am following a line of religious thought that goes back thousands of years and as all things should be you must look at the content and the context of the situation that it was written in. The search for truth will continue for as long as there is man as it has from the start. Some say science is the only way towards truth, I say it is only part of the carriage taking us to full awareness. And guess what? I am not here to say my way or the highway. You will take your path and I will take mine and we will end up where we end up. The only thing I will evangalise on is this “Once we accept we are part of this universe, then we must move towards selfless love and not self love”. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/198 "2010-12-17T06:57:30Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > The evolution thing vs. the creationist thing is all wrong. There is nothing contradictory in believing that there is a god and that evolution is real. Except that it goes against the claimed actions of the gods people actually believe in. > [@sisu](#): > > The conflict arises from people who want to look at a book and the cult built around it and say “it is written, therefore it is so”. When you talk to more liberal folk the answer is “the bible is a collection of stories designed to help us move towards god” then we get closer to what I am talking about. The science that is mentioned in the bible has to take into context the Roman era and to a lesser degree the Iron Age of the first testament. Except that inevitably leads towards skepticism and atheism. If you stop insisting that all of the book is true, then there’s no reason to take any of it seriously since there’s no evidence for any of its claims. As for taking it “in context”, that is just another argument against it being divinely inspired and another argument for it being just a book of myths. If it really originated from a superior being then the context would be irrelevant. > [@sisu](#): > > Atheists in the past have had a go at me, saying that how can I only accept the bits of the bible that I want to? There is no pleasing a fundamental Atheist. Nonsense. That term is meaningless. And they are pointing out the obvious; since all religious claims are equally baseless, how can you justify picking one and not the others? Claims that God exist at all are just as baseless as claims that God created the world in seven days. If you reject one, there’s no rational reason not to reject the other. > [@sisu](#): > > The search for truth will continue for as long as there is man as it has from the start. Some say science is the only way towards truth, I say it is only part of the carriage taking us to full awareness. Religion has nothing to do with any search for truth, it is the denial of truth. It is picking a fantasy and sticking with it not matter how illogical, how baseless, how destructive it is. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/199 "2010-12-17T07:09:34Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > The only thing I will evangalise on is this “Once we accept we are part of this universe, then we must move towards selfless love and not self love”. Why? The universe is full of particles and forces trying to annihilate each other. Why isn’t realizing we are part of the universe make us more vicious so that we can last longer than another grouping of particles before our short term orderly arrangement is ripped apart and forever lost? ---
**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:** [December 17, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/200 "2010-12-17T07:14:23Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Why? The universe is full of particles and forces trying to annihilate each other. Why isn’t realizing we are part of the universe make us more vicious so that we can last longer than another grouping of particles before our short term orderly arrangement is ripped apart and forever lost? “Why do you support racial segregation?” “Well, the last thing I want to do is accidentally bump into a black guy and explode when we mutually annihilate!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=11)