# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/541 "2010-12-22T04:58:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You got _that_ from my saying I didn’t have enough information to even hazard a guess?? No. From that and the rest of the discussion. Was I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/542 "2010-12-22T04:59:44Z")
Gotta run. 'Nite. Back tomorrow. ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/543 "2010-12-22T05:01:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I know the argument is not new. So what? In this post you claim to be an agnostic and and atheist. Can one be both? > > As far as calling it “God”. Let’s say the universe was in fact created, but it was by a special particle. Would you bristle if I called it The Super-Duper-Creating-Eternal-Sentient-Particle? That sounds like a mocking term that one would use to deflect us away from the fact that you added the tag “God” to your “Creator” _after_ you claimed that “Creator” only meant that which started the whole shebang. ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/544 "2010-12-22T05:05:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. From that and the rest of the discussion. Was I wrong? [QUOTE=Me] I do not have enough information to even hazard a guess [/QUOTE] It means _exactly_ what it means-no less and no more. It explains itself. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/545 "2010-12-22T05:18:43Z")
Atheism a non belief? Well there is no day I have to get up and go to atheist church. I don’t have to give money to an atheist organization. No tithing in non belief land. I don’t have an atheist bible explaining what or why, I should not believe. There are no priests or rabbis explaining exactly what we should do to get it right. There is nobody on top of a hierarchy. I don’t have to send my kid to atheist school in case I don’t indoctrinate him well enough. There are no atheist commandments to follow. There is no organization telling me to spread my nonbelief to others. I spend no time worrying about or thinking about it. That was settled long ago. Exactly how is it a belief system? ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/546 "2010-12-22T05:20:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, don’t you agree that that negates the “uncaused events do to happen, all the time, in QM” argument? It just means you don’t accept it. I personally can’t do the math to understand how you get from Heisenberg to this - I understand it at a very high level - so I can’t convincingly explain it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/547 "2010-12-22T05:25:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Would you bristle if I called it The Super-Duper-Creating-Eternal-Sentient-Particle? “Eternal”? “Sentient”? It sounds like you’re making a few more assumptions than the mere existence of an uncaused cause … . ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/548 "2010-12-22T05:31:30Z")
If we assume that there was a first cause(the “Creator”), why should we then assume that this “Creator” still exists after all this time? Indeed, might it not be possible that the very act of Creating destroyed the Creator? “There ain’t enuff room in this universe for th’ both of us, pardner.” ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/549 "2010-12-22T05:39:29Z")
I should mention that it’s been claimed on this very forum that the non-existence of the soul (or was it life after death? One of the two) has been “scientifically proven.” If so, that would demolish the entire concept behind religion and God. So there you go… apparently there’s scientific proof that God doesn’t exist… ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/550 "2010-12-22T05:43:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I know the argument is not new. So what? In this post you claim to be an agnostic and and atheist. Can one be both? > > As far as calling it “God”. Let’s say the universe was in fact created, but it was by a special particle. Would you bristle if I called it The Super-Duper-Creating-Eternal-Sentient-Particle? I realize you’re responding to a bunch of posts, but you misread. Agnostic as to creation of the Universe, as in I don’t know whence it came. Indeed, if I understand Hawking correctly, it’s impossible to know because the BB was a singularity past which we can’t see. This is sometimes misunderstood to mean there was nothing before the BB, but you don’t seem to be making that mistake. And, no, you don’t have any basis for assuming your Creator is eternal or sentient. Nor does assuming such solve the problem of where it came from. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/551 "2010-12-22T06:06:29Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I should mention that it’s been claimed on this very forum that the non-existence of the soul (or was it life after death? One of the two) has been “scientifically proven.” “Proven” or “provable”? The soul should certainly be amenable to scientific investigation. Unlike miracles which are sporadic and unpredictable, the soul/brain interaction is (according to the standard hypothesis) a continuous process that’s ongoing inside the head of every individual on the planet. So if we do have souls, we should be able to detect the effects of this interaction as we learn more and more about how the brain functions. At some point we should be able to observe a neurological event that violates the laws of chemistry or physics, providing strong evidence of a supernatural component to human cognition. In fact, were I a wealthy theist, I’d be pumping lots of money into basic neurological research. It’s the best chance you have to finally establish an empirical foundation for theological thought and shut us atheists up. However, I expect that what will happen is what always happens when science disproves a theological hypothetical. The god hypothesis will retreat further into the dark corners of knowledge, seeking out tinier and tinier gaps to hide in. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/552 "2010-12-22T06:16:07Z")
It seems there are some basic definitional problems in this thread. Can we all agree that “atheist” means “_one to whom, based on the currently available evidence, the existence of a supernatural being appears unnecessary and unlikely_”? It _can_ mean “_one who rejects god a priori_,” but I don’t think that definition is being used by anyone calling themselves an atheist in this thread, even though the two positions can appear similar, given that in the former definition the atheist can judge the existence of a god to be _exceedingly unlikely_, just as I can judge the existence of a dead cat in my freezer box exceedingly unlikely without dismissing the possibility as out of hand on ideological grounds (::goes to check freezer:: – wish me luck). ETA: there was no dead cat in my freezer box ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/553 "2010-12-22T06:17:00Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > However, I expect that what will happen is what always happens when science disproves a theological hypothetical. The god hypothesis will retreat further into the dark corners of knowledge, seeking out tinier and tinier gaps to hide in. I believe they are now hiding him in hypothetical “alternate universes”. ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/554 "2010-12-22T06:21:16Z")
According to the premise put forth in this thread, atheists cannot know that there is no god. Does it not follow that religionists cannot know that there _is_ a god? Let’s see a show of hands for all those that believe in a god, but will admit that they do not _know_ if there is a god. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/555 "2010-12-22T06:33:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Of course there is an exception to my argument that everything needs a cause—otherwise I wouldn’t hold the position I do. It necessitates a special exception, and that exception is a Creator God. If you want to characterize the blaring obvious exception as a contradiction :rolleyes:, well, knock yourself out. OK. Your logic is: 1. Everything needs a cause 2. God doesn’t need a cause As others have pointed out, this is flatly a contradiction, and an obvious one at that. Even forgiving the logical blunder, it makes _no sense_ from any sympathetic angle I can muster; it is incomprehensible to me what you could be thinking. I realize you use the word “special” as though anointing your exception with this adjective precludes the application of rational thought, but look you: if God doesn’t require a cause, then neither does the universe – the universe can just as well be “God” as anything else. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/556 "2010-12-22T11:27:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > According to the premise put forth in this thread, atheists cannot know that there is no god. Does it not follow that religionists cannot know that there _is_ a god? > Let’s see a show of hands for all those that believe in a god, but will admit that they do not _know_ if there is a god. I could be wrong. I’ve reached a conclusion so I don’t consider myself agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/557 "2010-12-22T11:35:11Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > “Proven” or “provable”? The former, according to **DtC** , and there wasn’t a lot of argument on that point (though not necessarily because it _couldn’t_ be argued). ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/558 "2010-12-22T13:06:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Of course there is an exception to my argument that everything needs a cause—otherwise I wouldn’t hold the position I do. It necessitates a special exception, and that exception is a Creator God. If you want to characterize the blaring obvious exception as a contradiction :rolleyes:, well, knock yourself out. Thanks for the permission. It is a contradiction. You said: > [@](#): > > In each and every thing man has looked at there has been a cause. But for some reason, you think the universe is the one exception…the only thing to not to be able to be traced back to a cause. So, you choose a position that has ZERO history of existing. Why is that not the less rationale position? Replace “universe” with “God” and your position is less rational than one involving there not having been a first cause by your own admission. Of course it’s much less rational than proposing that the universe was always here since we already know the universe exists. There’s zero evidence for your creator god. > [@](#): > > I’m not impressed. There’s nothing there that hasn’t been offered on these boards. I didn’t think you would be. I’m not arguing with you for your benefit; I’m doing it for anyone that may be swayed by irrational arguments. > [@](#): > > By the way, where did the particle come from? Your back to a Creator God. No, I’m not. I’m back to not knowing how the universe got here and still having no coherent argument from you why a creator god is a necessity. I’m fine not knowing. > [@](#): > > Look at Post 477. I believe that he believes in the exception I laid out. If he doesn’t, he’s free to correct me. I’m also free to correct you since I can read and all that. > [@](#): > > I know the argument is not new. So what? In this post you claim to be an agnostic and and atheist. Can one be both? You said my posting of a refutation of the first cause argument was nothing new to this board but you’re not aware that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/559 "2010-12-22T13:07:25Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > It seems there are some basic definitional problems in this thread. Can we all agree that “atheist” means “_one to whom, based on the currently available evidence, the existence of a supernatural being appears unnecessary and unlikely_”? No, because it’s not accurate and “_one without belief in the existence of God or gods_” is much simpler and accurate. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/560 "2010-12-22T13:57:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It just means you don’t accept it. I personally can’t do the math to understand how you get from Heisenberg to this - I understand it at a very high level - so I can’t convincingly explain it. Wait You said: > [@](#): > > In general when we point to quantum foam or random fission events we get told that there must be a cause for all of them that hasn’t been discovered yet. I take that to mean that quantum physicists operate under the assumption that quantum events must have a cause, although not yet discovered. Is that correct. If not, where am I misreading you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=29)