# 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:** 30
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/581 "2010-12-22T16:04:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, if I walk into a room and see a cat on a sofa, it’s rational to assume that the cat is eternal, because we know the cat exists? How about if we look to a planet, or the sun, should we assume they are eternal, because we know they exist? Nice try (actually it was extremely lame). I’m not proposing that the Universe is eternal. Let’s go over it again: > [@magellan01](#): > > 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? > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 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. Ya see, I didn’t propose that anything is eternal, and I made this clear elsewhere, but you’re safer making straw man arguments than you are explaining your own contradictions. > [@](#): > > The evidence for a Creator is two-fold. 1) the universe exists, and 2) we can point to nothing that does not require a cause. In other words, of all that we are aware of, there is NO THING that we know to be causeless. There are a trillion trillion things that we know DO have cause, and NOT ONE THING that we know to not have a cause. > > So, it seems to me that the much more rational position is that the universe, like everything else of of our realm, has a cause. Yes, this might turtle down, but eventually you will necessarily reach a cause that is the First Cause. That god, particle, thing, by definition, wold not be subject to the laws of our universe. I and others went over that already. First, you are claiming that nothing we know of is causeless and therefore it is irrational to believe something causeless would exist. Then you go on to say something is causeless but from another realm, when other realms are also “NO THING that we know to be” out of this realm. Second, and it’s already been brought up but I’ll repeat it since you didn’t respond to it the first time and still are pretending it hasn’t been mentioned, If your Creator God can exist without a cause if it’s from another realm, why not a particle or another universe from another realm that got this one going? > [@](#): > > Oh, what would all the little people do without you? :rolleyes: And you’re posting here just for your own benefit? > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 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. > [@magellan01](#): > > So, you make room for the belief that there is a Creator God? As far as the last sentence, it doesn’t sound too believable. I can’t answer that since you’re Creator God has not been defined by you since you are now claiming It need not be sentient. Tell me more about your Creator God and I’ll answer you. I make room for an omnipotent, omniscient God in the same way I make room for an invisible dragon in my garage. Why doesn’t my last sentence sound too believable? > [@](#): > > No, I’m not. And I’ve been involved in quite a few threads like this. Unless you mean atheist in regard to God and agnostic in regard to Creation. But I don’t think that is a correct use of “agnostic”. But please, enlighten me. [http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm](http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm) > [@](#): > > Well, explain to me how that might work? Where did all the energy/matter come from? Where did your Creator God come from that could create energy and matter? If “from another realm” is all it takes for you to think that’s an answer for anything, why not “energy and matter” came from another realm? > [@](#): > > I think I’ll end our discussion with this post. It’s unfair, and childish, because you’re playing games with the word “everything”. Show me where I played games with the word “everything.” You said: > [@](#): > > No, it’s not like that at all. We have a thing, a universe. It is one of a gazillion things. 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? I’m using “everything” the same way you did above. > [@](#): > > It seems someone more interested in an actual debate than trying to score cheap points would accept that my use of the word “everything” goes to everything that we are aware of, everything of our knowledge base, everything of of our realm. Especially when I’ve explained it more than once. I am interested in actual debate. So explain why your Creator God gets an exception that your definition of “everything” else doesn’t. > [@](#): > > You know, these discussions always devolve one way or another. Sometimes it’s someone’s insistence in using terms like FSM, other times, like this, it’s due to someone being more interested in semantic games of gotcha. Me and several others are pointing out the contradiction and special pleading you’re engaging in and none of us are playing gotcha games. But I again can see why you’d rather knock down straw men then try to rationalize contradictions. > [@](#): > > Because, as my thinking goes, the universe would be subject to the laws that apparently govern the universe. And from what we know, there are no causeless events. A “God” would, by definition, be able to operate outside of those constraints. By what definition? You said It need not be sentient, so please define It for us. If God can operate outside those constraints, why not another particle or another universe that begat this one? Again, you said this: > [@](#): > > 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? If it’s unreasonable for the universe to have always existed because something that has always existed “has ZERO history of existing”, why isn’t unreasonable for a Creator God from another realm existing when other realms have zero history of existing (as do Creator Gods)? ---
**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:** [December 22, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/582 "2010-12-22T16:07:25Z")
Well, filling in for **magellan01** , I think he might be hinting at the common “everything but god needs a cause” arguments, like: 1. Everything _with a beginning_ needs a cause 2. The Universe had a beginning, and was caused by God 3. God did not have a beginning There are plenty of problems with this line of reasoning; even Point 1 is debatable. What interests me about arguments like these is the assertion that eternal entities do not require a cause. (Note that a point 4 – “Therefore God does not require a cause”, is generally omitted because it makes a logical fallacy. The fallacy is left implicit). But while eternal entities may not require a _prior_ cause, there has to be some reason for their being, otherwise why don’t an infinity of eternal entities exist (ETA: as **Czarcasm** pointed out)? ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/583 "2010-12-22T16:19:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As far as the universe being it’s own cause, and I think that is a possibility for “a” universe, as in a multiverse scenario, but you’re still left with who/what created the universe that created our universe? Or “what set the wheels in motion?”. No, we’re not left with that. Because according to you, it being from another realm gets around the necessity of needing to be caused. So using your exception, the universe that could have created ours was simply from another realm. Before you accuse me of claiming this is how our universe got here, I’ll remind you that I’m not doing that. I’m saying “another universe” works just as well as “Creator God” according to your rules and you’re not owning up to claiming it doesn’t. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/584 "2010-12-22T16:39:36Z")
MAGELLAN is complicating the universe to squeeze a belief in god into the equation. Saying god started the universe makes it more complicated. I accept the universe is here. That is enough for me. But when you claim god started it, you need to prove it. You need to prove god exists. Otherwise you are pulling it out of your sphincter with no proof at all. Then you have to tell me what god number two is like. That is the god that made your god. Then we need god number 3, 4 ,5 etc. Saying god started the universe solves nothing . The simplest explanation is usually the right one. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/585 "2010-12-22T16:51:31Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > BTW, if atheism is “simply the absence of belief that any deities exist” then theism is “simply the presence of belief that any deities exist”. In other words, theism has nothing to do with religion, or with any concepts related to the origins of the universe, or to humanity’s role in the universe, or to any moral or ethical ideologies. Theism begins and ends with “I believe in the existence of God or gods”. Do atheists here agree with that conclusion, and, if not, why not? I don’t really agree with that definition, because to me, that minimal description is basically deism, not theism. Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist, and that this god(s) interact with the world today. I do agree with the description in the Wikipedia article that you quoted about this. I always think of these terms as a Venn diagram, with atheism on one side, pantheism almost exactly overlaps the atheism bubble, then deism is its own bubble but pretty close, and then the various flavors of theism are way over on the other side of the chart. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/586 "2010-12-22T17:18:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wait You said: > > 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? No, believers in a first cause argument say that. Quantum physicists are fine with uncaused events. There are all sorts of “impossible” things in the quantum world, such as things going from point A to point B without going through the space in the middle. You can’t apply macroworld “laws” to it. And what laws apply in the pre-Big Bang domain are even less understood. If the universe has a net energy of 0, which is beginning to seem likely, why couldn’t it just appear? A creator god does not have a net energy of 0, so it appearing violates conservation laws. Maybe there is an anti-creator god of negative energy? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/587 "2010-12-22T17:23:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Maybe there is an anti-creator god of negative energy? Anyone who has been at my house on a Sunday knows this is true. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/588 "2010-12-22T17:24:33Z")
Nothing divided by 2 = The Universe. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/589 "2010-12-22T17:26:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The evidence for a Creator is two-fold. 1) the universe exists, and 2) we can point to nothing that does not require a cause. In other words, of all that we are aware of, there is NO THING that we know to be causeless. There are a trillion trillion things that we know DO have cause, and NOT ONE THING that we know to not have a cause. > > So, it seems to me that the much more rational position is that the universe, like everything else of of our realm, has a cause. Yes, this might turtle down, but eventually you will necessarily reach a cause that is the First Cause. That god, particle, thing, by definition, wold not be subject to the laws of our universe. Your problem is in premise 2. Premise 2 is based on an intuition on causes that cannot be extrapolated to “causation from nothing” which is what creation could only be. And why is that? Because every instance of causation we know of is one that involves the rearrangement of the configuration of the material universe. We know nothing about “coming from nothing”. Even granting that “there is NO THING that we know to be causeless”, our entire experience of “causeless” does not include “coming from nothing”. From this, it is then now possible to posit that the universe or the metaverse have existed in one form or another for eternity without contradiction. And this is a more rational position than theism because we know that the universe exists - we don’t know anything of that sort about God. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/590 "2010-12-22T17:35:47Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I don’t really agree with that definition, because to me, that minimal description is basically deism, not theism. Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist, and that this god(s) interact with the world today. I do agree with the description in the Wikipedia article that you quoted about this. That makes sense. The Wikipedia article does say that theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists, but you prefer the narrower definition. Which of the versions of “atheism” in the Wikipedia article do you accept? Several atheists in this thread have been insisting that atheism is “simply the lack of belief in deities”, even though this is not the only definition for atheism. I am suggesting that, strictly speaking, atheism is simply the lack of belief, but that in practice, it involves several beliefs about the nature of the world, in a way that is _similar_ (not identical) to how theism often leads to religious beliefs. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/591 "2010-12-22T18:00:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Science may not have beliefs, but scientists sure do, and if you doubt this you have not been around science. I agree. And, if you substitute “atheism” for “science” and “atheist” for “scientist” you get another truism. It seems that some atheists believe that somehow they are immune to having beliefs interfere with their logical arguments, and that only theists, somehow, suffer from flawed reasoning because of their beliefs. And, if an atheist says to me: No, **Galileo** , you are wrong – all atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments, I’ll accept that statement as sufficient to withdraw my conjecture. ---
**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, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/592 "2010-12-22T18:08:15Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > And, if an atheist says to me: No, **Galileo** , you are wrong – all atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments, I’ll accept that statement as sufficient to withdraw my conjecture. I’m not sure there are any atheists that would claim that they knew the minds of all other atheists…but if there were, I find it sad that you would accept the word of this “mind-reading” atheist as truth. Is your standard of evidence actually that low? ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/593 "2010-12-22T18:13:55Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > And, if an atheist says to me: No, **Galileo** , you are wrong – all atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments, I’ll accept that statement as sufficient to withdraw my conjecture. I’m an atheist and I’ll say to you, you are wrong. All atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments. No one is immune from biases. However, it would be hard to connect bias with atheism in the same way that it would be easy to connect certain cognitive biases with God belief. Why? Because atheism IS a non-belief that is not committed to any specific thing (except non-belief). Belief in God, however, demonstrably biases one’s perception about a lot of things in the world - particularly for theists. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/594 "2010-12-22T18:35:16Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Several atheists in this thread have been insisting that atheism is “simply the lack of belief in deities”, even though this is not the only definition for atheism. In the broadest sense it is the _best_ definition of atheism. Yes, those that claim “gods don’t exist” are atheists too, but since that necessitates lacking belief, defining atheism as being without belief in the existence of gods is the simplest and most accurate statement. Those that have a problem with it are usually theists that want to cherry pick definitions from dictionaries and claim that their definition is the correct one so they can make bullshit claims like it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. > [@](#): > > I am suggesting that, strictly speaking, atheism is simply the lack of belief, but that in practice, it involves several beliefs about the nature of the world, in a way that is _similar_ (not identical) to how theism often leads to religious beliefs. > > What do you think? I already told you that many Buddhists that are atheists have much different beliefs about the nature of the world that isn’t anything like most of us atheists here who read and write in English and argue these sorts of things on message boards. You responded with: > [@](#): > > All you’ve demonstrated is that for Buddhists, atheism is more than just “I don’t believe in God”, which is what I said. It’s not true. I demonstrated that atheism is simply being without belief in the existence of gods. Believing in karma and reincarnation are part of one’s Buddhism, not his atheism. It does not involve _“several beliefs about the nature of the world, in a way that is similar (not identical) to how theism often leads to religious beliefs.”_ For many of us, how we view the world skeptically leads us to break away from our upbringing and drop our belief in any gods, but it usually isn’t atheism that directly leads us to anything regarding beliefs about the nature of the world. > [@](#): > > It seems that some atheists believe that somehow they are immune to having beliefs interfere with their logical arguments, and that only theists, somehow, suffer from flawed reasoning because of their beliefs. It seems that you’re making things up. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/595 "2010-12-22T18:37:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Anyone who has been at my house on a Sunday knows this is true. Well, at least you have the user name for it. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/596 "2010-12-22T18:43:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because, as my thinking goes, the universe would be subject to the laws that apparently govern the universe. And from what we know, there are no causeless events. A “God” would, by definition, be able to operate outside of those constraints. That’s the neat thing about “God”: you can make it fit by whatever definition you choose to come up with. That’s the primary reason I have no use for it. It’s malleability takes it out of the realm of reality and firmly entrenches it in superstition. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/597 "2010-12-22T18:45:36Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I agree. > > And, if you substitute “atheism” for “science” and “atheist” for “scientist” you get another truism. > > It seems that some atheists believe that somehow they are immune to having beliefs interfere with their logical arguments, and that only theists, somehow, suffer from flawed reasoning because of their beliefs. > > And, if an atheist says to me: No, **Galileo** , you are wrong – all atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments, I’ll accept that statement as sufficient to withdraw my conjecture. All everybody has beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments. It is built in to us. The trick is to arrange to test the outcome of your logical arguments, and, if they are faulty, examine your premises. It seems to me that today atheists state their premises, and show how the results are tested. When we are accused of faith in science, we never accept it as a real faith, but tell how we test what science tells us, and say we don’t have faith in science the way someone has faith in god, but accept it because it works. In the early 19th century theists, confident of their faith, did something similar. They went into science in a big way, sure that scientific discoveries would confirm their faith in God and the Bible. When it didn’t, and especially after Darwin, it led to a big crisis. The winning side were those who didn’t want to test their faith in the first place. This was the set that rejected science for the most part. They are the spiritual forefathers of those who say “you can’t test god” or “faith is independent of confirmation.” ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/598 "2010-12-22T18:50:39Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > That’s the neat thing about “God”: you can make it fit by whatever definition you choose to come up with. That’s the primary reason I have no use for it. It’s malleability takes it out of the realm of reality and firmly entrenches it in superstition. Too malleable for even superstition-I pretty much know what jackalopes and leprechauns are supposed to look like and act like. This “Creator/God/Particle” has no characteristics whatsoever-all we supposedly know is that it somehow did something at sometime in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/599 "2010-12-22T18:51:35Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > It seems that some atheists believe that somehow they are immune to having beliefs interfere with their logical arguments, and that only theists, somehow, suffer from flawed reasoning because of their beliefs. All religious people have accepted the tenets of their religion without evidence. Every single one. If you’re religious you’ve accepted your religion’s claims without evidence. This means that\* every single theist\* has accepted an illogical premise into their life. The only thing we can say about _every single atheist_ is that they don’t believe in God. Some atheists may be illogical and delusional. But every single theist _is_. At least as far as religion is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/600 "2010-12-22T19:04:20Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > I’m an atheist and I’ll say to you, you are wrong. All atheists have beliefs that interfere with their logical arguments. No one is immune from biases. Fine. I withdraw my conjecture. > [@](#): > > However, it would be hard to connect bias with atheism in the same way that it would be easy to connect certain cognitive biases with God belief. Why? Because atheism IS a non-belief that is not committed to any specific thing (except non-belief). Belief in God, however, demonstrably biases one’s perception about a lot of things in the world - particularly for theists. As you may have noticed in debates about theism/atheism, it is fairly common for the atheist to ask the theist for evidence for various claims. It seems to me that’s a reasonable request, as long as it is presented as a request and not some inviolable principle that must be followed for fear of punishment. Please demonstrate how a belief in God biases one’s perceptions about some specific examples of the “lot of things” that you mentioned, and then please demonstrate how that belief biases one’s perceptions more that those beliefs that atheists have that interfere with their logical arguments. Thanks. Hey, I’m not disagreeing that theism biases one’s perceptions, and that it does so in some bad ways. It’s just that I won’t accept your claims when you present them so cavalierly. I find that many of the claims made by atheists in this thread are more a matter of opinion that the “TRUTH” that some atheists think they are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=31)