I came across this today; Useful Notes Atheism: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Atheism
For the love of God (;)), just clearly and concisely define “atheists” and “beliefs” and be done with it.
As I see it, there are two major definitions of “atheist” floating around:
- An entity that lacks a belief in God. (There’s a subdefinition that requires said entity to be sapient).
- An entity that believes there is no God.
I don’t really see that one definition is correct and the other is incorrect. There are some folks in this thread who say, “I’m an atheist because I lack a belief in God.” There are others, e.g., me, who say, “I’m an atheist because I believe in a lack of a God.”
There are two major definitions of “belief” floating around:
- A claim about the truth value of a statement.
- A claim about the truth value of a statement that contradicts, or is made without, empirical evidence.
On this one, I’m much less sure of the second definition, but it appears to me to be how some folks are using the word.
Thank you. I think you have answered the OP’s question (I will handle the combinatorics):
Those using the definition set {1,1 or 2} insist that atheism is a non-belief.
Those using the definition set {2,1 or 2} insist that atheism is a belief.
A note: those using the definition set {2,2} are likely projecting it unfairly onto others; such atheists are pretty rare IMO.
You believe we do not have a “belief system”? Isn’t a belief system just a phrase describing the entirety of a persons understanding and model of the world based upon their own particular circumstances (dna, experience, etc.)?
I assume you don’t think we re-calculate every thought/decision/action every time, so I’m pretty confused by your post.
The silly example of the demon was to illustrate a point that I thought was quite obvious. It wasn’t a great example in some ways: the property of it changing lead was wholly unnecessary to the point, and it’s the thing you chose to latch onto.
Let’s be clear: are you really saying that everything that you do not have a belief about is a part of your belief system?
The OP says: “It seems to me that atheism is a belief about there not being a God … just as believing that there is a God is also a belief”., so this whole thread began with equating with theism.
There have been hundreds of posts inbetween saying something similar, but generally dressed up like this: “My take on that is to look at why we believe whatever we believe. Rather than put religious beliefs in a separate category lets look at them in light of how our basic consciousness seems to work in regard to whatever we believe about anything”.
The short answer is that “belief system” has certain connotations which I dispute. The idea of it is that we all view the world through a “lens” of beliefs. And the word “belief” itself implies that everything in this lens is 100% certain. Some people even use the word “axiom” for these fundamental principles, which implies not just certainty but that they are unchallengeable (a system of reasoning could never challenge its own axioms).
In reality we apply different data to different situations, we can include uncertainty or probability and, most critical to the discussion here, we can use formal systems of reasoning that attempt to eliminate (or at least: minimize hugely) any bias due to past experience or predisposition. These are some of the reasons I disagree with this conception of “belief system”.
I agree. Although not all religion is this way I also find it disturbing when people will ignore science and real evidence to cling to tradition and dogma. That isn’t necessarily connected directly to theism though.
Lot’s of believers accept science.
Look, don’t blame me if your example was unclear and weird. I latched onto that because that’s the bit I actually have a belief about.
If you said, “There’s a demon named Foobara,” full stop, then I wouldn’t have a belief one way or the other about Foobara’s existence, similar to my lack of belief one way or the other in the existence of Keith Smith of Poughkeepsie, NY. But when you start attributing supernatural qualities to your Foobara, that’s when I start having a positive belief that the entity doesn’t exist. (To be fair, every definition of demon I’ve ever heard of includes supernatural attributes. I might similarly focus on the ability of demons to live comfortably in fire and point out how that contradicts my beliefs about life, and base my belief in Foobara’s nonexistence on that. But your lead-to-gold trait was an easy hook.)
Are there two kinds of people who don’t believe in leprechauns as well? Or do we start the debate with the position that God is special and reason backwards from there?
Atheism as a belief necessarily includes atheism as a non-belief. If you believe that there are no gods, you clearly also lack belief in gods. (Or are very confused.)
Voyager – you are missing the point of Left Hand of Dorkness’s definitions. He is making a distinction between “belief in no god” and “no belief in god”.
No. There is some basic semantic confusion on your part. Belief in not X != lack of belief in X.
They are not equivalent, but belief in not X implies no belief in X. Clearly no belief in X does not imply belief in not X, which is why I didn’t claim they were equivalent.
Whether the entity seems plausible to you is completely beside the point, but nice dodge of a direct question.
From the examples you’ve given here though I suspect your answer is “no”, which is the same answer that I would give.
In which case, I don’t understand why you’ve dived into this part of the discussion. The position I was disputing was cosmodan’s assertion that disbelief in entities forms part of the “belief system”.
Again, leprechauns lack explanatory power, so this silliness is irrelevant. But if we stipulate that some people believe leprechauns explain why (for example) shamrocks are green, then yeah, actually, there are two different ways not to believe in leprechauns. Three ways, even.
First, you can have never heard of them: you lack a belief in them the same way I lack a belief about vooblinobis, whatever they are.
Second, you can have heard of them, but not particularly care about whether they exist, but not have any reason to think they don’t exist, the same way I don’t care about whether you have a copy of Atlas Shrugged on your nightstand. It’s not that I believe you have no such copy, it’s that I don’t especially think you do.
Third, you’ve maybe heard of them, but you think that shamrocks are green because of chlorophyll, not because leprechauns drunkenly paint each one with green paint. You’d actively believe leprechauns don’t exist, the same way I actively believe that wings on your back don’t exist.
You are right. Sorry for the confusion. Not sure it is really an important point, but here is a clarification to the post you replied to:
ETA: someone should also clarify the difference between belief in X and non-belief in X with belief in Y that implies a low likelihood for belief in X
Just because you don’t understand my answer doesn’t mean I was dodging. Let’s try again.
Some things I do not believe in are not currently part of my belief system. Fizziwabbles, for example. I don’t even know what they are.
Things that are sufficiently defined, however, are entities that I evaluate according to my beliefs about everything. Some things I have no opinion on their existence. Other things I have an opinion one way or the other.
So if you need an exact answer to your question, it’s “no.” But that’s not a very enlightening answer.
I don’t think I’d phrase it that way, but I have a set of beliefs (read: claims about the truth values of certain statements). Supernatural entities fall into a category where I do have beliefs about them: as I believe that no supernatural entities exist, I believe that individual supernatural entities exist.
Until typing this sentence, I had no belief about the existence of vengeful elephant ghosts. But I can easily evaluate their existence using my belief system to conclude that I believe they don’t exist.
It’s sufficient here.
The word “supernatural” confuses the issue here (and everywhere it’s used) because I don’t even know what it would mean for a supernatural entity / concept / phenomenon to exist; everything that exists I would label “natural”.
Let’s take the example of elephant ghosts.
As a practical matter, I assume the non-existence of any entity until I have reason to suppose it exists; whether the entity is thought to be governed by known laws or not.
If you were to ask me whether I believed that elephant ghosts exist, I would say I’m almost completely certain they do not exist. I would happily bet my life savings that they don’t exist (provided there was some way for me to actually collect on the bet).
But I hesitate to have a positive belief in their non-existence because I can indeed imagine a set of events occuring that would convince me of their existence. I don’t consider it impossible in the theoretical sense.
Your probably irrelevant point is actually absolutely crucial. This thread was originally about why we insist atheism is a “non-belief”. In fact, non-belief is the only common factor among all atheists. Atheists who believe there are no gods share it - and I can prove that if anyone doubts it. Atheists who simply lack belief have it as a characteristic. There are no others. Atheists can be communists or libertarians - they can pooh-pooh astrology or consult their horoscopes every day.
I’m not quite sure of your point, but if there is a logical contradiction between believing in X and Y I can see it as an implication. If not, there might be a correlation, due to the root causes of both belief in Y and non-belief in X. Lack of belief in God may be correlated to believing ghosts don’t exist because people who have one characteristic are skeptical and so often have the other. But I don’t think you can draw an implication from it.
You are being so pedantic as to blind yourself to the question the OP is asking. The OP is implicitly forming a dichotomy between those with “non-belief” and those with “belief plus the implied non-belief”. There is obviously a difference between the two, despite them both superficially sharing non-belief. The question is: *Why do atheists insist that atheism is a ‘non-belief’ [as opposed to ‘non-belief plus belief’]? *
My point:
Is that one can have a non-belief in ghosts (X), but have a belief in deductive and inductive reasoning (Y), and therefore come to the conclusion that there is a low likelihood that ghosts exist, without ever having the belief that ghosts do not exist.