I think the implication is that atheists with non-belief only don’t actually exist. I was one for quite a few years, because I decided at the time that belief that no gods existed was only logically defensible with a level of knowledge impossible to obtain. I changed my mind about this, but it is not an unreasonable position.
Unless we suffer from brain damage or a brain malfunction that affects the parts of our brain which allow us to feel emotion, pretty much all of our decisions are based upon both reason and emotion. But when that sort damage occurs we are prone to making decisions based only on reason (if we can even decide at all), and those decisions tend to be pretty irrational, sometimes disasterously so.
So, yes, of course, emotions and our subconscious likely do affect our belief systems in that what we call our intuition tilts us in one direction or another, such as belief or non-belief in the existence of a god.
But that doesn’t change these facts: atheism is non-belief; and non-belief is the absence of belief, not a belief itself. Just as zero apples is the absence of apples, and not a barrel of them.
Right. I agree that it is not an unreasonable position.
How is it possible that a believer holds everything in their 2000+ year old book sacred and not accept all science?
If one quibbles with repostes of indiscriminate allegories how can they defend their belief structure when it comes to their rock solid tenants?
It’s just not that simple.
If I believe that a bowl contains 1 apple and 1 orange, I also MAY have a belief that it does not contain 1 banana. I may not have considered it until someone asked, but once someone asks the question and I quickly review my mental model of the bowl, I am probably going to retain that conclusion as a belief in my set of beliefs.
The human brain and its operation appear to be far less black and white than the part of your post that I quoted.
More definitional craziness here. You seem to be using the word “positive” as a synonym for “certain.” That’s not the definition I was using; I was using it as the antonym to “negative,” to emphasize that I was talking about a belief, not a non-belief.
For what it’s worth, what you describe as your attitude toward elephant ghosts is what I would characterize as a belief. A belief doesn’t need to be 100%. I believe there’s nobody in my house right now except my family, but I’m not 100% certain of that. I believe that the egg nog I drank earlier today had egg yolks in it, but again, not 100% certain. I believe there’s no God, but again, not 100% certain. I believe that there’s an objective universe–wanna take a guess on whether I’m 100% certain?
I don’t think it makes sense to require 100% certainty before labeling something a belief; that’s not really how we use the word usually, I think.
Clearly you have no specific belief about bananas because that would imply you have a specific belief about the infinity of entities which could be in that bowl.
Nowhere, not consciously or otherwise, has your brain stored a specific disbelief.
Nor, as I’ll now describe, does your brain implicitly rule out additional entities within some kind of all-encompassing model.
Yep – you evaluated a claim, and found it to be implausible. The results of this analysis is added to your data about the world.
Consider the difference if I asked you whether there was a sesame seed in the bowl…you’d probably have to answer that you are not sure, but you didn’t see any. You had to evaluate that claim.
This contradicts the view that you have a belief of a fixed set of entities, and active disbelief in the existence of any further entities in the bowl.
You saw a bowl, containing 1 apple and 1 orange. Any other data is extrapolation.
I agree – the word “belief” has quite a casual meaning in everyday usage, reflecting the fact that we’re rarely 100% certain about anything.
However, in philosophical and theological debates the term has significant connotations.
Frankly, a lot of the motive for trying to label atheism a “belief” is to imply that it is simply a faith. That people choose to believe it, and then seek to reinforce that view, rather than ever challenge it.
Mijin:
Here’s what I posted.
Here’s what you quoted:
Here’s what you cut out of that quote:
You will notice that I was careful to state that a person does not necessarily have a belief about a negative unless that thought process has occurred at some point.
But for some inexplicable reason, you skipped the point of my post, split apart 2 critically connected ideas and then started responding to a point I didn’t make at all.
Why would you do something like this? It hinders as opposed to helps the exchange of ideas and viewpoints.
Yes, that is exactly what I said in my post.
Not only did I not say I have a belief of a fixed set of entities (and have never said or believed it???), I actually made the point in my post that it would probably require active thought about a specific entity (or could be class of entities) before logging away a negative belief.
Did you read my post?
Did you read my post?
Actually, it is that simple. And I believe 
Mijin did read your post.
You nailed it – atheism and belief are apples and oranges. 
But seriously … you’re complicating things unnecessarily here. If there was a banana in the bowl, I believe there is a banana. If there wasn’t, I don’t believe there’s a banana. If didn’t notice one way or another, I’m agnostic about a banana until I turn and check the bowl.
The human brain is complicated as all hell. But belief and non-belief are pretty simple, this thread notwithstanding.
Correct. That’s a telling difference in some people. I think a rational person can choose to belong to a religion and still realize the possibility of error.
I think we accept things as true because believing works for us on some level and have no real need or desire to question those beliefs until something changes and challenges our belief system. Religious beliefs IMO are similar to beliefs about the rest of the world. We accept certain things on trust as part of a group. We form emotional attachments to beliefs and are reluctant to surrender them, and that affects how we deal with contradictions.
First I think you mean “denotations”; if you don’t, your point escapes me entirely. Second, what significant denotations (or connotations, if that’s what you mean) does the term have? I’d appreciate a link for support.
You keep saying that, but I just don’t think that’s true. You linked to a phrase in the OP that MIGHT support that–but there are plenty of folks who don’t think that way. Arguing against a point because it might be used unethically is a lousy way to argue.
I find this one more useful in describing my beliefs.
Layman’s observation and reasoning.
I don’t have those credentials but it seems obvious to me that we develop a belief system very normally and naturally from the culture and environment we are born into. It seems we don’t know exactly how the uniqueness of the individual affects the development of their belief system or why some people become great scientists, musicians, world leaders or mass murderers, but in general, the society and family you are born into affects your belief system , and your experiences in life.
By belief systems, I mean not only what we believe about the physical world, but what we value, and what our priorities are, and how those things are reflected in our interactions with others.
ftr I am not religious. I am merely trying to view religious belief through the same lens as a view non religious beliefs. What I noticed after Sam Harris suggested we judge religious beliefs in the same way we judge others, was that many non believers still put religious beliefs in a separate category for judgment. I took his suggestion more literally and try to discern what it is within people that makes us believe certain things about the tangible and the intangible.
There’s the intellect, the flow of information, our emotions, and our conscious and sub conscious selves. All these play a role in forming the individual belief system , which, if you prefer, you can see as worldview. I include our overall value system and morality with what we believe about our physical world into the individual’s belief system. Everyone has one.
For example; There are things we learn in school about geography, history, and our physical world that we accept as true because we trust the source. That is akin to faith IMO.
I won’t argue the point. I just point out that in our culture, because god belief is so pervasive it’s hardly a case of “I never thought about it” Most non believers have considered god belief and rejected it and IMO, that can be part of a belief system.
Sorry, but I think this example is rubbish. It’s obviously based on scientific data and reasoning. Your other opinion is based on no data from which to reason. That makes it irrational doesn’t it?
The way I see it, non-belief is simply an expression of skepticism that does not commit to any other position. I think, in this case, “non-belief” makes a useful distinction: If I don’t believe a dog is running around in the office, that doesn’t commit me to numerous propositions, i.e. it’s impossible for dogs to be in the office, no personnel will bring a dog to the office, etc. In other words, show me compelling reason or evidence and I’ll believe.
I don’t understand why people object to atheists using this distinction. The question shouldn’t be "Why do atheists insist that atheism is a “non-belief”?. It should be “Why do theists insist that “non-belief” shouldn’t be used when it gives us a useful distinction?”
In fairly recent history there may be some data to compare about societies but nothing conclusive because societies vary and the comparisons would be somewhat subjective. Take something like slavery or civil rights in the US. Different religious folks would be on the positive and te negative side of that. Believing politicians vary to what degree their religious beliefs affect their legislation, and how do we accurately judge the positive and negative affect of that legislation?
I maintain that it’s virtually impossible to do such a study but you’re welcome to prove me wrong.
More specifically, I was addressing the idea that Mijin mentioned that religion has been a drag on our development. I take that to mean we’d be more developed now if not for religion. That is total guess work that has no possible data and therefore, {no disrespect intended} based on emotion and bias, and therefore irrational.
I point it out because posters seem fine to find religion to be withing the technical definitions of stupid, delusional, and irrational, which is okay, if we apply the same standard to all beliefs.
That’s exactly what I was referring to. Call it world view if you will, but IMO everyone has a belief system which combines their understanding of the physical world with their values, preferences, priorities, etc.
I disagree. I don’t think anything about the word belief implies 100% certainty or unchallengeable. I think people can vary in their willingness or tendency to evaluate their belief system on the fly as new information comes their way, but new experiences and data can and does affect belief systems.
Is it hard to understand that because god belief is so very pervasive in our culture it’s really not the same as leprechauns and unicorns?
Are there lots of folks who were raised to believe in unicorns but later rejected that belief? I understand equating god belief and religious tradition with myth, but as far as it’s place in our society, it’s not the same.
and I’m not arguing otherwise.