I don’t disagree with anything you posted here.
I tried to cover my bases with the following earlier post for atheism, but maybe I didn’t really cover everything I thought I did:
“yes, I am an atheist and I have a belief that the god(s) whose description I’ve been exposed to don’t exist, and I lack belief in all god(s) that I have never been exposed to”.
Here is another way of looking at why the two ‘beliefs’ are different, and do not deserve to be grouped under the same word:
Presumably a theist has a reason for his beliefs. Ie “there necessarily must be a God because of so and so.”
I as an atheist I do not share such certainty. There is no symmetry here. I do not believe that “there necessarily must be no God.”
To make it even simpler, in the following case there is symmetry:
Theist: God exists because X.
Atheist: No God exists because Y.
But in the following case there is NOT symmetry:
Theist: God exists because X.
Atheist: God is not necessary.
You may want to differentiate the 2 beliefs in some way and that is certainly a reasonable thing to do, but the approach is not to try to alter the definition of the word belief because it is a valuable word that describes something we need described regardless of the person’s logic or reasons for having that belief.
If we need to drill down and qualify beliefs based on the data that supports them or the strength of the belief, that would be a more effective method of arguing one’s position than trying to alter established language to get the desired result.
I don’t think any of that is really compelling. When an atheist says “god is not necessary”, that person is saying it “because” of something. You left out the because. Both sides have logic they feel is valid.
I’m not arguing that one side is more or less valid than the other or even that they are equal other than both sides are basing their position on some internal processes, in other words, both sides have a reason for their position.
Please read my posts again, RaftPeople. Saying “God is not necessary” does not represent a belief that no God exists. You seem to be confusing the fact that atheists can hold beliefs about the existence of God with the idea that the atheist believes that no God exists.
There are several different meanings of the word “belief” – you seem to be assuming that everyone is using the definition that you have in mind. I’m expressing doubt about that; it’s not merely an issue of me being provoked by theists.
And secondly, even if you are technically correct, the context is still important.
I think I’ve realised the best comparison to this thread: the whole “Evolution is just a theory” meme.
Now, The Theory of Evolution is, of course, a theory. But just responding “Yes, that’s right” would completely miss the point. It would fail to address the underlying misconception and implication.
And that’s really what this whole topic is about. No-one really cares about a minor semantic formality (ok, some on the dope would, but not for 16 pages). People do care however about characterizing atheism as a faith.
I understand that you are saying “god is not necessary” and that is not the same as “a belief that no god exists”.
My point was that if you hold a position like “god is not necessary”, you arrived at that position due to some sort of thought process. The only other possibility I can see is someone that never considered god at all would lack the belief that god is not necessary but you seemed to be talking about someone that actively believes “god is not necessary”.
Whatever position you hold, it’s due to some sort of thought process that arrived at that position, right? Same as theists.
As I said, it’s the primary common usage and the philosophical usage.
If you want to debate whether atheism represents “faith”, then let’s unambiguously use that word and get rid of the word “belief”.
I think people care about both things.
Some people think that if you don’t believe in something you should not call that a belief not due to issues of faith but rather due to how the term maps to what is in our brain.
If you want to discuss “faith” and do it in less than 16 pages, use the term “faith” rather than the term “belief.”
I’d be happy to get rid of the word “belief”, and the corresponding ambiguity. Unfortunately, it’s at the heart of the matter of this thread.
You keep asserting that the definition of belief that you have in mind is “the primary common usage and the philosophical usage”.
I dispute this
Note that earlier I gave a dictionary listing of the word belief, where at least two of the definitions implied unquestioning faith, so it’s not like anyone’s redefining the word.
And the atheist site that x-ray vision linked was using that definition for “belief” – the faith definition.
That’s because that’s what this discussion is about and you have no basis for saying it is not.
Yes, it’s due to some sort of thought process. That aspect is the same as for theists. But you are shifting the target. That is not what this thread is about. I have no issue with anyone saying “atheists come to their position due to a thought process.”
I think we can see similarities in belief systems, such as, I believe the world is round, not because I’ve traveled into space but because it is taught and accepted by everyone so I trust it to be factual. The same goes for any number of non spiritual beliefs. We trust the source and accept them as fact without verification. Certainly that element exists in religion to where people are programed from their youth to accept certain religious beliefs.
I think it’s relevant to note that people function daily in the world and often give little thought to their religious beliefs or lack of them. It’s always amazed me how so called religious people justify all sorts of actions and choices that are contrary to their beliefs. They seem to separate religion and “real life” and accept that God doesn’t mind that. {some do, not all} At the time when I was becoming religious and before my “no longer religious” period this seemed the opposite of how it ought to be.
I think we do go forward with the things we believe to be true, and our values in place , and as we interact and have experiences those can affect our beliefs.
Right, atheism is not a belief system or anything like a religion. It might be considered one component of an individual’s overall belief system or worldview.
“Why do atheists insist that atheism is a ‘non-belief’?”
Why do *some *atheists insist … about anything?
Just because you think something is true doesn’t mean that you must insist that it is.
What is it about some atheists that causes them to spend a lot of time and energy disputing theism? Do they have some underlying belief that it’s worthwhile to do so? Do they have a lot of evidence that supports their belief that they are doing the right thing?
It might be helpful to look at the etymology of the English word “belief”. According to Carl Darling Buck’s masterful A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, it’s from Old English geliefan (hence modern German glauben), the root being Gothic *liufs *“dear” (hence English “love”), “with the development of ‘trust, believe’ through ‘be pleased, satisfied with’”.
So, for what it’s worth, the word is related to “love”, and can be considered to be fundamentally about holding something dear to us, something we are attached to emotionally, not necessarily rationally.
So, as others have suggested in this thread (prompted by Czarcasm’s plea to the OP to define the term), the word “believe” covers too many distinct things to be useful for this debate – it is sometimes used to mean something dispassionate, but is too easily be colored by its root meaning of "held dear, like the love you feel for your mother, or your favorite rock band; your neighbor will hold different things dear, and neither of you is right or wrong ". (This gets at why atheists don’t like to be painted with the “belief” brush, and rightly so.) I suggest that the OP should have used the word “faith” from the start.
OK, but that isn’t what’s happening in this context.
Stating that atheism is not a belief is actually a response to the constant assertions that it is a belief.
Nobody would even be discussing this, and this thread wouldn’t exist, if there weren’t the attempts to characterize atheism as a faith.
Stories in the Bible have, on numerous occassions been referred to as “Christian Mythology” publically.
If anyone, anywhere in the world(yes, even the Vatican) had any real proof about Moses or Jesus, the Ark, or any story in the Bible, then the question of God existing would not be a question. The Shroud and Scrolls do NOT count, as they have no direct association to the bible other than “Christian experts” saying they do.(as far as I know, I haven’t researched them in quite some time) With that in mind, it simply is not enough evidence to difinitively say “Yes, this is Jesus!” Now if the Vatican would only let me in their vaults…
Please do not confuse proof of religion with proof of life-after-death. Maybe religions throughout the world should work on collecting their true facts FIRST, rather than assuming faith in God is a prerequisite of being human. Cults are too pervasive, and destructive religions are everywhere. God says “watch out for false prophets…” What if the Christians are the false profits and THEY don’t even know it. When you think about their history, selfishness, greed, lust, murderous nature…Christians have often wanted society to have faith in their actions: the Crusades, Hitler, and the “battle” between Protestants & Catholics in Ireland…on the latter, where do you side?
Tis far easier to be a NON-BELIEVER than to commit to any one group. Get your proof first…then let’s talk.
Welcome, ecco! “Join Date: 2011”… that freaks me out a little.
While the origin is correct, “to believe” had already aquired the distinct meaning “mental acceptance of something as true”, by the 16th century. This is the same meaning as in Dutch “geloven” and German “glauben”. The noun forms “het geloof” and “der Glauben” have the same religious connotation “Faith” has, in both languages. “Faith”, I would say, also has a strong element of “trust” in it.
So I guess I agree, “belief/believe” should be used as “acceptance of something as true”. “Faith” for the more “blind acceptance” of religion or belief-system.
So you could argue that atheists have a belief-system, in that they believe in scientific results as maths, natural laws, geology, evolution, engineering, biology etc etc.. You might even say they have faith in science.
You can, however, not say that “not accepting the truth of Christian teachings” is a form of “belief”.
Agreed on all counts, Latro.
What’s really gonna freak you out is that ecco’s a time traveler from the distant future. So am I, for that matter – I know this because we arrived via the same wormhole. 
The term better used might be anti-religionists, an atheist can be very supportive of the church. He/she just doesn’t believe.