Atheism the Belief

[milquetoast1]

Then you could, if you chose, educate yourself couldn't you?

There is a wealth of literature available on the subject.

 

I share unbeliever's position on how people can logically reject all sorts of supernatural nonsense, but still cling on to their own supernatural nonsense, no matter how much literature is available on the subject.

[Waldo]

I would say, person A and person C, lack a positive believe in concept X. However, only person C is actively engaged in the mental activity of 'disbelief' (he has a positive belief that concept X is incorrect).

 

I hope that illustrates what I understand disbelief to mean; and how it is not quite the same as absence of belief.

[RootsBooster]

I certainly don't think of atheists in that way. I'm sure there are a few odd balls, but for the most part; I find most atheists to be honest and decent people. As I'm sure most religious people are too (that said, I feel there's something intrinsically dishonest with religious belief).

 

I'm definitely not at all keen on overly dogmatic religious people though; those kind seem deluded and utterly dishonest and unspiritual as you can possibly be.

 

That's just my perspective of course; they'd probably say much the same about me!

I'm afraid it's way more than a just a few oddballs. In some parts of the world it's punishable by death and in many parts of the US it's still a very strong taboo.

 

I'm seeing it this way...

 

Person A, never entertains the notion of concept 'X'.

Person B, entertains and accepts the notion of concept 'X'.

Person C, entertains and rejects the notion of concept 'X'.

 

What's the correct linguistic way (using belief / disbelief, etc) to accurately distinguish between A, B and C, above?

If you replace the word 'notion' with 'belief/believes' and 'X' with 'God' then...

 

Person A is an atheist

Person B is a theist

Person C is an atheist

 

You may want to ask person C for more information. If it turns out that he/she not only rejects belief in God but also believes the opposite (that God doesn't exist), this would make them not only an atheist but also an antitheist.

 

Of course, for everyday conversation they'd probably just identify simply as an atheist.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 18:10 ----------

 

I would say, person A and person C, lack a positive believe in concept X. However, only person C is actively engaged in the mental activity of 'disbelief' (he has a positive belief that concept X is incorrect).

 

I hope that illustrates what I understand disbelief to mean; and how it is not quite the same as absence of belief.

 

So even though you've been show by myself and others what the word 'disbelief' means, you're still saying it means something else?

 

This is why I prefer to use the term 'absence of belief', it leaves less room for confusion.

Edited July 20, 2015 by RootsBooster
added more discription

[Waldo]

I mean't odd balls in the atheist camp; but yeah; there is a lot of intolerance towards atheists. I think people probably assume way too much about a person, and their world-view, just because they're not a theist.

[unbeliever]

I mean't odd balls in the atheist camp; but yeah; there is a lot of intolerance towards atheists. I think people probably assume way too much about a person, and their world-view, just because they're not a theist.

 

I'm not sure that's still a thing in western Europe.

[milquetoast1]

I'm not sure that's still a thing in western Europe.

 

It is if you were a Muslim, or Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness, or Exclusive Brethren ... etc

 

Don't just assume everyone in Europe is from an atheist or fluffy Christian background.

 

This also explains why many stick to their illogical beliefs when they can reject everybody else's.

[unbeliever]

It is if you were a Muslim, or Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness, or Exclusive Brethren ... etc

 

Don't just assume everyone in Europe is from an atheist or fluffy Christian background.

 

This also explains why many stick to their illogical beliefs when they can reject everybody else's.

 

Is it your experience that such people have more of a problem with atheists than they do with theists outside their own religion?

[carl dsaadi]

 

 

 

Or... Not. Perhaps the universe isn't deterministic. To the level of our ability to understand it it isn't...

 

What makes you think that it is, evidence?

 

What makes you think that if you could rewind to a given point in time everything would turn out differently. What appears to be totally random could just as easily be the inevitable outcome from the preceding events.

 

No one knows for certain that time travel is or isn't possible, but lets assume that it is.

If someone from the future traveled back in time to tomorrow they would be able to witness everything that happens tomorrow, which means everything that is going to happen tomorrow is already predetermined. As long as the time traveler doesn't interfere the future will be the same, and no matter how many times they go back to that same point in time the future will always be the same unless they alter the starting conditions.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 20:17 ----------

 

Well, there are two sides to this - is atheism a lack of belief, or is it a belief there is no god? I think atheism is a misappropriated word here. Bear with me.

 

I, like many on this forum, am a proponent of the Scientific Method. Hypothesise, test, evaluate. The principle is whether there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. There's no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a capital-G God, and by the same token you can't conclusively disprove the existence of God either - although Occam's Razor suggests that there are much more likely explanations for things that are generally ascribed to God.

 

Therefore, an atheist who defines the term as a lack of belief simply cannot be logically correct. You can say "there is no such thing as God", but only within the constraints of a belief structure, because you can't empirically demonstrate it - it's not evidence-based. So sure, there's almost certainly no God, on balance of probabilities. But it's not proven.

 

As such, I can't see that a scientific mind could therefore be anything other than an (extremely skeptical) agnostic - because logically, atheism is a belief structure (although it's orders of magnitude more likely that most theistic beliefs).

 

Thoughts?

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 16:35 ----------

 

In fact, the word atheist is probably the correct one for what I'm describing, but it doesn't mean the same thing as its common usage. Perhaps "nontheist"?

 

Agnostic is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, to hold that belief you must have some idea of what God is.

[HbroChris]

An atheist can simply say I don't accept your evidence that there is a god. There is no proof required on the part of the atheist.

 

Of course they can, but only by believing it to be true, because they cannot backstop it with evidence. It's a non-rational argument, even if it is probably correct.

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 22:11 ----------

 

To Rootsbooster and others:

 

I agree with your comments on my post, but I think there's some scope for confusion in the terms used.

 

I refer to the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (which I assume is the definitive work) which defines agnosticism thusly:

 

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.

[RootsBooster]

Of course they can, but only by believing it to be true, because they cannot backstop it with evidence. It's a non-rational argument, even if it is probably correct.

It seems you misunderstand what Snaily is saying.

The act of simply not accepting something is not an argument in itself. It has nothing to prove, no point to make, no evidence to provide and no claim that it needs to back up.

 

It is simply the act of not accepting something. To interpret this as meaning or implying something other than it actually is, is to jump to irrational conclusions.