Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

Goken wrote: It is an interesting question. Does the label really change anything? The length of this discussion seems to imply that to some it does, to others maybe not. I do believe that it is a semantic issue more than anything, but, similar to how I treat transgender people, I like to know what people prefer to be called so that I may do so accordingly.

The two definitions are actually quite different. That is what I was trying to convey in my first post.

The first is a claim that there is no God
The second is a rejection of claims that there is a God.

The first definition is a belief while the second is not but I think you will find those that claim Atheism under either definition. As to why it matters, we could ask the same thing about any thread on this board. It matters because it matters. Its another form of our individual attempts to get as close to objective truth as possible. How else do we do this other than through the discourse of discussion and debate?

It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

Being that they are different types of belief and do not cancel each other out... I disbelieve in the belief in God is not the same as I disbelieve in my belief. The later being at the same level of analysis. It's just one the problems of being smart enough to know we don't know things for sure but not smart enough to know how smart we are!! We nest things to build 'order' and then confused about how it all relates. At least that is my excuse...

Khaos wrote: Certainly here, it has taken its own life, but from another thread apparently, so I am wondering, what has been gained ultimately?

Other then exercising critical thinking.... I dunno, entertainment maybe!!!?

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Luthien wrote:

Adder wrote: It seems more practical to use the label IMO to reference someone who is exposed to the concept and denies it, versus someone who has not been exposed to the concept and has no position on it. So in that denial, it constitutes a belief, IMO.

I don't deny; I reject. There's nothing to confess, so denial isn't my position.

Same dif to me :ohmy: :pinch:

As to why it matters, we could ask the same thing about any thread on this board. It matters because it matters. Its another form of our individual attempts to get as close to objective truth as possible. How else do we do this other than through the discourse of discussion and debate?

I could ask of any thread, but I asked specifically of this one, and if your looking to get as close to the objective truth as possible[a bold claim, given how much people here seem to prize there subjective truths over the objective.] Then you could see this as simply a progression of that from the original topic. More discourse, discussion, and debate for your search.

You see, this question comes up somewhat regularly here, so I , bored with that, want to take into deeper, or perhaps just different, waters.

Also, "it matters because it matters" is not only a cop out, but a silly response to a perfectly valid question.

I could ask of any thread, but I think on threads that tend to repeat, as do the same responses, and counter arguments,why it matters, is ultimately of value, should be explored along with it.

These types of topics always get the biggest thread counts, so it is seemingly very important to people, so I would like to explore that import.

Snowy Aftermath wrote: Atheism is a belief as much as bald is a hair color.

I'm in a Lebowski mood.

If there are two classes of bowlers, pro and amateur, and someone has never bowled in their life, are they automatically amateur bowlers?

No, it's silly. They aren't participating in the game at all. Why classify them as though they were?