Atheists believe that there is no god?

Question

Atheism IS a belief. Don't attack me, now, atheists - I'm on your side and spend a lot of time here defending you.

We do not "know" whether there is a god. There is no definitive proof in either direction, and you know full well that lack of evidence doesn't constitute proof.

Since you don't "know," the idea that there is no god is a BELIEF. (Not a religion, though!)

Don't tell me you're "without belief." That would mean you don't have an opinion one way or another about whether there is a god. If you are "without belief," you are not an atheist.

I'll say it again: atheism is NOT a "lack of belief."

A lack of belief statement would be something like, "God is not relevant. I have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of god."

But the common understanding of atheism creates the statement, "There is no god." Which sounds like a statement of fact, when of course it is merely opinion.

I would also like to add that when I say "god" I am NOT necessarily talking about the Christian version. In fact, I'll go ahead and take that out of the equation anyway, since the god described in the Bible is an impossibility anyway.

Answer 1

Nope. I won't attack you, just correct you.

I'm WITHOUT belief.

a- (prefix): without
theism (noun): belief in the existence of a god or gods

Put them together... and.... PRESTO!

No no, I have an opinion. If you'd rather I put it this way, "I don't believe". I don't believe in Yahweh. You don't believe in Quetzalcoatl. You're an atheist like me... unless of course you're agnostic towards the existence of Quetzalcoatl.

Agnosticism is stating that there is no possible way to absolutely know that gods exist or don't exist. Atheism IS a lack of belief. I don't believe in God. You saying that I actually DO believe is like saying that NOT being a fan of the Lakers is also actually BEING a fan of the Lakers as well.

Answer 2

There are two kinds of atheism. Sometimes they are called strong atheism and weak atheism, but I don't like those labels. There are atheists who say THERE IS NO GOD. The other kind says I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A GOD. Then there are the agnostics, who say I CANNOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD. My position is very clear - I just don't care. I am what the Oxford English Dictionary calls an indifferentist. The alleged existence or non-existence of gods has no relevance to my life. I think right and wrong are known by the effects they produce on human lives. Gods just don't enter into the equation. So call me a don't-care-ist.

Answer 3

Philosophically, everything is a belief. So no problem there.

Belief in god is based on nil evidence.

The non-existence of god is supported by endless evidence.

So you weigh things up, forget about "knowing" and "proof", and settle for the balance of probabilities. It may be technically true that it's only a belief, but it doesn't stop one from being a de facto atheist anyway. Get used to it.

=====

ACTUALLY from dictionary.com [below] : "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Does this sound like atheism to any other atheists out there?

Answer 4

^ if you're without belief, then you're technically an agnostic.

The problem is that Atheism is a loaded term that has strayed from it's original meaning. If my belief is that "since there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, then I won't worry about it because it almost certainly doesn't exist", then I get labeled an Atheist, and people assume that I am religious in believing that there is no God. I'm not- I'm scientific about it. That would technically make me an Agnostic, but that's a loaded term also...

Answer 5

We do not "know" Russell's teapot doesn't exist either.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 6

Agree with the first guy. You could say anything is a belief. You believe that you will get a job tomorrow. You believe you will win the lottery.

Answer 7

Well close...it's nonbelief. Belief is an active doing of believing...we have no active doing of this because it's the LACK of belief.

Would you have to only BELIEVE you didn't have any cookies just because you can't somehow prove that you didn't?


Edit: Ya know...one of my biggest pet peeves is PEOPLE WHO TRY TO TALK FOR OTHER PEOPLE, and try to them THEM who THEY are when they are not in their shoes and can't know their lives! It's just rude.

Answer 8

Ok what do they believe in? That nothing exist. " I don't believe in God/gods"

Answer 9

Does invisible giant dinosaurs exist? Would it be fair to say "noone knows?"

That's bullshit. God and invisible dinosaurs dont exist

Answer 10

You're right, no matter how much someone claims they "know" whether or not there is a god they really don't