Atheism Is Not a Religion

[Vigile]

"Disbelief" is defined as a refusal to believe.

 

No it's not, it is a state of being unconvinced. There's a big difference.

 

Look it up. Or are definitions subject to revision as necessary to protect one's position.

 

And hell, I'm unconvinced either way.

 

It doesn't matter if you remain unconvinced.

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source

dis‧be‧lief  /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

 

–noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Origin: 1665–75; dis-1 + belief]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source dis·be·lief (dsb-lf) Pronunciation Key

n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

 

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

WordNet - Cite This Source

disbelief

 

n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

[wonderer]

How about this as a very clear, unambiguouly neutral way of stating a lack of belief in god, without implying any deliberate action or position - whether positive or negative:

 

I don't believe in god (or gods).

 

Other neutral statements of lack of belief:

 

I don't believe in heaven.

 

I don't believe in hell.

 

I don't believe in angels.

 

I don't believe in demons.

 

I don't believe aliens are lurking around in pastures, indulging in anal probing of hapless farmers in the middle of the night.

 

I don't believe mermaids exist.

 

I don't believe in psychic abilities.

 

I don't believe in magical powers.

 

I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days.

 

I don't believe the Bible is anything more than a book.

 

I don't believe any religion or science can fully explain the universe.

 

None of these statements implies a refusal to believe, or any proactive position that might prevent me from believing any of these things, even if presented with unimpeachable evidence in support of their existence.

[The Paineful Truth]

Thanks Jun, looks like your dictionary agrees with mine, to wit:

dis·be·lief n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

 

 

Looks like Vigile's dictionary also agrees--disbelief=lack of belief=does not believe.

 

It doesn't matter if you remain unconvinced.

 

I don't see how that's supposed to justify your (dis)belief . Unconvinced=lacking knowledge/significant evidence for or against a belief, cause or event=agnostic (no proof either way). You're unconvinced, so am I. I think what a lot of atheists mean when they try to use the disbelief, unbelief mantra is that they've rejected the Christian God or the gods of any revealed religion, and try to use their distaste for the Christian God as an argument that there can therefore be no God of any kind. In actuality, I believe this translates to "I don't care about God", which is fine. If that's the case use the vast amount of evidence against revealed religion, or Christianity if you want to focus on that, but admit that there is no real evidence against (or for) the existence of God or at least just recuse yourself from the argument.

 

As an aside, I'm currently reading Programming the Universe, by Seth Lloyd. It's about the apparent fact that the universe is indistinguishable from a quantum computer. It made me ask an interesting question: can a computer that powerful not be self-aware? Also, where did the computer get its program? I may be jumping ahead, if so, I will certainly fess up if I learn otherwise.

[Vigile]

 

Looks like Vigile's dictionary also agrees--disbelief=lack of belief=does not believe.

 

Refusal is only one way to define disbelief. The examples I provided also showed how the word can be used to define the position of "inability to believe," "reluctance," "doubt," and outright "rejection." All of these definitions aptly describe the position of those who cannot believe based on a lack of compelling evidence to support the claim. As Jun mentioned, "refusal" is an unwillingness to accept a proposition. This is very different from the position many of us are taking, yet it is the straw man that you are attempting to set up for us.

 

 

 

I don't see how that's supposed to justify your (dis)belief . Unconvinced=lacking knowledge/significant evidence for or against a belief, cause or event=agnostic (no proof either way). You're unconvinced, so am I.

 

By your definition I am also agnostic about unicorns and fairies.

 

Let me try and make this simple. I don't know how the universe came to be. Some claim that a god(s) created it. You argue that I must be agnostic to this claim rather than disbelieving of it. I on the other hand argue that no, there is no evidence that a god(s) exist and I argue that to assume one only moves back the question of where the universe came from one extra step and begs one whopping helluva question. Therefore I cannot accept the claim. It's far easier for me to accept the claim that matter has always existed. At least we have evidence that matter exists. That's one step up from the goddidit claim. Beyond that, paint me an agnostic if it makes you sleep better.

[wonderer]

Evidence is not proof. Claiming the observed universe is proof of the existence of a creator is a spurious argument. The burden of proof is on the proposer. If you propose that god exists, and wish to prove it to someone unconvinced, then you have the burden of proving your case. The non-believer does not have the same burden of proof in this case. Presenting evidence is a prerequisite to proving your case - it's not the proof.

 

If, on the other hand, the non-believer proposes to prove that god does not exist, then the same burden of proof is on him. He can cite his evidence, but again, evidence is not proof.

 

In order to either prove or disprove the existence of god, one needs an overwhelming amount of unambiguous, unimpeachable evidence and an unbiased judge and jury. Without such, these intellectual debates can have no satisfactory conclusion.

[highvoltage]

If it weren't for the fact that so many people (still) believe in a god, this debate would be about as sensible as a debate on whether or not fairies exist.

 

All past and present gods have been human constructions. Why impose those fables on reality and say that there might actually be one out there, maybe in some form that we haven't thought up yet? Like there might actually be real leprechauns out there, too?

 

Oh, and BTW:

...

It's far easier for me to accept the claim that matter has always existed. At least we have evidence that matter exists. That's one step up from the goddidit claim. Beyond that, paint me an agnostic if it makes you sleep better.

 

There's this little conservation law called the "Conservation of Mass-Energy" that states that mass and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only change form. If someone out there doesn't believe it, I'll say that this law has been shown to be valid for every experiment in every decent lab ever done. This suggests to me that rather than a god who has always existed and created matter (the universe), that simply matter has always existed.

[Asimov]

All you have to do is rephrase the negative claim.

 

It's still a negative claim. Atheism by definition is a negative belief and is contingent on the existence of theism in order to be an actual concept.

 

Asimov wrote:

Just because I can't explain the existence of the universe does not mean that I have to prove God doesn't exist.

 

It does if you claim or believe that a God did not create the universe and cannot show or even theorize how it could have come into being. (See next.)

 

No it doesn't. I don't have to show how the universe came into being with or without a God. That is a completely different issue.

 

You're using a blatant argument from ignorance.

 

"Disbelief" is defined as a refusal to believe. So disbelieving in the existence of a God is exactly the same thing as believing that God doesn't exist. It just puts the negation in a different place in a sentence. This slight of hand lexicography that some Prof. Yahoo thought up in his ivory tower for his Philosophy 101 skulls-full-of-mush just doesn't hang. It's only power is derived from the status it's achieved as a mantra.

 

I agree, I see no difference either. What's your point?

[Legion]

I like this bit from the article...

 

"Atheism has no dress code, although comfortable shoes are recommended."

[Jun]

Atheism by definition is a negative belief and is contingent on the existence of theism in order to be an actual concept.

 

That be the truth

[The Paineful Truth]

By your definition I am also agnostic about unicorns and fairies.

 

Yes, but there is no evidence for unicorns or fairies, while the universe may be for God.

 

Let me try and make this simple. I don't know how the universe came to be.

 

Exactly, exactly so. As simple as can be.

 

Evidence is not proof. Claiming the observed universe is proof of the existence of a creator is a spurious argument.

 

I didn't claim such proof at all. Why is is so hard to understand that I don't claim knowledge or proof either way, and that no one has such proof or evidence--either way?

 

If it weren't for the fact that so many people (still) believe in a god, this debate would be about as sensible as a debate on whether or not fairies exist.

 

Please see previous references to unicorns, fairies and purple polka-dot harpies.

 

I'm responding to indoctrinated dogma here.

 

You're using a blatant argument from ignorance.

 

So you say.

 

I like this bit from the article...

 

"Atheism has no dress code, although comfortable shoes are recommended."

 

Ditto for deism.

 

Atheism by definition is a negative belief and is contingent on the existence of theism in order to be an actual concept.

 

 

That be the truth

 

Ain't subjective Truth convenient. If what has happened could have been portrayed in reality, I'd have been trampled to death.

 

“The Truth is clever. The minute we create an idol for it, it becomes a lie.”

[Amethyst]

How about this as a very clear, unambiguouly neutral way of stating a lack of belief in god, without implying any deliberate action or position - whether positive or negative:

 

I don't believe in god (or gods).

 

 

I just say I am not religious. Let them assume what they will.

[roman]

By your definition I am also agnostic about unicorns and fairies.

 

Yes, but there is no evidence for unicorns or fairies //snip//

Mary, please. There is ample evidence of the existence of fairies.

[Asimov]

You're using a blatant argument from ignorance.

 

So you say.

 

No fuckin way, eh? I did say. You're stating that because I can't explain a certain aspect of the universe that theism is valid.

 

Excuse me, but the inability to explain an aspect of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with God's existence.

 

Thus, you are commiting an argument from ignorance.

[highvoltage]

By your definition I am also agnostic about unicorns and fairies.

 

Yes, but there is no evidence for unicorns or fairies, while the universe may be for God.

 

I've never seen any evidence for a god either, which is why I compared this god debate to a fairy debate.

 

So how is the universe possible evidence for a god(s)?

[woodsmoke]

The existence of the universe "may be" evidence of the existence of a deity in the same way the existence of the universe "may be" evidence of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns and faeries.

 

You really need to acquaint yourself with Occam's Razor.

[Clergicide]

The existence of the universe "may be" evidence of the existence of a deity in the same way the existence of the universe "may be" evidence of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns and faeries.

 

You really need to acquaint yourself with Occam's Razor.

 

Evidence of either would require presenting existence in it's entirity for observation and presenting all the instances where such things do not exist, and then futher doing so for every point of existence in the future. As such, the universe is evidence insomuch as it is wholly unexplored, and the future is entirely unpredicatble.

 

It's still a negative claim. Atheism by definition is a negative belief and is contingent on the existence of theism in order to be an actual concept.

 

It 'can' be a counter-proposition, when it conforms to structure of "I don't believe" or "I disbelieve".

 

(XXX does not exist) is a negative claim.

 

(It is true that XXX does not exist.) Is what kind of claim? Because "I believe XXX does not exist" is forwarding just that proposition.

 

So disbelieving in the existence of a God is exactly the same thing as believing that God doesn't exist. It just puts the negation in a different place in a sentence. This slight of hand lexicography that some Prof. Yahoo thought up in his ivory tower for his Philosophy 101 skulls-full-of-mush just doesn't hang. It's only power is derived from the status it's achieved as a mantra.

 

Even though the statements are entirely different? Maybe it's thin air in my tower, but I see a distinct difference between the following propositions:

 

I don't accept, or I reject, the belief that god exists.

 

I hold it true that god does not exist.

 

Even if we strip belief down to mean 'opinion' in the second the proposition it means something entirely different. One is a reaction to a proposition about the existence of god. The other is a proposition about the non-existence of god.

 

Even someone with a skull full of mush should be able to recognize that.

[wonderer]

Maybe it's thin air in my tower, but I see a distinct difference between the following propositions:

 

I don't accept, or I reject, the belief that god exists.

 

I hold it true that god does not exist.

 

Even if we strip belief down to mean 'opinion' in the second the proposition it means something entirely different. One is a reaction to a proposition about the existence of god. The other is a proposition about the non-existence of god.

 

Even someone with a skull full of mush should be able to recognize that.

 

Clergicide, what, actually, is your point? These statements aren't propositions. They are, in fact, essentially non-sensical.

 

The first:

 

I don't accept, or I reject, the belief that god exists. You have two different subjects mixed together in this statement. The first is a passive condition of being ("I don't accept...the belief that god exists.") This statement is illogical. One can't accept or not accept a belief. One either believes or doesn't believe. One can accept (or fail to accept) as valid, arguments ostensibly used to support a proposition, but a belief is not an argument.

 

The second part of this statement, "...I reject the belief that god exists.", is also faulty, in that a belief is not an argument that can be rejected. This statement is represented as synonymous with the first, but it isn't synonymous at all. "I reject" is a statement of action, while the first was a statement of being. So, you begin your argument by first laying down non sequiturs as part of your premise. Any conclusion based on these non sequiturs is going to be indefensible.

 

But let's continue...

 

Your third statement:

 

"I hold it true that god does not exist." is not illogical, but it is not a proposition, either. It is a position statement.

 

So now, to recap, you present a statement of passive condition of being, a statement of action, and a position statement, but call them propositions. Then you attempt to draw a conclusion in comparing them. The problem is that they can't be compared, because they are 3 completely different subjects. Your conclusion is therefore false, because you use false premises to build the foundation of your argument.

 

What is it that you mean to say? Can you lay it out logically, or all we all wasting our time in continuing this discussion?

[Clergicide]

The first:

 

I don't accept, or I reject, the belief that god exists. You have two different subjects mixed together in this statement. The first is a passive condition of being ("I don't accept...the belief that god exists.") This statement is illogical. One can't accept or not accept a belief. One either believes or doesn't believe. One can accept (or fail to accept) as valid, arguments ostensibly used to support a proposition, but a belief is not an argument.

 

The second part of this statement, "...I reject the belief that god exists.", is also faulty, in that a belief is not an argument that can be rejected. This statement is represented as synonymous with the first, but it isn't synonymous at all. "I reject" is a statement of action, while the first was a statement of being. So, you begin your argument by first laying down non sequiturs as part of your premise. Any conclusion based on these non sequiturs is going to be indefensible.

 

So you contest both meanings of the word 'disbelief', which is what was being examined. The word 'or' allows you accept which of the two meanings is most suitable to you. But since you state neither meaning is valid, I suggest you call Webster's and have them correct this oversight.

 

Your third statement:

 

"I hold it true that god does not exist." is not illogical, but it is not a proposition, either. It is a position statement.

 

Funny, I thought in most circles a statment and a proposition were roughly considered the same thing. It's really beside the point what kind of statement it is, so I wonder why you're obfuscating things. The point is that the meaning expressed by all 3 statements are very different.

 

The problem is that they can't be compared, because they are 3 completely different subjects.

 

Not synonymous then? Thank you. One question. Without comparing them, how did you determine they were 3 different subjects?

[Asimov]

It 'can' be a counter-proposition, when it conforms to structure of "I don't believe" or "I disbelieve".

 

(XXX does not exist) is a negative claim.

 

"I disbelieve x" would be a claim that x is false.

"x does not exist" would be a negative claim.

 

(It is true that XXX does not exist.) Is what kind of claim? Because "I believe XXX does not exist" is forwarding just that proposition.

 

Semantics:

 

It is true that x does not exist.

It is false that x exists.

[Jun]

Er, I think we've cleared that up?

 

So IS Atheism a religon? It appears to be for tax purposes in some states of the U.S., and it is considered as such for Austalian tax purposes too.

 

Should Atheism be accorded the same privileges as other religions?

[Clergicide]

Er, I think we've cleared that up?

 

So IS Atheism a religon? It appears to be for tax purposes in some states of the U.S., and it is considered as such for Austalian tax purposes too.

 

Should Atheism be accorded the same privileges as other religions?

 

It would make mass interesting. "Is God, or any other diety here with us today? ...no? Well we're right again, looks like we can head home and catch the game."

[Jun]

Er, I think we've cleared that up?

 

So IS Atheism a religon? It appears to be for tax purposes in some states of the U.S., and it is considered as such for Austalian tax purposes too.

 

Should Atheism be accorded the same privileges as other religions?

 

It would make mass interesting. "Is God, or any other diety here with us today? ...no? Well we're right again, looks like we can head home and catch the game."

 

ha ha ha ha ha

[Asimov]

Er, I think we've cleared that up?

 

So IS Atheism a religon? It appears to be for tax purposes in some states of the U.S., and it is considered as such for Austalian tax purposes too.

 

Should Atheism be accorded the same privileges as other religions?

 

 

No, Atheism is not a religion, just as Theism is not a religion.

[The Paineful Truth]

Asimov wrote:

You're stating that because I can't explain a certain aspect of the universe that theism is valid.

 

And once again, you put words in my mouth. I in no way claim that knowing or not knowing the origin of the universe validates theism, I've said, over and over, we don't know either way.

 

"I disbelieve x" would be a claim that x is false.

"x does not exist" would be a negative claim.

 

In either case, a claim is a position that you've declared.

In the first sentence, it expresses belief.

In the second, it is a statement of fact.

In either case, you are just are required to offer a basis for such a belief; other than that the opposite opinion be proven either.

[Clergicide]

Asimov wrote:

You're stating that because I can't explain a certain aspect of the universe that theism is valid.

 

And once again, you put words in my mouth. I in no way claim that knowing or not knowing the origin of the universe validates theism, I've said, over and over, we don't know either way.

 

"I disbelieve x" would be a claim that x is false.

"x does not exist" would be a negative claim.

 

In either case, a claim is a position that you've declared.

In the first sentence, it expresses belief.

In the second, it is a statement of fact.

In either case, you are just are required to offer a basis for such a belief; other than that the opposite opinion be proven either.

 

What the hell, one more time.

 

"I disbelieve x" expresses the rejection, or non-acceptance, of x. It doesn't require squat (except possibly for x to be mind numbing shash).

 

Asimov has said reapeatedly that "x does not exist" is a negative claim. Yes, when applied to a diety it's the untidy sort of negative claim because of unlimited extension. Yes, to maintain a negative claim with unlimited extention, with unreasoned conviction would be an act of faith.