Atheism isn't a belief?

God is assumed not to exist because there's ample evidence that it's a purely imaginary concept; and it's also a useless explanation, as it has absolutely no predictive powers whatsoever. Someone tells me, "There's a dragon in your yard!" I respond, "Cool, I always wanted to see a dragon." I go out and look. No dragon.
Then they say, "Oh, he's now in the woods behind your house." I go look. No dragon.
Then they say, "He's now three houses down." I go look. Still no dragon.
Then they say, "Oh, he's now invisible... and in Cleveland."I give up.The defeatist attitude is warranted, as it's obvious that the person making the assertions is just making shit up.

The definition of Atheist is not quite as simple as some peopple think. The common perception seems to be that an atheist believes that there is no god.
That is simply not true of all atheists.
A good few simply lack a belief in god.
I am with Berberry on this.
I don't believe that there is a god.
I don't believe that there isn't a god.
I am utterly indifferent as to whether he exists or not.If I was asked to come down on one side of the fence or the other I would have to say that based on known facts and evidence, it is extremly unlikely that he exists because over the entire course of the existence of the universe (however it began), he has left absolutely not one shred of unambiguous evidence of actually existing. 4 billion years (6000 if you are a YEC) without leaving a mark anywhere is a pretty neat trick IMO.
I have absolutely zero reason to believe yet I also cannot prove otherwise. In exactly the same way that I cannot prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.
I therefore conclude that the probability of god existing is almost but not quite zero.my position is weak atheist by most definitionsIf you want a better definition of Atheist check this site out.

quote:

---

Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism, is the absence of belief concerning the existence of deities, without the positive assertion that they do not exist. A weak atheist may however claim that given sufficient lack of evidence, nonexistence is most likely. An argument commonly associated with the weak atheism position is that of rationalism: any claims and assertions, and the beliefs arising thereof, must be justified, and not taken on faith. Theists make the positive claim that a particular god and/or deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary, but merely withhold their assent from the theists' claim. Some weak atheists simply have no opinion on the issue, either because they have not considered it, or because they find the arguments and evidence more or less equally compelling on both sides. Others, having considered the arguments and evidence, may doubt the existence of deities but are unwilling to assert no deities exist. They may feel it is not possible to prove a negative; that the strong atheist has not fulfilled his burden of proof any more than the theist; and that faith is at present required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. The epistemological position that it is not known, and possibly not knowable, whether or not deities exist is known as agnosticism. This view is not equivalent to weak atheism, as agnosticism can also be subscribed to by theists who hold their beliefs on faith. However agnosticism is often the basis for weak atheism, a position sometimes called agnostic atheism. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.

---

(emphasis added)I kind of like this definition.

I agree that it isn't difficult. The provided definition clearly allows that it is possible to be an atheist without holding any view on whether a God or gods exist.As to my own point of view a good start is the following points:1) Any God or gods are highly ordered and complex beings - and radically different from anything that we know to exist.2) Therefore any God or gods are, a priori, unlikely to exist.3) Therefore, without significant evidence to the contrary, we are justified in believing that there is no God or gods unless and until further evidence comes to light.4) There is no such evidence at present or any reason to beleive that there will be.Therefore I am justified in provisionally believing that there is no God or gods.And yes, this falls into the "strong atheist" category

Theodoric, But surely strong atheism is a belief. It makes a statement of surety with no evidence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

As a theist, I don't see where it makes much difference. Anything related to GOD or gods will be a personal matter anyway. Whether Atheism is belief or non-belief is up to the individual and I'm perfectly satisfied regardless of how they describe it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not exactly hiding your light behind a bushel . Assuming that God, if he were to exist, would have to be supernatural - how do you KNOW there is no God. Do you have some insight into the supernatural and have found there is no God there? The theists do say athiesm is a belief. A belief based on faith (ie: a religion) It relies on a faith that the natural is all there is.

quote:

---

Theodoric writes:

​

To me it is not that I don't believe in god, it is that I know there is no god.

​

Assuming that God, if he were to exist, would have to be supernatural - how do you KNOW there is no God.

---

For Theodoric to know that there is no god, we would need, at a minimum, for the statement there is no god to be a true statement. Now if the statement were there is no quarter in my pocket, it can easily be determined whether that statement is true or false; all I need to do is check my pockets (and assume that people will trust my answer). However, it might be difficult to determine definitely that there is or is not a god. So Theodoric might know that there is no god, or he might not actually know that there is no god (since there might actually be a god!).Incidently, in case anyone cares, holmes would say that this is all that is required for Theodoric to know that there is no god; however many other epistemologists would additionally inquire whether Theodoric were justiifed in his belief.

At least your using the correct terminolgy: 'assumed' is far more truthful that 'know'. It's 'assumed' because a book of evidence is known not to be a case. Its a book of evidence. And a natural book of evidence which attempts to comment on something that would undoubtably be supernatural is a book of evidence which wouldn't make it up the courtroom steps. Case dismissed On what basis do predictive powers determine somethings usefulness. Or are you just comparing everything to science uber alles -in which case a question..... If someone said a dragon was the cause of the universe coming into existance, you wouldn't even have to step out into your yard to see it doesn't exist. You would just say the universe exists because.....em...because....er...because.... Because what? Until you know that you don't know whether your assumption is correct. It's assumption in the dark. Assumption by faith = religion.

If that's your definition of an athiest, PY, what's your definition of an agnostic?

I know what I know from proof. There is no such thing as the supernatural. The idea of the supernatural goes against everything that can be proven and shown. The natural world exists. We see it, touch it feel it every day. There is no need for me to have to show there is not a supernatural. The onus is on the believers of the supernatural to provide proof.

I find it interesting that given the incompleteness of evidence of first cause either for God or for a Natural explaination, that a person who has no evidence either way plumps for no God. Both are expressions of faith without concrete evidence, both are religions.I would have thought that if someone had to toss for it, the logical thing to do would be to play safe and suppose there is a God.(funny that a book called the Bible demonstrates all over the place why this should be the case. Not bad for a 2000-4000 year old documnent supposedly written by a bunch of nomads)This message has been edited by iano, 17-Aug-2005 07:19 PM

I was speaking of the meaning of the word know. For me to know that there is no god three things would have to be true:1) I believe that there is no god.
2) My belief is justified.
3) It must be true that there is no god.1) is certainly true; I also feel that 2) is true: I believe that there is no god, and I feel that my belief is justified.However, if there actually is a god, then 3) is not true, and it should be obvious that then it would not be true that I know that there is no god. That is just what it means to know something.Incidently, an epistemic mininalist would not require justification of belief.

Not really CP. It would help tremendously if a reason for the no belief had a why attached to it. A why to the question: given no idea as to first cause be it supernatural or natural, and given that God (and anything else supernatural) would be supernatural and thus won't be evidenced naturally - why disbelieve in God?Go on, no-one else here has answered this. Be a sport - two more cents on this one

All three are true

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. That God would be very complex and beyond our understanding says nothing for or against the likelyhood of his/it's existance. That the universe is so staggeringly complex means that for a God to initiate it, he would be staggeringly complex. That much is correct. What evidence are you talking about? You say above that he'd complex and radically different. This means too that evidence would be complex and radically different. Do you understand the supernatural? If it exists it would be complex and radically different. So different that the normal naturalistic expectations of evidence are useless in getting a grasp of it. Ball bearings bouncing off the side of an ocean liner Which implies you have an explaination for first cause. A naturalistic one at that. Or are you assuming there is no evidence. Different thing altogether. You are entitled to believe what you want. We all are. But the case for the belief has yet to be made.