Does Atheism = No beliefs?

This seems to be consistent with the normal usage of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist". An "agnostic" takes the essentially neutral position that he's not sure whether or not any god exists. A true agnostic could make the truth-claim: "I'm not sure whether or not any god exists", but he could not force this truth-claim on others. If his position is truly neutral, it should not bother him if others take the theist or atheist positions (claiming that a god DOES or does NOT exist).As normally used, the term "atheist" does NOT describe a neutral position. An atheist makes the truth-claim that "no god exists". (Whether he is certain of this or not, he believes it to be true.). And this position that "no god exists" has logical consequences; it means that those who DO believe in the existence of a god must be deluded, or ignorant, or evil. This is not a neutral position.

Your claim disagrees not only with my own personal experience in talking with atheists, it disagrees with the definition of "atheism" per dictionary.com:

quote:

---

1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---

Note that the first definition agrees with me: atheism is the "belief that there is no God". The second definition is more neutral, and would be consistent with your claim above, that atheists simply "do not follow a theistic path".Except that this is not really your position, as you reveal: This is inconsistent with your claimed position above, of course. If you simply "do not follow a theistic path", or if you take a neutral position of "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", it shouldn't matter to you if others DO choose to follow a theistic path or DO believe in the existence of a supreme being. The fact that you have a negative view of theists suggests that you truly believe that there is no god.

Agreed; there is a distinct difference between these two positions. But how realistic is it to hold the first position without also holding the second? How common is this among atheists?For example, I can say that "I do not believe in the tooth fairy." But my belief goes further; I am also convinced that the tooth fairy does not exist. It would be nearly impossible for me "not to believe in the tooth fairy" without also "believing that the tooth fairy does not exist."What about the atheists here? Can you honestly say that you "do not believe in a god or gods" without also taking the position that you "believe god or gods do not exist"?

Yes, of course. I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. This is based on lack of evidence in the tooth fairy, and evidence for a simpler alternative explanation.I believe in the law of gravity. This is based on my own experience as well as evidence and experiment. Rather, I think that atheists want to overly restrict the meaning of the word "believe". To "believe" something does NOT necessarily mean to take it on "blind faith". Many of our beliefs (like the ones mentioned above) are based on evidence.

No, of course not. No one can PROVE the non-existence of the tooth fairy.But does this mean that I waffle on the question of the tooth fairy's existence? That I have no belief one way or the other? No.Based on the evidence, I not only disbelieve in the tooth fairy, I have the belief that the tooth fairy does NOT exist.

I dont follow you.I do not believe in the tooth fairy. Further, I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. I cannot absolutely prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, but I am convinced of it on the basis of evidence.I don't see how these statements imply anything about "attempting to quantify a non-belief"? I don't think this is necessarily true. The word "believe" is commonly used in a number of different ways. The phrase "I do not believe in the tooth fairy" is associated with a "tangible construct", as you say. But the phrase "I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist" is a truth-claim about an alleged fact. I don't see why such an alleged fact must be associated with a "tangible construct". We can believe facts about intangible concepts as well as tangible objects, can't we?

First, I wouldn't say that the second statement is opposite the first. It is stronger; it states a positive rather than a negative.Second, this is not a "belief in a non-belief". I did not say or mean that "I believe in the non-existence of the tooth fairy". I meant exactly what I said, that "I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist." This is a truth-claim, a positive belief that an alleged fact is true. Not at all!We cannot prove scientific theories. Yet we believe that many scientific theories are true, based on evidence. We are convinced of them, even though we cannot prove them. No, you are misinterpreting my words. I am not claiming a non-belief, I am claiming a positive belief in something's non-existence. This is a crucial distinction.Let's try a scientific analogy to the tooth-fairy example. Consider the two statements:
1) "I do not believe in cold fusion"
2) "I believe that cold fusion does not exist" (or "can not occur")The second statement is not "belief in a non-belief". It is a positive belief in something's non-existence. These are very different.(I think that part of the semantic problem here is that many atheists want to overly restrict the meaning of the word "believe", restricting it only to instances of "blind faith" where there is no evidence in the belief's favor. But the word "believe" in normal English usage is not nearly so specific or restrictive. You may call this normal usage "overloaded", but it is in fact the normal, accepted usage of the word in the English language. In all of the positive statements above where I say that "I believe X", feel free to replace this in your mind with "I am convinced of X" if you wish; this is nearly synonymous.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

You make a good case. But you present things a bit too black-and-white, with no acknowledgement of the various degrees of "acceptance" or "belief". The two terms are part of a continuous spectrum with a tremendous amount of overlap.You give a good explanation of how good scientists approach open questions or ongoing research. But for well-established scientific theories or principles, good scientists don't act the way that you describe. In fact, I believe that it would stifle scientific progress if we did so.It is true that we cannot prove scientific theories, hypotheses, or laws. But with time and experience, we come to BELIEVE (not only "accept") them very strongly. So strongly that we assume that they are true and we build new theories on top of them. So strongly that when new theories come along that question them, we approach the new theories very skeptically if we give them any credence at all.For example, most of us are quite convinced that gravity exists and is well-described by our current theories. When new theories come along (e.g. a "fifth force" or MOND), most physicists approach them very skeptically, and many physicists don't investigate them at all.This attitude sometimes gets us into trouble, of course. But if we were continually questioning the basic principles of science, it would hurt our ability to build new theories on top of the present ones.