Does Atheism = No beliefs?

Phat writes:

quote:

---

You cant know that something or someone is not there until you can establish where there is.

---

Why? That is, why isn't "here" good enough?Instead, all you need is a sufficiently complete definition of what you mean by "god." When your definition is so vague that it doesn't actually say anything, then can it even be said to exist?But with regard to the North Pole and Santa, it's called "magic." That's the same claim that every theist has ever claimed regarding their god as to why it can't be detected where it is claimed to exist.So if that's not acceptable with regard to Santa, why does it suddenly become legitimate for god?

GDR writes:

quote:

---

What would you call someone who believes that there probably is an intelligent cause for our existence, but does not adhere to any specific religion, or even any particular belief in the nature of that intelligence?

---

A believer. Hence not an atheist. And not really an agnostic, either. They aren't saying they don't know on a fundamental level. They are saying they don't know about specifics due to lack of evidence. There is a difference between saying, "Someone was here but I know nothing about who it was," and saying, "I don't know if anyone was here or not."

quote:

---

He isn't really theistic because he doesn't necessarily believe that this intelligence is at all involved with the world now

---

Huh? Why does that destroy his belief? That is the essence of theism: Belief. That is the very thing that defines atheism: Lack of belief.

quote:

---

he isn't really a deist because he acknowledges that possibly he/she/it could be involved

---

Maybe not in the strictest sense, but that would be splitting hairs.

quote:

---

and he isn't an atheist either. Wouldn't agnostic fit that person better than any other term. I suggest that there is a lot of people who fall into that category.

---

What's wrong with "believer" and/or "theist"? That they don't have a fancy proper noun to attach to themselves doesn't stop them from believing.

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

Well you can’t call them a theist because they don’t claim to believe in an deity that is engaged in any sense with creation.

---

Why? Deists are believers. That's the defining characteristic of being a theist: Believing in god. Your own definition says so: "Theism is broadly defined in the existence of the supreme being or deities." There's no indication about what this god is supposed to do or how it is supposed to relate to anything.Just because your god doesn't want to have anything to do with you (for whatever reason) doesn't mean you don't believe.He certainly isn't atheistic because he believes in god. That is the defining characteristic of atheism: Lack of belief. If you believe, even if it is nebulous and vague, you aren't an atheist.

quote:

---

I don’t understand the objection to using the term agnostic.

---

There is a difference between not really knowing what you believe in and not knowing if you believe in the first place or thinking you can never know. I can know that I have feelings for something without really being able to explain them, but that is different from knowing if I have feelings.With regard to your quote, it has atheism wrong...it isn't a rejection of theism for atheism is the logical base state. It is the burden of those who claim the existence of gods to provide evidence for such. The atheist does not "reject" god but rather has no evidence for god. Instead, theists reject atheism (for what they think are valid reasons). But, we've had this argument on this board many times. I only bring it up because it is a subtle difference.And that's what we're doing with regard to agnosticism compared to theism. With regard to its definition of agnosticism, it is to my point: Such a person does know that there is "something." They may not know anything about it and be unable to learn anything about it, but they do believe that there is something there to be unknowable. F'rinstance, I can know that you have a toothbrush in your bathroom, but I have no idea what color it is and since it's yours, I'm not going to be in your bathroom, and you're never going to show it to me, I can never know. Thus, I am a believer about your toothbrush. Any agnosticism I have is about its trait, not its existence.Thus, since they believe in god, even though the target of that belief cannot be readily described, they aren't agnostic.They're believers. It's why Buddhism is a religion and not just a philosophy. The supernatural aspects can be very vague (to the point of having a very nebulous conceptualization of "god"), but they are still there. There is a difference between having a philosophy of "no attachment" (and I know that Buddhism is so much more than that) and thinking that tenet has some cosmic significance.Of course, it's sorta like saying at what point does grey become white.

GDR writes:

quote:

---

Here is the definition from merriam webster

​

quote:

---

the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

---

---

So polytheists who focus on a deity who wasn't the creator/ruler of the universe (say, ancient Athenians) aren't really theists?

quote:

---

He can't be classified as a deist because has no idea whether this intelligence has any interest in this existence or not.

---

Does deism require that? And more importantly, does theism?

quote:

---

An intelligent cause for existence does not mean that it has to be considered either a supreme being, nor a deity.

---

Unless you're suggesting that the creation of the universe is something that had purely physical origins and can be carried out by a non-supernatural being through physical means, then yeah, it does.

quote:

---

He just doesn't have any beliefs other than the idea that we are more likley to be the result of intelligence rather than the chance collection of mindless particles.

---

The Behe Defense? If we don't call it "god," then we can say with a straight face that we don't actually mean "god"? What is this "intelligence"? How does it do what it does? Even if it never interacts with us ever again, was its action upon the universe physical or metaphysical? If the latter, then it's god no matter how much you don't want to be associated with that term.

quote:

---

Between the ages of 18 and 36 I considered myself culturally Christian but as far as my actual beliefs were concerned I was agnostic.

---

And most atheists who are raised in Christian nations have this concept to a degree. F'rinstance, atheists celebrate Christmas.

Pressie writes:

quote:

---

A lot of religious people conflict the different meanings of the word "belief" and do ridiculously stupid arguments about it. Such as the rotation of the earth is a "belief" and is exactly the same "belief" as "Muhammed flew around on a winged horse". Semantics and sophistry,

---

This is a common argument made by theists to try and cast atheism as "just another religion." The idea is to say that "everybody believes in something" and thus you end up with football being a religion.So when we ask, "Does Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism?" we need to be very specific about what we are calling a "belief." There certainly is a distinction between theism and atheism with regard to things like what happens after death and the cosmic significance of certain actions. But many people then conflate "beliefs" with what I would more properly call "tenets." After all, atheists still have many of the same questions that theists do with regard to things like good and evil, how to navigate the world around us, etc. They are questions of philosophy and atheists have a philosophy.Since atheism has no true "organization" like theism (how does one organize around a lack of belief?) there is no "atheistic philosophy" in the sense of a common philosophy shared by atheists. Rather, similarities in philosophy come from accepting the philosophy and its internal justifications, rather than being justified by atheism proper. This isn't to say that philosophies that atheists hold aren't influenced by theistic philosophies. Given the prevalence of theism in the world, atheists can't grow up without being influenced. But when they come to their atheism, atheists will justify those tenets they keep without god.Thus, theists and atheists often share similar philosophies. The Golden Rule does not require god to justify it.So in the context of atheism being a lack of belief and the context of having philosophical tenets, then there is nothing that atheism has that theism doesn't also have. It's just that atheism doesn't justify those tenets in the same way. You treat others as you would like to be treated not because god said so, not because of any cosmic significance of doing so, but because the outcome of that philosophy is of benefit to all.

Phat asks about Peter Boghossian:Here's PZ Myers opinion of him: Two white dudes spend an hour talking about how racist and sexist it is to criticize other white dudesAn epistemological batteringHe's a bit of a sexist prick at best.