In reply to BoJ:

Dare I suggest that a computer scientist tends towards binary thinking?


-------------
> The vast majority of people use the craft store
> definition of color. Black is a color. It comes in
> tubes and bottles. There is not a section of the
> store for non-color colors.
>
> Black is a color. Tomato is a vegetable.
> Technicalities be damned.

Putting aside the fact that you have already changed definitions yourself, thereby indicating that there is ambiguity about what "black" means, let's take a different example.

The color blue. Do people agree on how to define that term? The answer is no, they do not. Different cultures draw arbitrary lines on the visual spectrum to define colors. The Western concept of blue is idiosyncratic. In East Asian languages like Chinese and its regional progeny, the term blue includes hues that are firmly in the green range according to Westerners.

So what is it? Is a young plant sprouting out of the ground green or blue? In your terms, there are at last 1.5 billion people who are off their rockers. And there are other examples as well. So no, the definitions of colors are not black and white.


-------------------
> ?? All signals only convey information by mutual
> agreement on what the signals mean.

That's what I have been trying to say. If there is no mutual agreement on terms, the signal is ambiguous.


------------------
> You have committed a category error. Stones are
> not capable of believing or disbelieving anything.

But what is a person who has never agreed to terms, who has not been told what the signal means or even that the signal exists? Is he more like a knowing participant in the experiment or like an insensate stone, incapable even of understanding the question?

Using your example of a lantern in a lighthouse, there are two different groups of people: those who know the light has meaning and those who do not. You blur the distinction. A light going on in the night is NOT a signal of British maneuvers to well more than 99.9% of humans and probably the same proportion of Bostonians.

You are suggesting that a signal has meaning to all people if it is understood by any people, which is incorrect.


----------------
> ??? All communication is by mutual agreement of
> terms.

That's the point. An atom decays and kicks out a particle. That signals information to people who 1) understand particle physics, 2) understand the nature of the experiment, and 3) are aware of the results of the experiment. If those conditions are not met, there was no communication; the signal did not result in information conveyed.


-----------------
> Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
> Atheism is no belief that there are gods.
>
> Except at the most pedantic parsing, those are
> equivalent statements. It's not that complicated.
> Really.

Let's explore that. Definition 1(a) of Merriam-Wester is "a lack of belief or strong belief in the existence of a god or any gods." So atheism means either what you say or the opposite. That seems more "complicated" than you suggest.

Let's go further. Is the definition of atheism clear and agreed? A decade ago Oxford University Press published the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, which explicitly rejects your proposition.

"‘Atheism’ is a term that has historically carried a wide range of meanings and connotations. Popular speech, in particular, admits of a range of definitions, but the same is true of contemporary scholarly usage also. This chapter therefore surveys the sheer variety of ways of defining ‘atheism’, before outlining the pressing need for a generally agreed-upon usage in the growing—and, thus far, Babel-like—field of scholarship on atheism."

In other words, what you claim is obvious--that atheism is a belief--is anything but clear. The argument then proceeds to suggest what a firm definition SHOULD be.

"It then outlines and explains the precise definition used throughout the Handbook: an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods. . ."

In other words, the best definition is "an absence of belief," which is the opposite of what you say is already the established usage. The authors may be wrong in what they propose, but that doesn't change the fact that what you call agreed is anything but.


----------
If there is no agreement on definitions, there can be no unambiguous interpretation of any datum.




ETA: Adding the source.

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37199/chapter-abstract/327367059?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2023 04:11PM by Lot's Wife.

If I may pile on...

In the previous thread, Think Again proposed an argument for the notion that atheism is indeed belief, wherein it was merely defined as such in premise 3.

I remain unconvinced by such a silly tautology, Think Again, and sincerely hope that your moniker is introspective.

There is no definition of "atheism" that does not involve some reference to a mental state or mental disposition as related to the proposition "God exists." (If you have such a definition, please share!)

As such, since such mental states are by definition "beliefs" (what else could they be), all references to "atheism" involve substantive beliefs.

That is about as clear as it gets.

Clear???? No. That is not even as muddy as it gets. That is sheer nonsense.

You are doing what you accuse Dawkins and the rest of doing.

Lack of belief. That's it. That's all. Atheism.

Why are you so desperate to turn it into a belief?

Explaining why religion is full of holes as atheists do is only that. One can even be religious and see that religion is full of holes---well everyone's religion but your own. Has nothing to do with atheism. Examination of something you do not believe in does not constitute a belief.

Here's the answer, from Think Again's last post in the preceding thread.

"After all, atheism in some of its various instantiations may well encompass if not a religion, an expansive ideology or at the very least an expansive worldview. Thus, although an atheist may simply believe that there is no supernatural god(s) and leave it at that, he or she may feel the further need to incorporate their belief into an ideology they need to market; or a worldview broadly embracing a materialist metaphysical commitment."

In short, he wants to debate the discuss a subset of atheism and atheists. He is trying to make us defend a position we have never assumed.

"He is trying to make us defend a position we have never assumed."


YES YES YES NoW THAT is clear!

You've again merely declared something to be true (that all auch mental states are beliefs) without backing that up, and then had the courage to follow that up with a statement commonly used in fallacious arguments from ignorance. "What else could they be?", you ask.

"Thought" is also a mental state, one that should come before belief. Your god propositions never move beyond that state in my mind. They never graduate to beliefs.

This whole thing reminds me of all the weird ways people define God. Remember all the threads we spent on that a while back? Heck, we all can't even agree how to define a Christian.

When you define a negative, it gets even weirder.

At some point, it becomes ridiculous and futile. People can't and won't agree on definitions because their education, perspective and senses (like the examples you used) vary.

That's precisely the problem. How do you reach conclusions when there is no agreement on the premises? How can you falsify the existence of God when there is no consensus on what "God" is?

By the same token, if the current definition of "atheism" is either a lack of belief or a strong belief, how exactly are we supposed to proceed?

Just wishing things were clear doesn't make them so.

> Just wishing things were
> clear doesn't make them so.

Next you're going to assert that just wishing something were true doesn't it make it so!!


      Party-pooper

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's precisely the problem. How do you reach
> conclusions when there is no agreement on the
> premises? How can you falsify the existence of
> God when there is no consensus on what "God" is?
>
> By the same token, if the current definition of
> "atheism" is either a lack of belief or a strong
> belief, how exactly are we supposed to proceed?
>
> Just wishing things were clear doesn't make them
> so.

As contradictory as it sounds, I suspect that both views of atheism are true; that is it is the lack of a belief in any god which leads to a belief that no god exists. Of course, you might (and have) argued that these are two contradictory viewpoints and I would agree. But in my little world...

It boggles my mind that every atheist doesn't believe in ghawd/ghawds in exactly the same way...

But there is useful unity in the notion that American atheists want and appreciate the freedoms that *Religion* enjoys (unless you believe in plural marriage).

From their website:

"If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist.  Don’t shy away from the term.  Embrace it.

"Agnostic isn’t just a 'weaker' version of being an atheist.  It answers a different question.  Atheism is about what you believe.  Agnosticism is about what you know."




And don't forget the great divide that exists between simple tribal atheists, such as myself, and big city, cosmopolitan atheists! It's not just the dues, either.

Feel free not to participate.

I know, it's hilarious. The best part was when she mentioned Merriam-Webster. I used to cringe everytime someone quoted the dictionary in a sacrament talk. Maybe we need to follow that hallowed intellectual technique of "Google it!" or quote Wikipedia.

You're really not very bright.

When one argues about the meanings of words, the dictionary is what matters. If you want to read sheep entrails or the patterns left on the floor when someone spills a Squishy on the Kwik-E-Mart floor, be my guest.

But no one else is going to be so foolish.

At least she's not hiding. You can feel free to bring up a new topic, if you wish.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Western
> concept of blue is idiosyncratic. In East Asian
> languages like Chinese and its regional progeny,
> the term blue includes hues that are firmly in the
> green range according to Westerners.

If you're going to spout off about linguistics, please do your research. Rhe insular Celtic languages and Mayan (among others) do not make such distinctions about blue and green traditionally. Pre-civil service Irish and Mayan... are about as western as you can get. I believe the Mayan word is "yax" or something similar, but unlike some others here I have the intellectual honesty to admit my knowledge of Mesoamerican linguistics is limited.

Also if you're talking about the Sino-Tibetan language group, then Cantonese and Hakka etc are not "regional progeny" of Chinese, but related vernaculars that arose independently. (Although they did and do cross-fertilize one another.)

Take a second and wipe the froth from your chin.


-------------------
> If you're going to spout off about linguistics,
> please do your research. Rhe insular Celtic
> languages and Mayan (among others) do not make
> such distinctions about blue and green
> traditionally.

How are Celtic and Mayan relevant to my comparison of Western and East Asian languages? Is it your opinion that a great China scholar like Joseph Needham or Jonathan Spence may not address China unless he has first satisfied your exacting requirements on "Rhe insular Celtic?"

Because that would be silly.


--------------
> Pre-civil service Irish and
> Mayan... are about as western as you can get.

I don't know about the Mayan language/s, but Irish would be further evidence supporting my point. I'd thank you, but you'd probably start throwing your wife's china at the wall.


--------------
> I
> believe the Mayan word is "yax" or something
> similar. . .

Who cares? It's irrelevant.


--------------
> . . .but unlike some others here I have the
> intellectual honesty to admit my knowledge of
> Mesoamerican linguistics is limited.

Where did I say anything about "Mesoamerican linguistics?"

Nowhere? Then what are you on about?


--------------
> Also if you're talking about the Sino-Tibetan
> language group, then Cantonese and Hakka etc are
> not "regional progeny" of Chinese, but related
> vernaculars that arose independently. (Although
> they did and do cross-fertilize one another.)

If I were talking about the Sino-Tibetan language group, I would have said I was talking about the Sino-Tibetan language group.

In any case all of the Chinese dialects that use Han characters interpret the colors I mentioned exactly as I said. Why? Because they use the standard characters with the attendant meanings, which were established in the late Shang Dynasty.


-----------
What is going on here, again, is that somehow I make you feel inadequate and you don't like that. So rather than address my point--that the definitions of blue and green differ between the Indo-European languages and the Sino-centric ones--you proclaim, with generous spittle, that the Irish and the Mayans had languages too and hence deserve participation trophies every bit as much as you do.

Why don't you go off, then, and contemplate Irish and Mayan on your own? If you then want to post a thread on the subject, I'd venture that the moderators will let you do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2023 05:42AM by Lot's Wife.

For some strange reason you are reminding me of one of my favorite quotes:

"If we are discussing horses it would seem out of place to mix in donkeys and proceed to discuss them all together." Norman Totten.

Maybe I should "Google it"? I know your aim is to draw me into a long, protracted debate, as many bores do, but no thanks. You clearly have only a surface knowledge of several of the subjects you're pontificating on.

When you're presented with actual evidence that some of what you are saying is complete nonsense, you say it is "irrelevant" or tell me to "contemplate it on my own". Maybr it is "irrelevant", but it's irrelevant to the issue of God, not what you've regurgitated. Irish and Welsh are about as western as you can get. They predate the English, and even Roman, incursions onto their islands. Many Chinese have been illiterate in the past due to their overcomplex writing system, and it only has a limited effect on the spoken languages. (There is no firm definitikn of language vs dialect, and to many people Cantonese and its siblings aren't dialects but languages.)

A common criticism of western philosophy is that it is often too definition based, as opposed to practical. I think this thread provides an example of that, although it's hardly striding across the Parnassian Heights of Western Thought(s), is it?

Like Summer, I've worked in an industry where this issue was important, and we got around it by quoting Pantone numbers etc. At least in that instance it was relevant, and sometimes produced appealing results. I wish I could say the aame here. Bickering over colors like that is fruitless and doesn't get us very far on the question of (a)theism.

p.s. "wipe the froth from your chin." - Reading your OP suggests a strong dose of "physician, heal thyself."

> I know your aim is to draw me
> into a long, protracted debate


It's a dirty, dirty job, but someone's got to do it...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a dirty, dirty job, but someone's got to do
> it...



Nothing dirty about it (unless of course you mean Lot’s Wife is paid to behave this way). Ever dig holes for a living?

Dirty or not, Lot’s Wife’s officiousness is unparalleled (at least I haven’t seen the like). Here as elsewhere.

Human

I take that as meaning you frequently disagree with me.

Go read Malthus, J-man, and let us know when you've figured him out. Same with Orwell's 1984. Same with the War on Cash, about which you went silent when I point out how ridiculous it was.

Till then I'll leave it to you to figure out why you removed Mayan from your list of Western languages; and why you have provided no evidence that the Chinese word "qing" or the identical Japanese "sei" does not include the colors of very young plants. Because that's what I said and yet you've offered nothing on the topic.

I'll also leave it to you to explain why the distinction between Celtic and Germanic languages is a rebuttal to my use of the term "Western" when both categories are closely related Indo-European languages.

As for Google, no, I do not expect you to engage in a lengthy factual discussion because I know full well you do not "do" facts. You fulminate; you clutch pearls; you froth; but you're singularly incapable, by dint of intellect or character, of backing up your arguments with actual facts.

Mayan, for heaven's sake. . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2023 05:07PM by Lot's Wife.

It was not a wise choice to use color perception to bolster your arguments on atheism. It might have worked as a brief aside, rather than a long diatribe. But since you insisted, i5 was worth pointing out your definitions of what constitutes "western-ness" are somewhat Eurocentric and untenable. Both North America and Western Europe have cultures which do not perceive color in the same way your supposed "western" society does. Celtic languages are not closely related to Germanic languages, certainly no more than Russian is, although there has been reciprocal influence since the Middle Ages and substrates.

"If I were talking about the Sino-Tibetan language group, I would have said I was talking about the Sino-Tibetan language group."

What you refer to as Chinese "dialects" all fall within the Sino-Tibetan language group. The characters are only loosely connected to the spoken language. In some cases, the origins of certain ideograms are obscure to their users.

Ignoring your inaccurate and irrelevant vituperation at the beginning there. Many examples of misattribution as well. At some point in your early life, you clearly thought this was the way to get what you want. Unfortunately the real world does not work like that, and it's probably time for you to follow a more fruitful path which will benefit both you and those around you.

Years ago when I worked in the fabric industry, I spent a lot of time each day comparing fabric and trim samples under a light box. Blue was by far the hardest color to match because there were so many undertones that it could take. It would match in one light but not another. I could see people disagreeing about what makes "blue."

The source of the confusion between cultures is that the distinctions are arbitrary. The visual spectrum changes gradually from one end to the other. There are no clear borders but rather gradations, and different cultures draw the lines in different places.

Hence the example I adduced: very young plants sprouting out of the ground are considered green in the West but blue in the languages that relied for a long time on Chinese characters, including Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.

Let's get back to basics here.

Agreed, atheism is not a religion, unless you use the term 'religion' in an ironic sense (e.g. high school football is a religion in west Texas, and Friday night is its Sabbath)

In the previous thread, Dave the Atheist said 'A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.' This is a common theme, brought up nearly every time the subject of atheism comes up here.


I summarized my opinion in the following two statements:
(a) Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
(b) Atheism is no belief that there are gods.

I altered the traditional wording slightly so the two statements would mirror each other.

The "lack of a belief is not a belief" crowd holds that statement (b) is true and correct and conducive to the social order, and statement (a) is wrong and corrupt and must be stamped out.

I, OTOH, think they are basically identical statements. Lack of belief is most certainly a belief.

So what do atheists believe? That varies, just like "what do Christians believe" varies. I would say the bedrock beliefs of atheists are that all gods are human cultural constructs, as are all religions.

Furthermore, those beliefs have implications. I would not expect an atheist to resort to prayer if faced with a difficult problem. Meditation, maybe, but not prayer. That would seem to me to be a perfectly natural outgrowth of being an atheist.


Statements (a) and (b) are the same statement, worded differently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2023 02:58PM by Brother Of Jerry.

> Agreed, atheism is not a religion, unless you use
> the term 'religion' in an ironic sense (e.g. high
> school football is a religion in west Texas, and
> Friday night is its Sabbath)

Yes, atheism is not a religion. But that is what those of us arguing with you have been saying throughout both of these threads.


--------------------
> I, OTOH, think they are basically identical
> statements. Lack of belief is most certainly a
> belief.

My problem with your argument is that you have changed the definition of the debate idiosyncratically. When I first read to this point I saw that you were basically shifting the argument to a different part of your sentence. If we accept your particular definition of "atheism," we then end up debating the word "believe."

And indeed, that's where you went. . .


-------------
> So what do atheists believe? That varies, just
> like "what do Christians believe" varies. I would
> say the bedrock beliefs of atheists are that all
> gods are human cultural constructs, as are all
> religions.

Here you're trying to pre-empt the logically inevitable inquiry as to what the atheist's specific beliefs are. I take that as indirect admission that "beliefs" should comprise positive tenets as opposed to, well, nothing. That is the rub. To the extent that people cannot, or have not, defined the tenets of their personal "beliefs," they will disagree with your conclusion that they must have them.

Again, your definitions of "atheism" skew the discussion towards your preferred conclusion. But you're obviously sensitive to the fact that "believe" is an active verb and almost perforce requires further explication.


--------------
> Furthermore, those beliefs have implications. I
> would not expect an atheist to resort to prayer if
> faced with a difficult problem. Meditation, maybe,
> but not prayer. That would seem to me to be a
> perfectly natural outgrowth of being an atheist.

This strikes me as a further attempt to give "belief" a traditional positive definition. I would simply point out that there is no clear distinction between "prayer" and "meditation," so you're just pushing the uncertainty from "atheism" to "belief" and then to "evidences of belief."


---------
To summarize, your idiosyncratic definition of "atheism" has simply pushed the problem down the road. There's nothing wrong with following the logic that way, but I don't see why your changing the focus of the debate from one term to another is preferable to acknowledging that the word "atheist" is largely undefined in both the common parlance and the academic literature.

I see your point and agree it is technically correct. It seems to me that by rearranging the statements to look similar, you have changed the way the word "belief" was used. I don't think they are actually the same statement in a subtle way.

(a) Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
(b) Atheism is no belief that there are gods.

IMO, (a) is a statement that one might presume has evidence that supported the belief. Many atheists would not put themselves in a position to defend how they believe there are no gods.

Statement (b), OTOH, is not something that would imply there is evidence. The statement means the same as if there was no belief there ARE gods. There is simply no belief on gods either way. "No gods" and "no beliefs" are not the same in these sentences (to me, anyway). This is why the gnostic and agnostic tags often get yoked to the term atheism.

Just like OFF is a signal, it does not effectively mean the same as the signals that produce images when the TV is ON. So, it seems like a science nerd should be able to assume everyone sees his statement is correct, but it is not clear without an explanation. Besides, signals actually have proof they exist.

I'm indifferent at this point. I still think stating I am an agnostic atheist makes the most sense for me. I do NOT hold any beliefs because I wouldn't have evidence to go as far as statement (a).

> It seems to me that by rearranging the
> statements to look similar, you have changed the
> way the word "belief" was used.

That is exactly what struck me.

You can predetermine the logical conclusion of an argument if you define the initial terms the right way. But sometimes, as in this case, that simply moves the problem further into the logical proposition.


ETA: I always feel more comfortable when I find myself on stumbling onto your side of an argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2023 05:40PM by Lot's Wife.

Re your ETA, you should feel less comfortable! I'm driving the curmudgeon train lately.

I like curmudgeons. Behold EOD!

Lacking a belief in something and being convinced something does not exist are not quite the same thing. I doubt animals believe in Santa Claus but they don't actively and consciously disbelieve. It's a bit like the subtle distinction between not voting and abstaining from voting.

Lack of belief means no belief. No Belief.

Somehow you twist such a simple concept around until it has its head up its butt.

This stance some choose to claim atheism is a belief will go on forever and unfortunately semantic games such as yours will be the life raft the argument needs to continue on for ever floating in a sea of word play-offs. Boring.

I am more interested in the Why. Why is it so important to theists to claim atheism is a religion? By doing that you are saying an atheist is a deist. You are saying lacking a belief is proof of belief.

The real why is it's a threat to deists. Deists deal in beliefs--the non-provable, the factless, the evidence challenged. Atheists deal with fact and evidence. Fact beats belief as it has something tangible to offer while belief is an idea hoped to be true. This is too lame a situation to even be labeled a Samson and Goliath. This is fighting a monster we all knew was in the closet as kids.


In the end, he only hope that the believing deist has is to attempt to level the playing field by attempting to drag atheism into the "belief" arena.

This is called moving the goal posts. Won't be attending that game.

>Lack of belief means no belief. No Belief.

So atheists don't in general believe that gods and religions are human constructs? Do tell.

I'm an atheist, and I certainly believe that. Am I going to get drummed out of the atheist club now for having an opinion on atheism?

Depends on what the definition of the word "is" is? That is what I read into this.


I don't need to "believe" that gods and religion are human constructs. The evidence is everywhere. I can study how and why they came to be. Just like Bible god. He is the main character in a best seller. Why on earth would I need "believe" that. So should I "believe" in Jack Ryan from Hunt for Red October as well. This fifty shades of belief thing you have going is smacking of some desperate attorney trying a case on a convenient definition variation or Bill Clinton's most famous line.

The lack of belief is in a God no one has seen and there no evidence of other than hearsay, lore, and as a control tactic.

In the end I like my definitions pure and simple. Clean. Obviously you like yours with a side of fries. I'm fine with that. Enjoy.

I have no large issue with what you said but it doesn't make sense to me. My inner workings are from a different manufacturer. More importantly I do not like others defining me.
I had enough of that when I was young.

A belief based on evidence is still a belief. We all have opinions/conclusions/understandings/beliefs we have arrived at with regard to the panoply of gods in the universe.

All I am saying is that to claim atheists don't have beliefs WRT gods is ludicrous. What atheists don't have is belief that one or more of these gods is a divine being with supernatural powers. That is a very limited slice of the spectrum of beliefs one can have about the world, or about gods.

Believing that something doesn't exist (or is impossible) is indeed a belief.

Words only mean what your mind says they mean when you're in the act of saying them!

  
    I so want to believe that not
    having a belief is the same as
    believing that having a belief
    is unbelievable!


Is fathomable the opposite of unfathomable?  And how many forward speeds does the gearbox of a fathomobile have?

I remember someone on RFM berating a fellow Atheist because "Your problem is, you just aren't Atheist enough!"

Implying that for some people Atheism is a form of belief with degrees of belief.

For some, atheism becomes a cause or a movement, and at that point it can start to resemble a religion. But that is neither logically necessary nor, I believe, common.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember someone on RFM berating a fellow
> Atheist because "Your problem is, you just aren't
> Atheist enough!"
>
> Implying that for some people Atheism is a form of
> belief with degrees of belief.

I wonder if we should be thinking in terms of active vs passive atheism.

* Passive atheism would consist of one's internal ideas (or lack thereof).
* Active atheism would be how those ideas are projected onto the outside world.

A third category might be those who appear to be actively atheist, but only do so for cynical reasons e.g. their cultural milieu or living under a state atheist regime. Their internal ideas may be quite different.

LOL. I hadn't read to the bottom of the thread when I posted my question above about whether I was in danger of being drummed out of the atheist club for having an opinion about atheism. I see somebody else sensed this thread spinning in that direction.

Where's Dramamine when I need it?

I think the point for most of us is that you can't be drummed out of the club because there is no club.

Aren't you, in fact, the one who insists that there is a single definition, or a single intellectual framework, that applies to all atheists? Because that seems a lot closer to the idea of a club than what your opponents in this thread are advocating.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2023 02:21AM by Lot's Wife.

No need for Dramamine! If there was a club, you'd qualify for ward clerk at least.

I agree with the points you have made. I think another sticking point for me is in the word belief.

If I say I believe in evolution or gravity, it is not the same as saying I believe in a god. The difference is in the evidence, or the quality of evidence. Unfortunately that would mean disagreements over the word evidence.

To distinguish the difference, I tend to use "know" instead of "believe" for things that have irrefutable facts. Belief implies to me there is some element of faith.

"I believe Tom might be late" can qualify as a belief.
"I believe gods are created by humans" does not qualify as just a belief, because world mythology makes it a "know" IMO.

When I hear the word belief, I find myself trying to decide if it is a faith based use of the word or a fact based use of the word. I think it is just a quirky subtle difference that matters only to me.

So, I'm probably the one who won't be invited into the club, not even as a Visiting Teacher.

S. I. Hayakawa blew my little mind in Communications 201.

Most of us believe that when we use a word, people who hear us know exactly what we mean; we believe that others hearing that word define it exactly as we do.

How often this is the case isn't as important as how often it ISN'T the case.  The point I'm aiming at is that because of the personal histories we bring to this debate, and on which our individual 'definitions' are made make it impossible for there to be any agreement.

In support of this contention that there are practically an infinite number of definitions, I offer you the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Atheism (read it and weep):



https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

I can understand why someone would trivialize the difference between the statements "I believe there are no gods" and "I have no beliefs in gods". I'm sure that for many, there is no impact to their worldview.

But for me, the consequences implied by the difference have been profound. All my young life I was told that I must believe. I was told that belief comes with prayer, or worse, with repeatedly saying that I believed even if I didn't. But I couldn't ever really believe. I was convinced that the problem was mine, after all, everyone around me seemed to have no issues. I thought that there was something wrong with me.

So for me, embedded in the difference between those statements is the acknowledgement that belief isn't required, and there is a pathway to justified belief that doesn't include ambiguous and nonsensical methods. This might sound silly to most,but realizing that lack of belief wasn't a defect was a big deal to me.

It's also why a can't accept the notion that lack of belief is belief. I spent way too much of my life not believing while simultaneously wanting to. I'm keenly aware of how lack of belief manifests in my mind, and it isn't the same as belief, regardless of whatever philosophical or psychological arguments you send my way. This is admittedly a stubborn position to take, but sometimes one can't escape their own irrationality.

And I am convinced I don't care.

You believe in God. That is a belief. It may be a formal belief system with doctrine, ritual rules,etc or not. You can have a vague belief that there is a God of some sort without subscribing to a specific religion or even caring much about pleasing thag n god or thinking he cares what you do. Atheism is generally not a belief system even if a few atheists think their way of being an atheist is the one true way. Most don't. If may not be a belief system but if you don't BELIEVE in God it is still your belief even if it is a negative and unique to you in some way.. Notice the,word belief in the very statement. Some of you need to,stop redefining words. This argument ismsilly and boring as far as I am concerned.