Atheism is a belief.

[Tht1Gy!]

Clearly I'm trying to goad you into at least an attempt to answer some of my questions.

FYI: Gotta go. More later.
T1G! out.

[flameofanor5]

Just like a religion can be a belief, or something we live by. So that means that atheism is a belief, but, whether they are or are not, it doesn't really make a difference life.

[Tht1Gy!]

Fuck the dictionary. If that's the game you want to play, I'm done.

Game? What is that supposed to mean?
This seems to be the only subject that 'logic' and 'reason' types have no use for the dictionary. The only subject that they revert to 'truthiness'. (Thanks to Steven Corbert)

And I have made points/posts answering many of the questions you've asked.
I will not retype, as I have disabilities that make typing a long and tortuous process.
This post for instance has taken me 10-15 min to type.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Noooo... With the lack of evidence, I do not believe in a god(s).

Must I use littler words for you?

Is the following statement correct.
Superluminal believes there is no God.

Sometimes it seems like this kind of conversation happens on an unnecessarily abstract level. My experience is that most people who call themselves atheists believe there is no God. They do not claim to know there is no God. But they believe there is no God.

I can certainly understand the abstract concept of an atheist who finds no evidence there is a God and simply lacks any shred of belief. I do believe this is a possible outlook. I think however it is rarer than the atheists in this discussion are making this seem. But perhaps I am wrong about this.

Do most of the atheists here believe there is no God?

[(Q)]

Do most of the atheists here believe there is no God?

Not necessarily. It has more to do with accepting or not accepting the claims of theists for supernatural entities and events. Their gods are merely part of those claims.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Not necessarily. It has more to do with accepting or not accepting the claims of theists for supernatural entities and events. Their gods are merely part of those claims.

I understand that it is not necessarily the case. I am wondering however if it is the case. I am guessing you categorize yourself as an atheist. So let me ask you:

Q believes there is no God.

Is this statement true or false?

[(Q)]

Q believes there is no God.

I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth.

I said I don't accept theists claims for supernatural entities and events.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth.

I said I don't accept theists claims for supernatural entities and events.

Sorry. My intention was not to put words in your mouth or I would not have asked if it was a true statement or not.

The statement
"Q believes there is no God"

Is this a true statement or a false statement?

I recognize and acknowledge fully that you have never said that you believe there is no God.

[(Q)]

The statement
"Q believes there is no God"

Is this a true statement or a false statement?

It's neither since no theist has demonstrated their claim for a gods existence.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It's neither since no theist has demonstrated their claim for a gods existence.

I think that statement has to be either true or false. What is the other option?

[Myles]

It's neither since no theist has demonstrated their claim for a gods existence.

Whether god's existence has been proved or not is irrelevant. The qustion is about belief, not knowledge.Hence ther are two possible answers.

[(Q)]

I think that statement has to be either true or false. What is the other option?

Null.

[S.A.M.]

Hmm so (Q) does not believe there is no God?

[superluminal]

The statement
"Q believes there is no God"

Is this a true statement or a false statement?

If it was asked of me I would say it was false. I do not believe there is no god, which is a positive assertion. Believeing in the truth of the absence of something. The correct statement regarding most rational atheists is:

"Q does not believe in a god"

Believing that something doesn't exist is certainly different from not beleiving in something.

Try these:

I have good reason to believe that there is no santa claus as classically presented. Why? There are many testable predictions about his whereabouts and his abilities. I'm saying santa does not exist as presented. I have proof of this.

The same could be said of many gods of the past (we know zeus does not inhabit the peak of mount olympus). And also of many of the attributes that used to be applied to the current round of gods. People were certain that god lived in the sky, literally right over your head, and that hell was literally deep underground.

I have good reason to believe that a god presented as such does not exist. I have proof of this.

But in general, with the ever adaptable theistic approach, modern sophisticated christians, jews, and muslims have translated their gods into ethereal, supernatural, unmeasurable and in all other ways inscrutable entities.

Therefore, they are not amenable to the kind of "proof of nonexistence" as in the above simpler examples. It's a fools errand to try to disprove such claims. So, generally not being fools , atheists will say "I have no good reason to believe in your god". Not "I believe your god dosen't exist".

See?

So, despite all of the rhetoric in this and other threads about atheism (as explained above) being a belief, that's simply semantic confusion in my opinion. By simple definition, a lack of belief is not a belief in itself.

[superluminal]

Hmm so (Q) does not believe there is no God?

Exactly. I know he will agree.

[greenberg]

I think that statement has to be either true or false.

And this is the crux of the whole discussion between theists and non-theists.

Many theists seem to be completely unable to understand how one could possibly have no stance on the matter of God's existence; they can't understand how one's stance could be "having no stance".

So this whole discussion between theists and non-theists on the matter of God's existence is actually a matter of logical understanding as such, and not about God's existence in particular.

The problem with the statement "Q believes there is no God"
is similar as with "Q believes ocra tastes bad" - when given the fact that Q has never eaten ocra.

[superluminal]

The problem with the statement "Q believes there is no God"
is similar as with "Q believes ocra tastes bad" - when given the fact that Q has never eaten ocra.

Right. Saying "Q does not believe ocra tastes bad" is just as valid, given that he has no experience with a thing called "ocra".

[greenberg]

Or even if he had ever eaten ocra - as long as he was unaware that the thing he ate was ocra, he can't rightfully be said to have any justified beliefs about the taste of ocra (ie. either that he believes it tastes bad, or that he belives it tastes good).

- This is in reference to the common theist claim that "we all already know God".

[Enmos]

Or even if he had ever eaten ocra - as long as he was unaware that the thing he ate was ocra, he can't rightfully be said to have any justified beliefs about the taste of ocra (ie. either that he believes it tastes bad, or that he belives it tastes good).

- This is in reference to the common theist claim that "we all already know God".

Your analogy is flawed. "We already know God" translates to "He already knows the taste of ocra"
And if a person knows something how can that person then believe in it ? Believe is without knowing.

[superluminal]

Your analogy is flawed. "We already know God" translates to "He already knows the taste of ocra"
And if a person knows something how can that person then believe in it ? Believe is without knowing.

That's not his analogy. Theists will say "We already know God" to support their flawed idea that atheists are somehow denying what they inherently know, thus making it a belief that there is no god. It's a theistic tactic to confuse the issue.