Atheism is just the denial of the unsupported posit by theists that something they call "god" actually exists just because they wish it did. Since "god" is just a made up concept with no actual referent, there isn't any good definition which I can offer you. Even going from person to person in the same religion you won't get a solid definition. Its really just a reflection of their personal fantasies mixed with the bits of traditional fantasies of god they happen to decide to hold on to.
You know about him so belief is irrelevant. If he tells you that he has a cousin. You might choose to believe or disbelieve that claim since he hasn't offered any reasonable evidence to support it. But of course you are just playing stupid, as usual.
You know, Sam, for someone who seems concerned about words (like 'religion') becoming so vague as to be useless*, you've basically destroyed the meaning of the word 'belief'. By your standards, a 'belief' is any cognitive activity whatsoever. Even having only once heard the word 'god', someone is bound to have a belief on it one way or the other. I can only assume that - if you're being objective - this can only be true if one has a "belief" on every single cognitive piece of information (which I think you'd even have great trouble defining on it's own) that one's heard of. But that means the word '(dis)belief in' is no different than 'thought regarding'. Which I don't think fits very well with how we use the two words. See the sentence: "I've thought about it a lot, but I haven't yet decided what I believe." * A fine cause, by the way. I think philosophers do it often.
If you accept your cognitive content as true. If you doubt yourself or believe in yourself, which cognitive content are you rejecting? And do you accept or reject this cognitive content? If I choose to believe him, is it a belief? Or not? If I choose to disbelieve him, is it a belief? Or not?
The typical understanding of the words suggests that one can consider a proposition before declaring (internally or externally) a belief on it. Perhaps one can also have something we can call a 'belief' unconsciously, but I don't think anyone is sure of that. I don't know what you mean. Your second sentence is not even grammatically correct. I'm pretty sure the word 'disbelieve' can't be used in that way. The verb "to disbelieve" is usually used in the sense of "he disbelieved the accounts of...". Whereas I think what you're trying to say is "have disbelief in him". And to answer your question, no, it's not a belief. It's a disbelief. They are two different categories. That's why there are two different words. ----------- There is a categorical difference which you are struggling to admit exists. The acceptance of a proposition as true without 100% proof is considered to be a belief. Not accepting a proposition is not usually called a belief. Frankly, Sam, I'd be fine with ignoring the word 'belief' on this whole matter if it makes your life easier. The two are categorically different cognitive processes and results, and if you're not capable of seeing the difference then you should brush up on logic.
If you accept something with no evidence its a belief, if you reject something with no evidence, its also a belief. Disbelief is not denial, its doubt. To actively deny a claim is not disbelief. e.g. Sam: I went to Canada last week. Tyler: I don't believe you is different from Sam: I crawled to Canada from Florida on my hands and knees last week Tyler: I don't believe you.
Again, Sam, the truth is that what you apply the word 'belief' to is not really important here. At least not to me. I think you're seriously warping the definition of the word 'belief' here (what you're referring to is called 'thought' in daily language), but I honestly couldn't give a shit. There are categorical differences between the two. A theist adds something to their ontology that is not proven. An atheist does not add that one thing to their ontology. They are fundamentally different actions. Quite like how putting a cookie in a cookie jar is different from looking at the cookie and then setting it down on the table. If you don't believe me, get a cookie jar. Count the cookies in it. Then pick up another cookie and put it in the jar. You will notice the number has changed. Now pick up another cookie, look at it, and then put it on the table. Count the cookies in the cookie jar again. You'll notice the number hasn't changed. The two actions were categorically different. One had a direct impact on the status of the cookie jar and the number of cookies inside of it. One did not. The same is true cognitively. Though research on 'belief' is spotty (due to 'belief' being a rather fuzzy concept), the area of your brain that deals with propositions is distinct from that of the area that deals with things already held to be true (in some sense; again, 'true' is a fuzzy definition most of the time). I think you may be harping on this point because you notice some atheists using the word 'belief' almost as an insult, and you'd like to show that it applies equally to both sides. The truth is that we all function on a massive set of beliefs in daily life. We assume that we are not brain's sitting in vats, or being controlled by evil ghosts, or that all of our friends are lying to us at every turn, etc. Belief is an integral part of life and you wouldn't get very far out of bed without it. 'Belief' is not a dirty word. But if you really can't understand the difference between a strong atheist and a weak atheist then your troubles are deeper than cookie jars. (1) I am certain there is no god. (2) I don't believe there is one. That said, the truth is that I have absolutely no access to such knowledge and I could be wrong. If you think the word 'believe' doesn't make sense in this sentence then we'll change it to "gorgoflog" or something else that makes you happy. But most of the world has operated just fine with the current definition. I'll put it one last way. X = {there is a god} Theist says X is true. Strong atheist says ~X(not X) is true. Weak atheist says X is indeterminate. If you don't get that, brush up on your first-year logic course.
"Weak atheist"??/ If you deny God there is no "weak" about it. To doubt is not to deny. I think weak atheism is a ridiculous category. (1) I am certain there is no god. (2) I don't believe there is one. That said, the truth is that I have absolutely no access to such knowledge and I could be wrong. 1 is atheism 2 is a confused individual hiding behind semantics. If you have no access to knowledge why do you believe there is no God? Isn't that an addition to your ontology?
sam, It is long overdue that you start to comprehend this very basic error which influences almost every post you make here and makes debating with you fundamentally frustrating. The refusal to accept a proposition as true is NOT the same as believing it is false. One can simply remain unconvinced without asserting a specific belief.
Agreed. The state of being unconvinced is complex, though: 1. it contains instances where the person can clearly list the reasons why they are unconvinced, 2. it contains instances where the person can not clearly list the reasons why they are unconvinced.
1 - I believe SAM is sincere. 2 - I believe SAM is not sincere. 3 - I don't know whether SAM is sincere.
Close but it actually goes 1) a theist claims G and claims they know G 2) a "strong" atheist denies G (~G) and claims they know ~G 3) a standard atheist says that the theist has not established the claim of G 4) a standard agnostic says G is currently unknown. 5) a strong agnostic says G cannot be known. generally the last three get along pretty well and have issues with the first two. In particular 3 and 4 don't have real issues each other and often hold both positions. It should also be noted that none of them would have any problem with an actual god. 4 and 5 can even be quite religious depite not knowing "for sure." Generally the first two pretend the last three either don't exist or don't "get it." They tend to be "you are either with me or against me." Alot of people have trouble distinguishing 3 and 4. 3 is an existencial position. When some one is making an extrordinary claim of existence, like for a god, then it is reasonable to expect them to support that claim with an actual deity. A lack of extrordinary supporting evidence equal to the claim and the claim is dismissed. 4 is an epistomological position. 4 personally has no knowledge of any deities an isn't willing to jump to any conclutions from a position of ignorance. She is a bit more forgiving than 3 and may extend the benefit of the doubt in the matter, but won't just pretend that another's word conveys the knowledge needed to apprehend gods.
The "a" prefix means lack/without/non/aint got no. As in.... Asexual=having no sexual organs.(you don't have a belief there are no sex organs, it is quite obvious.) Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(you don't have a belief there is no symmetry, it is quite obvious) Atheist=not theist.(you don't have a belief there are no god/gods, it is quite obvious, as the theist, has not shown his claims to be true.) thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it. Sam: I lack faith/belief in your claim that god exists, I don't lack faith/belief in the possibility of a god, as I cannot prove that one does not exist.(but I wouldn't try too, as that would be infantile) I simple lack faith/belief in your claim that one does, as there is no reason too. Unless of course you can produce one instance of a god, then and only then would I "believe/have faith" in your claim.
