From what I hear from guys such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, atheism is defined as simply not believing in deities. More importantly, the core idea behind atheism is you don't believe in things you can't prove. Thus, if I were to assert the following two statements, an atheist who is true to these principles would believe neither statement.
1. God exists. 2. God does not exist.
Seeing how we haven't come close to proving either (as they are unprovable), an atheist who truly cares about not believing in assertions he can't prove would choose to not believe either assertion. However, some atheists believe that God does not exist, and if atheism is defined as that, it would be a belief.
This leads one to question: What's the difference between an atheist who neither believes that God exists or does not exist and an agnostic? Both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who are leading atheists, do not claim that God does not exist because they know it's outside of their abilities to know for sure. However, if they were to make a bet, I'm sure they both would bet God doesn't exist. I would as well.
My point: If you want to talk about atheism not being a belief, you have to define it and explain the core philosophy very well.
Arik
· 2 years ago
I'm probably a glutton for punishment.
I would like to suggest the following definition for a belief:
* A belief is a mental process that affects a decision you make, at the point in time when the decision is made
So when you make a decision, the beliefs you hold determine the result of the decision.
When you bought your car, the belief that you have the money or that you can pay the financing fees and that a BMW is a good reliable car, and that the car will change your life in a particular way and so on and so fourth - made you decide to buy the car. It's a bunch of them together.
Belief in a deity, or Deism, is one such belief. When you are about to commit a sin, like eating pork, that belief (the deity Gaga exists, and it forbids its chosen people from eating lettuce, and I am one of his chosen people) is factored into the decision.
So if you remove those beliefs, you end up with no particular reason not to eat lettuce. Your belief that you are hungry, that lettuce is good food and that there is lettuce in front of you win over. Now say someone comes to you just before you are shoving a juicy leaf of lettuce into your mouth, and says, Hey, what are you doing with that leaf of lettuce? Don't you know Gaga forbids his chosen ones from eating lettuce? You might end up not eating the leaf because you now believe that there is a possibility that Gaga exists.
Then, what if you introduce a new belief: There is no deity. Gaga does not exist. That is a belief according to the definition, because now with this belief, you go on to eat the leaf of lettuce. You are immune from this person's attempts at conviction, because your existing belief would not let his attempts become a new belief. Bon appetite!
I hope I'm clear this time. If not, let me know about any ambiguity and I'll correct it.
All Comments
1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.
Seeing how we haven't come close to proving either (as they are unprovable), an atheist who truly cares about not believing in assertions he can't prove would choose to not believe either assertion. However, some atheists believe that God does not exist, and if atheism is defined as that, it would be a belief.
This leads one to question: What's the difference between an atheist who neither believes that God exists or does not exist and an agnostic? Both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who are leading atheists, do not claim that God does not exist because they know it's outside of their abilities to know for sure. However, if they were to make a bet, I'm sure they both would bet God doesn't exist. I would as well.
My point: If you want to talk about atheism not being a belief, you have to define it and explain the core philosophy very well.
I would like to suggest the following definition for a belief:
* A belief is a mental process that affects a decision you make, at the point in time when the decision is made
So when you make a decision, the beliefs you hold determine the result of the decision.
When you bought your car, the belief that you have the money or that you can pay the financing fees and that a BMW is a good reliable car, and that the car will change your life in a particular way and so on and so fourth - made you decide to buy the car. It's a bunch of them together.
Belief in a deity, or Deism, is one such belief. When you are about to commit a sin, like eating pork, that belief (the deity Gaga exists, and it forbids its chosen people from eating lettuce, and I am one of his chosen people) is factored into the decision.
So if you remove those beliefs, you end up with no particular reason not to eat lettuce. Your belief that you are hungry, that lettuce is good food and that there is lettuce in front of you win over. Now say someone comes to you just before you are shoving a juicy leaf of lettuce into your mouth, and says, Hey, what are you doing with that leaf of lettuce? Don't you know Gaga forbids his chosen ones from eating lettuce? You might end up not eating the leaf because you now believe that there is a possibility that Gaga exists.
Then, what if you introduce a new belief: There is no deity. Gaga does not exist. That is a belief according to the definition, because now with this belief, you go on to eat the leaf of lettuce. You are immune from this person's attempts at conviction, because your existing belief would not let his attempts become a new belief. Bon appetite!
I hope I'm clear this time. If not, let me know about any ambiguity and I'll correct it.
-- Arik