Hi LB:

I believe that the phrase "I believe," in the English language and culture, can mean "I think so," not necessarily "I believe this to be absolutely true."

Language sounds absolute, but is meant absolutely only by absolutists. Most people, I think, are relativists, which means they know that absolute TRUTH cannot be expressed in words and concepts, but is being experienced in the pure, unconceptualized experience, as in meditation or meditative or contemplative excercise.

At least that's what I believe. But, being a relativist, I could be wrong.

That's the trouble with relativism and liberalism: relativists and liberalists always admit the they could be wrong, whereas absolutists are always absolutely right. Does that mean that absolutism wins all debates and carries the day?

I think not. If oppsoites complement and necessitate each other—as they seem to do in this magnificient universe of ours—then absolutism and relativism complement and necessitate each other.

This means absolutists are relatively right, and relativists are absolutely right!

Relatively speaking, of course.

I believe you are correct.

You are absolutely correct.

Hey, me too! Maybe you are not correct. Which means I would be wrong. But I could be wrong about your being wrong...

Help! Where is my book on General Semantics? I knew I shoulda read it....I do remember a couple of sentences on the fly-leaf:

The map is not the territory.

No word means exactly the same thing twice.

And I recall Kirkgaard: 'Language is the art of conceiling thought'  (I think today he would have added a )

—then absolutism and relativism complement and necessitate each other.

....Oh....

This means absolutists are relatively right, and relativists are absolutely right!

 ...Kay!

My realitives are always speaking...

wow i followed you until the very end Arm.

as a relativiist, I think "I believe" statements are also used incorrectly but people interpret them correctly.  For example, the other day I asked someone if they believed in ghosts.  After I said it I realized it was the wrong diction but the person understood that I actually meant: Do you believe ghosts exist?  I did not mean do you base your trust and hope in ghosts?

Language changes and it's getting more and more concise and confusing (or maybe simple is better?)  with use of emails and texting.

I don't know if atheism is a belief.

Hi LKG:

Well, if one absolutely believes that God or any other supernatural entity does not exist, then atheism is a belief. If, however, "belief" is defined as a belief in a supernatural reality or deity, then atheism would not be a belief but a conviction or disbelief.

When someone asks me the question, "Do you believe in God?", my answer is, "Yes and no, depending on how you define 'God'."

I'm both a believer and non-believer in God, both a theist and an atheist, depending on how one defines "God." Before we discuss a certain term, we should always define what it means to us or what we mean by it within the context of the discussion. Then everyone knows where they're at, and we don't talk by each other.

"Do you believe in UFOs?" someone once asked me.

"No, I don't," I said, "but I saw one, once."

From Wikipedia :

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

So according to those definitions, Atheism is a belief, but of course no religious one. Atheists might  be faithful to their idea of how Atheism can influence the wellbeing of mankind. Many humanists have proven that.

Hi mrs.anteater:

Atheism, as it is generally defined in North America, is a disbelief in God. But the literal meaning of the word is a-theism, meaning neither belief nor disbelief in God, and is more like agnosticism. In Germany, atheism actually means a-theism, and can be spiritual. In the Far East there are atheistic or non-theistic religions.

Most atheists in the English speaking world actually are not a-theists or non-theists but anti-theists. In Germany we would call them "Gottesleugner" (God deniers).

The meanings of words are not fixed, they change and evolve. If we draw the definiton of "God" wide enough, i.e. "the totality of everything," then it becomes impossible to deny God.

That brings up the nature of one's beliefs - are they fixed or open to change?

After trawling my way through the Religious and Faith forum this past year I'm struck by how fixed some posters beliefs appear to be.

It seems to me that if one's beliefs are fixed and not open to question - you're not "listening" to the other at all.

You're in the business of defending your own beliefs, and attacking the other's beliefs.

Maybe there should be two forums - one for those who "know" they're right - and the other for those whose beliefs are still open to change?

No prizes for guessing which forum would display personal abuse.    

Hi Armenius,

We had to read French literature in high school, Sartre and Camus and discussed heavily over belief, humanism, atheism at that time.

I found the above definition made it vlear- if you are convinced that something is true, it's a belief- theistic or not. While faith ismeans  trust in that idea- so if you belive that humankind can improve itself through humanism or just by becoming smarter, it's a faith- independent of a belief in God.

PP

Or perhaps the two forums should be "Those who think" and "Those who spout Bible passages"

Amazing how a book that was copied, edited, modified, translated, originating from oral stories passed from A to B to C, can be such an absolute authorative source.

IT

Russ

Well put.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?  If no, is your non-belief in the tooth fairy an example of faith?

Hey, why stop there?   What about the athiests?   

PP

At least athiests believe, ummm, in something?

IT

Russ

O yes, mrs.anteater, I agree.

Chansen,

How does your non-belif affect your guidelines,goals, social interactions in your life? I haven't checked how old you are, but if you are beyond the teenage being -against -something -just -for- the- fun -of -it- age- have you developed a set of non- theistic values?

(I just assumed you would have).

?

It doesn't.  Why would it?  Besides, how would I know?  I've never been a believer in my life.  I'm 38 years old, but I would not describe atheist teenagers as "being -against -something -just -for- the- fun -of -it".  I was an atheist as a teen, and I had nothing to rebel against.  I just never saw any reason to believe, I still don't, and I would never sell teenagers short in this way.

"Non-theistic values"?  Again, I have no idea why you call them by that name.  I have values.  I probably value a lot of the same things you do.  I value freedom, equality, my family, etc.  I also value truth and honesty and reason, though I find them in short supply in many religious people and institutions, where faith trumps reason and truth, and takes honesty down with them.  I do not value faith at all, especially faith in some god or gods.

I think this is a good example of what the article was highlighting.  Values or positive human interactions do not require belief in something outside the intrinsic value held. Altruism is found in many creatures - not just God thinking humans - because there is a positive reward for such acts; continued survival.

Chansen - for all his snipping and yes, Chansen, you snip but that's ok it has nothing to do with belief or unbelief - can hold life, happiness and the pursuit of justice valuable.  He does so because as he travels through life he can see the inherent benefit of these things to himself and those around him.  Others attribute the intrinsic nature of these things to God but that does not change the ability of those that do not.

All people, and atheists are people too, hold onto beliefs.  Some beliefs may hold truth, some may  not.  I look at a  lake on a sunny day and I can believe that the water is blue; it is but it isn't.  Belief should not be intractable but flexible, open to other possibilities, other interpretations.  It is when belief becomes entrenched that it becomes dogma and once belief has turned into that beast it becomes dangerous.

LB - at least that is my belief at 5 am

Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.

     Saint Augustine

Thanks.

But, what does "snip" mean?  That I'm sarcastic?  Surely, not.

 at Chansen

Sarcasm is something I happen to believe is intrinsically valuable.

It is pointless to argue over definitions.

And, actually, by definition of faith (see above = trust in an idea, person)- my non-belief in the tooth fairy (or make it Santa Claus, because people on this continent seem to be somewhat obsessed with that fairy tale)- guides my attitude in how I raise my son regarding those stories and I trust that he learns to respect others customs (by not telling the younger friends that it's a tale before they/or their parents are ready for it) while he devolopes his own sense of what customs he finds valuable.

PS:

I didn't say the being-against- would be a specific atheist teenage trait. I think it's a default in teenage brains, period , and an important one, as it leads to the stage of sorting out the information and building your own values.

But God is in the same category as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus - they're all storybook characters.  You're saying non-belief in God is a faith.  To me, that's like saying non-belief in Santa Claus is a faith, and not just something that guides you to remind your children to not spoil the innocent fun of others.

I'm not so sure the phenomenon that you describe is all that "important".  "Cynicism" is probably a better word for it, and I think optimism is a more important trait to have growing up.

Skepticism, however, is even better.  Skepticism enourages us not to dismiss, but to investigate claims.  We should urge our kids to be skeptical when someone tries to sell them a product, or a belief system.

Oh, yeah, smart people are likely to believe that.,

Hear, hear!

Definitions of "belief" do, of course, vary widely, from "dogmatic belief in the absolute truthfulness of religious doctrine" to "personal value system" to "personal framework for interpreting reality."

Everyone necessarily has a personal framework for interpreting reality. (I sincerely hope that everyone realizes that this framework is arbitrarily chosen by them :-) And almost everyone, including atheists, has a personal value system.

This, I believe, answers the original question of this thread: "Is Atheism a Belief?"

On Wondercafe, I type "for me" tons. I do not know of any other way to say, "this is my opinion, what I trust, what I think, feel, hope.... "
 

I type "I believe" but I hope it is not read that my beliefs are fixed. My beliefs over my lifetime have changed so much. They are not really fixed.

Water is blue, the day has the sun and night does not, the moon is bigger near the horizon... it seems that way, but is not.  

I may believe something until I learn more or experience more, until I realize I do not believe it anymore or that I believe something else. I may feel comfortable with the moon being bigger or the water being blue.... Why would religious thought be different?

Do I assume my beliefs or perceptions are correct? They are correct to me. Are they correct? I cannot even say I know for sure. I have turned my head thinking I saw something out the corner of my eye. I have heard someone and nobody is there. I have looked at optical illusions... In other words, I know my beliefs and my perception can be wrong.

I also know that what I see is not because something is but because light hits my eye and the chemicals in my eye tell my optic nerve and electricity tells my brain... So, is blue even blue?  

Yes, Stevie, we know. On Wondercafe you type "for me" tomes.

Language sounds absolute, but is necessarily relative. What we observe, or think we observe, is true for us, but not absolutely or all-applicably true.

Once this is given, we can just go ahead saying what we think without having to qualify it at every turn, and everyone knows that we don't mean to lord our opinions over others as absolute truths.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."

--Robert Anton Wilson (Chaos be Upon Him)

LBmuskoka, you find the NIFTIEST things.

I think that any way that helps us realise that we are ALWAYS involved in what we experience is a good thing.

Whether it be something like General Semantics, scientists being aware of bias (eg. double-blind tests, control groups, inherent inaccuracy of all instruments, cognitive biases), Buddhism's science of mind, or philosophers acknowledging logical fallacies, it is a good thing.

Because we all need reminding, to get kicked out of our habits of sleeping through life.