Doltologist6 hours ago
A lack of belief = belief? I agree that is illogical.
Please help me see the connection to our discussion.
Why are you asking me? You are the one who wrote Atheism is about belief, not me. I merely pointed out that Atheism isn't about belief. It is a response to a belief and then we got into this circular discussion.
We're close to seeing eye to eye here, very close.
Atheism isn't about holding ANY beliefs at its most basic definition. What I am trying to help people to see is the most basic and accurate definition of atheism. Please think about why I say it is ABOUT belief, without saying it is about HOLDING any belief.
You're saying that it is a "a response to a belief". That is true in most contexts, but not in all contexts. What if I teach a child that god(s) exist, but yet I don't believe they do? [Side note: because I'm a fader, this is probably what I do unintentionally by my presence at meetings and I feel like shit about it.] So you need to realize that, at its basic level, it is a response to a CLAIM not a belief. That's why the following people are all atheists: you, me, the piraha people, and babies. So, just to be clear:
Atheism = lack of belief in god(s); no belief in god(s); not believing in god(s)
Kinda hard to describe without using the word belief, because it is about belief (accepting a claim).
What if we define it like this: atheism = the belief that no god(s) exist
This is how many Christian apologists for example wish to define atheism. This becomes a strawman for them to battle in most cases. Using this definition for debate purposes is the frozen abstraction fallacy. This definition of atheism is more accurately labeled as strong atheism or gnostic atheism. It is still atheism, because it still fits under the atheist umbrella, but it is not atheism at its purest or most basic level. A person that believes no god(s) exist, still lacks a belief in god(s). But, they are something more than just an atheist, pedantically speaking.