Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[bernee51]

Actually, I do lack belief. The reason I lack belief is the result of my ignorance. I am incapable of formulating a belief (consciously or subconsciously) regarding the actuality of some "unknown god." My ignorance prevents me from belief. Hence, I lack belief.

I have no opinion of things of which I have no concept. I cannot state whether I believe or not.

I see the position you describe as being neutral.

However, the action of negation is often cited by the lack-of-belief crowd as no action. This is part of why I find it so confusing. They say they're not taking action, and yet in every aspect it appears that they are.

How do they say they are taking 'no action'?

Hmm, perhaps you can expound a little more on the difference (in nature of) between decisions and conclusion?

Simply put a decision implies alternative options. A conclusion allows no alternative. Let's say we are at a restaurant with only two options of the menu - steak and shellfish. You like both and can eat either - you must decide. I however am allergic to shellfish - I conclude I must eat the steak - there is no option. (assuming I must eat something)

I might have confused you. My concern is not so much with the existence of the concept of God, as it is with what one does with the concept regarding it's "actuality" (truth/falsity).

Exactly. For you the existence of your god is a truth (while Zeus may be a falsity ), for me the existence of god (yours and Zeus) is a falsity. We do however have a common understanding of what is meant by the term god (and Zeus)

[bernee51]

(a) Lack belief in God's existence = Affirmative: God does not exist.
(b) Lack belief in God's existence != Affirmative: God does not exist.

I get (a). I do not get (b), except in the case of total ignorance.

Am I missing something? how are these different - other than "!"

[theleftone]

Actually, I do lack belief. The reason I lack belief is the result of my ignorance. I am incapable of formulating a belief (consciously or subconsciously) regarding the actuality of some "unknown god." My ignorance prevents me from belief. Hence, I lack belief.

I have no opinion of things of which I have no concept. I cannot state whether I believe or not.

I see the position you describe as being neutral.

I would say the "position" is no position at all. I believe to be neutral requires the conscious action of choice.

However, the action of negation is often cited by the lack-of-belief crowd as no action. This is part of why I find it so confusing. They say they're not taking action, and yet in every aspect it appears that they are.

How do they say they are taking 'no action'?

Do you mean how do they make this statement? Or do you mean how do they actually go through the process of taking no action?

Hmm, perhaps you can expound a little more on the difference (in nature of) between decisions and conclusion?

Simply put a decision implies alternative options. A conclusion allows no alternative. Let's say we are at a restaurant with only two options of the menu - steak and shellfish. You like both and can eat either - you must decide. I however am allergic to shellfish - I conclude I must eat the steak - there is no option. (assuming I must eat something)

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. A decision is something in which one has two or more alternatives from which they can choose, but they need not necessarily choose. The conclusion is a consequence. It is not something acted upon by the individual, rather it is simply something which comes into being (by whatever it be a consequence of). Am I understanding this correctly?

And for the record, I hate shellfish.

[theleftone]

(a) Lack belief in God's existence = Affirmative: God does not exist.
(b) Lack belief in God's existence != Affirmative: God does not exist.

I get (a). I do not get (b), except in the case of total ignorance.

Am I missing something? how are these different - other than "!"

Sorry about that. The exclamation mark denotes 'not' in most computer programming languages. I spend so much time around geeks, I sometimes forget not everyone understands the terminology.

Just be glad I didn't whip out the || or &&.

[bernee51]

I would say the "position" is no position at all. I believe to be neutral requires the conscious action of choice.

I'm not sure I understand "no position" when it comes to the idea of a deity.

Until someone asks me, for example, are Himalayan Blue Sheep really sheep or goats I would have no position until such time as I researched it. God(s) OTOH are ubiquitous - I would suggest it would be fairly unlikely that there is a 'no position' with regards to god(s)

Do you mean how do they make this statement? Or do you mean how do they actually go through the process of taking no action?

The latter

The conclusion is a consequence. It is not something acted upon by the individual, rather it is simply something which comes into being (by whatever it be a consequence of). Am I understanding this correctly?

That is more or less correct. The only act is the one of conclusion, not decision making. In the case of gods I have no alternative other than to not believe. It is not a decision I have made, it is a conclusion I have come to.

And for the record, I hate shellfish.

Mussells in a chili/white wine broth...mmmmmm

[QED]

You mean like this? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Interesting article Grumpy. I think we should branch this off to a new topic so that bernee51 and tselem can concentrate on the original question here.

[theleftone]

I would say the "position" is no position at all. I believe to be neutral requires the conscious action of choice.

I'm not sure I understand "no position" when it comes to the idea of a deity.

Until someone asks me, for example, are Himalayan Blue Sheep really sheep or goats I would have no position until such time as I researched it. God(s) OTOH are ubiquitous - I would suggest it would be fairly unlikely that there is a 'no position' with regards to god(s)

I have a tendency to agree. Though, as I have understood the concept of lack-of-belief, a 'no position' would have been required to exist for god(s). However, it appears you take a different form of lack-of-belief.

Do you mean how do they make this statement? Or do you mean how do they actually go through the process of taking no action?

The latter

I'm still trying to figure this out myself. Hence, the thread.

The conclusion is a consequence. It is not something acted upon by the individual, rather it is simply something which comes into being (by whatever it be a consequence of). Am I understanding this correctly?

That is more or less correct. The only act is the one of conclusion, not decision making. In the case of gods I have no alternative other than to not believe. It is not a decision I have made, it is a conclusion I have come to.

This is easy for me to understand. That is, it's easy for me to understand the position. However, I find this to be a rather curiously strong proclamation in need to support. I'm not asking you to defend, but I'm noting the difference between your position and that of those I've come across who claim lack-of-belief. Often, they argue their position is without "positive" (truth) claims, and hence they hold no burden to prove their position.

It seems you would affirm the statements "I believe God does not exist" and "God does not exist." Hence, you have belief "in God" (i.e., in His non-existence). This is distinct from those who claim they have "no belief in God's existence" and "no belief in God's non-existence." This is lack-of-belief as I have understood it. If I am mistaken in your case, or even in general please point it out specifically noting what I have misunderstood.

[bernee51]

I would say the "position" is no position at all. I believe to be neutral requires the conscious action of choice.

I'm not sure I understand "no position" when it comes to the idea of a deity.

Until someone asks me, for example, are Himalayan Blue Sheep really sheep or goats I would have no position until such time as I researched it. God(s) OTOH are ubiquitous - I would suggest it would be fairly unlikely that there is a 'no position' with regards to god(s)

I have a tendency to agree. Though, as I have understood the concept of lack-of-belief, a 'no position' would have been required to exist for god(s). However, it appears you take a different form of lack-of-belief.

'No position', to me, sounds like agnosticism. I cannot see how 'non-belief' = "no position"

The conclusion is a consequence. It is not something acted upon by the individual, rather it is simply something which comes into being (by whatever it be a consequence of). Am I understanding this correctly?

That is more or less correct. The only act is the one of conclusion, not decision making. In the case of gods I have no alternative other than to not believe. It is not a decision I have made, it is a conclusion I have come to.

This is easy for me to understand. That is, it's easy for me to understand the position. However, I find this to be a rather curiously strong proclamation in need to support. I'm not asking you to defend, but I'm noting the difference between your position and that of those I've come across who claim lack-of-belief. Often, they argue their position is without "positive" (truth) claims, and hence they hold no burden to prove their position.

In order for me to determine a position regarding whatever concept you have of god (mine may be different) it is with you to provide fisrtly the concept and secondly any justification for such belief .i.e. you are making the positive claim - god (as you believe it to be) exists. I can make no comment until you define 'god'

In the discussion at hand it can be assumed we are talking about a concept known as the 'god of christianity'. I am aware of this concept anh hold no reason to believe that such a god exists - for reasons I am happy to share. Nonetheless it remains the beleivers role to prove such a deity's existence.

It seems you would affirm the statements "I believe God does not exist" and "God does not exist." Hence, you have belief "in God" (i.e., in His non-existence). This is distinct from those who claim they have "no belief in God's existence" and "no belief in God's non-existence." This is lack-of-belief as I have understood it. If I am mistaken in your case, or even in general please point it out specifically noting what I have misunderstood.

I can both. I have no belief in god's existence and I do not believe god exists. As previously stated, it is obvious that the concept, the idea of god is an actuality.

"no belief in God's non-existence" sounds like 'belief' to me.

[theleftone]

This is easy for me to understand. That is, it's easy for me to understand the position. However, I find this to be a rather curiously strong proclamation in need to support. I'm not asking you to defend, but I'm noting the difference between your position and that of those I've come across who claim lack-of-belief. Often, they argue their position is without "positive" (truth) claims, and hence they hold no burden to prove their position.

In order for me to determine a position regarding whatever concept you have of god (mine may be different) it is with you to provide fisrtly the concept and secondly any justification for such belief .i.e. you are making the positive claim - god (as you believe it to be) exists. I can make no comment until you define 'god'

To define any given concept, be it God or not, does not necessitate belief nor require a justification thereof. It is merely a definition. However, I do agree the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof. But, I think you and I may disagree on what a positive claim is. I believe a positive claim is any claim which makes a statement about truth, reality, validity, or the actuality of something. Perhaps the better term to use is truth claim, as this is what one is actually making.

I have no belief in god's existence and I do not believe god exists.

This is redundant, as you're stating the same position in both claims. What my original question was asking is for two different negations. One is a negation of belief. The other is a negation of the proposition "God exists." These are rather different claims.

[bernee51]

What my original question was asking is for two different negations. One is a negation of belief. The other is a negation of the proposition "God exists." These are rather different claims.

Re the former: In order to negate belief one must believe in the first place. What of those who have never had a god belief? Are you suggesting that ll those who now do not have a god belief at some stage must have believed in god?

Re the latter: the proposition isn't 'god exists' the proposition is 'belief that god exists'.