Lack of belief...

[EPH2:8]

Does the term lack of belief make any claims regarding the subject of the sentence? For example I lack belief in Santa clause. Am I making any claims regarding Santa clause? Does changing the subject of the sentence determine whether a claim is made or not?

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

Only problem with that of course is that it still allows for confusion because strong atheists in generally do actually state they do not believe in the existence of GODs and their meaning is unambiguous. They argue from the position of that belief and even give what they consider to be reasonable examples as to why they do not believe.

Giving reasons why a person doesn't believing in the existence of any GODs is not the same as claiming that they do not exist.

Read what I wrote again. They argue from the position of that belief and (from that position) even give what they consider to be reasonable examples as to why they do not believe.

The rest of your post re animals eating animals doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. I don't dress up the idea of GOD in costumes of benevolence/malevolence etc.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

Only problem with that of course is that it still allows for confusion because strong atheists in generally do actually state they do not believe in the existence of GODs and their meaning is unambiguous. They argue from the position of that belief and even give what they consider to be reasonable examples as to why they do not believe.

Giving reasons why a person doesn't believing in the existence of any GODs is not the same as claiming that they do not exist.

Read what I wrote again. They argue from the position of that belief and (from that position) even give what they consider to be reasonable examples as to why they do not believe.

The rest of your post re animals eating animals doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. I don't dress up the idea of GOD in costumes of benevolence/malevolence etc.

The bottom line that you seem to have missed (or ignored) is that no arguments or evidence are required to NOT postulate the existence of an invisible God for which there is no evidence.

So to say that people "lack a belief" in a God, is actually wrong. What is actually true is that they simply see no need to even postulate the existence of such an entity. In other words, there isn't even anything there to require a lack of belief in.

On the other hand, theists who claim to "believe" in a God are claiming to believe in something for which they can't even give any credible reasons to postulate the existence of.

So these two positions aren't even related.

But you do bring up a point. Conversations like the one in this thread are already misguided because they focus on meaningless semantics without addressing the actual issues. The real issue is whether or not there are any good arguments to postulate the existence of a God. I suggest that there are none. Period.

And so I've started a thread on that specific topic here:

Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Conversations like the one in this thread are already misguided because they focus on meaningless semantics without addressing the actual issues. The real issue is whether or not there are any good arguments to postulate the existence of a God. I suggest that there are none. Period.

I have to add my own words for this to be a valid post ....

So there they were

What could I possibly add ...?

Without me dodging (I can say that about myself) into the obfuscation and distraction and deflection (and dodging) of semantics

Happy Holidays, Sinners ...!

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 8 by wiploc]

Because, "I don't believe," is thus ambiguous, and because we seem to be constantly put at pains to distinguish weak atheism from strong, atheists are weaning ourselves off of the, "I don't believe," phrasing.

Instead, we use the, "lack of belief," phrasing. They whole point of it is that it won't be taken for litotes. It only means that we lack belief that gods exist. It unambiguously does not mean that we believe gods do not exist.

Only problem with that of course is that it still allows for confusion because strong atheists in generally do actually state they do not believe in the existence of GODs

But that's true. For strong atheists, both meanings are true. Whether you read, "I do not believe," as litotes or not, for strong atheists, the statement is true.

I don't see how you can have a problem with that.

and their meaning is unambiguous. They argue from the position of that belief and even give what they consider to be reasonable examples as to why they do not believe.

Weak atheists often also have good reasons not to believe.

Resorting to the "no - I lack belief in GODs" does not solve the problem of confusion or make things less/unambiguous in relation to expressions of strong atheism.

From The Life of Brian

• EX-LEPER: Thank you, sir. Thanks-- Half a denary for me bloody life story?
  
  BRIAN: There's no pleasing some people.
  
  EX-LEPER: That's just what Jesus said, sir.

So, if I say that I lack belief in Santa, that doesn't mean I believe in his nonexistence. It just means that I don't believe he exists. It doesn't make any claims about whether or not he exists. The claim is only about my mental state (not about whether Santa exists) and the claim is only that I am not one of those who believe that Santa does exist. People who believe Santa doesn't exist lack belief that he exists, but people who don't believe either way also lack belief that he exists.

So, those who lack belief in Santa include all a-Santa-ists, not just strong a-Santa-ists or weak a-Santa-ists.

I disagree because strong atheists have shifted from the default of lacking belief to the different position of not believing and that shift is what allows for them to be understood as strong atheists.

I'm not going to try to sort that out.

That their not believing can be considered lacking belief when a weak atheist lacking belief cannot be considered not believing, is problematic.

Say what? I agree that there's a problem somewhere.

That is the crux of the matter, and strong atheists resorting to the default when it suits appear to do so to avoid having to acknowledge that.

Again, I can't tell what you're trying to say. You wallow in ambiguity.

If someone is telling you that strong atheism is the default, that's just wrong.

If a strong atheist really believes that GODs do not exist,

That's true by definition.

they should remain in that position rather than resort to wishy-washy game of 'I can be both'.

If you talk about strong atheism, we'll talk about strong atheism. But, for howsoever long you choose to tell us that we really mean atheism when we talk about strong atheism, for that long we'll continue to point out that you're wrong.

One cannot be both. That is why there are weak and strong atheist positions - to show the differentiated.

One can be a strong atheist while pointing out that atheism is the default position because it includes weak atheism.

[Artie]

If a claim was tabled that Santa Clause exists and you claimed that you [a]"do not believe Santa Clause exists", that would be different from saying that you "lack belief that Santa Clause exists", because is an assertion and [a] is simply a statement.

Actually saying "I do not believe Santa Claus exists" and "I lack belief that Santa Claus exists" is saying the same thing. Nowhere have I said that I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist.

1. I believe Santa Claus exists
2. I do not believe Santa Claus exists and I do not believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist I haven't decided what to believe about the matter
3. I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist

[FWI]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The bottom line that you seem to have missed (or ignored) is that no arguments or evidence are required to NOT postulate the existence of an invisible God for which there is no evidence.

So, is there any type of evidence, which could change your mind or have you closed your mind on the subject?

[wiploc]

So, is there any type of evidence, which could change your mind or have you closed your mind on the subject?

My mind is open. I no longer expect to find evidence for gods, but I'm open to it.

What evidence would it take? Just regular evidence. The same kind of evidence that would make a rational person believe in lollypops, the stock market, evolution, salt, heavier than air flight, television, action at a distance, microscopic life, motion in the heavens, oxygen, inertia, or Alexander the Great.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The bottom line that you seem to have missed (or ignored) is that no arguments or evidence are required to NOT postulate the existence of an invisible God for which there is no evidence.

So, is there any type of evidence, which could change your mind or have you closed your mind on the subject?

I am totally open to any evidence you can produce.

However, I can tell you the following fact:

1. You are never going to produce any evidence to justify Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Biblical narrative.

Why can I say this? Because the Biblical narrative has already proven itself to necessarily be false as it is written.

The only hope you could have to argue for the Biblical Narrative is use the popular Christian apologetics arguments that have already been beaten to death. Those arguments are mainly arguments that the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says or says what it means.

Well, duh? Any argument that the Bible doesn't mean what it says or say what it means has already confirmed that the Biblical narrative is irrelevant and incoherent.

Can you offer potential justification to postulate the existence of a non-Biblical God? Perhaps something more vague and abstract like the God of Buddhism or Pantheism?

Sure, you can offer those kinds of arguments. However, chances are that I've already heard them as well. And while I can't demonstrate why those arguments are "wrong" I can certainly make very good arguments for why those arguments are not compelling and basically bend over backwards in an attempt to justify an unnecessary postulation.

The bottom line is that it's actually true that there are no good reasons to postulate the existence of a God. That's just the fact of reality.

If you believe that you have compelling evidence for why we should consider postulating the existence of a God, please feel free to post them.

In fact, I started a thread specifically asking people to do this:

Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

Thus far no one has taken the challenge.

[Divine Insight]

So, is there any type of evidence, which could change your mind or have you closed your mind on the subject?

My mind is open. I no longer expect to find evidence for gods, but I'm open to it.

What evidence would it take? Just regular evidence. The same kind of evidence that would make a rational person believe in lollypops, the stock market, evolution, salt, heavier than air flight, television, action at a distance, microscopic life, motion in the heavens, oxygen, inertia, or Alexander the Great.

By the way, we need to be careful when we talk about historical figures like Alexander the Great.

For one thing, even historians are fully aware that the information they have about historical figures are only their best guess based on artifacts and writings they may have uncovered. Even they cannot be sure that those writings are not themselves exaggerations, superstitious rumors, or outright fabrications.

Also, historical accounts are always tainted by those who wrote them. For the Greeks Alexander may have been seen as "Great". But to the people he murdered and pillaged he was no doubt seen as an evil tyrant.

After watching a historical documentary on what Alexander the "Great" had supposedly done, all I came away with was the question of why they didn't call him "Alexander the Terrible".

I personally don't see where taking armies around to inflict horrible vengeance upon enemies is such a "Great" thing to do. As far as I can see Alexander was a rapist murderer who had little respect for human life. Yet historically he has been granted the label of "Alexander the Great".

If the stories told about him are true, I don't consider him to be great at all. By today's standards he would be considered one of the most heinous terrorists.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

So to say that people "lack a belief" in a God, is actually wrong. What is actually true is that they simply see no need to even postulate the existence of such an entity. In other words, there isn't even anything there to require a lack of belief in.

This underlines exactly what I am arguing. It is not theists who say that atheists 'lack belief in GODs' but atheists themselves.
Thus the confusion. IF "to say that people "lack a belief" in a God, is actually wrong" THEN atheists need to acknowledge that, and change the description of position to suit, rather than continue to use it.