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?

[QED]

I'm in a bit of a rush, but can't resist a quick stab at an answer for you:

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"

Deities are supposed to be the causative agency for the existence of everything (except themselves?). I am confident that Deities have never been directly observed and have only ever been guessed at.

2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"

Yes, I sincerely believe a bad guess has been made.

3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?

Yes of course. A bad guess would give us the wrong idea.

4. If so, to number 3, how?

You seem to be assuming that simply by introducing the concept of a deity it takes on an independent existence as per the ontological argument. This is obviously nonsense as we could summon any arbitrary entity into existence using the same ploy.

[McCulloch]

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
   I have problems understanding where the difficulty is. I do not believe in the existence of any deities.
   "lack belief" = I have not been shown sufficient evidence on which to believe.
   "deity" = any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?" Yes. For instance, infants do not believe in any gods until taught by their elders.
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
   Apparently so. Now, it would be irrational to maintain such a position after being introduced to incontravertable evidence. Bring your God, in person not just some ancient or modern writings, to my door. I'd like to meet him.
4. If so, to number 3, how?
   Implicit in this question is the assumption that the existence of God is self-evident. It is not.

[theleftone]

Hmm, I think my questions may well be botched. My apologies, as I have been unable to reach a clear resolution on this issue in my mind. Hence, I may well appear to be spewing gibberish or saying things I didn't really intended to say.

What I struggle with is (a) accurately describing and understanding the concept of "lack of belief," and (b) how one can hold such a "lack of belief" with regards to a given conceptual being's existence. To clarify that last point, I am not assuming the existence of such a being in my question. What I am question is ability of one to retain a position of "lack of belief" versus a position of active denial, active acceptance, or some state of agnosticism.

Note: Perhaps this should have been placed in discussion rather than debate.

[juliod]

What I struggle with is (a) accurately describing and understanding the concept of "lack of belief," and (b) how one can hold such a "lack of belief" with regards to a given conceptual being's existence.

I think you are having problems with the verbal gymnastics that weak atheists have to engage in to avoid being strong atheists.

There are at least two ways to view this.

1) The burden-of-proof. A weak atheist denies the existance of god but declines to argue against it. They insist (rightly) that the theist, with a specific belief, has the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to justify belief.

2) Faith-as-choice. To some degree everyone chooses whether to believe in god. No one has direct experience with god. The weak atheist says that the theist has chosen to believe with inadequate evidence and that that is unreasonable.

DanZ

[theleftone]

What I struggle with is (a) accurately describing and understanding the concept of "lack of belief," and (b) how one can hold such a "lack of belief" with regards to a given conceptual being's existence.

I think you are having problems with the verbal gymnastics that weak atheists have to engage in to avoid being strong atheists.

I think you're right. I have no doubt I'm confused by how they've labeled their position. In essence, as I understand their reasoning, it's not even a position at all. It is effectively a non-position. And this is where it gets confusing. If it's not a position, it's nothing. It's meaningless. Yet, for some reason they feel the need to place a label on nothing.

What I don't get is why they label themselves with a non-position position. I don't go around giving myself labels for concepts which I know nothing about.

Then, on the other hand, there's also the question if one can truly retain a non-position on a concept once they've been introduced to it. I find the affirmative answer to this question really hard to swallow. And it's to this answer that I would really like an explanation as to how one can.

[Bugmaster]

Yeah, I personally hate that "lack of belief" terminology -- go ahead and shun me, or something, but I think it's pretty confusing.

Personally, I'd describe my stance as Weak Atheism. I believe that it's possible for certain gods to exist (non-contradictory ones, that is), just as it's possible for goblins, spirits, Nessie, UFOs, and Elvis's ghost to exist. However, the likelihood of all these things actually existing is so staggeringly low that I'm going to assume that they do not exist, until proven otherwise.

If any gods are reading this: now's your chance to get a convert ! All you need to do is demonstrate your existence, beyound the shadow of a doubt, and I'll believe in you immediately. You can do so with a bona-fide, verifiable miracle (hey, I need to know I'm not hallucinating or insane, right ?), or by simply overwriting my mind with your godlike powers, and making me believe in you, whatever works.

I think this is the stance that most atheists take on the subject, but I can't speak for everyone, just me.

[harvey1]

Yeah, I personally hate that "lack of belief" terminology -- go ahead and shun me, or something, but I think it's pretty confusing.

A few hours after you posted this, I saw that this was put on the official atheist website:

"Bugmaster has been ex-communicated." Sorry, man.

Personally, I'd describe my stance as Weak Atheism.

I figured you for a guy that could at least bench 150 lbs.

I believe that it's possible for certain gods to exist (non-contradictory ones, that is), just as it's possible for goblins, spirits, Nessie, UFOs, and Elvis's ghost to exist. However, the likelihood of all these things actually existing is so staggeringly low that I'm going to assume that they do not exist, until proven otherwise.

Does your assuming do something to the thing existing or not existing?

If any gods are reading this: now's your chance to get a convert! All you need to do is demonstrate your existence, beyound the shadow of a doubt, and I'll believe in you immediately. You can do so with a bona-fide, verifiable miracle (hey, I need to know I'm not hallucinating or insane, right ?), or by simply overwriting my mind with your godlike powers, and making me believe in you, whatever works.

Well, at least one Bugmaster in some alternate universe just converted.

[ST88]

I have no doubt I'm confused by how they've labeled their position. In essence, as I understand their reasoning, it's not even a position at all. It is effectively a non-position. And this is where it gets confusing. If it's not a position, it's nothing. It's meaningless. Yet, for some reason they feel the need to place a label on nothing.

Look at it this way. Someone comes up to you and asks you if you believe that there are elves living in a large rock. You say no you don't believe that, because there is no evidence. But if that same person comes up to you and asks you if there are elves living in a large rock, you have to say I don't know; again, because there is no evidence. This is the alleged "non-position" position. If there is no valid evidence either for or against, the only rational answer is no answer. You could go further and say that the question itself is invalid because "elf" has no verifiable definition.

What I don't get is why they label themselves with a non-position position. I don't go around giving myself labels for concepts which I know nothing about.

Well, you should. If you come up against a concept often enough, you can use semantic shorthand to describe your position -- hopefully in such a way that everyone knows what you're talking about without having to rattle off a couple of paragraphs every time it comes up. Such labels are never fully accurate, not even for those who claim to take a position, but are convenient when the situation arises.

[theleftone]

But if that same person comes up to you and asks you if there are elves living in a large rock, you have to say I don't know; again, because there is no evidence. This is the alleged "non-position" position. If there is no valid evidence either for or against, the only rational answer is no answer.

Wouldn't that be a form agnosticism?

You could go further and say that the question itself is invalid because "elf" has no verifiable definition.

Verifiable definition?