Is atheism lacking?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Is atheism lacking?

Post #1

Post by historia »

This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:37 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:23 pm
If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.
I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.
I think we can all appreciate the case where a person might be ignorant of a particular topic and thus have no beliefs about it. That seems straight-forward.

But, if a person previously believed in X but now no longer believes in X, while spending time on an online forum debating X, it seems less straight-forward (to me anyway) to say that they simply "lack" belief in X. Even if that person is merely contending that there is insufficient evidence (for them, at least) to believe in X, surely we must conclude that constitutes a belief about X.


Question for debate: Is it accurate to say that atheists debating the existence of God on an online forum lack belief in God (or gods), or is there a more accurate way to describe their beliefs vis-a-vis God (or gods)?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #151

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #150]
In the case of atheism lacking a belief in a god is by and large a good thing because the truth is better than comfortable delusions.
I would say that this expression is not something which derives from lacking belief in gods, but derives from lacking evidence in support of.

It is not the position itself which offers folk a good thing "because the truth is better than comfortable delusions". Lacking belief in gods has no 'because' attached to it, in and of itself. It is just lacking belief in gods.

The statement itself could derive from a number of possible sources, such as from an ex-theist who found that the comfortable delusions of some particular theist religion did not bring any good to them, as they were looking for "the truth".

'The truth' is not found in lacking belief in gods [as a position - aka atheism] but in no longer being deluded by belief one once had in gods. [or a god].

This is because, whatever 'delusions' there may or may not have been, these have not been substantiated by evidence of delusion actually taking place, any more than [for example] "Satan is a real person" or "Jesus promised to return eventually" has been proven to be delusional.

Therefore, just believing something is delusional, and from that belief, claiming to be [by in large] in a good position because "the truth is better than comfortable delusions" is a subjective belief rather than an objective truth.

The position of lacking belief in gods is not the same thing as the belief that ones 'truth' [ aka 'the' truth] is better than comfortable delusions.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #152

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I would say no, as it would seem to be a no -brainer that in going through life, understanding the way things are rather than not knowing how things are is going to be better for you and everyone else, and this is even more urgent when we do know how things are (on reason and evidence) or at least see which is the evidentially and logically preferential option, but some people prefer to dismiss that as 'human opinion' (never mind dismissing it as 'atheist lies,' which I've seen once or twice) and opting for faith -based denial, instead.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #153

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #152]

I wouldn't refer to those incidences the same as you do. It is not a question of there being such a thing as 'atheist lies' or 'atheist truths'. There is neither lies or truth evident in the position of lacking belief in gods.

Remember the argument re the position. Atheism is not anything else BUT lacking belief in gods. Anything else, therefore isn't atheism, but something else.

If theists [usually religious/evangelical] dismiss evidence as 'atheist lies', if I were an atheist, I would tell them that I am not presenting the evidence because I am an atheist, but because the evidence supports something which shows or implies that a religious claim is faulty.

My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the actual evidence. That is what I would tell them, because that would be the truth.

Also, in doing so I at least offer an opportunity toward potentially helping to educate such folk as to what atheism actually is, so they don't confuse atheism with any evidence against religious/evangelical beliefs which I present, because I do not do it "in the name of atheism". I just happen to lack belief in gods, and any reasons I might have for lacking belief have nothing to do with the actual position of atheism.

Every little bit of truthfulness helps keep confusion at bay, and I don't lack belief in truthfulness - nor is that the position of atheism - or theism.

Presently, as an agnostic theist non+anti evangelical, I think of truthfulness as subjective opinion about objective facts/truth.

Facts go through a filtering process...and so 'truthfulness' might not be the actual truth as per the facts.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #154

Post by historia »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:15 am
historia wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:03 pm
So if you say "I don't believe in God," and someone else responds, "that is your belief," they are not wrong, as your opinion concerning (the concept of) God constitutes a belief, right?
Sure.

What I'm challenging here is the contention that the atheist simply lacks belief in God, as if their opinion regarding the existence of God is not a belief at all, as some seem to imagine.
Why would pointing out that an atheist simply lacks belief in God, imply that our beliefs about God are not beliefs at all?
The original comment we are examining makes that point:
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:37 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:23 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:13 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:08 pm
We are both operating under belief.
I'm not.
If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.
I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.
Moreover, a couple of atheists here said that disbelieving in God does not constitute a belief.

I'm interested in the line of thinking that causes some atheists to say they don't have beliefs -- about God, or in some cases, about anything at all. It's a funny phenomenon.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:15 am
As I readily affirmed in my last post, I hold lots of beliefs about God. Beliefs about God are absolutely beliefs, I don't think that much is contentious at all.
I know, right? And, yet, here we are 16 pages into a thread filled with comments from people upset with me for making the same point. It is, as always, highly entertaining.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #155

Post by Bust Nak »

historia wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:42 pm The original comment we are examining makes that point:
tcg wrote: I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.
Moreover, a couple of atheists here said that disbelieving in God does not constitute a belief.

I'm interested in the line of thinking that causes some atheists to say they don't have beliefs -- about God, or in some cases, about anything at all. It's a funny phenomenon.
I think you are reading too much into what we say, Insisting that "lacking beliefs in God" and "disbelieving in God" does not constitute a belief, is not mutually exclusive with "beliefs about God are beliefs."
And, yet, here we are 16 pages into a thread filled with comments from people upset with me for making the same point.
Are they really though, not from what I am seeing. We are telling you disbelieving in God does not constitute a belief while you are arguing a different point, that beliefs about gods are belief. That much isn't controversial. What people are upset with you for, is the implication/claim that disbelieving in God is a belief about God. It's not - I again appeal to babies as an example.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #156

Post by JoeyKnothead »

This thread is sound indication theists lack the ability to discern between a lack of belief in their goofy, unproven claims, and their own belief in em.

But ya know, it's the atheists' fault.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #157

Post by historia »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:22 am
We are telling you disbelieving in God does not constitute a belief
Perhaps you can explain your earlier response, then, since you previously agreed with my argument:
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:15 am
historia wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:03 pm
So if you say "I don't believe in God," and someone else responds, "that is your belief," they are not wrong, as your opinion concerning (the concept of) God constitutes a belief, right?
Sure.
If I had phrased that as "disbelieve" instead of "don't believe," would that have changed your answer?

Would you agree with me that doubt is a belief? (See post #21.)
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:22 am
What people are upset with you for, is the implication/claim that disbelieving in God is a belief about God.
Why would that make people upset?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:22 am
It's not - I again appeal to babies as an example.
Perhaps we're hung up here on the definition of "disbelieve." I take "disbelieve" to be an active verb, "to withhold or reject belief," so Merriam Webster. Babies can't be said to have rejected belief in God, right?

So, while I (again) agree with you that those who are ignorant of the proposition that God exists have no beliefs about God (so the OP), my argument is that those who have chosen not to accept the proposition do have a belief: doubting or rejecting the proposition that God exists constitutes a belief. They cannot claim that what is true of babies also applies to them (see post #108).

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #158

Post by Bust Nak »

historia wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:55 am Perhaps you can explain your earlier response, then, since you previously agreed with my argument:
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:15 am
historia wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:03 pm
So if you say "I don't believe in God," and someone else responds, "that is your belief," they are not wrong, as your opinion concerning (the concept of) God constitutes a belief, right?
Sure.
If I had phrased that as "disbelieve" instead of "don't believe," would that have changed your answer?
No, I would have kept the same answer. Disbelieve and don't believe are interchangeable terms to me. (But it seems like they are not to you, more below...)

"I don't believe in God" is my belief as in I believe that I don't believe in God. Not believing in God does not constitutes a belief because that is a lack of a belief. I say that because while babies don't believe in God, demonstrating that not believing is not a belief; they also don't believe that they don't believe in God, where as I do, marking that out as an active belief.
Would you agree with me that doubt is a belief? (See post #21.)
Yes, again I point to babies as the Litmus test: Babies don't doubt.
Why would that make people upset?
Because this is the internet and you are wrong.
Perhaps we're hung up here on the definition of "disbelieve." I take "disbelieve" to be an active verb, "to withhold or reject belief," so Merriam Webster. Babies can't be said to have rejected belief in God, right?
Right, but why can't it be said that they have withhold belief in God? That sounds passive to me. Either way, to avoid a semantic argument, I suggest we avoid the term "disbelieve", use "doesn't believe" and "dismisses" to denote a lack of belief vs rejection after thinking about it.
So, while I (again) agree with you that those who are ignorant of the proposition that God exists have no beliefs about God (so the OP), my argument is that those who have chosen not to accept the proposition do have a belief: doubting or rejecting the proposition that God exists constitutes a belief. They cannot claim that what is true of babies also applies to them (see post #108).
Some of what is true of babies does apply to us though - both babies and those of us who dismisses God both lacks belief in God, where we differ is that we hold lots of active belief about God. You can't point to our differences to deny the part where we and babies are the same.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #159

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156]
A- non
Theist- belief in the existence of a god or gods
Yo Bro, what about folk like me who strongly suspect that we exist within a creation, that we are conscious ghosts/spirits/minds going through a relativity experience we probably designed and implemented as some type of game, before going in and playing it... but haven't shaped that into any formal belief which could be tied to religion...

Strictly speaking, I think it is honest of me to include 'theist' as part of the description of my current position and the world view my position stimulates.
Yet it doesn't fit the description you provided;
"Theist- belief in the existence of a god or gods"

Search "belief meaning"
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).


My position is that I see the evidence of scientific research as possibly pointing to my words in blue above, being the true explanation for why we exist in the particular environment we exist within.
But I am still collecting evidence re that, and am of the recently forming opinion that ultimately neither atheist or theist individuals are going to really know;

1: until the body finally dies and we along with in [which means it doesn't matter] or

2: until our body 'gives up the ghost' [in which case, it will then obviously matter.]

So since NOW is not then, I think it prudent to investigate on the off-chance that it is a case of [2] that at least I might have the edge, through the expectation.

But how would we agree to see that as a case of belief - especially if we agree that 1: is not a case of belief.

Search "scientific research"
Research conducted for the purpose of contributing towards science by the systematic collection, interpretation and evaluation of data and that, too, in a planned manner is called scientific research: a researcher is the one who conducts this research.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is atheism lacking?

Post #160

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:21 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #152]

I wouldn't refer to those incidences the same as you do. It is not a question of there being such a thing as 'atheist lies' or 'atheist truths'. There is neither lies or truth evident in the position of lacking belief in gods.

Remember the argument re the position. Atheism is not anything else BUT lacking belief in gods. Anything else, therefore isn't atheism, but something else.

If theists [usually religious/evangelical] dismiss evidence as 'atheist lies', if I were an atheist, I would tell them that I am not presenting the evidence because I am an atheist, but because the evidence supports something which shows or implies that a religious claim is faulty.

My lack of belief in gods has nothing to do with the actual evidence. That is what I would tell them, because that would be the truth.

Also, in doing so I at least offer an opportunity toward potentially helping to educate such folk as to what atheism actually is, so they don't confuse atheism with any evidence against religious/evangelical beliefs which I present, because I do not do it "in the name of atheism". I just happen to lack belief in gods, and any reasons I might have for lacking belief have nothing to do with the actual position of atheism.

Every little bit of truthfulness helps keep confusion at bay, and I don't lack belief in truthfulness - nor is that the position of atheism - or theism.

Presently, as an agnostic theist non+anti evangelical, I think of truthfulness as subjective opinion about objective facts/truth.

Facts go through a filtering process...and so 'truthfulness' might not be the actual truth as per the facts.

Odd. I thought I'd replied to this, but apparently not. I did refer to 'atheist lies' as being a term I'd seen used 'once or twice'. That is the view of Some theists and actual facts are nothing to do with it.

Strictly speaking, we can't be Totally sure of anything, but the probabilities or at least reliably repeatable common experiences, gives us a basis for functioning in life and so Occam's razor is really a survival mechanism, though doubting everything we thought we knew wasn't even something that occurred to us until we began reasoning and philosophy.

All that means is that evidence and reason counts for everything and faith and preference for nothing as to what's true or not and while bias and preference is undeniable, the trick is to ignore that and look at the merits of the case (both sides) even if one prefers one side. It's a trick that people generally don't learn because (for whatever reason ;) ) it is not taught. Anywhere, so far as I know. Perhaps because those who make the curriculum don't use it, would see no value in it and would think it a bad idea.

"We philosophers taught people to reason. think and question"

"If only you had been cut into little pieces first!" (Aristophanes)

So the point is that however atheists argue, the case is rational and the Theist case (as I see from the way the arguments go) is faith -based and they see nothing wrong in that.

Thus I'd argue that, while arguing that truthfulness is opinion, as you do above, it is too much of a temptation to use it as a gap for God. (or the supernatural) and I'm sure you're smart enough to see how, and that reason and evidence, verification and repeated results at least provides a preferential hypothesis -option and to prefer a less well supported one (e.g theism) is not logical nor based on evidence (ID and cosmic origins has been discussed but can be again, if necessary) and preferring it is evidently based on Faith or at least preference.

Of course some might have been bamboozled by the evidence. Notoriously Anthony Flew was made a Theist by Behe's IC argument, which was later shown faulty. While it was to Flew's credit that he changed him mind on the basis of evidence, it was a lesson not to be rushed into things, and wait for the thing to be argued out. The Theist attempt to bumsrush us into accepting NDE's as evidence for Heaven is another warning.

Post Reply