Is atheism lacking?

[historia]

This is an oft made point on this forum, but one I want to explore in a bit more depth:

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)?

[Purple Knight]

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)?

There certainly should be a more accurate way of describing the lack of a belief in God or gods that includes your quite true proposition that it's different to have all or most of the evidence and decide something isn't very likely than it is to not have any information and simply say that we don't think there is such a thing but we really don't know.

I wish this was precisely the distinction between atheist and agnostic.

[William]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #9]

That's really a question for the theist since they are the one claiming there is a god.

It's like me claiming there is a blargblat.

Yes and me replying that I lack belief in blargblats, implies that I know what blargblats are.

So I would be happy to tell you what I think blargblats are, and you might say 'no - it is not that, but this [and explain to me what a blargblat is] and then I reply that I still lack belief in blargblats.

So is this to say then, that when it comes to blargblats, I first lacked belief through ignorance of what bargblats are, and said so to you, then you tell me what blargblates are, and I then lack belief through knowledge?

Would it not be fair to say that atheists have some knowledge as to what gods are through theists explaining to them what gods are, and that this forms a knowledge base for atheists to then say they lack belief in anything which might fall under the description of "what a god is"?

As an atheist I could simply define 'god' as an entity that theists are attempting to claim is real.

Well that is something.

What if I told you I could point out what I think of as a real god which exists?

How would you know or not that it is a real god if you have no idea what a real god is?

[Miles]

[T]hose who say . . . "I simply lack any belief in god" haven't created any such burden---they have no obligation to prove what they believe.

An important point, and one we will come back to later.

[Some] merely say, "So far no one has met the burden of proof that any god exists."

Right, but that is a belief is it not?

It is not. It's a position concerning anyone having met the burden of proof, which in this case is, No---It's a statement of perceived fact. To me, the burden has not been met. Belief is not involved.

That said, I owe you and all others here an apology for misstating myself. I said "disbelief" when I should have said "lack of belief." Sorry for inadvertently misleading anyone.


.

[Bradskii]

Changing examples: If you ask me whether the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, I would say that there is insufficient evidence to support that claim. That is my belief.

Someone who pays no attention to politics might be able to claim that they simply "lack" belief that the election was stolen. But, having looked into the claim in some depth myself, I have chosen not to accept the claim. I'm in a different epistemologically position from the person who just lacks belief. I absolutely hold beliefs about this claim.

Is it the case that positive claims are refuted by a lack of belief and negative claims by a positive belief?

'The election was stolen' is a positive claim. Therefore to refute it one would say 'I don't believe it'.
'The election wasn't stolen' is the negative claim. To refute it one would say 'I believe it was'. Would anyone actually say 'I don't believe it wasn't'. It actually takes a few seconds to sort out the double negative.

So 'God exists' is the positive claim refuted by 'I don't believe it'.
If you said 'God doesn't exist' then I would respond 'Yes, that's a statement that I believe'.

[brunumb]

'The election was stolen' is a positive claim. Therefore to refute it one would say 'I don't believe it'.

No. To refute a claim you have to prove that the claim is false.

'The election wasn't stolen' is the negative claim.

Actually it is just another positive claim. To refute it you would have to prove that the election was stolen.

So 'God exists' is the positive claim refuted by 'I don't believe it'.

To refute the claim you would have to prove that God does not exist. That is actually not possible.

If you said 'God doesn't exist' then I would respond 'Yes, that's a statement that I believe'.

Saying "God doesn't exist" and saying "I don't believe God exists" are two different statements. The first requires some sort of evidence if the expectation is for the claim to be accepted. The second is a response to claims that God exists where one is not convinced by the evidence presented in support of the claim. When you responded with "Yes, that's a statement that I believe" in your example, you are acknowledging that you believe that God does not exist. Not the same as saying that you do not believe that God exists.

P.S. I believe that my head is now spinning.

[TRANSPONDER]

Changing examples: If you ask me whether the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, I would say that there is insufficient evidence to support that claim. That is my belief.

Someone who pays no attention to politics might be able to claim that they simply "lack" belief that the election was stolen. But, having looked into the claim in some depth myself, I have chosen not to accept the claim. I'm in a different epistemologically position from the person who just lacks belief. I absolutely hold beliefs about this claim.

Is it the case that positive claims are refuted by a lack of belief and negative claims by a positive belief?

'The election was stolen' is a positive claim. Therefore to refute it one would say 'I don't believe it'.
'The election wasn't stolen' is the negative claim. To refute it one would say 'I believe it was'. Would anyone actually say 'I don't believe it wasn't'. It actually takes a few seconds to sort out the double negative.

So 'God exists' is the positive claim refuted by 'I don't believe it'.
If you said 'God doesn't exist' then I would respond 'Yes, that's a statement that I believe'.

I back up brunum here (in case he feels that he could do with some support). The positive claim cannot be refuted (though you may me rebutted) by non - belief in the sense of not being convinced by the claim or inadequate evidence. Compelling evidence either way would lead to a positive assertion (e.g that the election was Not stolen) and negative evidence (not a shred of decent evidence that it Was stolen) would be equally valid evidence to support the conclusion that it was not stolen or that no god exists. As regards some sort of creator, the evidence doesn't really support that claim, though some efforts are made with gaps for god such as why the universe is how it is or the numerical basic constant or (or course) where the initial matter came from. There is still some mileage in a Creator - claim, though not as much as the theists presenting the Cosmic origins argument seem to think. Whereas with the god of the Bible the negative evidence there is pretty compelling; that god does not exist. I believe that as much as a belief that my car will start, my house will not fall down and my wife doesn't give a damn'.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

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)?

From my understanding (not being an atheist) is many claimed atheists haven't seen anything to convince them in the belief of any god. For some, it comes from a 'once believed in now no longer do because of XYZ' while others simply don't see any evidence. Thus, saying 'lack of a belief in god' is accurate.

For those that were 'once a believer', they likely looked in to it a good deal. But everyone has various degrees of knowledge in specific subjects: some have more than you and me, some the same as you and me, some less than you and me and some have none whatsoever.

But belief doesn't require knowledge in any way. It simply needs a person to accept said belief; it can exists no matter how much knowledge one may have, or not have.
In other words, when speaking about a belief, knowledge isn't necessary.

[TRANSPONDER]

quite so (you're really not an atheist? ) and that is why I have sometimes used the term 'Thinking atheist'. Though that sounds awfully snobby. It's like this; someone who has never been taught a religion will not believe in its' god. They will be an atheist by default. They may then fall into the hands of a church or religion (heh heh.. ) and may be converted to the religion.

They may then come across a touring party of performing atheists who will explain how she or he has been bamboozled and they will (on that evidence) possibly deconvert.

They are then just as much an atheist as they were before they were converted, but now they know the arguments on both sides.

[Bradskii]

'The election was stolen' is a positive claim. Therefore to refute it one would say 'I don't believe it'.

No. To refute a claim you have to prove that the claim is false.

P.S. I believe that my head is now spinning.

Then maybe we could use 'reject'? That is the sense in which I was using it. In that 'I don't consider that the evidence you have produced for your claim is sufficient to allow that claim to stand - therefore I reject it'. Or... 'I don't believe it'.

In that case, no evidence has to be produced to confirm the negative view. One is simply rejecting the positive claim. So if the claim is 'the election was stolen' I can say 'I reject that claim - because the evidence you've provided doesn't convince me'. As opposed to 'I reject that claim - because I can prove it wasn't'. In that case you have a burden of proof and a positive belief. Or...'I do believe it wasn't stolen'.

Response covers @TRANSPONDER 's post as well.

[Bradskii]

quite so (you're really not an atheist? ) and that is why I have sometimes used the term 'Thinking atheist'. Though that sounds awfully snobby. It's like this; someone who has never been taught a religion will not believe in its' god. They will be an atheist by default. They may then fall into the hands of a church or religion (heh heh.. ) and may be converted to the religion.

They may then come across a touring party of performing atheists who will explain how she or he has been bamboozled and they will (on that evidence) possibly deconvert.

They are then just as much an atheist as they were before they were converted, but now they know the arguments on both sides.

It would be interesting to see the figures for the percentage of atheists who are (to use your term) 'thinking atheists' as opposed to the number of 'thinking Christians'. I'd suggest that the former is much greater.