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)?

[TRANSPONDER]

An atheist, by definition is someone who lacks belief in a god or gods. Full stop.

atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in god/gods.

This is where I think there is some confusion. Atheism is not just lack of belief in God.

The Wikipedia article on atheism provides a fuller definition that I think is quite useful:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is (a) an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is (b) a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically (c) the position that there are no deities.

This maps neatly onto what I've been saying throughout the discussion:

Those who are ignorant of the proposition that God exists are atheists only in the sense of (a). Whereas those who have considered the proposition that God exists and chosen not to accept it are atheists in the sense of both (a) and (b). While those who believe that God does not exist are atheists in the sense of (a), (b), and (c).

Since the atheists on this forum are clearly not ignorant of the proposition that God exists, they cannot rightly claim to be atheists only in the sense of (a), they have to also be atheists in the sense of (b). And since (b) entails an opinion or attitude regarding the proposition that God exists then they have, by definition, a belief about (the concept of) God.

That's a handy clarification. Essentially atheism is not having (lacking) a belief in any god (or god -claim), but 'lacking' implies not even knowing about the claim or god -claim, while rejecting the god -claim implies being aware of it. Really, atheism (some have preferred non -theism) implies not having (or lacking) a god -belief (including God -belief) never mind for what reason, which is why babies are classified as technically atheist(1), as are rocks, clocks and socks, because they have no knowledge of the god - claim and so cannot buy into it. Though of course 'atheist' is thought of as applying to those who know of the god -claim and don't buy into it, whether they are aware of the arguments or not.

As I have said, it is basically very simple, but can be made very complicated.

(1) though not 'atheists' as that term implies a degree of personal decision. It's all about nuances of meaning with the broad idea of 'not believing in a god'.

[brunumb]

My question "Why do folk who just lack belief in gods, call themselves "Atheists" when they could just call themselves "Agnostics"" remains unanswered;

Because theists believe in gods and atheists do not.

[William]

My question "Why do folk who just lack belief in gods, call themselves "Atheists" when they could just call themselves "Agnostics"" remains unanswered;

Because theists believe in gods and atheists do not.

Is this to say then, that atheism is a reaction to theism and that reaction causes folk to make the move from Agnosticism [lacking belief in gods] to atheism [lacking belief in gods AND reacting to theism].

[JoeyKnothead]

An atheist, by definition is someone who lacks belief in a god or gods. Full stop.

atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in god/gods.

This is where I think there is some confusion. Atheism is not just lack of belief in God.

The Wikipedia article on atheism provides a fuller definition that I think is quite useful:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is (a) an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is (b) a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically (c) the position that there are no deities.

This maps neatly onto what I've been saying throughout the discussion:

Those who are ignorant of the proposition that God exists are atheists only in the sense of (a). Whereas those who have considered the proposition that God exists and chosen not to accept it are atheists in the sense of both (a) and (b). While those who believe that God does not exist are atheists in the sense of (a), (b), and (c).

Since the atheists on this forum are clearly not ignorant of the proposition that God exists, they cannot rightly claim to be atheists only in the sense of (a), they have to also be atheists in the sense of (b). And since (b) entails an opinion or attitude regarding the proposition that God exists then they have, by definition, a belief about (the concept of) God.

To heck with theists trying to tell what atheists believe.

Theists have no right to declare my beliefs for me.

[brunumb]

My question "Why do folk who just lack belief in gods, call themselves "Atheists" when they could just call themselves "Agnostics"" remains unanswered;

Because theists believe in gods and atheists do not.

Is this to say then, that atheism is a reaction to theism and that reaction causes folk to make the move from Agnosticism [lacking belief in gods] to atheism [lacking belief in gods AND reacting to theism].

No. Agnosticism is not about belief.

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agnstos, "unknowable"), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #115]

Is this to say then, that atheism is a reaction to theism and that reaction causes folk to make the move from Agnosticism [lacking belief in gods] to atheism [lacking belief in gods AND reacting to theism].

No. Agnosticism is not about belief.

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agnstos, "unknowable"), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."

Even given this is just another definition of agnosticism, it explains what? about atheism, or why folk choose to call themselves atheists instead of agnostics, when clearly if humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience, this would have to include lacking belief in gods?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #115]

Is this to say then, that atheism is a reaction to theism and that reaction causes folk to make the move from Agnosticism [lacking belief in gods] to atheism [lacking belief in gods AND reacting to theism].

No. Agnosticism is not about belief.

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agnstos, "unknowable"), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."

Even given this is just another definition of agnosticism, it explains what? about atheism, or why folk choose to call themselves atheists instead of agnostics, when clearly if humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience, this would have to include lacking belief in gods?

It implies that, not knowing, one would logically have to not believe until they do know - which is what atheism is, and intrinsically, all that it is.

[brunumb]

Even given this is just another definition of agnosticism, it explains what? about atheism, or why folk choose to call themselves atheists instead of agnostics, when clearly if humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience, this would have to include lacking belief in gods?

What people choose to call themselves is surely based on their subjective understanding of the meanings of those labels. Does it achieve anything to go beyond the simple fact that if someone declares that they are an atheist then they do not believe in the claim that gods exist? The problems arise when people try to impose different interpretations of those labels in order to put others into specific boxes that meet with their particular agenda.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #118]

What people choose to call themselves is surely based on their subjective understanding of the meanings of those labels.

Yes.

Does it achieve anything to go beyond the simple fact that if someone declares that they are an atheist then they do not believe in the claim that gods exist?

That extra bit you added changes the definition of atheist, from 'someone who lacks belief in gods' into 'someone who lacks belief in gods because of claims that god exists'.

That is precisely historia's point re the OP.

An atheist [by your own definition above] is an atheist because of something rather than simply lacking belief without a cause behind it, which is what agnosticism is.

Agnostics simply lack belief in gods. They have no reason as to why they lack belief in gods, because that is the default for being agnostic. Reasons which come along that the person accepts or rejects are the very things which move the individual to one bias [atheism] or the other [theism].

The problems arise when people try to impose different interpretations of those labels in order to put others into specific boxes that meet with their particular agenda.

The interpretations which cause the confusion are the ones where atheists [in this case] do not have clear consistent definitions and as such, are loose interpretations at best.

You definition is one such example.

One atheist says that atheism is simply lacking belief in the existence of gods. Another atheist says it is simply lacking belief in gods. Yet another says it is lacking belief in the existence of gods because of the claims that gods exist.

All three definitions may appear to say the same thing, but they do not.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #117]

Even given this is just another definition of agnosticism, it explains what? about atheism, or why folk choose to call themselves atheists instead of agnostics, when clearly if humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience, this would have to include lacking belief in gods?

It implies that, not knowing, one would logically have to not believe until they do know - which is what atheism is, and intrinsically, all that it is.

No. That is what agnosticism is, if indeed you are using the words 'believe' and 'know' interchangeably.

But as clearly can be seen in this thread, we have atheists giving different definitions as to what atheism is and that is the root of the confusion, not non-atheists trying to impose different interpretations of atheism in order to put atheists into specific boxes. to meet with their specific agendas...

...clearly it is atheists themselves who are putting atheism into different boxes, by not being able to agree together as to what atheism is.