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)?

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #180]

That may be how you approach the question and I do not know what you personally have done to try and prove that a mind behind creation exists or does not exist,.....

Nothing. As far as I am concerned it is an idea, but not one that resonates with me. If someone produces some compelling reason to give it more consideration then I will follow up on that. As for now, it is not something that I believe is real.

I accept that as the individuals right. You have exactly the same right to believe what you do as I have to believe what I do.

As an agnostic I see more reason to investigate the idea that there is a mind behind existence which implies creation/simulation et al rather than emergent of consciousness through a mindless accident, because it leads to somewhere rather than nowhere.

I see it as the analogy this diagram portrays.

D=default - the setting each of us come into this reality as.

E = Emergent theory direction.

C = Creation theory direction.

but my point remains that until one has evidence either way, there is no default position on the subject, that is true/real/pertinent et al, and one has to assume a belief until one can place that belief aside, in which case, one would then lack belief.

But one doesn't get evidence either way.

This is only the case if one chooses to do nothing in order to 'get evidence'.

What evidence is there that there is no mind behind creation? What evidence is there that Lumingfrum does not exist? I don't get your point at all.

Minds exist. That at least is not under dispute. Small steps. Gather evidence. Or do nothing. Each to their own.

If you want to assume belief in materialism just on the basis that material exists, that is your choice.

If I want to assume belief in the mind just on the basis that mind exists, that is my choice.

Due to the nature of reality, both are acceptable pursuits. I do not place one as more important than the other. Rather I see the idea that we exist within a creation, less constricting.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course, and it is an interesting discussion. But the fact is that it is academic in the religion -debate (unless a theist is using Cosmic Mind (or first cause, alternatively) as a springboard to a particular god) and it is still speculative and I am a bit wary of picking any bits of information that appear to support what Appears to e a Faith -based preference.

Presenting that preference and the supporting argument can expect to get responses and anyone can say (effectively) "I don't care what you say, I still believe..." Which we have seen before.And that is individual choice as it is for the doubters and skeptics to not be convinced and to state on the board that they are not.Aside from that, I always enjoy your contributions.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think I've gotten to the point where I'm just repeating myself, so I'll end my involvement in this thread with the following...

A- non
Theism- belief in the existence of a god or gods

To declare a nonbelief a belief is as goofy as a peanut butter and jelly with mustard and hotdog sandwich.

[William]

I think I've gotten to the point where I'm just repeating myself, so I'll end my involvement in this thread with the following...

A- non
Theism- belief in the existence of a god or gods

To declare a nonbelief a belief is as goofy as a peanut butter and jelly with mustard and hotdog sandwich.

Of course one can retreat from the battle as one wishes, but your simplified description of "what atheism is", is shown to be inadequate, by the scholarly investigation I linked at the end of Post #179

...or perhaps, after you regain sustenance from the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you might feel like rejoining the fight.

[historia]

So it seems then we can say that, generally speaking, every atheist on this forum doubts that God exists. And so every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists, right?

Could you express that belief as an explicit statement for me please .

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that, or why you think the above statement is not explicit. Can you elaborate?

Surely the belief you refer to (highlighted in blue) can be expressed as a specific statement of a belief. How would it be expressed? It would have to go something like "I believe........".

"I doubt that God exists."

Out of curiosity, brunumb, was there a point you were hoping to make from that question?

I feel like there is perhaps a final, unresolved issue in the thread concerning how some here are conceptualizing the nature of beliefs. I was hoping you were going to touch on that with this line of inquiry, to save me from having to speculate.

[brunumb]

To declare a nonbelief a belief is as goofy as a peanut butter and jelly with mustard and hotdog sandwich.

Mmmmm. A peanut butter and jelly with mustard and hotdog sandwich!



That aside, I'm with you. This thread is going around in circles and not really getting anywhere. Circular unreasoning?

[Prisoner of the Sun]

This is just semantics. The existence of God (or Gods) is a real question. Don't dress it up as a question about the nature of belief.

[Prisoner of the Sun]

I just replied to this question, but a better reply is to ask: What do you mean by "lacking?" This is a loaded word. Do you mean the act of lacking a belief in God? In which case, this is a perfectly OK term to use. However, this term has also been used in a derogative way (Lackwit, lacking sense, etc.). I don't accept your premise that I am lacking (that is a device to make me feel inferior), I am asserting that there is no convincing evidence that a God exists.

[TRANSPONDER]

So it seems then we can say that, generally speaking, every atheist on this forum doubts that God exists. And so every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists, right?

Could you express that belief as an explicit statement for me please .

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that, or why you think the above statement is not explicit. Can you elaborate?

Surely the belief you refer to (highlighted in blue) can be expressed as a specific statement of a belief. How would it be expressed? It would have to go something like "I believe........".

"I doubt that God exists."

Out of curiosity, brunumb, was there a point you were hoping to make from that question?

I feel like there is perhaps a final, unresolved issue in the thread concerning how some here are conceptualizing the nature of beliefs. I was hoping you were going to touch on that with this line of inquiry, to save me from having to speculate.

There is indeed a discussion on 'the nature of beliefs', and we may have touched on it already. I tend to think of it as 'buy in', which means that one had gone beyond accepting a feasible or coherent argument as a possibly true or correct one and is actually convinced by it. Thus they would tend to argue for what belief they have bought into.

Indeed theist apologists have argued that theist and atheist 'faith' (belief) is essentially the same, and there's something in that. And maybe the step to Faith in a particular position results in the Bias we hear as an accusation flung at both sides. Alternatively, I have heard many God -believers say that they accept that they might be wrong, but they don't think so, just as many atheists know they might be wrong - but they think not.

What's the difference? I think two. There is the gnostic theist. They don't just believe that a god (or indeed one particular god) exists - they Know it, and cite personal conviction. I think this is a belief that their Faith has put them in touch with God (name your own) (1) and it isn't based on the evidence (if it ever was). It has now become a Faith.

Sure, they will argue on the evidence but the evidence is only to support what they know on Faith and that explains why evidence in the end can be manipulated, cherry picked and falsified and they remain not only unembarrassed by this but (it seems) aggrieved that their Faith - claims are even being questioned. And you can take that to the bank when they dismiss the evidence (science) as mere human opinion; evidence doesn't matter - Faith matters, and evidence can be lied about without shame because of what they know to be true on Faith. This is what we goddless bastards call 'Blind Faith'.

Now, atheist apologists don't do that. Really, they don't (though they get accused of it often enough [projection ]). They do credit the evidence as valid, even if they have to change their minds. It just so happens that the evidence (as it now stands) does NOT support the Biblegod claims, nor any other god, and, I'd argue, not a non -religious creator, though this is much more arguable than any of the Personal gods. So atheists know it is safe to be corrected on any 'evidence' (though theists will try to pull the one -shot win, sometimes on legitimate points - I have seen them try to win a debate on nit -picking of grammar or complaints about posting too many smilies ) even if the atheist apologists don't realise that falsifying the evidence to win is only cheating themselves.

(1) I think this explains why they seem to think that quoting Bibletext is Evidence, and why 'Interpretation' is used to make it say what they want it to say: God has told them what it means and those who merely read what it says 'Don't Understand', and you may take that one to the Bank, too.

[Bust Nak]

First, the example we are examining in the OP involves the assertion "you don't believe God exist," rather than "you believe God doesn't exist," so the response there (and also here in this thread) may reflect a different line of thinking. Your response makes sense in reply to the latter, but less so the former.

The guy said don't believe that God exists is itself a belief, that's a big no no. I just lack belief is still appropriate. The "just" is a response to the specific claim that not believing in God is a belief, not meant to be read as a blanket denial of any beliefs about God.