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)?
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.
Even if it were the case that some atheists simply lack belief in gods because they have no facility in which to gain belief, one needn't think of it as somehow making them inferior, any more than someone who lacks legs is inferior to someone who has them.
I have seen over time, folk calling themselves 'atheists' coming over all superior calling theists 'woo-woo' and what have you.
I don't know who first coined the definition "lacks belief in gods" but they could have added "because there is no convincing evidence that a God exists"
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in gods because there is no convincing evidence that a God exists"
Atheism: Lacking convincing evidence that a God exists.
William wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:45 am
I don't know who first coined the definition "lacks belief in gods" but they could have added "because there is no convincing evidence that a God exists"
Why should the reason matter? If you don't believe in gods, for whatever reason, then you are an atheist. If an egg is described as broken, then it is still described as a broken egg regardless of how it became broken.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Prisoner of the Sun wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:01 am
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.
This thread is looking at the nature of atheistic belief and how best to describe it. If that doesn't interest you, you're free to look elsewhere.
Prisoner of the Sun wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:25 am
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.
You mean in the title of the thread? It's a joke, a play on words.
William wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:45 am
I don't know who first coined the definition "lacks belief in gods" but they could have added "because there is no convincing evidence that a God exists"
Why should the reason matter? If you don't believe in gods, for whatever reason, then you are an atheist. If an egg is described as broken, then it is still described as a broken egg regardless of how it became broken.
That has been the thrust of my argument all along.
Why create confusion when all that atheists have to do is say they lack belief in gods without giving reason as to why they lack belief in gods. Yet it happens a lot, such as with this statement;
Reason for lack of belief:
I am asserting that there is no convincing evidence that a God exists.
As far as I can tell, atheists give reasons for why they lack belief in gods in order to be able debate with theists.
They are - to use your own analogy - broken eggs telling others why they are broken eggs when it is not necessary to do so other than to then argue what points they have to argue against theists for why they believe gods do not exist, a wholly separate position from the position of Atheism...which as we are informed time and again, is a simply a state of lacking belief in gods and nothing more - including whatever 'reasons' they bring to the debate setting because those reasons have nothing to do with the "simply a state of lacking belief in gods".
So it is not really a case of "If you don't believe in gods, for whatever reason" but rather that as an atheist, you simply lack belief in gods and whatever reason is besides the point re the actual position of Atheism.
You two sound like you are in agreement while seemingly posting like you are in disagreement. And I agree, too. An atheist does not believe in God :- broadly does not believe in any god/god -claim, lacks or does not accept any such god or theistic -claim or any other form of words saying the same thing.
Why they lack or do not have that god -belief is irrelevant. They have never had it told them or they have been told but do not believe it.
The insistence 'no... atheists have to know and reject the claim' is one way a person can be atheist (non -theist) and an atheist' is too particular and specific a usage and, while many throw a wobbly about inanimate objects being 'atheist' (if not atheists), it is technically the case (rocks do not believe in a god - for all anyone can prove strictly we don't know for sure and have to be agnostic about the non -theism of concrete bollards ) and normally wouldn't matter to atheists or atheism, but it's needed keep babies as being non -believers from birth, until taught about a god/religion - a necessary tactic, but also (I believe) is true.
So all the confusion cleared away, a simple non -belief in any god no matter what, why or what they do about it, is what an atheist is, and anyone who buys into any god -claim in the sense of a theism that is recognised as a 'god' of any sort, from a bearded guy on a cloud chucking thunderbolt to a cosmic intelligence, is a theist, never mind why or how or whether they have a religion to go with it. But I trust no -one would accept 'you beleive in your computer -laptop, don't you?'
'Well, yes.'
'So if I call it 'God'you are a theist'.
Mind he was only doing it to 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' not to make a serious point.
...stuff my old boots I started at 10 pm and now it's 2 a.m. Partying is such a sweet morrow, but I have to get some cat -nap.
All the caveats, small print and definitions are there simply because Theist apologists will try to tinker with the definitions to have them mean whatever the Bible apologist wants them to mean.
So all the confusion cleared away, a simple non -belief in any god no matter what, why or what they do about it, is what an atheist is
Until a theist argues that atheists are non-believers in gods, then the usual response is that "atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods" and has nothing to do with the belief that gods do not exist, but only lacking belief that gods exist. Two different things.
Obviously being an atheist is not necessarily just holding the position of lacking belief in gods, because clearly those calling themselves atheists often also have definite beliefs that gods do not exist...which is not the position of atheism. People confuse the two, because of this.
Atheists ARE non -believers in gods It is the theist claim that atheists believe there is no God (or are no gods) that is the positive claim that puts the burden of proof onto the atheists - which is the reason they do it.
And atheists can't prove there are no gods (though we can do a good job on Biblegod) which is why atheists like me (tall, handsome,devastatingly charismatic) are coolwith irreligious sortagod theists, because we haven'f been convinced that a Cosmic Mind exists but it's not impossible.
A bit more about the efforts to force 'god - denial'on atheism. 'If atheists don't believe there is a god, that's the same as believing there is no god'. Logically, no. Take the apple in the box analogy. "I claim there is an apple in this here closed box. Do you (or why don't you) believe me?"
Without persuasive evidence, how can you know? And if you don't know, logically you can't believe.
'So you are saying that there is no apple in the box. Prove it!'
'No - I'm saying I don't know, so I don't buy into your claim. Which is what You have to prove' (1)
People here are generally smart; they will see that one is not the other and why the atheist rationale (to be logical) has to use the non -gnostic or non positive belief -position. 'We don't know, so we don't believe until we do know'.
Like I say, simple, but very easy to make over - complicated.
(1) of course we know apples are real, so the claim in itself is not improbable, but gods are not demonstrated to be real and so that claim is that much less probable, so the analogy isn't exact.
It is the theist claim that atheists believe there is no God (or are no gods) that is the positive claim that puts the burden of proof onto the atheists - which is the reason they do it.
I think the confusion comes about through the difference between the stated position of Atheism and the activities of those calling themselves atheists.
Me [theist]: Why do you call yourself an atheist?
Person: Because I lack belief in gods, which is the position of atheism.
Me: So you are really saying you are an Agnostic?
Person: No. Because agnosticism is weak and undecided.
This type of argument is common enough and I find it intriguing. What is there to decide on the subject of gods existing or not, since clearly the topic is still open to debate.
Search "God Is Dead"
Friedrich Nietzsche has attributes which could make a person think that he is an atheist, yet there is plenty of information showing us that people do not agree that he was actually an atheist, and this is because the definition of atheism is not reflected in the position he took on the subject of theism. He clearly did not just lack belief in gods. Search: "was Fredrich Nietzsche an atheist?"
"Although Nietzsche is commonly known as an atheist, his beliefs were much closer to existentialism. Uncover Nietzche's views on atheism and ..."
"Friedrich Nietzsche was an Atheist in the sense that he lacked belief in God. It is unlikely that he was a Deist because he believed that outside world was ..."
"Nietzsche was definitely an atheist - as in being non-theistic - and his proclamation of the death of god should be read in a metaphorical ..."
"Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was a German philosopher, cultural critic and philologist whose ... On the basis of it, many commentators regard Nietzsche as an atheist; ..."
Search: "What did Friedrich Nietzsche think about atheism?"
"Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and didn't mean that there was a God who had actually died, rather that our idea of one had. Afterthe Enlightenment, the idea of a universe that was governed by physical laws and not by divine providence was now reality."
Search" did Friedrich Nietzsche call himself an atheist?"
What confirms the claim that Friedrich Nietzsche was an atheist?
Nietzsche was not an atheist. Rather, he was unmaking what the Catholic church in particular had done to mysticism and spirituality. When he says that, as a ...
No need to cut the tree down to get to the fruit.
Obviously it is a difficult thing to do in pin-pointing 'what is an atheist?' and I think that the fault lies with those calling themselves atheists.
Theists on the other hand, do go the extra yards to explain their position - not just as being 'theist' but to what type of theist - for example - 'Christian' and not just being 'Christian' but what type of Christian [the list is long]...in this way, theists try not to leave any room for confusion.
I have tried asking those who call themselves atheists, as to what type of atheist they are, only to be told "atheism is the lack of belief in gods - that is the only type of atheist there is".
So whatever else they are over and above lacking belief in gods - as example - if they believe that gods do not exist - the belief is not atheism and thus they are not atheists re those beliefs.
What, what, what, is the problem here? Why is it so hard to get this simple idea over? Agnosticism is a knowledge - position about whether a god exists. And in fact everyone is agnostic, because nobody really knows.
Theism or atheism is a belief position based on not knowing whether a god exists. Theists believe a god does exist because the evidence convinces them or they have been told that it exists and atheists don't believe.
How and why the atheist doesn't believe and whether the atheist is sure or really not sure (Dawkins' degrees of atheism - strong or weak) is often confused with agnosticism or atheism. This confusion wouldn't even matter were it not that it feeds into the accusation that a 'strong'atheist' is making a claim that God does not exist, which is not the position of atheism, though many atheists are 99% sure that the god of the Bible doesn't exist.
I am really not very interested in Neitzsche and his angst -ridden fretting about God, because it is better understood now that the answers to morality are be found in evolutionary science and secularist and humanist apologetics, not in philosophy. The question about morality still remain, more than ever, but now it is understood that humans and human social mores are the origins of morality (and didn't we know that all along?) and Religion just hi -jacked it and claimed that they were the origin and keepers of morality. Not that they are very moral themselves, and didn't we know that, too?
All this has become understood since atheism went public and could be spread on the Internet, so there is now (as Paul said) 'No excuse'. But (and this is the ongoing problem) for a complex number of reasons, no matter how many times these thing are explained, people do not and will not listen, but recite these century old mantras about no morality without God, and 'agnostics'are logical and reasonable but 'atheists' are stubborn and in denial, Galilaeo, Newton and Einstein all believed in God and the Ark has actually been found.
You tell me, tell me true, didn't you see this explained? Or did you forget it and remember only the Theistic Canard? Or do you prefer to false definition because you believe in a Cosmic Mind and atheists don't? Tell me why you don't get or will not get the definition, because the persistent refusal to get it foxes me, really it does.
) and normally wouldn't matter to atheists or atheism, but it's needed keep babies as being non -believers from birth, until taught about a god/religion - a necessary tactic, but also (I believe) is true. 
he was only doing it to 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' not to make a serious point. 
I started at 10 pm and now it's 2 a.m. Partying is such a sweet morrow, but I have to get some cat -nap.
