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)?

[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?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #170]

Very much. So we see that a lack of belief in a god or gods might inform beliefs that go beyond the scope of that initial non belief.

I don't see a problem here.

Essentially there is no problem until such 'extensions' are questioned by theists, and the response is along the lines of "that is not what atheism is - atheism is simply lacking belief in gods."

Agreed in principle, but without a more concrete example I'm kinda speculating.

Are you suggesting you are unaware of this fairly standard response from those calling themselves atheists?

Here I'm concerned with the blanket assertion of what atheists believe. It's too clod clumpy for me.

As I too am concerned with the blanket response to such so-called blanket assertions. It is to convenient and appears to be untrue - thus the confusion which surfaces as a result.

Example:
Theist: "You don't believe that God exists and that itself, is an atheist belief."

Atheist: "I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief."

Theist: I'm confused here. You say you do not believe that God exists but you also say you merely lack belief in gods. Which one is it?

Atheist: It is the same thing.

Theist: But is it really? Lack of belief is clearly lack of belief. Lack of belief in gods is lack of belief in gods, not just 'lack of belief".
Therefore your statement "Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief" while true, is not the same as stating that you "lack belief in god/gods." because you have placed an identifier as to what it is you lack belief in.

Atheist: So?

Theist: So that means that I can identify atheism as lack of belief in gods and any statement therein to do with that, can be regarded as an aspect of what atheism is, which is not 'merely' lack of belief, but specifically to do with lack of belief in gods.

Therefore if I observe that your saying you don't believe that God exists, is a belief, you cannot truthfully claim it is not, just because atheism is 'simply a lack of belief' or even 'simply a lack of belief in gods'.

To do so is akin to how a magician gets an audience to focus on what his right hand is doing and therefore miss what his left hand is up to.

[historia]

I would agree, I believe all sorts of things about God, while maintaining that not believing in God is not a belief, I lack that belief.

Sure. Again, here we are talking about beliefs about God.

Yes, same as above, it's a belief about God.

Great, then we don't disagree at all. It seems any misunderstanding between us lay in our differing understanding of the word 'disbelieve.' In the way that I and Merriam Webster take that term, disbelieving that God exists is a belief.

When theists ask/challenge/accuse us with something like, "you believe God doesn't exist" a response along the lines of "no, I just lack a belief in God" is an appropriate answer. The "just" here indicate merely a dismissal of existence, without affirming non-existence. You are not supposed to read that "just" as a denial of any beliefs about God, nor as a plead that we are as thoughtless as a baby.

I appreciate that explanation. I would just note two things here:

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.

Second, while I suspect your position reflects the viewpoint of a majority of atheists in this thread -- and, to that end, a majority of atheists in this thread and I are in agreement -- I'm not sure it squares with what others have said, so is perhaps not reflective of all of the atheists here. We'll see what others have to say.

[JoeyKnothead]

Example:
Theist: "You don't believe that God exists and that itself, is an atheist belief."

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

Until you can accept that definition, you'll forever confuse a lack of belief with the having a belief.

Atheist: "I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief."

Theist: I'm confused here. You say you do not believe that God exists but you also say you merely lack belief in gods. Which one is it?

Atheist: It is the same thing.

Theist: But is it really? Lack of belief is clearly lack of belief. Lack of belief in gods is lack of belief in gods, not just 'lack of belief".
Therefore your statement "Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief" while true, is not the same as stating that you "lack belief in god/gods." because you have placed an identifier as to what it is you lack belief in.
...

That identifier is predicated on the theist identifying what it is he's so proud to believe in.

I'm also an abigfootist. That nonbelief requires someone to have mentioned, to have 'identified', Bigfoot.

Theist: So that means that I can identify atheism as lack of belief in gods and any statement therein to do with that, can be regarded as an aspect of what atheism is, which is not 'merely' lack of belief, but specifically to do with lack of belief in gods.

Seems right. I don't believe gods exist. And I don't believe the man-god Jesus exists.

I don't see a problem.

Therefore if I observe that your saying you don't believe that God exists, is a belief, you cannot truthfully claim it is not, just because atheism is 'simply a lack of belief' or even 'simply a lack of belief in gods'.

I can truthfully, and with a conscience of clear, declare that my lack of belief is the single soundest evidence that there's a lack of belief going on.

No matter the protestations of theists, no matter how confused such a condition causes the theist, It does not fork my tongue when I declare a lack of belief is a lack of belief.

To do so is akin to how a magician gets an audience to focus on what his right hand is doing and therefore miss what his left hand is up to.

It never fails to amuse me when theists, nominal or not, invoke magic as some sort of evidence against, or refutation of, the arguments of others.

Lack- ain't got
Belief- accepting something, as an object or assertion, as real

I'll accept offers of assistant on my definition of belief there.

[brunumb]

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........".

[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."

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #174]

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

Until you can accept that definition, you'll forever confuse a lack of belief with the having a belief.

Or - until you accept that having no belief in god is also a belief.

Unless you can prove that there is no mind behind creation, you have no choice in having to believe there is no god or gods if you want to hold the position of atheism.

Arguing that atheism is only a position of following the lead of theism, is fine. Just as theists do not know if god exists and thus have to believe, so too does everyone else.

Therefore to believe a mind behind creation does not exist, without knowing that is true or not, requires - belief.
Or to say it another way;
Therefore to lack belief a mind behind creation does not exist, without knowing that is true or not, requires - belief.

I'm also an abigfootist. That nonbelief requires someone to have mentioned, to have 'identified', Bigfoot.

Lacking belief has more to do with the moment one sees bigfoot and no longer needs the belief bigfoot doesn't exist.

If both atheists and theists actually saw that god or gods exist, they would all then lack belief.



.


The above is the science showing how the illusion is done, re my remark that a forked tongue is akin to how a magician gets an audience to focus on what his right hand is doing and therefore miss what his left hand is up to.

Belief- accepting something, as an object or assertion, as real

I'll accept offers of assistant on my definition of belief there.

How about;
Belief- accepting something, as an object or assertion, as real or not real.



...

[brunumb]

Unless you can prove that there is no mind behind creation, you have no choice in having to believe there is no god or gods if you want to hold the position of atheism.

How does one go about proving the non-existence of something? As far as I am concerned non-existence is the default position so that a mind behind creation does not exist until it is demonstrated to be otherwise.

[William]

Unless you can prove that there is no mind behind creation, you have no choice in having to believe there is no god or gods if you want to hold the position of atheism.

How does one go about proving the non-existence of something? As far as I am concerned non-existence is the default position so that a mind behind creation does not exist until it is demonstrated to be otherwise.

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, 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.

Search "when did the "current definition of atheism occur?"
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Snippet:
Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. Source

[brunumb]

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.

......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. 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.