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)?

[Bust Nak]

I think it's always better to use a standard dictionary, like Merriam Webster: disbelieve means "to hold not worthy of belief," "to withhold or reject belief."

I think that more accurately describes the debating atheist's position than saying they simply "lack" belief, as the latter (purposefully?) suggests a neutral or passive position.

That's the point, atheism IS the neutral or passive position. Whatever an individual debating atheist's position is, doesn't affect what atheism is defined to be. And the reason why we insist on this definition, is that theists had consistently tried to shift the burden of proof onto atheists to disprove god(s). While I am here talking about burden of proof, what an individual beliefs are, need not be the same thing as his debating position. An atheist who actively believe that there are no gods, still don't have the burden of proof to disprove god(s), as long as he keep that belief to himself. Only claims have burden of proof.

The central question of this thread is, if one don't believe that God exists, is that a belief? The answer is clearly no. Babies don't believe that God exists, that's about as neutral or passive as it gets, they don't believe much of anything. While many atheists do actively believe there are no gods, believing there are no gods, and not believing there are gods are clearly different position.

[2ndpillar2]

I think it's always better to use a standard dictionary, like Merriam Webster: disbelieve means "to hold not worthy of belief," "to withhold or reject belief."

I think that more accurately describes the debating atheist's position than saying they simply "lack" belief, as the latter (purposefully?) suggests a neutral or passive position.

That's the point, atheism IS the neutral or passive position. Whatever an individual debating atheist's position is, doesn't affect what atheism is defined to be. And the reason why we insist on this definition, is that theists had consistently tried to shift the burden of proof onto atheists to disprove god(s). While I am here talking about burden of proof, what an individual beliefs are, need not be the same thing as his debating position. An atheist who actively believe that there are no gods, still don't have the burden of proof to disprove god(s), as long as he keep that belief to himself. Only claims have burden of proof.

The central question of this thread is, if one don't believe that God exists, is that a belief? The answer is clearly no. Babies don't believe that God exists, that's about as neutral or passive as it gets, they don't believe much of anything. While many atheists do actively believe there are no gods, believing there are no gods, and not believing there are gods are clearly different position.

Agnostic definition:
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity.

An atheist, and or Marxist, is a believer in a certain position, and acts religiously to promote such a notion. Such as going on a forum and defending their beliefs/non beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #61]

That's the point, atheism IS the neutral or passive position.

That is a claim but is it the truth?

I think agnosticism is the neutral or passive position.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is not known or knowable with any certainty. If the question is "Does God exist?", "yes" would imply theism, "no" would imply atheism, and "I'm not sure" would imply agnosticism—that God possibly can or cannot exist. [Source]

Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[Source]

Atheists present the type of argument that clearly shows they feel justified in believing gods do not exist.

They still retain the Agnostic position of lacking belief in gods but justify being atheists with reasons as to why they choose to be atheists rather than remain agnostic.

[Bust Nak]

... An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings...

Then most theists are also atheists, as they too, denies the existence of many a deities, examples of denied deities includes Thor, Amaterasu, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl.

An atheist, and or Marxist, is a believer in a certain position, and acts religiously to promote such a notion. Such as going on a forum and defending their beliefs/non beliefs.

What about the atheists who don't promote atheism? I often promote moral subjectivism here, does that make moral subjectivism part of atheism? Obviously not, so I don't see what we promote has to do with what atheism is.

[Bust Nak]

That is a claim but is it the truth?

I was appealing to a definition there, definitions are not matters of truths, but of popularity. Definitions that runs along the lines of lack of belief are popular enough to be recoded in most dictionaries. It's also the definition that pops up in google.

I think agnosticism is the neutral or passive position.

That God is not known and unknowable sounds like a positive claim to me.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is not known or knowable with any certainty. If the question is "Does God exist?", "yes" would imply theism, "no" would imply atheism, and "I'm not sure" would imply agnosticism—that God possibly can or cannot exist. [Source]

Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[Source]

That's fine, these views are compatible with atheism. Note that while "no" implies atheism, it doesn't say "I'm not sure" exclusively implies agnosticism.

Atheists present the type of argument that clearly shows they feel justified in believing gods do not exist.

Counter-arguments against theistic position, sure, I've seen plenty. But arguments? What argument exactly?

They still retain the Agnostic position of lacking belief in gods but justify being atheists with reasons as to why they choose to be atheists rather than remain agnostic.

Why not both? I am both.

This thread has gone on for quite long without the marbles analogy so lets give that a visit, (or maybe I've missed it.) Lets say there is a jar of marbles, large enough so the number of marbles are not immediate obvious to observers. The theist says, there are an odd number of marbles in the jar because of reason XYZ.

Atheist A says, XYZ is a rubbish reason for believing there are an odd number of marbles in the jar. A rejection of the theistic position does not mean the atheist here believe there are an even number of marbles in the jar.

Atheist B says, there are an even number of marbles in the jar. Both A and B are atheists, but A is also an agnostic.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #64]

Then most theists are also atheists, as they too, denies the existence of many a deities, examples of denied deities includes Thor, Amaterasu, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl.

That is messy rationalization. It does not matter what particular gods theists accept or reject as existing. As long as they accept the existence that even one god exists, they are theists, not atheists.

What about the atheists who don't promote atheism?

They are so quiet as to give the impression they don't actually exist. But even if they do actually exist, they are probably busy not caring about such things either way, because such things are not important to them, like they are important to atheists who are actively non-theist/anti-theist.

I often promote moral subjectivism here, does that make moral subjectivism part of atheism?

Does being a non-theist or anti-theist atheist make non-theism or anti theism a part of atheism?

Obviously not, so I don't see what we promote has to do with what atheism is.

If that is the case then why call oneself an atheist and add confusion to the mix if [in reality] one is a non-theist or an anti-theist?

[historia]

I think it's always better to use a standard dictionary, like Merriam Webster: disbelieve means "to hold not worthy of belief," "to withhold or reject belief."

I think that more accurately describes the debating atheist's position than saying they simply "lack" belief, as the latter (purposefully?) suggests a neutral or passive position.

That's the point, atheism IS the neutral or passive position. Whatever an individual debating atheist's position is, doesn't affect what atheism is defined to be. And the reason why we insist on this definition, is that theists had consistently tried to shift the burden of proof onto atheists to disprove god(s). While I am here talking about burden of proof, what an individual beliefs are, need not be the same thing as his debating position. An atheist who actively believe that there are no gods, still don't have the burden of proof to disprove god(s), as long as he keep that belief to himself. Only claims have burden of proof.

To clarify, by "position" here I mean the atheist's position with regard to the proposition that God exists. I don't mean their debating position. The reason why I used the qualifier "debating" atheist is precisely to anticipate your next point:

The central question of this thread is, if one don't believe that God exists, is that a belief? The answer is clearly no. Babies don't believe that God exists, that's about as neutral or passive as it gets, they don't believe much of anything.

Sure, you'll notice I already addressed this in the OP: Someone who is ignorant of the proposition of God's existence can rightly be said to lack belief in God.

But the atheists on this forum are not babies. They have considered and rejected (or not accepted) the proposition that God exists. To doubt a proposition is, by definition, a belief. So the atheists here cannot rightly claim to simply "lack" belief in God.

Would you not agree?

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #65]

That God is not known and unknowable sounds like a positive claim to me.

Unless one is unsure. One is unsure if gods are unknowable. One is unsure if gods are knowable.

Being unsure sounds like a neutral position rather than a position whereby positive claim can be expressed from.

That's fine, these views are compatible with atheism. Note that while "no" implies atheism, it doesn't say "I'm not sure" exclusively implies agnosticism.

Do you know any folk calling themselves atheists or theists who say the are not sure whether gods exist or not?

Atheists present the type of argument that clearly shows they feel justified in believing gods do not exist.

Counter-arguments against theistic position, sure, I've seen plenty. But arguments? What argument exactly?

Counter arguments - exactly.

They still retain the Agnostic position of lacking belief in gods but justify being atheists with reasons as to why they choose to be atheists rather than remain agnostic.

Why not both?

Because they are different positions. One is neutral and the others are positive/negative.

I am both.

You are both neutral and positive?

You are both 'not sure' and 'sure'?

[Bust Nak]

That is messy rationalization. It does not matter what particular gods theists accept or reject as existing. As long as they accept the existence that even one god exists, they are theists, not atheists.

Take it up with 2ndpillar2, he was the one who presented the claim that an atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

They are so quiet as to give the impression they don't actually exist. But even if they do actually exist, they are probably busy not caring about such things either way, because such things are not important to them, like they are important to atheists who are actively non-theist/anti-theist.

Consider the vast number of atheists in East Asia or secular Europe who just go about their life without caring about such things. They absolutely do exist. Their lack of care does not stop them from be any less atheistic than active anti-theists debating here.

Does being a non-theist or anti-theist atheist make non-theism or anti theism a part of atheism?

Non-theism sounds like just another term for atheism, what's the difference? The lack of care, let the ones I mentioned just above?

What exactly is anti-theism? Being antagonistic towards theism? I would call myself that, but that still doesn't mean I affirm the non-existence of god(s).

If that is the case then why call oneself an atheist and add confusion to the mix if [in reality] one is a non-theist or an anti-theist?

Those are somewhat uncommon terms, surely that's adding more confusion than the simple theist/atheist dichotomy.

Unless one is unsure. One is unsure if gods are unknowable. One is unsure if gods are knowable.

Then they are not even sure if they are agnostic. They shouldn't be labelled agnostic.

Being unsure sounds like a neutral position rather than a position whereby positive claim can be expressed from.

That much I can agree with.

Do you know any folk calling themselves atheists or theists who say the are not sure whether gods exist or not?

Yeah, I do. Let me say it: I am not sure whether gods exist or not.

Because they are different positions. One is neutral and the others are positive/negative.

Why this and not "one is neutral, one is positive, and one is not positive (encompass both neutral and negative)?

You are both neutral and positive?

You are both 'not sure' and 'sure'?

I am both neutral and not positive. I am not sure of some things - whether gods exist; I am sure on other things - theistic arguments are faulty.

[Bust Nak]

But the atheists on this forum are not babies. They have considered and rejected (or not accepted) the proposition that God exists. To doubt a proposition is, by definition, a belief. So the atheists here cannot rightly claim to simply "lack" belief in God.

Would you not agree?

Let dive in deeper. What does "belief in God" mean? Beliefs about God, or the very specific belief - "God exists?" While I hold plenty of the former (not least, the belief that arguments for God's existence are faulty,) I can right state that I lack the latter. When I hear "belief in God" I tend to think it means the latter.