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 TRANSPONDER in post #250]

I can only repeat, that a cosmic Mind may or may not exist, but the evidence for it is lacking...

Repeat that all you like, but the evidence you claim is lacking, is like claiming the invisible man is really there.

What 'lacking evidence' are you saying compels you to believe in materialism?

The fact that there are things which exist allows for the possibility that a mind made them that way.

Never mind a 'Cosmic [overall] Mind' - it may also be that there are minds within that Mind - planetary minds which allow for the creation the minds of biological critters.

Someone claiming flat out 'no there isn't' - as materialists tend to do, is no different than someone claiming a god exists and expects 'such and such' - as religious folk tend to do.

I see no reason as to why I should reject religious beliefs while embracing the beliefs of materialism when both are acknowledging the material.
Religion as 'made by their particular idea of a god.
Materialism 'made by a mindless accident.'

Your argument that I should accept materialism as the default position is no better than a Christians argument that I should accept the bible god.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #250]

I can only repeat, that a cosmic Mind may or may not exist, but the evidence for it is lacking...

Repeat that all you like, but the evidence you claim is lacking, is like claiming the invisible man is really there.

What 'lacking evidence' are you saying compels you to believe in materialism?

The fact that there are things which exist allows for the possibility that a mind made them that way.

Never mind a 'Cosmic [overall] Mind' - it may also be that there are minds within that Mind - planetary minds which allow for the creation the minds of biological critters.

Someone claiming flat out 'no there isn't' - as materialists tend to do, is no different than someone claiming a god exists and expects 'such and such' - as religious folk tend to do.

I see no reason as to why I should reject religious beliefs while embracing the beliefs of materialism when both are acknowledging the material.
Religion as 'made by their particular idea of a god.
Materialism 'made by a mindless accident.'

Your argument that I should accept materialism as the default position is no better than a Christians argument that I should accept the bible god.

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like you have lost your footing in the rational. Aside you evident inability to understand that the world we live in is real and largely understood and no god has been persuasively demonstrated, your inability to see that what's possible or at least undisproven is not the basis for regarding a Cosmic Mind as probable, never mind investing Belief in it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #252]

Aside you evident inability to understand that the world we live in is real and largely understood and no god has been persuasively demonstrated, your inability to see that what's possible or at least undisproven is not the basis for regarding a Cosmic Mind as probable, never mind investing Belief in it.

It is not a matter of investing belief in anything. It is a matter of all things considered.

Which is what the materialist mind - apparently - cannot consider, stuck as it is in the corner it has painted itself into.

I see no rational reason why you opinion that because I don't discount the possibility of even the planet itself being mindful, that this somehow equates to my understanding the world we live in is not a reality experience.

I think brains are more like filters than generators of consciousness. Consciousness is vastly greater than the brain

[TRANSPONDER]

You are still not getting it; all sorts of things may be possible, but only what is known is believable, together with what has been demonstrated by science. That's if you accept the findings of science, and also the validity of logic, including logical fallacies. You will probably be familiar with the logical fallacy of 'appeal to unknowns'. Sometimes called 'gap for god'fallacy those at least pop 'God 'into any Unknown, but you are appealing to hypothesis where nothing is known. Like a conscious earth. Or at least so far as I know.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #254]

Or at least so far as I know.

Yes. Why don't you know?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #254]

Or at least so far as I know.

Yes. Why don't you know?

Because nobody has presented any decent evidence for it. What evidence do you have for supposing that it's so? Hint.. natural physical and biological processes which work perfectly well without any (demonstrable) intelligent direction or intent is not decent evidence for it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #256]

Why don't you know?

Because nobody has presented any decent evidence for it.

Given that materialism is the number one belief in today's modern age, that should not surprise anyone, least of all any practicing materialist.

What have you done in the way of science to investigate for yourself?

What evidence do you have for supposing that it's so?

That which I have subjectively gathered over the course of my 59 years on this planet, which would be no use to you or any other person, materialist or theist...although theists are more likely to incorporate my findings with their own, unless they are already snared in religiosity.

[Religious folk just refer to me as a blasphemous devil while materialist folk just say I have brain damage. either way, I am fringe as a result...]

Hint.. natural physical and biological processes which work perfectly well without any (demonstrable) intelligent direction or intent is not decent evidence for it.

Yes. That is the only real difference you and I have regarding the view of the world.

I see the actual evidence being demonstrated through the creation itself, and would expect to find it therein, first and foremost.

You see that same demonstration as the act of a mindless thing, because - as with most materialists - you struggle with the hard problem of consciousness.

But there It Is - in amongst it all - demonstrably speaking.

Mysticism knows full well the mind behind creation is thoroughly involved, even to the human level - and beyond beyond beyond...

Materialism presents [demonstrates] as just another religion, lacking the 'god' bit.

Trekking...

[historia]

Do you consider doubt to be a belief?

In as much as doubt is a sense of uncertainty or lack of conviction. and belief is just about the opposite; a sense of certainty or conviction, I don't consider the two to be synonyms.

The problem I see here is that you are (literally) conflating belief with certainty.

Not "certainty," but "a sense of certainty"

Okay. The problem I see here is that you are (literally) conflating belief with a sense of certainty.

I think we can all appreciate the fact that some beliefs are held with a sense of certainty, but other beliefs are held more tentatively. That doesn't make the latter not beliefs, though.

But, again, I feel like you're lost in a forest of dictionary definitions here, and would benefit by coming out into the clearing. What do you make of the rest of my reply in post #233? That addresses the concept (or phenomenon) of belief (not just how that word is used).

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #258]

I think we can all appreciate the fact that some beliefs are held with a sense of certainty, but other beliefs are held more tentatively. That doesn't make the latter not beliefs, though.

This is why I add 'theist' to my position of being Agnostic. As one studies theism, and puts certain faith-based principles to the test - through those tests producing positive results - one is somewhat forced by the inherent bias which develops, to - at the very least - believe tentatively...and each subsequent step in that direction provides subjective experience based upon that tentative approach...building on itself and showing also, that religion is surplus to requirement due to the preposterous demands it requires one to invest belief in whole-heartedly.

Tentative is best - slowly and steady as she goes...

[historia]

He just doesn't think of his opinion or stance as constituting a belief about the proposition that God exists, apparently because he has conflated belief with certitude, and also maybe because he hasn't given full consideration to a more rigorous, academic analysis of beliefs.

No, he said his lack belief in God existence does not constituting a belief about the proposition that God exists.

I don't think that's his argument, exactly. Although he's welcome to correct me if I've misunderstood him.

Rather, Miles seems to be arguing that, so long as he is not affirming that "God exists" or affirming that "God does not exist," then he has no belief about the proposition that God exists.