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 don't disagree. As I noted in the OP, the atheist's opinion regarding the question of God's existence is surely a belief about God, as you just noted here.

So if you say "I don't believe in God," and someone else responds, "that is your belief," they are not wrong, as your opinion concerning (the concept of) God constitutes a belief, right?

Sure.

What I'm challenging here is the contention that the atheist simply lacks belief in God, as if their opinion regarding the existence of God is not a belief at all, as some seem to imagine.

Why would pointing out that an atheist simply lacks belief in God, imply that our beliefs about God are not beliefs at all?

As I readily affirmed in my last post, I hold lots of beliefs about God. Beliefs about God are absolutely beliefs, I don't think that much is contentious at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

Theism- belief in a god or gods

There we go. I can be a theist and believe there's a god or gods, but hold no other belief regarding the properties of such. I don't claim he's fancy, nor special. I don't claim he can can beat up your daddy, or he's prettiern your sister.
I just believe he exists.

Let's now consider "following beliefs" that arise only after that initial belief. I'd break this down like Emo Phillips so expertly does, but the joke might not work so well in a written format. So here we go...

Being a theist doesn't make me a Christian, who such folks might get upset if someone said Jesus was just him another paste eater.

And as a theist, I have some legitimate right to feel offended when folks declare my theist belief to mean I also hold Christian belief.

But let's say Hell split wide open, and I started holding Christian belief. That doesn't make me an Episcopalian. And as a Christian, I'd have legitimate right to feel offended when folks said cause I held Christian belief, I must also hold Episcopalian belief.

This attempt by theists to declare what beliefs the atheist must hold beyond their simple nonbelief, beyond that initial lack of belief, is not only wrong, it's a bit insulting.

I'm an atheist, cause I lack belief in a god or gods.

That theists're confused on that simple, basic term is their problem, and they have no right to declare their confusion means atheists hold beliefs the atheists don't. They have no right to claim atheists, as a whole, are responsible for their confusion.

If I hear a feller's Christian, I just conclude they got em a faulty thinker, not that they're Episcopalian.

Get over yourselves theists, atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Now, fetching back to "following beliefs", we can then consider what beliefs some atheists hold, but only for those for whom the 'following definition' applies.

It's my belief that god belief is best explained through psychology, sociology, and even the grooming of children, who lack necessary critical thinking and other skills to properly assess the situation. Now on that, I got me an eighth grade education, I ain't here to imply I'm smartern any kid, just ya know, I'm a lot older now than I was the other day.

So we can say "Ol Joey there, that evil atheist, he might well also be him an anti-theist, ya know, kinda like the Antichrist".

But my belief there doesn't apply to every atheist, in the same way not all theists're Christians.

It's illogical, errant, and clod clumping to declare that atheists, as a whole, have beliefs beyond their non-belief in claims of god/s the theist fails so utterly to show exist.

This is a "confusion" entirely of the theists' making - where they've rejected the most parsimonious definition, most parsimonious explanation of what it means to be an atheist.

But I reckon it does work to confuse the issue of theists being incapable of showing their favored god/s exist

[JoeyKnothead]

...
As I readily affirmed in my last post, I hold lots of beliefs about God. Beliefs about God are absolutely beliefs, I don't think that much is contentious at all.

I wish I'da known you posted this, it woulda saved me a great big bunch of typing.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to historia in post #52]

"Lack" here just means missing or absent.

I can see that, but it can also mean to be short or in need of something. More often than not, when I see someone say 'lack' it has a negative connotation, which is why I replied as I did.

I don't think that's (o think one doesn't hold something 'worthy', this seems to mean they consider the 'thing' to be real and actual.) true at all. If a proposition concerns something that is unreal, then you can (and likely should) deem it unworthy of being believed.

Funny how the written word can be taken in many different ways. To me, if something is 'unworthy of being believed', it first has to be considered to be, in some fashion, real or actual. I don't see how anyone can say the don't believe in something they don't consider real or actual. They can say, however, they don't believe in that concept:
For example:
I don't believe in god - this would mean they considered god as being real and actual (as much as it can be) and came to this conclusion based on their experience and the experience of others of god being real or actual
I don't believe in a purple unicorn living on Uranus - this would mean they considered the concept daft with no need to consider an actual bein, experience or experience of others and thus, make the same claim.

But it does matter in an online forum when someone claims their position is neutral when it isn't.

Sounds relatively reasonable. I'm not saying that hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it personally, thus my position. That being said, I haven't seen any atheist say they're neutral in their belief or consideration on the subject of god (though that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course - I can only speak to my experiences) as that would seem to denote a more agnostic view over an atheistic view.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #140]

Post #122

[Bust Nak]

Just one remark.

Which is another way of saying, what a person claims their position is, is not necessarily seen in how they are behaving...

That's all well and good. By all means just go by how we act instead what we say we are, but I still want to ask you: you've said as much else where, and is still hinting at here I think, what is it about the way we anti-theists act, that lead you to think there is a mismatch in how we act and our stated position of atheism?

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #146]

What is it about the way we anti-theists act, that lead you to think there is a mismatch in how we act and our stated position of atheism?

the stated position of atheism is the lack of faith in gods.

I don't see how that in itself has anything to do with action whatsoever. It is just a lack of something, rather than a doing of something.

[Bust Nak]

the stated position of atheism is the lack of faith in gods.

I don't see how that in itself has anything to do with action whatsoever. It is just a lack of something, rather than a doing of something.

That's the point - atheism is not about doing something, so being an out spoken atheist is not contrary to the stated position of atheism.

[William]

the stated position of atheism is the lack of faith in gods.

I don't see how that in itself has anything to do with action whatsoever. It is just a lack of something, rather than a doing of something.

That's the point - atheism is not about doing something, so being an out spoken atheist is not contrary to the stated position of atheism.

Yes - and at the same time it is not the stated position of atheism either. It is beside the point as it were.

Just as a theist can be outspoken. Being outspoken is something any person can do and so cannot be identified as an atheist or theist thing.

I which is why is wrote what I did in Post #122

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks like you are both on the same page here. Atheism about a belief -position. That being no belief in God, and god or any god -claim. Knowledge about God, or any gods, which is all that atheism is since we don't know one way or the other is agnosticism, is a red herring, even with Some theists maintaining they do know (they don';t, they just have Faith -belief).

What atheists decide to do about that lack of (or not having (1) is irrelevant to being atheist, just as what a God -believer decides to do about it does not make them any less of a theist. Though one can be an evangelical theist (or atheist activist) or do nothing about it. The belief in or not in a god is what defines theism and atheism. Very simple and it is fiddling about with meanings and definitions (including false or invalid ones) that makes it so complicated.

(1) and lack of can be either good or bad, as in lacking money, clothes or a decent meal or lacking disease, an obsessively barking Dog or a neighbout that keeps dumping their garbage in your bin v In the case of atheism lacking a belief in a god is by and large a good thing because the truth is better than comfortable delusions.