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]

[Some] merely say, "So far no one has met the burden of proof that any god exists."

Right, but that is a belief is it not?

It is not. It's a position concerning anyone having met the burden of proof, which in this case is, No---It's a statement of perceived fact.

But isn't a "statement of perceived fact" essentially what we mean by a "belief"?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, as usual, helpful here. The article on belief notes:

Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a "propositional attitude" . . . [i.e.,] the mental state of having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is true

If you have an opinion regarding the proposition that God exists -- even if that opinion is that you just can't affirm the proposition -- then that is a belief. I'm not sure how others are conceiving of beliefs to say that it is not.

I said "disbelief" when I should have said "lack of belief." Sorry for inadvertently misleading anyone.

I think your initial impulse here was actually correct. Someone who has given considered thought to the proposition that God exists and rejects it does not simply "lack" belief in God but rather disbelieves in God. Or so it seems to me.

[historia]

So 'God exists' is the positive claim [rejected] by 'I don't believe it'.

If you said 'God doesn't exist' then I would respond 'Yes, that's a statement that I believe'.

I'm not sure what overarching point you wish for me to take away from this, or how this relates back to the points I've raised in the thread.

[historia]

For some, it comes from a 'once believed in now no longer do because of XYZ' while others simply don't see any evidence. Thus, saying 'lack of a belief in god' is accurate.

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

[nobspeople]

For some, it comes from a 'once believed in now no longer do because of XYZ' while others simply don't see any evidence. Thus, saying 'lack of a belief in god' is accurate.

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

Disbelieve seems to say they're unable to have faith or believe in.
They're quite able to believe, just see nothing that points them in that direction.
I'd say they no longer believe in said god (or God, if you will).

[TRANSPONDER]

For some, it comes from a 'once believed in now no longer do because of XYZ' while others simply don't see any evidence. Thus, saying 'lack of a belief in god' is accurate.

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

Disbelieve seems to say they're unable to have faith or believe in.
They're quite able to believe, just see nothing that points them in that direction.
I'd say they no longer believe in said god (or God, if you will).

It sounds like the good old equivocation again. True 'belief' is involved in both cases but what the belief is directed to is not the same thing.

Belief in God or a god is a belief about the being. That's it. Whereas beliefs about the conclusions after considering the evidence is not a belief about a god. Of course it all looks the same but really isn't. It was evidence (or the particular interpretation) that persuaded some to believe in a god, unless they were just taught it from the start.

Showing that the evidence does Not in fact support a god means that the belief is in what the evidence shows, not in non existence of god itself.

However theism when the evidence does not support a god may (some of them) fall back on Faith which is belief an a different thing - a god, not the evidence.

Hope that makes sense

[nobspeople]

For some, it comes from a 'once believed in now no longer do because of XYZ' while others simply don't see any evidence. Thus, saying 'lack of a belief in god' is accurate.

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

Disbelieve seems to say they're unable to have faith or believe in.
They're quite able to believe, just see nothing that points them in that direction.
I'd say they no longer believe in said god (or God, if you will).

It sounds like the good old equivocation again. True 'belief' is involved in both cases but what the belief is directed to is not the same thing.

Belief in God or a god is a belief about the being. That's it. Whereas beliefs about the conclusions after considering the evidence is not a belief about a god. Of course it all looks the same but really isn't. It was evidence (or the particular interpretation) that persuaded some to believe in a god, unless they were just taught it from the start.

Showing that the evidence does Not in fact support a god means that the belief is in what the evidence shows, not in non existence of god itself.

However theism when the evidence does not support a god may (some of them) fall back on Faith which is belief an a different thing - a god, not the evidence.

Hope that makes sense

As this is where we are (the DC&R forum), I know people like to quibble on words and definitions to an extreme where many get lost of spend too much time on the superfluous. Which is why I used the definition for 'disbelieve' , which is "be unable to believe (someone or something); have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system." As they are capable of believing, but choose not to, it seemed to me to make the most sense to say they no longer believe.
But as I'm not an atheist, I'm not the best one to ask what they believe - at the very least I don't claim to speak on their behalf; I simply offered my POV.

I do see where you're coming from about belief. But belief needs only a person for it to exist. In other words, a belief needs no facts, data, evidence to support it. One can believe in a polka-dotted cactus god that lives in the Sun and has 17,329 eyes if they want. So, while some may want to 'drill down' into what a belief is, to me, it's simply a person's desire to accept something that fits their need - the details are unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Don't believe in god or God (or do)? Fine. That means you came to that conclusion by your own means, independent on what others may or may not think, accept. Getting lost in the details of belief oft times nullifies the overall concept and distracts from what's really important.

[historia]

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

Disbelieve seems to say they're unable to have faith or believe in.

They're quite able to believe, just see nothing that points them in that direction.

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.

[historia]

True 'belief' is involved in both cases but what the belief is directed to is not the same thing.

Belief in God or a god is a belief about the being. That's it. Whereas beliefs about the conclusions after considering the evidence is not a belief about a god.

I think a couple of different things got mixed together here. Perhaps we can reset:

For both the theist and the atheist there is only one thing under consideration here: the proposition that God exists. Generally speaking, the theist agrees with the proposition, while the atheist rejects (or at least withholds agreement to) the proposition. Since each of those positions constitute a stance or opinion regarding the proposition, they are definitionally beliefs (see post #21).

Either the theist or atheist might look to explain or justify their belief by making an appeal to evidence (or lack thereof), tradition, or some other reason, but that doesn't change what the belief is directed to -- namely, the proposition that God exists.

[nobspeople]

Would it not be more accurate to say they disbelieve in God?

Disbelieve seems to say they're unable to have faith or believe in.

They're quite able to believe, just see nothing that points them in that direction.

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.

Originally I posted a response that was, quite honestly, mind diarrhea (too many things going on ATST).
For clarification:
The word 'lacking' caught my eye. Lacking: "to be deficient or missing; to be short or have need of something; to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or deficiency of"
I don't see any reason for everyone to 'need' to believe in any god.
To think one doesn't hold something 'worthy', this seems to mean they consider the 'thing' to be real and actual. I'm not sure the typical atheist does.
As far as 'positions' go, I'm not sure that matters: passive, neutral, assertive...it all nets the same end result: no god (in their belief)

[TRANSPONDER]

True 'belief' is involved in both cases but what the belief is directed to is not the same thing.

Belief in God or a god is a belief about the being. That's it. Whereas beliefs about the conclusions after considering the evidence is not a belief about a god.

I think a couple of different things got mixed together here. Perhaps we can reset:

For both the theist and the atheist there is only one thing under consideration here: the proposition that God exists. Generally speaking, the theist agrees with the proposition, while the atheist rejects (or at least withholds agreement to) the proposition. Since each of those positions constitute a stance or opinion regarding the proposition, they are definitionally beliefs (see post #21).

Either the theist or atheist might look to explain or justify their belief by making an appeal to evidence (or lack thereof), tradition, or some other reason, but that doesn't change what the belief is directed to -- namely, the proposition that God exists.

That's true. Both are beliefs, and both beliefs about God. But I was arguing that the nature of the beliefs is not the same as one one is based (or can be based) on the evidence (or negative evidence) and the other is (in my experience and when it gets down to the failure of evidence for God) belief in God or a god and never mind the evidence. Thus both are beliefs, true and both about God and fine, so long as we aren't led to believe that one is the same or same quality of validity as the other.

Which is obvious I suppose. After all, in all other areas we distinguish between good and bad arguments and which one we go with based on the case for and against, or so we like to think.