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)?

[Tcg]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief. That claim logically is no different than claiming a non-dog-owner is a dog-owner. It's absurd and yes, quite silly.

Tcg

[historia]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

[Tcg]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

I've already addressed that right here:

"Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief."


Tcg

[historia]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

I've already addressed that right here:

"Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief."

But Jan doesn't lack belief. She believes that the neighbor has no dog. Right?

[Tcg]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

I've already addressed that right here:

"Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief."


Tcg

But Jan doesn't lack belief. She believes that the neighbor has no dog. Right?

The focus is on Wally who suggest that a non-dog-owner is a dog-owner. Of course, I've already explained that.


Tcg

[historia]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

I've already addressed that right here:

"Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief."

But Jan doesn't lack belief. She believes that the neighbor has no dog. Right?

The focus is on Wally who suggest that a non-dog-owner is a dog-owner.

But that just shows that Wally misunderstands what Jan believes. It doesn't mean that Jan "lacks" beliefs about the neighbor. In fact she has specifically told us her belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

The analogy just doesn't demonstrate what you want it to.

[Tcg]

Jan - "Hey, did you notice our neighbor ain't got no dogs!"

Wally - 'Yeah, but what kind of a dog owner are they?'

Jam - "Say what now?"

That was just silly. This is not an apt analogy in any way shape or form.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

Does Jan believe that the neighbor has no dogs? Yes, surely!

Wally's response just misunderstands Jan's belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

So what then is this intended to show?

I've already addressed that right here:

"Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief."

But Jan doesn't lack belief. She believes that the neighbor has no dog. Right?

The focus is on Wally who suggest that a non-dog-owner is a dog-owner.

But that just shows that Wally misunderstands what Jan believes. It doesn't mean that Jan "lacks" beliefs about the neighbor. In fact she has specifically told us her belief that the neighbor has no dogs.

The analogy just doesn't demonstrate what you want it to.

No analogy is going to explain perfectly all the details involved, but the stance of Wally reveals the absurdity of suggesting that lack of belief is a belief. Of course, it is much easier to pick apart analogies rather than addressing the facts behind them. I'll do so directly once again. Lack of belief is not a belief.


Tcg

[historia]

No analogy is going to explain perfectly all the details involved

That's not what I was promised:

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

But, I agree, let's address the question more directly.

Lack of belief is not a belief.

Sure, but that's not the pertinent question here.

The pertinent question is: Does someone who has considered the proposition that God exists and either rejected it or at least not accepted it "lack" belief about the proposition?

As noted in post #21, most philosophers hold that having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition constitutes a belief. So if you have one of those regarding the proposition that God exists, then you have a belief.

Which part of that argument do you disagree with an why?

[Tcg]

No analogy is going to explain perfectly all the details involved

That's not what I was promised:

Nope, it's a perfect analogy of claiming that lack of belief is a belief.

But, I agree, let's address the question more directly.

Lack of belief is not a belief.

Sure, but that's not the pertinent question here.

The pertinent question is: Does someone who has considered the proposition that God exists and either rejected it or at least not accepted it "lack" belief about the proposition?

As noted in post #21, most philosophers hold that having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition constitutes a belief. So if you have one of those regarding the proposition that God exists, then you have a belief.

Which part of that argument do you disagree with an why?

I'm not addressing what you consider to be the "pertinent question." I'm addressing the fact that lack of belief is not a belief. If you can present evidence that lack of belief is a belief please do so.


Tcg

[Tcg]

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?

Hey, look at that, yet another Straw Man argument. A theist assigning to atheists the position atheists don't necessarily hold.

Atheists - Lack of belief.

Theist translation - disbelieve.


Tcg