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)?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156]

A- non
Theist- belief in the existence of a god or gods

Yo Bro, what about folk like me who strongly suspect that we exist within a creation, that we are conscious ghosts/spirits/minds going through a relativity experience we probably designed and implemented as some type of game, before going in and playing it... but haven't shaped that into any formal belief which could be tied to religion...

I respect your right to define your beliefs as you see fit.

[historia]

Why would that make people upset?

Because this is the internet and you are wrong.

I LOL'd.

"I don't believe in God" is my belief as in I believe that I don't believe in God. Not believing in God does not constitutes a belief because that is a lack of a belief. I say that because while babies don't believe in God, demonstrating that not believing is not a belief; they also don't believe that they don't believe in God, where as I do, marking that out as an active belief.

To be honest, that feels a little tortured.

It seems to me that the fact that you have made a choice not to accept the proposition that God exists is what marks your position as a belief versus the position of the infant, who has made no choice. Would you agree?

Would you agree with me that doubt is a belief? (See post #21.)

Yes, again I point to babies as the Litmus test: Babies don't doubt.

Good. So it seems then we can say that, generally speaking, every atheist on this forum doubts that God exists. And so every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists, right?

Perhaps we're hung up here on the definition of "disbelieve." I take "disbelieve" to be an active verb, "to withhold or reject belief," so Merriam Webster. Babies can't be said to have rejected belief in God, right?

Right, but why can't it be said that they have withhold belief in God?

Because "withold" is an active verb as well -- in this context effectively meaning choosing not the assent to the proposition, which babies have not done.

As Miles and I discussed earlier, disbelief does not mean "lack" of belief, just as disloyalty does not mean "lack" of loyalty.

Either way, to avoid a semantic argument, I suggest we avoid the term "disbelieve", use "doesn't believe" and "dismisses" to denote a lack of belief vs rejection after thinking about it.

Cool. Can we agree that "dismissing" God is a belief, and that every atheist on this forum therefore has a belief regarding the proposition that God exist?

So, while I (again) agree with you that those who are ignorant of the proposition that God exists have no beliefs about God (so the OP), my argument is that those who have chosen not to accept the proposition do have a belief: doubting or rejecting the proposition that God exists constitutes a belief. They cannot claim that what is true of babies also applies to them (see post #108).

Some of what is true of babies does apply to us though - both babies and those of us who dismisses God both lacks belief in God, where we differ is that we hold lots of active belief about God. You can't point to our differences to deny the part where we and babies are the same.

I appreciate that clarification, and have previously noted where there is similarity in post #108. I was a little careless in my language here. What I meant is that the atheist on this forum can not say that he is in the same epistemological position as a baby. He cannot claim to just lack belief in God and thus have no belief regarding the proposition that God exists. Would you not agree?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #161]

If I'm to define it, my friend, yours is monkeywrenchism, where you're so adept at tossing said wrench into nigh on any argument. And that ain't a bad thing.

Otherwise I'm bound to accept you as you define yourself. At least regarding this OP's topic / implications.

Careful now - I am not the position I currently hold, if that is why you are implying.

My understanding is you speak less of gods, and more of our conversations to one another through a realm that might be ghostly, spiritual, or somegsuch. I'm not seeing you propose a god's involvement.

True, I do no name any God except The Mind Behind Creation - which I tend to present as everything related to mind, which is how I understand spirit/ghost. The implication is there though, because I think we exist within a creation...and that's is what theists think. Atheists do no think we exist within a creation, so they lack belief in gods as a result...or;

atheists lack belief that we exist within a creation and do not believe gods exist as a result.

See it get tricky. This whole 'lacks belief in gods' isn't as clear as one might assume, but it does imply things which are not included in the description...at least I think so anyway.

I use a commonly used definition for 'theist', and understand how words can fail to accurately describes some things.

Indeed - so my argument has been along those lines regarding confusion folk have in separating the atheist activity from the atheist position. It appears to me that the common definition of atheist;

Search "atheist definition"
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

may fall into the category of failing to accurately describe that thing.

Which I am thinking is what the tread is about.

I find much of your comments in this area to be quite compelling, and difficult to impossible to refute. I also find your candor admirable. You always address my arguments or challenges to your claims directly, with none of the dodging and such others so readily employ.

Search "honest person"
Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.

On occasion, it doesn't matter how honest one is, those who claim to be atheists and theists will still find ways to penalize me. Honesty is not exactly a quality that this world admires enough to follow the attributes of, as general consensus.

But I am still collecting evidence re that, and am of the recently forming opinion that ultimately neither atheist or theist individuals are going to really know;

1: until the body finally dies and we along with in [which means it doesn't matter] or

2: until our body 'gives up the ghost' [in which case, it will then obviously matter.]

So since NOW is not then, I think it prudent to investigate on the off-chance that it is a case of [2] that at least I might have the edge, through the expectation.

I seem able to follow, until that last paragraph. What edge? What expectation? What's being 'mattered'? I'm missing something, but can't tell what it is.

What I mean is that it is possible that if I expect to continue on after my body carks it, this will at least give me an edge of not being surprised and may give me other advantages as well.

Whereas if I were completely sure [believed implicitly] that there will only be oblivion and it turned out not to be the case - I might well be at a disadvantage regarding that.

Hopefully that helps you in understanding how [1] might also be considered a belief.

I am not speaking of those left behind but of what may happen re [1] or [2].

I respect your right to define your beliefs as you see fit.

Indeed. But how I see fit, might not be as the truth would have it - so we navigate through negotiation...and it works both ways. Examine. Agree/disagree. Rinse and repeat - until some mutual position is found or all hope in that is abandoned...

[brunumb]

So it seems then we can say that, generally speaking, every atheist on this forum doubts that God exists. And so every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists, right?

Could you express that belief as an explicit statement for me please .

[Bust Nak]

It seems to me that the fact that you have made a choice not to accept the proposition that God exists is what marks your position as a belief versus the position of the infant, who has made no choice. Would you agree?

I would agree, I believe all sorts of things about God, while maintaining that not believing in God is not a belief, I lack that belief.

Good. So it seems then we can say that, generally speaking, every atheist on this forum doubts that God exists. And so every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists, right?

Sure. Again, here we are talking about beliefs about God.

Cool. Can we agree that "dismissing" God is a belief, and that every atheist on this forum therefore has a belief regarding the proposition that God exist?

Yes, same as above, it's a belief about God.

I appreciate that clarification, and have previously noted where there is similarity in post #108. I was a little careless in my language here. What I meant is that the atheist on this forum can not say that he is in the same epistemological position as a baby. He cannot claim to just lack belief in God and thus have no belief regarding the proposition that God exists. Would you not agree?

There is one main one: the belief that God's existence has not been demonstrated, while maintaining that we lack a belief in God. It seems the sticking point here was the word "just."

When theists ask/challenge/accuse us with something like, "you believe God doesn't exist" a response along the lines of "no, I just lack a belief in God" is an appropriate answer. The "just" here indicate merely a dismissal of existence, without affirming non-existence. You are not supposed to read that "just" as a denial of any beliefs about God, nor as a plead that we are as thoughtless as a baby.

[JoeyKnothead]

Otherwise I'm bound to accept you as you define yourself. At least regarding this OP's topic / implications.

Careful now - I am not the position I currently hold, if that is why you are implying.

Lacking knowledge of what position you currently hold, then I'm lost as a cow at a square dance. I'm bound to consider you based on your prior stated beliefs.

My understanding is you speak less of gods, and more of our conversations to one another through a realm that might be ghostly, spiritual, or some such. I'm not seeing you propose a god's involvement.

True, I do no name any God except The Mind Behind Creation - which I tend to present as everything related to mind, which is how I understand spirit/ghost. The implication is there though, because I think we exist within a creation...and that's is what theists think. Atheists do no think we exist within a creation, so they lack belief in gods as a result...or;
atheists lack belief that we exist within a creation and do not believe gods exist as a result.

Exactly. I lack belief in gods, and I lack belief in this "creation" as I understand it's theological terms.

See it get tricky. This whole 'lacks belief in gods' isn't as clear as one might assume, but it does imply things which are not included in the description...at least I think so anyway.

It's clear to me, the one who lacks belief in gods. I can't help, nor should be responsible for them that don't understand my lack of belief (though surely here in debate we'd try to educate all who seek clarity).

I use a commonly used definition for 'theist', and understand how words can fail to accurately describes some things.

Indeed - so my argument has been along those lines regarding confusion folk have in separating the atheist activity from the atheist position. It appears to me that the common definition of atheist;

Search "atheist definition"
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

may fall into the category of failing to accurately describe that thing.

Which I am thinking is what the tread is about.

I describe that thing as "that thing in which I don't believe".

I find much of your comments in this area to be quite compelling, and difficult to impossible to refute. I also find your candor admirable. You always address my arguments or challenges to your claims directly, with none of the dodging and such others so readily employ.

Search "honest person"
Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.

On occasion, it doesn't matter how honest one is, those who claim to be atheists and theists will still find ways to penalize me. Honesty is not exactly a quality that this world admires enough to follow the attributes of, as general consensus.

Agreed. Note I didn't mention "honest", but how some folks might be considered as trying to skirt around or otherwise avoid directly addressing comments / claims / challenges.

But I am still collecting evidence re that, and am of the recently forming opinion that ultimately neither atheist or theist individuals are going to really know;

1: until the body finally dies and we along with in [which means it doesn't matter] or

2: until our body 'gives up the ghost' [in which case, it will then obviously matter.]

So since NOW is not then, I think it prudent to investigate on the off-chance that it is a case of [2] that at least I might have the edge, through the expectation.

I seem able to follow, until that last paragraph. What edge? What expectation? What's being 'mattered'? I'm missing something, but can't tell what it is.

What I mean is that it is possible that if I expect to continue on after my body carks it, this will at least give me an edge of not being surprised and may give me other advantages as well.

Whereas if I were completely sure [believed implicitly] that there will only be oblivion and it turned out not to be the case - I might well be at a disadvantage regarding that.

Hopefully that helps you in understanding how [1] might also be considered a belief.

I am not speaking of those left behind but of what may happen re [1] or [2].

That sounds too much like Pascal's wager for me.

It's my belief that when I die, I'll be dead. I have no means by which I may confirm what happens afterward, cept to note decay is the most commonly observed phenomenon when death comes aknockin'.

I respect your right to define your beliefs as you see fit.

Indeed. But how I see fit, might not be as the truth would have it - so we navigate through negotiation...and it works both ways. Examine. Agree/disagree. Rinse and repeat - until some mutual position is found or all hope in that is abandoned...

Fer sher.

If I were to consider my atheism a belief, I'd be honor bound to define it thus...

It's my belief that I don't believe a god or god exists.

But if only to me, I see potential confusion there, so just tell it - I lack belief in a god or gods. Cept maybe for the pretty thing, she's closest to one I've ever known.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #166]

It's my belief that when I die, I'll be dead.

And that is a belief which is extra to the position of atheism. Atheism [as we are often informed] is nothing more than "lacking belief in gods."

Beliefs attached to that position is what causes confusion. The belief that when you die, you will be dead is more a product of belief in materialism/emergence theory.

One can be a Christian and believe that when one dies, one is dead. Acolytes of the JWOrg have the same belief about that as you do.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #166]

It's my belief that when I die, I'll be dead.

And that is a belief which is extra to the position of atheism. Atheism [as we are often informed] is nothing more than "lacking belief in gods."

Very much. So we see that a lack of belief in a god or gods might inform beliefs that go beyond the scope of that initial non belief.

I don't see a problem here.

Beliefs attached to that position is what causes confusion. The belief that when you die, you will be dead is more a product of belief in materialism/emergence theory.

Dead is, by definition, the product of dying - it's unrelated to how one falls on religious beliefs.

One can be a Christian and believe that when one dies, one is dead.

Or they can believe one dude died, then hopped up three days later.

I don't seek to define for Christians what their beliefs must be.

Acolytes of the JWOrg have the same belief about that as you do.

A good bunch of em also believe there's a magic man up in the sky.

Making me amagicmanupinthesky.

My point here relating to the OP is the insistence that since I don't believe God exists, then somehow I believe something about a god I can't show exists, to hold him any other property than I don't believe he exists.

And how confused it makes some theists.

This is, I contend, a confusion of the theists' making. Don't make claims ya can't show are truth, and I won't hafta not believe em. Nobody gets confused.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #168]

It's my belief that when I die, I'll be dead.

And that is a belief which is extra to the position of atheism. Atheism [as we are often informed] is nothing more than "lacking belief in gods."

Very much. So we see that a lack of belief in a god or gods might inform beliefs that go beyond the scope of that initial non belief.

I don't see a problem here.

Essentially there is no problem until such 'extensions' are questioned by theists, and the response is along the lines of "that is not what atheism is - atheism is simply lacking belief in gods."

Obviously the extensions attached to 'lacking belief in gods' allow for folk who lack belief in gods to argue beyond that simply position, but to double down and display annoyance when it is argued that 'atheists belief such and such' by responding with the line mentioned, only ever can result in confusion.

This is, I contend, a confusion of the theists' making. Don't make claims ya can't show are truth, and I won't hafta not believe em. Nobody gets confused.

I am thus even more unconvinced. As an atheist it should not matter to you what claims theists make but can't show you to be truth. As an atheist you do not HAVE to not believe what theists say nor do you have to argue against what theists have to say. All you have to do is to say "I lack belief in gods.

Not "I lack belief in gods, so convince me gods exist".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #168]
...

Very much. So we see that a lack of belief in a god or gods might inform beliefs that go beyond the scope of that initial non belief.

I don't see a problem here.

Essentially there is no problem until such 'extensions' are questioned by theists, and the response is along the lines of "that is not what atheism is - atheism is simply lacking belief in gods."

Agreed in principle, but without a more concrete example I'm kinda speculating.

Obviously the extensions attached to 'lacking belief in gods' allow for folk who lack belief in gods to argue beyond that simply position, but to double down and display annoyance when it is argued that 'atheists belief such and such' by responding with the line mentioned, only ever can result in confusion.

Here I'm concerned with the blanket assertion of what atheists believe. It's too clod clumpy for me.

This is, I contend, a confusion of the theists' making. Don't make claims ya can't show are truth, and I won't hafta not believe em. Nobody gets confused.

I am thus even more unconvinced. As an atheist it should not matter to you what claims theists make but can't show you to be truth. As an atheist you do not HAVE to not believe what theists say nor do you have to argue against what theists have to say. All you have to do is to say "I lack belief in gods.

Not "I lack belief in gods, so convince me gods exist".

Notice there, I refered to claims being made before I reject belief about em.

As a practical, daily life matter, I don't fuss around looking for theists to debate.

As a matter of debate on this site, I don't think I've ever presupposed a theist's claims before putting challenge to em.

I challenge these claims in an effort to counter, in some small way, what I consider to be undue, outsized, and so often harmul effects of religion on society.


As regards my understanding of your particular brand of thinking, or of, if I may, theism, I find much to admire. I don't see you, or your 'god' (my term) promoting the horrors, prejudices and such of some of the bibley bunch.