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 #200]

You tell me, tell me true, didn't you see this explained?

As I have been telling it - no, I don't see that it has been explained to the point where those explanations can no longer be debated.

Or did you forget it and remember only the Theistic Canard?

No. I already explained how Theism offers more than the lack of belief in gods does, and more means more interesting.

Or do you prefer to false definition because you believe in a Cosmic Mind and atheists don't?

Why should atheists not believe such a thing?

Tell me why you don't get or will not get the definition, because the persistent refusal to get it foxes me, really it does.

I am not refusing to get anything. I have been given nothing in which to get and have clearly stated why I think that is the case.

Why don't you address what I actually wrote?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #200]

You tell me, tell me true, didn't you see this explained?

As I have been telling it - no, I don't see that it has been explained to the point where those explanations can no longer be debated.

Or did you forget it and remember only the Theistic Canard?

No. I already explained how Theism offers more than the lack of belief in gods does, and more means more interesting.

Or do you prefer to false definition because you believe in a Cosmic Mind and atheists don't?

Why should atheists not believe such a thing?

Tell me why you don't get or will not get the definition, because the persistent refusal to get it foxes me, really it does.

I am not refusing to get anything. I have been given nothing in which to get and have clearly stated why I think that is the case.

Why don't you address what I actually wrote?

I know that it has been explained ad nauseam but you seem still not to get it, or accept it, I don't know which. It doesn't matter a damn whether Theism is more interesting than atheism and offers a retirement plan with free pizza, i doesn't alter the fact that atheism and agnosticism are not different belief -positions, but atheism is the logical belief position based on agnosticism (theism is the illogical belief -position response).
you believe in a Cosmic Mind and atheists don't? [/quote]
Why should atheists not believe such a thing?
because the evidence is not good enough, and if they did think it was good enough...why, then they wouldn't be atheists anymore. Oh I know, 'atheist' just doesn't mean rejecting a particular belief or not having it, it means someone who has to be stomping about shouting about it.

You are not getting it and it looks like refusal because your arguments above were either wrong or irrelevant. Why don't you address the actual definition and explanation of atheism and agnosticism and say why you seem unable to either understand or accept it. It can't be because you shy away from the term 'Theism'as you already said you were, as I recall,jut not religious. Is it really such a problem to you that an atheist does not believe in a cosmic mind that has not been shown to exist?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #202]

but atheism is the logical belief position based on agnosticism

What evidence have you shown to support that it is the case?

Are you saying that all atheists are materialists?

Your reasons for why atheism should reject the idea of a cosmic mind is not what atheism is about or concerned with. The position of lacking belief in gods has what to do with lacking evidence in gods?

[historia]

From another thread:

As far as I know the only thing most atheists have in common is a lack of belief in the existence of god, which doesn't amount to belief, but is simply a position---lack of belief does not amount to belief. Although, a few atheists do go so far as to deny god's existence.

But, putting infants aside for a second, haven't atheists arrived at their "position" by doubting, or in some way not accepting, the proposition that God exists? Isn't that "position," then, a belief? Or do you consider it something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #202]

but atheism is the logical belief position based on agnosticism

What evidence have you shown to support that it is the case?

Are you saying that all atheists are materialists?

Your reasons for why atheism should reject the idea of a cosmic mind is not what atheism is about or concerned with. The position of lacking belief in gods has what to do with lacking evidence in gods?

Because any other definition for atheism is either illogical or not what atheism is.

Many people get this 'materialism 'thing wrong. They often assume that an atheist cannot by definition believe in anything 'supernatural'. In fact, they could. They may believe in Magic, ghosts, or a lot of fringe -science stuff but so long as they do not believe in any god -claim, they are atheists.

Now in fact atheists (especially the 'thinking'atheists) will doubt supernatural claims for the same reasons as not believing in the god - claims; they tend to look to scientifically validated evidence rather than speculative belief -claims as the basis for what they believe, and that is going to make the Basis Materialist. We know the material universe exists. We know that how it works does not need the supernatural. Thus materialism in the default position and the supernatural (including gods) has to make its'case.

"The position of lacking belief in gods has what to do with lacking evidence in gods?" If I understand this correctly, everything - if a person cares that what they believe,or do not believe is based on Evidence rather than indoctrinated Faith or personal preferences.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Supernatural?

Why would you call a Cosmic Mind "Supernatural"?

[Miles]

From another thread:

As far as I know the only thing most atheists have in common is a lack of belief in the existence of god, which doesn't amount to belief, but is simply a position---lack of belief does not amount to belief. Although, a few atheists do go so far as to deny god's existence.

But, putting infants aside for a second, haven't atheists arrived at their "position" by doubting, or in some way not accepting, the proposition that God exists? Isn't that "position," then, a belief? Or do you consider it something else?

As many atheists put their position, myself included, atheism is "an absence of belief in the existence of gods." In main, we arrived at the position by the failure of others to convince us that god(s) exist---a lack of convincing evidence if you will.

As I regard belief, it's something that is accepted as, or considered to be true; and in as much as "an absence of belief" does not reach that level of certitude I don't believe it qualifies as belief. Of course if one want's to consider that "an absence of belief in the existence of gods" to be true I suppose it could be called a belief: "I believe that an absence of belief in the existence of gods is true," but to me it it's a moot point.

Now, if atheism is defined as a rejection of god's existence, that would definitely be a belief----something accepted as, or considered to be true----and like the assertion that god exists, it too would be open to a burden of proof. An absence of belief in the existence of gods is not..




.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #205]

Supernatural

Why would you call a Cosmic Mind "Supernatural"?

Supernatural
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The claim of a cosmic mind is in the area of speculative unknowns. One may think of it as a god, or as Intelligent nature. Either way it is not yet proven or convincingly evidenced (so far as anything I have seen), and so for me it is in the area of Supernatural,as are Gods,demons, ghosts, Yetis and UFOs. Not because they can't be nuts and bolts but because they are speculative claims not yet validated by science. This is why I say that as soon as the supernatural is validated by science, it ceases to be the supernatural and becomes science.

[historia]

From another thread:

As far as I know the only thing most atheists have in common is a lack of belief in the existence of god, which doesn't amount to belief, but is simply a position---lack of belief does not amount to belief. Although, a few atheists do go so far as to deny god's existence.

But, putting infants aside for a second, haven't atheists arrived at their "position" by doubting, or in some way not accepting, the proposition that God exists? Isn't that "position," then, a belief? Or do you consider it something else?

As many atheists put their position, myself included, atheism is "an absence of belief in the existence of gods." In main, we arrived at the position by the failure of others to convince us that god(s) exist---a lack of convincing evidence if you will.

As I regard belief, it's something that is accepted as, or considered to be true; and in as much as "an absence of belief" does not reach that level of certitude I don't believe it qualifies as belief. Of course if one want's to consider that "an absence of belief in the existence of gods" to be true I suppose it could be called a belief: "I believe that an absence of belief in the existence of gods is true," but to me it it's a moot point.

Now, if atheism is defined as a rejection of god's existence, that would definitely be a belief----something accepted as, or considered to be true----and like the assertion that god exists, it too would be open to a burden of proof. An absence of belief in the existence of gods is not..

First, let me thank you for this explanation. You're the first person in the thread to actually articulate this particular nuanced view -- which I suspect several others hold as well, but it has been very difficult to get them to actually spell it out clearly.

A few more questions, for clarification, if you don't mind:

Do you consider doubt to be a belief?

Do you consider your own opinion regarding the existence of God to be a belief?

[TRANSPONDER]

I did touch on the point of beliefs about the god -claim (such as the validity of evidence and logic, and what the evaluation of data shows) being beliefs related to the debate, but they are not beliefs about the god -claim. Obviously. So it is rather than a nuanced clarification of a simple belief or not position on the god -claim, it confuses the point by considering different (though related) beliefs.

Did you ask whether doubt is a belief? It depends. Having doubts about whether a claim is true (e.g whether Jesus actually walked on water) is Not a belief - merely a doubt. That is

"I do not believe the Bible claim that Jesus walked on water".

"Then you believe that he did not walk on water."

"Not quite, but I believe it is valid to doubt and question the claim."

But considering that there are legitimate reasons to doubt such a claim could indeed be called a belief. Just like the apple in the box. It is invalid to believe there is or is not an apple in the box, and it does NOT mean that it is beleived there is Not an apple in the box.

It Could be said that belief in the validity of the conclusion that there may or may not be an apple in the box could be called a 'belief', but as I have said before (not that anyone ever listens) this ids more a belief about the validity of logical reasoning not about the existence of the apple. So trying to present logical reasoning as 'Belief' just confuses the simple matter and involved more complex explanations.