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 #230]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #230]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

In the mean-time I stand by my words regarding materialist claims such as yours below, which you have still forgotten to provide support for.

The material world is known to exist. I doubt that you would try to argue that it doesn't. The way it works is known, to a great extent and no god is necessary.

What support do you have for the claim that 'no god is necessary'?

Or is it just an opinion? [in which case, no support is necessary].

[historia]

Do you consider doubt to be a belief?

In as much as doubt is a sense of uncertainty or lack of conviction. and belief is just about the opposite; a sense of certainty or conviction, I don't consider the two to be synonyms.

The problem I see here is that you are (literally) conflating belief with certainty.

I think we can all appreciate the fact that some beliefs are held with certainty, but other beliefs are held more tentatively. That doesn't make the latter not beliefs, though.

Moreover, we should keep in mind Bust Nak's earlier comment:

definitions are not matters of correctness, but of popularity

Dictionaries just describe how people use words, they don't ensure that those definitions coherently or comprehensively describe concepts or phenomenon (although we might note here that Merriam Webster uses the term 'belief' to describe both doubt and opinion).

If we want a concise description of the phenomenon of belief, and not just how that word is used, we need to put down the dictionary and pick up an encyclopedia. Which takes us back to post #21, where I offered this description of belief from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

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 --

It continues:

-- a mental state of the sort canonically expressible in the form “S A that P”, where S picks out the individual possessing the mental state, A picks out the attitude, and P is a sentence expressing a proposition.

For example: Ahmed [the subject] hopes [the attitude] that Alpha Centauri hosts intelligent life [the proposition],

or

Yifeng [the subject] doubts [the attitude] that New York City will exist in four hundred years.

Given that more rigorous description of beliefs, can you appreciate the fact that you and other atheists on this forum all have a belief about the proposition that God exists?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #230]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

You know as well as I do that claiming to be a theists means a god -claim, even if you call it Creator or Cosmic mind or something else.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #230]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

In the mean-time I stand by my words regarding materialist claims such as yours below, which you have still forgotten to provide support for.

The material world is known to exist. I doubt that you would try to argue that it doesn't. The way it works is known, to a great extent and no god is necessary.

What support do you have for the claim that 'no god is necessary'?

Or is it just an opinion? [in which case, no support is necessary].

You can stand by whatever you like. The browsers and readers will know denial (not to say evasion) when they see it. I have seen this Faith -based theist apologetic fallacy so very often: 'Prove to me the evidence for materialism'. Same as 'prove to me that atheism is true'. No need to.It is the theist claim that has to be proved or non -belief is the automatic logical default. I don't know how easy it would be to find validation of it but this is ( I know,the way the rules of logic work (cue: logic is only human opinion ).

'No god is necessary' is an easy one. Show me any scientifically validated evidence that accepts the actions of a god in any physical or biological process. Not the Faith -claim of a Creationist with a degree in Fungi - growing or appeals to 'science can't explain this', but science saying 'must be a god doing that'. If you can't, the materialist default is established. (no cue -I do hope - that 'atheists are bribing scientists to keep quiet - I have seen that a couple of times )

The ID apologists don't get it that the material world itself is all the evidence that materialism needs. The burden of proof is then on the Theists to show a Cosmic Mind behind it, and that puts the ball in your court. I know they think that God is an a - priori claim that the unbelievers have to disprove, but the logic is that nobody knows whether there is a god to start with. The various ID claims are made and they in fact fail. Thus the not knowing (agnosticism) is the correct knowledge position until we do 'know'. That is all atheism is and this is well known logically, no matter how God - or Cosmic Mind - apologists may delude themselves into thinking it's something else.

This really isn't hard, but it has been just about the hardest thing to get theists to accept. A HUGE weight of the debate rests on who has the burden of proof regarding any kind of god -claim.

[Bust Nak]

I don't think it necessarily implies that, but, as Miles just demonstrated (post #212), that is precisely what some of the atheists in this thread contend. He doesn't consider his opinion regarding the existence of God to be a belief.

Does he even have an opinion regarding the existence of God though? Not holding an opinion surely does not count as a belief; telling someone that they have an opinion regarding the existence of God, where they have none qualify as "putting a belief" on them.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #234]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

You know as well as I do that claiming to be a theists means a god -claim, even if you call it Creator or Cosmic mind or something else.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

What support do you have for the claim that 'no god is necessary'?

Or is it just an opinion? [in which case, no support is necessary].

'No god is necessary' is an easy one.

Then lets be seeing it.

Show me...

No...you show us.

...any scientifically validated evidence that accepts the actions of a god in any physical or biological process.

Evidence is not that which "accepts" anything.

You are confusing the confirmation bias and subsequent materialist rejection of the idea of a mind behind physical processes which have been scientifically validated, with 'supporting evidence'.

It is a common enough mistake. A materialist claims "no god is necessary", one asks for supporting evidence and the reply is along the lines that "this is the way we materialists view the science and subsequently validate our position".

So what?

The materialist opinion is that "no mind is necessary". Once the opinion becomes an established doctrine of belief, it becomes a claim...and support for that claim is required.

So either get to supporting the claim with evidence, or admit that it is really simply materialist opinion re the science.

[historia]

I don't think it necessarily implies that, but, as Miles just demonstrated (post #212), that is precisely what some of the atheists in this thread contend. He doesn't consider his opinion regarding the existence of God to be a belief.

Does he even have an opinion regarding the existence of God though?

Sure, his response indicates as much:

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

No I don't. I regard it as a wait-and-see position on the possibility that god exists.

Moreover, like most of the atheists on this forum, Miles is clearly an intelligent guy who has spent years here thoughtfully engaging in discussions about the existence of God and related topics. He no doubt thinks that he has good reasons for choosing not to accept the proposition that God exists. Those actions necessarily entail him forming opinions.

Plus, you and I already agreed (see post #165) that every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists.

[Tcg]

Plus, you and I already agreed (see post #165) that every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists.

Yes, you, a theist has an opinion concerning "every atheist" on this forum. Not surprisingly "every atheist" doesn't agree with the straw man you have created.



It would be interesting to see a straightforward address of the reality that atheists are those who lack belief in god/gods full stop nothing more.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #234]

the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

You know as well as I do that claiming to be a theists means a god -claim, even if you call it Creator or Cosmic mind or something else.

Please provide evidence that I claimed such a thing.

What support do you have for the claim that 'no god is necessary'?

Or is it just an opinion? [in which case, no support is necessary].

'No god is necessary' is an easy one.

Then lets be seeing it.

Show me...

No...you show us.

...any scientifically validated evidence that accepts the actions of a god in any physical or biological process.

Evidence is not that which "accepts" anything.

You are confusing the confirmation bias and subsequent materialist rejection of the idea of a mind behind physical processes which have been scientifically validated, with 'supporting evidence'.

It is a common enough mistake. A materialist claims "no god is necessary", one asks for supporting evidence and the reply is along the lines that "this is the way we materialists view the science and subsequently validate our position".

So what?

The materialist opinion is that "no mind is necessary". Once the opinion becomes an established doctrine of belief, it becomes a claim...and support for that claim is required.

So either get to supporting the claim with evidence, or admit that it is really simply materialist opinion re the science.

It was done above.

"'No god is necessary' is an easy one. Show me any scientifically validated evidence that accepts the actions of a god in any physical or biological process. Not the Faith -claim of a Creationist with a degree in Fungi - growing or appeals to 'science can't explain this', but science saying 'must be a god doing that'. If you can't, the materialist default is established. (no cue -I do hope - that 'atheists are bribing scientists to keep quiet - I have seen that a couple of times )

The ID apologists don't get it that the material world itself is all the evidence that materialism needs. The burden of proof is then on the Theists to show a Cosmic Mind behind it, and that puts the ball in your court. I"

Even if there was no understanding of how physical and biological processes work (and -repeat - if there is a god there, show how and where) that would not logically validate a god -(or cosmic mind/creator) until you show the evidence for it.

But the evidence for material processes in which no god -input has appears in any peer -review that I've heard of is there and in addition to the the burden of proof falling on the god -claim anyway, the material side has provided the evidence. Physicas work without a god.

Persistent denial and re -statement on answered questions just hurts your case, not mine.

[TRANSPONDER]

Plus, you and I already agreed (see post #165) that every atheist on this forum has a belief regarding the proposition that God exists.

Yes, you, a theist has an opinion concerning "every atheist" on this forum. Not surprisingly "every atheist" doesn't agree with the straw man you have created.



It would be interesting to see a straightforward address of the reality that atheists are those who lack belief in god/gods full stop nothing more.


Tcg

It's more than a strawman; it's a symptom of the theists belief that their god -claim is the default and all the burden of proof falls on the non -believer. This was (logically) never the case (even when it was believed that it was - and after all, before Darwin 'who else made everything?' had some mileage) even before the gaps were clodes and materialism (natural physical processes) were all the evidence tat was needed.

Since then, Theists can do no more than insist that the logical position is not the logical position and the evidence is not the evidence. We can tell this because of the persistent need to force on atheism the 'belief'-claim, even though (as I said) the only 'belief' here is belief in the validity of the logical and evidential position.

It's just remarkable to me that the Strawman you refer to is still what pops into the public mind every time the debate pops up. Secularism still isn't getting the message out and I suspect it's because atheism isn't funded. Theism is, and very heavily.