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 #219]

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.

It is obvious that you equate the Cosmos having a Mind as The Cosmos being a 'God' and therefore, your argument is that the Cosmos [material Universe known to exist] does not need a mind to exist, and so cannot be a 'God'.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

If not, then it would be best not to make such claims.

Complete evasion of every point and question, and trying to make a case out of pointless questions and invalid insinuations.

I simply took your claim and asked you to provide evidence for it. That is not 'evasion'.

[William]

When it comes to a Cosmic Mind there is no burden of proof necessary as the evidence to support the idea is the same evidence which scientific research gives to us all.

That evidence can be seen in two ways;

1: We exist within a creation.

2: We do not exist within a creation.

[3] The evidence is inconclusive to claim either [1] or [2] is correct.

Until further investigation can provide conclusive evidence either way, we can BELIEVE in [1] or [2] or remain open and not believe either. [3]

[brunumb]

When it comes to a Cosmic Mind there is no burden of proof necessary as the evidence to support the idea is the same evidence which scientific research gives to us all.

That evidence can be seen in two ways;

1: We exist within a creation.

2: We do not exist within a creation.

[3] The evidence is inconclusive to claim either [1] or [2] is correct.

Until further investigation can provide conclusive evidence either way, we can BELIEVE in [1] or [2] or remain open and not believe either. [3]

What you personally believe is your privilege and there is no burden of proof until you claim that a Cosmic Mind does exist and that we do exist in a creation. Then, the ball is in your court.

[William]

When it comes to a Cosmic Mind there is no burden of proof necessary as the evidence to support the idea is the same evidence which scientific research gives to us all.

That evidence can be seen in two ways;

1: We exist within a creation.

2: We do not exist within a creation.

[3] The evidence is inconclusive to claim either [1] or [2] is correct.

Until further investigation can provide conclusive evidence either way, we can BELIEVE in [1] or [2] or remain open and not believe either. [3]

What anyone personally believes about the positions [1] and [2] is their opinion and there is no burden of proof required until they make a claim that we do or do not exist in a creation. Then the burden of proof applies.

[Tcg]

Those comments don't make a lot of sense unless they think their opinion regarding God's existence isn't really a belief.

It makes perfect sense when one accepts the fact that lack of belief is NOT a belief. For some odd reason, there are those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.


Tcg

[historia]

Those comments don't make a lot of sense unless they think their opinion regarding God's existence isn't really a belief.

It makes perfect sense when one accepts the fact that lack of belief is NOT a belief.

Again, nobody in this thread is contending that "lack of belief is a belief."

For some odd reason, there are those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Indeed, it should be obvious to everyone that, just because an atheist lacks belief in God -- that is to say, they lack the specific belief that God exists -- that does not, in and of itself, entail the further conclusion that they have no belief regarding God's existence at all. Just like, if I say I lack a subscription to Disney+, that does not inherently mean that I have no subscription to any streaming service.

Now, you might want to contend that your opinion regarding God's existence does not constitute a belief -- in which case, Miles would agree with you, but Bust Nak and others would not. But that contention does not flow obviously or necessarily from the broad definition of the word atheist we find in some dictionaries. It would have to stand on its own.

So, why not just tell us plainly: Do you think that your opinion regarding God's existence is a belief? If not, why?

[William]

Again, nobody in this thread is contending that "lack of belief is a belief."

I think the confusion would be resolved best if, that when one reads the words "I am an atheist because I lack belief in god/gods" and then when words accompany that position as to WHY the atheist lacks belief in god/gods, one is most definitely dealing with a Materialist, because those reasons are sourced in the belief in Emergent Theory as true.

The materialist lacks belief in god/gods AND holds beliefs which give them reasons why they lack belief in god/gods.

Whether one is theist or not, don't confuse the two [Atheist and Materialist] and all should remain clear.

[Tcg]

The materialist lacks belief in god/gods AND holds beliefs which give them reasons why they lack belief in god/gods.

Nope. And who knows why you are introducing the term materialist. Atheists lack belief in god/gods. No matter how often some theists attempt to twist this into a belief, lack of belief is NOT a belief. It is amusing to observe the attempt.


Tcg

[Tcg]

That evidence can be seen in two ways;

Evidence? You've not presented any.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #219]

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.

It is obvious that you equate the Cosmos having a Mind as The Cosmos being a 'God' and therefore, your argument is that the Cosmos [material Universe known to exist] does not need a mind to exist, and so cannot be a 'God'.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

If not, then it would be best not to make such claims.

Complete evasion of every point and question, and trying to make a case out of pointless questions and invalid insinuations.

I simply took your claim and asked you to provide evidence for it. That is not 'evasion'.

That is - unless you don't know enough logic to understand that the burden of proof is on you as the god -claimant. I believe you know enough to understand that, so don't disappoint me. As to evidence, I already gave it - the material world explained as to how it works with no god necessary. That means No Evidence for a God, or Creator, and that applies to areas of consciousness, imagination, art and music. No god needed for any of that. The gaps for a god are almost closed.

The valid negative evidence of the materialist default (the practical one of 'only material so far as we know, not 'only the material is possible, so don't try playing that one) makes no theism the prime default hypothesis and the burden of proof falls on the god -believer to provide the evidence. It is not on the atheist, and we've produced it anyway.

Ball is in your court. Stop trying to pretend that it isn't.