Atheism: A non belief isn't oppositional to a belief

[Jumi]

View attachment 22381

I had this same reaction.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no such phenomena as "non-belief".

What would you call it when someone doesn't believe in something then? What about someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot? They've been presented with the idea, with photos that may or may not have been doctored up, and they have heard the eye-witness testimonies, but they remain unconvinced and so do not believe in Bigfoot. What do you call this lack of belief in Bigfoot that they continue to hold, despite having been exposed?

Why not call it "non-belief?" Is there simply a better term we should be using?

 

[ChristineM]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

And not collecting stamps isn't s hobby

 

[ChristineM]

There is no such phenomena as "non-belief".

I don't believe you

 

[ChristineM]

There is no such phenomena as "non-belief".

So i say there is no god, do you believe me or not?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Funny ya'll. A whole two pages without OPs involvement. Wonder if hes laughin'

 

[Curious George]

What would you call it when someone doesn't believe in something then? What about someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot? They've been presented with the idea, with photos that may or may not have been doctored up, and they have heard the eye-witness testimonies, but they remain unconvinced and so do not believe in Bigfoot. What do you call this lack of belief in Bigfoot that they continue to hold, despite having been exposed?

Why not call it "non-belief?" Is there simply a better term we should be using?

Cut it up anyway you want. You will be left with true, false, undecided--all are beliefs. If you are saying undecided you are claiming a belief as well. You are claiming truth or falsity of the matter are equally believable claims.

The problem is that many confuse their disbelief for indecision. If one was truly indecisive, we would see them act that way. We would expect them to treat both claims with equal skepticism and act as if either could be true or false. This is not what we see. Instead we see all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid declaring a belief that reflects how they act. I think it comes from a fear of being wrong.

I do Bigfoot does not exist. I believe the pictures and sightings are deliberate hoaxes, mistaken bears that are sick, or simply imagination. Do I have certainty that big foot does not exist? No. But I am honest enough with myself to admit that if someone caught a yeti tomorrow, I would honestly be surprised; if someone never catches one or finds recent remains of one, I would not be surprised. I do mot think public monies should be used to research, protect and preserve yeti populations. At the end of the day we have beliefs about our world. Those beliefs inform our actions.

I think if we need a new word concerning belief and knowledge, it is one to describe a theoretical belief to which we cling, despite acting according to a different belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Cut it up anyway you want. You will be left with true, false, undecided--all are beliefs. If you are saying undecided you are claiming a belief as well. You are claiming truth or falsity of the matter are equally believable claims.

The problem is that many confuse their disbelief for indecision. If one was truly indecisive, we would see them act that way. We would expect them to treat both claims with equal skepticism and act as if either could be true or false. This is not what we see. Instead we see all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid declaring a belief that reflects how they act. I think it comes from a fear of being wrong.

I do Bigfoot does not exist. I believe the pictures and sightings are deliberate hoaxes, mistaken bears that are sick, or simply imagination. Do I have certainty that big foot does not exist? No. But I am honest enough with myself to admit that if someone caught a yeti tomorrow, I would honestly be surprised; if someone never catches one or finds recent remains of one, I would not be surprised. I do mot think public monies should be used to research, protect and preserve yeti populations. At the end of the day we have beliefs about our world. Those beliefs inform our actions.

I think if we need a new word concerning belief and knowledge, it is one to describe a theoretical belief to which we cling, despite acting according to a different belief.

There are almost as many concepts of God as there are people on the planet.
Whilst I would believe there is no God with relation to many, there are others I haven't heard of, don't understand, or that have Gods I do believe in, but don't see as Gods.

I am comfortable broad brushing across them all and saying I lack belief in them. If you want me to actively say I believe there is no 'X', though, it requires me to know about and have some understanding of 'X'.

Further, that is me. Defining my own beliefs or lack there of is one thing. Mandating what an atheist requires is a little different.

 

[sealchan]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

Are you saying that not believing in something does not mean that that person has an opposite belief that needs to be proven?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Cut it up anyway you want. You will be left with true, false, undecided--all are beliefs. If you are saying undecided you are claiming a belief as well. You are claiming truth or falsity of the matter are equally believable claims.

The problem is that many confuse their disbelief for indecision. If one was truly indecisive, we would see them act that way. We would expect them to treat both claims with equal skepticism and act as if either could be true or false. This is not what we see. Instead we see all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid declaring a belief that reflects how they act. I think it comes from a fear of being wrong.

I do Bigfoot does not exist. I believe the pictures and sightings are deliberate hoaxes, mistaken bears that are sick, or simply imagination. Do I have certainty that big foot does not exist? No. But I am honest enough with myself to admit that if someone caught a yeti tomorrow, I would honestly be surprised; if someone never catches one or finds recent remains of one, I would not be surprised. I do mot think public monies should be used to research, protect and preserve yeti populations. At the end of the day we have beliefs about our world. Those beliefs inform our actions.

I think if we need a new word concerning belief and knowledge, it is one to describe a theoretical belief to which we cling, despite acting according to a different belief.

Yeah, didn't say they weren't all beliefs... I asked what's wrong with the word/concept "non-belief?" as a description of not believing that a thing exists? Do we need some new, positively-attributed word that recognizes "non-belief" also as a "belief?" I don't think we do. not many people would.

 

[Curious George]

There are almost as many concepts of God as there are people on the planet.
Whilst I would believe there is no God with relation to many, there are others I haven't heard of, don't understand, or that have Gods I do believe in, but don't see as Gods.

I am comfortable broad brushing across them all and saying I lack belief in them. If you want me to actively say I believe there is no 'X', though, it requires me to know about and have some understanding of 'X'.

Further, that is me. Defining my own beliefs or lack there of is one thing. Mandating what an atheist requires is a little different.

Do you believe that you don't already do this? Why is the should a God concept be treated any differently?

 

[Ponder This]

Why do so many theists here have a mental roadblock about the difference between atheism and atheists?

Atheism doesn't require opinions on gods. Individual atheists may very well have opinions on gods.

There's nothing about atheism that requires an atheist to have two nostrils, but I would bet you good money that every atheist you'll ever meet will have two nostrils.

Do you understand the distinction?

Why do so many atheists have a mental road block about engaging in honest debate?
In honest debate, people make opposing claims.

Let's say we were going to debate gun control.
The position
'We should have more gun control.'
is opposed by the position
'We should not have more gun control.'

The position
'I lack a belief that we should have more gun control'
is not a position in a debate!
Do we see people showing up in gun control debates complaining that they are agunists that have been unfairly lumped in with people who oppose gun control?

What's happened is that people have developed an emotional attachment to 'atheism' as a word associated to their sense of self. So anytime a person uses the word atheism to oppose theism, it triggers a response as if they were under personal attack. They want to claim atheism as part of their self-identity, but they don't want to defend the claim that 'God(s) do not exist'. And that last part is the dishonest part, because they've showed up to a debate between opposing views with the idea that only the other side has anything to defend.

 

[Darkstorn]

The position
'I lack a belief that we should have more gun control'
is not a position in a debate!

Actually that sounds to me like the position of "we shouldn't have more or less gun control."

Because it does imply that the current amount is fine.

This is my view on gun control: "I don't think about gun control."

/E: added "or less" and "because." Should be clearer now.

 

[blü 2]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

Yes, my lack of belief that proposition X is correct is not of itself sufficient to demonstrate that X is either correct or incorrect.

Nonetheless,

(a) it may not be my task to demonstrate that X is correct, since the burden of satisfactory demonstration rests with the person who makes the positive assertion, and

(b) there may be sound arguments demonstrating the correctness or incorrectness of X.

If X is the proposition, God has objective existence, then the first thing I ask is, What do you mean by 'God'? What real thing, exactly, are we searching reality to find?

I've never had a clear answer to that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why do so many atheists have a mental road block about engaging in honest debate?
In honest debate, people make opposing claims.

Let's say we were going to debate gun control.
The position
'We should have more gun control.'
is opposed by the position
'We should not have more gun control.'

The position
'I lack a belief that we should have more gun control'
is not a position in a debate!
Do we see people showing up in gun control debates complaining that they are agunists that have been unfairly lumped in with people who oppose gun control?

What's happened is that people have developed an emotional attachment to 'atheism' as a word associated to their sense of self. So anytime a person uses the word atheism to oppose theism, it triggers a response as if they were under personal attack. They want to claim atheism as part of their self-identity, but they don't want to defend the claim that 'God(s) do not exist'. And that last part is the dishonest part, because they've showed up to a debate between opposing views with the idea that only the other side has anything to defend.

Bunkum.
In my opinion, the Christian God doesn't exist. I'm an atheist, and one who thinks atheism means a lack of belief.
Atheists<>atheism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you believe that you don't already do this? Why is the should a God concept be treated any differently?

Personally? It wouldn't change what atheism means, regardless. But it's hard to be definitive about things I've never heard about, in relation to a term that is inconsistently applied.
If it helps, the belief versus lack of belief thing for me rarely has much practical impact and is largely semantic.
Meanwhile I find a term like 'Brights' as horrendous.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

It's kind of tough thinking atheism is somehow a belief to start with.

 

[David T]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

well atheism is broad so a tiny brush aint gonna work. Some atheists are atheists for extremely good reasons, church can be completely nuts. On the other hand some are just southern baptist without jesus. They rely on religious nuttiery in Context to the topic God to not believe in. Never ever rely on religious folks for any insight into that topic ever!!!!! Big mistake listening to a bunch of make believers whom by their own admission "I believe" have zero idea what they are talking about at all!!!!! So some atheists are In fact just religious doppelgangers.

SOME.... , I wanna be sure to say some I already know that some atheists will be all panties in a bunch. Predictible they are like believers. .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do so many atheists have a mental road block about engaging in honest debate?
In honest debate, people make opposing claims.

Let's say we were going to debate gun control.
The position
'We should have more gun control.'
is opposed by the position
'We should not have more gun control.'

The position
'I lack a belief that we should have more gun control'
is not a position in a debate!
Do we see people showing up in gun control debates complaining that they are agunists that have been unfairly lumped in with people who oppose gun control?

What's happened is that people have developed an emotional attachment to 'atheism' as a word associated to their sense of self. So anytime a person uses the word atheism to oppose theism, it triggers a response as if they were under personal attack. They want to claim atheism as part of their self-identity, but they don't want to defend the claim that 'God(s) do not exist'. And that last part is the dishonest part, because they've showed up to a debate between opposing views with the idea that only the other side has anything to defend.

Poor analogy, but thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[dianaiad]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

Of course it does, or it wouldn't be called "a THEISM."

In order to be 'a-' something, one must have some idea of what that 'something' is in order to be 'without' it.

After all, until you read the following:

there is a dwarf star with six planets, all in the 'Goldilocks zone,' with water...and an entire race of water dwelling intelligent primates that descended from the survivors of the fall of Atlantis. They are so far advanced scientifically that they have not only solved FTL travel, they are currently trying to save the whales from the depredations of the humans they descended from. They got the idea from an old Star Trek movie.

They are the Waterats. (short for water and Atlantis; forgive me, my brain isn't working at top speed).

Now until you read this, I'll bet you had NO idea that you were an awaterat, did you? That's because you weren't. You had to know that there was a concept that included Waterats before you could call yourself 'without' them.

So it is with atheism.

Now that doesn't mean atheists have to go out and attack all theistic ideas. They DO, however, have to understand that there is a concept, "God," and to decide against it, to be without it.