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

[Curious George]

Of course I do.



Its actually not very interesting, and you're drawing a long bow.

It is okay if you cannot understand why it is interesting.

I'll happily tell you I don't believe there is an Abrahamaic God, I don't believe in Shiva, and I wouldn't worship a carrot.
What statement is it you think I'd refrain from making?

The general statement gods do not exist.

Fair enough. I don't remember saying anything contrary to that.

I do not recall saying that you said anything contrary to that. It is merely there to further convey my point.

Me? No, not essentially. I am an atheist, and have all sorts of beliefs.

Is one of those beliefs that no god exists?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is one of those beliefs that no god exists?

Yes. So....ummm...?

 

[Curious George]

Yes. So....ummm...?

So then what did you mean when you said it is hard to be definitive about concepts of gods of which you had not heard?

 

[Ponder This]

But you were talking about beliefs, not claims.

Consequently: my point is that people are capable of talking about things they have no opinion of.

You seem to imply such people don't exist.

A belief and a claim are closely related because they both involve a statement that be evaluated to true or false. I don't see a problem with people talking about things that they don't have an opinion on. A lack of opinion is not oppositional.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Didn't say they were, or even imply that.

It was implied by this statement:

"atheism tends to mean 'non evidence therefore i do not consider it true', whereas in traditional theism, belief does not need evidence."

 

[Desert Snake]

It was implied by this statement:

"atheism tends to mean 'non evidence therefore i do not consider it true', whereas in traditional theism, belief does not need evidence."

The aspect there is the inference that theism would not be considered true, not some random particular argument.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The aspect there is the inference that theism would not be considered true, not some random particular argument.

I was only highlighting that atheism is not necessarily "no evidence, therefore rejected". That would be more along the lines of skepticism, and I suspect that we probably agree on this point. I use imprecise language all of the time, so it's not too big of a deal.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

A belief and a claim are closely related because they both involve a statement that be evaluated to true or false. I don't see a problem with people talking about things that they don't have an opinion on. A lack of opinion is not oppositional.

A person automatically holds an opinion of everything that reaches their senses and/or understanding.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

A belief and a claim are closely related because they both involve a statement that be evaluated to true or false. I don't see a problem with people talking about things that they don't have an opinion on. A lack of opinion is not oppositional.

A claim can be said to be true or false but belief should not be. If a person changes their belief they have made an error in thinking.

 

[Ponder This]

But that's not how most debates happen between theists and atheists. The debate centers around the quality of the evidence that the theist claims to have for the existence of God. That is where there are opposing views, and it mostly centers around logic, reason, and the definition of evidence. In this case, it is a debate between a believer and a skeptic.

Do we disagree? Other debates include the consequences of the existence of a God or gods, the consequences of the non-existence of a God or gods, and consequences of belief, disbelief, and/or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.

 

[Ponder This]

A person automatically holds an opinion of everything that reaches their senses and/or understanding.

Sure, but they often don't formulate their opinions into words. In fact, they will even say they have no opinion.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Sure, but they often don't formulate their opinions into words. In fact, they will even say they have no opinion.

It's a white lie. White lies can turn a soul black

 

[Ponder This]

A claim can be said to be true or false but belief should not be. If a person changes their belief they have made an error in thinking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So then what did you mean when you said it is hard to be definitive about concepts of gods of which you had not heard?

Just what I said.
Look, semantics around whether atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief aside, I generally favour pragmatism over precision.
When I was 12, I was an atheist. I'd evaluated the Christian God to the best of my ability and figured out 2 things...
1) Many people who worshipped this God didn't act in a manner consistent with their purported belief.
2) Specific claims made about the God and it's nature were inconsistent, and appeared to make sense only if you thought of the God as a powerful human, more like the Greek myths I loved reading.

So my atheism was formed at a young age with dual concepts.
The God you're telling me about is one I actively disbelieve and would argue against.
The concept of God is one that appears unrequired and unsupported by evidence.

Make of that as you will, but I've never hidden behind those concepts as a way to justify my atheism. I merely see atheism as a broad label encompassing many.