Atheism does not exist

[ImmortalFlame]

The way I see it, the only people who can truly claim to have a mere "lack of belief" are:
1. People who have never heard of god concepts, and therefore have no knowledge about the subject.

2. People who are completely apathetic about the subject and have never thought about it long enough to form an opinion. (note: if you are debating on a religious forum about it, this means you do not qualify for this category.)

3. "True" agnostics, in the popular sense. These are the people who believe that the evidence for and against god is equally weighted. They believe that it is just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist, and therefore, cannot be said to have an opinion either way.

Do you fall into any of the above categories? If not, then no. If you do not fall into one of the above categories, then I do not believe you merely lack a belief that a deity exists.

Then the problem is that you seem to have a needlessly broad view of what constitutes "belief" and a needlessly narrow view of what constitutes "lack of belief".

I lack a belief in a God - which means I either don't believe there IS a God, or I believe that IS NOT a God. In my case, I don't believe that there is a God, but I do not believe that there is NOT a God. You lack a belief in something until that thing is demonstrated to you to be true, and lacking that belief does not mean you believe a contrary claim. I really don't see why this definition of atheism troubles you so much. It's precisely what the word means and what makes most sense.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I do agree with the initial statement insofar as "atheism is heavily misused" and I think he did a wonderful job misusing it to prove it.

Personally, I feel atheism is simply a rejection of all God claims that I feel have insufficient evidence. Which currently to me is all of them that have been posed to me.
I do not vehemently scream "there is no God" but neither have I been moved to believe there is a God by any claims made.

 

[Willamena]

The belief in "no god" is a belief ("no god" is the proposition). It's not "the pendulum" swung the other way, to disbelief.

Disbelief is the counter-claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Disbelief isn't a claim. Its the response to a claim.

Saying there is no god or belief in no god is Gnostic atheism. Disblief in god without holding the claim "there is no god" is a agnostic atheist. Both are atheist though. There is so "scale" of how atheistic someone is or how theistic someone is. They are either Atheist or Theistic. There is a scale for how agnostic or gnostic you are.

 

[Falvlun]

Theism and Atheism are not quite symetrical. One claims simple lack of belief in something that is not demonstrated to exist, which is in some sense a default.

Why not make them symmetrical, since that is how most people who don't debate in online internet forums use them?

 

[Falvlun]

You are both right and wrong.

Your right in saying its just a position. Because that's all it is.

If it's a position, then it cannot be merely a lack of one-- which is what the "lack of belief" definition implies.

It seems to me that a position, a belief, and an opinion are essentially all the same thing. They are the verbalization of what you hold to be true about the world.

Note that you do not need to know something is true to hold it to be true, to act as if it is true, to believe that it is true. We know very few things for certain when you dig down deep, but we believe a whole lot of things. That is a necessary, rational response despite the lack of certain knowledge.

Most Atheists or Agnostic atheists at least don't make a claim "there is no god". We haven't went out in the universe and looked under the rugs and we cannot definitvely say there is no god.

However we can come to the conclusion based on the evidence (lack there of) that there is no god. We have no reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Just because there is no evidence against something doesn't mean we have to believe it.

You don't believe an infinite number of things for the same reason. It is a lack of belief. I lack the belief that there is a go. I can't prove he doesn't exist but I don't have to impose the idea that he does i there is if no supporting reasons are there. Its the default.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief. You can believe that there is no god, as I suspect you do, without having to assert that you know for certain that there isn't.

Also, I do not believe in defaults.

It is strange that you are so careful about phrasing your "lack of" belief in god, but then you go and make other claims without a blink of an eye, such as that "lack of belief" in god is a default. How do you know? Do you know? Or is this something that you believe?

 

[Falvlun]

Then the problem is that you seem to have a needlessly broad view of what constitutes "belief" and a needlessly narrow view of what constitutes "lack of belief".

Maybe that's so, but then again, I could say that you have a needlessly narrow-- and rather contorted-- view of what belief is, and a rather broad view of what "lack of belief" is.

I think that "lack of belief" is a manufactured position to make a semantical argument without a distinction. With the exception of my exceptions, I don't believe that "lack of belief" exists, except in the minds of those who for some reason have decided that it is bad, irrational, or dangerous for them to admit to having a belief.

I lack a belief in a God - which means I either don't believe there IS a God, or I believe that IS NOT a God. In my case, I don't believe that there is a God, but I do not believe that there is NOT a God. You lack a belief in something until that thing is demonstrated to you to be true, and lacking that belief does not mean you believe a contrary claim.

You have absolutely no opinion about whether god exists or not? Do you believe that it is equally likely that god exists and that god does not exist?

If not, then you have an opinion, which means you have a belief. You do not merely "lack a belief".

I really don't see why this definition of atheism troubles you so much. It's precisely what the word means and what makes most sense.

This definition troubles me because it makes silly results, like atheist rocks, it makes troubling assumptions, like atheist babies, and it needlessly lumps in people who really shouldn't be considered atheists, imo, like the "popular sense" agnostics or people who have never heard of god. Furthermore, I think it encourages a self-delusion based upon a false premise and a semantical game.

Thus, I do not think this definition makes the most sense. It seems much more reasonable to restrict the definition of atheism to those who believe that gods don't exist, especially so since that is how the word is commonly used by normal people (ie people who don't spend their time debating definitions) .

 

[Falvlun]

Disbelief isn't a claim. Its the response to a claim.

Saying that you don't believe someone's claim is indeed a claim. I don't see how it can be argued that it isn't.

Saying there is no god or belief in no god is Gnostic atheism.

Nope. Belief that god does not exist does not necessarily entail gnosticism.

Do you not acknowledge the difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge? Let's take a non-god example:
I believe Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.

I know Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever. (Or: Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.)

Do you feel the difference between the two statements? One is a statement of belief-- I think something is true, but I am not certain-- and the others are statements of knowledge-- I am certain in the information I am imparting.

Likewise:
I believe that gods do not exist.

I do not know for certain that gods do not exist, hence, I do not say "I know gods do not exist" or "gods do not exist".

I am an agnostic atheist, since I do not claim knowledge.

Disblief in god without holding the claim "there is no god" is a agnostic atheist. Both are atheist though. There is so "scale" of how atheistic someone is or how theistic someone is. They are either Atheist or Theistic. There is a scale for how agnostic or gnostic you are.

I do not think that everyone needs must be lumped as an atheist or a theist.

Though I do agree that every atheist or theist is agnostic or gnostic about their belief. Theists tend to be gnostic and atheists tend to be agnostic, or so my observations have led me to believe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If it's a position, then it cannot be merely a lack of one-- which is what the "lack of belief" definition implies.

It seems to me that a position, a belief, and an opinion are essentially all the same thing. They are the verbalization of what you hold to be true about the world.

Note that you do not need to know something is true to hold it to be true, to act as if it is true, to believe that it is true. We know very few things for certain when you dig down deep, but we believe a whole lot of things. That is a necessary, rational response despite the lack of certain knowledge.

I ask why lack of belief can't be a position?

I do not believe in god. Why? Because I lack "belief" portion. Therefor I lack the belief in god. I have not stated that THERE IS no god but that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for god. So a lack of a belief is possible and it is a valid opinion.

For example I don't "know" there is no god. But I don't believe in one either.

Someone tells me on the internet that they are 6'5 and buff with a 9th degree blackbelt in Karate. They don't show me a picture, certification or any proof other than their word. I don't "know" that he isn't all those things. But I will doubt it. So I disbelieve him without knowing it to be false. Same with god.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief. You can believe that there is no god, as I suspect you do, without having to assert that you know for certain that there isn't.

Also, I do not believe in defaults.

It is strange that you are so careful about phrasing your "lack of" belief in god, but then you go and make other claims without a blink of an eye, such as that "lack of belief" in god is a default. How do you know? Do you know? Or is this something that you believe?

Defaults exist if you believe it or not. The way claims work is someone has to support their claim. Otherwise it can be dismissed without evidence to the contrary. I don't have to prove your wrong.

Lets go back to the analogy of the guy on the internet. I don't have to prove he isn't any of those things. Disbelief is the default position till proof or evidence is provided to sway my opinion. This is with everything not just god.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Saying that you don't believe someone's claim is indeed a claim. I don't see how it can be argued that it isn't.

It can and I do.

Nope. Belief that god does not exist does not necessarily entail gnosticism.

yes it does. Gnostic means you Know for a fact or believe. Not knowing is agnostic.

Do you not acknowledge the difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge? Let's take a non-god example:
I believe Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.

I know Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever. (Or: Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.)

Do you feel the difference between the two statements? One is a statement of belief-- I think something is true, but I am not certain-- and the others are statements of knowledge-- I am certain in the information I am imparting.

Likewise:
I believe that gods do not exist.

I do not know for certain that gods do not exist, hence, I do not say "I know gods do not exist" or "gods do not exist".

Where are you disagreeing with me on this?

I do not think that everyone needs must be lumped as an atheist or a theist.

Though I do agree that every atheist or theist is agnostic or gnostic about their belief. Theists tend to be gnostic and atheists tend to be agnostic, or so my observations have led me to believe.

Other than "don't care" where can someone neither believer or disbelieve in a god? There isn't an in between.

 

[Willamena]

However we can come to the conclusion based on the evidence (lack there of) that there is no god. We have no reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Just because there is no evidence against something doesn't mean we have to believe it.

You don't believe an infinite number of things for the same reason. It is a lack of belief. I lack the belief that there is a go. I can't prove he doesn't exist but I don't have to impose the idea that he does i there is if no supporting reasons are there. Its the default.

No evidence, though, is just that. It doesn't represent a belief in that thing, or a "lack" thereof.

I don't base my position on what's not there, but what is. I don't believe unicorns are real, not because there's a lack of evidence for them being real, but because of all the evidence that says they are fiction.

Now, Bigfoot, that's another matter.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No evidence, though, is just that. It doesn't represent a belief in that thing, or a "lack" thereof.

I don't base my position on what's not there, but what is. I don't believe unicorns are real, not because there's a lack of evidence for them being real, but because of all the evidence that says they are fiction.

Now, Bigfoot, that's another matter.

To know something one must have evidence. To not believe something one only requires doubt. Lack of evidence is grounds for doubt.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

However we can come to the conclusion based on the evidence (lack there of) that there is no god. We have no reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Just because there is no evidence against something doesn't mean we have to believe it.

This is where I have to disagree with you, based mostly off semantics.
With a lack of evidence in a God, we can come to the conclusion that that got had not been proven. Using a lack of evidence to claim "there is no God" is taking a second step, the difference between "I don't believe in a God" and "there is no God"

A lack of evidence that people in Japan drive Fords means there's a lack if evidence that people in Japan drive Fords, its not proof that no one in Japan drives a Ford, merely that I personally don't have the evidence to back up my claim, and that I can be safely ignored until further evidence is found.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is where I have to disagree with you, based mostly off semantics.
With a lack of evidence in a God, we can come to the conclusion that that got had not been proven. Using a lack of evidence to claim "there is no God" is taking a second step, the difference between "I don't believe in a God" and "there is no God"

A lack of evidence that people in Japan drive Fords means there's a lack if evidence that people in Japan drive Fords, its not proof that no one in Japan drives a Ford, merely that I personally don't have the evidence to back up my claim, and that I can be safely ignored until further evidence is found.

No. You agree with me. You just don't see that the CONCLUSION that there is no god is different than the STATEMENT that there is no god.

You do not believe in god therefore you don't think god exists. You aren't Gnostic in the fact that you "know" there is no god but the reason for your Atheism is lack of evidence.

So no you don't disagree with me on the subject but my wording. A conclusion isn't a claim.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Yup, agree completely on the subject itself. But as always, especially on a forum and on a topic that gets picked apart by people do they can find ANYTHING to argue, its always the wording.

General principle I believe I do agree with you. Like I said, semantics.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yup. Just wanted to point it out before we went further. I enjoy debating but I don't like tedious nit-picking of things that have nothing to do with the specific problem of the topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe that's so, but then again, I could say that you have a needlessly narrow-- and rather contorted-- view of what belief is, and a rather broad view of what "lack of belief" is.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Belief literally means "to accept a given proposition as true", while lacking a belief means you do NOT hold a given proposition to be true. It's that simple. Nothing is contorted whatsoever.

I think that "lack of belief" is a manufactured position to make a semantical argument without a distinction. With the exception of my exceptions, I don't believe that "lack of belief" exists, except in the minds of those who for some reason have decided that it is bad, irrational, or dangerous for them to admit to having a belief.

It's actually called "the null hypothesis". It's about making clear who is making a claim and who carries the burden of proof. I'm willing to say that I have beliefs, but with regard to Gods I lack a belief. I'm not playing any kind of semantical game, and I don't think it is either bad or irrational to hold a belief.

You have absolutely no opinion about whether god exists or not?

I did not say that.

In fact, I clearly and concisely explained what I meant by "lacking a belief". There is a very big difference between having an OPINION and having a BELIEF. I explained that I lack a BELIEF, not an OPINION. Do not put words in my mouth.

Do you believe that it is equally likely that god exists and that god does not exist?

I have no idea since I cannot assign probability to something for which I currently have an insufficient understanding of the variables to deduce the probability of their correctness.

If not, then you have an opinion, which means you have a belief.

They are two different things. I have many opinions on theism, but none of them have a bearing on whether or not I hold the proposition that God exists to actually be true.

You do not merely "lack a belief".

Yes I do.

This definition troubles me because it makes silly results, like atheist rocks, it makes troubling assumptions, like atheist babies, and it needlessly lumps in people who really shouldn't be considered atheists, imo, like the "popular sense" agnostics or people who have never heard of god. Furthermore, I think it encourages a self-delusion based upon a false premise and a semantical game.

If you wish to count rocks and babies as atheists, go ahead; it makes absolutely no difference. If the fact that babies lack a belief in God, and this makes them atheists by default, troubles you then that's not a problem with the definition as much as it is a problem you apparently have with atheism as a default position. We're using the actual definition, you are the one twisting it to include opinions or dismissing it on the basis that you think it "makes silly results". It doesn't matter - it's what the word literally means.

Thus, I do not think this definition makes the most sense. It seems much more reasonable to restrict the definition of atheism to those who believe that gods don't exist, especially so since that is how the word is commonly used by normal people (ie people who don't spend their time debating definitions) .

Then those people are using a more exclusive definition of the term, and they're more than welcome to. I use the broad definition - a definition which is just a valid in the word's very definition. I really do not see what your issue with this definition is. You just seem to really dislike the idea that atheism might actually be the default position as if that somehow makes it "more correct" or "more reasonable". You don't have to believe that. Why the insecurity?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is a very big difference between having an OPINION and having a BELIEF. I explained that I lack a BELIEF, not an OPINION. Do not put words in my mouth.

Hey, Immortal. I'd be curious to hear what you see as the difference between a belief and an opinion.

To me, they seem pretty much the same thing.

All of my beliefs are opinions.

 

[Willamena]

It's actually called "the null hypothesis". It's about making clear who is making a claim and who carries the burden of proof. I'm willing to say that I have beliefs, but with regard to Gods I lack a belief. I'm not playing any kind of semantical game, and I don't think it is either bad or irrational to hold a belief.

That's all right and rational, but it doesn't necessarily make an atheist of you. Atheism needs its null hypothesis too.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey, Immortal. I'd be curious to hear what you see as the difference between a belief and an opinion.

To me, they seem pretty much the same thing.

All of my beliefs are opinions.

An opinion is a subset of belief - you can believe something as a matter of opinion, or you can believe something as a matter of fact, it depends entirely on whether you view your position as subjective or objective. An opinion is when you hold something to be true but still regard your position as subjective, i.e you think other people are equally justified even if they hold an entirely different opinion. It's a matter of interpretation, not necessarily truth. So "I believe X" is a statement of belief, not opinion.

But the big distinction is that the only thing atheism and theism deal with is whether or not you accept the proposition of God to be true. In order to be one or the other, you only need to answer that proposition - no other kinds of belief are implied. So, while I have opinions about the existence or nonexistence of God, none of that matters to the question of whether or not I am an atheist or a theist. It's no different to me not drinking, really. The fact that I am categorized as a non-drinker doesn't imply anything about my opinions on alcohol beyond the simple fact that I do not drink. I may believe alcohol is evil, or I may be recovering alcoholic, or I may think that alcohol just tastes bad. People may believe that my not drinking implies all kinds of things about me, but those people are basing such opinions on preconceptions. The only fact that is relevant with regards to my "a-alcoholism" is whether or not I drink alcohol.

That's all right and rational, but it doesn't necessarily make an atheist of you. Atheism needs its null hypothesis too.

The proposition "God doesn't exist" needs a null hypothesis, yes, but as I've already explained that isn't the broad definition of atheism. Atheism is specifically a response to the claim that God exists - there is no claim implied, so no need for a null hypothesis response to atheism; only the CLAIM that a God doesn't exist, which is subset of atheism.