Atheism does not exist

[ArtieE]

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of deities.
This is what all atheists have in common. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in a deity, you're an atheist.
Why do we have to complicate everything?

Because an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in deities. You are describing a "hard/strong atheist" not every atheist.

 

[Willamena]

"Originally Posted by Mestemia
There is a difference between not believing something and disbelieving something.
One is active (disbelief) and one is inactive (lacking belief)."

It's very simple really. There must be many gods you've never heard of. You lack belief in those. If you should hear of them, you can choose to believe in them, stay neutral or actively disbelieve in them.

If you say so. There is only one god, and I've heard of him.

I don't lack belief in anything, but there are some things I don't believe in.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't lack belief in anything, but there are some things I don't believe in.

So you are saying that you have heard about absolutely everything, some things you believe, some you don't, but there is nothing in this world you can lack a belief in because you have heard about absolutely everything in this world so there's nothing you can lack a belief in? You know everything in this world and either believe or don't believe in it? You have heard about every god everybody in the world believes in?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not really sure either. Pretty much every theist you talk to has a slightly different definition, and they're usually pretty fuzzy.
But the general description is something along the lines of an all-powerful being existing outside the bounds of natural realm.
Guess to a certain extent we just have to take it on a case by case basis.

Right. Which is why I don't usually call myself an atheist. Or a theist. Or any other word which attempts to label my entire worldview. To me, the whole philosophical/theological labeling business seems worse than useless. It seems detrimental to inclusive thinking. And it allows others to judge you with a glance at your nametag.

All I can say really is that I have never encountered a description of a deity that I believe to be true. If I ever run into one, I'll stop being an atheist.

I think God is a word, that's all.

Let me ask you: Do you believe in justice? Or are you a disbeliever in justice?

The way I generally define belief is a nearly absolute measure of certainty. When I consider something to be proven to me, beyond reasonable doubt, I believe it, otherwise I don't.
It's just semantics really, I just always find "belief" to be such a strong statement that I avoid using it about anything I'm not highly certain about.

What about 'knowing'? Isn't 'knowing' usually a higher state of certainty than 'believing'?

 

[Titanic]

Thanks. But I prefer to remain an atheistic prophet of God.

It keeps people on their toes.

So why did you ask your question then?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So why did you ask your question then?

Um... because I wanted to hear your answer. I'd still like to hear it if you'd care to give it a try.

Can you tell whether I am an atheist or whether a theist?

 

[Willamena]

So you are saying that you have heard about absolutely everything, some things you believe, some you don't, but there is nothing in this world you can lack a belief in because you have heard about absolutely everything in this world so there's nothing you can lack a belief in? You know everything in this world and either believe or don't believe in it? You have heard about every god everybody in the world believes in?

The problem with "lacking belief" as you are using the term is that it's really just "I don't know." Is there a tea cup orbiting Mars? I don't know. Not knowing and not believing are not the same thing.

And yes, I have heard about absolutely everything ...that I know about. The thing about things that I don't know about is... "I don't know."

I have heard about god, and I know god, and I know what it is I do and don't believe in.

 

[ArtieE]

The problem with "lacking belief" as you are using the term is that it's really just "I don't know."

No it isn't.

Is there a tea cup orbiting Mars? I don't know.

True. But you keep mixing terms. If somebody says to you "I believe there is a tea cup orbiting Mars," then you lack a belief in that.

Not knowing and not believing are not the same thing.

That is correct. Not knowing and not believing are not the same thing. A theist believes in gods, an atheist lacks belief in gods. A person might know something a second person doesn't know. Then the second person lacks knowledge about what the first person knows. Believes/lacks belief, knows/lacks knowledge. Don't mix them up. They are two different things.

And yes, I have heard about absolutely everything ...that I know about. The thing about things that I don't know about is... "I don't know."

True. And the things other people believe in but you have never heard about you lack a belief in, just like the things other people know but you've never heard about you lack knowledge of. You keep mixing belief and knowledge.

Simply put: Lacking belief is the default atheist state until such time as you start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, lacking knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable.

 

[Willamena]

No it isn't.True. But you keep mixing terms. If somebody says to you "I believe there is a tea cup orbiting Mars," then you lack a belief in that.

No, I just lack any knowledge of it. I don't lack the belief the other person has--it's their belief, not mine. For all I know, there is a tea cup orbiting Mars.

My beliefs are my belief set, their beliefs are theirs. Belief isn't objective.

That is correct. Not knowing and not believing are not the same thing. A theist believes in gods, an atheist lacks belief in gods.

The way I see it, the theist believes in god, and the atheist doesn't believe the theist. To claim a belief is lacking for the atheist is to say the belief is something he should have. Worse, it's to say he should have it because someone else does.

I don't lack for anyone else's beliefs, I have my own and they are the sum total of my worldview.

A person might know something a second person doesn't know. Then the second person lacks knowledge about what the first person knows. Believes/lacks belief, knows/lacks knowledge. Don't mix them up. They are two different things.True. And the things other people believe in but you have never heard about you lack a belief in, just like the things other people know but you've never heard about you lack knowledge of. You keep mixing belief and knowledge.

"Lack" works for knowledge, because knowledge is objective. It's cast apart from either of us, so that its truth is dependent on neither of us. Not so with beliefs, they are ours and belong only to each of us (they are unique-case). Neither of us are required to have the beliefs the other has, and neither are our beliefs dependent upon an objective truth, like knowledge is.

I'm not the one mixing them up.

Simply put: Lacking belief is the default atheist state until such time as you start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, lacking knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable.

Do you think a person who has an open mind about belief in god is a theist?

 

[ArtieE]

No, I just lack any knowledge of it. I don't lack the belief the other person has--it's their belief, not mine. For all I know, there is a tea cup orbiting Mars.

Mixing them up again. You don't seem to be able to keep them apart. If a person says he has observed through a telescope a tea cup orbiting Mars and it has been confirmed by others then earlier you lacked that knowledge but now you have it. If a person says he believes in a tea cup orbiting Mars without evidence you lack that belief. Keep belief and knowledge apart!

The way I see it, the theist believes in god, and the atheist doesn't believe the theist.

Of course not. The theist believes in god, and the atheist lacks that belief.

To claim a belief is lacking for the atheist is to say the belief is something he should have. Worse, it's to say he should have it because someone else does.

Semantics. We can simply say "the theist believes in gods, and the atheist has no belief in gods". The default state is the atheist state "no belief in gods" until such time as one is told about gods and then one can actively believe in gods, keep the default state of neither belief nor non-belief or actively disbelieve.

"Lack" works for knowledge, because knowledge is objective. It's cast apart from either of us, so that its truth is dependent on neither of us. It's objective. Not so with beliefs, they are ours and belong only to each of us (they are unique-case). Neither of us are required to have the beliefs the other has, and neither are our beliefs dependent upon an objective truth, like knowledge is.

Then we can rephrase

"Originally Posted by ArtieE
Simply put: Lacking belief is the default atheist state until such time as you start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, lacking knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable."

to

Simply put: Not having belief is the default atheist state until such time as you hear about and start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, keep the neutral atheist state not caring one way or the other, or actively start disbelieving in deities becoming a strong/hard atheist. Not having knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable.

"Do you think a person who has an open mind about belief in god is a theist?" No he is a neutral atheist in the default state. Every single person who hasn't heard of gods is a default atheist. He becomes a theist if he starts believing in gods, or a strong/hard atheist if he actively starts disbelieving in gods.

 

[Willamena]

Mixing them up again. You don't seem to be able to keep them apart.

I'm not substituting one for the other, not mixing them up. I'm saying "lack" works in context for knowledge, it doesn't work in context for belief. I don't lack for belief about a tea cup orbiting Mars, I really just lack for knowledge of it.

If a person says he has observed through a telescope a tea cup orbiting Mars and it has been confirmed by others then earlier you lacked that knowledge but now you have it. If a person says he believes in a tea cup orbiting Mars without evidence you lack that belief.

No. That's someone else's belief, not mine. I don't lack for their beliefs, I have my own.

Semantics. We can simply say "the theist believes in gods, and the atheist has no belief in gods".

Or we can simply say, "The theist believes in god, and the atheist doesn't."

The default state is the atheist state "no belief in gods" until such time as one is told about gods and then one can actively believe in gods, keep the default state of neither belief nor non-belief or actively disbelieve.

We could, but that defies what "belief" is about. A belief upholds that a statement or claim about the world is true. We believe in knowledge, and we believe in claims. The default state is having no claim of knowledge, which is the same as saying having nothing in which to believe.

Then we can rephrase

"Originally Posted by ArtieE
Simply put: Lacking belief is the default atheist state until such time as you start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, lacking knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable."

to

Simply put: Not having belief is the default atheist state until such time as you hear about and start to believe in a deity and becomes a theist, keep the neutral atheist state not caring one way or the other, or actively start disbelieving in deities becoming a strong/hard atheist. Not having knowledge is the default state until such time as you acquire knowledge and becomes knowledgeable.

The "neutral state" you talk about is really just having nothing to claim, having nothing to believe in. It's the same as having no knowledge about a thing. It's not the same as not believing in a thing. They are different.

Belief requires a subject, a claim--it requires something to believe in. Not believing does too--we can't even formulate a sentence to express not believing as the neutral state you talk about, because there's nothing to say what it is we're not believing in.

That's not atheism. If anything, it's a variety of nihilism.

"Do you think a person who has an open mind about belief in god is a theist?" No he is a neutral atheist in the default state. Every single person who hasn't heard of gods is a default atheist. He becomes a theist if he starts believing in gods, or a strong/hard atheist if he actively starts disbelieving in gods.

I asked, because having an open mind is the first step to believing in a thing. It's allowing for the possibility of it. I think a theist is something a whole lot more.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The way I see it, the theist believes in god, and the atheist doesn't believe the theist.

I agree. An atheist doesn't disbelieve in God or lack belief in God. Instead, an atheist lacks belief that a theist's godclaim is congruent with external reality.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. An atheist doesn't disbelieve in God or lack belief in God. Instead, an atheist lacks belief that a theist's godclaim is congruent with external reality.

Right. That's essentially disbelief.

 

[ArtieE]

Or we can simply say, "The theist believes in god, and the atheist doesn't."

No we can't. We can say "the theist believes in god, the atheist neither does nor does not believe in god, the hard/strong atheist does not believe in god." It isn't either or, it isn't belief or non-belief, it's belief, neutral, non-belief. Atheism is the pendulum hanging neutrally straight down, belief is the pendulum swinging one way, dis-belief is the pendulum swinging the other way.

The "neutral state" you talk about is really just having nothing to claim, having nothing to believe in. It's the same as having no knowledge about a thing. It's not the same as not believing in a thing. They are different.

My point exactly. So you have belief, atheism which is the neutral state, and hard/strong atheism which is non-belief. We are all born atheists with no belief and no knowledge of gods. We can choose to believe, stay neutral atheists like we were born, or choose to dis-believe.

 

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy
I agree. An atheist doesn't disbelieve in God or lack belief in God. Instead, an atheist lacks belief that a theist's godclaim is congruent with external reality.

Right. That's essentially disbelief.

Wrong. You start off as an atheist with no knowledge and no belief in gods. When introduced to them you can become a theist and believe in gods, stay a neutral atheist with no beliefs on the matter, or become a strong/hard atheist dis-believing in gods.

 

[steeltoes]

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy
I agree. An atheist doesn't disbelieve in God or lack belief in God. Instead, an atheist lacks belief that a theist's godclaim is congruent with external reality.

Wrong. You start off as an atheist with no knowledge and no belief in gods. When introduced to them you can become a theist and believe in gods, stay a neutral atheist with no beliefs on the matter, or become a strong/hard atheist dis-believing in gods.

Those that have formulated beliefs in gods pass on information that lacks knowledge. Their beliefs in gods are faith based and rather than containing knowledge the believer is actually delusional or misinformed. I have no knowledge of gods. I have had no experience whatsoever that would lead me to conclude that a god was involved in some way or another.

I lack a belief in gods and the supernatural because I have no experience whatsoever in those regards. In other words I have not formulated a belief in any god because I have nothing, as in no experience or evidence, to draw from in order to formulate a belief in a god.

 

[ArtieE]

I lack a belief in gods and the supernatural because I have no experience whatsoever in those regards. In other words I have not formulated a belief in any god because I have nothing, as in no experience or evidence, to draw from in order to formulate a belief in a god.

Have you formulated a dis-belief in any god?

 

[steeltoes]

Have you formulated a dis-belief in any god?

When it comes to gods and the supernatural I think one can only concern oneself with what is rather than what isn't because there is not enough time in the universe to disprove all the baseless claims that people come up with so I personally would simply suspend belief in such claims, unless of course I am watching a good movie or reading a book in which case I would suspend dis-belief for the sake of the story, but only until I am finished watching or reading said story.

 

[idav]

Right. That's essentially disbelief.

Perhaps if only true atheists answer on what atheism is we can finally agree. Is it the atheist giving this label or the theist who actually believes in said concept?

 

[idav]

The atheist label is only useful for the theist claiming nonbelief dis belief lack of or whatever the theist wants to call it. No other concept makes it logical to label the non belief of a nonexistant concept.