I believe there are no Gods

[Vultar]

I'll throw this into the mix....
There are no gods, but there are spirits
and some of these spirits pretend to be gods...
This is what causes all the confusion....

 

[1137]

I'll throw this into the mix....
There are no gods, but there are spirits
and some of these spirits pretend to be gods...
This is what causes all the confusion....

Ok I'm intrigued. What exactly are these spirits? Why are they around? What is their nature? Etc.

 

[Orias]

Irrelevant for the point I was making. Do you understand what I was getting at with my analogy?

Yea I get it, you don't know God so you don't believe in it.

But how is that not a belief?

On another note, your notion is flawed in that one of us knows that answer. So if you take your red shirt and replace it with God, how will you be able to determine the truth? Does your unknowing of it grant you a lack of belief in it? Whatever that belief is that may be lacking?

I believe red shirts exist?

I believe they are both fabrications of the mind. :areyoucra

The difference between "lacking belief in God" and "believing that there is no God" is that if you believe there is not god, then you have come to a decision on whether you believe in god or not.
If you simply lack belief it is possible that you just haven't decided what you believe.

But if thats the case then there should be no reason or motive to take on a decisive label.

 

[Willamena]

Do you believe that I'm wearing a red shirt?

Probably not, since you can't see me and (AFAIK) you don't know what I like to wear. You lack the belief that I'm wearing a red shirt.

Do you believe that I'm NOT wearing a red shirt? Again, you have no idea what I'm wearing, so no, you don't believe that I'm not wearing a red shirt.

That's the difference.

The difference is that if you were wearing a red shirt, you'd be the first to die (on the away mission).

 

[Warren Clark]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

Im a pantheist. Because I lack the belief of a God I call myself an Atheist.
I just see that the universe is in the worst of terms God (by terms of definition).
So I am although I believe in Pantheism, I am technically an Atheist for lacking belief. So is an infant...

 

[Riverwolf]

Yea I get it, you don't know God so you don't believe in it.

But how is that not a belief?

Belief is a positive state, while lack of belief is a negative state.

How can you have a belief regarding God one way or the other if you don't even know what God is?

 

[Warren Clark]

I don't believe in any Gods. - Atheist
I do not believe there is not a God. - Theist
I believe there is no God. - Anti-Theist


Three completely different statements.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't believe in any Gods. - Atheist
I do not believe there is not a God. - Theist
I believe there is no God. - Anti-Theist


Three completely different statements.

No, anti-theism is being against theism.

Your definition of theism is also a double negative, so is technically incorrect grammatically.

 

[Orias]

Belief is a positive state, while lack of belief is a negative state.

What does this imply?

How can you have a belief regarding God one way or the other if you don't even know what God is?

Knowing what God is, is not completely relevant because you don't need to know what something is to justify its existence.

 

[Warren Clark]

No, anti-theism is being against theism.

Your definition of theism is also a double negative, so is technically incorrect grammatically.

I know, you never hear anyone say "I do not believe there is not a god." You hear, "I l believe there is a God".

But there is a difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I do not believe there are god(s)".

I believe in the "sexed up atheism", pantheism. Where there isn't necessarily God, just the universe. So I at least am by default an atheist.

 

[Riverwolf]

What does this imply?

That they're two different states of being. A positive state cannot simultaneously be a negative state.

Knowing what God is, is not completely relevant because you don't need to know what something is to justify its existence.

But you have to at least have some conceptualization; otherwise the word God would be synonymous with boganafoganasee.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know, you never hear anyone say "I do not believe there is not a god." You hear, "I l believe there is a God".

Because the former is grammatically incorrect in the English language.

But there is a difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I do not believe there are god(s)".

Because they're both grammatically correct.

I believe in the "sexed up atheism", pantheism. Where there isn't necessarily God, just the universe. So I at least am by default an atheist.

Well, not all flavors of pantheism are atheistic. After all, pan(all)-theism(belief in God/Gods) is perfectly capable of having that All being a self-sustaining, conscious being.

 

[Orias]

That they're two different states of being. A positive state cannot simultaneously be a negative state.

But how is belief positive while lack of belief is negative.

When one lacks a belief, they may not necessarily believe what you believe about the same thing, but they may actually have belief(s) about whatever is being targeted.

But you have to at least have some conceptualization; otherwise the word God would be synonymous with boganafoganasee.

Everyone is able to conceive of a God though, or have a conceptualization about it. How is the lack of belief, in this regard then, truly absent of any belief regarding "God"?

 

[Warren Clark]

Because the former is grammatically incorrect in the English language.



Because they're both grammatically correct.



Well, not all flavors of pantheism are atheistic. After all, pan(all)-theism(belief in God/Gods) is perfectly capable of having that All being a self-sustaining, conscious being.

Most of my Pantheist friends don't believe this "God" to be conscious.
The idea is that the universe is chaotic and at its mercy of survival.
But I recognize that not all Pantheists share the same view.
I love the broad community it brings together though.
Lots of new ideas and possibilties that we bring eachother.

There are some atheists that lack a belief in a God...
others are firm stubborn believers that there is no God whatsoever.
Anti-theism - against the belief of a God...

 

[Riverwolf]

But how is belief positive while lack of belief is negative.

"Lack of" indicates a negative. That's how the English language works.

When one lacks a belief, they may not necessarily believe what you believe about the same thing, but they may actually have belief(s) about whatever is being targeted.

Irrelevant.

Everyone is able to conceive of a God though, or have a conceptualization about it. How is the lack of belief, in this regard then, truly absent of any belief regarding "God"?

I'm speaking hypothetically. While we can be taught God-concepts, it's possible for people to live completely unaware of such concepts. They would, by definition, lack belief in God. Yet, because they lack such conceptualization, they would not actively disbelieve in God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Most of my Pantheist friends don't believe this "God" to be conscious.

So?

The idea is that the universe is chaotic and at its mercy of survival.
But I recognize that not all Pantheists share the same view.
I love the broad community it brings together though.
Lots of new ideas and possibilties that we bring eachother.

There are some atheists that lack a belief in a God...
others are firm stubborn believers that there is no God whatsoever.
Anti-theism - against the belief of a God...

Yup. Anti-theists are against all forms of theism for various reasons.

 

[Warren Clark]

So?



Yup. Anti-theists are against all forms of theism for various reasons.

So... the whole point is were atheist since we dont believe there is a conscious "God".
So we are default atheists, but its by the default that we lack belief. It isn't by us claiming there isn't one whatsoever.

Its all based on the claim being made.
My claim is that our concept of God is simply our feelings toward the chaotic universe at work.
That makes me a pantheist. It also means Im an atheist....
However I would be anti-theist if I said i believe you as a theist are dead wrong, God doesn't exist...

 

[Orias]

"Lack of" indicates a negative. That's how the English language works.

Indicates a negative what?

Irrelevant.

Not at all, name one person that is not aware of any "God" concepts or concepts about God.

I'm speaking hypothetically. While we can be taught God-concepts, it's possible for people to live completely unaware of such concepts. They would, by definition, lack belief in God. Yet, because they lack such conceptualization, they would not actively disbelieve in God.

But that doesn't explain the reasoning of people who are aware of concepts about God but do not believe in them. Just because one is unaware of a certain conceptualization about God does not indicate that they are unaware of the concept of God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because the religious try and claim that asserting that there are no gods requires equal justification to asserting that there is one.

Whatever the reason, that isn't the question the OP is concerned with. That is, it's one thing to say that asserting X exists requires "equal justification" that X doesn't exist, and/or vice versa. But it is something else to say that one's belief that X exists (or is true) is equivalent to one's belief that X does not exist (or is not true).

More often than not, mental predicates (e.g. "think", "believe", "suppose", etc.) epistemic or not, are equivalent to the negation of some opposite or alternative. "I believe Obama should win the election" entails "I believe that if someone is not Obama, they should not win the election." Likewise, "I don't believe humans are responsible for global warming" entails "I believe that something other than humans is causing the warming" (and "I don't believe in global warming" entails "I believe that the earth is not warming").

That said, it seems reasonable to posit that not all such statements have an inverse which behaves the way the ones above do. If this were true, every epistemic mental state predicate would entail some equivalent negation of another one. Which means that "I believe the grrynals are urpine" has some inverse/opposite epistemic claim. More importantly, even granting that every belief can be reformulated as an alternative negated claim, why does that make every such pair equivalent? Surely the pair "I believe the world is round" and "I do not believe the earth is not round" is quite different from "I believe Harry Potter is a fictional character" and "I do not believe Harry Potter is a real person".

 

[lunakilo]

Indicates a negative what?

I would say, either negative of belief or negative of deity.
As far as I can see both would work for a definition of what atheism means.

If you want to negate the sentence "belief in deity" , you can either negate 'belief' or 'deity'.
So it becomes either:
1) "(no) belief in deity", or
2) "belief in (no) deity".

The difference between "lacking belief in God" and "believing that there is no God" is that if you believe there is not god, then you have come to a decision on whether you believe in god or not.
If you simply lack belief it is possible that you just haven't decided what you believe.

But if thats the case then there should be no reason or motive to take on a decisive label.

Some people like to label things and put them in little boxes. The indecisive person might not feel his indecisiveness requires a label, but some people actually log on to religious foruns and discuss things like this, and some of them like to put labels on things

And they have to decide if they are going to label the indecisive person an atheist ot not.

By definition 1) above he is an atheist.
By definition 2) above he is NOT an atheist.

[EDIT]
Another way to look at this just came to my mind.

Should the label atheist cover ALL the people who are not theists?

If yes, then that would indicate that definition 1) is the correct one, because the indecisive person is not a theist so he must be an atheist.

If no, then you have more than two groups of people . Definition 2) would work fine, but some people will just not fall in either the theist-group or the atheist-group.

I personally use definition 1). It is the most mathematically pleasing one, but one can argue for definition 2) as well.
I both lack the belief in deities and believe there are no deities, so I would end up an atheist either way