"Lack of belief"

[bobhikes]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

I don't understand why either side cares. No logical decision is going to be made from the fact that you have no knowledge of. Science is based on the fact that decisions should be made on empirical knowledge. I would just ignore anyone that claims either side.

 

[PackJason]

I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief.

It doesn't matter if you like it or not. That's what atheism is - A lack of a belief in a god or gods.

It is no more an active belief than not believing in leprechauns.

 

[Kartari]

Hi 1137,

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

You are free to word it any way you like. However, if you are interested in having a logically sound debate about the existence of deities (or anything else for that matter), then the technical distinction becomes very relevant. Because now it becomes crucial to consider whether the theist or the atheist bears the burden of proof. In fact, it is the theist who bears it since the theist is the positive claimant.

This is the same logic behind how a court of law works. The prosecution bears the burden of proof because, like the theist, they are the one making the positive claim (e.g. "The defendant did such and such," or "Gods do exist."). The defense is assumed innocent until proven guilty, however. The defense, like the atheist, is the negative claimant (e.g. "I didn't do it" or "I don't believe it."). You don't assume the defendant is guilty and consequently bears the burden of proof of their innocence simply because the prosecution rewords their claim to superficially seem to be the negative claimant (e.g. "I do not believe the defendant did not do such and such," or as you put it, "I lack a belief in a godless universe."), right? Two negatives still amount to a positive claim.

As to your latter part, I agree that atheism is a judgment call and a stance on an issue. However, it is still not a belief about deities, but rather is the lack of belief or disbelief in them. It does not require belief to not believe in something like a deity for the same reason it does not require gasoline to not fuel your car. No matter how you mince words, an empty gas tank simply does not contain gas. Even if you want to rephrase the fact of your gas tank being empty, saying that your empty gas tank affirmatively contains the absence of gasoline is still a negative claim. Either way, you cannot logically conclude that a gas tank with no gas in it contains gas. Or as another example, you do not require belief to disbelieve in the existence of purple unicorns when a friend claims they do exist. It takes belief to affirmatively believe in purple unicorns, and the lack of belief in them to disbelieve in purple unicorns. The same holds true for deities.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

Agreed.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

You can describe your theism in those ways, it's clear and concise. Rest assured that, despite what some people describe, the atheist doesn't fail to "lack belief" within the context of a judgement.

 

[PackJason]

the atheist doesn't fail to "lack belief"

Um, agreed?

 

[Pudding]

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort?

Who say you can't?

I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.


I think it's a problem that athesim have quite a few different definitions.
It's even more trouble if some theist wish to insists atheist believe no gods exists. Simply say that "atheist believe no gods exists" can be intrepret as all atheists believe no gods exists, it simply is not true as not all atheist believe no gods exists, because there are atheist who don't believe any gods exists but also don't say they believe no gods exists (weak atheist).
If the theist say that there're atheist who believe no gods exists, that is better wording and less ambiguous.

We can also used the more simple term like "strong/weak atheism" instead of using the term atheism which have different definitions in broad, narrower, inclusively sense.

The debate of "lack of belief" can have various reasons:
- trolling
- language barrier
- misguided or misunderstanding or miscommunication
- Shifting the theist's burden of proof of their claims "god exists" and demand the weak atheist who don't say they believe no god exists, to prove there is no god. Making strawman.


I don't believe any gods exists, doesn't necessarily means i believe no gods exists.
My disbeliefs in gods' existence can be because of i have not met any convincing evidence/experience which indicate any gods exists.
While if i believe no gods exists, it can be because of i have met convincing evidence/experience which indicate there is no gods.

So there is 2 combination for it:
(1) I don't believe any gods exists, i also believe no gods exists. (strong atheist)
(2) I don't believe any gods exists, i also don't say i believe no gods exists. (weak atheist)

As we see, (1) and (2) both don't believe any gods exists.
Don't believe any gods exists can also in other words say as - lacks belief that any gods exists - lacks belief in the existence of gods.

So it is correct to say that generally atheist lacks belief in the existence of gods, aka they don't believe any gods exists.

You say you've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief.
You also doesn't mention the atheist who don't believe any gods exists but also don't say they believe no gods exists (weak atheist), i wonder why?

As i've explain above, atheist, both strong and weak atheist, both lacks belief in the existence of gods, aka they don't believe any gods exists.

So why do you dislike the claim that an atheist lacks a belief (in the existence of gods)?

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence.

Correct. On one side you have theists and on the other side you have strong atheists believing the opposite of what the theists believe. And in the middle you have (weak) atheists who believe neither. And since the prefix a- literally means "not, without" you have theists and not theists, where some of the latter actively believe gods don't exist. That is perfectly logical.

 

[Willamena]

I don't understand why either side cares. No logical decision is going to be made from the fact that you have no knowledge of. Science is based on the fact that decisions should be made on empirical knowledge. I would just ignore anyone that claims either side.

It matters, because it is a claim of belief. It matters, because to present a claim of belief as a claim of knowledge simply because it's worded strongly, or present it as indecision because it's implied in what is said rather than explicit, is a bizzare type of illogic.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

Atheism's been used to mean many things over the years, Often just a generalised pejorative aimed at those with foreign or heretical beliefs, like "infidel." Christians used to call the Moors and Saracens atheists.

Nowadays atheists are coming out of the closet more and more, kind of like those with alternative sexual orientations have been doing, Like the LGBTQ community, atheists have been sorting themselves into different camps. Some are militant, anti religious types, who go on talk shows and write books. Some just think religion a childish fantasy. Some mock the religious. More have just quietly abandoned the religion they were raised with and make no show of it.
So what do all these have in common? What feature is definitive?

My take -- and the take of most the new atheists exiting the closet -- is the simplest reduction. We define the word in its literal sense, as not-theist or without-theism. In this sense it includes all variations -- as any good definition should.
Thus, "Atheist" means those who oppose God, those who reject God, those who've abandoned God, those indifferent to god and those who never acquired any concept of God. If one needs to distinguish a particular flavour of atheism, well, that's why God made adjectives.

 

[bobhikes]

It matters, because it is a claim of belief. It matters, because to present a claim of belief as a claim of knowledge simply because it's worded strongly, or present it as indecision because it's implied in what is said rather than explicit, is a bizzare type of illogic.

It is not a claim of knowledge. It is a claim of lack of knowledge. If anyone comes to me and says I have the lack of knowledge of __________ but you need to believe what I say about _________, I will ignore them politely.

 

[Willamena]

It is not a claim of knowledge. It is a claim of lack of knowledge. If anyone comes to me and says I have the lack of knowledge of __________ but you need to believe what I say about _________, I will ignore them politely.

Sigh. To refer to a "claim of knowledge" is to refer to a claim about knowledge. A claim that one is lacking knowledge is a "claim of knowledge."

I can't refer to something that doesn't exist (a "lack"), I can only refer to existents. I refer to your knowledge. If it lacks, fine, but I don't refer to the lack, I refer to the existent. The world is positive; lack's don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand why either side cares.

As an atheist myself, I care when someone claims a definition for "atheism" that implies that an atheist must be a fool or hypocrite by definition.

 

[Valjean]

Sigh. To refer to a "claim of knowledge" is to refer to a claim about knowledge. A claim that one is lacking knowledge is a "claim of knowledge."

I can't refer to something that doesn't exist (a "lack"), I can only refer to existents. I refer to your knowledge. If it lacks, fine, but I don't refer to the lack, I refer to the existent. The world is positive; lack's don't exist.

The lack of knowledge exists with or without a claim. It's how we all start out; blank slates, empty boxes, null sets.
Lack of knowledge is our epistemic default position.
Whether a box has been emptied or never filled, "empty" still applies.

 

[bobhikes]

Sigh. To refer to a "claim of knowledge" is to refer to a claim about knowledge. A claim that one is lacking knowledge is a "claim of knowledge."

I can't refer to something that doesn't exist (a "lack"), I can only refer to existents. I refer to your knowledge. If it lacks, fine, but I don't refer to the lack, I refer to the existent. The world is positive; lack's don't exist.

How do you know what knowledge I posses. It is a common occurrence when I debate with a person with lack of knowledge that they want to stick to one form of God preferably the christian bible. I believe a person has to take all Holy books as one openly to understand God. Otherwise you do have a lack of knowledge both of God and my knowledge of god. Again why shouldn't you be ignored.

 

[bobhikes]

As an atheist myself, I care when someone claims a definition for "atheism" that implies that an atheist must be a fool or hypocrite by definition.

Sorry about your sensitivity issue. As long as you are not violent because of it. I will stop using it with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry about your sensitivity issue. As long as you are not violent because of it. I will stop using it with you.

An even better approach: actually talk to atheists and debate what they actually believe instead of trying to tar them with the same brush based on misunderstandings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've found that the people who are the most likely to use the lack of belief claim are often the ones it's the least applicable to. By and large, the atheists who I would consider as simply not having a belief don't make a big deal about it. It's the ones who say theism is ridiculous, compare gods to invisible pink unicorns or sometimes outright state "there are no gods" who are the first to throw up the "I just lack belief" defense. Now that irritates me. In those situations it becomes little more than an evasive maneuver.

You need to recognize that there are two different questions being discussed:

- is belief in a god or gods justified?
- does a god or gods exist?

A person can have very strong feelings about the first question while keeping an open mind about the second.

Setting aside your guy saying "there are no gods" aside (since he really is speaking to the second question), most claims and arguments about the reasonableness of theism actually focus on the first question.

I can recognize that your argument is irrational without necessarily rejecting the conclusion you're arguing, because true conclusions can be argued for using irrational arguments.

I can reject "the sky is blue because pixies paint it with magical blue paint" without rejecting "the sky is blue." Same goes for theistic arguments: rejecting the argument doesn't necessarily mean rejecting the god.

In the extreme case, a person could think that every theist on the planet is an idiot for believing in their gods but still think that the existence of gods is an open question - he would just think that if a god or gods exist, it would be for reasons other than the arguments that he's rejected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My general worldview, and atheism is one of its aspects/conclusions, isn't lacking anything. I don't see not believing in god as deficient in any way.

You're welcome to say that you're free from belief in gods if you want a more positive euphemism for the same idea.

 

[Willamena]

How do you know what knowledge I posses.

I don't.

It is a common occurrence when I debate with a person with lack of knowledge that they want to stick to one form of God preferably the christian bible. I believe a person has to take all Holy books as one openly to understand God. Otherwise you do have a lack of knowledge both of God and my knowledge of god. Again why shouldn't you be ignored.

Since I live in a positive world, it's impossible for me to debate people with a lack of knowledge, so I wouldn't know.


Edit: We posses knowledge, we don't posses lacks. "Lack" is a modifier, it points to knowledge and adds information to it. I don't posses a lack, and neither do you.