"Lack of belief"

[McBell]

So what would you (or any others who might be reading this) label someone who believes that gods do not exist?

Um...
Atheist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point of this particular argument is that "lack of belief" isn't a possible option. You cannot apply this setting to yourself anymore-- it is closed to you because you understand the concept and you've made a conscious decision about it. "Lack of belief" is an erroneous description of your position.

How I feel in this discussion:


A: A car has to be red to be a Ferrari.
Me: No, a car doesn't have to be any particular colour to be a Ferrari.
B: That's nonsense! Every car has a colour. How can you have a colourless car?
Me:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what would you (or any others who might be reading this) label someone who believes that gods do not exist?

Which gods?

In this society, I'd call most people who believe that gods don't exist "monotheists", since most of the people who don't believe gods exist believe in another god.

 

[Willamena]

Or perhaps it is effortless and not believing in them is what takes the effort.

You can't not believe everything you read - D. Gilbert

Indeed. Believing entails no reason, not believing not so much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point of this particular argument is that "lack of belief" isn't a possible option. You cannot apply this setting to yourself anymore-- it is closed to you because you understand the concept and you've made a conscious decision about it. "Lack of belief" is an erroneous description of your position.

Your labels up there drive home a problem with your categorization system, which I think is, at root, a widespread misunderstanding of beliefs.

Belief is not (always) the same thing as knowledge.

I can (and do) believe that gods do not exist without also claiming to know that gods do not exist.

What label covers this option?

Strong atheism is reserved for those who claim (to know) that gods don't exist. So it is not strong atheism.

It used to be weak (agnostic) atheism. But you have defined weak atheism as having neither the belief that gods exist nor the belief that gods do not exist. So it cannot be weak atheism either.

So what would you (or any others who might be reading this) label someone who believes that gods do not exist?

A more serious answer to your question: someone who believes that no gods exist but doesn't claim to know that no gods exist would be an explicit atheist. The term "atheist" also covers this situation (along with many others).

However, in real-world applications, no single label will perfectly capture a person's views, because the average self-described atheist will be a strong atheist with regard to some gods, an explicit weak atheist with regard to other gods, and an implicit weak atheist with regards to most gods.

Edit: but I fail to see what your issues with how we divide the category "atheists" into sub-categories has to do with whether the definition of the overall category works or not.

 

[Willamena]

Belief is not (always) the same thing as knowledge.

I can (and do) believe that gods do not exist without also claiming to know that gods do not exist.

What label covers this option?

That is the strong atheist, who says, "I don't believe gods exist."

Strong atheism is reserved for those who claim (to know) that gods don't exist. So it is not strong atheism.

That is incorrect. Atheism is about belief, not about knowing.

 

[ArtieE]

The point of this particular argument is that "lack of belief" isn't a possible option.

Of course it is.

You cannot apply this setting to yourself anymore-- it is closed to you because you understand the concept and you've made a conscious decision about it. "Lack of belief" is an erroneous description of your position.

If you don't believe gods exist and you don't believe gods don't exist you are left with an absence of both beliefs. Lack of belief.

I can (and do) believe that gods do not exist without also claiming to know that gods do not exist.

What label covers this option?

Strong atheist.

Strong atheism is reserved for those who claim (to know) that gods don't exist.

Nonsense. Those are gnostic atheists.

So what would you (or any others who might be reading this) label someone who believes that gods do not exist?

Strong atheist. You are terminally confused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Falvlun

Willamena's right:

That is the strong atheist, who says, "I don't believe gods exist."

The thing that makes strong atheism "strong" is the belief that the god or gods do not exist. It goes a step beyond explicit weak atheism ("I've considered your god-claims and found them unjustified") to accept the contrary claim ("not only are your god-claims unjustified, they're actually false").

 

[Willamena]

@Falvlun

Willamena's right:


The thing that makes strong atheism "strong" is the belief that the god or gods do not exist. It goes a step beyond explicit weak atheism ("I've considered your god-claims and found them unjustified") to accept the contrary claim ("not only are your god-claims unjustified, they're actually false").

But how are you distinguishing between "unjustified" and "false." In regards to other people's beliefs they are essentially synonymous.

 

[ArtieE]

That is the strong atheist, who says, "I don't believe gods exist."

That is a weak atheist. A strong atheist says "I believe gods don't exist". A weak atheist can also say "I don't believe gods don't exist either."

 

[Willamena]

That is a weak atheist. A strong atheist says "I believe gods don't exist". A weak atheist can also say "I don't believe gods don't exist either."

There is only a grammatical difference between "I believe gods don't exist," and, "I don't believe gods exist." The difference is not meaningful.

I don't believe there's an Eiffel Tower in London.

 

[McBell]

There is only a grammatical difference between "I believe gods don't exist," and, "I don't believe gods exist." The difference is not meaningful.

It is when you are in one of the groups but not the other....

 

[Willamena]

It is when you are in one of the groups but not the other....

I don't believe that the case, though.

 

[ArtieE]

There is only a grammatical difference between "I believe gods don't exist," and, "I don't believe gods exist." The difference is not meaningful.

I don't believe there's an Eiffel Tower in London.

A person says "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist either" and another says "I don't believe gods exist and I believe gods don't exist" and the difference between those people isn't meaningful? Do you understand that "I don't believe gods exist" isn't the same as saying "I believe gods don't exist"?

 

[Willamena]

However, in real-world applications, no single label will perfectly capture a person's views, because the average self-described atheist will be a strong atheist with regard to some gods, an explicit weak atheist with regard to other gods, and an implicit weak atheist with regards to most gods.

The generalized term, though, adequately captures the view of everyone who don't believe in any gods.

 

[Willamena]

Do you understand that "I don't believe gods exist" isn't the same as saying "I believe gods don't exist"?

As I said, I understand that it's basically the same. People say it both ways.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems like you're arguing against a point that nobody is making.

Defining atheism in term of lack of belief doesn't mean that atheists lack belief; it just means that rejection of belief isn't a necessary part of atheism.

"You don't need to reject any gods to be an atheist" does NOT mean "an atheist is someone who doesn't reject any gods."

Until you recognize the distinction, you'll just be talking past everyone.

I understand that rejection of belief is not necessary for someone to be considered an atheist using the "lack of belief" definition.

The argument is whether it is really accurate for you all to claim that you merely lack belief in the existence of gods.

A baby lacks belief in the existence of gods because it cannot comprehend the subject.

But all of you are different than that baby state. You have been presented with the belief that gods exist and you have rejected it. You do not merely lack belief in the existence of gods. You are no longer in that "default state".

The point isn't that rejection is necessary to be an atheist. The point is that you all have rejected the belief that gods exist. It is not the passive, non-position so many of you like to make it out to be.

 

[ArtieE]

As I said, I understand that it's basically the same. People say it both ways.

If I say "I don't believe gods exist" and go on to say "and I don't believe gods don't exist either" how can possibly "I don't believe gods exist" mean "I believe gods don't exist"? I can't help it if "people say it both ways".

 

[ArtieE]

The point isn't that rejection is necessary to be an atheist. The point is that you all have rejected the belief that gods exist. It is not the passive, non-position so many of you like to make it out to be.

We might also have rejected the belief that gods don't exist. Hence we have no beliefs regarding the subject.

 

[Willamena]

If I say "I don't believe gods exist" and go on to say "and I don't believe gods don't exist either" how can possibly "I don't believe gods exist" mean "I believe gods don't exist"? I can't help it if "people say it both ways".

I don't believe there is an Eiffel Tower in London, Artie.