"Lack of belief"

[ArtieE]

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

So? Where is the rest of the sentence? How would I know if you believe there's an Eiffel Tower anywhere based on that sentence?

 

[Willamena]

How would I know if you believe there's an Eiffel Tower anywhere based on that sentence?

The Eiffel Tower is in Paris. I "don't believe" false statements.

 

[Falvlun]

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:

It's more like choosing to not buy red cars (rejected belief) but then claiming that you merely happen to not have a red car (lack of belief).

Sure, it is true that you happen to not have a red car. But it is not accurate to imply that this had nothing to do with your own actions. You do not have a red car because you chose not to have a red car.

 

[Willamena]

We might also have rejected the belief that gods don't exist.

If we knew that gods did exist, then we would indeed reject that they don't exist. We reject false statements.

 

[Falvlun]

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

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

I was equating strong atheism with gnostic atheism, and weak atheism with agnostic atheism. I don't think I'm the only person to have done so in this thread, though I can understand that they can be separate terms.

 

[ArtieE]

I was equating strong atheism with gnostic atheism and weak atheism with agnostic atheism. I don't think I'm the only person to have done so in this thread, though I can understand that they can be separate terms.

They are separate terms.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure, it is true that you happen to not have a red car. But it is not accurate to imply that this had nothing to do with your own actions. You do not have a red car because you chose not to have a red car.

I don't have a red car because nobody has convinced me that a red car is any better than a car with some other color. I haven't chosen a red car.

 

[Willamena]

I was equating strong atheism with gnostic atheism, and weak atheism with agnostic atheism. I don't think I'm the only person to have done so in this thread, though I can understand that they can be separate terms.

They are not equatable.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Can you clarify implicit vs explicit atheist for me?

I also don't think I have shades of atheism in regards to particular gods. I believe the same thing about all gods: they don't exist.

 

[Augustus]

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

1 + 1 = 0?

 

[ArtieE]

1 + 1 = 0?

Meaning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you clarify implicit vs explicit atheist for me?

"Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

I also don't think I have shades of atheism in regards to particular gods. I believe the same thing about all gods: they don't exist.

How did you manage to form an opinion about all the gods you've never even heard of?

Personally, I don't have that opinion even about the gods I've heard of. When it comes to the gods I actually reject, in some cases I think "that doesn't exist", but for others, I think "that exists, but it isn't a god." I don't have a default response. Why do you?

Edit: I mean, there are people who worship the Sun, the Universe, and Haile Selassie as gods. I believe all of these things exist (or existed, in the case of Haile Selassie, RIP). Do you really say "they don't exist" to the Sun, the Universe, and Haile Selassie?

 

[Augustus]

Meaning?

You said 1 belief + 1 belief = 0 beliefs

Rejecting a belief is actually adopting a different belief regarding the original proposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said 1 belief + 1 belief = 0 beliefs

Rejecting a belief is actually adopting a different belief regarding the original proposition.

No, it isn't. "You haven't made your case for X" is not a position on the truth or falsehood of X.

 

[Falvlun]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

So do you guys (lack of beliefers) consider yourselves implicit or explicit atheists?

How did you manage to form an opinion about all the gods you've never even heard of?

The same way I know I like dogs even though I haven't met every single one.

And its not like beliefs are immutable. If I ever come upon evidence for a god I accept as existing, I can *gasp* change my belief.

Edit: I mean, there are people who worship the Sun, the Universe, and Haile Selassie as gods. I believe all of these things exist (or existed, in the case of Haile Selassie, RIP). Do you really say "they don't exist" to the Sun, the Universe, and Haile Selassie?

I don't believe they are gods. Just because someone says a banana is a god doesn't mean that it is.

 

[Falvlun]

They are not equatable.

Hrmmm.

I don't like it but I think I'll accept it. It does seem to me, though, that if you are speaking of a strong atheist, the immediate argument is "well how do you know that gods don't exist". I guess that's why I've assumed that strong = gnostic.

 

[Falvlun]

No, it isn't. "You haven't made your case for X" is not a position on the truth or falsehood of X.

But it is a position. It is a belief. It's the belief that the case for X has not been made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do you guys (lack of beliefers) consider yourselves implicit or explicit atheists?

I'll let the others speak for myself, but I'm an explicit atheist with regards to the gods I'm familiar with and an implicit atheist with regards to all the others.

... while recognizing that I don't believe in anything I consider a god, which is what makes me an atheist.

The same way I know I like dogs even though I haven't met every single one.

That isn't really a good analogy. We don't expect someone who likes dogs in general to like every single dog.

And if you did claime to like every single dog, I'd want to know how you managed to come to that conclusion without having met every single dog.

And its not like beliefs are immutable. If I ever come upon evidence for a god I accept as existing, I can *gasp* change my belief.

That's a different matter altogether. Even if you can change your mind, in the here-and-now, you've still taken a position that goes way beyond what anyone could reasonably justify.

I don't believe they are gods. Just because someone says a banana is a god doesn't mean that it is.

You can only say that a banana isn't a god if you know what "banana" and "god" mean. I'll give you "banana", but what do you think "god" means?

 

[ArtieE]

You said 1 belief + 1 belief = 0 beliefs

Rejecting a belief is actually adopting a different belief regarding the original proposition.

Rejecting the belief that gods exist doesn't mean accepting the belief that gods don't exist. I can just reject that belief too. I can say I believe neither.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it is a position. It is a belief. It's the belief that the case for X has not been made.

But do you think that this implies that X is false?

I can recognize a bad argument for what it is even if it's arguing for a conclusion I accept.