"Lack of belief"

[atanu]

If an agnostic says "I don't know if gods exist or not" he says nothing about what he believes.

That is okay. "I do not know either way" is an honest and straightforward answer.

 

[ArtieE]

That is okay. "I do not know either way" is an honest and straightforward answer.

Agreed. So is "I do not believe either way".

 

[Erebus]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is an example of something where we just lack belief. We have no evidence that the IPU *doesn't* exist, just a lack of evidence that it does exist. It's a textbook example of something where we have no evidence either way.

It's perfectly valid to draw a parallel between the IPU and anything else that has no evidence either way, including a god. If you don't like your god being compared to the IPU, then give evidence for your god.

The whole point of parodies like the IPU and leprechauns is to illustrate how we handle lack of belief when we're talking about *anything*
other than gods.

I understand the purpose of these parodies, but there's another side to them that you haven't touched on here. They're ridiculous. They're purposefully ridiculous to provide an absurd parallel to gods. If you feel the two are equivalent then it seems clear to me that you consider gods absurd.

Now there's nothing wrong with considering gods absurd. Again though, claiming lack of belief rings hollow. I'm as certain as I possibly can be that there is no invisible pink unicorn (or unseen pink unicorn if you prefer) or flying spaghetti monster. Any sliver of uncertainty I have for those things, any justification for claiming "lack of belief" is so slim as to be insignificant. So why would I say that I lack belief in those things? Well, the most immediate reason I can see would be that it's a hell of a lot easier. It means I have no need to justify my position. Any time somebody challenged me, I could say "but I just lack belief" and end the debate.

That's why I view lack of belief as being more suited to evasion than honest expression when it's used by some atheists. That's why I take issue with it. I also stand by my original post where I said it seems to crop up most often from those who have the least justification for claiming it.

 

[ArtieE]

That's why I view lack of belief as being more suited to evasion than honest expression when it's used by some atheists. That's why I take issue with it. I also stand by my original post where I said it seems to crop up most often from those who have the least justification for claiming it.

The definition of atheism is absence of belief in the existence of gods. There are strong atheists who actively believe gods don't exist, and there are atheists who are anti-theists who think the belief in the existence of gods is harmful and may be very vocal about it. They all have a lack of belief in gods. They are all justified in claiming that this is the definition of atheism. We call them strong atheists and anti-theists with different definitions than just simple atheists.

 

[atanu]

Agreed. So is "I do not believe either way".

Yes. But "I lack a belief....", is ....no comments.

 

[Erebus]

The definition of atheism is absence of belief in the existence of gods. There are strong atheists who actively believe gods don't exist, and there are atheists who are anti-theists who think the belief in the existence of gods is harmful and may be very vocal about it. They all have a lack of belief in gods. They are all justified in claiming that this is the definition of atheism. We call them strong atheists and anti-theists with different definitions than just simple atheists.

Yes all atheists can claim lack of belief. However, in some cases claiming lack of belief seems to be more a technicality than an honest reflection of a stance. When somebody's stance is that theism is ridiculous or moronic, then that person claims that they simply lack belief, I call shenanigans. Even worse is when somebody actively states "gods do not exist" and then falls back on lack of belief. In those instances the claim strikes me more as an evasive maneuver than anything else.

For example, I will say now that believing in the invisible pink unicorn is moronic. Does saying "I lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn" truly encapsulate my stance on it? I would say not. It's technically accurate, I do lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn, but it doesn't properly convey my stance.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes. But "I lack a belief....", is ....no comments.

What's the difference between having no belief either way and lacking belief either way?

 

[atanu]

What's the difference between having no belief either way and lacking belief either way?

Please check. You had used "I do not believe....", which is perfectly okay.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes all atheists can claim lack of belief. However, in some cases claiming lack of belief seems to be more a technicality than an honest reflection of a stance. When somebody's stance is that theism is ridiculous or moronic, then that person claims that they simply lack belief, I call shenanigans.

If his stance is that theism is ridiculous or moronic he can't claim that he simply lacks belief since he's already made it perfectly clear that he goes far beyond that.

Even worse is when somebody actively states "gods do not exist" and then falls back on lack of belief. In those instances the claim strikes me more as an evasive maneuver than anything else.

Anybody who actively states "gods do not exist" must be prepared to defend that position since lack of belief doesn't automatically lead to the belief that "gods do not exist".

For example, I will say now that believing in the invisible pink unicorn is moronic. Does saying "I lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn" truly encapsulate my stance on it? I would say not. It's technically accurate, I do lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn, but it doesn't properly convey my stance.

To lack belief isn't a stance it's the absence of a stance so nothing needs to be defended, but if you say you believe something that is a stance that you might expect to have to defend.

 

[ArtieE]

Please check. You had used "I do not believe....", which is perfectly okay.

I don't follow.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand the purpose of these parodies, but there's another side to them that you haven't touched on here. They're ridiculous. They're purposefully ridiculous to provide an absurd parallel to gods. If you feel the two are equivalent then it seems clear to me that you consider gods absurd.

Now there's nothing wrong with considering gods absurd. Again though, claiming lack of belief rings hollow. I'm as certain as I possibly can be that there is no invisible pink unicorn (or unseen pink unicorn if you prefer) or flying spaghetti monster. Any sliver of uncertainty I have for those things, any justification for claiming "lack of belief" is so slim as to be insignificant. So why would I say that I lack belief in those things? Well, the most immediate reason I can see would be that it's a hell of a lot easier. It means I have no need to justify my position. Any time somebody challenged me, I could say "but I just lack belief" and end the debate.

That's why I view lack of belief as being more suited to evasion than honest expression when it's used by some atheists. That's why I take issue with it. I also stand by my original post where I said it seems to crop up most often from those who have the least justification for claiming it.

You are forgetting that there is inherently no need to justify an atheistic position, despite social and theological expectations to the contrary.

Belief in Gods may or may not be absurd, but the expectation that others should be conviced to share of such a belief certainly IS absurd.

 

[Erebus]

If his stance is that theism is ridiculous or moronic he can't claim that he simply lacks belief since he's already made it perfectly clear that he goes far beyond that.Anybody who actively states "gods do not exist" must be prepared to defend that position since lack of belief doesn't automatically lead to the belief that "gods do not exist".To lack belief isn't a stance it's the absence of a stance so nothing needs to be defended, but if you say you believe something that is a stance that you might expect to have to defend.

It looks like we're basically in agreement then

 

[allfoak]

To deny the existence of Santa doesn't mean that you assume that Santa exists.

Yes it does.
What are you denying then?
Denial is a form of recognition.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes all atheists can claim lack of belief. However, in some cases claiming lack of belief seems to be more a technicality than an honest reflection of a stance.

Such is often the case. And that is how it should be, IMO. People are fully entitled not to care about the matter of existence of deities enough to spend any reflection on it.

In other words, atheism needs no justification. Theism does, at least when it entitles itself to have expectations about other people's beliefs.

When somebody's stance is that theism is ridiculous or moronic, then that person claims that they simply lack belief, I call shenanigans.

Why?

Even worse is when somebody actively states "gods do not exist" and then falls back on lack of belief. In those instances the claim strikes me more as an evasive maneuver than anything else.

I guess I agree. But again, I fail to see why that would be in any sense wrong.

For example, I will say now that believing in the invisible pink unicorn is moronic. Does saying "I lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn" truly encapsulate my stance on it? I would say not. It's technically accurate, I do lack belief in the invisible pink unicorn, but it doesn't properly convey my stance.

That is much of the point of the concept. Comparing the IPU and the God of Abraham underscores the unreasonable expectations of many believers.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes it does.
What are you denying then?

I'm denying that Santa exists.

Denial is a form of recognition.

I recognize that according to folklore there's a person called Santa but I deny that this person actually physically exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand the purpose of these parodies, but there's another side to them that you haven't touched on here. They're ridiculous. They're purposefully ridiculous to provide an absurd parallel to gods. If you feel the two are equivalent then it seems clear to me that you consider gods absurd.

I'm going to call your attention to one of the "absurd" examples you gave earlier: leprechauns.

Leprechauns weren't invented to make fun of theists; they were devoutly believed in by real people who thought they had good reason to do so.

Do you have any justification for anything beyond "lack of belief" when it comes to leprechauns? Do you have some piece of evidence in your back pocket that would make the idea of leprechauns any more ridiculous than the idea of some god?

Now there's nothing wrong with considering gods absurd. Again though, claiming lack of belief rings hollow.

Again: a person can consider a particular belief absurd without considering the thing being believed in absurd. I can think that it's irrational to believe that pixies painted the sky blue while still believing that the sky is blue.

I'm as certain as I possibly can be that there is no invisible pink unicorn (or unseen pink unicorn if you prefer) or flying spaghetti monster. Any sliver of uncertainty I have for those things, any justification for claiming "lack of belief" is so slim as to be insignificant.

Why? What's your justification for this position?

Even if you think that they were made up, you should still recognize that people sometimes make serendipitously correct guesses without proper justification.

The rational course of action on, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to recognize that no evidence for the FSM exists and therefore to give it no regard. This still lets you believe that someone who really does believe in the FSM exists is being foolish (provided you're sure he doesn't have any evidence that you don't have) while still leaving the actual existence of the FSM as an open question.

So why would I say that I lack belief in those things? Well, the most immediate reason I can see would be that it's a hell of a lot easier. It means I have no need to justify my position. Any time somebody challenged me, I could say "but I just lack belief" and end the debate.

Okay... so you DO have justification for something more than "lack of belief" for the FSM. Great! Please make your case.

 

[allfoak]

I'm denying that Santa exists.I recognize that according to folklore there's a person called Santa but I deny that this person actually physically exists.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you do not know.
This way there is no denial and yet you can let the subject go because you have come to terms with it.
There is no assumption either way.
No acceptance or denial.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think it would be more accurate to say that you do not know.

How would it be more "accurate" for him to say he doesn't know there is a Santa, than for him to say he denies Santa's actual existence?

What is more "accurate" is whatever the best description of his attitude is. If he truly denies, and feels internally certain, that Santa is simply a myth and no such entity exists, that is more accurate in this case than saying he doesn't know.

 

[ArtieE]

I think it would be more accurate to say that you do not know.
This way there is no denial and yet you can let the subject go because you have come to terms with it.
There is no assumption either way.

An agnostic says "I don't know either way". An atheist says "I don't believe either way". None of them deny anything.

 

[Erebus]

You are forgetting that there is inherently no need to justify an atheistic position, despite social and theological expectations to the contrary.

Belief in Gods may or may not be absurd, but the expectation that others should be conviced to share of such a belief certainly IS absurd.

I somewhat disagree with your first point. Atheism by itself requires no justification. However, when somebody feels free to call theism ridiculous or moronic, I do expect them to defend that position. I also consider the opinion that gods are absurd to be a step beyond lack of belief. In other words, there are beliefs and opinions that an atheist might possess which I don't feel are covered by atheism requiring no justification. Citing lack of belief can, in my opinion, be used to try and put forth those opinions while claiming that they require no justification.

I agree with your second point.

Such is often the case. And that is how it should be, IMO. People are fully entitled not to care about the matter of existence of deities enough to spend any reflection on it.

I agree that people have that entitlement.

In other words, atheism needs no justification.

That depends, I think. I covered my opinion on that above.

Why?

I'm a little confused here, I thought the posts I've made already explained why?

I guess I agree. But again, I fail to see why that would be in any sense wrong.

That is much of the point of the concept. Comparing the IPU and the God of Abraham underscores the unreasonable expectations of many believers.

Fair enough. I'm not being funny with you, but I'm not sure I can explain why I disagree with the practice any more than I already have. This may be an area we just aren't going to see eye to eye on.