"Lack of belief"

[Kartari]

Hi atanu,

There was no misunderstanding. I repeat:
How about a statement "I have no belief regarding presence of gasoline in that tank"?

So then within the context of my analogy, your first statement would mean, "I have no belief regarding the presence of belief (in god(s))." Sure, that works. Claims to the contrary aside, we don't believe in the presence of belief in deities in the case of atheists, since we know rather than believe they lack belief in them.

Why cannot we say "There is no God" as simply as we say "There is no gasoline in tank"?

"There is no God" is a hard atheistic stance on God, whereas the lack of belief in G/god(s) is a weak atheistic position. The former is a strict rejection of the existence of deities, a claim of certainty that they do not exist. Whereas the latter is merely a lack of belief in them, a position which does not declare certainty of knowledge but merely disbelieves in their existence (often simply due to the lack of convincing evidence), a position which is amenable to change should valid evidence be provided to the contrary.

 

[atanu]

The expression ‘lack of belief' can only be meaningful if we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’belief’. In the cognition negation of ’belief', that is when we say 'I lack belief', ’belief' is the counter-positive of the negation of ’belief’.

Therefore 'Lack of belief' simply is a roundabout way of saying "I do no believe' or 'I disbelieve'. Why so much hue and cry?

When we say "I lack belief in God', I must know what it means to 'believe in God'. Else how can I define a lack?

So, in the sentence 'I lack a belief', the 'belief' is counter-positive of the negation of belief, that is 'belief' is opposite of 'disbelieve'.

(Indians are very complicated. More so the Buddhists. Ha ha.)

 

[Ouroboros]

I haven't joined the Apinkunicornist Association because there are so few Pinkunicornists that their opinions have no negative impact on me or my life. But if they become so many that they do, I will join.

And the fees are enormous. 5 lbs of pixie dust per year? Outrageous.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Augustus,

IMO, it is a complete failure to recognise context and human history, psychology, society, etc. and how these make atheism very different from 'apinkunicornism'.

Unless you want to abstract words from social context and treat them as mere grammatical formulae in some artificial normative vacuum, then it's pretty obvious why they are different.

To put it quite simply, for many atheists who indeed do very well recognize the roots and history of the various deity beliefs throughout the world, it truly is not so obvious why the two (IPU and god(s)) should be treated any differently. Unlike the IPU, a whole set of cultural and political systems have indeed supported notions of various deities, notions which have indeed become enmeshed with the psychological desires of over at least several millennia. Yet in spite of all this history right up to the present day, from the vantage point of many atheists in my experience, the notion of deities is, in fact, equally absurd as notions such as the invisible pink unicorn, fairies, and leprechauns. Theists' vantage points notwithstanding.

 

[Demonslayer]

The belief in pink unicorns is irrelevant to our world and worldview whereas the belief in gods is not. Pink unicorns don't figure in mythologies that give meaning to our existence. We don't exist in a world shaped by belief in pink unicorns.

I don't feel this is relevant in any way. Belief in Gods is completely irrelevant to my worldview nor do Gods give meaning to my existence.

This is basically saying belief in a God is more valid because many people believe in Gods. Children across the world believe in Santa, does that somehow make Santa more relevant than a Pink Unicorn, or more likely to be true/real?

What about the Gods of Mt. Olympus? At one time nearly everyone on Earth believed in those Gods. Did the widespread belief that existed in those days somehow make the Gods of Mt Olympus more likely to actually exist? Are they less likely to exist now because fewer people believe in them?

You're saying belief in Gods is more valid than belief in Pink Unicorns because more people believe in them. Incorrect, the number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with the validity of that thing.

 

[ArtieE]

When we say "I lack belief in God', I must know what it means to 'believe in God'. Else how can I define a lack?

So, in the sentence 'I lack a belief', the 'belief' is counter-positive of the negation of belief, that is 'belief' is opposite of 'disbelieve'.

1. I believe god(s) exist.
2. I believe god(s) don't exist.
3. I believe neither haven't decided what to believe. I lack a belief.

There is no need for a person to know about a certain god in order for the person not to have a belief in the existence of that particular god. There is no need for a person to know what a car is in order not to have one. I know what a car is and I can say that this person doesn't have one.

 

[Kartari]

Hi atanu,

The expression ‘lack of belief' can only be meaningful if we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’belief’. In the cognition negation of ’belief', that is when we say 'I lack belief', ’belief' is the counter-positive of the negation of ’belief’.

Therefore 'Lack of belief' simply is a roundabout way of saying "I do no believe' or 'I disbelieve'. Why so much hue and cry?

When we say "I lack belief in God', I must know what it means to 'believe in God'. Else how can I define a lack?

So, in the sentence 'I lack a belief', the 'belief' is counter-positive of the negation of belief, that is 'belief' is opposite of 'disbelieve'.

(Indians are very complicated. More so the Buddhists. Ha ha.)

I have a bit more than a basic knowledge of Hinduism, so I must agree as to its complexity. And Buddhism, though it strives for something simple, has certainly acquired a vast and complex array of scriptures and schools throughout Asia and beyond to achieve that end.

But back to your main point. I agree that atheists understand what it means to believe. We can believe in friends, in loved ones, and in a better future. Some atheists believe in supernatural facets that are not deities (e.g. an atheist Buddhist might still believe in rebirth). So I would say that belief in a god or gods is not a requirement to understanding belief more generally. As someone who believed for a very short time in my childhood in the Catholic beliefs I was taught, and who was a pantheist in my early 20's after having a special experience, I happen to understand very well what it means to believe in a deity or deities. But I've met atheists who have never believed in a single deity their entire lives, so it varies. I do not see a problem with calling a lack of belief disbelief, though it is with the understanding that disbelief is a lack of belief rather than some kind of anti-belief.

Numerically, we could say that theism is a positive integer (e.g. 1 for monotheists, 2+ for dualists/polytheists, perhaps the set of all positive integers for pantheists). By comparison, the atheist would be represented as the number 0. In this analogy, it would not be applicable to have negative integers. So with this analogy, it's not opposites we are talking about with respect to atheism vs theism, but rather the presence (i.e. positive integer) or absence (i.e. zero) of belief.

 

[Kartari]

Hey Penguin,

Do you understand that etymology doesn't dictate definition?

What's next: are you going to call any religion with a method "Methodist"? Disagreeable religious people "Protestants"?

And Catholics and Universalists were the same denomination all this time. Who knew?!

 

[Kartari]

Hi Artie,

LOL what a pathetic attempt at building a straw man to avoid having to admit what I say is logical.

Indeed, your argument is logical. However, Penguin is correct. Whoever said the English language was logical? We spell the word knight as knight, for heaven's sake.

Gnostic is in fact a term used to describe certain early Christian sects, while agnostic is defined as a claim that knowledge of deities' existence is both unknown and unknowable, not merely the lack of knowledge about deities' existence. Agnosticism is a positive claim about our limited capability to know about deities.

 

[atanu]

1. I believe god(s) exist.
2. I believe god(s) don't exist.

Fine. Very fine indeed.

3. ..... I lack a belief..

You lack a belief in God. I had explained that in order to lack a belief, you must know what it entails to believe and how that belief is presented. Else, your lack is indeterminate, undefined.

Now. I will request that you will excuse me, because I have never seen an atheist to ever concede that the other person has a point. I had been an atheist 5/6th of my life. Thank you for your time.

 

[ArtieE]

You lack a belief in God. I had explained that in order to lack a belief, you must know what it entails to believe and how that belief is presented.

No you don't in the same way that lacking or not having a car doesn't require you to know what a car is. It's enough that I know what a car is and I can say that you don't have a car or lack a car.

Now. I will request that you will excuse me, because I have never seen an atheist to ever concede that the other person has a point.

I have no problem conceding that the other person has a point if they have one.

I had been an atheist 5/6th of my life. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

 

[ArtieE]

Gnostic is in fact a term used to describe certain early Christian sects, while agnostic is defined as a claim that knowledge of deities' existence is both unknown and unknowable, not merely the lack of knowledge about deities' existence. Agnosticism is a positive claim about our limited capability to know about deities.

Maybe this will help.

 

[Willamena]

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

In the argumentative sense it does: you deny a proposed Santa. You can't deny a non-existent.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't belive in Thor, yet I know he exists and I don't pray to him. I lack in belief in Thor and still believe he exists. Would athorist or thorist be the appropriate label?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't belive in Thor, yet I know he exists and I don't pray to him. I lack in belief in Thor and still believe he exists. Would athorist or thorist be the appropriate label?

I refer to the comment by PackJason in post number 135.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the argumentative sense it does: you deny a proposed Santa. You can't deny a non-existent.

True.

A source of endless confusion and waste of arguments is that "God" is often, even usually, not a proposed concept as such.

Despite attempts at superficial presentation, more often than not the intent is not to propose a conception of deity for rational consideration as much as it is to seek reassurance that people feel somehow uncertain, incomplete or troubled without some form of that belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

How about you re-type it so that it makes sense.

It does make sense. It's just not the same "Thors".

And the athorist knows which one he lacks belief in and which one he knows exists.

 

[atanu]

The expression ‘lack of belief' can only be meaningful if we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’belief’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’belief’. In the cognition negation of ’belief', that is when we say 'I lack belief', ’belief' is the counter-positive of the negation of ’belief’.

Therefore 'Lack of belief' simply is a roundabout way of saying "I do no believe' or 'I disbelieve'. Why so much hue and cry?

When we say "I lack belief in God', I must know what it means to 'believe in God'. Else how can I define a lack?

So, in the sentence 'I lack a belief', the 'belief' is counter-positive of the negation of belief, that is 'belief' is opposite of 'disbelieve'.

You lack a belief in God. I had explained that in order to lack a belief, you must know what it entails to believe and how that belief is presented. Else, your lack is indeterminate, undefined.

This is nonsense.

That is how you come across people?
...........

Suppose, you say "I lack belief in myself", do we presume that you know yourself? Or suppose, you say "I lack belief in love", can we presume that you know what love is?

No?

 

[PackJason]

Suppose, you say "I lack belief in myself", do we presume that you know yourself? Or suppose, you say "I lack belief in love", can we presume that you know what love is?

Do you lack belief in the invisible fire-breathing dragon that I keep in my garage?

 

[ArtieE]

Suppose, you say "I lack belief in myself", do we presume that you know yourself?

If a person says "I lack belief in myself" we presume that the person lacks belief in himself. If the person says "I know myself" we presume that the person knows himself.

Or suppose, you say "I lack belief in love", can we presume that you know what love is?

If a person says "I lack belief in love" we can presume that the person knows what love is.