Lack of Belief

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps those humans who fail to understand nature, feel the need to believe in a God to explain it for them. Listen to a tree and you will "know" how life began. Listen to a rock and you will "know" how matter was formed. Nature holds the answers. Not everyone knows how to listen. Science just methodically finds the answers that nature already holds.

 

[Willamena]

The proposal of the concept. To propose that x exists, and to proposal that x does not exist, are mutually exclusive proposals. Likewise, to propose that we can't/don't know one way or another, is mutually exclusive from proposing that we can and do. The labels refer to people who affirm one of these given proposals.

Which is the atheist and which the agnostic? One type of atheist proposes no information (i.e. no knowlege) on which to found a belief. One type of agnostic proposes to know the way in which "God" both exists and does not exist (superficially making him both the theist and the atheist).

What does it mean that x exists, but that we don't know it; or that we know x to exist; or that what we know of x's existence is not its "true" existence? None of it seems very black-and-white to me.

 

[PureX]

Then if there are no facts yet presented that have lead one to a specific conclusion about "God", isn't it reasonable to say that one is not convinced by any objective evidence (i.e. I do not believe)?

I guess I'm at a loss to understand your disagreement, also.

My argument is that "I don't know" = I don't know. It doesn't equal, "I do not believe ..." and it doesn't equal, "I therefor can't accept ... " and it doesn't equal, "up is the same as sideways" or "agnosticism is the same as atheism". "I don't know" means I don't know.

What I choose to believe in spite of my ignorance is a different kettle of fish, because it comes AFTER "I don't know". And it is in reaction to our ignorance.

I'm not arguing with anyone's choices. Only a bit with how they are being arrived at, and defended.

 

[PureX]

Which is the atheist and which the agnostic? One type of atheist proposes no information (i.e. no knowlege) on which to found a belief. One type of agnostic proposes to know the way in which "God" both exists and does not exist (superficially making him both the theist and the atheist).

What does it mean that x exists, but that we don't know it; or that we know x to exist; or that what we know of x's existence is not its "true" existence? None of it seems very black-and-white to me.

The terms are simple. It's we who are complex and self-contradictory.

 

[Willamena]

What I choose to believe in spite of my ignorance is a different kettle of fish, because it comes AFTER "I don't know". And it is in reaction to our ignorance.

Okay. I take then for you also that the definition of "to believe" in the OP isn't workable.

 

[PureX]

We assign truth to what looks to us to be probably true, and to what we would like to believe to be true. Hopefully, we do this knowing that we don't know what the truth is, and so could always be wrong.

First, we must face our profound ignorance. Then we can choose what to believe in spite of it, or because of it.

 

[Willamena]

First, we must face our profound ignorance. Then we can choose what to believe in spite of it, or because of it.

Not disagreeing, but do you believe this? And if so, if all stems from the belief in profound ignorance, doesn't that one particular belief come before all?

 

[PureX]

Not disagreeing, but do you believe this? And if so, if all stems from the belief in profound ignorance, doesn't that one particular belief come before all?

Not knowing is not a belief. Not knowing is not knowing. I don't "believe that" I don't know, I actually don't know. Not knowing is my condition, not my belief. Whatever we choose to believe or not to believe, comes out of that condition. It's a kind of make-believe that we engage in.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If someone asks you the question "do you believe that god(s) exist?", and your answer is not "yes", then you are an atheist. Can't really get any simpler.

 

[linwood]

I To say you do not believe in one thing, is simply to say you believe in another thing more. It's not really a lack of belief - it's just a belief in something different. IMO. No one can believe in everything.

I disagree.

I have no belief in any Abrahamic creation story yet I have no other idea, concept, or theory that I do have belief in to explain humanity.

 

[IF_u_knew]

What does it mean to lack belief in a thing?

"To believe" is to have assigned truth to a piece of knowledge you posess. Its antithesis, an assigned falsehood, is "to disbelieve".

Is it possible to lack belief in anything?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with a "lack of information"?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with "lacking understanding"?

It would be impossible for anyone to be 100% lacking of beliefs. Belief and knowledge are subtely different; but different nevertheless. Many used to believe that the earth was flat. They were not assigning truth to a piece of knowledge they possessed, but rather they were assigning truth to an assumption. So... again, to say that ANYONE can lack belief wholly is a false assumption not worthy to be believed <--- my belief based on logic. :yes:

Richard Dawkins was flawed in his logic in the documentary "the God Delusion" by thinking his *belief* that there is no God is based on knowledge rather than assumption... his hypocrisy shines brilliantly through as he asserts his *belief* is the Truth (based on knowledge) and he further asserted his hypocritical beliefs by saying "that belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly." It is much the same mentality as possessed by those in religion who ARE potentially hazardous. Thus, it seems that even the most celebrated minds tend to get confused that NO ONE is wholly lacking in beliefs and quite often, no matter how rational it may seem at the time, those beliefs may not be based on actual knowledge, but rather based on assumptions.

 

[Willamena]

It would be impossible for anyone to be 100% lacking of beliefs. Belief and knowledge are subtely different; but different nevertheless. Many used to believe that the earth was flat. They were not assigning truth to a piece of knowledge they possessed, but rather they were assigning truth to an assumption. So... again, to say that ANYONE can lack belief wholly is a false assumption not worthy to be believed <--- my belief based on logic. :yes:

Richard Dawkins was flawed in his logic in the documentary "the God Delusion" by thinking his *belief* that there is no God is based on knowledge rather than assumption... his hypocrisy shines brilliantly through as he asserts his *belief* is the Truth (based on knowledge) and he further asserted his hypocritical beliefs by saying "that belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly." It is much the same mentality as possessed by those in religion who ARE potentially hazardous. Thus, it seems that even the most celebrated minds tend to get confused that NO ONE is wholly lacking in beliefs and quite often, no matter how rational it may seem at the time, those beliefs may not be based on actual knowledge, but rather based on assumptions.

Will the people of the future, with better knowledge than ours, consider us to believe based on assumptions?

 

[jrbogie]

What does it mean to lack belief in a thing?

"To believe" is to have assigned truth to a piece of knowledge you posess. Its antithesis, an assigned falsehood, is "to disbelieve".

Is it possible to lack belief in anything?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with a "lack of information"?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with "lacking understanding"?

there are many more definitions for "belief" than what you've posted here. yes it is possible to lack belief in anything. i believe nothing. question everything. belief requires faith in my view and has nothing to do with information or understanding.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Will the people of the future, with better knowledge than ours, consider us to believe based on assumptions?

A belief is an inclination toward something that you assume to be truth.. and that in and of itself is not a problem as long as we are willing to discard that belief if the Light of knowledge shows an error in the line of thinking. If we come to KNOW that a belief is truth, then it is no longer a belief but rather a fact. Following this process is healthy and productive for the evolution of knowledge to continue. So, of course the above will be true; assuming no large scale disasterous event occurs to wipe us completely off the face of the earth. *shrugs*

Fear and Faith <--- awful combination that hopefully they will evolve out of... at least to a greater extent than we have over the last 2,000 years. :yes:

 

[Thoran]

"What does it mean to lack belief in a thing?"
Just so you know, the fact that Theists have such a hard time understanding the word "Lack" is one of the reasons Atheists tend to think Theists are stupid.

""To believe" is to have assigned truth to a piece of knowledge you posess. Its antithesis, an assigned falsehood, is "to disbelieve"."
You forget about Doubt, uncertainty, "Probably not", "maybe not" etc. There is, in fact, an infinite number of posabilities between absolute conviction and absolute denial.

"Is it possible to lack belief in anything?"
Yes!

"Is "lack of belief" to be equated with a "lack of information"?"
No. Sometimes a lack of belief can becaused by simply not knowing much about it, but knowing too much about it can also have the same effect. If you've never heard of dragons, you don't believe in them. If you know all about dinosaur bones, you don't believe in dragons.

"Is "lack of belief" to be equated with "lacking understanding"?"
On the contrary. Those who debunk psychics, homeopathic medicine, conspiracy theories etc often understand all the issues concered MORE than those who believe it. For example, those who believe John Edward tend not to understand much about odds, psychology, TV editing or basic magic tricks. Debunkers can see through all that.

 

[Ponder This]

What does it mean to lack belief in a thing?

"To believe" is to have assigned truth to a piece of knowledge you posess. Its antithesis, an assigned falsehood, is "to disbelieve".

Is it possible to lack belief in anything?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with a "lack of information"?

Is "lack of belief" to be equated with "lacking understanding"?

I think context is important for understanding these questions.

This is because the linguistics of the mind are tricky.

Making a general statement without context can lead to confusion.

A person could lack belief because of lack of information.
A person could also decide that lack of belief is what best describes his position even though he does have a belief and does have information.

Unless you actually attach the contextual elements surrounding a statement, the truth value is not clear.

A lack of belief could be taken as a position in an argument, but psychologically, the mind will tend to resolve the linguistic unknown. When that unknown resolves, a person unconsciously decides what to believe (or disbelieve).

So even if a person claims a lack of belief in something that he has information on and has carefully examined, it is unlikely that he has actually failed to resolve the linguistic unknown within his mind.

For example, a person could say he believes in God, but when asked about statements in the Bible, he will disagree. The truth value of "I believe in God" changes as you add context that modifies the statement.

For example, a person could say he lacks belief in a god, but when you discuss the matter with him and add the context of certainty vs uncertainty to the mix, he will reveal that he actually regards the existence of God to be unlikely and God's non-existence to be likely. The truth value of "I lack a belief (or disbelief) in God" changes as you add context that modifies the statement.

You might ask why a person doesn't simply attach numerous contextual elements from the beginning whenever he makes a statement. The answer is that it's cumbersome to do so. Language often relies on the assumption of invisible contextual elements and the ability of listeners to resolve those invisible contextual elements on their own.

 

[PureX]

'Mutually Exclusive' means that two things are contradictory; that they are unable to be both true at the same time.

I'm saying that I'm both an atheist and agnostic - neither label alone accurately defines my position.

Technically, to claim that you don't know if gods exist, and simultaneously claim that you don't believe that gods exist, is to paint yourself as being logically incoherent. UNLESS you admit that you do not base your beliefs in your knowledge, but on something else (desire, perhaps). This is why I stated that if you hold such apparently incoherent positions, you need to explain how/why or you will be presumed either a liar, of just very confused.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The terms are mutually exclusive, as one labels the belief that gods do not exist, while the other labels the belief that we can't or don't know if gods exist. I understand that we humans can hold to multiple and contradictory beliefs simultaneously. And I'm not arguing with that. But the TERMS we are using ARE mutually exclusive. If we are going to wear more then one label at a time, we need to explain this, or we will be misleading people. One label alone does not accurately define your position.

I am also an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, atheism speaks to belief.

The terms are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are quite often used together.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there are two things that contradict one another, you have to choose one over the other.

The number of jelly beans in this jar is either even or odd. It can't be neither and it can't be both. The two possibilities contradict each other. Which one do you believe?

You say that we must choose one over the other; which one did you choose and why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Lack of belief" is the result of poor language skills. What they mean is ambivalence. We believe, we disbelieve, or we are ambivalent.

"Lack of belief" in a thing encompasses disbelief in the thing and ambivalence.