Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[Arising_uk]

...
Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

Hmm... is this right Notvacka? In general these are the ex-theists who believe that the 'god' of the theists that they were indoctrinated with doesn't exist. Theres nothing like an ex-theists scorn in my experience.

[Notvacka]

...
Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

Hmm... is this right Notvacka? In general these are the ex-theists who believe that the 'god' of the theists that they were indoctrinated with doesn't exist. Theres nothing like an ex-theists scorn in my experience.

Huh? I just mentioned the two types of non-agnostics to complete the set, so to speak. Not being agnostic, whatever your beliefs or disbeliefs, seems naive to me.

[evangelicalhumanist]

And Typist, like it or not, it is that which I argue against, and has always been that.

And EH, like it or not, I will remind you for the 93.45 billionth time that you only write about hateful things when they being done by theists. Therefore, it's fair for us to reason it's not hate you are against, but theism.

Ok, let the back pedaling waffle dancing begin!

Well now, let's see. Never in my long life have I ever said to any person "you may not do so-and-so because the god I don't believe in says you should do so, and since he doesn't exist, it must therefore be wrong." You cannot find anywhere in the historical record where anybody has persecuted others in the name of atheism. In the name of doubtful (or stupid) social or economic or racial theory, but never on the basis of simply not believing in the existence of a god. It is only positive belief in that which is unknowable that encourages that sort of behaviour. And it encourages it strongly, primarily because it is unknowable and therefore questionable, and when your beliefs are questioned, they are weakened and that cannot be allowed.

For your information, the people I've cared for most in my life have been theist, almost one and all. After being dumped on the streets by the Children's Aid, a United Church of Canada Minister became the first person ever to show me some real love (sometimes tough love, which I needed). He's long dead, but I still remember him with great fondness. (Of course, the UCC doesn't care much about unimportant things like sexuality or whether you believe in hell-fire, so they're probably not a "real religion" anyway, eh?)

You may think (and you will) as much as you like that I'm looking for somebody to feel superior to. I think that you are wrong, but how could I possibly know as much about myself as you do? I rather think that after a long lifetime of watching others attempting to do what you accuse me of, I'd rather they did not, and therefore I have something to say about it. Having grown up an unrepentent and unashamed gay man, I was brunt of a whole lot of that crap, and therefore I don't like it one bit. But you may be surprised to learn that I am generally considered a very nice person, anxious to boost other people when they deserve it. As a boss, I've been given a great deal of praise from my own employees for my ability to help them feel like they're succeeding, even when they make errors.

Of course, with your superior knowledge of my motives, you've undoubtedly got an explanation for that which will make me look tawdry and cheap, mostly because (I suspect) I have the temerity to think about stuff and decide what I personally think about it. Even I can't prove it.

You, I'm sure we can all rest assured, would never commit such an egregious error.

(Oh, by the way, this post was a little spiteful. It was intended to be. You have a nasty, somewhat superior, edge to you that needs to be sanded down a little.)

[chaz wyman]

I really should let go of this discussion, but this claim here, makes no sense to me:

Being an agnostic is a sub category of atheism.

I am an agnostic, most certainly, first and foremost, not only about God, but about a lot of things, because in most cases I don't believe true knowledge is possible in reality. But I'm also a theist, because I believe in (a version of) God.

You don't see this as a contradiction?
The word was devised by Thomas Henry Huxley as a means of describing a particular class of atheist. There really is no getting away from this simple fact.
Now, it is possible for you to alter and re-configure a personal meaning for any word you choose - that is your right, but you don't get to approach my standard definition with incredulity, as if my claim were outlandish or unfair. That is the original use to which the word was put, and for which the word was designed.

All theist believe in "a version of god", but they are all distinguished by NOT being agnostic, as agnostic implies a category of atheist who is no theist because he has decided that such knowledge is impossible.




To me, it makes more sense to view both theism and atheism as (possible) sub categories of agnosticism.

Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

I have to take exception with 'believe they know'. That is a nonsense phrase. If a person 'knows' then most would claim they know they know; when they believe they assert a find of knowing without verification or basis. Belief is acceptance without knowledge; to believe to know does not make sense.
Further; not believing is not the same as believing not.

[chaz wyman]

And EH, like it or not, I will remind you for the 93.45 billionth time that you only write about hateful things when they being done by theists. Therefore, it's fair for us to reason it's not hate you are against, but theism.

Ok, let the back pedaling waffle dancing begin!

Since you'll be the man for this, please tell us what hateful things are being done by the atheists in atheisms name?

[blackbox]

Atheist beliefs? Are you talking about beliefs like "I should floss every day", or "reason is a helpful tool to explore reality"? Surely not, since theists can hold the same beliefs. Calling beliefs like these "atheist" would be silly.

Agreed.

Surely "atheist beliefs" would be beliefs that define the holder of those beliefs as atheist.

Right.

If you disagree, it should be easy for you to list a few necessary and sufficient "atheist" beliefs.

Which I've already done about 1,000 times, to no effect whatsoever, because this "atheism is not a belief" thing is a dogmatic emotional religious kind of belief, not a belief that can be addressed with reason.

Atheists believe that human reason is in a position to analyze the possibility of a God's existence.

This is a passionately held belief, despite any evidence of such an ability.

That's funny. You've agreed that an "atheist belief" ought to be one that distinguishes atheists from others. And in particular it must distinguish atheists from theists. Otherwise, as you've agreed, it would be silly to call such a belief an "atheist belief".

And yet many theists believe that human reason is in a position to analyze the possibility of a God's existence. Btw, I didn't even have to type that sentence out. All I had to do was copy your "atheist belief" and remove the "a" to apply it to theists.

And it fits. Theists (consider the various arguments and "proofs" of god's existence dreamed up by early church fathers, or even William Craig and his online debates) obviously hold that belief. The use of reason does not in and of itself say anything at all about a person's belief in god, or lack thereof.

So, your "atheist belief" isn't an atheist belief. It's just a belief that many people hold, regardless of their belief in a god or lack of belief in a god. Like belief in flossing, it does not define the holder of that belief as either atheist or theist. It's just a red herring you use to avoid admitting that disbelief is not belief.

But this isn't any common garden red herring. It's a pet one. I find myself wondering what rhetoric you'll use to keep this pet of yours alive. We'll see.

So, can you describe even ONE "atheist belief" that is necessary and sufficient such that it defines the holder of that belief as atheist?

You must realise that your failure to articulate any such belief supports my (and many others') contention that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

[Notvacka]

Being an agnostic is a sub category of atheism.

I am an agnostic, most certainly, first and foremost, not only about God, but about a lot of things, because in most cases I don't believe true knowledge is possible in reality. But I'm also a theist, because I believe in (a version of) God.

You don't see this as a contradiction?

No.

The word was devised by Thomas Henry Huxley as a means of describing a particular class of atheist. There really is no getting away from this simple fact.

That might be so. What matters is how the word is used.

Now, it is possible for you to alter and re-configure a personal meaning for any word you choose - that is your right, but you don't get to approach my standard definition with incredulity, as if my claim were outlandish or unfair. That is the original use to which the word was put, and for which the word was designed.

I don't re-configure anything here. The basic definition, as given by the Longman Modern English Dictionary: someone who believes that people cannot know whether God exists or not. Wikipedia puts it this way: Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

All theist believe in "a version of god", but they are all distinguished by NOT being agnostic, as agnostic implies a category of atheist who is no theist because he has decided that such knowledge is impossible.

But such knowledge is impossible, to theists as well as atheists. As I stated earlier in this thread: If I could have knowledge, I would have no use for belief.

To me, it makes more sense to view both theism and atheism as (possible) sub categories of agnosticism.

Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

I have to take exception with 'believe they know'. That is a nonsense phrase. If a person 'knows' then most would claim they know they know; when they believe they assert a find of knowing without verification or basis. Belief is acceptance without knowledge; to believe to know does not make sense.

No, no, no, dear Chaz! It's the idea that you can "know that you know" which is nonsense, just like "believe that you believe" is nonsense. You may believe that you know, or know that you believe. There are no other real options. That's why I call those who claim knowledge either way naive.

Further; not believing is not the same as believing not.

That sounds like hairsplitting to me, mostly.

[blackbox]

There is no belief necessary and sufficient for this atheism, which isn't surprising since the ONLY necessary and sufficient thing is not a belief but is disbelief.

If you want to define "belief" in such a way that it doesn't include atheism, fine. Personally, I would define "disbelief" as a kind of "belief", much like negative numbers are numbers too.

This, like most philosophical debates, really is about definitions. (Remember when we endlessly debated the definition of "nothingness" with stretmediq? ) When such a discussion has gone on for some time, and agreement (about definitions) can't be reached, one has to realize that we are not talking about the same thing.

As far as I can tell, everybody in this thread agrees that a theist is a person who believes in (some version of) God and that an atheist is a person who does not believe in (any version of) God.

This rather silly debate about whether the latter is a belief or not, comes down to whether you consider "disbelief" a kind of belief or not. The debate is silly, because neither definition yelds a different result from the other. It's all emotional. (Contrary to that other discussion, where stretmediq drew all kinds of conclusions based upon his odd definition of "nothingness".)

Yes, I quite enjoyed that discussion with streetmediq. Dogmatic people are often more of a challenge.although they can get boring. He had another go at presenting it here recently, and got a similiar (critical) response, and again complained that people were being deliberately malicious for not agreeing with him. Funny.

The problem I have with the idea that disbelief is a "kind of" belief is that no belief can be articulated from disbelief. I'm challenging Typist to do that now, and he's failing/flailing. In other words, if atheism is a belief, what is that belief? Surely it can be articulated? Note that I'm confining this to my atheism, in that I'm atheist because I don't hold the belief "this god exists" about any god. I do not believe "no god exists", since one might, so insisting on that seems to me to be speculative. Most theists fail to understand this distinction so are often waging battles of straw.

The reason I don't see this as silly, is that, once people realise disbelief is not belief, they can't come out with stupidities like "atheists are just the same as theists". They're not. One position is speculative, the other is barely a position at all. The only thing we can say about an atheist is that they are not a theist. That's the only thing that defines an atheist, and it's an observation, not a belief.

[Notvacka]

I do not believe "no god exists", since one might...

See! That makes you something other than atheist in my book. And that's why I think this debate is silly

Oh, go ahead and call yourself an atheist anyway. I don't mind.

Myself, I'm a very broad agnostic, almost a Cartesian epistemological fundamentalist. (Chaz hates that, I think. He once accused me of being stuck in a Cartesian nightmare, which I believe I am, from his point of view.)

I don't believe that (true, absolute) knowledge is possible in reality.

And, incidentally, you can phrase it like this too: I believe that (true, absolute) knowledge is not possible in reality. The meaning remains the same.

[blackbox]

I do not believe "no god exists", since one might...

See! That makes you something other than atheist in my book. And that's why I think this debate is silly

Oh, go ahead and call yourself an atheist anyway. I don't mind.

Myself, I'm a very broad agnostic, almost a Cartesian epistemological fundamentalist. (Chaz hates that, I think. He once accused me of being stuck in a Cartesian nightmare, which I believe I am, from his point of view.)

I don't believe that (true, absolute) knowledge is possible in reality.

And, incidentally, you can phrase it like this too: I believe that (true, absolute) knowledge is not possible in reality. The meaning remains the same.

Thanks, I will continue to call myself an atheist .

I suspect you are unaware of the difference between disbelief and unbelief. That's not surprising, since most native English speakers aren't aware of it either (and especially theists, I've come to realise). But it's an important distinction in this discussion, and if you are not aware of it, then you just don't have the tools you need to understand what I and many other atheists are talking about. It's exactly this that Chaz had in mind when he said believing not (unbelief) is not the same as not believing (disbelief).

You will also find that authoritative dictionaries use "disbelief" in their primary definition of atheism. They do that for a reason, and until you know the difference between disbelief and unbelief, you cannot grasp that reason. You are using a secondary definition of atheism - the one that goes further than mere disbelief to outright denial of any god existing. That's fair enough, but it's not fair to dismiss people (on definitional grounds) who are using the primary definition of the word.

---------------

I agree with your basic stance that absolute knowledge is not possible to us oh-so-limited humans. We know in part. The thing is, agnosticism is a specific acknowledgement of that general idea - it makes it explicit, but only for a certain class of beliefs or assertions, those to do with whether gods exist or not. But I can't see any reason to make this explicit every time I speak about gods. I don't make it explicit at other times I make various assertions, so why here?

[Notvacka]

I suspect you are unaware of the difference between disbelief and unbelief. That's not surprising, since most native English speakers aren't aware of it either (and especially theists, I've come to realise). But it's an important distinction in this discussion, and if you are not aware of it, then you just don't have the tools you need to understand what I and many other atheists are talking about. It's exactly this that Chaz had in mind when he said believing not (unbelief) is not the same as not believing (disbelief).

You will also find that authoritative dictionaries use "disbelief" in their primary definition of atheism. They do that for a reason, and until you know the difference between disbelief and unbelief, you cannot grasp that reason. You are using a secondary definition of atheism - the one that goes further than mere disbelief to outright denial of any god existing. That's fair enough, but it's not fair to dismiss people (on definitional grounds) who are using the primary definition of the word.

I agree with your basic stance that absolute knowledge is not possible to us oh-so-limited humans. We know in part. The thing is, agnosticism is a specific acknowledgement of that general idea - it makes it explicit, but only for a certain class of beliefs or assertions, those to do with whether gods exist or not. But I can't see any reason to make this explicit every time I speak about gods. I don't make it explicit at other times I make various assertions, so why here?

I must confess, that after checking several dictionaries, I still fail to see any significant difference between "unbelief" and "disbelief". They are both basically negations of "belief", and I think that you are splitting hairs. But that doesn't matter. As I stated early in this thread, you may define "belief" in such a way that it doesn't include "disbelief" or "unbelif". It's not how I generally use the word, but as long as we are clear about what we mean, that's okay. I thought that part of this debate was sorted.

However, when Chaz tries to make (and not for the first time, I might add) agnosticism a subset of atheism, I have to object, because it doesn't make sense. Especially since I define my own position as agnostic first and theist second. Agnosticism is an epistemological proposition. It's an attitude towards the concept of knowledge, particularly knowledge about the existence or non-existence of any deity.

Like me, you have declared youself an agnostic. We agree then, that we can't have knowledge regarding God. If we could know, I guess we would, and then there would have been no room for belief.

Having agreed that knowledge regarding God is impossible, it seems to follow that any further proposition regarding God can only be based upon belief, which would make both theism and atheism beliefs. (But I won't press the matter. )

Some like to call agnostics "soft atheists" and I guess that, by that same standard, I would be a "soft theist". That is what happens when you try to make agnosticism a subset of atheism, it becomes a subset of theism too. Which I think makes less sense than to look at it the other way around.

[chaz wyman]

Being an agnostic is a sub category of atheism.

I am an agnostic, most certainly, first and foremost, not only about God, but about a lot of things, because in most cases I don't believe true knowledge is possible in reality. But I'm also a theist, because I believe in (a version of) God.

You don't see this as a contradiction?

No.

The word was devised by Thomas Henry Huxley as a means of describing a particular class of atheist. There really is no getting away from this simple fact.

That might be so. What matters is how the word is used.

Now, it is possible for you to alter and re-configure a personal meaning for any word you choose - that is your right, but you don't get to approach my standard definition with incredulity, as if my claim were outlandish or unfair. That is the original use to which the word was put, and for which the word was designed.

I don't re-configure anything here. The basic definition, as given by the Longman Modern English Dictionary: someone who believes that people cannot know whether God exists or not. Wikipedia puts it this way: Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

All theist believe in "a version of god", but they are all distinguished by NOT being agnostic, as agnostic implies a category of atheist who is no theist because he has decided that such knowledge is impossible.

But such knowledge is impossible, to theists as well as atheists. As I stated earlier in this thread: If I could have knowledge, I would have no use for belief.

To me, it makes more sense to view both theism and atheism as (possible) sub categories of agnosticism.

Outside of that, we have those (naive) theists who believe they know that God exists, and those (also naive) atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist.

I have to take exception with 'believe they know'. That is a nonsense phrase. If a person 'knows' then most would claim they know they know; when they believe they assert a find of knowing without verification or basis. Belief is acceptance without knowledge; to believe to know does not make sense.

No, no, no, dear Chaz! It's the idea that you can "know that you know" which is nonsense, just like "believe that you believe" is nonsense. You may believe that you know, or know that you believe. There are no other real options. That's why I call those who claim knowledge either way naive.

Further; not believing is not the same as believing not.

That sounds like hairsplitting to me, mostly.

Not at all. Atheism can include ignorance of god, that is different from actively not believing in god.
Tell how you can believe in God and be agnostic?
Thinking that knowledge of god is impossible, and believing in god, is naive.

[melonkali]

Sorry to intrude -- most of this debate is over my head, although I enjoy following it. I have noticed that my Webster's dictionary definitions differ from some assertions given in some posts.

Per my 1979 Webster's New World Dictionary:
Atheist: A person who believes that there is no God.
Atheism: The believe that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.

Per my 1990 Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of God.

I don't see the wiggle room here for a person to both define himself as an atheist and claim that he allows for the possibility that god might exist.

rebecca

[evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry to intrude -- most of this debate is over my head, although I enjoy following it. I have noticed that my Webster's dictionary definitions differ from some assertions given in some posts.

Per my 1979 Webster's New World Dictionary:
Atheist: A person who believes that there is no God.
Atheism: The believe that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.

Per my 1990 Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of God.

I don't see the wiggle room here for a person to both define himself as an atheist and claim that he allows for the possibility that god might exist.

rebecca

Think about it this way. Is there a diamond the size of a hen's egg buried somewhere in your backyard? Perhaps you believe not, but can you be sure until you dig it up entirely? And then, are you sure you dug deep enough?

Okay, so now, you must believe that there is at least some possibility, however remote, that the diamond is there, waiting to make your life better. Now, are you willing, based on that, to borrow and spend a great deal of money you can't pay back because it's possible you'll find the diamond and everything will be okay?

That's what it's like for an atheist (at least this atheist). I've said before, there is no possibility of my proving absolutely that there is no god of some nature. However, I think the possibility to be sufficiently remote that I'm not going to waste my time worrying about nor am I going to bank on it for any of my needs, nor again, will I use it to impose my will (based on the possibillty of God) on other people.

[chaz wyman]

Sorry to intrude -- most of this debate is over my head, although I enjoy following it. I have noticed that my Webster's dictionary definitions differ from some assertions given in some posts.

Per my 1979 Webster's New World Dictionary:
Atheist: A person who believes that there is no God.
Atheism: The believe that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.

Per my 1990 Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of God.

I don't see the wiggle room here for a person to both define himself as an atheist and claim that he allows for the possibility that god might exist.

rebecca

Actually he is claiming to be an agnostic , whilst insisting on a belief in god.