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

[Thundril]

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.

So, you admit you can't know for sure that there is a god, but you believe in something or other that makes you call yourself theist.
That's clear, at least.
I can't know for absolute certain either (and I don't think there is any such thing as absolute certain knowledge) but I just don't believe in any gods, so I call myself an atheist.
Your position seems intelligible to me. My position seems intelligible too. (Obviously if my own position didn't seem intelligible I'd have to change it.) I'm going with the suggestion that the whole debate is silly. You are a theist. I am an atheist. We are neither of us agnostic except in the very broadest sense of admitting that neither of us is personally a Supreme Being, therefore neither of us in in possession of infallibity, meaning that neither of us can know absolutely for total certain, anything at all.

[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

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

But my post specifically refers to the definition of atheism; I was questioning the post you'd made just before mine in which you said: "Atheism can include ignorance of god, that is different from actively not believing in god." Since your assertion was contrary to my common understanding of the meaning of atheism, I looked it up.

As for belief in god and agnosticism, I see that as a plausible dual assertion. Don't we normally, in common language, use the terms "I believe" or "I think" when there may be some doubt as to the absolute truth of the assertion, or when the assertion may be a relative or subjective truth?

However, I will grant you that in matters of religion, many, in fact most, zealous religious fundamentalists use the term "I believe" to mean "I know with absolute certainty beyond any doubt". I see how that can cause confusion.

rebecca -- well, nuts, I see that I'm posting this after the debate's ended and everyone's in agreement -- my intention is not to cause further strife, but I'm going to submit this last post anyway because I took the trouble of typing it!

[Typist]

However, I think the possibility to be sufficiently remote that I'm not going to waste my time worrying about...

Except the documented indisputable evidence shows that you are concerned with "The Diamond" as a routine part of your life, so much so that in terms of this forum at least, we could call it your brand.

You're more interested in God than the majority of theists I've met over the last 60 years.

[blackbox]

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. )

I don't mind continuing to consider this...

Regarding propositions about god, that is exactly my point. A person who does not assert any proposition about god, such as "god exists", well, they are not proffering a proposition. That's the difference between disbelief and e.g. belief "there is a god" or unbelief "no god exists". The last two are propositional, the bare lack of belief is not.

You seemed to get the distinction previously, in this exchange (from the scientific deism discussion):

The position of Atheism does not rest on knowing, but not believing, as people have been telling you for a long time. It is a simple enough difference to understand... Well I am happy to say "I know not god", or "I know of no God" that is simply a statement of fact, and that is what characterises me as atheistic.

[Notvacka says...]
If you put it that way, fine, though I don't recall anybody "telling me this for a long time". (Are your sure this was your position the whole time, when we discussed this in other topics?) Anyway, stated like that, it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Thanks. But I thought we had this discussion before that atheism does not involve me in a belief?? Maybe not[/quote]

[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.

Still waiting Typist...

[Notvacka]

Not at all. Atheism can include ignorance of god, that is different from actively not believing in god.

I would not count such ignorance as atheism, because it's different from actively believing anything. But I can understand why you would, given your general view here.

Tell how you can believe in God and be agnostic?

As I stated before, I believe because I can't have knowledge. If I could have knowledge, then I would have no use for belief. The "how" of it is easy. It's simply a choice, not entirely unlike choosing a football team or a political party to support. The "why" of it might be more interesting.

[Notvacka]

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.

So, you admit you can't know for sure that there is a god, but you believe in something or other that makes you call yourself theist.
That's clear, at least.
I can't know for absolute certain either (and I don't think there is any such thing as absolute certain knowledge) but I just don't believe in any gods, so I call myself an atheist.
Your position seems intelligible to me. My position seems intelligible too. (Obviously if my own position didn't seem intelligible I'd have to change it.) I'm going with the suggestion that the whole debate is silly. You are a theist. I am an atheist. We are neither of us agnostic except in the very broadest sense of admitting that neither of us is personally a Supreme Being, therefore neither of us in in possession of infallibity, meaning that neither of us can know absolutely for total certain, anything at all.

I'm happy that we understand each other.

[Notvacka]

A person who does not assert any proposition about god, such as "god exists", well, they are not proffering a proposition. That's the difference between disbelief and e.g. belief "there is a god" or unbelief "no god exists". The last two are propositional, the bare lack of belief is not.

Sure. But I would not call a person who does not assert any proposition about God an atheist, not in this day and age. To me, the set of theists and atheists together consists of those who do. If you seriously have no opinion about God, you should not consider yourself an atheist, nor should you engage in any debate about the God concept. (After all, how could you? )

You seemed to get the distinction previously...

Oh, I think I still get it. And in the exchange you refer to, I thought that Chaz got it too. But then he seemed to lose it again. I like Chaz, but he can be rather trigger happy, writing too many posts while not giving himself enough time to actually read and understand the posts of others in between.

Having said that, Chaz is right in that the word "atheist" is a theist invention, from the days when theism was the norm and not believing in God was an aberration. Perhaps it's time to invent a new word from the opposite standpoint?

[Typist]

Having said that, Chaz is right in that the word "atheist" is a theist invention, from the days when theism was the norm and not believing in God was an aberration. Perhaps it's time to invent a new word from the opposite standpoint?

A word I've always liked is "reasonist". This is a positive label that would be appropriate for many atheists.

Most internet atheists are probably best labeled atheists though, because their focus is not being FOR reason, but being AGAINST theism. This is easy to see, as they will often happily discard reason at the first moment it interferes with their anti-religion holy jihad etc.

[Arising_uk]

... This is easy to see, as they will often happily discard reason at the first moment it interferes with their anti-religion holy jihad etc.

Who are you talking about? Dawkins, et al? As if you've watched him ove the years you can se that he's been driven to distraction by the theists misrepresentation of his views and now appears to have decided to fight back. But in the main he's been attacking a very specific set of theists, the American bible-belters and their insistence that what they propose should be taught as science to their children. Now I think he should stop, as he's British and America is our economic competitor and if they wish to disadvantage themselves and their economy in the new field of biological engineering they should be free to do so.

[Typist]

Who are you talking about?

Folks like yourself.

Dawkins, et al? As if you've watched him ove the years you can se that he's been driven to distraction by the theists misrepresentation of his views and now appears to have decided to fight back.

I was on his forum for awhile. He appeared to be a silly man to me.

He created a big forum full of angry atheist fundamentalists, and then was shocked when they turned on him too. He freaked, and closed the forum, apparently unable to handle the reality of the hate parade he was leading.

[Arising_uk]

Folks like yourself.

You won't find one post by me doing anything of the sort. Take a look in the mirror sometime with respect to your anti-atheist jihad.

I was on his forum for awhile. He appeared to be a silly man to me.

He created a big forum full of angry atheist fundamentalists, and then was shocked when they turned on him too. He freaked, and closed the forum, apparently unable to handle the reality of the hate parade he was leading.

Naive, driven to distraction by the stupidity of the internut public maybe, but silly? I think not. As an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science, a fellow of the Royal Society and a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature could hardly be called silly? Now you and your opinions on the other hand.

I admire him for closing down his forum when he saw the nonsense that was being produced. Shame a lot of the theist and 'aphilosophy' sites don't have the same integrity.

[evangelicalhumanist]

However, I think the possibility to be sufficiently remote that I'm not going to waste my time worrying about...

Except the documented indisputable evidence shows that you are concerned with "The Diamond" as a routine part of your life, so much so that in terms of this forum at least, we could call it your brand.

You're more interested in God than the majority of theists I've met over the last 60 years.

I'll try one more time to make you understand (just to prove I'm insane, I suppose, since the last 40 times I've tried you still haven't understood). Let's try to say it slowly, and in large type. Spell it out, if you need to -- it might help.

I am not interested in "God" so much as I am interested in what belief in God makes people do to make their God real in their (and consequently everybody else's) life.

Capisce?

No, I thought not...

[Typist]

I am not interested in "God" so much as I am interested in what belief in God makes people do to make their God real in their (and consequently everybody else's) life.

Look, I'm really not trying to be confrontational here. I'm just trying to be honest. This is part of your semantic tap dancing dodge and weave game.

You are incurably addicted to the subject of gods. It seems I am as well.

Your unwillingness to just say this simply and plainly accomplishes nothing other than bogging the conversation down in meaningless quibble side trails.

Are you equally interested in what disbelief in God makes people do to maintain their fantasy knowing, and the impact this has on everybody's life as well?

Are you interested in how lumping theists in to one big group, and then aiming scare stories like genital mutilation (one of your favs) at this one big group is nothing more than a way to ignorantly and hatefully demonize billions of people you've never met, billions of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with genital mutilation?

Are you interested in the fact that this is the very same process that you are rejecting in others, but not seeing in yourself???

No, you're not interested in any of this.

Thus, you aren't really interested in the process by which fantasy knowing has negative impacts on the lives of others.

[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.

Still waiting Typist...

Hmmmm... is responding to everyone except me. I wonder why? Typist, you've usually got plenty to say... why so shy???