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

[blackbox]

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?

Well, obviously, you're free to attribute "atheist" to whoever you want. I'm pretty sure my budgie is an atheist .

I'm perplexed that you think disbelief (which is non-propositional) in the existence of god is not a legitimate definition of atheism. Perplexed, because that is the exact (and primary!) definition given in authoritative dictionaries. Do you think they made a mistake?

Lacking belief in god's existence has nothing at all to do with holding beliefs about the concept of god, about people's "faith" in god, about what people insist their god wants them (or me) to do, or even about the possible existence of a god or gods. All disbelief is saying is that the person does not hold the belief "a god exists". That's it. It says nothing at all about other beliefs the person may or may not hold. It's very narrow, very specific, very simple.

[chaz wyman]

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???

Very nicely countered - but you are talking to a brick wall.
You are talking to a cloth-eared troll.

[Notvacka]

I'm perplexed that you think disbelief (which is non-propositional) in the existence of god is not a legitimate definition of atheism. Perplexed, because that is the exact (and primary!) definition given in authoritative dictionaries. Do you think they made a mistake?

Dictionaries can only get you so far.

Seriously, I have nothing against that definition. Any definition is as "legitimate" as you like it to be. But is it useful? I still fail to find any useful difference between "disbelief" and "unbelief" in this context. I tend to use words as they are generally used. In a philosophical discussion that is often not precise enough, so you have to specify more exactly what you mean whenever there seems to be a misunderstanding. Words are, after all, only means of communication. Discussing what a word "really" means is pointless. What matters is what a word means in a specific context, what you actually want to communicate with it. And I fail to see the use for "non-propositional" atheism, at least in this day and age. Nobody could seriously label themselves non-propostitional atheists.

Lacking belief in god's existence has nothing at all to do with holding beliefs about the concept of god, about people's "faith" in god, about what people insist their god wants them (or me) to do, or even about the possible existence of a god or gods.

Are you really suggesting that whether you believe in the existence of God or not, does not necessarily influence your view of the concept as well as your view of other people's faith? Here is where this "non-propositional" thing gets ridiculous.

All disbelief is saying is that the person does not hold the belief "a god exists". That's it. It says nothing at all about other beliefs the person may or may not hold. It's very narrow, very specific, very simple.

Yes. When yo put it that way, I agree completely. (Except for the bit I coloured, since you obviously can deduce some things about a person's beliefs from this piece of information.) And to consider this "disbelief" a "kind of belief" seems perfectly obvious to me. After all, if it's not a kind of belief (whether un- or dis-) what can it be? What do you hope to achieve, signify or communicate, by not letting "belief" encompass the un- and dis- varieties?

[evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I am interested in ALL irrational beliefs that cause people to cause harm to other people. As it happens, religion plays rather a starring part on that stage (and consequently, has the most lines), but there are others. They just haven't come up here, yet, though I've discussed them elsewhere. Those have included Holocaust denial, creationism, alien abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics. You are not aware of the great bulk of my writing, which has not been here, so of course you would not know that. They're not hard to find, by the way. I use the same handle everywhere.

"Rationality tied to moral decency is the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known." --Mary Ellen Curtin

[Typist]

I am interested in ALL irrational beliefs that cause people to cause harm to other people.

Uh huh...

As it happens, religion plays rather a starring part on that stage (and consequently, has the most lines), but there are others. They just haven't come up here, yet, though I've discussed them elsewhere. Those have included Holocaust denial, creationism, alien abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics.

We can all observe that you've failed to mention militant atheism on your list above.

And we will all now observe you claim that you've addressed that form of harmful belief extensively on other forums, but yet never mentioned it even once here.

And we will now all observe me label you, in regards to this specific subject, an intellectually dishonest dogma chanting semantic tap dancing waffler.

Wow, that's way better than "fat ass", don't you think???

[evangelicalhumanist]

I am interested in ALL irrational beliefs that cause people to cause harm to other people.

Uh huh...

As it happens, religion plays rather a starring part on that stage (and consequently, has the most lines), but there are others. They just haven't come up here, yet, though I've discussed them elsewhere. Those have included Holocaust denial, creationism, alien abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics.

We can all observe that you've failed to mention militant atheism on your list above.

And we will all now observe you claim that you've addressed that form of harmful belief extensively on other forums, but yet never mentioned it even once here.

And we will now all observe me label you, in regards to this specific subject, an intellectually dishonest dogma chanting semantic tap dancing waffler.

Wow, that's way better than "fat ass", don't you think???

There are many examples. Let me just give you one thread (started by me) on my own forum. This is not an invitation to visit, by the way. That forum has never managed to gain much traction -- nor has any other humanist forum, actually. But the topic (Are the "New Atheists" fundamentalists?) is mine, and the first two posts are mine. They read as follows:

The author Chris Hedges (among others), in his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists," makes the claim that the so-called "New Atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, as well as Daniel Dennet, Michel Onfrey and others) do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason.

Although there is much that seems to ring quite true in the various books written by the New Atheists, I can't help but feeling that Hedges has a legitimate point.

Any thoughts?

Whether theist or atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Humanist, at the very minimum it seems to me that there are two essential ways to think about our beliefs:

1. We may believe we are in possession of "The Truth," and hence able to dismiss all other viewpoints as at worst false, or at best, inferior to our own
2. We can accept that, however strong our beliefs, they remain just that -- neither worse nor better justified than others, and no more nor less useful for informing our thinking and moral decisions.

In the first case, we will be led -- falsely -- to the belief that either religion or reason can change our very imperfect human nature, leading to one sort of salvation or other. Thus, the religious fundamentalists who believe in an afterlife will attempt to perfect the human soul and make it acceptable to God, while the secular fundamentalists will attempt to perfect the human species, leading to a utopian existence in the here and now.

In the second case, however, we realize that we are imperfect and imperfectable, and can decide based on our beliefs and values to reject actions we realize are the products of our very human imperfections. In doing that, it is impossible to be a fundamentalist, whether religious or secular.

Those posts, by the way, were written in April 2008.

You mentioned elsewhere, by the way, that you posted for a while on Dawkins board. So did I (and on Sam Harris's, too). I haven't posted on either for years, because I despised the vehemence. On my own board is a whole sub-forum titled "Searching for Common Ground" with the comment: "In this forum, we discuss issues related to finding common purpose between faith and secularism, rooted in humanist values." To be honest, I'm saddened that it didn't do as well as I'd hoped. There are only 42 threads and a total of 501 posts in the forum. Pity.

But give me credit for at least having tried, why don't you?

[blackbox]

Very nicely countered - but you are talking to a brick wall.
You are talking to a cloth-eared troll.

Hey thanks. Yes, and obviously this particularly dense brick wall doesn't want to admit that its foundations are cracked.

[chaz wyman]

Very nicely countered - but you are talking to a brick wall.
You are talking to a cloth-eared troll.

Hey thanks. Yes, and obviously this particularly dense brick wall doesn't want to admit that its foundations are cracked.

ANd built on sand

[blackbox]

Lacking belief in god's existence has nothing at all to do with holding beliefs about the concept of god, about people's "faith" in god, about what people insist their god wants them (or me) to do, or even about the possible existence of a god or gods.

Are you really suggesting that whether you believe in the existence of God or not, does not necessarily influence your view of the concept as well as your view of other people's faith? Here is where this "non-propositional" thing gets ridiculous.

The disbelief is a non-thing. It's an empty space, as it were, it's just a summary way of saying that whatever other propositions are held, they have not lead to theistic belief. It's a mistake to treat it as a "something" that has causal effects. The other propositions that have not lead to theistic belief, now THEY exist, and they no doubt influence all sorts of future thoughts and actions. They can, because they exist.

All disbelief is saying is that the person does not hold the belief "a god exists". That's it. It says nothing at all about other beliefs the person may or may not hold. It's very narrow, very specific, very simple.

Yes. When yo put it that way, I agree completely. (Except for the bit I coloured, since you obviously can deduce some things about a person's beliefs from this piece of information.) And to consider this "disbelief" a "kind of belief" seems perfectly obvious to me. After all, if it's not a kind of belief (whether un- or dis-) what can it be? What do you hope to achieve, signify or communicate, by not letting "belief" encompass the un- and dis- varieties?

Meet George. George does not hold the belief "this god exists" about any god. George is not a theist, therefore George is an atheist. Now, you say you can obviously deduce some things (propositions) that George DOES believe. Well, please deduce away and give a few examples that are not just different ways of saying George lacks belief in god. Propositions, content... I'll be interested to see if you can.

[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...
...
...
Sulking? Fuming? Bored? Otherwise engaged? I have to guess here, because Typist can respond to everyone it seems other than me. The longer this goes on, the funnier it gets.
...
I know one thing, if a response ever comes, it will talk about anything, anything other than the incoherency displayed above. [/quote]

[Typist]

But give me credit for at least having tried, why don't you?

Ok, fair enough. I don't really want to beat it to death. I was making my evaluations based on what you've typed here, which has been quite short on balance.

But, in fairness, my writing here has been short on balance as well. As example, I can honestly report that on other forums I have ripped aphilosophy to shreds. But here, a much more one sided presentation.

Honestly, I enjoy our conversations, but am bored with the dueling part of it, as it's become repetitive. I accept my share of the blame here, and am willing to make a good faith effort at a more thoughtful approach. A proposal in this regard on it's way to you.

I see your picture finally! You're another big mustache guy like me, so you can't be all that bad.

[Typist]

Bored? Otherwise engaged?

[Arising_uk]

But, in fairness, my writing here has been short on balance as well. As example, I can honestly report that on other forums I have ripped aphilosophy to shreds. But here, a much more one sided presentation. ...

Care to post some links? As I'm hoping that you did not use the same arguments you repeat here because, if so, it might enable me to understand your perspective.

[Typist]

Care to post some links? As I'm hoping that you did not use the same arguments you repeat here because, if so, it might enable me to understand your perspective.

A summary of my perspective. Just for you.

Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy. The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part of aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

[chaz wyman]

Care to post some links? As I'm hoping that you did not use the same arguments you repeat here because, if so, it might enable me to understand your perspective.

A summary of my perspective. Just for you.

Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought.

As there is nothing to explore without thought, then there is no aphilosphy.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

No it is not. The mirror imaage of philosophy is yhposolihp. Aphilosophy is for the hard of thinking.


aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy.

Even by your own account there is no symmetry here.

The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

Unfortunately there can be no conceptual part of aphilosophy because, once again, you are contradicting yourself. If aphilosphy is that which is outside thought, then it can contain no concepts, and is with out intellectual merit or content.

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

There is no aphilosphy either here or on other forums. It is not worshipped except ion your feeble brain.

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

No one thinks anything of aphilosphy, except you.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

More like your premature ejaculation. And about as useful as a wet handkerchief.

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

I wish you would. WHy don't you just "break off", or something ... off! DO us all a favour and quit typing.


If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

You have confused bad thinking with an antidote to thinking.