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

[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.
...
Ah, finally, a response, although a lame-ass one. Typist says nothing but implies he is bored by quoting back at me:

Bored? Otherwise engaged?

Hilarious! Typist's pet stupidity, upon which he bases an immense amount of ridicule and abuse, has been shown to be the inanity that it is and he finds this so boring he can't respond.

Bored? Busted, more like, or bereft. Yep, bereft fits perfectly.
Bereft.

[Typist]

You are the great debunker!

You have totally demolished all my beliefs, with your razor sharp analysis of your own beliefs, which of course are NOT beliefs!!!

[chaz wyman]

Sometimes the fool presents the truth as irony.

[Notvacka]

The disbelief is a non-thing.

Only absolute nothing is a non-thing. (Remember that discussion?) Atheism is enough of a thing for people to define themselves as atheists; it's enough of a thing for people to use it as a standpoint to argue from. It can only be defined in negative terms in relation to theism, and it needs theism as counterpoint in order to actually mean anything, but since theism exists as an option, atheism also exists as an option. Everything is defined by everything else. A hole is defined by its surroundings, but that doesn't mean that the hole does not exist, even though it constitutes of nothing in itself. Here is where we split hairs.

It's a mistake to treat it as a "something" that has causal effects.

It has caused this debate, which I would count as an effect. Yes, you could say that this debate was caused by theism in the first place, but theism alone could not cause it.

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.

Perhaps we view the concept of existence differently. God does exist, in our minds as a concept, at the very least. If we can talk about it, it must exist, otherwise our words would have no meanig. The particular disbelief we call atheism also exists, as a concept in our minds. Why deny it?

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.

I could, but you would probably consider them non-beliefs as well. From a negative proposition, other negative propositions can be deduced. For instance, a theist might or might not consider the Bible God's truth, but George certainly won't consider the Bible God's truth. Knowing that George is an atheist actually tells me more about his view of the Bible, or any other religious tome, than knowing he was a theist would tell me.

[chaz wyman]

The disbelief is a non-thing.

Only absolute nothing is a non-thing. (Remember that discussion?) Atheism is enough of a thing for people to define themselves as atheists; it's enough of a thing for people to use it as a standpoint to argue from. It can only be defined in negative terms in relation to theism, and it needs theism as counterpoint in order to actually mean anything, but since theism exists as an option, atheism also exists as an option. Everything is defined by everything else. A hole is defined by its surroundings, but that doesn't mean that the hole does not exist, even though it constitutes of nothing in itself. Here is where we split hairs.

It's a mistake to treat it as a "something" that has causal effects.

It has caused this debate, which I would count as an effect. Yes, you could say that this debate was caused by theism in the first place, but theism alone could not cause it.

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.

Perhaps we view the concept of existence differently. God does exist, in our minds as a concept, at the very least. If we can talk about it, it must exist, otherwise our words would have no meanig. The particular disbelief we call atheism also exists, as a concept in our minds. Why deny it?

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.

I could, but you would probably consider them non-beliefs as well. From a negative proposition, other negative propositions can be deduced. For instance, a theist might or might not consider the Bible God's truth, but George certainly won't consider the Bible God's truth. Knowing that George is an atheist actually tells me more about his view of the Bible, or any other religious tome, than knowing he was a theist would tell me.

There is no ordinary problem with pointing out an absence of a quality in a thing. We might say that a pebble is not hungry. We might say it has no appetite for food.
When I used the term atheist of myself, it simply means that I have no belief in god. That really is an end to it. I do not have to fulfil any preconceptions you or anyone else, be they theist or otherwise, might have about me.
Being an atheist does not complete me. Adorno say that every affirmation involves a negation. By you calling me an atheist you are negating a whole host of other aspect to my make-up. I am a historian, a thinker, a father, a lover, a husband, a fool - none of these complete who I am and whilst some define me by focusing on certain aspect of my personality and behaviour, they should not be taken in themselves to include other aspects of who I am. Being an historian merely means that I like to look at the past. Being a rationalist means that I like to reason. But being an atheist is simply a lack of an appetite, like a pebble as for food. It dose not mean that I have any specific quality in relation to this fact. You can turn to the pebble and say why it has not an appetite, but all are negative - it has no energy requirements, it has no mouth stomach or anus, - all of these are negative. My atheism requires only negation. To append any quality that is positive is to validate that which is absent. To associate any positive quality to the fact of my atheism proposes a reality for god the very thing that is not present in the attribution. the very moment you do this, then you negate the negation. And I am not longer an atheist but I am being specified for my negation. I am okay to be called an anti-theist . I have clear reasons why I think religion is harmful and that a belief in specific gods is an affront to truth, but that is a different story.

[Notvacka]

There is no ordinary problem with pointing out an absence of a quality in a thing. We might say that a pebble is not hungry. We might say it has no appetite for food.
When I used the term atheist of myself, it simply means that I have no belief in god. That really is an end to it. I do not have to fulfil any preconceptions you or anyone else, be they theist or otherwise, might have about me.
Being an atheist does not complete me. Adorno say that every affirmation involves a negation. By you calling me an atheist you are negating a whole host of other aspect to my make-up. I am a historian, a thinker, a father, a lover, a husband, a fool - none of these complete who I am and whilst some define me by focusing on certain aspect of my personality and behaviour, they should not be taken in themselves to include other aspects of who I am. Being an historian merely means that I like to look at the past. Being a rationalist means that I like to reason. But being an atheist is simply a lack of an appetite, like a pebble as for food. It dose not mean that I have any specific quality in relation to this fact. You can turn to the pebble and say why it has not an appetite, but all are negative - it has no energy requirements, it has no mouth stomach or anus, - all of these are negative. My atheism requires only negation. To append any quality that is positive is to validate that which is absent. To associate any positive quality to the fact of my atheism proposes a reality for god the very thing that is not present in the attribution. the very moment you do this, then you negate the negation. And I am not longer an atheist but I am being specified for my negation. I am okay to be called an anti-theist . I have clear reasons why I think religion is harmful and that a belief in specific gods is an affront to truth, but that is a different story.

Of course you are a lot of things, as are we all, Chaz. And I respect all those things that you are. By calling you an atheist, I'm not negating any other aspect of your person, I just focus on that aspect which is particularly relevant in a discussion about atheism. I too think that religion can be harmful, and often is. As for beliefs and disbeliefs, I have no desire to continue splitting hairs at the moment. We know who we are, more or less.

[Typist]

I have clear reasons why I think religion is harmful and that a belief in specific gods is an affront to truth, but that is a different story.

Your atheist beliefs...

[chaz wyman]

I have clear reasons why I think religion is harmful and that a belief in specific gods is an affront to truth, but that is a different story.

Your atheist beliefs...

No that is an anti religious sentiment. I do not have any beliefs that relate to atheism as that would be a contradiction.
.

[Typist]

anti religious sentiments = atheist beliefs

[Thundril]

anti religious sentiments = atheist beliefs

so you've never met anyone who was deeply spiritual and strongly anti-religious?
Would believers in Pan, Loki and Anansi qualify as atheist?
Or would they be banned from expressing anti-religious thoughts?
What about Quakers?
Subtlety isn't easy at first, Typist.
Take your time.

[Typist]

Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, yack, yack....

[Thundril]

Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, yack, yack....

Thought so . . .

[chaz wyman]

anti religious sentiments = atheist beliefs

Typist = brain dead imbecile.

[John]

Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, yack, yack....

Blackbox made some good points about necessary and sufficient conditions and Thundril offered what appear to be solid counter examples of your assertion so is this really the best response you can muster? In any normal debate I'd say you've conceded.

[Typist]

Yes, you're right. I've conceded that this is the most ridiculous thread in the history of philosophy, and that I have been proven powerless to do anything about it.

You win. Your beliefs, which of course don't exist, have triumphed over my beliefs.

It's hilarious how hard you guys will fight over something you claim doesn't exist.