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

[evangelicalhumanist]

anti religious sentiments = atheist beliefs

so you've never met anyone who was deeply spiritual and strongly anti-religious?

Actually, there's a nice little book on that very topic. "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville. Easy read, quite short. Astonishing for many people to even imagine the idea of being "spiritual" without involving divinity. Except to those of us without a god.

On another tack, it sometimes distresses me that we can't maintain a civil dialogue. To me, the question that forms the topic of this thread is a legitimate one. Philosophy need not, I think, be a blood sport. We have quite enough of those.

[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.

And the response to that, some sort of slur that I'm out to boost my ego at the expense of others. Projecting, Typist???

You are the great debunker!

FFS All I've done is tried to actually engage with you, and consider your ideas. So I found a couple of clear inconsistencies in your position and look at your respons(es). Hide your head under a blanket and hope no one notices... blurt out "I'm bored!'... and now some sort of pathetic insult. It's hard to imagine you could get any more childish.

So anyway, yes, you have been debunked. It wasn't difficult.

[John]

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.

You were merely invited to respond to an issue of necessary and sufficient conditions and to a response to an assertion you made. If you can't defend the details of your argument why would you expect anyone to accept it?

[Notvacka]

On another tack, it sometimes distresses me that we can't maintain a civil dialogue. To me, the question that forms the topic of this thread is a legitimate one. Philosophy need not, I think, be a blood sport. We have quite enough of those.

Agreed. Some philosophers seem pretty prone to engage in pissing contests here. In my opinion, your firs objective in a philosophical debate should always be to understand your adversary. Even if your main objective is to "win" the debate, you will never be able to convince your adversaries that you are right, unless you first understand their point of view.

The problem is that nobody is ever wrong. Not from their own viewpoint. And unless you come to understand how they can be right, you will never be able to convince them that they are wrong either.

[Arising_uk]

... The problem is that nobody is ever wrong. Not from their own viewpoint. And unless you come to understand how they can be right, you will never be able to convince them that they are wrong either.

Not sure this is true of philosphers Notvacka and we have a prestigious example in our very own PN mag, i.e. Prof Joel Marks who had decided he was wrong in his approach to morals.

But what can you do when the person you are talking to does not understand their own viewpoint or at least cannot articulate it?

[Notvacka]

... The problem is that nobody is ever wrong. Not from their own viewpoint. And unless you come to understand how they can be right, you will never be able to convince them that they are wrong either.

Not sure this is true of philosphers Notvacka and we have a prestigious example in our very own PN mag, i.e. Prof Joel Marks who had decided he was wrong in his approach to morals.

I don't think that philosophers are much different in this respect. The wiser among us are less sure about their own point of view, but nobody would (seriously) enter a debate with arguments they don't believe in. Anybody can change their mind, of course. But after the change of mind, they are still right, though admitting that they were wrong before.

But what can you do when the person you are talking to does not understand their own viewpoint or at least cannot articulate it?

I guess that you can help them articulate it, in order to help them understand where they actually stand, and perhaps then they might realize just how tenous their foundation is. It can be a tiresome and often useless process, and when arguments begin repeating in a circular fashion, it's perhaps best to get off the merry go round.

Having said that, I must confess that some of the most personally rewarding discussions I've had in this forum has been with people of the most stubborn kind, because when people just can't seem to understand, you have to try that much harder to make yourself understood.

I remember a certain exchange between a guy called Satyr and yourself. I was in there for a while too, but when I had constructed a particularly splendid argument (in my own eyes at least ) he dodged it completely, which made me realize that he wasn't interested in debating, only in "winning" the debate, so I left him to you. I'm a bit grateful that he helped me construct an argument that showed how wrong he was, and considering his ridiculous macho swagger and ceaseless stream of insults, I can't help but feel a bit smug about him turning coward and changing the subject. I'm pretty sure I made him realize that he was wrong, but he didn't have it in him to admit it, so he just changed the subject.

[attofishpi]

Ok so ive already made my point in this thread, but just in case it waned...lol...i will reiterate it another way.

Atheists have a belief

Theists have a belief

Atheists believe god is non existent and hence forth shall not be spoken of.

Theists believe God does exist and should be addressed accordingly.

AGNOSTIKA for presidentente!!!

[chaz wyman]

Ok so ive already made my point in this thread, but just in case it waned...lol...i will reiterate it another way.

Atheists have a belief

Nope. They have a lack of belief. I always find this remarkable that Theists pretend that atheists also believe and have faith, as if it were a shameful thing.
You shoot yourselves in the foot, by traducing faith. Faith is all you have and yet you demean it by trying to say that atheists are as bad as you.

Theists have a belief.

They have a range of differing beliefs that represent a "dustbin" category we call "god"

Atheists believe god is non existent and hence forth shall not be spoken of.

Nope. What do you mean by GOD? I cannot possibly have a belief in a thing I do not accept.
By trying to tell me I do not believe in your god , you are validating a things which does not exist.



Theists believe God does exist and should be addressed accordingly.

Which God?

AGNOSTIKA for presidentente!!!

[Thundril]

IF theists regard the term 'atheism' as referring specifically to a position rejecting the existence of their god, then they might feel justified in regarding that position as a 'belief'. Well, I henceforth do not call myself 'atheist'. I call myself 'infidel'. This expresses more clearly a lack of belief.
Q. Does my change of label indicate any change of belief?

[attofishpi]

Atheists have a belief

Nope. They have a lack of belief. I always find this remarkable that Theists pretend that atheists also believe and have faith, as if it were a shameful thing.
You shoot yourselves in the foot, by traducing faith. Faith is all you have and yet you demean it by trying to say that atheists are as bad as you.

You believe there is no God. You cant possibly know there is no God.



Theists have a belief.

They have a range of differing beliefs that represent a "dustbin" category we call "god"
OK.



Atheists believe god is non existent and hence forth shall not be spoken of.

Nope. What do you mean by GOD? I cannot possibly have a belief in a thing I do not accept.
By trying to tell me I do not believe in your god , you are validating a things which does not exist.

Nope??? Followed by the old 'what do you mean by God'...routine. What form of god do you believe is in existence then?



Theists believe God does exist and should be addressed accordingly.

Which God?

All monotheistic faiths (that i am aware of) are following the same entity. They are all mans interpretation of God in their own culture.

[Notvacka]

IF theists regard the term 'atheism' as referring specifically to a position rejecting the existence of their god, then they might feel justified in regarding that position as a 'belief'. Well, I henceforth do not call myself 'atheist'. I call myself 'infidel'. This expresses more clearly a lack of belief.
Q. Does my change of label indicate any change of belief?

I like it. In Christian circles I usually refer to myself as "heretic".

[Thundril]

IF theists regard the term 'atheism' as referring specifically to a position rejecting the existence of their god, then they might feel justified in regarding that position as a 'belief'. Well, I henceforth do not call myself 'atheist'. I call myself 'infidel'. This expresses more clearly a lack of belief.
Q. Does my change of label indicate any change of belief?

I like it. In Christian circles I usually refer to myself as "heretic".

But what about my question? Is my 'infidelity' a belief?

[Notvacka]

IF theists regard the term 'atheism' as referring specifically to a position rejecting the existence of their god, then they might feel justified in regarding that position as a 'belief'. Well, I henceforth do not call myself 'atheist'. I call myself 'infidel'. This expresses more clearly a lack of belief.
Q. Does my change of label indicate any change of belief?

I like it. In Christian circles I usually refer to myself as "heretic".

But what about my question? Is my 'infidelity' a belief?

I thought the change of label was intended to distance yourself from that debate.

Whatever label you choose, if your question is intended as an epistemological one, my answer is still yes, it's a belief. But the word "infidel" doesn't come with as many epistemological connotations as "atheist". And choosing what is essentially an invective to label yourself is always provocative, which makes it more of a statement. It becomes an attitude.

Language is a funny beast, though. Consider how the words "atheist" and "atheism" relates to each other and compare that to "infidel" and "infidelity", and you might agree that the latter seems to concern behaviour rather than belief, which is in line with the intentions of the OP:

A belief is something that informs our thoughts and our behaviours.

[Arising_uk]

All monotheistic faiths (that i am aware of) are following the same entity. They are all mans interpretation of God in their own culture.

So you agree that there could just as well be a pantheon of 'gods'?

[Thundril]

But what about my question? Is my 'infidelity' a belief?

I thought the change of label was intended to distance yourself from that debate. [/quote]
Good answer!

Language is a funny beast, though. Consider how the words "atheist" and "atheism" relates to each other and compare that to "infidel" and "infidelity", and you might agree that the latter seems to concern behaviour rather than belief, which is in line with the intentions of the OP:

A belief is something that informs our thoughts and our behaviours.

Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.