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

[Notvacka]

Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

O ye, of little faith?

[Thundril]

Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

O ye, of little faith?

That's me!

[evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists have a belief

Theists have a belief

Atheist have many beliefs, just like everybody else. However, the one you are hinting at here ain't one of them, as I will demonstrate.

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

Incorrect. Atheists lack the belief that god(s) exist. This is not the same (as I will show) as entertaining a belief.

Theists believe God does exist and should be addressed accordingly.

AGNOSTIKA for presidentente!!!

Let me ask you a very simple question, to demonstrate the difference between a belief, a lack of belief, a disbelief and agnosticism.

Do you believe that Fratchley exists? I am not going to tell you anything more about Fratchley, and I command you not to go surfing the internet to find out what it might (or might not) mean (that would betray your doubt, after all, and Fratchley may not like that). And even if you did, I'd bet that you'd find some number of definitions -- other than exactly 1 -- for what Fratchley might be. So, do you believe or don't you?

Since I will not tell you what Fratchley means, you must decide that you are agnostic. It might exist. It might not. Without further information, you can't say.

If, on the other hand, I define Fratchley as a loaf of raisin bread somewhere between the size of the planets Earth and Mars, you might have a different answer. You could not, of course, be absolutely certain (after all, it's a big universe and we know little about it), but you would probably feel pretty justified in thinking that, "no, Fratchley doesn't exist."

Here's the atheist's problem. We think we know (some of the time, depending on who is talking) what they mean when the say God, but every time we say, "well, no, I can show you quite reasonably how that definition doesn't exist," then the definition shifts. Between different religions, between different denominations within those religions, and between different adherents of even the same denominations, the definition shifts and wiggles.

So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described.

And that is not "holding a belief."

[evangelicalhumanist]

Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

Well, you won't like me for this, but I choose to do that comparison from the viewpoint of the cryptocruciverbalist (cryptic crossword puzzle solver). And here it is:

Comparing "sense" and "senselessness" I am left with "e." ("sense" less the letters in "ness" leave "e").

Comparing "faith" and "faithlessness" I am left, unfortunately, with "faith."

[Thundril]

Compare 'faith' and 'faithlessness'.

Well, you won't like me for this, . .

On the contrary!

[chaz wyman]

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".

I'm a heathen, atheist, infidel, atheist, agnostic, heretic, pagan, apostate, skeptic - this depends on who is shouting. They all are true , more or less - but none of them involve me believing in anything.

[Arising_uk]

I'm a heathen, atheist, infidel, atheist, agnostic, heretic, pagan, apostate, skeptic - this depends on who is shouting. They all are true , more or less - but none of them involve me believing in anything.

But the heathen, pagan and heretic pretty much do have religious beliefs?

[Thundril]

Pagans (Related to peasant, - people of the fields) traditionally do worship summat-or-other.
Heathens are all sinners! Hathan - anglo-saxon, pretty much the same as the slightly-more-french sounding payan. - paysant
Infidels (Latin: lacking faith) have nothing in common except dodgy facial hair.
I am an infidel. (I'll send a piccy when I develop the requisite savvy.)

[chaz wyman]

Pagans (Related to peasant, - people of the fields) traditionally do worship summat-or-other.

The word "Pagan" is another reflexive term applied by the members of the largely urbanite Christian movement in the first millennium AD to traduce and insult the 'village dwellers" who were seen as witches and bumkins. The Pagani were those that had not yet heard of or accepted Christianity, and were eligible for persecution.
The reason I chose the word was that they never self-identified as 'pagan". It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers self-identified as pagan.


Heathens are all sinners! Hathan - anglo-saxon, pretty much the same as the slightly-more-french sounding payan. - paysant
Infidels (Latin: lacking faith) have nothing in common except dodgy facial hair.
I am an infidel. (I'll send a piccy when I develop the requisite savvy.)

[chaz wyman]

I'm a heathen, atheist, infidel, atheist, agnostic, heretic, pagan, apostate, skeptic - this depends on who is shouting. They all are true , more or less - but none of them involve me believing in anything.

But the heathen, pagan and heretic pretty much do have religious beliefs?

No one ever self-identified as "pagan", and there were never any pagan beliefs as such.
See my other post.
Heathen and heretic are also reflexive terms used by Christians to describe other people; not self-identifying terms.

If there were no Theists, then there would be no need to call myself atheist.

Are you with me?

[Thundril]

It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers

There but for the sheer happenstance of luck, go I.

[chaz wyman]

It is only in the 20thC that alternative, muesli trousered vegan, flower kissers

There but for the sheer happenstance of luck, go I.

Yeah, me too! I actually moved into a smallholding in Wales in 1987, and grew pot and kept animals.
I had to go - the crystal gazing, astrology, and emetoscopy got too much to bear.

[Thundril]

I was dam nearly a hippie in the late 60's. Liked the music, the threads, the general style. Loved the smoke, and sometimes the acid was OK. But I just couldn't hack the pacifism! Oh well!

[Notvacka]

Here's the atheist's problem. We think we know (some of the time, depending on who is talking) what they mean when the say God, but every time we say, "well, no, I can show you quite reasonably how that definition doesn't exist," then the definition shifts. Between different religions, between different denominations within those religions, and between different adherents of even the same denominations, the definition shifts and wiggles.

I agree that the God concept can be shiftier than most, but what you say is true about other concepts as well. Can you find two liberals who define "liberal" in exactly the same way for instance?

If we skip the details and concentrate on the essentials, the monotheist God (with a capital "G") is usually understood as the sole, omnipotent, conscious creator of the universe. Polytheist gods (with a modest "g") are mere powerful, supernatural beings and not all that interesting from a philosophical standpoint. (Though polytheistic religions usually have a single creator god who stands above the rest of the pantheon.)

Atheism doesn't need to be defined against each and every variant of the God concept, however. That's just you being shifty.

So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described."

I'll give this a shot. There is no reason to describe or even mention God at all. The main issue here is whether the universe was created by somebody or not. If you believe that it wasn't created by anybody, then you are an atheist. If you believe that it was created by somebody, then you are a theist and must define and describe who the creator you believe in is.

[attofishpi]

Let me ask you a very simple question, to demonstrate the difference between a belief, a lack of belief, a disbelief and agnosticism.

Do you believe that Fratchley exists? I am not going to tell you anything more about Fratchley, and I command you not to go surfing the internet to find out what it might (or might not) mean (that would betray your doubt, after all, and Fratchley may not like that). And even if you did, I'd bet that you'd find some number of definitions -- other than exactly 1 -- for what Fratchley might be. So, do you believe or don't you?

Since I will not tell you what Fratchley means, you must decide that you are agnostic. It might exist. It might not. Without further information, you can't say.

If, on the other hand, I define Fratchley as a loaf of raisin bread somewhere between the size of the planets Earth and Mars, you might have a different answer. You could not, of course, be absolutely certain (after all, it's a big universe and we know little about it), but you would probably feel pretty justified in thinking that, "no, Fratchley doesn't exist."

Here's the atheist's problem. We think we know (some of the time, depending on who is talking) what they mean when the say God, but every time we say, "well, no, I can show you quite reasonably how that definition doesn't exist," then the definition shifts. Between different religions, between different denominations within those religions, and between different adherents of even the same denominations, the definition shifts and wiggles.

So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described.

And that is not "holding a belief."

...you still believe it is possible that God exists...in some form.

The difference that an atheist has is that they BELIEVE there is NO GOD.

It doesnt matter which way you or anyone word it. Theists BELIEVE one thing....Atheists BELIEVE the opposite.
Agnostics sit in the middle, they BELIEVE either position is possible.

WE ALL BELIEVE SOMETHING...if ANY of you disagree, then you better fast find a frickin dictionary that defines the word 'BELIEF' differently.