Philosophy Now Forum

Sorry for the double post, but I think this is worth mentioning.

To say that Atheism is a lack of belief like one is a non-stamp collector is fallacious. The opposite of a belief is not the same as the opposite of an activity. The opposite of stamp collecting is non-stamp collecting, while the opposite of a belief is not non-belief, but anti-belief. Non-belief is the default stance for anyone not acquainted with both belief and non-belief.

See weak atheism, strong atheism

I am the former.

"Lack of belief" is just another way of saying, "I do not believe god exists." This is obviously not the same as "having no true beliefs."

The strong atheist goes further and says, "I believe god does not exist." He does not lack a belief in God -- he has a belief, the positive belief that god fails to exist.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 pm "Lack of belief" is just another way of saying, "I do not believe god exists." This is obviously not the same as "having no true beliefs."

The strong atheist goes further and says, "I believe god does not exist." He does not lack a belief in God -- he has a belief, the positive belief that god fails to exist.

But it is the same, regardless; "Lack of belief" would then be a misnomer. The Strong Atheist is all people are when they claim that they 'lack belief.'

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:02 am
Untrue. An Atheist says, "There is no God." An agnostic says, "I don't know whether or not there is a God."

Many atheists say "there is no God," but this is usually shorthand for, "I lack a belief that God exists."

Well, let's suppose that's so. I don't believe it's true, but for the moment I'll grant you that one, purely for argument's sake.

If that's their shorthand, then it's pretty obvious that their "shorthand" needs immediate revision.

Really, it's got to be the most nonsensical answer they could have devised. For rocks "lack belief" in God. So do trees. Babies "lack" all kinds of beliefs...they don't know much about anything. Coma patients, so far as we know "lack beliefs" too. But that doesn't make any of them Atheists. Someone who has given the issue no thought at all (if such existed) would not thereby be made an Atheist either. He'd simply be oblivious -- and being oblivious is "lacking," but it certainly isn't Atheism either.

So this "I just lack belief" dodge just doesn't work at all.

It's disingenuous; and I'm pretty sure at least some of them are smart enough to see that. They know very well that for someone to be an Atheist, he must do more than "lack belief."

Firstly, it must be the question of belief specifically in God, and secondly, me must not just "lack" (because that would simply make him ignorant), but must actively deny the proposition "God exists": if he does less, he's not an Atheist by any plausible definition of the word..he's just "lacking." Moreover, if he does less that the full monty on that, he's neutered himself so far as recommending his own view is concerned...no one else has any implicit rational duty to join him in his ignorance, so his kind of "Atheism" cannot be recommended to others at all.

No, the Atheist has to be doing exactly what you point out he cannot succeed in doing -- affirming a negative, in respect to the proposition "God exists." He has to be saying, "No God exists" -- he has to be negating that particular issue only, by means of that particular affirmation only.

Now, if he merely says, "I have no evidence...and so I don't believe..." then we can all see that he's made a statement only about his own ignorance or inexperience. He's said, "I've never experienced any X...and he can't go on from that to deduce, "...therefore no X exists, and nobody else can know X either." That's irrational. So that affirmation, if it is true, it is of no import to the question of the existence of God for anyone else.

But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say not just "I lack belief in God," but also, "You have to as well." They want to say, "Only irrational people believe in God," or "There is no evidence for God" (just as you apparently do). But none of these things rationally follows from "I personally lack belief in God," so any real Atheist needs more...much more than you say they claim when they say "I just lack belief in God."

It doesn't get them off the hook...it just renders them impotent, unable to justify their opposition to Theism. For their private "lacks" cannot be a matter of any rational concern to anyone else.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 pm "Lack of belief" is just another way of saying, "I do not believe god exists." This is obviously not the same as "having no true beliefs."

The strong atheist goes further and says, "I believe god does not exist." He does not lack a belief in God -- he has a belief, the positive belief that god fails to exist.

Lacking necessarily entails no true belief. Read my previous posts on this thread and you'll see why Atheism is a belief in opposition to Theism, and lacking belief is Agnosticism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:59 pm But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say not just "I lack belief in God," but also, "You have to as well."

Uh, no they don't say that. Or at least I don't.

They want to say, "Only irrational people believe in God" ...

No.

.. or "There is no evidence for God" ...

Bingo.

Viveka wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:48 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 pm "Lack of belief" is just another way of saying, "I do not believe god exists." This is obviously not the same as "having no true beliefs."

The strong atheist goes further and says, "I believe god does not exist." He does not lack a belief in God -- he has a belief, the positive belief that god fails to exist.

Lacking necessarily entails no true belief. Read my previous posts on this thread and you'll see why Atheism is a belief in opposition to Theism, and lacking belief is Agnosticism.

Lacking belief is not agnosticism. As explained, "gnosis" (knowledge) is about KNOWING, not belief.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:59 pm But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say not just "I lack belief in God," but also, "You have to as well."

Uh, no they don't say that. Or at least I don't.

Which is why you've got your nomenclature wrong. Calling yourself an "Atheist" doesn't make you one, any more than calling yourself a cream pie makes you a cream pie. You have to have the qualifications -- the analytical requirements, the definitional necessities -- which in the case of Atheism, means you must positively assert that God does not exist. If you don't do that, you're just not an Atheist, even if you say you are.

They want to say, "Only irrational people believe in God" ...

No.

Yes.

Every Atheist you'll ever meet is just desperate to tell other people that they simply CAN'T believe in God...they say He's a "delusion," a "wish-fulfillment," and an "opiate," and that belief in him "poisons everything." They write screeds to the whole "Christian nation..." If you read Atheist literature at all, you know that's the truth.

If you're not among them, then I congratulate you on being more rational than to be an Atheist.

.. or "There is no evidence for God" ...

Bingo.

If you assert that, then you open yourself to the question, "What is your evidence that there is no evidence for God?"

You can't say, "My own experience," because your own experience isn't universal. You can't say, "I know of no evidence," because that's just an admission of complete ignorance. You can't say, "Nobody else CAN know there's a God, " because you would then need to say why you have a right to forbid people to know more than you do...

So what can you say? Only "I'm an agnostic." That, you can say. You can admit your own lack of information. But no more.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:55 am Every Atheist you'll ever meet is just desperate to tell other people that they simply CAN'T believe in God...

No.

...they say He's a "delusion," a "wish-fulfillment," and an "opiate," and that belief in him "poisons everything." They write screeds to the whole "Christian nation..." If you read Atheist literature at all, you know that's the truth.

Yes, some atheists do that. Lots of atheists are also racist, misogynist scumbags who wear MAGA hats. So?

If you're not among them, then I congratulate you on being more rational than to be an Atheist.

I'm not among them and I am an atheist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:55 am Which is why you've got your nomenclature wrong. Calling yourself an "Atheist" doesn't make you one, any more than calling yourself a cream pie makes you a cream pie. You have to have the qualifications -- the analytical requirements, the definitional necessities -- which in the case of Atheism, means you must positively assert that God does not exist. If you don't do that, you're just not an Atheist, even if you say you are.

Wrong.

Anything else to discuss here? How 'bout them Astros?

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:07 am

If you're not among them, then I congratulate you on being more rational than to be an Atheist.

I'm not among them and I am an atheist.

You should try the "cream pie" thing. You have just as much chance of success in becoming one as the other.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:17 am Anything else to discuss here?

Apparently not, if you suppose that "wrong" and "no" are rational answers all by themselves.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:23 am

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:17 am Anything else to discuss here?

Apparently not, if you suppose that "wrong" and "no" are rational answers all by themselves.

No, it just become tedious explaining the obvious. It's not as if I'm being paid to do so, after all. But I have devoted a considerable amount of time to explaining evolution and relativity to evolution and relativity deniers, and I have made a large number of other extremely detailed and substantive posts, including to you. So to suggest that I think "wrong" and "no" are rational answers all by themselves is just a straight-up falsehood. It makes Jesus cry.

From here.

Weak atheism[edit]

Weak atheism (sometimes equated with "pragmatic atheism" or "negative atheism") describes the state of living as if no gods exist. It does not require an absolute statement of God's non-existence. The argument is based on the fact that as there is no evidence that gods, spatial teapots or fairies exist, we have no reason to believe in them. This argument could also be classified as extreme agnosticism, or "agnostic atheism" - as it is an acknowledgment of the lack of evidence but acting as if there were no gods.

Pragmatic atheists however are frequently reluctant to make outright statements like "Gods (or fairies) do not exist", because of the great difficulties involved in proving the absolute non-existence of anything - the idea that nothing can be proved is held in the philosophy of pyrrhonism. Consequently many pragmatic atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the extraordinary concept that gods exist. They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to provide evidence for the existence of their own deities, and that no argument is necessary on the atheist's part.

Christopher Hitchens put it another way when he said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Strong atheism[edit]

Strong atheism (sometimes equated with "theoretical atheism") makes an explicit statement against the existence of gods. Strong atheists would disagree with weak atheists about the inability to disprove the existence of gods. Strong atheism specifically combats religious beliefs and other arguments for belief in some god (or gods), such as Pascal's Wager, and argument from design. These arguments tend to be geared toward demonstrating that the concept of god is logically inconsistent or incoherent in order to actively disprove the existence of a god.[4] Theological noncognitivism, which asserts the meaninglessness of religious language, is an argument commonly invoked by strong atheists.[5] In contrast, weak atheist arguments tend to concentrate on the evidence (or lack thereof) for god, while strong atheist arguments tend to concentrate on making a positive case for the non-existence of god.

I've already identified myself as an agnostic weak atheist.