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

[Thundril]

Our atheist friends will now declare they have no point of view on this matter, no opinion, no conclusions, and that they've never given the matter any thought whatsoever, and that their posts were written by space aliens from the planet Xeon26.

I'm not going to say any of those things. (Well, maybe the bit about the aliens.)
And I am an atheist, so does this mean I'm not your friend?

[Typist]

I'm not going to say any of those things. (Well, maybe the bit about the aliens.) And I am an atheist, so does this mean I'm not your friend?

Our atheist friends will not read that I've already called them friends, and they will try to somehow warp being called a friend in to something we can argue about. At least that's what the aliens told me.

[Arising_uk]

I also think what he says can resonate with others and as such want him to clarify it so that something useful may come out for those people.

Meditate.

Don't forget to do Yoga every day for a few years as if not then its just sitting on your arse fantasizing.

[evangelicalhumanist]

No. Lack of belief is just that. A lack of belief.

The moment you decide on a point of view for which there is little or no evidence...perhaps that there is a God, or perhaps that there is 'no God', well now you have a belief.

I can vote for this.

Our atheist friends will now declare they have no point of view on this matter, no opinion, no conclusions, and that they've never given the matter any thought whatsoever, and that their posts were written by space aliens from the planet Xeon26.

Of course I have a point of view on this matter, and I've tried to express it before. Let's just say that when I use the term "believe," as I've said many times, I mean in the sense of actively taking a position which informs my actions. If I believe my employment is secure, I might just decide to buy that new car. If I believe it is not secure, I am just as likely not to do so. If my job is such that it is "if we call you to come in, day-to-day, then we'll pay you for doing so," then I have insufficient information on which to actively do anything. But in that case, by the way, being at least a bit prudent, I would not buy the car. Others, trusting to "Providence," might just do so.

In any case, I disagree with attofishpi said. In my latter example, above, I have neither a belief nor disbelief about the likelihood of that call: merely hope, if I'm an optimist, or not if I'm a pessimist.

On the subject of whether there might be "something-that-by-some-definition-yet-unknown-might-be-called-god," I'm agnositic. On whether there is a God who is going to punish and reward my believing after I die, or be actively involved in some way in my present life, I'm not agnostic. I have a belief about that -- nope!

[Typist]

Let's just say that when I use the term "believe," as I've said many times, I mean in the sense of actively taking a position which informs my actions.

Which is EXACTLY what you do.

[Notvacka]

On the subject of whether there might be "something-that-by-some-definition-yet-unknown-might-be-called-god," I'm agnositic. On whether there is a God who is going to punish and reward my believing after I die, or be actively involved in some way in my present life, I'm not agnostic. I have a belief about that -- nope!

I'm an agnostic too. However, I also believe in (some version of) God.

I acknowledge that there is no way to have any knowledge of such things. If I could have knowledge, then I would have no use for belief.

[Arising_uk]

Wow! Notvacka,
Its been a very long time since I've met an agnostic theist and what a pain it is, as now I'll have to change some posts where I've said all agnostics are atheists. Maybe not, I'll just wait until I'm called on it then admit my mistake.

So let me check, you think no truth value can be ascribed to the existence of 'god' but you still believe in 'it'. As such would it be correct to say that you believe that your belief in 'god' is true but thats it? I.e. you choose to believe because you find it useful in some sense? If so, I can live with that.

[Notvacka]

Its been a very long time since I've met an agnostic theist...

Surely you have met me before in this forum? I've expressed this position rather often, I believe.

So let me check, you think no truth value can be ascribed to the existence of 'god' but you still believe in 'it'. As such would it be correct to say that you believe that your belief in 'god' is true but thats it? I.e. you choose to believe because you find it useful in some sense? If so, I can live with that.

Yes, I guess you can put it that way. God is not the only thing I'm agnostic about, though.

By the way, a question from you earlier in this thread got a quite lengthy response from me, regarding the meaning of words like "belief" and "faith" and their translation to my native language. I don't know if you missed it. Perhaps it sheds some further light on my position.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Let's just say that when I use the term "believe," as I've said many times, I mean in the sense of actively taking a position which informs my actions.

Which is EXACTLY what you do.

And here again you have it exactly wrong!

Read what I wrote again, and I'll quote my own words:

'On the subject of whether there might be "something-that-by-some-definition-yet-unknown-might-be-called-god," I'm agnositic. On whether there is a God who is going to punish and reward my believing after I die, or be actively involved in some way in my present life I do deny.'

What does that mean? It means precisely what I said. Whether there is some sort of "god" that I could think possible, the fact that such an entity does not bear on the life I have, and won't have, means that it also has n basis for informing my actions. None.

[Typist]

Let's just say that when I use the term "believe," as I've said many times, I mean in the sense of actively taking a position which informs my actions.

You have been actively taking positions on this topic for some time, here and elsewhere, as you yourself report.

These positions inform your actions, posting on this subject almost daily.

You have atheist beliefs, and they inform your actions, just as theist beliefs inform their actions.

You are desperately struggling to maintain a difference between yourself and theists that doesn't exist.

You have to keep declaring yourself different, because unless you can make that case, you can't achieve your over riding number one goal, the declaration of fantasy superiority.

It's the same problem some theists get in to when their passion for declaring themselves "saved", in comparison to you who is not "not saved", drives them in to ever more silly statements.

This is why it always comes back to the "theism vs. atheism" debate for you, over and over and over again for years. You need somebody to be superior to, and the traditional target groups have been taken off the table by political correctness etc.

Thought is inherently divisive.

[Arising_uk]

...
By the way, a question from you earlier in this thread got a quite lengthy response from me, regarding the meaning of words like "belief" and "faith" and their translation to my native language. I don't know if you missed it. Perhaps it sheds some further light on my position.

Sorry, still dwelling upon it.

[blackbox]

You have atheist beliefs, and they inform your actions, just as theist beliefs inform their actions.

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.

Surely "atheist beliefs" would be beliefs that define the holder of those beliefs as atheist. That is, an "atheist belief" would be a belief that is necessary and sufficient such that any person holding it must be atheist. Well, I'm an atheist because I don't hold the belief "a god exists". There is no belief necessary and sufficient for this atheism, which isn't surprising since the ONLY necessary and sufficient thing is not a belief but is disbelief.

If you disagree, it should be easy for you to list a few necessary and sufficient "atheist" beliefs.

[Typist]

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.

This is a passionately held belief, despite the fact that Gods are generally defined as being outside of and above reality, and thus would logically be beyond the reach of the tools we have developed for understanding reality.

This is a passionately held belief, despite the reality that internet atheists are generally desperate to get on to a debunking of the god proposal, before they even understand what the proposal is.

This is a passionately held belief, which is fundamentally emotional in nature, just as theist beliefs are.

That is, as humans we are desperate to believe we understand and therefore can control our environment. One groups yells, "Religion has the answers!". Another group yells, "Science has the answers!" And then the two groups proceed to arguing over who is right.

When it comes to analyzing known and knowable reality, science has a great case to make. But this question may not be about knowable reality, as many theists have proposed for a very long time.

All that said, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit what I say, because you are not listening on the reason channel.

The profound contradictions clearly evident within both theism and atheism tend to illustrate that a greater intelligence of some kind may also be fully contradictory, and thus beyond the reach of reason.

[Notvacka]

There is no belief necessary and sufficient for this atheism, which isn't surprising since the ONLY necessary and sufficient thing is not a belief but is disbelief.

If you want to define "belief" in such a way that it doesn't include atheism, fine. Personally, I would define "disbelief" as a kind of "belief", much like negative numbers are numbers too.

This, like most philosophical debates, really is about definitions. (Remember when we endlessly debated the definition of "nothingness" with stretmediq? ) When such a discussion has gone on for some time, and agreement (about definitions) can't be reached, one has to realize that we are not talking about the same thing.

As far as I can tell, everybody in this thread agrees that a theist is a person who believes in (some version of) God and that an atheist is a person who does not believe in (any version of) God.

This rather silly debate about whether the latter is a belief or not, comes down to whether you consider "disbelief" a kind of belief or not. The debate is silly, because neither definition yelds a different result from the other. It's all emotional. (Contrary to that other discussion, where stretmediq drew all kinds of conclusions based upon his odd definition of "nothingness".)

[chaz wyman]

There is no belief necessary and sufficient for this atheism, which isn't surprising since the ONLY necessary and sufficient thing is not a belief but is disbelief.

If you want to define "belief" in such a way that it doesn't include atheism, fine. Personally, I would define "disbelief" as a kind of "belief", much like negative numbers are numbers too.

This, like most philosophical debates, really is about definitions. (Remember when we endlessly debated the definition of "nothingness" with stretmediq? ) When such a discussion has gone on for some time, and agreement (about definitions) can't be reached, one has to realize that we are not talking about the same thing.

As far as I can tell, everybody in this thread agrees that a theist is a person who believes in (some version of) God and that an atheist is a person who does not believe in (any version of) God.

This rather silly debate about whether the latter is a belief or not, comes down to whether you consider "disbelief" a kind of belief or not. The debate is silly, because neither definition yelds a different result from the other. It's all emotional. (Contrary to that other discussion, where stretmediq drew all kinds of conclusions based upon his odd definition of "nothingness".)

Would you not consider atheism; literally meaning a 'lack' of God to be a broad church which includes -
ignorance of a particular god (as in the case of heathens that christians discovered all over the world);
agnostics (people who have an idea of why they are atheistic);
apathetics who just don't give a monkeys about god;
relative atheists whose believe in god is so far removed from another's that they are accused of being an atheist (this was the original use of the terms in the 16th century btw);
and people who insist that they do not have a set of beliefs in god as that would validate a particular god they do not believe in.

Being an agnostic is a sub category of atheism. For some being a Hindu is an atheist. Never thinking about god is an atheist. All because atheism is used for a range of uses.