Atheism is Not Simply a 'Lack of Belief'

[SteveII]

In another thread, the topic has come up about the definition of atheism. I have some thoughts and arguments on the subject and instead of hijacking Kathryn's very nice thread about faith before atheism, I thought I would start another.

It is commonly thought among the counter-apologist that the intellectually honest position for an atheist to have is a ‘lack of belief’ in gods. Whether this is due to a 'rigorous' etymology analysis, because they think that defining atheism as a default gives it some special epistemological status, they think it avoids any burden of proof for all manner of claims, or they just think it's clever to say 'black' to the theist's 'white', I suppose depends on the individual. Regardless, it is a confused concept and so broad as to be nearly useless.

WHAT IS A DEFINITION
It's important to understand what a definition of a word actually is. In the philosophy of language, the relationship between a word (the symbol), the concept, and the referent is central to understanding meaning and communication. This relationship can be described using the semiotic triangle, which consists of three components:

Symbol (Word): This is the linguistic element or signifier, such as a written or spoken word.
Concept: This is the mental representation or idea that the symbol evokes in the mind of a speaker or listener.
Referent: This is the actual object or thing in the real world to which the concept refers.
The process works as follows: The symbol (word) is used to evoke the concept in someone's mind, and this concept is connected to the referent in the real world.

Example:

Word (Symbol): "Tree"
Concept: The mental image or understanding of what a tree is—an object with a trunk, branches, and leaves, typically growing in soil.
Referent: A specific tree, such as the oak tree in a person's backyard.

The 'folk-concept' refers to the intuitive, everyday understanding or common-sense notion that ordinary people have about various categories and phenomena in the world. Folk concepts are shaped by cultural, social, and practical experiences rather than by scientific or philosophical theories. They are accurate enough, helping people navigate and make sense of their daily lives.

The point is, we need to distinguish between a 'folk-concept' of words like belief and more precise concepts (philosophically-speaking) of what a belief actually is. The nature of belief (and its application to theism) is at its core a philosophical discussion and if you engage in an argument with philosophical implication, precision is required.

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof.

Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

LACK OF BELIEF IS NOT AN OPTION
The only time someone can genuinely lack a belief regarding the existence of a god is before they have encountered any claims or discussions about such a being. In this initial state of ignorance, they can be described as an atheist in a minimalist sense, as they do not hold a belief in a god. However, this is a very limited and weak definition. Once they are exposed to the concept of a god, they can either accept the claim, reject it, or remain undecided. However, the state of not having any belief about the existence of a god is no longer available to them, as they are now aware of the concept and must form some stance, even if it is one of uncertainty. This shift underscores the transition from ignorance to awareness, where the mere knowledge of the claim necessitates some form of cognitive response: a belief.

WHAT IS ATHEISM THEN?
Theism is the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is true. Atheism then means the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is false.

GNOSTIC ATHEIST
@CapriMark1 mentioned in one of his posts that gnostic atheist describes him best. As I see it, this has two problems.

The first is this seems redundant because atheism is a belief and gnostic means 'knowledge' (which is also a belief). As any belief get's stronger, it eventually qualifies as knowledge (which is typically defined as a justified, true, belief). Since we have established that a lack of belief is not possible, this is just saying basically: I have justified, true, (I really) believe that God does not exist. Which brings up the next problem...

The second is that knowledge (gnostic), is required to be justified and true to be considered knowledge. You can't even be right by accident. That means you accept the burden of proof for a universal negation: god(s) do not exist. That seems to be a tall order--implying you don't understand the implicit claim.

CONCLUSION
Defining atheism as a mere 'lack of belief' is overly broad and conceptually flawed. Atheism, like theism, involves a belief about the proposition "God(s) exist," with atheism asserting that this proposition is false. Understanding belief and its philosophical implications is crucial for a more precise definition. In other words, engaging in arguments with philosophical implications requires precision and clarity in definitions to ensure meaningful and productive discussions about atheism and belief.

[Alan V]

And this is why atheists define themselves rather than letting theists define them.

[Deesse23]

LACK OF BELIEF IS NOT AN OPTION

It is, for everything, including beliefs in god(s).period
Once again you are an epic fail in the most basic stuff, in this case the foundations of reasoning.

Evidence:

LACK OF BELIEF IS NOT AN OPTION
The only time someone can genuinely lack a belief regarding the existence of a god is before they have encountered any claims or discussions about such a being. In this initial state of ignorance, they can be described as an atheist in a minimalist sense, as they do not hold a belief in a god. However, this is a very limited and weak definition. Once they are exposed to the concept of a god, they can either accept the claim, reject it, or remain undecided. However, the state of not having any belief about the existence of a god is no longer available to them,

Bolding mine
You moron just managed to contradict yourself in two claims following each other, making my point and blowing your own initial post completely out of the water. Thats how stupid you are.
Being "undecided" is a lack of belief (in either proposition).

[Rhythmcs]

Forget silly shit about three people in one - the real miracle is how so many people are in exactly the state Steve believes is impossible.

At any rate....people can't be agnostic atheists, apparently, and they can't be gnostic atheists either...allegedly. Can people be gnostic theists...or is this likewise impossible? It's not hard to see how the purpose of these categorizations is to simply frame ones own view as the only -correct- view..which is not actually an existential claim...many incorrect views appear to exist - and thus the whole enterprise collapses before it can begin.

[Dexta]

TL;DR

[Minimalist]

I have some thoughts and arguments on the subject 

More Stevie crap for the trash can.

[brewerb]

I see Steve's back to swing his dick.

I supppose he's fine with being an aunicornist, aclausist, aelfist, aZeusist, aBrahmaist............... and not consider himself 'flawed'.

What say you Steve?

[Alan V]

Can people be gnostic theists...or is this likewise impossible?

Mystics claim to be gnostic theists, but I now think that justified, true belief in the ethical monotheistic God is impossible due to logical and observational contradictions.  ALL theists have is unjustifiable belief, contrary to Steve's assertions.

Therefore atheists lack that belief, because it is unsupportable. Theists just don't know it yet.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nah.

[pattylt]

Steve, would you prefer we used the term ignostic?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

In another thread, the topic has come up about the definition of atheism. I have some thoughts and arguments on the subject and instead of hijacking Kathryn's very nice thread about faith before atheism, I thought I would start another.

It is commonly thought among the counter-apologist that the intellectually honest position for an atheist to have is a ‘lack of belief’ in gods. Whether this is due to a 'rigorous' etymology analysis, because they think that defining atheism as a default gives it some special epistemological status, they think it avoids any burden of proof for all manner of claims, or they just think it's clever to say 'black' to the theist's 'white', I suppose depends on the individual. Regardless, it is a confused concept and so broad as to be nearly useless.

WHAT IS A DEFINITION
It's important to understand what a definition of a word actually is. In the philosophy of language, the relationship between a word (the symbol), the concept, and the referent is central to understanding meaning and communication. This relationship can be described using the semiotic triangle, which consists of three components:

Symbol (Word): This is the linguistic element or signifier, such as a written or spoken word.
Concept: This is the mental representation or idea that the symbol evokes in the mind of a speaker or listener.
Referent: This is the actual object or thing in the real world to which the concept refers.
The process works as follows: The symbol (word) is used to evoke the concept in someone's mind, and this concept is connected to the referent in the real world.

Example:

Word (Symbol): "Tree"
Concept: The mental image or understanding of what a tree is—an object with a trunk, branches, and leaves, typically growing in soil.
Referent: A specific tree, such as the oak tree in a person's backyard.

The 'folk-concept' refers to the intuitive, everyday understanding or common-sense notion that ordinary people have about various categories and phenomena in the world. Folk concepts are shaped by cultural, social, and practical experiences rather than by scientific or philosophical theories. They are accurate enough, helping people navigate and make sense of their daily lives.

The point is, we need to distinguish between a 'folk-concept' of words like belief and more precise concepts (philosophically-speaking) of what a belief actually is. The nature of belief (and its application to theism) is at its core a philosophical discussion and if you engage in an argument with philosophical implication, precision is required.

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof.

Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

LACK OF BELIEF IS NOT AN OPTION
The only time someone can genuinely lack a belief regarding the existence of a god is before they have encountered any claims or discussions about such a being. In this initial state of ignorance, they can be described as an atheist in a minimalist sense, as they do not hold a belief in a god. However, this is a very limited and weak definition. Once they are exposed to the concept of a god, they can either accept the claim, reject it, or remain undecided. However, the state of not having any belief about the existence of a god is no longer available to them, as they are now aware of the concept and must form some stance, even if it is one of uncertainty. This shift underscores the transition from ignorance to awareness, where the mere knowledge of the claim necessitates some form of cognitive response: a belief.

WHAT IS ATHEISM THEN?
Theism is the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is true. Atheism then means the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is false.

GNOSTIC ATHEIST
@CapriMark1 mentioned in one of his posts that gnostic atheist describes him best. As I see it, this has two problems.

The first is this seems redundant because atheism is a belief and gnostic means 'knowledge' (which is also a belief). As any belief get's stronger, it eventually qualifies as knowledge (which is typically defined as a justified, true, belief). Since we have established that a lack of belief is not possible, this is just saying basically: I have justified, true, (I really) believe that God does not exist. Which brings up the next problem...

The second is that knowledge (gnostic), is required to be justified and true to be considered knowledge. You can't even be right by accident. That means you accept the burden of proof for a universal negation: god(s) do not exist. That seems to be a tall order--implying you don't understand the implicit claim.

CONCLUSION
Defining atheism as a mere 'lack of belief' is overly broad and conceptually flawed. Atheism, like theism, involves a belief about the proposition "God(s) exist," with atheism asserting that this proposition is false. Understanding belief and its philosophical implications is crucial for a more precise definition. In other words, engaging in arguments with philosophical implications requires precision and clarity in definitions to ensure meaningful and productive discussions about atheism and belief.

Get bent, you silly twat. You prove nothing with a post like this except your deep ignorance of what it is to be an atheist.

[brewerb]

Get bent, you silly twat. You prove nothing with a post like this except your deep ignorance of what it is to be an atheist.

I think he's basically insecure and his time here is an attempt at superiority and a way to feel better about himself.

[epronovost]

@SteveII

Did you seriously wrote an entire page worth's of words to arrive to the conclusion that atheists are people who lack belief in your God because they hold other beliefs that prevents the adoption of your belief in God on the simple assertions presented in both scriptures, theology and by the faithful themselves? It would be nice if you would not conflate the lack of belief in God with the beliefs that actually led to such lack of belief like philosophical skepticism for example.

Next what? You will demonstrate to us all that we actually have emotions too?

[SteveII]

Steve, would you prefer we used the term ignostic?

No, that's not accurate for any of you (as far as I can tell). Ignosticism holds that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term "God" lacks a clear and unambiguous definition. There are millions of books on the Christian God alone stretching over three millennium. The concept is well defined. So well defined in fact that nearly every one of you have gone on the record criticizing aspects of the Christian belief in God. In other words, you have granted certain concepts of God on which to base your criticism, proving that ignosticism is not your view.

Perhaps someone who thinks that ignosticism describes them can provide some nuance and show me where I am wrong.

[SteveII]

@SteveII

Did you seriously wrote an entire page worth's of words to arrive to the conclusion that atheists are people who lack belief in your God because they hold other beliefs that prevents the adoption of your belief in God on the simple assertions presented in both scriptures, theology and by the faithful themselves? It would be nice if you would not conflate the lack of belief in God with the beliefs that actually led to such lack of belief like philosophical skepticism for example.

Next what? You will demonstrate to us all that we actually have emotions too?

Apparently you are unaware of the claim I am addressing. Many of your kind claim that atheism is a total lack of any belief.

Opening paragraph of American Atheists: What is Atheism

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Now, reread my OP and you can see that this is what I am addressing (and calling BS on).

[pattylt]

Steve, do you assume your detailed description of god is the same as Jews or Muslims. Do you hold that those faiths have the same god as you? Or, do you assume their god is just an incomplete description of your god?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

...provide some nuance and show me where I am wrong.

None of us have that much time.

[brewerb]

Bullshit is having a human mental construct (belief) that all by itself can interact with the physical universe and yet not be able to provide any concrete evidence. Yea, yea, I know the argument, 'we can't tell god to provide that, it's god'.

I know your belief in god provides you with all sorts of emotional support but when you (and all the rest) get right down to it, it's all in your collective heads.

[Minimalist]

There are millions of books on the Christian God alone stretching over three millennium. 

Yeah.... and the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from any of them is that your 'god' is a miserable twat.

[epronovost]

Apparently you are unaware of the claim I am addressing. Many of your kind claim that atheism is a total lack of any belief.

That's just plain wrong; it's not even how members of this community define our atheism since yes we do provide a definition as to what we mean as "we are an atheist community".

We claim a lack of belief in gods and similar spiritual entities like angels, demons, fairies and the like. Nobody here claims a total lack of any belief in anything whatsoever; that's plainly absurd.

No, rejecting a belief is not a belief in and on itself; it can be informed by a another belief, but the rejection itself is not a belief, especially when we are not talking about an innate belief (which a precise god belief is not as you mentioned in your post above).

[Paleophyte]

@SteveII Please tell me that you can distinguish between the following statements:

- I believe that god exists.
- I do not believe that god exists.
- I believe that god does not exist.

And FYI, telling people what they believe is rude, ignorant, and makes you look like even more of a prat than you truly are, which must take real effort.

[Paleophyte]

Steve, would you prefer we used the term ignostic?

No, that's not accurate for any of you (as far as I can tell). Ignosticism holds that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term "God" lacks a clear and unambiguous definition. There are millions of books on the Christian God alone stretching over three millennium. The concept is well defined. So well defined in fact that nearly every one of you have gone on the record criticizing aspects of the Christian belief in God. In other words, you have granted certain concepts of God on which to base your criticism, proving that ignosticism is not your view.

Perhaps someone who thinks that ignosticism describes them can provide some nuance and show me where I am wrong.

This might seem like a trivial detail, but theists don't seem to be able to agree on whether this "well-defined" term refers to the singular (e.g.: Judasim, Islam, Sikhism), plural (e.g.: Hinduism, Taoism, most Polynesian and Native American religions), or some inherently contradictory combination of both options (e.g.: the buy-one-get-two-free discount deity(s) that is/are the Christian Trinity). Kindly get back to us when you lot have figured out how many discrete entities "god" refers to. Until then I maintain that you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.

[Astreja]

WHAT IS ATHEISM THEN?
Theism is the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is true. Atheism then means the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is false.

That is only true for gnostic atheists.  Agnostic atheists, including myself, believe that the proposition "God(s) exist" is indeterminate due to lack of credible data.  This is the reason we do not believe that there are any gods - we don't see any convincing evidence for them.

[Rhythmcs]

Steve's had many opportunities to discuss exactly the kind of position he insists atheism must be with multiple people, myself included, who actually do hold that position. He prefers to insist that people like you must be people like me.

You could agree with him and he'd dumpster that convo too.

[Deesse23]

WHAT IS ATHEISM THEN?
Theism is the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is true. Atheism then means the belief that the proposition: God(s) Exist, is false.

I have a jar with gumballs on my desk. I would be interested if Steve thinks the number of gumballs is even or odd, and particularly why. "I dont know" does not seem to be a valid answer to him, as he explained in his OP.

I also think the number of gumballs in my jar is even. I would be interested if Steve does believe my claim. If not so, then obviously he thinks my claim is false, and thus the other claim is true: The number of gumballs is odd. But why would he think the number is odd, based on no info  at all, only because he rejects my claim of evenness? Because he is a moron.


As i said so many times, this fool lacks the very basics to have a honest and fruitful conversation with, not only about gods and the metaphysical, but about jars with gumballs.