Atheism is Not Simply a 'Lack of Belief'

[Cavebear]

Adding a proviso to my prior post: particulars do not lead to atheism if atheism is defined as the denial that gods exist (instead of lack of belief), which is Steve's claim.

Yes, atheism (in my view) is mostly a recognition that no evidence in support of any theism has yet to be presented. The theists seem to consider atheism as the active denial of a deity they are certain exists. Except when here, I really don't think about deities. The idea of them is just not a part of my daily life. It is sort of like being asked if I believe in unicorns. I haven't thought about unicorns for months, but if asked, I do ask the asker for evidence of them.

[brewerb]

OK, let's take another swing at this from yet another angle.

No belief exists in isolation. They form complex relationships with other beliefs in the mind of the believer. Thus, we can infer the existence of a belief from the other beliefs that are connected to it. A trivial example is:

I believe in the existence of the Christian god:

• I believe that the Christian god is the Creator of the universe, the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover.
  
• I believe that the Christian god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
  
• I believe that the Christian god is a Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
  

However,

• I do not believe in Vishnu because I believe in the Christian god.
  
• I do not believe in Allah because I believe in the Christian god.
  
• I do not believe in Zeus because I believe in the Christian god.
  

The initial belief produces a host of subsidiary beliefs, some affirmative and others rejections.

Now let's see if @SteveII can compose a similar list without simply falling back on a list of Christian beliefs with a negation added.

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s): ...

Whoa, you lack belief? Astounding!

Hey everybody, look, the nits are gone.

[Cavebear]

OK, let's take another swing at this from yet another angle.

No belief exists in isolation. They form complex relationships with other beliefs in the mind of the believer. Thus, we can infer the existence of a belief from the other beliefs that are connected to it. A trivial example is:

I believe in the existence of the Christian god:

• I believe that the Christian god is the Creator of the universe, the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover.
  
• I believe that the Christian god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
  
• I believe that the Christian god is a Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
  

However,

• I do not believe in Vishnu because I believe in the Christian god.
  
• I do not believe in Allah because I believe in the Christian god.
  
• I do not believe in Zeus because I believe in the Christian god.
  

The initial belief produces a host of subsidiary beliefs, some affirmative and others rejections.

Now let's see if @SteveII can compose a similar list without simply falling back on a list of Christian beliefs with a negation added.

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s): ...

Whoa, you lack belief? Astounding!

Hey everybody, look, the nits are gone.

Sometimes, the best response to a mono-theist is just "I believe in one less god than you do".

[Szuchow]

Also, Atheism has no opposing beliefs or beliefs at all. Any belief in a person believes wholly separate from atheism as atheism itself contains no beliefs in itself, there are no doctrines, dogmas or inherent positions one must take other than the obvious lack of a belief in a god. Steve's' desperate attempt to mold Atheism into an alternative ideology seems odd.  

Believers often want to lie to themselves about atheism being just another religion and thus squash this tiny, uncomfortable thought that their own religion is a bullshit.

[Minimalist]

Why the hell would you join a forum crowded with people you disagree with only to ignore all of them?

Because Stevie likes to hear himself talk.  He's the only one, it seems.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That still is a non sequitur--beliefs do not entail behaviors, therefore you cannot infer 'no beliefs' from no behaviors.

Beliefs don't change behavior? What's with this Ten Commandments bullshit then?

Mind you, when you argue that beliefs don't change behavior, you're arguing that your beliefs are even less relevant than I'd thought. Of course beliefs change behavior. Christians are more likely to go to church than atheists. They're also more likely to go to prison, but that's aside the point. You won't catch atheists praying, or attending Sunday school, or telling others who to fuck and how. That's because we don't have beliefs which drive us to being busybodies or beggars.

[SYZ]

Arguing with the mentally challenged Steve about atheism
is similar to me arguing with my old tabby cat about what
type of cat food I'm gonna feed her!

   With a similar end result.       

[Deesse23]

That still is a non sequitur--beliefs do not entail behaviors, therefore you cannot infer 'no beliefs' from no behaviors.

Beliefs don't change behavior? What's with this Ten Commandments bullshit then?

He is probably talking about christians breaking one, or more, of the commandmends every single day, continuously. Looking at those (very real) christians, one could come to Steves conclusion, indeed.

Should be entertaining to have Steve explain how his christian belief does not entail any behaviour. But yeah in reality his god has some 600 very specific behavioural rules related to the belief in it/him. Almost as if his god disagrees with Steve and expects behaviour based on belief. Isnt the bible full of "thou shalt...." and "thou shalt not..."? Unlike the Bible the (nonexisting) book of Atheism does not require any behaviour at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Beliefs don't change behavior? What's with this Ten Commandments bullshit then?

He is probably talking about christians breaking one, or more, of the commandmends every single day, continuously. Looking at those (very real) christians, one could come to Steves conclusion, indeed.  

Should be entertaining to have Steve explain how his christian belief does not entail any behaviour. But yeah in reality his god has some 600 very specific behavioural rules related to the belief in it/him. Almost as if his god disagrees with Steve and expects behaviour based on belief. Isnt the bible full of "thou shalt...." and "thou shalt not..."? Unlike the Bible the (nonexisting) book of Atheism does not require any behaviour at all.

Wait, you mean to tell me that my practicing human sacrifice was not, in fact, required? Fuck. Fucking shit.

[Dānu]

Do you know what the ad hoc fallacy is, Steve?

Enlighten me as to which part is ad hoc. It seems I have brought forth no new concepts in my reply that I have not said multiple times with far more background discussion.

I know you know what equivocation is. Are you going to address the denial instead of disbelief issue?

You have repeatedly in this thread in response to objections redefined atheists as belonging to different subgroups in order to tailor your argument to the objection. And now you're using a non-standard definition of atheist which nobody but you uses. The definition you are using now is different from the one you started with making a blatant example of ad hoc argumentation and equivocation. You are now arguing something that applies to "some atheists" rather than atheists in general. It doesn't matter whether you introduced this definition 10 minutes ago or 10 pages ago, you are not arguing what you started with and what you are arguing now is a trivial observation. Sure, if you add enough qualifiers then your terms are going to describe some atheists. That's not what you set out to do, but hey, as long as you keep repeating the equivocations, redefinitions, and goalpost moving with bluster, who cares? Right?

[Minimalist]

Atheism is simply the understanding that there are deluded fools who,  although they may have rejected Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, still cling to their obsession about an invisible sky-daddy who regulates every facet of their lives and for whom they do not have a shred of evidence.

Anti-Theism is the understanding that the fools identified above constitute a significant danger to human progress and should be resisted.  In truth, it is only the believers who are the problems.  The buildings can be re-purposed into more socially useful endeavors once they have been cleansed of their current parasitical infestation.

[The Paladin]

Enlighten me as to which part is ad hoc. It seems I have brought forth no new concepts in my reply that I have not said multiple times with far more background discussion.

I know you know what equivocation is. Are you going to address the denial instead of disbelief issue?

You have repeatedly in this thread in response to objections redefined atheists as belonging to different subgroups in order to tailor your argument to the objection.  And now you're using a non-standard definition of atheist which nobody but you uses.  The definition you are using now is different from the one you started with making a blatant example of ad hoc argumentation and equivocation.  You are now arguing something that applies to "some atheists" rather than atheists in general.  It doesn't matter whether you introduced this definition 10 minutes ago or 10 pages ago, you are not arguing what you started with and what you are arguing now is a trivial observation.  Sure, if you add enough qualifiers then your terms are going to describe some atheists.  That's not what you set out to do, but hey, as long as you keep repeating the equivocations, redefinitions, and goalpost moving with bluster, who cares?  Right?

Who moved the goal post?  Wasn't it just over here?