Atheism is Not Simply a 'Lack of Belief'

[Alan V]

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.

SYZ is an ignostic who posts regularly.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it ignostics reject belief in God because the term "God" lacks a clear and unambiguous definition between believers, or between various theistic faiths.  For instance, it is common to meet Christians who disagree about their definitions of God, even with so many Christian books to inform them what they should believe (which also disagree with each other).

However, I have not used the term "ignostic" for myself, since I have considered the variety of God-concepts available (in general there are a limited number) and reject them all as being illogical or inconsistent with well-established facts.

That makes me a gnostic rather than an agnostic atheist, but the only thing which all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods or God.  This is why you have to let individual atheists define themselves, since we vary in how we arrived at that point.  This is also why we discuss such issues with each other.  Unlike most theists, we don't have any books of beliefs and practices we are all supposed to uphold to be Christians or Muslims or Jews of various sects.

[Rhythmcs]

Really drives em nuts when you explain that you're an atheist for no reason whatsoever. You see, in Steveland, you can't be an atheist of any kind, and theres only one kind..until you learn about shit like justified true beliefs, valid arguments, sound inferences. Yet again leaving him with yet a manifestly counterfactual claim.

There was never and could never be an atheist child. Imagine how far gone you have to be to insist to the people that you're actively talking to, that they do not and cannot exist.

[Dānu]

I think perhaps Steve likes to hear himself talk. The first 4/5 of his OP lays out a bunch of preliminary material which he never actually employs and therefore could have been omitted without loss.

[SteveII]

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?

Incomplete description of my God.

[brewerb]

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?

Incomplete description of my God.

I may regret this but what is the 'complete' description of your god?

[CapriMark1]

........ 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. ......

Allow me to offer a 4th option:  Indifference

Most atheists I know would prefer to be left alone.  And their choice of definition reflects that.  

Did you notice how strongly the reaction was to your post.  They want you to understand what they truly are.  It's disturbing to them that you don't understand that, so they jump in to try to correct your misconception.  If that doesn't happen, the rest of the conversation doesn't get to where it needs to go - and so far, that's what we've got.

[SYZ]

...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.

I appreciate the amount of time you've taken to put this
thread together, but—of course—as an atheist (but more
so as an ignostic) I must disagree with it wholeheartedly.

In simple terms then, it indicates that you have no cogent
understanding of what atheism is, or what makes an atheist.

Which is understandable as you're a theist.  How could you
be expected to know?  You believe in supernatural entities
and paranormal phenomena.  Both of which totally defy any
sort of human logic.  And without logic, you don't have a case
for anything you specifically claim about religiosity or its lack
thereof.

Both defy definition—just as you're unable to define God
or gods... or resurrection, miracles, reincarnation, faith
healing, prayer, etc.

Your initial claim is correct;  and I agree.

Your second claim that atheism involves a "belief" or any "belief"
is totally erroneous.  The single most pertinent differentiator
between you and me Steve is belief (about religion).

 —Faith itself is defined as belief without evidence.

PS:  This kind of site (here in Australia) encouraging the blatant
indoctrination of school children into the blind acceptance (belief)
of primitive religious dogma is, to me, extremely disturbing within
a nominally secular, scientifically enlightened 21st century educational
curriculum.

      Understanding Faith.    

[SteveII]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]
3. I believe that the evidence is inconclusive or unknowable so I simply don't know the answer to the question [agnosticism]
4. I don't have a belief on the issue of God.
    -- From American Atheist: What is Atheism "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods [2]; it is a lack of belief in gods."
    -- The confusion is that it is not simply a claim that they don't have a belief in gods like a theist does, they have some other belief. It is a claim that atheism describes a state of affairs where no belief on the question of God exists. Babies are atheists.
    -- It describes a state of non-belief.
    -- If you have a belief, you need another word to describe it: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, ignostic atheist.

The OP was addressing (4). My argument is that (4), a state of non-belief is confused and impossible once you become aware of the concept of theism. From the OP:

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.

[SteveII]

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.

Then why wouldn't you just be an agnostic? Why do you have to add 'atheist' to the end?

By adding atheist to the end it either (a) has no meaning and is doing no work or (b) you don't really mean "indeterminate". What do you think the word 'atheist' is doing in your description of your belief?

[SYZ]

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.

SYZ is an ignostic who posts regularly.  He can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it ignostics reject belief in God because the term "God" lacks a clear and unambiguous definition...

Thanks Alan; correct.  As you've said, I invariably define myself as
"ignostic", although I've also said I use the term "atheist"—for social
convenience.

Obviously Steve has never read my past comments, and as a theist,
probably can't comprehend this definition anyway LOL.

I note too that many people here have asked Steve to define exactly
what he means by God or gods, but thus far his responses have been
invariably obfuscatory.     Tsk, tsk.

[SYZ]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]
3. I believe that the evidence is inconclusive or unknowable so I simply don't know the answer to the question [agnosticism]
4. I don't have a belief on the issue of God.
    -- From American Atheist: What is Atheism "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods [2]; it is a lack of belief in gods."
    -- The confusion is that it is not simply a claim that they don't have a belief in gods like a theist does, they have some other belief. It is a claim that atheism describes a state of affairs where no belief on the question of God exists. Babies are atheists.
    -- It describes a state of non-belief.
    -- If you have a belief, you need another word to describe it: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, ignostic atheist.

Like most other theists here Steve, you resort to complex,
unnecessary games of semantics in an attempt to prove
your point.  This sort of incohesive type of word salad
invariably brings a smile to my lips.  Sorry.  Not.

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.

  Word salad v2.   

[SteveII]

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.

However, I have not used the term "ignostic" for myself, since I have considered the variety of God-concepts available (in general there are a limited number) and reject them all as being illogical or inconsistent with well-established facts.

That makes me a gnostic rather than an agnostic atheist, but the only thing which all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods or God.  This is why you have to let individual atheists define themselves, since we vary in how we arrived at that point.  This is also why we discuss such issues with each other.  Unlike most theists, we don't have any books of beliefs and practices we are all supposed to uphold to be Christians or Muslims or Jews of various sects.

I have no problem with any of that (since you don't claim the 'no-belief' category). I would say that there are not different types of atheists (a basic belief that no gods exist). At best, the words ignostic, gnostic and agnostic as modifiers address the justification or level of certainty for the basic belief--a useful distinction in a discussion.

[brewerb]

Sounds like this thread is going to have a lot if nits. Don't believe, lack of belief, indifferent on the belief, can't believe,............... these are not big picture issues that in the end don't really matter. This is Steve's attempt to sound profound and failing. Attack the minutia to deflect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Someone needs to tell Steve that a polite sneer is still a sneer. Don't think it isn't noticed.

[Alan V]

Gnostics say they know.
Agnostics say they don't know.
Theists say they believe in God.
Atheists say they don't believe in God.

Gnostic theists say they know God exists.
Gnostic atheists say they know God does not exist.
Agnostic theists say they believe in God even if they don't know he exists.
Agnostic atheists say they do not believe in God even if they don't know he doesn't exist.

I will repeat myself for the benefit of Steve: Therefore the only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in any gods or God. Only some atheists claim they know that no God exists.

Atheists typically define atheism as a human's natural state before we are conditioned into one or another theistic belief system. To be inclusive of such atheists, we define atheism loosely. However, there are all sorts of atheists. I even have a friend who, while he no longer believes in God, still believes in an afterlife. He attends a Unitarian/Universalist church regularly. So there are even materialist atheists and spiritualist atheists, though the latter are probably few in number.

None of this is that hard to understand. Steve's reasoning is motivated.

[SteveII]

........ 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. ......

Allow me to offer a 4th option:  Indifference

Most atheists I know would prefer to be left alone.  And their choice of definition reflects that.  

Did you notice how strongly the reaction was to your post.  They want you to understand what they truly are.  It's disturbing to them that you don't understand that, so they jump in to try to correct your misconception.  If that doesn't happen, the rest of the conversation doesn't get to where it needs to go - and so far, that's what we've got.

You're new so you may not have realized yet that 80% of the responses I get are of the type you are seeing. I enjoy long-format sparing discussions with people who disagree. Many can't separate the fact I am a Christian from nearly anything I write, so I get a fairly predictable response. Long ago, it has ceased to bother me and I look for the 20% I will read (those whom are not blocked) and the 10% I will reply back to and less than 5% will develop into a satisfying civil discussion with thoughtful people. You seem thoughtful and I look forward to a topic in the future that we cross keyboards on.

Regarding indifference, I have no problem with that. It is still a belief that has plenty of content.

[CapriMark1]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]

..........

This is the problem I was talking about.  What it should read is:

2.  I don't believe in gods. [atheism]

Until you understand this point, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

[SteveII]

...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.

I appreciate the amount of time you've taken to put this
thread together, but—of course—as an atheist (but more
so as an ignostic) I must disagree with it wholeheartedly.

In simple terms then, it indicates that you have no cogent
understanding of what atheism is, or what makes an atheist.

Which is understandable as you're a theist.  How could you
be expected to know?  You believe in supernatural entities
and paranormal phenomena.  Both of which totally defy any
sort of human logic.  And without logic, you don't have a case
for anything you specifically claim about religiosity or its lack
thereof.

Both defy definition—just as you're unable to define God
or gods... or resurrection, miracles, reincarnation, faith
healing, prayer, etc.

Your initial claim is correct;  and I agree.

Your second claim that atheism involves a "belief" or any "belief"
is totally erroneous.  The single most pertinent differentiator
between you and me Steve is belief (about religion).

The content of our beliefs differ. We both have beliefs about the proposition: God exists.

After some analysis (presumably) you believe this proposition to be problematic because of a conceptual problem. You have a belief--a rather complicated belief.

From Wikipedia: Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherency and an ambiguous definition.

It seems this conclusion on its own can go in one of two ways: (1) you can describe yourself as an agnostic (the noun, not the adjective) or (2) you can describe yourself as an atheist (believes there is no gods) and cite your ignostic reasoning as your justification.

None of this analysis comes close to showing my claims are "totally erroneous".

[SteveII]

Gnostics say they know.
Agnostics say they don't know.
Theists say they believe in God.
Atheists say they don't believe in God.

Gnostic theists say they know God exists.
Gnostic atheists say they know God does not exist.
Agnostic theists say they believe in God even if they don't know he exists.
Agnostic atheists say they do not believe in God even if they don't know he doesn't exist.

I will repeat myself for the benefit of Steve: Therefore the only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in any gods or God.  Only some atheists claim they know that no God exists.

Atheists typically define atheism as a human's natural state before we are conditioned into one or another theistic belief system.  To be inclusive of such atheists, we define atheism loosely.  However, there are all sorts of atheists.  I even have a friend who, while he no longer believes in God, still believes in an afterlife.  He attends a Unitarian/Universalist church regularly.  So there are even materialist atheists and spiritualist atheists, though the latter are probably few in number.

None of this is that hard to understand.  Steve's reasoning is motivated.

Because you are not one of the people who claim that atheism is a complete lack of any beliefs about the existence of god(s), you are confused with my argument. It does not apply to you and your explanations don't address the problem you don't have.

Obviously, certainly, of course atheist 'lack a belief in God'. They also have a belief that there is no god. That is my point, you cannot have one without the other. There are many atheist who will not concede this point. They want to say they are a blank slate on the question. They have no beliefs (or claims) whatsoever that can be challenged. They did not use reasons to arrive at this thing that is not a belief. They are not interested in modifying atheism with any of the adjectives you use above because that will commit them to an epistemic process they are trying to avoid.

[SteveII]

deleted

[Minimalist]

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?

Incomplete description of my God.

Arrogant fuck.  Never considered that their descriptions are superior to yours, have you?  You are a True Believer, Stevie.  You should be embarrassed by that.

[SteveII]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]

..........

This is the problem I was talking about.  What it should read is:

2.  I don't believe in gods. [atheism]

Until you understand this point, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

Ah, my claim is that these are functionally the same thing. The reason I worded it the way I did was to be clear that the "I don't believe in gods" is a belief. From my OP:

BELIEF
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.

The word picture/sentence in your mind "I don't believe in gods" is a belief (definitionally) and therefore is identical to the word picture/sentence "my belief is there are no gods".

If you don't think I am right, show me your work.

[Paleophyte]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]
3. I believe that the evidence is inconclusive or unknowable so I simply don't know the answer to the question [agnosticism]
4. I don't have a belief on the issue of God.
    -- From American Atheist: What is Atheism "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods [2]; it is a lack of belief in gods."
    -- The confusion is that it is not simply a claim that they don't have a belief in gods like a theist does, they have some other belief. It is a claim that atheism describes a state of affairs where no belief on the question of God exists. Babies are atheists.
    -- It describes a state of non-belief.
    -- If you have a belief, you need another word to describe it: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, ignostic atheist.

The OP was addressing (4). My argument is that (4), a state of non-belief is confused and impossible once you become aware of the concept of theism. From the OP:

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.

Taking your first proposition above:

"I believe that god exists"

For any individual this must either be true or false via the Law of the Excluded Middle. If true then no further examination is necessary. If false then you immediately arrive at "I do not believe that god exists."

At that point the individual may form further beliefs (e.g.: "I believe that god does not exist." or "I believe that another god or gods exist."); however, this is a personal choice and there is no logical necessity to do so and your statements to the contrary are baseless. All of the following are entirely valid:

 - I do not believe in god and I couldn't care less (apatheism).
 - I do not believe in god and the definitions used are so incoherent as to make further inquiry meaningless (ignosticism).
 - I do not believe in god and believe that the question can never be answered (agnostic atheism).
 - I do not believe in god. Full Stop.

More simply it is possible to reject a claim without producing any new claim or belief. It takes the very simple for of "I believe that you are wrong."

[Alan V]

Because you are not one of the people who claim that atheism is a complete lack of any beliefs about the existence of god(s), you are confused with my argument. It does not apply to you and your explanations don't address the problem you don't have.

I can concede that my assertion that I know God does not exist is a strongly held belief on my part, by your definition of belief as justified.  However, most atheists like to avoid the confusion between justified belief and unsupported belief by avoiding the use of the word altogether when it comes to their own positions.  Same with "faith."  Theists use many loaded terms which only confuse discussions.  If you are interested in how atheists actually think, you have to allow us our own words as well as allow individuals to speak for themselves.

Obviously, certainly, of course atheist 'lack a belief in God'. They also have a belief that there is no god. That is my point, you cannot have one without the other. There are many atheist who will not concede this point. They want to say they are a blank slate on the question. They have no beliefs (or claims) whatsoever that can be challenged. They did not use reasons to arrive at this thing that is not a belief. They are not interested in modifying atheism with any of the adjectives you use above because that will commit them to an epistemic process they are trying to avoid.

Please note that Christian philosophers were misled, for centuries, by using epistemic methods because they lacked essential information.  Their conclusions were only as good as their information.  Therefore modern atheists often skip over the use of philosophical methods and simply rely on science and scholarship to provide the information they need to reach their conclusions.  So they are not relying on faulty philosophical methods at all.

[Deesse23]

Obviously, certainly, of course atheist 'lack a belief in God'. They also have a belief that there is no god.

Stop.telling.people.what.they.think/believe