Atheism is Not Simply a 'Lack of Belief'

[TheGentlemanBastard]

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.

Have you ever considered, Stevie, that were you less condescending and arrogant in your beliefs and attitudes, that the responses you receive would be less hostile? Disguising your disdain of those who believe differently than you may make you feel better, but it's truly no different than shouting "YOUR WRONG! FUCK YOU!"

If you truly wanted civil discourse, you'd actually be listening to what people say to you, and ignoring how they say it. Since you refuse to do that, as shown by your continued willful ignorance of how the word "atheist" is used within the atheist community, I can only conclude that you are, and always have been, a bad faith actor.

ETA:

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

This is a perfect example. Perhaps you should come here to learn what we think and believe, instead of coming here with your predefined notions to tell us what we think and believe.

Than again, you've shown repeatedly that learning is not high among your priorities.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof. [nearly identical to the one you provided]

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.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that your accepted definition of a word is the only acceptable definition of that word, and any other use of it is wrong. Once again you show that you're not interested in learning what we think or believe, but telling us what we think and believe. It is, as I've already said, arrogant and condescending, but I have no doubt you'll continue.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I’m getting the idea that Steve wants us to say that “we believe that we don’t believe in god”.  He just can’t wrap his head around the fact that belief isn’t involved somewhere in there…

His entire world view is dependent on his faith based beliefs, and he is unwilling to actually take in new concepts that may upset the fragile balance that must be maintained to support a belief that doesn't rely on evidence.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I know this is a very old trope, but the best ideas just can't be improved upon, right?  Consider Carl Sagan's response to this question.  (Generalizing here)  Why don't you believe in the invisible dragon in my garage?  I think its more than a lack of belief.  Words, words, words, words.  You must have faith that my invisible dragon exists because I say it does and most of my friends agree with me.

You're new and keep replying off-topic to my thread so I thought I would mention something.

I am not at all interested in engaging your 5th grade arguments and challenges to "prove it" (and never will be).

I will be more than happy to respond to something you want to add on-topic if I thought it was interesting, instructive, or furthered the conversation in some way.

Condescension, thy name is SteveII

Stevie, would you put up with that attitude from a guest in your house?!?

[Dānu]

He's building a house of cards, in which, as often, his conclusion depends upon semantics.  

@Steve:

Why is the distinction between a belief and the lack of belief important to you?  That seems to be a shoe that is waiting to drop which can be handled without all this.

The fact that so many atheists buy into the nonsense of not having any beliefs about the existence of God has always confused me.

That is not the atheist position. Generally if one is confused one arrives at clarity through investigation, not wallowing in one's confusion.

Regardless, since naive atheists exist, it is not essential to the identity of atheist that one have a propositional attitude toward the existence of gods. Therefore whether atheists who don't fit this description do is an empirical question, not one of definitions, meanings, or philosophy. You've argued that upon encountering a concept that one necessarily must form a propositional attitude toward that concept. First of all, whether that is the case is a question of psychology and neuroscience that need be demonstrated scientifically. You have not done this. You seem to be claiming that one can't entertain a concept with an ex hypothesi propositional attitude and reject said hypothesis without forming a contrary attitude. I see no reason why I should believe this, and you've really offered none other than ipse dixit declaration about facts of psychology which are as yet unknown. As a former mathematician, I often read about various mathematical conjectures without ever forming any kind of attitude pro or con. So something is amiss in your beliefs about belief formation. Beyond that you complain that if this is the position of the atheist, then they should be using the term agnostic. Unfortunately for you, your objection is both without any real justification as well as contrary to the fact that many atheists do embrace the term agnostic as a modifier to atheist. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, and thus it is also possible to be agnostic atheist. But the real problem here is that you are oblivious to the real opportunity here, that of noting that the atheist position is not a mirror of the theist belief. Theists hold their views with certainty. Atheists hold theirs tentatively. Theists affirm a concrete datum. Atheists reject an abstract idea. Perhaps the assymetries between the theist and the atheist are what have you confused.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not trying to define anyone and I don't care what you believe or even the reasons why. This is a simple logical exercise involving belief formation and how that works and using a popular atheist mistake as the vehicle seemed to ensure a lively discussion!

Except that you fail to understand: it isn't a mistake, it's an accurate descriptor of a subset of atheists. I don't believe in your god simply because there is no evidence for him. I'd change my mind if you brought good evidence. That's because I am faithless.

I get it, this is all very inconvenient for your attempt to feel better than us fool atheists, but hey, you either deal with reality or not. I'm not surprised you'd rather not.

ETA: If not believing is a belief, is not loving someone a form of love?

[SteveII]

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof. [nearly identical to the one you provided]

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.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that your accepted definition of a word is the only acceptable definition of that word, and any other use of it is wrong. Once again you show that you're not interested in learning what we think or believe, but telling us what we think and believe. It is, as I've already said, arrogant and condescending, but I have no doubt you'll continue.

You (as in any of you) don't get to accept or reject technical definitions in a technical analysis of belief formation (at least not without making a case for it). I didn't make up what the philosophy of mind discipline has established as what a 'belief' really, truly, actuallyis. Notice not one of you has actually taken on the definition or the argument presented. All assertions, conflations, imprecision and whining about respect so far.

I don't care (especially in this context) what you or anyone actually believes. This is a simple logical exercise involving belief formation and how that works. The fact that many atheists are wrong--which makes the discussion much more interesting, was just a bonus.

As far as arrogant and condescending, I suppose I am sometimes. I try not to be with people participating in good faith. Like anybody, I struggle not to respond in kind to condescending posts.

Speaking of condescending posts, for Paladin, I thought it was best to establish the terms clearly.

[Rhythmcs]

Oh sure, philosophy of the mind establishes that there can be no agnostic atheists. You betcha.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Notice not one of you has actually taken on the definition or the argument presented. All assertions, conflations, imprecision and whining about respect so far.

[...]

As far as arrogant and condescending, I suppose I am sometimes. I try not to be with people participating in good faith. Like anybody, I struggle not to respond in kind to condescending posts.

[adey67]

There's a reason (I personally) say I lack a belief as opposed to anything else and that's because I feel if I make a positive assertion then the religious can legitimately claim I share at least some of the burden of proof and I prefer to keep that exactly where it belongs, with the believer.

Here's how it works for me:
You say there is a god
I say can you prove that
You say no
I say  I don't believe you then.

It really is as simple as that so I don't understand why people insist on tying themselves in knots over it but I suspect having a particular agenda has something to do with it.

[Rhythmcs]

No christian asshole would respond to that question so simply and accurately. They would just start another thread arguing over what the word proof means.

[SYZ]

... 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.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this
Steve, but it's becoming more than obvious you've
thus far posted no compelling evidence that you actually
understand what atheism is all about, or what it
means to be an atheist.

And it's obvious that you can't get your head around
the position of ignosticism.  It's NOT a "modifier"; it's
nonsense to say so.  A person (like me) cannot be
described as an ignostic atheist!  You really need to
do some more research into atheism—so at the least
you can intelligently question it, or claim to know what
it really is or isn't.

It's also obvious that your overzealous theism is, and has,
blinded you to the possibility of any other contradictory
states of mind—other than your own religious fixation. It's
a classic case of extreme cognitive bias, and it's beginning
to make you and your arguments look a bit silly.

Oh! I've just now seen this...

The fact that so many atheists buy into the nonsense of not having any beliefs about the existence of God has always confused me.

LOL... that's already bloody obvious Steve!          

[Deesse23]

"I am confused, therefore everybody else must be wrong"  

[1Sam15]

He's building a house of cards, in which, as often, his conclusion depends upon semantics.  

@Steve:

Why is the distinction between a belief and the lack of belief important to you?  That seems to be a shoe that is waiting to drop which can be handled without all this.

The fact that so many atheists buy into the nonsense of not having any beliefs about the existence of God has always confused me. The subject lent itself to some research and some technical writing practice of the OP which I thought would result in a rigorous debate--all three of which, as I have mentioned, are my current purposes here.

Because your downloaded heart update has a line in it for you to say “has always confused me” you robot.

[Deesse23]

The fact that so many atheists buy into the nonsense of not having any beliefs about the existence of God has always confused me.

Your confusion is rooted in your failure to grasp the fundamental principles of logic and reason.

There are exactly two beliefs about the existence of anything:

• I believe x does exist
  
• I believe x does not exist
  

However, as explained to you so many times, not accepting "x does exist" does not mean my position is "i do believe x does not exist". All of this has nothing at all to do with god(s) or (a)theism, but everything with you failing at the 101 of logic and reason.

[The Paladin]

You're new and keep replying off-topic to my thread so I thought I would mention something.

My comments were not "off topic".  They directly apply to the OP.  If you don't understand how or why, I'd be glad to provide further explanation.

I am not at all interested in engaging your 5th grade arguments and challenges to "prove it" (and never will be).

I don't care.  This isn't a private thread, is it?  If you don't want responses, don't post comments on an open forum.  It's pretty clear that all it takes are elementary concepts to blow away your ideas.

I will be more than happy to respond to something you want to add on-topic if I thought it was interesting, instructive, or furthered the conversation in some way.

I don't care if you respond or not.  I'm not off-topic.

[The Paladin]

I don't care (especially in this context) what you or anyone actually believes.

That's funny because that appears to be all you care about.

This is a simple logical exercise involving belief formation and how that works. The fact that many atheists are wrong--which makes the discussion much more interesting, was just a bonus.

If this is a logical exercise then you need actual logic.  I haven't seen any of that from your comments.  

How are many atheists "wrong"?  Lay out the logic, plain and simple and we can evaluate it together.

As far as arrogant and condescending, I suppose I am sometimes. I try not to be with people participating in good faith. Like anybody, I struggle not to respond in kind to condescending posts.

Well, you're failing there.

Speaking of condescending posts, for Paladin, I thought it was best to establish the terms clearly.

Establish what terms?  Are you saying you get to exert control over how people respond to your comments?  I may be new on his particular forum but I've probably got many years on you and I can tell you now that unless you are an administrator, you can just forget about that notion.  Best you can do is be respectful in your comments and hope to receive similar treatment.

[brewerb]

Steve thought he had a winner, gets snotty when it turns out to be a loser.

Can't even win at picking nits, time to pack it up.

[The Paladin]

From Steve's 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.

Just reviewing your initial claim to make sure I understand it.  You are saying that upon learning of the concept of a god and having rejected it as false, you think that when I say "I reject the existence of a god as false" is different than saying, "I don't believe god exists"?  That's just getting confused in semantics.  In the English language, there's absolutely no difference in those two statements.  Saying lack of belief doesn't mean lack of awareness.

Case in point:  How would you describe your position on Odin?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

As far as arrogant and condescending, I suppose I am sometimes. I try not to be with people participating in good faith. Like anybody, I struggle not to respond in kind to condescending posts.

Bitch, please. You start at arrogant and condescending. It's why no one here who has had ongoing dealings with you, likes you.

As to the rest of your post, I'll not try serious dialog with someone who ignores most of what I have to say. I know I'm on your ignore list, your response above not withstanding.

[brewerb]

As far as arrogant and condescending, I suppose I am sometimes. I try not to be with people participating in good faith. Like anybody, I struggle not to respond in kind to condescending posts.

Bitch, please. You start at arrogant and condescending. It's why no one here who has had ongoing dealings with you, likes you.

As to the rest of your post, I'll not try serious dialog with someone who ignores most of what I have to say. I know I'm on your ignore list, your response above not withstanding.

Must be a gift from god.

[Szuchow]

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof. [nearly identical to the one you provided]

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.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that your accepted definition of a word is the only acceptable definition of that word, and any other use of it is wrong. Once again you show that you're not interested in learning what we think or believe, but telling us what we think and believe. It is, as I've already said, arrogant and condescending, but I have no doubt you'll continue.

He'll continue, it's a law of nature. Troll will continue trolling and sun will continue to rise in the east.

[Paleophyte]

I am hung up on the notion that it's necessary to form beliefs in order to reject a belief. I understand that someone might not immediately recognize this, but I am confused why this is not obvious once you think about it.

Probably because it isn't true. An individual is entirely capable of evaluating and rejecting a belief system that is presented to them with no need to formulate a new one to replace it. For example, do you believe in the existence of Bigfoot? No? Do you need to believe in the existence of some other cryptofauna in its stead?

Rejecting a belief requires a series of beliefs.

I believe that you are wrong.

Go ahead, why did you reject theism?

Because none of the beliefs that have ever been present have ever made sense to me, because, at root, they all make the same fantastic claims, and because not one of them has ever provided the faintest shred of evidence to support these claims.

The very concept of 'why' exposes your error.

Then you will have no difficulty pointing out the deities that I can't see in my statement above.

Any why to that question will be a series of beliefs about the evidence, the concept, how you think it does or does not map onto the world, the epistemological weight you place on empirical things vs the concept of the supernatural, and on and on.

And here you are using the term "belief in two very different senses. You will note that none of the "beliefs" that you noted above require any deity. More importantly, most of them aren't beliefs at all. The best you could say is that I have a different evidentiary standard from you. For a discussion on the belief in god, your goalposts have gotten mighty shifty.

[Minimalist]

Stevie's "standard" is that if he believes it that is good enough.

It has been the standard of morons throughout the centuries.

[Mathilda]

WHAT IS A DEFINITION
It's important to understand what a definition of a word actually is.

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.

Define what a god is.

Belief or lack of belief in what exactly?