Lack of belief (yet again)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know of people who are convinced of the existence of and speak of personal experiences with Zeus, Athena, and other such gods. Why are only atheists expected to prove such gods do not exist? Especially since most seem to hold their atheism as a tentative conclusion that is amenable to further evidence? If I believe in Zeus and a Christian or Muslim does not is he expected to prove that Zeus does not exist? Why?

I agree. It's interesting to watch people who give a hard time to atheists when they just assert that they see no reason to believe in any gods turn around and not say anything at all to challenge a monotheist who claims to know that no gods exist but his one specific god.

 

[Altfish]

No, you don't. Because there is no third arm for you to lack.

See how silly basing your position on the "lack of" something is? Same goes for the atheist's "lack of" belief.

That makes no sense at all. But I don't lack belief, I believe in lots of things, just not gods

I lack $1,000,000 too.

 

[icehorse]

There is no burden of proof, for a god belief.

Until you inflict your belief onto someone else.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's not how this works. We theists are the ones making the extraordinary claims about deity - i.e. that they are real. The onus is on us to provide verifiable, reliable evidence if we wish to convince others. I realise that that might be more of a problem for some than for others...




Not pertinent to the issue at hand.




You really need to learn how rational argument and the onus of proof work.

Abiogenesis is pertinent because you are stuck with abiogenesis if you have no creator.

 

[PureX]

The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. And that's just as true for the claim that God exists as it is for the claim that gods do not exist. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.

The one making the positive existence claim is the one that has to furnish proof because of exactly the issues you stated.

No, the one claiming to know what exists or does not exist is required to prove their claim.

Now, there are various types of atheists.

All that matters is the claim being posited, and the reasoning behind it. The rest is just obfuscation. It doesn't matter what we 'believe', or how adamantly we believe it. What matters are the truth claims we make and how we support them. We claim that god or gods exist, we claim that no gods exist, or we claim we do not have sufficient information to determine the existence or non-existence of gods. What you believe is your own business.

And what about someone who simply has not been convinced and so simply doesn't know? Someone who finds none of the arguments for a deity to be convincing?

They are labeled 'agnostic', which is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Someone who thinks the burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim and feels the theists have not satisfied that burden of proof?

They are just called biased.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you don't. Because there is no third arm for you to lack.

See how silly basing your position on the "lack of" something is? Same goes for the atheist's "lack of" belief.

"Free from", then: I'm free from belief in gods, free from tapeworms, free from polio, etc.

And I'm comfortable saying that it's perfectly reasonable to base a position on being "free from" things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. And that's just as true for the claim that God exists as it is for the claim that gods do not exist. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.

And the claimant is the one who actually makes a claim, not a person who you've decided secretly believes a "claim" and is keeping it to himself.

 

[PureX]

I had my tonsils out... do I have a lack of tonsils? They certainly were there to begin with. Is it disingenuous of me to claim a lack of tonsils?

You're wandering way off course, here. We aren't born with a god-belief that we can then lose to create a 'lack of" belief. There is no 'god-belief' shaped hole in the atheist's psyche that evidences their "lack of" belief in the existence of gods. And the fact that you had to forage this far afield to try and find an analogy that supports this "unbelief" nonsense just serves to illuminate what nonsense it actually is.

Or is your problem with the word "have" tossed in there also? What, do you feel, is the difference between the following two statements?

• I have a lack of belief.
• I lack belief.

Is there a difference? Does the difference involve more than semantics?

They are both idiotic arrangements of words that say nothing.

How sure are you that you're not the one being silly? If there is no logical use of the word "lack", then why does it even exist? Because it can, an does, describe something, whether you like it or not.

Yes, but it only describes the loss of something that is presumed to be extant, and necessary. Sociopaths lack the capacity for empathy. Diabetics lack sufficient insulin. We don't "lack belief" in God. We just don't believe in God.

 

[Polymath257]

No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. And that's just as true for the claim that God exists as it is for the claim that gods do not exist. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.

Nope. For example, if one scientist makes a claim that a particle exists with certain properties, but refuses to provide evidence, the default for everyone else is to disregard the claim.

If the argument is faulty or the evidence is weak, the default is to ask for more evidence. If that isn't forthcoming, then the default is to disregard the claim.

No, the one claiming to know what exists or does not exist is required to prove their claim.

And those that do not know, but are unconvinced by either argument?

All that matters is the claim being posited, and the reasoning behind it. The rest is just obfuscation. It doesn't matter what we 'believe', or how adamantly we believe it. What matters are the truth claims we make and how we support them. We claim that god or gods exist, we claim that no gods exist, or we claim we do not have sufficient information to determine the existence or non-existence of gods. What you believe is your own business.

Exactly. And I would agree that those who make the claim that no Gods exist should give an argument for that claim. Of course, the first step is to define which God you don't believe in.

They are labeled 'agnostic', which is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

OK, this is a terminology dispute then. An agnostic is one who doesn't think it possible to know one way or the other on a question. A weak atheist is one who isn't convinced by the theist arguments that a deity exists. And a strong atheist is one that actively disbelieves in any deity.

For example, I am more of an ignostic than anything else: I think the term 'God' is too ambiguous to have the question of existence make sense. I also tend towards apatheism: the question is rather irrelevant. I do tend towards strong atheism, but it is so dependent on definitions as to be a silly question.

They are just called biased.

Why? Because they are not convinced? Or because they think (as is typical) that those with the positive existence claim have the burden of proof?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but it only describes the loss of something that is presumed to be extant, and necessary. Sociopaths lack the capacity for empathy. Diabetics lack sufficient insulin. We don't "lack belief" in God. We just don't believe in God.

OK, but there is a difference between 'not believing in God' and 'believing there is no God'. The first is weak atheism. The second is strong atheism.

 

[PureX]

Nope. For example, if one scientist makes a claim that a particle exists with certain properties, but refuses to provide evidence, the default for everyone else is to disregard the claim.

We aren't talking about science, we're talking about philosophy. Philosophy is an investigation of the nature of existence, not an investigation of the mechanisms of physicality.

If the argument is faulty or the evidence is weak, the default is to ask for more evidence. If that isn't forthcoming, then the default is to disregard the claim.

That's not the default in either philosophy or science. The default is to leave the truthfulness of the proposition undecided until sufficient evidence is found to make a determination.


And those that do not know, but are unconvinced by either argument?

I would agree that those who make the claim that no Gods exist should give an argument for that claim. Of course, the first step is to define which God you don't believe in.

The answer, of course, is YOURS. It's your own idea of God that you need to define and determine the existential validity of, not anyone else's.

And those that do not know, but are unconvinced by either argument?

OK, this is a terminology dispute then. An agnostic is one who doesn't think it possible to know one way or the other on a question.

No, the term "agnosticism" is not defined by the lack of possibility, it's defined by the lack of "gnosis" - knowledge.

 

[PureX]

OK, but there is a difference between 'not believing in God' and 'believing there is no God'. The first is weak atheism. The second is strong atheism.

"Not believing in" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what one "doesn't believe in", not even the one that doesn't believe in it, much less anyone else. No one cares about a conviction that you don't have.

Hey, I don't currently have a cat sitting on my head. In fact, I've never had a cat sit on my head. So I don't believe in cats sitting on people's heads! I suppose it's possible that cats sit on people's heads, but I've never seen it so I think it's very unlikely that they would ever do that.

Who cares?

 

[PureX]

"Not believing in" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what one "doesn't believe in", not even the one that doesn't believe in it, much less anyone else. No one cares about a conviction that you don't have.

Hey, I don't currently have a cat sitting on my head. In fact, I've never had a cat sit on my head. So I don't believe in cats sitting on people's heads! I suppose it's possible that cats sit on people's heads, but I've never seen it so I think it's very unlikely that they would ever do that.

Who cares?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Not believing in" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what one "doesn't believe in", not even the one that doesn't believe in it, much less anyone else. No one cares about a conviction that you don't have.

Speak for yourself, bub. Virtually every atheist here has run into people who cared quite a bit about what they didn't believe.

(And the way you keep getting worked up about atheists kind of undercuts your own point)

 

[ArtieE]

"Not believing in" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what one "doesn't believe in"

Christian missionaries seem to care an awful lot about people not believing in God. Why else would they try to convert them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At one level, as an atheist, people getting the definition of "atheism" wrong bugs me ..

By what process is "the definition" canonized?

"Canonization" is a bit much, but the definition of the word is determined by its usage.

But many words are used in many, many ways. To tell someone that their usage should not be acknowledged as a (as opposed to 'the') legitimate definition strikes me as strange. particularly when the usage is relatively common.

Edit: when I say "getting the definition wrong", I'm also referring to people who give definitions that don't even reflect their own use of the term.

My sense is: "also" but not "primarily".

 

[Polymath257]

"Not believing in" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what one "doesn't believe in", not even the one that doesn't believe in it, much less anyone else. No one cares about a conviction that you don't have.

Hey, I don't currently have a cat sitting on my head. In fact, I've never had a cat sit on my head. So I don't believe in cats sitting on people's heads! I suppose it's possible that cats sit on people's heads, but I've never seen it so I think it's very unlikely that they would ever do that.

Who cares?

Unfortunately, way too many people. It has been a crime punishable by death to not believe in a deity. Even today, it is seen as making a person immoral or unethical.

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiosity: What are your thoughts about (a) LQG as an alternative to the Big Bang, and (b) my relationship to Davy Crockett?

None.

What were they before I asked the question?

Same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But many words are used in many, many ways. To tell someone that their usage should not be acknowledged as a (as opposed to 'the') legitimate definition strikes me as strange. particularly when the usage is relatively common.

I'm including the usage of the people who claim they don't use a "lack of belief in gods" definition. In the vast majority of cases, their usage suggests they do use this definition.

Generally, there are very few people who use the word "atheist" in a way that can be reconciled with a "rejection of all gods" definition.

Admittedly, there's probably a sizeable minority who use the word "atheist" in line with a definition like "someone who has rejected the Christian God, as long as they haven't accepted any of those 'secondary' gods," but I haven't encountered anyone who actually admits to using this definition, so I feel like I can disregard it. Maybe that's wrong of me.

 

[Ponder This]

I have a lack of a third arm.

Ah, but do you merely "not have evidence of a third arm" or do you "have evidence that there is not a third arm"? And what would be the difference?

what is there about the 'meaning' of atheism that invites such intense interest?

The issue from the point of view of rational argument is that claims have burdens of proof.
In rational argument, there is a burden of proof on anyone claiming a god exists.
If someone does not make claim that a god exists (or does not exist), then he doesn't have a burden of proof in rational argument. All is well. You don't have to be an atheist or a theist or whatever to attempt to prove or disprove claims made. And in rational argument, you don't need to take a position that a particular god does or does not exist, if you aren't trying to prove anything. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist, you can still take a non-positon in rational argument for the purposes of discussion or debate.

The problem is when people start to make unprovable claims about who or what they are.

So if someone starts an argument for the existence of a particular god and then says, "By the way, I'm a theist." It's sort of irrelevant. You don't have to be a theist to try and make a rational argument for the existence of a particular god. The discussion derails into the question of who or what people are and if they are what they claim to be.

From the point of view of rational argument, when a person claims to "lack belief in a god or gods", it's not particularly relevant either. It's not a requirement to rational discourse. But it is taken to mean forgoing a claim that "a god or gods does not exist" and, therefore, foregoing the corresponding burden of proof (by not claiming anything). Some people take this to mean their god claims no longer have a burden of proof. But this is not the case. In rational discourse, a burden of proof remains until rationally fulfilled.

Confusion occurs in many ways. For example, in rational discourse it is important to agree on the meaning of terms and phrases used. When people cannot agree on the meaning of a word or phrase it inhibits rational discourse. In rational discourse, when people are discussing what people actually are or are not, it becomes important to know what people mean when they say they are "atheists".

Another way it can arise is when someone makes a claim such as "Everyone is born 'lacking a belief in a god or gods'." As a claim, it has a burden of proof. So it can be confusing when, on the one hand, a person claims "lack of belief" as a way to forgo burden of proof (related to a god claim), but, on the other hand, makes a claim that does have a clear burden of proof.