If Atheism Means a Lack of Belief in There being a God?

[Underhill]

Generally, a specific belief requires specific evidence.

Religions and their descriptions of gods often get rather specific. Like, there is this specific monotheistic deity and he wants you to do x, y, and z or else. Or, we're all part of a panentheistic deity and the specific process is that when you die, you reincarnate for reasons x, y, and z until you fully merge with it. Even something as simple as like, "there is a loving god" is rather specific; it's a claim not only about the existence of a conscious force, but about some attributes of it.

Out of the endless number of things a person could believe, they happen to believe just some of them. Usually we do not have specific words to describe a person that lacks belief in something. Like, we don't have a word for someone who specifically does not believe in astrology, or witchcraft, or tarot reading, or psychic mediums, or that aliens have visited Earth, or that people reincarnate when they die. We simply lack words for them other than the general term of "skeptic". But lack of belief in any gods happens to have a specific word: atheist. Being an atheist is not really any different than being someone that doesn't happen to believe any of those other things, other than it happens to have a term for it.

The reasons a person does not believe in something, like for example gods or astrology or whatever the thing may be, are varied. Often the reason is that they haven't seen any good evidence that support certain claims. Sometimes they've seen evidence to the contrary. Sometimes various claims are internally contradictory and can be dismissed until they come back and try again and make more sense.

If anyone is confused about why someone doesn't believe in any gods, a simple exercise is to think of something that you don't happen to believe in that some other people do, and use that as a starting point.

"You and I are both atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do."

I forget who said it but it's a good one.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why do you believe there is no God?

"If you believe in god, why do you believe in only a specific version of the god concept?"

Isn't that questions just as legitimate, given your reasoning for this thread?

There is a big difference between a resting lack of belief and an active disbelief - just like there is a big difference between a passing acceptance of the existence of deities and a dogmatic devout follower of a particular religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists can be divided roughly into two groups; those who have a lack of belief in god, and those who believe there is no god.

The former (lack of belief) is based on using scepticism, reason and evidence to argue that the existence of god is impluasible (but not impossible). It uses science as a method to examine the question favouring naturalistic explanations as they are based on evidence but as It does not exclude the possibility that god exists, it may well have elements of agnosticism in that it is impossible to know for certian either way. This generally referred to as "weak atheism".

The latter (belief there is no god) is often based on philosophical materialism and reliance on naturalistic explanations, whilst excluding supernatural or theological ones as incompatable with scientific knowledge. The contradiction in religious belief is that it makes cliams to know things that cannot be known or proven and demands faith rather than evidence. This kind of Atheism is often presented as a scientific fact (rather than a hypotheisis in the former). The validity of this position is debatable because it could be described as a 'dogma' as it is often taken as self-evidently true as well as deviating from mainstream understandings of science. This is roughly "strong atheism".

I know that this is common terminology, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a false dichotomy. It's really a spectrum, with "100% weak atheism" at one end and "100% strong atheism" at the other. Any real-world atheist is on some point on this spectrum, and the problems with the validity of the "100% strong atheist" position (which, IMO, are generally the problems of claiming any position with absolute certainty and aren't unique to atheism).

I think that portraying it as just "weak atheism" vs. "strong atheism" often ends up getting twisted into this idea that if an atheist objects to theism, they're necessarily being unreasonable.

 

[Laika]

I know that this is common terminology, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a false dichotomy. It's really a spectrum, with "100% weak atheism" at one end and "100% strong atheism" at the other. Any real-world atheist is on some point on this spectrum, and the problems with the validity of the "100% strong atheist" position (which, IMO, are generally the problems of claiming any position with absolute certainty and aren't unique to atheism).

I think that portraying it as just "weak atheism" vs. "strong atheism" often ends up getting twisted into this idea that if an atheist objects to theism, they're necessarily being unreasonable.

The terminology only very poorly describes the distinction. What has taken me a long-time to get my head around is that the strong atheists I am most familar with (the commies) don't accept the true-false distinction. They believed that religious belief was an illusion of an older society, and that it was a rationalisation or projection of actual social relations. I haven't come accross an example where a 'strong' atheist said there was no truth in religious belief that it was entirely false (at least not in a well thought out argument), merely that they had a better explanation for how the world work. Even Fredrich Nietzsche said that Christian morality was a rationalisation of the morality of the slave sapping the moral power of the strong and in that sense it was still an illusion but not false as it was- in his view- a political tool to disempower the strong willed. God was a projecxtion of the weak-willed and in that sense did " " exist" ".

To argue that you are 100% certian of atheism is to attribute the property of omniscience to man, which is a profoundly religious thing to do. It's not impossible, but I have yet to see an example of it. so far, there has always been an element of pragmatic atheism and that based on the assumption that religion is a political weapon for justifying class rule should be opposed on those moral and political grounds, rather than on the belief that it is wholly false.

If you said flat out "there is and never has been a god", you still have to explian why for thousands of years people believed something that was an not true. To say it is wholly false, is to say that for most of human history mankind was completely insane and rejected something that was self-evidently true which leaves you with a conundrum as to the sanity of non-belief.
The strong-weak atheism distinction appears to be a fairly gross misrepresentation of the "strong atheist" position created by "weak atheists".

 

[Laika]

I know that this is common terminology, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as a false dichotomy. It's really a spectrum, with "100% weak atheism" at one end and "100% strong atheism" at the other. Any real-world atheist is on some point on this spectrum, and the problems with the validity of the "100% strong atheist" position (which, IMO, are generally the problems of claiming any position with absolute certainty and aren't unique to atheism).

I think that portraying it as just "weak atheism" vs. "strong atheism" often ends up getting twisted into this idea that if an atheist objects to theism, they're necessarily being unreasonable.

The terminology only very poorly describes the distinction. What has taken me a long-time to get my head around is that the strong atheists I am most familar with (the commies) don't accept the true-false distinction. They believed that religious belief was an illusion of an older society, and that it was a rationalisation or projection of actual social relations. I haven't come accross an example where a 'strong' atheist said there was no truth in religious belief that it was entirely false (at least not in a well thought out argument), merely that they had a better explanation for how the world work. Even Fredrich Nietzsche said that Christian morality was a rationalisation of the morality of the slave sapping the moral power of the strong and in that sense it was still an illusion but not false as it was- in his view- a political tool to disempower the strong willed. God was a projecxtion of the weak-willed and in that sense did " " exist" ".

To argue that you are 100% certian of atheism is to attribute the property of omniscience to man, which is a profoundly religious thing to do. It's not impossible, but I have yet to see an example of it. so far, there has always been an element of pragmatic atheism and that based on the assumption that religion is a political weapon for justifying class rule should be opposed on those moral and political grounds, rather than on the belief that it is wholly false.

If you said flat out "there is and never has been a god", you still have to explian why for thousands of years people believed something that was an not true. To say it is wholly false, is to say that for most of human history mankind was completely insane and rejected something that was self-evidently true which leaves you with a conundrum as to the sanity of non-belief.
The strong-weak atheism distinction appears to be a fairly gross misrepresentation of the "strong atheist" position created by "weak atheists".

 

[Underhill]

The terminology only very poorly describes the distinction. What has taken me a long-time to get my head around is that the strong atheists I am most familar with (the commies) don't accept the true-false distinction. They believed that religious belief was an illusion of an older society, and that it was a rationalisation or projection of actual social relations. I haven't come accross an example where a 'strong' atheist said there was no truth in religious belief that it was entirely false (at least not in a well thought out argument), merely that they had a better explanation for how the world work. Even Fredrich Nietzsche said that Christian morality was a rationalisation of the morality of the slave sapping the moral power of the strong and in that sense it was still an illusion but not false as it was- in his view- a political tool to disempower the strong willed. God was a projecxtion of the weak-willed and in that sense did " " exist" ".

To argue that you are 100% certian of atheism is to attribute the property of omniscience to man, which is a profoundly religious thing to do. It's not impossible, but I have yet to see an example of it. so far, there has always been an element of pragmatic atheism and that based on the assumption that religion is a political weapon for justifying class rule should be opposed on those moral and political grounds, rather than on the belief that it is wholly false.

If you said flat out "there is and never has been a god", you still have to explian why for thousands of years people believed something that was an not true. To say it is wholly false, is to say that for most of human history mankind was completely insane and rejected something that was self-evidently true which leaves you with a conundrum as to the sanity of non-belief.
The strong-weak atheism distinction appears to be a fairly gross misrepresentation of the "strong atheist" position created by "weak atheists".

For thousands of years people believed a great many things were true that we now know are false.

To claim there is no god with finality may be the slightest stretch as we cannot unequivocally prove it. But as I have pointed out before, we cannot prove there are no fairies, bigfoot or aliens obsessed with human sexy bits. But nobody walks around saying I am an agnostic about bigfoot. Or I mostly don't believe in abductions. We say those things are nonsense and write it off as superstition, even though many people claim to have seen them.

The onus is not on the nonbeliever to prove a negative as obviously that is impossible. And as I have yet to see a believer prove anything about god, I think I'm safe in saying there is no god.

Most 'strong atheist' I know essentially say the same thing. Does that mean we are 100% sure? No. But how many decimal places do you take it out before we just round up? Because there would have to be a lot.

 

[Laika]

For thousands of years people believed a great many things were true that we now know are false.

To claim there is no god with finality may be the slightest stretch as we cannot unequivocally prove it. But as I have pointed out before, we cannot prove there are no fairies, bigfoot or aliens obsessed with human sexy bits. But nobody walks around saying I am an agnostic about bigfoot. Or I mostly don't believe in abductions. We say those things are nonsense and write it off as superstition, even though many people claim to have seen them.

The onus is not on the nonbeliever to prove a negative as obviously that is impossible. And as I have yet to see a believer prove anything about god, I think I'm safe in saying there is no god.

Most 'strong atheist' I know essentially say the same thing. Does that mean we are 100% sure? No. But how many decimal places do you take it out before we just round up? Because there would have to be a lot.

If someones say "I lack belief in god" they have no burden of proof. If someone says "there is no god and this is objectively true and that makes religious belief false or an illusion"- that have a burden of proof. It is a knowledge cliam about the nature of reality. the exact method and nature of proof is something I remain uncertian of, but it appears intimately connected with philosophical materialism. This however is a scientific cliam to knowledge rather than a theological one so it does not carry the certianty that acceptence of omniscience would carry among believers.

The reason god carries a burden of proof is the unique nature of god in relation to fairies, bigfoot, aliens etc, as god is the "prime mover" or "first cause" from which people have derived theories about nature, society and ethics. If someone can conclusively establish based on scientific proof that there is no god and that it is objectively true- regardless as to whether people accept it or not- the consequences would be far reaching.

 

[Underhill]

If someones say "I lack belief in god" they have no burden of proof. If someone says "there is no god and this is objectively true and that makes religious belief false or an illusion"- that have a burden of proof. It is a knowledge cliam about the nature of reality. the exact method and nature of proof is something I remain uncertian of, but it appears intimately connected with philosophical materialism. This however is a scientific cliam to knowledge rather than a theological one so it does not carry the certianty that acceptence of omniscience would carry among believers.

The reason god carries a burden of proof is the unique nature of god in relation to fairies, bigfoot, aliens etc, as god is the "prime mover" or "first cause" from which people have derived theories about nature, society and ethics. If someone can conclusively establish based on scientific proof that there is no god and that it is objectively true- regardless as to whether people accept it or not- the consequences would be far reaching.

You are splitting hairs. First off, I would say that for most religions I could make the claim that they are false based on science. The age of the earth disproves most of them (using the doctrines accepted until recently, you can never disprove a moving target). But nobody can disprove god as we have no clue as to his nature. Obviously this is intentional. If a religion claims god lives at 3rd and Broadway, has blue eyes and likes to watch late night TV on fridays, it's easy to disprove. When they claim he is this ethereal being out there somewhere, clearly options are limited.

But without religion we have no reason to believe in god beyond the most vague 'something may be out there.'. God, at that point, simply becomes an alien beyond our understanding. Again possible, but unlikely and nothing anyone would take seriously without evidence.

 

[Diederick`]

Why do you believe there is no God?

I have not been convinced there would be a god by any acceptable evidence.

Depending on what the attributes of the god in question are, I find it is often additionally a philosophical question. Concerning the Abrahamic god, I would for instance not be able to cope with the contradictory experience - just the Problem of Evil would be enough for me to step on the unbelieving side of the fence. So apart from the lack of evidence for the existence of deities (or the supernatural for that matter), the idea alone of a specific deity with its attributes tends to not make sense.

I do not believe in God because there is no evidence to justify belief; and the idea of God has inherent discrepancies which makes the idea itself unreasonable.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why do you believe there is no God?

.....Also

'has to depend on what you mean by God.

An entity? No. I have seen and felt spirits. No one "entity" is greater than another. Sounds like fantasy or sci-fi movie.

A creator? No. Something cant come from nothing. Things reform into others. Combine to create something we consider new. Rycled. Not created from thin air.

All powerful? No. Unless youre writing a novel or play, God could mean and be anything

Human? No. The definiton of God as perfect doesnt correlate to the perfection of humans.

Maybe provide evidence that God is not the product of our mind and relationship to our environment, people, and self first, then I can say why dont believe.

Right now, God is a word people have so many definitions for that I find it near impossible for anyone to say "I dont believe in God" without having a specific God concept they disagree with.

 

[Jumi]

Why do you believe there is no God?

I don't.

 

[cambridge79]

Is she really asking
If you believe there is no god why you believe there is no god?
Isn't the answer all in that IF?

Like if I say
If you think the grass Is blue, why you say the grass is blue?
Shouldn't the answer be because I think the grass is blue?

Seriously I dont get it

I really dont get the point of this question

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Right now, God is a word people have so many definitions for that I find it near impossible for anyone to say "I dont believe in God" without having a specific God concept they disagree with.

That's why they invented ignosticism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's why they invented ignosticism.

You guys with these words!

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

Well, I see the Christian god as being no different than any other god in history. Yahweh's evolution from the Canaanite pantheon to

1. being one of many nationalistic war gods in the Ancient Near East to

2. being the creator of the cosmos to

3. being the "only" god to

4. possessing the omni- attributes (which happened when Jews first encountered Hellenism and stole the idea from the Greeks) to

5. being Jesus

is evidenced by archaeology and scholarship.

There truly is no difference between Yahweh and any other deity, and Yahweh is no more believable or any less absurd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why they invented ignosticism.

Ignosticism is a subset of atheism. You need to be able to conceive of something before you can believe it to be true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do you believe there is no God?

Because if god existed, there's no way it would create a species who couldn't tell the difference between semantics and logic.

 

[Altfish]

...is evidenced by archaeology and scholarship.

Can you provide a link to that evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe there is no God?

"If you don't have to be New Yorker to be an American, why do so many Americans live in New York?"

 

[Frank Merton]

I'm an atheist because God is an extraordinary concept, thereby requiring extraordinary proof, and what has been proffered so far falls way short of that and in fact the evidence he does not exist is much stronger.

Being an atheist does not make one a materialist (the old word -- I guess "physicalist" is the new one now that we know that matter is really just a packaged form of energy). I also however don't accept mentalism or magic or any of that stuff, again for lack of evidence and too much opposing evidence.

That means I am left with the problem of mind and its experience of the universe as something sitting there staring at me and challenging me to figure it out, although of course I won't.