Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Why does it seem important to some to view a lack of belief in gods as a belief itself?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lack of belief in gods.
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
It's no more or less 'important' than is the belief that carrots are vegetables.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
A lot of us don't. It's a default hanging in the back of our mind collecting dust until we post our opinion on RF or ask our belief and they can't fathom we lack one.
Basically it. Everyone has different answers.
My lack of belief in Santa Clause is adequately captured in the idea that he is not real. I actually believe that.
Last edited:
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Because a lot of people want to frame the discussion around faith and belief when that's not what the discussion is about. But if they can say "see, you have a belief too, so why is your belief better than my belief", they think they're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, they're not. They can't deal with the fact that they have no actual evidence to support their claims. They have to try to spin it another way.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
If you see something that others do not, and you have no evidence to prove it exists;
wouldn't you consider it ignorant if they then told you that you have not seen such a thing?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I think it would be ignorant to expect people to believe your claim without evidence.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
That assumes they actually saw something. That is not in evidence. Most people who claim to have "experiences" with gods don't actually have any demonstrable experiences, they experience something they cannot explain and they arbitrarily assign a cause that they cannot demonstrate actually caused it.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
But that is not what I said at all.
When someone tells you that you have not seen what you have seen, THAT is ignorance.
If they do not believe you then that means they are either withholding judgement OR they think you are lying OR delusional.
When someone says you have not seen what you have seen, then THAT is an insult.
Often people see things for which there is no evidence.
That does not mean that they have not seen those things.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Often people see things for which there is no evidence.
That does not mean that such does not exist.
My point is that it is one thing to withhold judgement,
it is quite another to claim that such a person is lying or delusional.
It comes down to a judgement of character.
So if you trust a person, in other matters but then claim that they are delusional,
then that is inconsistent on your part.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Nor does it mean that what they interpret their experience to be is what their experience actually was. This is what happens when people simply assert things rather than demonstrate them with evidence. Someone may not be lying, they may simply be wrong. Without that evidence to back them up, no rational person should take an empty claim seriously. That's why skeptics ask questions. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, theists rarely have any demonstrable answers.
For me there are two reasons. The first is that they are identical positions, they imply the same things, with the exception of true agnosticism. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the two are not the same, and it's absurdity is easily illustrated by a theist taking the position "I lack belief that there are no gods." There's no room for dishonesty in philosophy.
The second reason is because of why this little trick was made up in the first place, which is that it pretends the burden of proof is only on the theist. When hiding behind the burden of proof, the atheists can just shake their head and scream that they lack belief, without ever defending their positions, and can make absurd arguments like "babies are atheists." Not only is it dishonest, but it completely perverts the debate and philosophy itself.
There a bonus #3, which is that it's just so absurd and pointless to pretend the two are not the same. Nobody is going to care if you believe there are no gods, because that's how it's been the whole time, it's just how the logic of it works. Further, atheism is a position that can and and has been argued and evidenced many times over, making it pointless to hide behind the burden of proof.
Far as I can tell, for two main reasons.
1. Abrahamic monotheism tends to encourage specific expectations about their conceptions of God. Those would be difficult to morally sustain unless disbelief is presented as being in some sense voluntary, even rebellious in nature.
2. In some social environments there is a strong expectation that people will proclaim a common belief, not so much because they share it as because they want to show evidence of mutual commitment.
In essence, it is socially encouraged lying in order to "break the ice" and put everyone on common ground.
Challenging that expectation is in essence the same thing as showing some measure of rejection for the "status quo". Or, at least, that is how many people perceive it, albeit not Always consciously.
Lorgar-Aurelian
Active Member
I find the people who go around and tout their atheism a bit strange. Just like I find the idea of an atheist community a bit strange. Is it really important in the modern day to go around proclaiming that god doesn't exist? We don't exactly live in a theocracy where such an idea would get you arrested.
Do they think that simply shouting " I'm an atheist, DEBATE ME!" is really going to change a bunch of people's minds?
@Lorgar-Aurelian : It is often useful to proclam atheism openly for a bit. It helps in challenging the assumption that people are theists until "proven otherwise" and clears the way for more honest stances.
I have seen it happen often enough to tell you that, yes, it does change people's minds.
I have seen it happen often enough to tell you that, yes, it does change people's minds.
Lorgar-Aurelian
Active Member
I do not disagree, my issue tends to come with the "atheist community" which I have found by and large just like to feel superior to other people. Some people are convinced but the idea that religion will simply abolished strikes me as absurd.
Abolished? Not in the foreseeable future.
Matured above the way exagerated association with theism that it all too often has these days? Definitely.
Matured above the way exagerated association with theism that it all too often has these days? Definitely.
Reggie Miller II
Member
Hello Jeremiah, interesting question.
The lack of belief in gods is the belief that no gods exist or that none probably do.
One has to either believe that no gods exist or admit that at least one god might exist.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh boy...here we go again