Lack of Belief

[PureX]

I am also an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, atheism speaks to belief.

The terms are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are quite often used together.

My point, however, is that to base your belief in knowledge that you do not possess would be logically incoherent. So you must be basing your belief on something other than knowledge.

What is that?

And do you understand that if you do not specify an alternative basis for your beliefs, while still proclaiming your lack of sufficient knowledge, that people will think you're a bit of an idiot?

 

[PureX]

"Lack of belief" in a thing encompasses disbelief in the thing and ambivalence.

The "lack of" encompasses nothing. A "lack of" marbles encompasses no marbles. A "lack of" belief encompasses no belief. "Disbelief" is like "disexisting". It's just a silly word that signifies nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "lack of" encompasses nothing.

You just said that it encompasses ambivalence.

A "lack of" marbles encompasses no marbles. A "lack of" belief encompasses no belief. "Disbelief" is like "disexisting". It's just a silly word that signifies nothing.

When confronted with a claim, you can either:
1. be convinced that it's true
2. be convinced that it's false, or
3. not be convinced either way

"I believe in the claim" expresses that you hold position 1. "I lack belief in the claim" expresses that do not hold position 1 (and therefore implies that you hold either 2 or 3).

 

[PureX]

You just said that it encompasses ambivalence.



When confronted with a claim, you can either:
1. be convinced that it's true
2. be convinced that it's false, or
3. not be convinced either way

"I believe in the claim" expresses that you hold position 1. "I lack belief in the claim" expresses that do not hold position 1 (and therefore implies that you hold either 2 or 3).

Or you can do what most people do: you could choose to accept it as true even though you're not convinced that it is. This is called living by "faith", rather than knowledge. But atheists can't admit that they do this, even though most of them are doing it, so they had to invent meaningless obtuse words like "unbelief" so they could avoid having to admit that they believe gods don't exist based on faith (just like the theists), rather then on evidence that they don't have and that can't possibly even exist by their proposed standards of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or you can do what most people do: you could choose to accept it as true even though you're not convinced that it is. This is called living by "faith", rather than knowledge.

"Accept it as true" = "being convinced"

But atheists can't admit that they do this, even though most of them are doing it, so they had to invent meaningless obtuse words like "unbelief" so they could avoid having to admit that they believe gods don't exist based on faith (just like the theists), rather then on evidence that they don't have and that can't possibly even exist by their proposed standards of evidence.

I sense that you're bringing some baggage to this conversation. Did an atheist kick your dog or something?

 

[PureX]

"Accept it as true" = "being convinced"

No, it doesn't. There are many agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists who have not been "convinced" of anything, but that choose their respective beliefs based on other reasoning than 'sufficient proof'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it doesn't. There are many agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists who have not been "convinced" of anything, but that choose their respective beliefs based on other reasoning than 'sufficient proof'.

I give up. If you're so wrapped up in the definitions you've assigned to the terms that you don't want to try to understand what people are telling you, then have fun at your one-man semantics party all by yourself.

 

[Curious George]

Or you can do what most people do: you could choose to accept it as true even though you're not convinced that it is. This is called living by "faith", rather than knowledge. But atheists can't admit that they do this, even though most of them are doing it, so they had to invent meaningless obtuse words like "unbelief" so they could avoid having to admit that they believe gods don't exist based on faith (just like the theists), rather then on evidence that they don't have and that can't possibly even exist by their proposed standards of evidence.

Hmm, I am an atheist and i believe no god exists. I also think that we should define atheism as such. Belief that no god exists. I wouldnt say that i do this on faith though. I would say that i believe this, rightly or wrongly, because belief is not a choice. And the evidence and my experience have persuaded me to this conclusion. I do not believe this way in the despite reason or proof, i believe this way because of reason and proof.

 

[PureX]

Hmm, I am an atheist and i believe no god exists. I also think that we should define atheism as such. Belief that no god exists. I wouldn't say that i do this on faith though. I would say that i believe this, rightly or wrongly, because belief is not a choice. And the evidence and my experience have persuaded me to this conclusion. I do not believe this way in the despite reason or proof, i believe this way because of reason and proof.

How can you have proof that something doesn't exist? That would require an inclusive knowledge of existence that we humans don't have.

Also, how does your experience act as proof of anything? What experience did you expect to have, of a metaphysical being, that you didn't get, that then eliminated the possibility of of that being's existence?

Also, just to clarify, to accept or not accept an idea, observation, or an experience as "evidence" of some proposed truth is our choice. And based on that choice, we then believe or do not believe that proposal is probably true, or untrue. So belief is a choice. Even if the criteria we use for establishing our "evidence" is biased, and even though we remain may ignorant of the process by which we make these choices.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My point, however, is that to base your belief in knowledge that you do not possess would be logically incoherent. So you must be basing your belief on something other than knowledge.

What is that?

I don't have a belief in god(s). I don't have a belief in unicorns. Or purple dragons. I have no knowledge of any such things existing. That doesn't mean I hold the belief that there are no gods or unicorns or purple dragons. I simply have no reason to believe they exist. I don't claim to know that there are no gods or unicorns or purple dragons. And depending on what god we're talking about, the existence of said god may be unknowable.

And do you understand that if you do not specify an alternative basis for your beliefs, while still proclaiming your lack of sufficient knowledge, that people will think you're a bit of an idiot?

I'm not sure what you mean. People believe all kinds of things on insufficient knowledge all the time. I try not to be one of those people. So I withhold beliefs in things unless and until I'm presented with good reason to believe in a thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or you can do what most people do: you could choose to accept it as true even though you're not convinced that it is. This is called living by "faith", rather than knowledge. But atheists can't admit that they do this, even though most of them are doing it, so they had to invent meaningless obtuse words like "unbelief" so they could avoid having to admit that they believe gods don't exist based on faith (just like the theists), rather then on evidence that they don't have and that can't possibly even exist by their proposed standards of evidence.

Why and how would anyone want to do such a thing?

I don't think belief is a choice. We're convinced of something, or we're not.

 

[PureX]

I don't have a belief in god(s). I don't have a belief in unicorns. Or purple dragons. I have no knowledge of any such things existing. That doesn't mean I hold the belief that there are no gods or unicorns or purple dragons. I simply have no reason to believe they exist. I don't claim to know that there are no gods or unicorns or purple dragons. And depending on what god we're talking about, the existence of said god may be unknowable.

I'm not sure what you mean. People believe all kinds of things on insufficient knowledge all the time. I try not to be one of those people. So I withhold beliefs in things unless and until I'm presented with good reason to believe in a thing.

You really need to contemplate the difference between "I don't know because I have insufficient evidence to decide" and "I assume things don't exist until someone proves to me that they do". Because these are very different positions that you seem to be imagining are one and the same.

And the difference is a bias against the possibilities of existence beyond your intellectual capacity to prove, and/or control.

This is exactly why I am not an atheist: this pointless negation of existential possibility based on nothing but ignorance and bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You really need to contemplate the difference between "I don't know because I have insufficient evidence to decide" and "I assume things don't exist until someone proves to me that they do". Because these are very different positions that you seem to be imagining are one and the same.

Our mental models of the universe that we use to guide our actions, make predictions, and understand the world around us only contain things that we're aware of and believe exist. I don't see how things could be any other way.

And the difference is a bias against the possibilities of existence beyond your intellectual capacity to prove, and/or control.

It isn't a bias against the possibility of existence; it's acknowledging that something hasn't been demonstrated while remaining open to the possibility that new facts might arise in future.

This is exactly why I am not an atheist: this pointless negation of existential possibility based on nothing but ignorance and bias.

Ah - so you're not an atheist because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is.

 

[Curious George]

How can you have proof that something doesn't exist? That would require an inclusive knowledge of existence that we humans don't have.

How so?

Also, how does your experience act as proof of anything? What experience did you expect to have, of a metaphysical being, that you didn't get, that then eliminated the possibility of of that being's existence?

I did not expect to have any experience, but the ones that I have had have formed my beliefs.

Also, just to clarify, to accept or not accept an idea, observation, or an experience as "evidence" of some proposed truth is our choice. And based on that choice, we then believe or do not believe that proposal is probably true, or untrue. So belief is a choice. Even if the criteria we use for establishing our "evidence" is biased, and even though we remain may ignorant of the process by which we make these choices.

I disagree.

 

[blü 2]

I did not expect to have any experience, but the ones that I have had have formed my beliefs.

I see no way to argue against that. Like the rest of us, you know what you know and you react to it as you react.

But as with all personal experience in the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration' department, it's not a saleable product without more.

 

[Curious George]

I see no way to argue against that. Like the rest of us, you know what you know and you react to it as you react.

But as with all personal experience in the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration' department, it's not a saleable product without more.

I do not think that no god exists is an extaordinary claim. But perhaps, I am wrong. How does the claim represent anything more than ordinary?