Lack of Believe vs Belief in Lack of

[The Sum of Awe]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.

Of course, there are some who are 50/50, but I see the same folks that claim to lack a belief in God (rather than believing God doesn't exist) but can give reasons why the universe seems godless to them. There is the lack of evidence that could fall into lack of belief, but then there are arguments such as how everything can be explained without God, the problem of evil (well, accounts for an omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity only), that religions relate to human fantasy or personality, and probably others.

While I do believe in God, I can understand why someone would think otherwise, having thought otherwise at a time in my life. But just because these atheists in question say they have no evidence so they make no claim, doesn't mean they necessary lack an opinion on the subject. What you 'know' and what you 'believe' are two different things - one is certain, the other is opinion.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because you can't prove your side and thus claim you could be wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you lack a belief on the matter. You could host a stance at the same time consider it possible this stance is wrong.

In the same way I believe Atlantis is not real, but I could be wrong.


Peace

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.

Of course, there are some who are 50/50, but I see the same folks that claim to lack a belief in God (rather than believing God doesn't exist) but can give reasons why the universe seems godless to them. There is the lack of evidence that could fall into lack of belief, but then there are arguments such as how everything can be explained without God, the problem of evil (well, accounts for an omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity only), that religions relate to human fantasy or personality, and probably others.

While I do believe in God, I can understand why someone would think otherwise, having thought otherwise at a time in my life. But just because these atheists in question say they have no evidence so they make no claim, doesn't mean they necessary lack an opinion on the subject. What you 'know' and what you 'believe' are two different things - one is certain, the other is opinion.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because you can't prove your side and thus claim you could be wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you lack a belief on the matter. You could host a stance at the same time consider it possible this stance is wrong.

In the same way I believe Atlantis is not real, but I could be wrong.


Peace

This sounds like a good subject; and, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. How can a atheist who says they lack belief in god, truely lack belief if they were conscious of god to begin with, type of thing?

 

[allfoak]

What it seems atheists are aware of is the lack of power there is in the beliefs of those who claim there is power in their beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

Not necessarily. Particularly if the concept were presented in often irreconciliable ways despite the insistence of many that it must be one and only, and if were just as often defined in only the vaguest of ways.

Which is exactly what happens with "God". One of the reasons why the idea survives and even thrives to this day is because it was designed in order to be resilient at the expense of clear meaning.

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

Sure. But that is not always relevant to discussions about theism and atheism.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.

Of course, there are some who are 50/50, but I see the same folks that claim to lack a belief in God (rather than believing God doesn't exist) but can give reasons why the universe seems godless to them. There is the lack of evidence that could fall into lack of belief, but then there are arguments such as how everything can be explained without God, the problem of evil (well, accounts for an omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity only), that religions relate to human fantasy or personality, and probably others.

While I do believe in God, I can understand why someone would think otherwise, having thought otherwise at a time in my life. But just because these atheists in question say they have no evidence so they make no claim, doesn't mean they necessary lack an opinion on the subject. What you 'know' and what you 'believe' are two different things - one is certain, the other is opinion.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because you can't prove your side and thus claim you could be wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you lack a belief on the matter. You could host a stance at the same time consider it possible this stance is wrong.

In the same way I believe Atlantis is not real, but I could be wrong.


Peace

We make that distinction because most atheist are technically agnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist is not certain whether or not there is a deity but based on current evidence does not believe in one.

There could be a deity out there that is true, but current evidence does not indicate it.

Therefore we do not believe there is not a god, but rather have a lack of belief in god.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.

Speaking for myself here, but it's a way to avoid a false conflation between belief due to evidence with lack of belief due to lack of evidence.

So, i dont need to be able to 'prove' atheism, in order to be an atheist. Its an inability to prove theism. In that, i am applying both logic and reason, so yes, I am making a decision, but in a different manner to a positive decision.

In a more technical, sense, I agree with @Taylor Seraphim . For the sake of it, though, here is a ham-fisted extrapolation.

Imagine rolling a die.
In terms of predicting whether its an odd number, I'm kinda a pure agnostic.
In terms of predicting it being a 1, I wouldn't bet on it, but it could certainly be the case.

But if the die had 10000 sides? Then I'm an agnostic atheist, at least in my mind.

 

[viole]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject? A rock would lack a belief on God, but a conscious being would, if they had thought about it, hold a belief on it, wouldn't they?

If you look out into the universe, see how everything is, and contemplate whether it seems this is a work of an entity or forces of nature, wouldn't you say it seems more likely to you that it seems like something brought upon by natural forces?

This isn't to say you claim to know it or prove it, but it is an opinion drawn from personal experience which makes it seem more likely that a God doesn't exist than God does exist.

Of course, there are some who are 50/50, but I see the same folks that claim to lack a belief in God (rather than believing God doesn't exist) but can give reasons why the universe seems godless to them. There is the lack of evidence that could fall into lack of belief, but then there are arguments such as how everything can be explained without God, the problem of evil (well, accounts for an omnipotent/omnibenevolent deity only), that religions relate to human fantasy or personality, and probably others.

While I do believe in God, I can understand why someone would think otherwise, having thought otherwise at a time in my life. But just because these atheists in question say they have no evidence so they make no claim, doesn't mean they necessary lack an opinion on the subject. What you 'know' and what you 'believe' are two different things - one is certain, the other is opinion.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because you can't prove your side and thus claim you could be wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you lack a belief on the matter. You could host a stance at the same time consider it possible this stance is wrong.

In the same way I believe Atlantis is not real, but I could be wrong.


Peace

It all boils down to the following question: does it make sense for an atheist to claim that she lacks belief that God DOES NOT exist?

I don't think it does. Nobody would call me atheist if I said that I lack belief in the non existence of God. I could, in principle, lack both beliefs (in the existence and not existence of God), but I am not sure I could still be called an atheist: I would be as far from atheism than I am from theism.

So, lets call it the main premise

1) If X claims lack of belief for the non existence of God, then X is not an atheist.

So, let Y be an atheist who claims that she lacks belief in God. Now, either that entails that she believes there is no God or that she does not believe that there is no God. The two propositions are mutually exclusive and complete. But because of premise 1) it cannot be the case that she does not believe there is no God. Ergo, she must believe that there is no God.

Alternatively, if atheist Z claims to believe that there is no God, then either she lacks believe in God or she does not lack belief in God. But if she does not lack belief in God, then she has belief in God and therefore cannot be an atheist. Ergo, she must lack belief in God.

In other words: if premise 1) holds, then the set of atheists who lack belief in God and the set of atheists who believe there is no God, are the same.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

As a brief aside, the lack of belief claim is great for avoiding the burden of proof.

 

[Altfish]

What it seems atheists are aware of is the lack of power there is in the beliefs of those who claim there is power in their beliefs.

Can you explain that please.
What do you mean by power? I understand it to be rate of work done in a given time, i.e. P=W/t

 

[Altfish]

As a brief aside, the lack of belief claim is great for avoiding the burden of proof.

Why? It is not up to atheists to prove there is no god

 

[1137]

Why? It is not up to atheists to prove there is no god

Atheists make a truth claim where most theists confess belief. If anything, the burden of proof is solely on atheism in such a case.

 

[ArtieE]

I've seen many atheists distinguish that they 'lack belief in a god' instead of "believe God doesn't exist".

You mean they lack belief in GODS. Plural. Just like you don't believe in gods except one.

I'm not sure I fully understand. How does one lack a stance on something, if they have thought about the subject?

Simple. Weak atheists may have thought about the subject, they have just not taken any position on it. They neither believe gods exist nor believe gods don't exist. They may simply be on the fence and think there's not enough evidence to believe either way.

 

[ArtieE]

It all boils down to the following question: does it make sense for an atheist to claim that she lacks belief that God DOES NOT exist?

Yes. That's what a (weak) atheist does.

I don't think it does. Nobody would call me atheist if I said that I lack belief in the non existence of God.

Yes they would. You would be a (weak) atheist.

I could, in principle, lack both beliefs (in the existence and not existence of God), but I am not sure I could still be called an atheist: I would be as far from atheism than I am from theism.

No you wouldn't. You would be in the middle between theism (belief gods exist) and strong atheism (belief gods don't exist). You would be a (weak) atheist since you're not a theist.

1) If X claims lack of belief for the non existence of God, then X is not an atheist.

Of course he is. Atheism means "without theism".

 

[ArtieE]

Atheists make a truth claim where most theists confess belief.

Atheists make no "truth claim". They just don't believe in the existence of gods.

 

[viole]

You would be in the middle between theism (belief gods exist) and strong atheism (belief gods don't exist). .

Why is belief that God exists simple theism, and belief that no God exists strong atheism? That seems asymmetric.

On a related note: what about atheists who do not simply believe that there is no God but they know that there is no God. Are they mega super-duper atheists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Why is belief that God exists simple theism, and belief that no God exists strong atheism? That seems asymmetric.

It isn't. (Weak) atheists and strong atheists are just both called atheists because they're both not theists.

On a related note: what about atheists who do not simply believe that there is no God but they know that there is no God. Are they mega super-duper atheists?

No, they're called gnostic atheists. Gnostic because they know gods don't exist.

 

[viole]

It isn't. (Weak) atheists and strong atheists are just both called atheists because they're both not theists.No, they're called gnostic atheists. Gnostic because they know gods don't exist.

Do you have weak theists? How would you define them?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Do you have weak theists?

No. A (weak) atheist doesn't believe neither that gods exist nor that gods don't exist. A theist must per definition have belief. No chance of not having belief.

 

[viole]

No. A (weak) atheist doesn't believe neither that gods exist nor that gods don't exist. A theist must per definition have belief. No chance of not having belief.

That is a bit complicated.

I am happy to be a gnostic atheist

Ciao

- viole

 

[allfoak]

Can you explain that please.
What do you mean by power? I understand it to be rate of work done in a given time, i.e. P=W/t

The power of belief is seen in manifestation.
My beliefs and my life should line up.

If i say i am a christian and my God has the power to change lives but my life does not change as a result of my belief then there is no power behind the belief, it is not genuine, it is just words.

The power of which i speak is not the physical power of which you speak, but rather of an unseen force that exists within us.
It is the power of the truth to transform lives through the act of living out one's beliefs.
This power is manifested through the way in which we live our lives, the physical accomplishments of which you speak being the manifestation of that power.

If everyone were to act on their highest ideal everyday the world would be transformed through the power that the truth has to change lives.
Our highest ideals begin by being beliefs, thus the hidden power of belief to change lives.