Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[Typist]

You're doing it again. I don't claim to know there is no god.

You're doing it again.

Waffling, back pedaling, and more waffling.

The evidence does not support your claim, so I simply don't believe you.

But, the evidence doesn't matter as atheism, like theism, is not about reason.

That's the big fantasy all of us here, me included, have been sucked in to.

Would we try to use reason to persuade a Jehovah's Witness that the earth isn't actually six thousand years old? No, we'd be too sensible to try such a thing.

I wish I was that sensible!!!

[thalarch]

In my firm view, because the idea of “god” plays no part whatever in how the atheist lives his life, then atheism is itself not a form of belief.

I'm an ahysterianist. Which is a meaningless classification. However, if there were people who believed or practiced a lexicon defined hysterianism, suddenly it acquires semantic foothold. Likewise, that is the dependency of atheism upon theism in a broad relational sense (though the former was reaction-invented in its origin rather than an empty "a-" stance waiting for something to come along and fill it).

Narrower degrees of analysis that usually take place, especially where my perspectiveS from either side cloud or "ambiguify" a dissection, may become similar to discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many grains it takes to make a heap. In the sense that they will still be raging a century from now, unresolved due to the admittance of anybody's free-lance language game, or even due to the condition of a lack of a global consensus preceding such for some terms employed in the issues (as would be the case with minimum angel size or the standard for 'heap'). Nevertheless, that can occasionally be the value of these shakey endeavors, that they may expose a 'lack of' or faulty or inadequate consensus for either what is subsumed under a classification or set of classifications and their connections.

[Thundril]

. . . or how many grains it takes to make a heap.

Four. Unless a heap of one is allowed.

[Arising_uk]

Would we try to use reason to persuade a Jehovah's Witness that the earth isn't actually six thousand years old? ...

Maybe not, but as I've said I managed to use reason to get a jehovahs chella to give up his faith. He quite literally stood-up and said "You're right! Its all bollocks!" and left. It was most embarrassing for me and his guide, I didn't know where to look. They never knocked on my door again and I miss my little chats as who can you honestly let in with no fear anymore.

[thalarch]

. . . or how many grains it takes to make a heap.

Four. Unless a heap of one is allowed.

Placed in the context of grains for good reason. Many a single, long turd has formed a spiral heap on the grasslands. Much to the misfortune of the unwary trekker, who successfully dodged the more frequent patties only to plant boot in the carnivore's fertilising gift.

[Thundril]

. . . or how many grains it takes to make a heap.

Four. Unless a heap of one is allowed.

Placed in the context of grains for good reason. Many a single, long turd has formed a spiral heap on the grasslands. Much to the misfortune of the unwary trekker, who successfully dodged the more frequent patties only to plant boot in the carnivore's fertilising gift.

In UK, spiral poo is usually fox. But I have known badgers to do them, just for the fun, I suspect. Where you?

[Notvacka]

I've debated this particular topic several times before, though I'm not sure that it really merits any debate. However, since you go about it this sincerely and meticulously, evangelicalhumanist, I'd like to point out that your own examples actually proves you wrong:

A belief that God requires attendance at mass, or you’ll go to Hell, is likely to lead to one going to mass. On the other hand, lacking that belief does not mean either that you will or will not attend mass.

Surely it will make it less likely that you will attend mass? People who believe in God often pray to God. If you don't believe in God, you have no reason to pray. This difference in behaviour is clearly related to your belief, whether it's a theist belief or an atheist one.

The belief that mushrooms may all be poison is likely to prevent one from eating mushrooms. But not believing it will have no effect whatever on whether one eats mushrooms.

Surely it will make it more likely that you will eat mushrooms? Whether unfounded or not, your view on this is bound to affect your actions whenever muschrooms are being served.

The atheist – in my view – is not “informed” by a lack of belief in god.

Had you never heard of God or been aware of the concept of religion, I would agree. But since other people practice religion in all manner of ways, their way of life is obviously an option. A choice not to do something is also a choice. Does your lack of belief in God not inform you not to pray, go to church or follow religious dogma and such?

In my firm view, because the idea of “god” plays no part whatever in how the atheist lives his life, then atheism is itself not a form of belief.

But if that was true (that the idea of "god" plays no part in your life) surely you would have no need for the word "atheist" in the first place? The fact that you are confronted with other people who believe in God makes the idea play a part in your life. Again, the choice not to do something is a choice too. It seems to me that your only point is that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists either.

That "lack of belief" is as barren as barren can be, and therefore the very antithesis – as I said at the beginning – of what belief is about.

Since you started this topic in the first place, I would guess that you feel quite strongly about this "lack of belief" which makes it anything but barren to me.

Having said all that, I'm still not certain that this topic is really worth debating. Theism and atheism, in all their guises, are positions, points of view, attitudes and, yes, beliefs. It seems like you have something against the very concept of "belief" that makes you want to distance yourself from it.

[evangelicalhumanist]

I've debated this particular topic several times before, though I'm not sure that it really merits any debate. However, since you go about it this sincerely and meticulously, evangelicalhumanist, I'd like to point out that your own examples actually proves you wrong:

A belief that God requires attendance at mass, or you’ll go to Hell, is likely to lead to one going to mass. On the other hand, lacking that belief does not mean either that you will or will not attend mass.

Surely it will make it less likely that you will attend mass? People who believe in God often pray to God. If you don't believe in God, you have no reason to pray. This difference in behaviour is clearly related to your belief, whether it's a theist belief or an atheist one.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Going to mass in a religious community, even while you don't believe it, might be necessary for membership within the community. Perhaps your boss attends, and promotions might well depend on you being seen there as well. Perhaps your family is religious, and it is better for relationships overall, and not such a big cost to you. Maybe it's just the sense of community that brings some people to mass, while for others it is a deep spriitual need (I work with one of the latter, who finds many occasions to use her lunch to attend mass).

The belief that mushrooms may all be poison is likely to prevent one from eating mushrooms. But not believing it will have no effect whatever on whether one eats mushrooms.

Surely it will make it more likely that you will eat mushrooms? Whether unfounded or not, your view on this is bound to affect your actions whenever muschrooms are being served.

I don't see why. I know quite a few people who don't think that brussels sprouts are poisonous, but won't touch them (I personally love them).

The atheist – in my view – is not “informed” by a lack of belief in god.

Had you never heard of God or been aware of the concept of religion, I would agree. But since other people practice religion in all manner of ways, their way of life is obviously an option. A choice not to do something is also a choice. Does your lack of belief in God not inform you not to pray, go to church or follow religious dogma and such?

Now here, my disagreement is based on the fact that I do very few things "because everybody does them." What other people believe, like or consider stylish have little effect on me. I've always been a loner on that score.

In my firm view, because the idea of “god” plays no part whatever in how the atheist lives his life, then atheism is itself not a form of belief.

But if that was true (that the idea of "god" plays no part in your life) surely you would have no need for the word "atheist" in the first place? The fact that you are confronted with other people who believe in God makes the idea play a part in your life. Again, the choice not to do something is a choice too. It seems to me that your only point is that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists either.

The choice of the word "atheist" is not mine. Yes, the fact that other people believe in God has an impact, but that impact is not caused by God, but by their belief. In other words, I am reacting to other people, not to God.

That "lack of belief" is as barren as barren can be, and therefore the very antithesis – as I said at the beginning – of what belief is about.

Since you started this topic in the first place, I would guess that you feel quite strongly about this "lack of belief" which makes it anything but barren to me.

Having said all that, I'm still not certain that this topic is really worth debating. Theism and atheism, in all their guises, are positions, points of view, attitudes and, yes, beliefs. It seems like you have something against the very concept of "belief" that makes you want to distance yourself from it.

Only those beliefs that you are fully prepared to act on in the world, that you are willing in one way or another to inflict on persons other than yourself, are worthy of debate. If you think your belly button is ugly, but it has nothing to do with how you react to other people, I have nothing to say about it.

[Typist]

Having said all that, I'm still not certain that this topic is really worth debating. Theism and atheism, in all their guises, are positions, points of view, attitudes and, yes, beliefs. It seems like you have something against the very concept of "belief" that makes you want to distance yourself from it.

In fairness to EH, this BELIEF he is expressing seems to be a common component of internet atheism.

The only value I can see in the subject is trying to understand how a group who at it's best celebrates reason, would get sucked down a blatantly nonsensical rathole like this. It's like Christians who get sucked in to making hate part of their ideology, and do it with a straight face, never seeing the contradiction.

There might be value if we could back up, get some perspective, and try to see the process globally. But that doesn't seem likely.

[Notvacka]

Going to mass in a religious community, even while you don't believe it, might be necessary for membership within the community. Perhaps your boss attends, and promotions might well depend on you being seen there as well. Perhaps your family is religious, and it is better for relationships overall, and not such a big cost to you. Maybe it's just the sense of community that brings some people to mass, while for others it is a deep spriitual need (I work with one of the latter, who finds many occasions to use her lunch to attend mass).

Yes. Of course. But the fact that people do things they don't actually believe in, doesn't alter the fact that they still believe in something. It's beside the point.

I don't see why. I know quite a few people who don't think that brussels sprouts are poisonous, but won't touch them (I personally love them).

Again, yes, of course. There can be more than one reason to do or not do something. And again, it's beside the point.

Now here, my disagreement is based on the fact that I do very few things "because everybody does them." What other people believe, like or consider stylish have little effect on me. I've always been a loner on that score.

Yes? But you still act on your beliefs, don't you? You still make up your mind about ideas and concepts, don't you? Again, I don't see how your exceptional independence of thought is anything but beside the point here.

The choice of the word "atheist" is not mine. Yes, the fact that other people believe in God has an impact, but that impact is not caused by God, but by their belief. In other words, I am reacting to other people, not to God.

Yes? We're not debating the existence of God here, but the rather moot point whether lack of belief is a kind of belief or not. Atheism, like theism, is a position on an issue. You might want to view the issue as a non-issue, but that is still a position. You are reacting to the concept of God, as presented to you by other people.

Only those beliefs that you are fully prepared to act on in the world, that you are willing in one way or another to inflict on persons other than yourself, are worthy of debate. If you think your belly button is ugly, but it has nothing to do with how you react to other people, I have nothing to say about it.

Yes? We're not debating belly buttons here. The fact that you keep debating proves that you find the issue somehow worthy of debate. But even that is beside the point. If you want to define "belief" in such a way that it doesn't include atheism, fine. What difference does it make?

[Arising_uk]

...Yes? We're not debating the existence of God here, but the rather moot point whether lack of belief is a kind of belief or not. Atheism, like theism, is a position on an issue. You might want to view the issue as a non-issue, but that is still a position. You are reacting to the concept of God, as presented to you by other people

Is atheism like this tho'? As whilst I get that for the ex-theist turned atheist it may be an issue, for myself, I think I'm a rare but becoming more common 'atheist' who has just not been brought-up with any conception of a 'god' or 'god/s' as any explanation for anything? Its just not a thought in my life. The only time it is, is when someone asks me what religion I am or asks "have you 'god' in your life?" or "do you believe in 'god' or tells me that this 'god' or 'gods' exist in a philosophical discussion. Otherwise I have no thought about it? I don't go around thinking "I don't believe in 'God/s'" in the way it appears to me that the believer does with their belief in this 'god' or 'gods' but maybe I'm mistaken, maybe they don't actually think about their 'god' existing in their lives at all but just pay lip service of some sort due to cultural conditions?

[Thundril]

What about the problem of 'knowing?
We can't absolutely 'know' anything, so we settling for a slightly less than absolute knowing.
I'm an atheist. I 'know' god doesn't exist. But that 'knowing' isn't absolute. It's a belief. I don't understand EH's problem with this.
OTOH, I don't see how anyone who has studied the matter can possibly 'believe' in god.
I suspect it's achronic 'suspension of disbelief'.
I suspect the person so wants to believe that they train themselves to ignore the fact that they 'know' really, that there's no such thing. And this raises an interesting problem; is there a difference between 'believing' and just 'believing that you believe' when you really don't?7?

[Notvacka]

What about the problem of 'knowing?
We can't absolutely 'know' anything, so we settling for a slightly less than absolute knowing.
I'm an atheist. I 'know' god doesn't exist. But that 'knowing' isn't absolute. It's a belief. I don't understand EH's problem with this.
OTOH, I don't see how anyone who has studied the matter can possibly 'believe' in god.
I suspect it's achronic 'suspension of disbelief'.
I suspect the person so wants to believe that they train themselves to ignore the fact that they 'know' really, that there's no such thing. And this raises an interesting problem; is there a difference between 'believing' and just 'believing that you believe' when you really don't?7?

I think that you found the heart of this little debate, and it's made of language. Evangelicalhumanist's position would have been more reasonable in my native language, Swedish, since here the word for "belief" and "faith" are one and the same. In English, you can settle for atheism not being strong enough a belief to qualify as a faith. However, I think evangelicalhumanist tries to define "belief" in stronger terms, more akin to "faith". On the other side of the scale you have "opinion" which I would consider a weaker form of "belief".

"Knowledge" can, as you point out, be regarded as a special kind of strong blief. But if you want to get into the epistemological side of things, and this kind of debate tend to drift in that direction, you will find, as Typist is particularly fond of pointing out, that "knowledge" is mostly an illusion. But you are already aware of this, since you made the distinction between knowledge and absolute knowledge.

Myself, I'd like to put the relationship between knowledge and belief like this:

Some people believe that they know, I know that I believe.

Meaning, basically, that you can have knowledge, but you can't be sure that it actually is knowledge, while you can have beliefs, and be certain that they are beliefs.

And, by the way, I'm a theist. I believe because I want to. It's wishful thinking, I know.

How can I believe, though I have indeed studied the matter? I once started a topic on that, Building Religion from the Ground Up: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4768

[Typist]

What interests me....

Why are so many atheists so committed to this belief?

It's not just EH and other members here, this "atheism is not a belief" thing seems to be a widespread aspect of their dogma. I'm not sure how widespread, but I've certainly seen it on other forums.

I'm not debating the question here.

I'm asking, why? Where does this belief come from? It's like asking, why are some Christians so committed to the Virgin Mary being a virgin, without debating whether she was a virgin true or not.

Every time anybody even casually mentions this issue it quickly turns in to a raging inferno. To me, there's more to be learned from the passion and emotion surrounding the issue than an intellectual analysis of the proposal itself.

How about we agree that atheism might be a belief system, or it might not be a belief system. And then ask...

Why is this so important?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Yes? We're not debating the existence of God here, but the rather moot point whether lack of belief is a kind of belief or not. Atheism, like theism, is a position on an issue.

I disagree. The "position" is that someone proposes that "X" exists. If nobody had bothered to propose such a thing, nobody else would have any need to consider or take positions upon it. But it gets worse -- not only has somebody proposed that "X" exists, but that now there are some things that are required by virtue of that fact.

I maintain that lack of belief is not a belief, any more than lack of food is a kind of food.

You said earlier that Ii believe things. That is true, I've said that myself over and over again. And the things that I believe (the essential value and dignity of all human beings, all other things being equal for example) inform my behaviours. Lack of belief in God does not inform my behaviour. I don't think to myself, "there is no God, therefore it's okay for me to steal my neighbour's goods."

Perhaps I just dislike being mischaracterized. And the insistance that "atheism is a belief system," which has been made in those precise words on this forum, is a deep mischaracterization. It is nothing of the kind. My belief system is humanism. That does contain a number of actual beliefs that I hold, seven of which I have listed previously.