"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I do not believe the quoted sections support your case. In fact, quite the opposite.

(and 'the site I linked' is Wikipedia by the way).

[b]I am afraid that on the same principle as the meaning of atheist I can't agree with you.
I know of plenty of people who either call themselves agnostic by my definition and not yours, or use
the word to me ...[text shortened]... sophical bent.
And I suspect they do so solely because they don't like the label 'atheist'.[/b]

No, the people I am thinking of use both. They are agnostic atheists.
As described in the wiki link you supplied.

Originally posted by googlefudge
They might say all kinds of things.

My response would be to point out that that is a false dichotomy.
Those are not the only two options.

What are the other options?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't in doubt.

Then, we agree.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What are the other options?

I answered that question a few posts farther down that page.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Then, we agree.

We really don't.

Originally posted by googlefudge

If you ask if I have stopped beating my wife my response would be I have never started.

Which was not one of the options given, which proves that it was a false dichotomy,
which was the point I was making.

[quote]To be confronted with something if it is factual or not takes away the ability to say you
have no views or opinion on t ...[text shortened]... sition on any issue that one is presented with.
Neither logically nor cognitively is that true.

You can add 3+1+2 and it will equal 6, as you can 3+3 that doesn't mean one is not true
because it can be done another way. I don't care how you came to viewing the universe
without God, it is meaningless to this point! What matters is that you view the universe
without God and so everything in the universe to you must have in its make up, being,
cause, and all other factors godless, to add God changes all things.

Your perspective causes you to view the universe without God as mine does with
God. As your perspective shapes all you look at so does mine, it is our beliefs that filter all
things, how we hold to those belief or how we came by them does not matter as much as
the fact we have them.

You have beliefs, like it or not, you use them to judge all things by.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can add 3+1+2 and it will equal 6, as you can 3+3 that doesn't mean one is not true
because it can be done another way. I don't care how you came to viewing the universe
without God, it is meaningless to this point! What matters is that you view the universe
without God and so everything in the universe to you must have in its make up, being,
cause, ...[text shortened]... the fact we have them.

You have beliefs, like it or not, you use them to judge all things by.

I don't care how you came to viewing the universe
without God, it is meaningless to this point!

It is not meaningless it is the entire point. This is where you always go wrong.

to add God changes all things.

No it doesn't.

For example, when talking about morality which is where we started.
My moral system doesn't change at all by the slightest iota if a god or gods exist or not.

As this is true my moral system CANNOT possibly be dependent on or based on the idea
that god does not exist.

My system for determining truth and what to believe in also does not depend in any way
upon the existence of a god.

So what you are claiming is flat out fundamentally and totally wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I don't care how you came to viewing the universe
without God, it is meaningless to this point!

It is not meaningless it is the entire point. This is where you always go wrong.

to add God changes all things.

No it doesn't.

For example, when talking about morality which is where we started.
My moral system does ...[text shortened]... the existence of a god.

So what you are claiming is flat out fundamentally and totally wrong.

"It is not meaningless it is the entire point. This is where you always go wrong."

Than clear it up, because as I see we disagree however you have yet to produce a
reason. I'd like to see your thoughts on this too since we are the ones having a
conversation not a link unless it supports something you are saying.

If you add God to a godless world than the world isn't godless any more. Not sure how
you'd think that isn't true.

Moral system??????? We are talking about Atheism a belief or lack there of....when did
you change to morals?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly not! I took you at your word. It appears you do not mean absolute knowledge at all.

[b]I was referring to China as a piece of land with borders around it. You need to have ABSOLUTE knowledge about every single thing within the borders which could possibly have gold in it.
What does the ABSOLUTE qualifier here signify? Would you not simply ...[text shortened]... know for a fact that there is no Ostrich in my fridge'. Would that require 'ABSOLUTE knowledge'?[/b]

Would you not simply need knowledge of every single thing within its borders that could possibly have gold in it? signify?Why call it 'ABSOLUTE knowledge', not just 'knowledge'?

Because having knowledge about every single thing is ABSOLUTE knowledge.

So, to know that God does not exist, I don't need to worry about knowledge of places that could not have a God in it? So when you say ABSOLUTE knowledge, you just mean 'relevant knowledge'?

To know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist (in the universe) you need absolute knowledge about the universe.

No, I know they cannot exist, because if they were invisible, they couldn't also be pink.

Actually the concept of an invisible pink unicorn does exist and it is worshipped by atheists like yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

"It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove that she does not exist (or indeed that she is not pink)."😛

Yes, I can.

Not with absolute certainty.

What if I said 'I know for a fact that there is no Ostrich in my fridge'. Would that require 'ABSOLUTE knowledge'?

Yes you would require absolute knowledge about your fridge. Which is possible since you can strip it down completely. But you are not claiming that God does not exist in your fridge. You are claiming he doesn't exist in the universe. You cannot have absolute knowledge about the universe unless you claim to be God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"It is not meaningless it is the entire point. This is where you always go wrong."

Than clear it up, because as I see we disagree however you have yet to produce a
reason. I'd like to see your thoughts on this too since we are the ones having a
conversation not a link unless it supports something you are saying.

If you add God to a godless world th ...[text shortened]... ?????? We are talking about Atheism a belief or lack there of....when did
you change to morals?

Than clear it up, because as I see we disagree however you have yet to produce a
reason. I'd like to see your thoughts on this too since we are the ones having a
conversation not a link unless it supports something you are saying.

/me Head-Desk-Impact...

I/We have explained this and given reasons every time this comes up, including multiple
times in this thread. Have you not read ANY of them?????

If you add God to a godless world than the world isn't godless any more. Not sure how
you'd think that isn't true.

That isn't the dispute.

YOU are arguing, and have always been arguing, that whether you believe a god exists or not
"colours" [effects] your entire worldview and everything else you believe. That an atheist looks
at the world through a 'no god exists' lens.

And that is wrong, as we have explained over and over and over again in many many different threads
for years.

So let's try again.

Lets say that I get sucked into some sort of portal and land in some strange new world that I know nothing
about. And specifically for the purposes of this argument I have no idea at all whether a god or gods exist
in this new universe.

Now my world view as I explained previously in this thread is something like this...

My worldview, my foundational beliefs, are based on a belief in the power, virtue, and utility, of
rationality and scientific skepticism and in objective wellbeing based morality.
So a foundational belief for me might be something like "Only true beliefs are useful, and thus
I should believe as few false things and as many true things as possible".
Another might be something like "Scientific skepticism and methodology are the best known ways
of determining the truth or falsity of a claim."
Another might be something like "Morality is about the promotion of wellbeing amongst a society
of sentient beings [humans]".

So I start investigating this new world Reveal Hidden Content to learn more about it. As I believer in rationality I don't hold with believing
in anything that I don't have good evidence for and so as I start knowing nothing about this new universe I start
off as an atheist [I lack belief in the existence of gods]. However as I explore I start gaining more and more
evidence that the gods the people in this world worship actually exist. Eventually the evidence becomes so
convincing that I start to believe that actually in this new universe I have found myself in gods do actually exist.
I become a theist.

However, nothing about how I analyse evidence, nothing about the way I view the world or decide morality [etc]
has changed. Discovering that a god or gods exist is like discovering any other property of the universe, its a
new fact that goes into the set of things I know about this universe, but it doesn't change any of my foundational
beliefs, the things I build my world view on. I still view faith as a bad foundation for belief, I still have the same morality,
I still use the same methods for determining what is or is not true about the universe... almost nothing has changed.

Now that cannot be said of all world views.

If YOU were the one that fell into this universe and you discovered as I did that many gods existed [none of them the
Christian god] in this new universe then your worldview would change drastically. [assuming that you accepted this new
reality]. Because your world view is based upon your belief in the existence of a particular god, and your following of
the tenets of the religion based around that god.

But just because your world view would change radically if your belief in the Christian god was altered, that does
not mean that all world views share that property.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?

Here is my complete and exhaustive debate ending answer [yet again] on this topic.
This subject is not up for debate, this is the answer, deal with it.

Theist and atheist are answers to questions about a persons belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Gnostic and agnostic a ...[text shortened]... s atheists what we do or do not believe and playing word games with the definitions.[/i]

Here is my complete and exhaustive debate ending answer [yet again] on this topic.
This subject is not up for debate, this is the answer, deal with it.
Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?
Fortunately, such is not the case for the question at hand.
As long as human history continues, we will have discussions on the nature of all belief systems, simply because we like to quibble (among other reasons).

This recent development (of the atheist's objection to appearing to believe anything remotely related to God) is yet another log on the fire... although I suspect due to its superficial construction won't last long in the scheme of things.

Despite superfluous protestations otherwise, when the mind adopts a perspective it must first behold the concept no matter the final outcome.
It can logically be said that a person lacks a concept prior to their introduction by any means to the same.
It cannot logically be said that a person lacks a perspective once exposed to a concept.
This holds true for any concept, real or imagined.
Once exposed, a mind comes to whatever conclusion it determines most aligns with its own perspective on reality: it can do no other than to adopt beliefs which allow it to remain cohesive and consistent without serious repercussions, mentally-speaking.

The atheist who attempts to describe his conclusions about God as a "lack of belief" is wishing to step in the river yet remain dry.
Too, the atheist so enamored of this absurd descriptor is at odds with literally every other facet of life as it pertains to thinking.
No one outside of the atheist describes their thought process in the negative: the entirety of academic thought is centered on progression of ideas from one to the most current--- anyone who proclaimed their current position as a lack of belief in the previous positions would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheist.
That, and some form of deserved ridicule.

Originally posted by googlefudge
EDIT: And no, it is THE answer. It's the answer given by all the major atheist organisations.
It's thus the only one that is actually correct.

Seriously?

Again, any logic argument that starts off with an incorrect premise is flawed from the start. They may "define" atheism all day long, for all I care. But since their premise is incorrect, EVERYthing that follows from that is suspect. Which is why I'm surprised to see you, a self-described logician, prematurely adopting it as "truth".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Because having knowledge about every single thing is ABSOLUTE knowledge.

But we have already conclusively established (ie you agreed with me) that knowledge of every single thing is not required. You agreed that knowledge of a single persons name in China would not be required.

To know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist (in the universe) you need absolute knowledge about the universe.
No, you do not.

Actually the concept of an invisible pink unicorn does exist and it is worshipped by atheists like yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
So you do believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns? Interesting.

Yes you would require absolute knowledge about your fridge. Which is possible since you can strip it down completely.
Would I have to inspect every atom and every electron? Just how ABSOLUTE would this knowledge have to be?

But you are not claiming that God does not exist in your fridge. You are claiming he doesn't exist in the universe. You cannot have absolute knowledge about the universe unless you claim to be God.
I do not require absolute knowledge. That is obviously not the case, yet you just keep on repeating it as if repeating it makes it so. It doesn't. It absolutely doesn't.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Seriously?

Again, any logic argument that starts off with an incorrect premise is flawed from the start. They may "define" atheism all day long, for all I care. But since their premise is incorrect, EVERYthing that follows from that is suspect. Which is why I'm surprised to see you, a self-described logician, prematurely adopting it as "truth".

What premise is incorrect???

And this is not a logical argument, it's a definition, a label.
Not even in the same ballpark of being the same thing.

You can't just waffle and assert "oh the premise is incorrect"...

You say WHICH premise [and this should be good as, this being a definition and not a logical argument,
there are no premises to object to]
And then you say WHY it's wrong/suspect/etc.

It's really not that hard.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Here is my complete and exhaustive debate ending answer [yet again] on this topic.
This subject is not up for debate, this is the answer, deal with it.
Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?
Fortunately, such is not the case for the question at hand.
As long as human history continues, we will have discu ...[text shortened]... ons would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheist.
That, and some form of deserved ridicule.[/b]

Don't you just love answers which cannot be questioned, which have become dogma?

See, this is the thing, what you are stupidly arguing about is the definition of what an atheist is.

This is stupid, because: A) this definition is not up to you to decide or weigh in on as you are not an atheist
yourself [this being the label of a group you are not a member of]
And B) arguing about the definition gets you absolutely nowhere in determining if the position it describes
is valid or not.

This recent development (of the atheist's objection to appearing to believe anything remotely related to God) is yet another log on the fire... although I suspect due to its superficial construction won't last long in the scheme of things.

First, it's not recent. And second, as I/we keep telling you we are not doing this out of an effort to try to weasel out
of a duty to meet a burden of proof. As I have said many times, I DO believe that gods do not exist and more than
that claim to know that many if not all of those claimed to exist by people do not exist.
I am not dodging anything, and anyone claiming otherwise is being deeply dishonest.
However, many other atheists, including some of those on this site do not share my belief in the lack of gods and instead
merely lack belief in them. Heck some atheists would LOVE for a god or gods to exist, they just are not convinced that
they do.

Despite superfluous protestations otherwise, when the mind adopts a perspective it must first behold the concept no matter the final outcome.
It can logically be said that a person lacks a concept prior to their introduction by any means to the same.
It cannot logically be said that a person lacks a perspective once exposed to a concept.
This holds true for any concept, real or imagined.
Once exposed, a mind comes to whatever conclusion it determines most aligns with its own perspective on reality: it can do no other than to adopt beliefs which allow it to remain cohesive and consistent without serious repercussions, mentally-speaking.

What you just wrote here is meaningless word salad.
Trying to use fancy words you don't understand has left you posting gibberish. Try again.

The atheist who attempts to describe [THEIR] conclusions about God as a "lack of belief" is wishing to step in the river yet remain dry.

Wrong, and emphatically so.

Firstly, I know many atheists who have no conclusions about whether a god exists or not.

In a different vein you could ask me if I believed "String Theory" was going to be the Grand Unified Theory that everyone is
hoping for and I would tell you that I have no idea I have no opinion one way or the other. It might be, it might not, I can't tell.
I have no belief either way.

You are essentially arguing that I MUST either believe that it is going to be found valid OR that it will be disproven...
Which is nonsense, I need form no such opinion. Even having read extensively about it and various competitors.

No one outside of the atheist describes their thought process in the negative: the entirety of academic thought is centered on progression of ideas from one to the most current--- anyone who proclaimed their current position as a lack of belief in the previous positions would face the same censure as the "LOB" atheist.

Um, total and complete bull-excrement.

Find any philosopher, scientist, or skeptic, [or frankly just sane person] and you will find that they will all agree that there
are topics that they do and should lack belief either way because they do not have sufficient reason to think otherwise.

YOU are the one asking for ridicule.