Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

Not at all specific enough. "God" is never *defined* in the Bible, (if you think it is, show us where). A completely coherent definition is not only NOT there, but also impossible. 

It's sufficiently defined to state gnostically that it's an incoherent description.  You can positively assert that you do not believe that God, as depicted in the Bible, can possibly exist.

When I say not specific, I really mean not specified.  If someone says, "Do you believe in god?" a natural enough question is "Which God do you mean?"  I don't think you'd ask a Biblical Christian that.

No.
It is insufficiently defined, therefore as it stands in its insufficiency, it is incoherent.
In fact, ANY god which "exists" (ie possesses the property of existence) is incoherent,
as it necessarily HAS to be embedded in a larger Reality, which it could not, therefore, have created.

I would ask a Christian who claims to be "Biblical" that question.
Not only is the divinity of Jesus different in every gospel, the Hebrew "heavenly host" in the OT contains ALL kinds of divine beings, and in fact the Hebrews in the OT worshipped a number of gods, including the Babylonian war deity, Yahweh Sabaoth, and his wife/consort, Ashera.

[The Grand Nudger]

 If someone says, "Do you believe in god?" a natural enough question is "Which God do you mean?"  I don't think you'd ask a Biblical Christian that.

"Do you believe this guy?"  "Which guy?" - clearly you know what a guy is.  The concept of a guy is not meaningfully ambiguous or incoherent even if you're uncertain which guy they're talking about.  If you don't believe in gods, or guys, it doesn't even matter which god or guy a person is referring to.

The simple knowledge of the conceptual set is enough grounds to determine ones status of belief, accurately - as ever...even in the absence of knowledge or full knowledge or irrelevant knowledge. Similarly, the answer for every person who believes in any god, to that same question, is "yes"". Simply yes. Not "which god?". It doesn't -matter- which god, they believe in god. Another one of those what month is it, tuesday bits.

That we respond to that question this way likely reflects the reality of the question being culturally loaded when someone asks it..

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

"Do you believe this guy?"  "Which guy?" - clearly you know what a guy is. 

Come now Gae.

A better or more fitting example of subject might be;

"Do you know this creature?" "Which creature?"

Or,

"Do you know this element?" "Which element?"

EDIT: Or,

"Do you know this guy?" "Which guy of roughly 3.7 billion guys?"

Since, I'm sure, we can both agree that there are and have been quite the plethora of divinities to choose optiobs from when asked "Which diety?".

Cheers.

[Duty]

 If someone says, "Do you believe in god?" a natural enough question is "Which God do you mean?"  I don't think you'd ask a Biblical Christian that.

Yeah that's what I say when asked. It often leads to an opportunity to reel off the names of Vishnu, Thor, Zeus etc when they say "you know, God" and you reply "Yeah but which one? Ganesh? Odin? Vulcan?" etc. With any luck they wind up looking and feeling confused, vulnerable and stupid - job's a goodun!

[The Grand Nudger]

They're all the same example.  

"Which creature" demonstrates an understanding of the category "creatures".  "Which element" the category "elements".   We're asking for clarity or specificity in a list of known and understood x's (and maybe even allowing for ones we're unfamiliar with).   This is an explicit demonstration of coherence. Nothing is more or less coherent than this.

Unless a person believes in at least one of the individual referents (including the possibility of some unknown referent) then the answer to the question of belief is no, simply no.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

They're all the same example.  

"Which creature" demonstrates an understanding of the category "creatures".  "Which element" the category "elements".   We're asking for clarity or specificity in a list of known and understood x's (and maybe even allowing for ones we're unfamiliar with).   This is an explicit demonstration of coherence. Nothing is more or less coherent than this.

Unless a person believes in at least one of the individual referents (including the possibility of some unknown referent) then the answer to the question of belief is no, simply no.

Oh, right then. Cool.

So, which creature or element in specific particulars am I thinking of then?

Should be an easy answer as I think I'm being clear.

[The Grand Nudger]

At work.

They're all the same example.  

"Which creature" demonstrates an understanding of the category "creatures".  "Which element" the category "elements".   We're asking for clarity or specificity in a list of known and understood x's (and maybe even allowing for ones we're unfamiliar with).   This is an explicit demonstration of coherence. Nothing is more or less coherent than this.

Unless a person believes in at least one of the individual referents (including the possibility of some unknown referent) then the answer to the question of belief is no, simply no.

Oh, right then. Cool.

So, which creature or element in specific particulars am I thinking of then?

Should be an easy answer as I think I'm being clear.  

Some creature, some element.  That's the point.  In that regard the question is crystal clear. Both are coherent concepts just as god is a coherent concept even if there are multiple individual referents in all three sets and I lack specificity as to which among them we are referring.

Lacking specificity and lacking coherence are not the same thing. Establishing one does not suggest imply or demonstrate the other. If I asked you which cat I'm thinking of, you may be unclear on the "which"..but not the "cat". The specific identity of the cat being an unknown does not invalidate the concept of a cat.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Oh, right then. Cool.

So, which creature or element in specific particulars am I thinking of then?

Should be an easy answer as I think I'm being clear.  

Some creature, some element.  That's the point.  In that regard the question is crystal clear. Both are coherent concepts just as god is a coherent concept even if there are multiple individual referents in all three sets and I lack specificity as to which among them we are referring.

Lacking specificity and lacking coherence are not the same thing. Establishing one does not suggest imply or demonstrate the other.

Yes, yes they are.

But which specific creature? Which specific element? Which specific guy? Which specific......


You get the idea?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, it's fun, you can go down the rabbit hole forever with that one.  

I just wanted to stress that attempting to justify the position that some x is incoherent by appealing to a lack of specificity is unproductive no matter what angle you take it from.  It's not a valid inference, so any larger position that leans on it inherits that.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Sure, it's fun, you can go down the rabbit hole forever with that one.  

I just wanted to stress that attempting to justify the position that some x is incoherent by appealing to a lack of specificity is unproductive no matter what angle you take it from.  It's not a valid inference, so any larger position that leans on it inherits that.

Hmmmm.... I don't think it was the incoherence of the subject. Just the lack of specificity.