What is Atheism?

[masterofpuppets]

Hello everyone! I am new on the forum. I am an 18-year-old male who was a Christian until the age of 8, and a deist until the age of 12/13. I am currently an agnostic atheist.

Atheism, to me, is simply a lack of belief in any kind of god. It does not necessarily follow that therefore an atheist believes no such gods exist, although an atheist might hold that position (which is a position that I do hold, at least in relation to the God of scripture, not necessarily that of the deist, as the latter is unfalsifiable in principle). In the case of one's belief about a claim, there are only three possibilities:

1. Belief that the claim is true.
2. Belief that the claim is false.
3. Lack of belief either way.

Theism would be 1, whilst atheism can be both 2 or 3, because both 2 and 3 represent a lack of belief that the claim is true. I have come across many folks who make the disingenuous claim that atheism is strictly a belief that no gods exist (or worse, the positive assertion that no gods exist), while claiming that those who simply lack a belief either way should be called "agnostics", when in reality agnosticism has to do with knowledge, and not belief.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well..to put it more formally, there are only two possible positions for a given claim. You either believe the claim, or you do not believe the claim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

- delete -

[SteveII]

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Babies ARE atheists.  Are you saying we're born with a belief in god?  If I lack a belief, how can I shoulder any intellectual burden about it?

Thanks for illustrating that you have redefined the word to absurdity.

[masterofpuppets]

A lack of belief does not require a burden of proof, because a lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of proof and valid arguments to sufficiently justify a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require proof. Lacking a belief in something is not a claim (because knowledge, which is justified true belief, is a subset of belief) and therefore does not carry a burden of proof. We must start with a lack of belief as the default position, because otherwise we will end up believing things that have not met their burden of proof.

In terms of what is actually true, are only two possibilities: a god exists, or a god doesn't exist. Atheism and theism only address the former claim. Theists believe this claim, and atheists do not. Atheists lack a belief in the claim "a god exists" because it has not met its burden of proof.

Also, having an opinion about "x" not mean you have a belief in "x". To believe something is to become convinced that it is true, which is not a prerequisite for having an opinion about that something.

[FatAndFaithless]

A lack of belief does not require a burden of proof, because a lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of proof and valid arguments to sufficiently justify a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require proof. Lacking a belief in something is not a claim (because knowledge, which is justified true belief, is a subset of belief) and therefore does not carry a burden of proof. We must start with a lack of belief as the default position, because otherwise we will end up believing things that have not met their burden of proof.

In terms of what is actually true, are only two possibilities: a god exists, or a god doesn't exist. Atheism and theism only address the former claim. Theists believe this claim, and atheists do not. Atheists lack a belief in the claim "a god exists" because it has not met its burden of proof.

Also, having an opinion about "x" not mean you have a belief in "x". To believe something is to become convinced that it is true, which is not a prerequisite for having an opinion about that something.

Right.  And simply saying "I do not believe your claim has met its burden of proof" does not carry a burden of proof of it's own...because it's literally just stating that you don't find a claim convincing.

Careful though, you'll quickly note on here the people that love to spin their wheels in the semantic mud and never get anywhere in a conversation.

[SteveII]

A lack of belief does not require a burden of proof, because a lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of proof and valid arguments to sufficiently justify a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require proof. Lacking a belief in something is not a claim (because knowledge, which is justified true belief, is a subset of belief) and therefore does not carry a burden of proof. We must start with a lack of belief as the default position, because otherwise we will end up believing things that have not met their burden of proof. 

In terms of what is actually true, are only two possibilities: a god exists, or a god doesn't exist. Atheism and theism only address the former claim. Theists believe this claim, and atheists do not. Atheists lack a belief in the claim "a god exists" because it has not met its burden of proof. 

Also, having an opinion about "x" not mean you have a belief in "x". To believe something is to become convinced that it is true, which is not a prerequisite for having an opinion about that something.

By redefining atheism as a "lack of belief" you mean non-theist and as such now encompass all the positions other than theism (atheists, agnostics, verificationists, babies, the impaired, my dog, and park benches). So 'atheism' ceases to have any meaning pertaining to a view of how the world is and simply becomes a psychological state.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well...that's because atheism isn't a way of viewing the world...it's literally one response to one claim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A lack of belief does not require a burden of proof, because a lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of proof and valid arguments to sufficiently justify a knowledge claim.

You have made a fallacious move. Just because there is insufficient evidence to accent to either the truth or untruth of a proposition that does not mean one should make one the default position. That is an unsupported move from is to ought. With respect to any given proposition, I say the default position is the one that on its face appears to be the most obvious one. For human beings belief in God is instinctual, confirms personal apprehensions about the sublime, and enjoys cross-cultural confirmation from practitioners of meditation and contemplative prayer. It takes more than just hand-waving (or semantic games) to dismiss these primal observations.

[LastPoet]

A quite short one: Nope.