Why don't some people understand lack of belief?

[Edwardo Piet]

I've heard some people say that you can either believe that there is a God or that there is no God. Can't they comprehend the idea of the lack of faith? Or are they unwilling to accept it?

Well, the problem is that they like to equivocate.

If "I do believe there is no God" just means exactly the same thing as "I don't believe there is a God", then there's no problem.

But if atheists were to say there's no difference then the theists are just gonna make the irrational equivocation that believing there is no God is objectively finding the absence of God and therefore having absolute knowledge and certainty that God isn't real. Which is silly because how the fuck can you find the absence of something? What does that even mean? Absence isn't anything. What are you supposed to be finding? Nothing? Finding nothing? Not like failing to find something, but finding a non-thing, that makes no sense. There are no non-things, that's the whole point!

The TL;DR: It's just theists wanting to lump all atheists into strong atheism even when only agnostic atheism is justified, so they can point the finger and say "You're irrational too, hypocritical atheists!"

But some of us aren't falling for it.

[rskovride]

 I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God. Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists. Who cares?

 

Are you really attempting to dumb down and trivialize these distinctions?  Who cares?  Well everyone seems to care on this forum and the distinctions are used to give a more granular understanding of our position.  Also, you kinda defeat yourself when you say that the question of whether or not god exists is soooooo important and with the same breath trivialize the answer you are given.   

[The Grand Nudger]

The TL;DR: It's just theists wanting to lump all atheists into strong atheism even when only agnostic atheism is justified, so they can point the finger and say "You're irrational too, hypocritical atheists!"

But some of us aren't falling for it.

lol, even we "irrational hypocritical atheists" understand the difference...I don't see why believers can't.

[Edwardo Piet]

They probably want to toy with the burden of proof.  If you have a positive claim like "God doesn't exist"  then the BOP is on you.

And yet the funny thing is that is not the case. For the same reason that believing the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist doesn't require the burden of proof, but believing the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist does require the burden of proof.

It's a common misconception that "all positive claims" require the BOP (and "positive claim" seems kind of redundant to me. If it's claim at all it's not gonna be a "negative claim"). No... with regards to any claim there is always a claim for the exact opposite, and of the two it is always the claim that is least parsimonious, makes the most assumptions and has the least evidence, that requires the burden of proof.

Now of course, if someone were to say that they are absolutely certain that X claim is true.... then that would require the burden of proof even if the only alternative is less reasonable, because it's not the fact it's a positive claim itself that requires BOP, it's the irrational part about being 100% certain of it when one cannot be. And to suggest that because the only alternative makes even more assumptions or has even less evidence then your own position MUST be true is to commit the fallacy of The Argument From Ignorance.

But if all you're doing is saying you believe X, rather than that you are 100% sure of X, and if the only alternative/the absence of X being true makes far more assumptions, then X is the null hypothesis and doesn't require the burden of proof at all. It's the fact that it already has evidence or is the null hypothesis over the only alternative that precisely makes it not require the burden of proof.

X is true is the null hypothesis if X is untrue is not the null hypothesis. X is true is not the same as X MUST be true. All absolute claims require the burden of proof, yes, unless we're talking claims that are backed up by tautologically true premises.... as to attempt to prove that would just be futile.

To give an example, if it is 49% probable that X exists then there is no burden of proof required on the person who believes that it is 51% probable to believe that X doesn't exist, as that is simply implied. But if the person who should believe that it's 51% likely that X doesn't exist, were to instead assert that X absolutely 100% doesn't exist then yes, the burden of proof would be on them as well. Just as the burden of proof is on the 49% person if they choose to claim it's more than 49%.

---

For some people, it is either black or white.  For them, there is no grey area.

Grey is made from mixtures of black and white

But yeah, there's a great deal in between 0% and 100% probable. But you do either believe something or you don't, and when people say that believing there is no X and not believing that there is X are two different things, I'm not sure what they're talking about. Believing there is no X doesn't imply absolute certainty any more than not believing there is X does, and believing in an absence is the same as not believing in a presence. It's the same damn thing lol.

I have an absence of belief in God, and I also positively, but not absolutely, believe that there is no presence of God... it's the same damn thing. In both cases I am not entirely certain but am reasonably certain based on the improbability of such a god.

Of course, it's possible to not believe in God without being aware of the concept, or even being alive. But so what? The point is that once you are aware of the concept of God and what some people believe in, you're just consciously reacting to that and the belief that there isn't a God precisely reflects the absent belief you had as a baby. It's not like reacting to a proposition consciously suddenly means you have to claim that it's absolutely false or anything else irrational like that.

The only difference is that in one case there's a belief and the other there isn't, but that doesn't matter. The point is the beliefs, when they exist, should be rational, and when they don't exist should be rational. And belief is not the same as claiming knowledge or certainty. Differences that aren't relevant to the matter at hand don't matter to the matter at hand!

[Mystic]

No.

Now you can sleep easier at night.

And I can appreciate someone like you who isn't afraid to state their opinion forthrightly.

I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God. Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists. Who cares? Either you believe in God or you don't. It really isn't more complicated than that. I'm not scared to say I don't believe in fairies, because whether fairies exist or not has no bearing on any fundamental question and there's no serious reason to believe that they do. I don't feel the need to call non-fairy belief some weaselly "lack of belief" default position. I'm not terrified of the question "Why not?"

AFaries.com ftw. We all need to reinforce each other and refute all arguments for fairies.

[Amarok]

I can point it out for you, but, you totally negated your 1st statement.

Again I repeat.

Certainty is blessed. Doubt is a tool to get there.

And i repeat your wrong and my statement hold true

---

Because people who agree with the OP want everyone to think atheists are just people who go around blissfully ignorant of a fundamental question of human existence, i.e. "Does God exist?" It is question that demands an answer and how someone answers determines whether or not he or she is an atheist, theist, or agnostic. The possible answers are yes, no, and maybe. That's it. Everything else is just evasive puffery.

Seems like a gross mischaracterization of the OP. I've never met an atheist who is ignorant of the question or an atheist who thinks any significant number of adults are. You're making your bricks out of straw.

---

So what is your answer to the question? And stating what label you think people should call you by is not the same as stating your answer? Man up and clearly state your position. Does God exist? Yes, no, maybe?

Does God exist? Probably not.

Does Wooter do anything else

---

AFaries.com ftw. We all need to reinforce each other and refute all arguments for fairies.

If over a billion claimed  they were real and used them as a stopgap to explain things. and pushed a Fairy agenda. You better believe that site would exist . And no ones reinforcing anybody Misty . FYI creating a website has nothing to do with holding a positive position over a negative merely skeptical one .

[Edwardo Piet]

And I can appreciate someone like you who isn't afraid to state their opinion forthrightly.

I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God. Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists. Who cares? Either you believe in God or you don't. It really isn't more complicated than that. I'm not scared to say I don't believe in fairies, because whether fairies exist or not has no bearing on any fundamental question and there's no serious reason to believe that they do. I don't feel the need to call non-fairy belief some weaselly "lack of belief" default position. I'm not terrified of the question "Why not?"

AFaries.com ftw. We all need to reinforce each other and refute all arguments for fairies.

And the fact you can't refute the existence of faeries without resorting to arguments that could be redirected just as effectively towards your own belief in God, is certainly embarrassing.

---

No.

Now you can sleep easier at night.

And I can appreciate someone like you who isn't afraid to state their opinion forthrightly.

I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God. Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists. Who cares? Either you believe in God or you don't. It really isn't more complicated than that. I'm not scared to say I don't believe in fairies, because whether fairies exist or not has no bearing on any fundamental question and there's no serious reason to believe that they do. I don't feel the need to call non-fairy belief some weaselly "lack of belief" default position. I'm not terrified of the question "Why not?"

Yes. I can assert "God does not exist" just as easily as I can assert that "Santa Claus does not exist."

In neither case does it mean I've searched the whole universe looking and am absolutely certain in both cases. But I can be just as confident about God as I can Santa Claus. I don't go out of my way to speak of my lack of belief in anything else (pet peeve of mine, it's an absence not a lack. To say it's a lack is to admit that I should believe which would be a false admission)... so why should I about God?

[Neo-Scholastic]

 I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God. Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists. Who cares?

 
Are you really attempting to dumb down and trivialize these distinctions?  Who cares?  Well everyone seems to care on this forum and the distinctions are used to give a more granular understanding of our position.

Yes, because those imaginary distinctions make atheism a trivial position. Nobody cares if you're 20% or 80% certain that no God exists. The issue isn't certainty. It's whether or not you are willing to commit to a stance despite the various uncertainties and vicissitudes of human existence.

If I tell my friend that I'll meet him for lunch. I just say whether or not I'll show or if I need to check my calendar.I don't say, well, I'm an agnostic scheduler so I assume I'll be there unless my car unexpectedly breaks down. Nor do I insist that I'm a gnostic scheduler because there is no circumstance under which I would miss lunch.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you recognize that there's a difference between my position and some agnostic atheists position, or not?

Similarly, are you a gnostic theist like..say..Mystic..or an agnostic theist..like my wife?

[Amarok]

And I can appreciate someone like you who isn't afraid to state their opinion forthrightly. 

You confuse fear with honesty and you praise only what suits your agenda 

I don't understand why so may atheists are ashamed to say plainly that they don't believe in God.

I'm not ashamed seriously get that through your head 

 Instead, like Khem, they have to go into these long-winded explanations making all kinds of subtle distinctions

You mean actually explain his position rather then let you lump him into your ideological box .

, like gnostic versus agnostic atheists.

Which exist and are two distinct kinds of atheist 

Who cares?

We do . If you don't then why should we care what you think.

Either you believe in God or you don't. 

Nope you either convinced by the case made for god or your not . But weather your certain or your claiming their is no god as a knowledge claim is a whole other matter .

It really isn't more complicated than that.

Yes yes it is

 I'm not scared to say I don't believe in fairies,

Can you prove gnostically their are no fairies anywhere in whole of existence . I think not .

because whether fairies exist or not has no bearing on any fundamental question

How do you know? how do you know fairies are not answer to a thousand critical questions . 

and there's no serious reason to believe that they do

Just as much reason to think your god exists 

I don't feel the need to call non-fairy belief some weaselly "lack of belief" default position.

It's not weaselly if you did nor is it when atheists do it . It's an honest position . Show it wrong or quit whining. 

I'm not terrified of the question "Why not?

Neither is anyone else.Fuck your an arrogant cunt Wooter . Who needs to make shit up  about people to make your pathetic position seem viable .

---

Do you recognize that there's a difference between my position and some agnostic atheists position, or not?

Similarly, are you a gnostic theist like..say..Mystic..or an agnostic theist..like my wife?

Your talking to a wall Khem   

You refuse to live in his convenient box . So out comes the slander and character assassination.