Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by moonbus
IThis has been explained so many times here...

The problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.

Let's pick a baby that has no awareness of the concept of invisible pink unicorns. Later in life, when the baby is mature and is introduced to the concept, he either accepts the existence of invisible pink unicorns, rejects them as a ridiculous notion, chuckles about it and dismisses it, becomes unsure about them, holds off judgment until later, etc. Either way, he develops a position on the concept of invisible pink unicorns. He has to do something with the concept once he's been exposed to it. He doesn't continue in a lack-of-belief or lack-of-awareness state of mind because the fact is that some sort of intellectual action must occur regarding it. He cannot become unaffected by the concept.

Nevertheless, some might say that to hold off judgment until later is to be "atheistic" concerning pink unicorns and, therefore, support the atheist position of "lack of belief." But as I said earlier, after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment. In other words, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness. To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism - not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition, rather, agnostics do this. Agnosticism is the position - in part - that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said that there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think? Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility? Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity? Would you request evidence for it? Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl? Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this, so we naturally make a judgment on it.

Thus we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it. We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense doesn't make sense. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is our nature to do this. We don't do nothing with information, unless we claim to be rocks or babies with no ability to think.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You stand quite alone sir,
bereft and forlorn,
a weirdo in the making
from the day you were born.

Sigh even the Christ was mocked by lesser men! 😵

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is def ...[text shortened]... n't do nothing with information, unless we claim to be rocks or babies with no ability to think.

Your understanding of the definition of agnosticism is incorrect. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god. That is not the same as suspending belief or judgement until more information is acquired. Perhaps this is at the root of your inability to understand that atheism does not necessarily involve any form of belief in the non-existence of a god or gods. You might also find your discussion more fruitful should you find yourself able to clarify what you mean by 'god'. Many atheists will steadfastly refuse to disbelieve in the possible existence of a god or gods while, for example, happily confirming that they actively disbelieve in your particular definition thereof.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
He doesn't continue in a lack-of-belief or lack-of-awareness state of mind because the fact is that some sort of intellectual action must occur regarding it. He cannot become unaffected by the concept.

Throughout your post you seem to confuse lack of belief with lack of awareness and here you even equate them. Once can be aware of something, be affected by it, make a decision regarding it, and still lack belief in it. You don't seem to accept that this is possible even though it clearly is possible. Lack of belief is not equivalent to lack of awareness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Throughout your post you seem to confuse lack of belief with lack of awareness and here you even equate them. Once can be aware of something, be affected by it, make a decision regarding it, and still lack belief in it. You don't seem to accept that this is possible even though it clearly is possible. Lack of belief is not equivalent to lack of awareness.

What does "lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.
Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack belief in screaming blue ants. What about it?
If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it.
This would mean that it is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing--even if the category is called neutrality.
We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.
If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.
However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual.
Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as:
True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.
We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as:
True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.
To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it.
If True, then positive belief is applied.
If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome.
This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis.
Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief.
Actions reflect belief.
We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything. But if believe it is, I get out.
In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.
I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them.
I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of.
If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist.
If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.
If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist.
If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence.
If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs, namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.
Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent.
Atheists, who say they lack belief in God or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs--not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God but attacks theistic evidences must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.
To say that you believe there is no God has problems.
To say, "I believe there is no God," is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist, and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known, or it doesn't exist. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
If by a combination of evidence, logic and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What does "lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.
Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming b ...[text shortened]... ical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

What happened to you dude? You were born a perfectly good atheist.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What happened to you dude? You were born a perfectly good atheist.

According to your definition of atheist, maybe 😀

We are born essentially without knowledge of the world. With newborns lacking knowledge, we could argue that a newborn is inherently agnostic rather than atheistic. But we won't do that either. Agnostic or atheist is a foolish claim in that context. Both terms relate to at least a small understanding of the concept of god. Newborns don't have it. Lacking the concept of a deity, atheist and agnostic are irrelevant terms. It would be equally irrelevant to assign any religious belief system to a newborn child

We are born, not with a position on whether a deity exists or not, but a growing desire to know. Learning is what is inherent in us. What we learn is largely what those around us teach us. Whether we, as children, start out as believers or non-believers depends on what we are taught. As in large part a child's desire to have clear answers makes "I don't know" an unacceptable response, children have an unfortunate predisposition to believe those who say they do have an answer - the answer being God.

Whether we have the ability to later move away from learned childhood beliefs depends in large part, how well we were taught to think.

By your definition of atheism it is possible to be an atheist without ever having to think.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its blatantly obvious to everyone what difference it makes.

And what is that "difference"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
According to your definition of atheist, maybe 😀

We are born essentially without knowledge of the world. With newborns lacking knowledge, we could argue that a newborn is inherently agnostic rather than atheistic. But we won't do that either. Agnostic or atheist is a foolish claim in that context. Both terms relate to at least a small understanding o ...[text shortened]... .

By your definition of atheism it is possible to be an atheist without ever having to think.

'By your definition of atheism it is possible to be an atheist without ever having to think.'

Agreed.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
And what is that "difference"?

Your presence on this forum for one. If you didn't believe in God you wouldn't be here talking about him all the time. Or if you did, you would talk about him from a totally different perspective.
Obviously your belief has almost certainly impacted your personal life significantly, but since I don't know anything about your personal life I can not give more detail, but I am sure that you are well aware of some of the effects.
I find it rather odd that you would even bother to ask. Do you think that your belief has had no effect on you whatsoever?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What does "lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.
Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming b ...[text shortened]... ical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then...

However that is not what 'lack of belief' is.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What happened to you dude? You were born a perfectly good atheist.

I think he thinks that his word salad is somehow going to convince atheists to rethink themselves.
I say if you experience something then you experience it. No amount of words convinces intelligent people. Because what you are reffering to is not in the words, and only converts will heed them.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
According to your definition of atheist, maybe 😀

We are born essentially without knowledge of the world. With newborns lacking knowledge, we could argue that a newborn is inherently agnostic rather than atheistic. But we won't do that either. Agnostic or atheist is a foolish claim in that context. Both terms relate to at least a small understanding o ...[text shortened]... .

By your definition of atheism it is possible to be an atheist without ever having to think.

Wrong. So many kids rebel and reject their parents values.

Some people cant be tied down by parents and its evident from an early age (and they may or may not turn out to be atheists- it's just irelavent.))

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Wrong. So many kids rebel and reject their parents values.

Some people cant be tied down by parents and its evident from an early age (and they may or may not turn out to be atheists- it's just irelavent.))

So what point are you trying to make? That when kids get older they learn to think for themselves and hence make their own decision on what they want to believe? And thus they are not born with a specific belief system as I have been claiming all along?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What does "lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.

Therefore anyone who doesn't believe that something is true of valid lacks belief in it. The rest of your post tries desperately to reason this obvious fact away.

Why are you so desperate to demonstrate that 'lack of belief' means something other than the standard English meaning?
Why are you so desperate to change the meaning of 'atheist'?
Even if you were to convince me that 'lack of belief' means something other than what I think it does, I will just respond by pointing out that my definition of atheist is based on my understanding of the words 'lack of belief' and not yours. So if my understanding is wrong I must remove them from my definition and find other words that mean what I want them to mean. And babies will still be atheists by my definition.