• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Argument Againt Pseudo-Atheism

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Counter-Argument

in which pseudo-atheism,

today's internet atheism,

the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,

militant atheism,

polemical atheism,

is or are

decisively answered.


Atheist Apologetics

Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."


Trigger Warning
The following is a rational argument.



The Argument

"To lack" means to be without or to be deficient in some respect.

To lack hope means to be without hope or to be deficient in hope.
To lack strength means to be without strength or to be deficient in strength.
To lack information means to be without information or to be deficient in information.
And so on.

"To lack" is a transitive verb -- it requires an object. The action of lacking is transfered to a particular object.
The object of "to lack" is that which is lacking, and that which is lacking gives content to the lack.
Otherwise, there would be no difference between lacking hope, lacking strength, lacking information, etc.,
and there would be a generic state of lack without content,
which is absurd.

Lack is a state, and that state has content, and that content is provided by the object of lack, by what is lacked.

To lack belief is a state, the content of which is the belief that is lacked.
To lack belief in God is a state, the content of which is the belief in God.

Belief in God is the content of a lack only when that belief is not held in the mind that lacks it.

And whatever in the way of belief is held in the mind, is mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not held in the mind, is not mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not mentally accepted, is not believed.

Therefore, to lack belief in God is not to believe in God.

QED


Disclaimer
No atheists were harmed in the making of this post.
 
Therefore, to lack belief in God is not to believe in God.
Essentially yes. The problem is the specific (mis)interpretation of those words which all of this is ultimately about preventing.

When someone says “I don’t believe in any gods”, some people will interpret that statement (or choose to misrepresent it) as “I deny the existence of God”. That is not the meaning of the initial statement and not the position of many of the people who make it. To address that issue, the original statement is reworded to “I lack a belief in any gods”. It means the same thing, certainly by intent of the speaker, but is worded to establish clear water between that and the misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Of course, some people then accuse the speaker of still denying the existence of God but lying about it. Sometimes you can’t win. Plenty of atheists do actively deny the possible existence of any gods or even actively deny the existence of specifically defined Gods of the religions they grew up around but that isn’t an implicit and automatic element of atheism. I don’t believe in any gods but I entirely disagree with their positions of denial.

Of course, the other element I’ve brushed over is the distinction between talking about any gods and God. Obviously if someone makes a statement about any gods, that includes whatever specific God you believing in but that doesn’t mean they’re specifically thinking about that God or indeed even know of the specifics about that God. Indeed, I doubt anybody has exactly the same image in their mind when they think of God, even if they follow the same faith or religion.
 
Essentially yes. The problem is the specific (mis)interpretation of those words which all of this is ultimately about preventing.

When someone says “I don’t believe in any gods”, some people will interpret that statement (or choose to misrepresent it) as “I deny the existence of God”. That is not the meaning of the initial statement and not the position of many of the people who make it. To address that issue, the original statement is reworded to “I lack a belief in any gods”. It means the same thing, certainly by intent of the speaker, but is worded to establish clear water between that and the misunderstanding/misrepresentation.
So, essentially, they are Atheists in name only? They are actually agnostics?

Of course, some people then accuse the speaker of still denying the existence of God but lying about it. Sometimes you can’t win. Plenty of atheists do actively deny the possible existence of any gods or even actively deny the existence of specifically defined Gods of the religions they grew up around but that isn’t an implicit and automatic element of atheism. I don’t believe in any gods but I entirely disagree with their positions of denial.
Sounds like you are an agnostic.

Of course, the other element I’ve brushed over is the distinction between talking about any gods and God. Obviously if someone makes a statement about any gods, that includes whatever specific God you believing in but that doesn’t mean they’re specifically thinking about that God or indeed even know of the specifics about that God. Indeed, I doubt anybody has exactly the same image in their mind when they think of God, even if they follow the same faith or religion.
I agree with the bolded.
 
Who was it that was complaining about wasting bandwidth?
 
So, essentially, they are Atheists in name only? They are actually agnostics?


Sounds like you are an agnostic.


I agree with the bolded.

Agnostics basically make no statements of belief on the existence of gods, they do not believe we can know. They do not say "yes or no" to the idea of gods.

Atheists have some spectrum, but the basics are a non belief in gods. So atheists say "no" to the idea of gods. Now, if you can show an atheist demonstrable evidence of gods that can be tested, then you might be able to get an atheist to say "yes".

I do not say there is no way there are any gods. But I do say that, with all I've ever been exposed to in life, I see no demonstrable evidence of the existence of modern gods. Perhaps such beings existed at one time, but they no longer appear to be present. I'm going with them not being around before either, but I was not there.

Therefore, if someone asks me "do you believe in a god?" I would emphatically say "no". Thus, I am an atheist. I will remain in my disbelief until I see something that makes me believe.
 
So, essentially, they are Atheists in name only? They are actually agnostics?
Atheism isn’t a type of person, it’s a singular characteristic an individual can have, alongside the countless thousands of other characteristics they will have in a combination unique to them alone. It’s exactly like it’s opposite theism in this context – you’d never define someone as just being a theist, it would just be one small aspect of their wider world view (itself being only part of who they are).

Sounds like you are an agnostic.
Yes, that is another of the many things I am. :cool:
 
Isn't this topic being discussed already in myriad other threads? Changing a couple words here and there in a thread title doesn't change the premise. Must we continually clog this sub-forum with half a dozen of the same threads at any given time? The evident futility of banging heads in a given thread doesn't cease by the creation of a new thread on the exact same topic. Just saying.


OM
 
Isn't this topic being discussed already in myriad other threads? Changing a couple words here and there in a thread title doesn't change the premise. Must we continually clog this sub-forum with half a dozen of the same threads at any given time? The evident futility of banging heads in a given thread doesn't cease by the creation of a new thread on the exact same topic. Just saying.


OM

But perhaps it's therapeutic.
 
Atheism isn’t a type of person, it’s a singular characteristic an individual can have, alongside the countless thousands of other characteristics they will have in a combination unique to them alone.
It is not a characteristic, it is a belief. It is one of many beliefs that an individual might hold.

It’s exactly like it’s opposite theism in this context – you’d never define someone as just being a theist, it would just be one small aspect of their wider world view (itself being only part of who they are).
Sure, but when speaking specifically about the existence of god(s), I'm not interested in their "wider world view"... I am interested in whether or not they believe that god(s) exist, or whether they instead believe that we currently have no way of knowing either way.

Yes, that is another of the many things I am. :cool:
Great!
 
Isn't this topic being discussed already in myriad other threads? Changing a couple words here and there in a thread title doesn't change the premise. Must we continually clog this sub-forum with half a dozen of the same threads at any given time? The evident futility of banging heads in a given thread doesn't cease by the creation of a new thread on the exact same topic. Just saying.


OM
This is the second or third time you've lodged this objection, OM, but you never seem to tire of multiple threads on the validity of the Bible, on which you have definite opinions. Double standard?
 
Agnostics basically make no statements of belief on the existence of gods, they do not believe we can know. They do not say "yes or no" to the idea of gods.
Correct. They don't hold a belief regarding the existence or non-existence of god(s)... Their belief is as you describe. Agnosticism is not a religion like Theism and Atheism are.

Atheists have some spectrum, but the basics are a non belief in gods.
Not sure what 'spectrum' means, but yes, they do not believe that god(s) exist, which in and if itself is a belief (a belief that god(s) don't exist). They reject as true the existence claim and accept as true the non-existence claim.

So atheists say "no" to the idea of gods. Now, if you can show an atheist demonstrable evidence of gods that can be tested, then you might be able to get an atheist to say "yes".
Impossible to do. There is no way to 'test' religion. There is no accessible/available way to test the null hypothesis of Christianity, for example. Same goes for the Big Bang Theory...

I do not say there is no way there are any gods.
Okay.

But I do say that, with all I've ever been exposed to in life, I see no demonstrable evidence of the existence of modern gods.
There is evidence for various gods; you simply don't find that evidence to be convincing.

Perhaps such beings existed at one time, but they no longer appear to be present. I'm going with them not being around before either, but I was not there.
Okay, so you hold religious belief that god(s) don't exist.

Therefore, if someone asks me "do you believe in a god?" I would emphatically say "no". Thus, I am an atheist. I will remain in my disbelief until I see something that makes me believe.
Correct, that makes you an atheist. You accept, as a true, that there are no god(s). That's what 'belief' means (to accept a claim/statement/argument as a true).

Many atheists (at least of which I have experienced on these boards) like to claim that they "lack belief" in god(s) [claiming that they hold no belief, which in and of itself is a belief], which simply amounts to them being closet agnostics, and their closet agnosticism results from their redefinition of what Atheism is. You, as a self-labeled Atheist, seem to be making use of the correct definition of Atheism.
 
Last edited:
But perhaps it's therapeutic.

What it is is dishonest. They think they can tell us what we believe or not believe and re-label us and we're going to go along with it. Sorry, not going to happen. They're just playing word games. I mean, I could just decide, out of the blue, that I don't like the word Christian and therefore, from this point forward, all Christians aren't really Christians, they're something else. Maybe like... A-Holes. Yes, all Christians are now A-Holes. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is just wrong because clearly, they're just A-Holes. How well do we think that would go over?
 
This is the second or third time you've lodged this objection, OM, but you never seem to tire of multiple threads on the validity of the Bible, on which you have definite opinions. Double standard?

Those other threads you're referring all involve differing premises. Interestingly enough, my understanding of atheism is essentially the same as yours, so it's not as if I want to avoid discussing it. The only thing that troubles me is having to constantly wade thru all these identical threads with identical premises, when all we need is one.


OM
 
Agnostics basically make no statements of belief on the existence of gods, they do not believe we can know. They do not say "yes or no" to the idea of gods.

Atheists have some spectrum, but the basics are a non belief in gods. So atheists say "no" to the idea of gods. Now, if you can show an atheist demonstrable evidence of gods that can be tested, then you might be able to get an atheist to say "yes".

I do not say there is no way there are any gods. But I do say that, with all I've ever been exposed to in life, I see no demonstrable evidence of the existence of modern gods. Perhaps such beings existed at one time, but they no longer appear to be present. I'm going with them not being around before either, but I was not there.

Therefore, if someone asks me "do you believe in a god?" I would emphatically say "no". Thus, I am an atheist. I will remain in my disbelief until I see something that makes me believe.

to be honest, agnostics are the only ones that get it right. Basically "who knows". and that's the truth. Nobody knows. people just believe made up things. But atheism is not far off since there is absolute no evidence for a god so its more logical to believe that than there is some invisible, unmeasurable being
 
What it is is dishonest. They think they can tell us what we believe or not believe and re-label us and we're going to go along with it. Sorry, not going to happen. They're just playing word games. I mean, I could just decide, out of the blue, that I don't like the word Christian and therefore, from this point forward, all Christians aren't really Christians, they're something else. Maybe like... A-Holes. Yes, all Christians are now A-Holes. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is just wrong because clearly, they're just A-Holes. How well do we think that would go over?
First order of business: how does one who boasts about ignoring Angel's posts come to have opinions on Angel's posts?
Second, there's a detailed argument presented in the OP; the invitation is to engage that argument. Dismissal is not engagement, nor does it demand any respect from any rational person.
Third, the only "out of the blue" assertion here is your assertion about Christianity.
 
Anyhow, it's not just you... There are several identical premises being floated about on a quite a number of threads. So... ya'll knock yourselves out. So I take it back. It's not my place to be a nanny.


OM
 
Some people have spiritual experiences and others don't. Some hear gods or spirits talking to them and others don't. Some see spirits and others don't.

If you don't have any of these experiences yourself, then you might deny that anyone else has them. You might think that anyone who had these experiences has something wrong with their brain, while your brain works correctly.
 
The Counter-Argument in which pseudo-atheism, today's internet atheism, the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP, militant atheism, polemical atheism, is or are decisively answered.
Riiiiiight


Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."
I for one disagree with characterizing atheism that way. Most of the people making those statements assume that "belief" refers exclusively to religious or spiritual views, which is incorrect. A belief is simply refers to "something considered to be true," and atheists clearly hold beliefs (e.g. in empiricism, naturalism, science, logic etc). We see this definition in ordinary dictionaries, in encyclopedias, in philosophy-specific encyclopedias, in common use in a variety of fields, but some people just won't accept it. Ah well.

That said, I do not consider myself to be an "atheist," as the etymology of that term casts one in opposition to theism, and I hold a positive belief in naturalism and physicalism.

More importantly, though: This doesn't actually "disprove atheism." It's just a semantic argument. Yawn....
 
...
More importantly, though: This doesn't actually "disprove atheism." It's just a semantic argument. Yawn....
The aim of the argument is not to refute atheism, which is a respectable and even admirable position on the God Question. The sole aim of the argument is to refute the semantic equivocation of a certain brand of atheism that seeks to deny that atheism is a belief (disbelief) at all. Thus, the semantic nature of the counter-argument.
 
The aim of the argument is not to refute atheism, which is a respectable and even admirable position on the God Question. The sole aim of the argument is to refute the semantic equivocation of a certain brand of atheism that seeks to deny that atheism is a belief (disbelief) at all. Thus, the semantic nature of the counter-argument.
So... like I said... it's a semantic argument, which doesn't justify all the "BOOM BABY!" rhetoric in your first post.
 
What it is is dishonest. They think they can tell us what we believe or not believe and re-label us and we're going to go along with it. Sorry, not going to happen. They're just playing word games. I mean, I could just decide, out of the blue, that I don't like the word Christian and therefore, from this point forward, all Christians aren't really Christians, they're something else. Maybe like... A-Holes. Yes, all Christians are now A-Holes. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is just wrong because clearly, they're just A-Holes. How well do we think that would go over?

His threads are bashing "new atheists" which are (per him) disciples of Flew and/or Dawkins. I thought I understood that the root of it was a complaint of hostility towards religion on the part of those atheists, but that wouldn't necessarily constitute a difference in the way they handle the god / no god question.
 
His threads are bashing "new atheists" which are (per him) disciples of Flew and/or Dawkins. I thought I understood that the root of it was a complaint of hostility towards religion on the part of those atheists, but that wouldn't necessarily constitute a difference in the way they handle the god / no god question.

He's hardly alone, there are lots of theists who hate the so-called "new atheists", not because they exist, but because they won't shut up and let religion rule the roost. Ultimately, that's what this is all about. It's not that atheists exist, it's that the modern group of atheists can't be shut up by peer pressure.
 
So... like I said... it's a semantic argument, which doesn't justify all the "BOOM BABY!" rhetoric in your first post.
Oh, I don't know about that. If one reads through some of these threads and notes how pervasive the unwitting equivocation is, one might appreciate the "Boom" if not the "Baby." Thanks for the posts. A gentleman's bet says you're the only one who actually engages the OP argument.
 
His threads are bashing "new atheists" which are (per him) disciples of Flew and/or Dawkins. I thought I understood that the root of it was a complaint of hostility towards religion on the part of those atheists, but that wouldn't necessarily constitute a difference in the way they handle the god / no god question.
He's hardly alone, there are lots of theists who hate the so-called "new atheists", not because they exist, but because they won't shut up and let religion rule the roost. Ultimately, that's what this is all about. It's not that atheists exist, it's that the modern group of atheists can't be shut up by peer pressure.
My quarrel with "New Atheism" is threefold: one, it fails to distinguish the question of the existence of God and the question of the truth of organized religion; and two, it relies on a semantic equivocation to avoid taking responsibility for its own atheist position; and three, it is stridently polemical about that of which it is essentially ignorant, i.e., the religious impulse.
 
Back
Top Bottom