I just finished a discussion with an Atheist that I found quite amusing. It was in response to the question “Is Atheism a Religion?” It seems quite obvious to me that this person was only interested in arguing semantics and I still have no idea what “lack of belief” means. Here is how it transpired…

My Reply:
Well, since it’s impossible to KNOW that there is no god one could only take that belief on faith, so I guess, yeah, it would be a religion.

There is no such thing as “lack of belief”. Either you believe or you don’t. If you aren’t sure then you are agnostic.

His Reply:
I have a lack of belief in unicorns. There has not been sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to warrant a belief in unicorns. I don’t have to have an active disbelief in them.

Agnostics are not the middle ground. Agnostics would simply state, you cannot know whether there is a god or not. It still does not answer whether they have a belief in a god based on available evidence.

My Reply:
I’m not sure I follow. How can you NOT have an active disbelief? That doesn’t make sense to me. If you don’t believe then by default you disbelieve. They are opposites – it’s either one way or the other there is no middle ground between the two.

I don’t see evidence for unicorns either so I choose to believe that they don’t exist. If I see sufficient evidence then I will change my disbelief to belief. Does that make sense?

His Reply:
If you show me a unicorn, and I refuse to accept that it is real. That is disbelief, an active action. If you tell me about the existence of unicorns, and I am unconvinced, I have a lack of belief.

My Reply:
I still don’t understand that concept. Why will you only make a decision about belief or disbelief if I SHOW you a unicorn? It seems a bit unrealistic. What if I presented evidence that unicorns exist but not an actual unicorn? Would you be able to make a decision then?

Based on your logic, it seems to me that you could just keep making excuses and stay “unconvinced” no matter what anyone said or did or no matter what evidence was presented to you.

To me, once you are introduced to a concept, whether it’s unicorns, god or the FSM you make a decision about it and can no longer have a “lack of belief”.

His Reply:
“Based on your logic, it seems to me that you could just keep making excuses and stay “unconvinced” no matter what anyone said or did or no matter what evidence was presented to you.”

Exactly, disbelief is active.

My Reply:
so you are actively remaining “unconvinced” yet you are not actively disbelieving? how convenient.

I don’t see the difference. actively remaining unconvinced so you don’t have to believe or make a decision seems like the same as choosing to not believe to me.

His Reply:
Okay. If you have proven something to me and I reject it. That is DISBELIEF. It is an action you take. It is conscious and willful.

If you have not proven something to me. I simply don’t BELIEVE you. I have a lack of BELIEF.

My Reply:
Ummm… no, if I prove something it no longer needs belief because it’s a fact. Fact = truth. Once something is proven you moves from belief to awareness. There is nothing to make a decision about belief since you would then be rejecting truth not evidence.

People have beliefs because we take the EVIDENCE we have and make a decision. We make decisions about whether or not we believe something because it isn’t fact yet.

His Reply:
“if I prove something it no longer needs belief because it’s a fact.”

If I still won’t accept it. That is DISBELIEF.

If I accept your facts and arguments. I have belief. You have created a belief. If I don’t agree with your facts or argument, you have not created a belief. I have a lack of belief.

My Reply:
I’m afraid not. What you are saying is simply not true. Christians don’t have proof of God yet they believe. The opposite of belief is disbelief. If you reject the idea of god you don’t have lack of belief you have disbelief.

As I said earlier, once you are introduced to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to decide not to decide – either way, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness or lack of knowledge (lack of belief). To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired – this is not lack of belief.

Ya know I find it interesting that we don’t find atheism defined as “lack of belief” in the dictionary (at least not in the dictionary I use). Hmmmm…

His Reply:
“Christians don’t have proof of God yet they believe. The opposite of belief is disbelief.”

What you described is FAITH. By your own words, DISBELIEF is the opposite of FAITH.
If FAITH is belief in the absence of proof.
Then DISBELIEF, would be not believing in the face of evidence.

“once you are introduced to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to decide not to decide – either way, a position is taken”

“All pit bulls are killers”.
“I don’t believe that.”
There is no position stated. I’ve simply stated I don’t have a belief in what you said.

“Ya know I find it interesting that we don’t find atheism defined as “lack of belief” in the dictionary (at least not in the dictionary I use). Hmmmm…”

Condescension isn’t an argument, or polite.

My Reply:
You are arguing semantics. Faith, belief, disbelief, lack of belief. The very definition of faith is “strong BELIEF in god…”.

Your analogy about pit bulls doesn’t fit. It’s easy to prove that not all pit bulls are killers. But either way you admit that you “don’t have a belief” in that, but then you say “there is no position stated”. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You’re playing a semantics game.

If someone presents the idea that all pit bulls are killers then you have one of three choices, you can believe it (theist) disbelieve it (atheist) or decline to make a decision until such time as you can come to a decision (agnostic). There are no other options.

My comment about the dictionary definition wasn’t meant as condescension. You taking that as condescending says more about you then it does me I’m afraid. That statement is a fact. Do you believe it or not? I’ve presented a concept to you, one that is easily refutable. Again you have the same choice presented above.

From the American Heritage Dictionary. Atheism: noun 1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods. I don’t see the phrase “lack of belief” in there. That’s not condescension that’s fact.

Another interesting word “doctrine”. Aren’t doctrines usually associated with religions? Perhaps that’s for another discussion.

His Reply:
An agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW if there is a god. That does not answer the question of whether they have a belief in a god or not.

Theist/Atheist answers the question “Do you have a belief in a god”? I do not, therefore, I am an atheist. There is nothing else to it.

Atheism does not make any declarations, it takes no position. We do not have a belief in absence, we have an absence(lack) of belief.

It is a long way between, “I don’t have a belief in a god” and “I don’t believe there is a god”

Lets hear about atheist doctrines. I’m not familiar with any and happen to be an atheis so I’m curious

I would love to hear what the doctrines of atheism are.

My Reply:
No, the very definition of Agnostic is “a person who claims neither faith [belief] in or disbelief in god” That sounds very much like what you describe as “lack of belief”.

You wrote:
It is a long way between, “I don’t have a belief in a god” and “I don’t believe there is a god”

To me they are the same. I’m not sure what else to say that I haven’t already said to help you understand my position.

I don’t know what the doctrines of atheism are. I’m not an atheist. I just found it interesting that the dictionary would use that term. My dictionary defines doctrine as “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.” So my guess would be that the essential doctrine of atheism is that there is no god.

That was the end. I never heard back from him. As you can see, I never got a clear definition of what “lack of belief” means. It’s interesting to me that through out that entire conversation, he could never really tell me what it meant. Oh well, I guess I will keep searching.

Lack Belief lack of belief