# A lack of belief is not equivalent to belief **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131 "2008-12-01T03:19:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/121 "2008-12-04T14:35:17Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > No, a lack of belief would mean neither belief nor disbelief. I don’t believe in extraterrestrial intelligence, but I don’t disbelieve in it either. I do, however, disbelieve in extraterrestrial visitations (ETVs) . I don’t merely lack belief in ETV’s, I believe they aren’t happening and have never happened because the odds against it are astronomical. Do you have a lack of belief in Santa Claus(i.e. he may or may not exist), or do you _dis_believe in Santa Claus(thus, using your argument, creating a belief system involving the existance of said Mr. Claus)? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/122 "2008-12-04T14:37:51Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Okay, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But when someone always seems to be arguing from materialistic premises, it’s rather hard to take them seriously when they insist they’re not materialists. What would you think of someone who always seems to be arguing in favor of Christianity but insists that he’s not a Christian? Your argument _might_ have some basis if he brought up “materialism” in his posts. I can’t see that he does this, though. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/123 "2008-12-04T14:40:17Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Okay, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But when someone always seems to be arguing from materialistic premises, it’s rather hard to take them seriously when they insist they’re not materialists. What would you think of someone who always seems to be arguing in favor of Christianity but insists that he’s not a Christian? Atheism does not require materialistic premises, so no hypocracy is required. The absence of supernatural premises helps though. As for your question, it depends what you mean by “argue in favor of”. I know plenty of people, who are not Christian but who like certain teachings of Christianity and/or like to hear sermons for example. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/124 "2008-12-04T14:58:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > … do you _dis_believe in Santa Claus(thus, using your argument, creating a belief system involving the existance of said Mr. Claus)? \*What??!? \*How in the world did you get that out of anything I wrote here? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/125 "2008-12-04T15:00:07Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Atheism does not require materialistic premises, so no hypocracy is required. However, most atheists are atheists _because they are materialists,_ and not simply because of a lack of belief in God. That’s where the element of hypocrisy comes in. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/126 "2008-12-04T15:02:58Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > However, most atheists are atheists _because they are materialists,_ and not simply because of a lack of belief in God. Cite? Relevance? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/127 "2008-12-04T15:05:55Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > However, most atheists are atheists _because they are materialists,_ and not simply because of a lack of belief in God. That’s where the element of hypocrisy comes in. Nonsense. Most atheists have put no more thought about deep philosophy than most Christians have put into reading or understanding the Bible. We just know made-up, self-serving bullshit when we smell it. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/128 "2008-12-04T15:36:54Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > No, a lack of belief would mean neither belief nor disbelief. I don’t believe in extraterrestrial intelligence, but I don’t disbelieve in it either. I do, however, disbelieve in extraterrestrial visitations (ETVs) . I don’t merely lack belief in ETV’s, I believe they aren’t happening and have never happened because the odds against it are astronomical. I have a lack of belief in god. Period. I do not disbelieve in god, as you put it, I have merely a lack of belief in god. I do not have an active belief regarding god, one way or the other. Do I need to go on? Atheism is a lack of belief. It’s the definition of the word. > [@](#): > > In any case, relatively few atheists reject believe in God merely because they “lack belief.” Most atheists are materialists, and they reject the idea of God (and for that matter, anything supernatural) because they believe that everything ultimately has a material cause, because “nothing exists except atoms and the void.” That’s why I find all this pettifogging about “lack of belief” so exasperating. Such atheists kick metaphysics out the front door and sneak it back in through the kitchen. This is a sweeping generalization. I’d like to see evidence for it. While I might describe myself as a materialist, it is not the end all be all of my belief system. It is a starting point, not a conclusion. It’s the starting point science uses. Materialism does not replace theism, in my case anyway, it merely led to a lack of it. > [@](#): > > If I point out that a hamster and an elephant are both mammals, am I saying that there are no important differences between them? Would you not think it silly to insist that a hamster is somehow not a mammal because it is so very different from an elephant? Regardless of the fact that they are both mammals, it is useful to make the distinction because they are so different. Belief without evidence and belief with sufficient evidence are different enough to warrant distinction and are only lumped together because of the English language’s habit of overloading words. To me, the word belief has religious connotations, and I don’t like hearing things like ‘You believe in evolution.’ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/129 "2008-12-04T15:52:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > If I point out that a hamster and an elephant are both mammals, am I saying that there are no important differences between them? Would you not think it silly to insist that a hamster is somehow not a mammal because it is so very different from an elephant? I don’t understand the point of your statement, because we do have evidence that hamsters and elephants are mammals, in that they both conform in observable ways to anatomical features common to the class of animal we have defined as “mammal” and do not conform in other ways that would indicate they were “birds” or “reptiles.” A better analogy would be looking at the claim that hamsters are mammals and then positing an animal that have never been reliably seen and leaves no reliable evidence of its existence (call it a “freeble”) and making claims about _its_ nature, then trying to equate the two. If a hamster can be believed to be a mammal, this belief is just as valid as the belief that a freeble is a tolgar. What is observable about freebles or tolgars that allows any kind of careful objective analysis? Is the belief that freebles don’t exist reasonable or arbitrary, or at least closer to one side than the other? If anyone can present evidence of freebles that can’t be explained by other means, as well as explain why freeble-evidence has been lacking for so long, I’m prepared to modify my stance. Until such time, I feel confident in believing freebles don’t exist and will live my life accordingly; not wasting time in freeble-based activities and such. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/130 "2008-12-04T16:45:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I don’t understand the point of your statement, The point was this: Elephants:Hamsters:Mammals::Religious Convictions:Science Facts:Beliefs (I’d expand if I had more time but hopefully you can parse that.) -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/131 "2008-12-04T17:06:24Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The point was this: > > Elephants:Hamsters:Mammals::Religious Convictions:Science Facts:Beliefs > > (I’d expand if I had more time but hopefully you can parse that.) I can vaguely parse the statement, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. Elephants and hamsters are related in objective ways that Religious Convictions and Science Facts are not. Somewhere on Earth that has to be a language that has distinct words for belief in things that have no evidence (in fact, persistent belief in them despite lack of evidence or even the existence of counter-evidence) and belief in things that have lots of evidence, and no desire to tangle the two. That “belief” does double duty is a failure of English, not science or religion, though it is a failure of the individual that tries to equate the two. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/132 "2008-12-04T17:56:30Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > This matters to me because thinking a lack of belief in something is simply a belief in that thing’s negation removes the ability to accept that some people live their lives without any belief at all. But how does “without any belief” differ from “no belief”, which is the negation of belief? ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/133 "2008-12-04T17:58:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If you make no distinction between believing something based on evidence and believing something very much NOT based on evidence then what, in your estimation, is the value of evidence? MY estimation of the value of any particular evidence is beside the point. Or maybe it IS the point. “Evidence” (oh boy, shall we now get into a debate regarding the definition, both official and working, of yet another term?:eek:) is highly subjective, both with regards to its value to a particular individual and with regards to it’s tendency to change due to new information. Ask any die-hard fundamentalist Christian for “evidence” supporting creationism or the literal validity of the Bible and they can offer reams of what they consider irrefutable “evidence”. And they would even be able to point to some reputable scientists who agree with them. Same for any die-hard athiest. Of course, at any given time, there tends to be a consensus among a significant majority of those considered experts, but even that measure of “evidence” can change. Of course _I_, personally, hold a certain standard by which I judge “evidence”, as we all do. But again, that standard varies widely and is rooted in the particular beliefs held by the individual. Which brings us back to…oh screw it!:smack::rolleyes: I believe I’ll leave it at that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/134 "2008-12-04T18:06:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I can vaguely parse the statement, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. Elephants and hamsters are related in objective ways that Religious Convictions and Science Facts are not. The way that Religious Convictions and Science Facts are related is when they are stored in the human brain as “truths” (remember, nothing is really provable, the best anyone can do is to have a set of things they believe to be true). Those “truths” can certainly be broken out into many different sets based on all kinds of attributes including the amount of evidence gathered to date that supports that conclusion. But the amount of evidence and logic used to arrive at that conclusion is really a continuum, not a simple dividing line. If we eliminate all problematic baggage, we really can translate the title of this thread to something like: X=Set of statements that person Y accepts as true It is not true that the following 2 statements are equivalent: 1. statement Z is not found in set X 2. statement ~Z (the negation of Z) is found in set X We can work through this same formula by altering whether the statements in set X include statements with no evidence or logic to support them, but this might be difficult because we would have to agree on what constitutes evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/135 "2008-12-04T18:20:20Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > In any case, relatively few atheists reject believe in God merely because they “lack belief.” But remember that atheists not only lack belief in God, but they lack belief in all gods. If I make up a god for some obscure tribe, or even for some aliens, do you reject belief in this god (and why) or do you simply say you lack belief in it and will continue to do so until you find some information about the god sufficient for you to reject it. When I walk into a temple in Chinatown, I’m confronted by all sorts of gods I’ve never heard of before. I’m sure not going to bother to find out enough about them to reject them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/136 "2008-12-04T18:26:46Z")
> [@Voyager to LonesomePolecat](#): > > But remember that atheists not only lack belief in God, but they lack belief in all gods. With great respect, Voyager, I believe that is an equivocation. We can compare a generalized belief in deity to a generalized lack of same, but it isn’t sensible to compare belief in the Father of Christ to the rejection of a whole superset. Some atheists, after all, do not believe in a deity, but do believe in ghosts or paranormal activity. So, why make an arbitrary cutoff with deity rather than including all metaphysical phenomena? I’m just saying it might be helpful to establish the proper correspondences. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/137 "2008-12-04T18:27:27Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > We can work through this same formula by altering whether the statements in set X include statements with no evidence or logic to support them, but this might be difficult because we would have to agree on what constitutes evidence. What if there is evidence _against_ something? Would not believing in that something still be as valid as believing in it? For that matter, is there a word describing a person who is indifferent to the existence of God or God-like entities, yet believes all human religions are nonsense? Something beyond simple agnosticism, to the point of being downright distrustful of religious structures and their earthly motives? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/138 "2008-12-04T18:55:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What if there is evidence _against_ something? Would not believing in that something still be as valid as believing in it? Not sure about validity, that is a separate question resolved based on the quality of the evidence and logic. But to answer the question: If there is evidence against something, it would seem more logical (valid) to not believe in it than to believe in it. But we still haven’t even begun to answer whether the 2 statements I posted a few posts ago are equivalent. We got hung up in language for about 3 pages. I’m not sure the 2 statements are equivalent, but it’s possible they are. They certainly aren’t identical, and it seems that if you can draw conclusions from one that you can’t from the other then they aren’t the same, although maybe one encompasses all of the staments that can be inferred from the other. I figured **Liberal** (who, if I remember correctly, seems to have a passion for predicate logic) would jump in and offer his/her 2 cents on the equivalency of those statements. > [@](#): > > For that matter, is there a word describing a person who is indifferent to the existence of God or God-like entities, yet believes all human religions are nonsense? Something beyond simple agnosticism, to the point of being downright distrustful of religious structures and their earthly motives? Not sure if there is one single word in the english language describing that. Do you think if we had one it would make it easier to debate the OP’s point? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/139 "2008-12-04T19:11:29Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > “Evidence” (oh boy, shall we now get into a debate regarding the definition, both official and working, of yet another term?:eek:) is highly subjective, both with regards to its value to a particular individual and with regards to it’s tendency to change due to new information. > > Ask any die-hard fundamentalist Christian for “evidence” supporting creationism or the literal validity of the Bible and they can offer reams of what they consider irrefutable “evidence”. And they would even be able to point to some reputable scientists who agree with them. > > Same for any die-hard athiest. This has more to do with personal standards of evidence than with evidence itself. Not all evidence is subjective, or science would be useless. The religious intermix evidence for their beliefs with faith. Faith that the gospels are the the word of god, for example. Since an atheist does not share this faith, the gospels are not acceptable as evidence for them. The evidence hasn’t changed, just the personal standards of what should be accepted as evidence. Since religious ‘belief’ isn’t wholly based in evidence, it’s different from a scientifically based ‘belief’. This is an important distinction, regardless of what name is used for it. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131/140 "2008-12-04T20:02:34Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > This has more to do with personal standards of evidence than with evidence itself. Not all evidence is subjective, or science would be useless. All evidence is subjective, the best science can do is hope that consistency of interpreted results across many brains reduces the effect of human subjectiveness. I would personally agree that faith does not carry the same weight as scientific evidence, so your distinction isn’t lost on me, but there is far more subjectivity in everything we consider evidence than your statement allows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-lack-of-belief-is-not-equivalent-to-belief/475131.md?page=8)