as stated previously in the thread “lacks belief” or “without belief” while technically meaning “does not believe” still semantically implies that something is “missing” for the atheist. It also qualifies it as a “belief” of some sort for the athiest - and then the whole quagmire of “atheists have faith in thier belief”…
An assertive statement of “does not believe in god(s)” reduces any chance of ambiguity in the matter.
Compared to theists, there is something missing: belief in the existence of any gods.
No, it doesn’t. Your statement does:
“Atheism is universal - a universal belief that there are no god(s). All Atheists believe that one thing universally.”
You are claiming that atheists necessarily have a belief. That’s not so.
That’s what your statement above does and I’ve witnessed many theists make the claim that atheists have faith because they believe that no gods exist.
Fine. I don’t mind that terminology. My issue is with Great Antibob and you claiming that atheism is a belief that there are no gods.
I see your point - tis a fine line when trying to describe something so simple.
Compared to the polydactyl, my hand is missing its sixth finger.
Except it is, if you are using the same reasoning that “lacks belief” is sufficient. In that case, the statements are equivalent.
No, it’s not a religious belief, but it’s a belief nonetheless, unless you are conflating agnosticism with atheism, which is a common thing to do.
I suppose, technically, if there was actual evidence for the lack of existence of gods, it wouldn’t be a belief, either. But there isn’t any, which is why atheism, vs agnosticism, is a form of belief as well.
In scientific terms, if you don’t find positive evidence a factor A affects a result B, you don’t leap to the conclusion that factor A doesn’t affect result B. That’s not how null hypotheses work. To make such a leap is a belief.
Do theists sometimes twist this belief into a claim that faith is solely religious faith, thus atheists have some form of religion? Sure. That doesn’t make it true. And that’s sort of the mirror image of what UY Scuti was implying, and I was heading off.
Huh?
No, it’s not. Not having a belief in the existence of gods is not a belief.
I’m not.
I’m not following that.
What? Not having a belief in the existence of gods is not leaping to conclusions.
Dictionary definitions vary. There is no belief necessary in atheism. What would you call one that has no belief in the existence of gods but doesn’t have a belief that no gods exist? If you don’t believe that’s possible, I can post dozens of cites of claims from posters on this very board.
As a side note, I appreciate that you say “gods” and not “God”, i.e. someone describing an atheist as one who does not belief in God, when in fact the Judeochristian monotheistic deity is but one of the theistic notions an atheist can dismiss.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of “so you don’t believe in God, huh?” It’s presumptuous and arrogant.
Do you get that a lot IRL? Because I almost never hear it, or anything similar. When the conversation starts to veer in that direction, I find suffocating silence or “whatevars” works pretty well for me most of the time. Of course, I live in a part of the US where most of us are quite laid-back on the matter. Perhaps the most “unchurched” state, if I have heard correctly.
I have not seen such expert depersonalizing and blanketing in such a complex subject matter. How could you assume what an athiest thinks? They do not exist. People who may define their perceptions as athiestic come in all shapes and sizes, feelings and beliefs.
Boom!
I think this is the best rebuttal to the arguments of the OP’s [del]Canadian girlfriend[/del] Muslim acquaintances.