Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[Albion]

Being undecided would be more akin to agnostic

Yes.

An atheist wouldn't be undecided about gods, as they would be lacking belief in positive claims (there is no indecision).

Right.

 

[Non sequitur]

John claims to be an atheist. He claims to lack belief in gods. He does however believe in ghosts, because he claims to have seen and experienced them, though he cannot explain what they are, he doesn't claim they are "gods". Luke believes in ghosts as well, but believes they are "gods".

Well, the commonly used definition of a theist is the belief in a/one (personal) God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation. And for a deism, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.

Typically, atheism includes both definitions, in my experience, as it deals with unsupported (and typically unprovable) claims.

John or Luke can be an atheist and believe whatever they want... aside from belief in the above definition(s).

John rejects the idea they are gods, even though Luke calls them that. His reasoning is that they do not fit the definition of what he would consider a "god". Does that mean that John actually does believe in "gods" in some fashion, since he already has expectations of what they should be, and rejects others definitions because they fail to meet his expectations ? Because to me that sounds like active disbelief, not a lack of having belief in the first place.

No, John lacks a belief in gods and is of the impression that ghosts do not fit the common (or his personal) definition of gods; definitions do not dictate belief in the things defined.

If I had to guess, he has an active disbeliefin ghosts being things that fit the standard definition of gods (which he lacks belief in).

And if that's the case, how does one know when an atheist is being intellectually honest and actually lacks belief, verses actively disbelieving, rejecting, ignoring, etc ?

You ask questions, if you care to know those things.

(I would say Luke should better define "gods" and not be so loose with rather specific words.)

 

[talquin]

I don't know. Undecided, perhaps? How does an idea "look?" I'm being told by talquin that to be undecided about god makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. I think that's a novel use of the terms, that's all.



I don't want to make this be about semantics, but if there is one, you don't get to be "without God" just because you've decided you don't want anything to do with him. You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist--but he's still running the world the atheist lives in.

We can divide all humans into two categories:
1) Those who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Those who don't fall into category #1. (or those who don't hold a belief that a god exists)

Since atheist means to not hold a belief that a god exists, all humans who fall into category #2 are atheists. If you are undecided, but don't fall into category #1, then you are an atheist.

 

[Albion]

Since atheist means to not hold a belief that a god exists

It means to hold a belief that God does not exist.

 

[talquin]

If you are an atheist, you have taken a position. And you must not have much of a counter argument if you think it's clever to resort to insults like the above jab.

What position have you taken if you don't hold a belief that there is a god?

 

[talquin]

"No position" might look a lot like "all positions", or at least certain ones. An atheist's position must come from scientific evidence. Any historical accounts of supernatural phenomena have to be explained by science. No evidence? No God.

If an atheist is defined as one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists, how does it follow that they must hold any positions at all?

 

[Albion]

If an atheist is defined as one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists, how does it follow that they must hold any positions at all?

That would be for you to answer because it's based on your own definition of the word. That isn't the definition as I relayed it.

 

[talquin]

I don't know. Undecided, perhaps? How does an idea "look?" I'm being told by talquin that to be undecided about god makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. I think that's a novel use of the terms, that's all.



I don't want to make this be about semantics, but if there is one, you don't get to be "without God" just because you've decided you don't want anything to do with him. You can reject him, defy him, ignore him--and that's what makes you an atheist--but he's still running the world the atheist lives in.

One can't reject, defy or ignore something they don't even believe to exist.

Can you ignore the undetectable tiny Chinese teapot which is orbiting the earth halfway between the earth and Mars?

 

[talquin]

...which would seem to show that atheism describes a POV that's been chosen.

Do you believe that you are actually a giraffe? Probably not. Is this a POV which you've chosen?

 

[talquin]

One of the issues I have with the single, individual atheist, is similar to an issue I have with the believer ... their definition of "god".

A believer can claim to believe in a "god", and an atheist can claim to lack belief in a "god", yet what do they mean when they say "god" ? For each person, it is seemingly unique to them, and presumes a standard and accepted definition of the word "god" which is in no way standard or accepted amongst society.

For example, I have friends who claim to be atheist, yet believe in ghosts that they have seen and experienced. I have had friends in the past who would say those ghosts were "gods". Those same atheist friends will then say that they still don't believe in "gods", even though something they witness and experience and DO believe in, is what someone else will call "gods". Thus showing that they already have a conceived expectation of what a "god" should be, even though they claim to lack belief in such a thing, and refuse to accept that term as an application to something else because of that expectation.

Which brings me to my point and question: Rejecting, defying, and ignoring do sound like activities that involve belief to me as well. Does having expectations of what a "god" should be, and rejecting others definition of "god" when they fail to meet those expectations involve belief as well ? I'll refer to my previous example to better illustrate the question:

John claims to be an atheist. He claims to lack belief in gods. He does however believe in ghosts, because he claims to have seen and experienced them, though he cannot explain what they are, he doesn't claim they are "gods". Luke believes in ghosts as well, but believes they are "gods". John rejects the idea they are gods, even though Luke calls them that. His reasoning is that they do not fit the definition of what he would consider a "god". Does that mean that John actually does believe in "gods" in some fashion, since he already has expectations of what they should be, and rejects others definitions because they fail to meet his expectations ? Because to me that sounds like active disbelief, not a lack of having belief in the first place. And if that's the case, how does one know when an atheist is being intellectually honest and actually lacks belief, verses actively disbelieving, rejecting, ignoring, etc ?

You're raising a very good point. Just what attributes must something possess to qualify as a god? I've created a thread at which we can discuss it.

However, one can be an atheist with respect to a specific god while being a theist with respect to another god.

 

[Albion]

Do you believe that you are actually a giraffe? Probably not. Is this a POV which you've chosen?

Certainly. I am convinced that I am not a giraffe.

One can't reject, defy or ignore something they don't even believe to exist.

Of course they can. Those are all consequences of having concluded that X does not exist.

Is this going somewhere? It seems to be merely a repeat of what's been said before.

 

[talquin]

It means to hold a belief that God does not exist.

If true, what is the appropriate term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that god exists?

From Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1) The god exists.
2) The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
Belief or acceptance of the claim.
Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

And from http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Strong_atheism#Arguments_for_strong_atheism

It is often said that one cannot prove a negative. However, this is not really correct, and understanding this hinges on understanding the difference between two kinds of truth: contingent and logical. A contingent truth is one whose validity is contingent on other facts which may or may not be true or known. Scientific truth falls in this category. A logical truth is one whose validity depends only on logic, on the definitions and properties of concepts we ourselves define. An example is whether 2 + 2 can equal 5. It follows from the definitions of 2, 4, 5, +, and = that 2 + 2 can only equal 4, not 5. It is not necessary for a reasonable, fair, and open-minded person to remain agnostic on that question. There is nothing contingent or unknown about it.
A strong atheist would argue that the idea of a god is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist as most theists define the word. The Christian god is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, aware being which created and was responsible for the universe. The problem of evil is one example of a logical impossibility that comes from believing that the god is also omnibenevolent, this can be avoided by relaxing the requirements on God's qualities.
Since its inception, science has followed an empirical method, a combination of theory and observation. We construct our understanding by working from the simple to the complex. We understand atoms in terms of elementary particles and their forces, such as quarks, leptons, gluons, and photons. We understand molecules and chemistry in terms of atoms and their interactions. We understand biology in terms of the underlying chemistry and its emergent properties. We understand intelligence in terms of the complex interactions of the underlying neurological or electronic substrate.
Of all the things we know of in the universe, the most complex is intelligence. To posit an intelligence as the creator and driving force of everything else makes no sense, since it would itself require explanation in terms of simpler underlying entities. It makes no more sense than 2 + 2 = 5. It is not incumbent upon a reasonable, fair, open-minded person to remain agnostic on that point.
If there were in fact a deity delivering the divinely inspired word of the one true religion to the human race then it would be expected that all religions would converge on the same answers, yet that is not what we see. There are so many different religions with vastly different beliefs that one should question whether there really is an intelligence behind it all. Since religions diverge rather than converge, this should count as evidence against the proposition of a Theistic deity.

 

[talquin]

Certainly. I am convinced that I am not a giraffe.


Of course they can. Those are all consequences of having concluded that X does not exist.

Is this going somewhere? It seems to be merely a repeat of what's been said before.

Do you consider it a POV that you are not a giraffe? Was it a POV you held prior to me first mentioning the word giraffe?

 

[talquin]

Certainly. I am convinced that I am not a giraffe.


Of course they can. Those are all consequences of having concluded that X does not exist.

Is this going somewhere? It seems to be merely a repeat of what's been said before.

Can you reject the firschizleschmocks?
Can you ignore the firschizleschmocks?
Can you defy the firschizleschmocks?

 

[TillICollapse]

No, John lacks a belief in gods and is of the impression that ghosts do not fit the common (or his personal) definition of gods; definitions do not dictate belief in the things defined.

If I had to guess, he has an active disbeliefin ghosts being things that fit the standard definition of gods (which he lacks belief in).

Hey thanks for responding. I'll focus on this part of your response, since it speaks to the crux of my original post. And I realize that "John" is a hypothetical, representing a real world individual that isn't part of the conversation to ask questions directly of, however having said that:

John lacks belief in the standard definition of gods, or the common definition of gods. Okay. So why reject someone's definition of "god" that would fit concerning something he DOES believe in ? Ghosts would be a decent example. Since there is no collective social consensus even between those who do they claim they exist on what exactly they are, their origins, etc, if someone else calls them "gods" why reject that ? Suppose the person, who is calling them "gods", their definition fits precisely what he is experiencing and witnessing when he sees a "ghost", nothing more nothing less. No qualities of omni this or omni that. Suppose their definition fits *only* the precise qualities and attributes that he himself sees and observes when he experiences "ghosts". Why reject someone else calling them "gods" simply because their use of the word "god" doesn't fit common or standard definitions ? Throughout history, including today obviously, there are untold number of variations and thus definitions of "god".

This goes back to the expectation of what a "god" should be. Why would someone who lacks belief in "gods" have expectations of what they should be, to the degree they would even reject others definition that don't fit that expectation, if they lack belief in them in the first place ?

IOW ... an atheist lacks belief in gods, YET often retains some expectation of what a god should be defined as. I think this goes beyond creative or wishful thinking (i.e. "If Star Wars were real, then I would want Jedi to actually be like this instead of that," etc) if they are actually able to reject someone else's definitions of "god" when it actually precisely fits something they DO believe exists. Because it's showing a bias towards favoring a certain definition, which is counterintuitive to me given that they claim to lack belief in it's existence in the first place. Why would an atheist favor or have a bias as to what the definition of a god should be ? The common response of, "Others define it for us, we reject it or accept it," I think is somewhat of a cop-out, because I can think of examples (like the ghost example) where someone can offer up a definition of "god" that actually fits something a self proclaimed atheist believes exists and has experienced evidence of, yet they reject it anyways, because they still have a personal expectation of what a "god" is. I'm not making a blanket statement about "all atheists", rather I'm picking out a select example of course. In this example, is the lack of belief really the core issue, or is expectation ? I would personally say expectation is, which would make such a self proclaimed atheist, an atheist concerning the "god"s that others have claimed thus far, while NOT an atheist to their personal expectation of what a "god" should be in their own personal stance.

The application, or practical result, of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone already has a bias and expectation of what a "god" should or shouldn't be, then realistically it would be difficult to convince them even with evidence of "god" unless it fits their bias and expectation. Whether they are an atheist, or a believer, would seem to be irrelevant. Believers exhibit this type of thinking all the time with others ... for example when someone claims to be abducted by aliens, or see UFO's, or claim evolution, etc ... believers will label it as of Satan, delusion, God, etc. It depends on what their bias and expectation is. Likewise with many an atheist I find: they may reject certain explanations and favor others, depending on their expectation and biases (like with the ghosts for example, and I can think of others as well, etc). Thus I don't know if belief or lack of belief is the fundamental difference between many atheists and believers, rather EXPECTATION and bias may be more of a fundamental difference. This would become more apparent in certain circumstances (like when an atheist believes in something there is already not a clear definition for, for example).

Hope you see what I'm getting at.

 

[talquin]

That would be for you to answer because it's based on your own definition of the word. That isn't the definition as I relayed it.

What word would you use to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists? And what does their lack of belief that a god exists say about any positions they hold?

 

[Albion]

If true, what is the appropriate term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that god exists?

We'd have to know WHY that person does not believe.

I]To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1) The god exists.
2) The god does not exist.

Or 3) I don't have enough information to be able to determine if a god exists.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

Correct. The atheist has made a decision against the existence of God.

 

[talquin]

If true, what is the appropriate term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that god exists?

We'd have to know WHY that person does not believe.

It sounds like you do agree that there is at least one term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists. Since it's also apparent that you think there could be more than one term to describe such a person - depending on why they don't hold the belief that a god exists - perhaps you could share a few terms which describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1) The god exists.
2) The god does not exist.

Or 3) I don't have enough information to be able to determine if a god exists.

#3 which you added isn't a claim regarding the existence of a god. It's a claim about how much information you have.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

Correct. The atheist has made a decision against the existence of God.

So you're saying an atheist is one who has been presented with the concept of a god and has willfully chosen to believe that such a god doesn't exist. Where do you get this definition from?

 

[Albion]

It sounds like you do agree that there is at least one term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists.

Yes. There is.

Since it's also apparent that you think there could be more than one term to describe such a person - depending on why they don't hold the belief that a god exists

-
Not more than one term for a single person. More than one term exists to describe not believing in God. Which term is the one to use depends on the person.

perhaps you could share a few terms which describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.

Atheist

Agnostic

#3 which you added isn't a claim regarding the existence of a god. It's a claim about how much information you have.

It is indeed a claim regarding the possibility of there being a god.

So you're saying an atheist is one who has been presented with the concept of a god and has willfully chosen to believe that such a god doesn't exist. Where do you get this definition from?

atheist n. [Fr. atheiste: see ATHEISM] a person who believes there is no God.

Courtesy Webster's New World Dictionary

 

[Non sequitur]

It means to hold a belief that God does not exist.

If I hold a belief that God does not exist, then I'm essentially making the claim that God does not exist.

It means to lack belief in the claim that god exists.

godexistism vs agodexistism would be what you are talking about.

There's a difference.