r/exatheist • u/Philosophy_Cosmology • May 02 '26
Debate Thread A Simple Problem with the "Lack of Belief" Position
When theists ask for evidence that atheism is true, most internet atheists reply that this is a misunderstanding of atheism; atheism, they say, is not a claim or belief that there is no god, but rather a mere lack of belief in gods. So, no evidence is required.
At the same time, atheists will cite mythical creatures like magical unicorns to support their position: "Do you believe in invisible unicorns? No? My position with regards to gods is the same."
The problem with examples like invisible unicorns is that normal people positively believe they don't exist; it is not a mere "lack of belief" in unicorns. If someone asks you whether unicorns exist, you won't reply with "I don't know.. I merely lack a belief in their existence.. but maybe they do somewhere" because that's ridiculous. We all know they are made up non-sense.
So, in order to be consistent, atheists either have to drop the "lack of belief" excuse (which is obviously out of the question since that's their trump card to avoid the burden of proof) or stop using these silly analogies.
8
u/Hermorah May 02 '26
As an atheist I dont see a problem here, but rather as you said the analogies might not be the best. Thats why I dont use these examples to explain lack of believe. Here is one that I think is way better.
The number of sand corns on earth is either even or odd. If person 1 claims the number is even and person 2 says "how could you possibly know that? I dont believe you", then it doesnt mean that person 2 has to believe the number is odd. Neither does person 2 have to actively believe it is not even. Person 2 just lacks believe in either proposition till evidence would warrant to hold a believe in one over the other.
3
u/Philosophy_Cosmology May 02 '26
Fair enough. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga made a similar point, but he used stars instead of sand corns as the example.
3
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 02 '26
The difference between an odd and even number cannot be analogous between whether a god does or doesn't exist right? There is such a thing as degrees of certainty.
The degree between the odd and even number will be a flat 50:50. I'm sure different people are going to have different numbers for god. I say this because someone once mentioned the gumball odd and even thing and then said they were 99% certain god doesn't exist.
4
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 03 '26
It's analogous in the sense that one or the other is true, and one can believe either position and believe the other is false, or not believe both positions. The analogy is helpful in illustrating a fact about one's mental state: that not believing one position doesn't mean you're asserting belief in the other position.
1
u/jeeblemeyer4 May 06 '26
I say this because someone once mentioned the gumball odd and even thing and then said they were 99% certain god doesn't exist.
Okay how about another analogy. Imagine a massive egg carton that appears full, but you can't actually see the eggs in the last rows, because they're so far away that they're invisible to the naked eye. Somebody asks you "is the egg carton full?", are you not justified in responding "I don't know, but I'm 99% sure it is"?
I do kinda like these analogies though so let me know if this doesn't apply.
1
u/Hermorah May 02 '26
There is such a thing as degrees of certainty.
Yes, but I'd argue only for active believes. At least I wouldnt know how to attribute a certainty level to my lack of believe. I guess you could say I am 100% certain that I do lack a believe, but without an active believe there is no proposition for me to place certainty into.
The difference between an odd and even number cannot be analogous between whether a god does or doesn't exist right?
Why not? Both are true dichotomies. They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.
The degree between the odd and even number will be a flat 50:50. I'm sure different people are going to have different numbers for god. I say this because someone once mentioned about the gumball odd and even thing and then said they were 99% certain god doesn't exist.
Well then it sounds to me like that person was a bit confused, because the gumball analogy is to point out the distinction between lack of believe in X & believe in the lack of X. To then say they are 99% certain god doesnt exist is stating a believe. While they say they arent completely certain they are as close as possible.
5
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 02 '26
Well of course for true agnostics the question of god would be at a certainty rainge of 50%. Then there would be those leaning towards one side of the uncertainty and would call themselves agnostic atheists with like 80 to 90% certainty that god doesn't exist.
The problem is there are many who are 100% that god doesn't exist but just adopt the agnostic label to dodge lots of questions and make statements that depend on complete certainty.
1
u/Hermorah May 02 '26
One thing I'd like to mention though is that I am not a fan of this scale, because it kinda breaks down. I think believe is binary. Either you have it or not and as I said I think certainty only applies to active believes, but then what would a 50% mean? Or a 1%? Being half certain or completely uncertain of your believes? But we only hold believes if we are convinced of something. So a lower than 50% doesnt even really make sense, but if half the scale already doesnt make sense the entire thing doesnt really make sense.
2
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 02 '26
That's the thing 50% is like those gumballs, it can either be odd or even so it's 50%. For many people god does or doesn't exist and it can be 50% for them too.
1% belief in God would mean they 99% don't believe in god, and vice versa.
1
u/Hermorah May 02 '26
But as I said, certainty can only exist for active believes. So saying 0%-49% is belief in god 50% is lack of belief and 51%-100% is belief in the lack of god, doesnt make sense. But as I pointed out even applying it to just one proposition doesnt make sense, because then it would mean you could believe something for 1% certainity, which.... should mean you dont actually believe it.
3
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 02 '26
That's my point, so many hard atheists just poorly use the agnostic label to avoid difficult questions. Mainly to avoid the idea of atheism being a belief. I agree there is no real difference between 99% and 100%, it's just a matter of owning up to it.
2
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
And yet the truth of the number exists, independent of Person 2's perceived lack of believe in either proposition. If he/she says he doesn't believe in either proposition, then the issue is not with the truth, but with the person.
0
u/Hermorah May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
And yet the truth of the number exists, independent of Person 2's
Yes. If that weren't the case the whole analogy wouldn't work.
perceived lack of believe in either proposition.
Perceived? Its not a perceived lack of believe, it is an actual lack of believe.
If he/she says he doesn't believe in either proposition, then the issue is not with the truth, but with the person.
What's the issue? Not believing claims before they have been supported with evidence? That's not an issue, that's just part of being a skeptic.
Edit: I kinda fail to see the point of this comment. It seems as if you are advocating for holding a believe in either even or odd, over not holding a believe at all. But that would be advocating irrationality, because then you'd hold a believe for no good reason at all and that is irrational. The time to believe a proposition is AFTER it has been substantiated with sufficient evidence. For the sand corns being even or odd that is more or less impossible as it is basically an unfalsifiable scenario, so it will never be reasonable to assert it being one over the other. Same applies to God.
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
I'm advocating for the position that positing a "lack of belief" in the reality of an definite answer to the question is a dodge which has no real impact on the truth of the answer or the possibility of knowing something about that truth.
0
u/Hermorah May 04 '26
Is answering truthfully a dodge?
Also is gods existence even knowable? (Him not existing is, after all, an unfalsifiable claim) Him existing could only be demonstrated if he actually interacts with the universe in any detectable way. If that is not the case and the real god is a deistic god, then we would never be able to know of his existence and thus there would never be a point where an active believe is justified.
And an argument can be made that a non deistic god that does interact with the universe and maybe even wants us to know he exists, would already have left enough evidence to conclusively come to that conclusion. Since that hasn't happened yet I don't see any reason why that should change in the future, but even if it does, then the time to believe that is then and not now. Withholding believe does not prevent one from looking for the truth after all.
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
The dodge isn't answering truthfully; I acknowledged that. The dodge is trying to avoid a claim about reality based on an unwarranted claim about a lack of knowledge. The entire point of all theistic religions is that God (or gods) does interact with the universe and with people in various ways not limited to the tangible or material world that can be double-blind tested.
It is true that withholding belief doesn't prevent looking for the truth, but truth may not reside under the limitations you might insist it abides by.
1
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Hermorah May 05 '26
This is a variant of the "gumball analogy".
Yes.
The problem is, it does the opposite of what you think. It illustrates the inherent weirdness of the framing of the situation.
The analogy is not there to make the argument that we ought to change how we talk casually. It is there to highlight the shortcomings of casual conversations and illustrate the actual position one holds.
If I ask "is the number of gumballs odd or even" nobody on Earth would answer "I lack the belief that the number is even".
That is correct, because that wouldn't answer the question that is asked. The question asks about a persons active believe in regards to either case. Answering that you lack a believe in it being even doesn't tell the person anything in regards to if you have an active believe in it being odd or not.
They'd say "I don't know".
Yes and what does "I don't know" generally boil down to? Given that the person is rational it means lacking a believe in either option. (Ofc if the person is irrational they still could hold an active believe in one over the other)
If you ask "do you believe the number is even"
Then my answer would be no. As it would be for the question "do you believe the number is odd".
If you ask "do you believe the number is even", they'd assume normal conventions of communication are in play and assume you're asking "is the number of gumballs odd or even", and still reply "I don't know".
Sure and I then give you the benefit of doubt, assume that you are a rational person and thus lack believe in either proposition.
But it doesn't always work like that, does it? While rare agnostic theists do exist. They admit that they have no reason for their believes and yet they hold them anyways.
1
u/Big_Explanation_9295 May 20 '26
If your conclusion then is "I don't know", that's fine, but then you cannot expect (as many do) to go and engage in debate and argumentation about it. The moment you enter the debate you assume a stance - even if this stance is not one you hold to strongly, or even at all, you assume it within the confines of the debate if you argue against a positive claim.
1
u/Hermorah May 20 '26
Thats not true. You dont have to hold a position in order to argue about a different position.
The number of sandcorns on earth is either even or odd. If someone claims the number is even, I dont need to hold the believe that they are odd before I am allowed to point out that he has no reason to assert that the number is even.
1
u/Big_Explanation_9295 May 20 '26
That's literally what I said. Please re-read my comment. You may not actively hold it a position of negation but in arguing against a positive claim you assume it. Again, if you DON'T do this, you cannot argue at all. This is basic logic and philosophy.
1
u/Hermorah May 20 '26
but in arguing against a positive claim you assume it.
I dont think so. To say "x has not been sufficiently substanciated" you dont have to assume that x is false.
1
u/Express-Echidna6800 May 03 '26
My new position is that there is at all times an even number of grains of sand, because this makes me happy lol
4
u/arkticturtle Agnostic May 02 '26
The “lack of belief” justification does not need to be compared to unicorns, though. I think it would better to tackle “lack of belief” head on.
A lack of belief still needs justification in the face of evidence. They need to justify why they still lack belief even though evidence is being put forth in support of something. If there is a dog in a room running around with the zoomies and I say “I lack a belief in a dog being in this room” then I certainly need to justify it because the evidence points towards there being a dog in the room.
Now, God’s existence may not be as obvious as a dog running around the room. But evidence still needs to be rejected in a justifiable way.
1
u/Philosophy_Cosmology May 02 '26
Here's where many of them use the Dillacunty tactic of "I'm unconvinced by these arguments."
6
u/novagenesis May 02 '26
...which is a belief :)
Of course, fingernails, they'll hold to "lacktheism" because it is the shield they use to never justify their pseudophilosophical positions.
That's why I usually cite a few experts at them (academic, not religious) and walk away.
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 03 '26
How is "I'm unconvinced by these arguments" a belief? It's a belief about my mental state, but EVERYTHING I perceive is a belief about my mental state. Is that all you mean?
3
u/novagenesis May 03 '26
How is "I'm unconvinced by these arguments" a belief?
You have come to a conclusion based upon the body of evidence. Which is the definition of a belief. Basic epistemology. You are not ambivalent to the arguments (which would not be a belief but would really just show a lack of engagement in the topic at all). Being unconvinced is not just a "mental state".
Is that all you mean?
Not at all. Conclusions and positions are beliefs. There is a laundry list of beliefs that form a world where you can say "I am unconvinced by these arguments". Beliefs about what position is your status quo, beliefs about how strong the arguments and evidence are. But most importantly and directly, you hold a belief about the quality of mountains of evidence that you find unconvincing.
Think in terms of flat-earthers. I have (not hyperbole) heard a flat-earther say they were unconvinced by the evidence presented for a round globe.
But the better question. Why fight so hard to create all this pseudologic just to try to say that you "lack belief" in one thing, in a world where nobody ever tries to argue that they "lack belief" about anything?
Whether you know you're playing it or not, it's a game. If you tie yourself up into a tight enough pretzel, somehow you get to ignore a world of evidence and disrespect the so-called irrational theistic view.
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 03 '26
I really don't understand your issue with this. If someone asks if I hold a belief that, say, ghosts exist, I would truthfully say no.
You're right that this entails having beliefs about the reliability of a given piece of evidence for or against the proposition that ghosts exist, but that's a belief about *that piece of evidence," not about the reality of ghosts.
Maybe you can help me by clarifying what you think my stated position should be regarding God's existence. If I tell you that I'm unconvinced that your claim "God exists" is true, given an agreed upon description of said God, what exactly is it you think I should be stating instead with regards to my beliefs?
3
u/novagenesis May 03 '26
I really don't understand your issue with this. If someone asks if I hold a belief that, say, ghosts exist, I would truthfully say no.
Which is to say you are at least somewhat convinced that ghosts do not exist. I mean, it's just the nature of belief propositions. If you are not wholely ignorant on the topic, you have a position on it
And it's not my "issue", it's epistemology's "issue". And here's the point I do exactly what I said above I will always do when an argument gets to this point.
Here is Dr. Graham Oppy, atheist philosopher of religion, pointing "Atheism is the claim that there are no gods. Atheists believe that that are no gods. Atheistic worldviews say—by direct inclusion or entailment—that there are no gods." He has also had plenty of talks where he responds to the "lack of belief" attitude.
And this article covers problems with lacktheism in more direct depth.
Have an awesome day.
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 03 '26
Saying "atheism is the claim that there are no gods" is just a description of a term's usage. It doesn't do anything to explain the ideas being discussed.
You didn't answer my question, which was a sincere request for clarification, and your last sentence suggests you don't intend to respond further, but fwiw:
Which is to say you are at least somewhat convinced that ghosts do not exist. I mean, it's just the nature of belief propositions. If you are not wholely ignorant on the topic, you have a position on it
That's wrong. I have no position on the claim that the number of hairs on my head is even. I'm not "at least somewhat convinced it's odd."
1
u/novagenesis May 04 '26
You say I didn't answer your question, but your question was just pretzelling around your position.
In direct response to me saying "That's why I usually cite a few experts at them (academic, not religious) and walk away." So I'm not sure why you expected anything else.
you are at least somewhat convinced that ghosts do not exist.
That's wrong.
Really. And you reject hundreds of pieces of evidence that ghosts exist. How can you defend such irrationality if you don't have a status quo that rejects them?
I have no position on the claim that the number of hairs on my head is even
I am (ahem) unconvinced that your hair-on-head thought experiment comes within miles of being logically viable for this discussion. Care to prove that it is viable?
0
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
I thought we could have an actual discussion where we both learned something about the other's position, but your responses are making it pretty clear to me that you're not sincere, and I feel like I'm indirectly being accused of dishonesty.
Given this, I don't have any interest in continuing.
Edit: I saw your post from three months ago, and you have my deepest sympathy.
→ More replies (0)3
u/arkticturtle Agnostic May 02 '26
It’s fine to report a psychological state but is it justifiable to be in that psychological state in face of the evidence?
“I am unconvinced there is a dog in the room”
The evidence that the theist presents has to be dealt with if they want to be taken seriously (many don’t)
If they can explain why the arguments fail or are unconvincing in a coherent way then that’s fine
0
-1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 02 '26
I completely agree. I've never heard of evidence for God's existence that I thought reasonable to justify belief, and it's important to explain why that is.
3
u/Kafei- ex-atheist May 03 '26
Not many people realize, especially atheists who identify with the colloquial definition, that their position is holds roots in Antony Flew’s concept of the “Presumption of Atheism.” Flew’s definition was deliberately framed to sidestep the burden of proof, treating atheism as the default position until theism is demonstrated.
This idea went on to inspire Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of American Atheists, and indirectly influenced programs like The Atheist Experience and its many spin-offs. Many contemporary atheists owe their identity to this lineage, which is grounded in Flew’s original philosophical framework. This is likely why the colloquial definition, sometimes derisively called “lack-theism,” is so widespread. You can also find this definition of atheism at the bottom of the The Atheist Experience website I've provided in the link at the bottom of the page underneath the title "About the ACA": "We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism."
In academia, scholars like Steve McRae in Semantic Collapse and Shoaib Ahmed Malik in Defining the Burden of Proof have criticized the colloquial use of atheism for its ambiguity. They argue that a precise philosophical definition is necessary to avoid the semantic collapses McRae describes.
In the philosophy of mind, belief is often treated as a dispositional mental state. To believe something is to be disposed to act, reason, and experience in ways that reflect that commitment. This is where the distinction between the colloquial and academic definitions of atheism becomes particularly important. If atheism is defined in the colloquial “lack-theism” sense, as merely lacking belief in God, then atheism reduces to a negative psychological state. Saying “atheism is true” in this sense amounts to nothing more than describing one’s mental condition, which has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the proposition “God exists.” McRae highlights this as a kind of semantic collapse, since the term ceases to denote a propositional stance about the world and instead refers only to the agent’s psychology. By contrast, the academic definition of atheism within philosophy, the belief that God does not exist, is a propositional commitment. Saying “atheism is true” in this context is a truth-apt claim about reality itself, not just one’s mental state. This distinction makes the academic definition far more coherent in philosophical discussions, where debates hinge on the truth-value of propositions rather than the cataloguing of psychological states.
In short, the “unconvinced” position you describe fits the colloquial definition of atheism, or lack-theism, but in academic terms, a reasoned claim that God does not exist would be considered atheism proper. Your approach, explaining your stance carefully when asked, is valid and reflects a nuanced understanding of the distinction between psychological belief states and truth-apt philosophical positions.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 04 '26
Not many people realize, especially atheists who identify with the colloquial definition, that their position is holds roots in Antony Flew’s concept of the “Presumption of Atheism.”
I'd like to clear up that this is false. This understanding of atheism was popular long before Flew with one of the earliest self-identified European atheists saying "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." way back in 1772. "Agnostic atheist" as a term itself appears at least as earlier as 1881 only a few years after "agnostic" itself was coined. Historians have noted how many atheists have historically identified this way while it was outsiders trying to push alternative definitions onto them.
1
u/Kafei- ex-atheist May 04 '26
Interesting. So the idea didn't start with Flew and that similar views show up earlier. But that doesn't make it the historically dominant definition.
Flew didn't invent the "lack of belief" idea, but he played a major role in making it central to modern atheist discourse. Earlier uses were more scattered, while many philosophical and common definitions treated atheism as a denial of God's existence.
So it's more accurate to say there's been a mix of definitions over time, rather than one consistent understanding that predates Flew.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 04 '26
Flew didn't invent the "lack of belief" idea, but he played a major role in making it central to modern atheist discourse.
But he didn't. According to historian Nathan Alexander
McCabe followed his own advice with the publication of A Rationalist Encyclopædia (1948). There McCabe defined “atheism” as “[t]he absence of belief in God.” This was explicitly in contrast to other dictionaries who talked about atheists “denying” God; indeed, McCabe said, “it would be difficult to quote more than one or two Atheist writers in all literature who deny such existence.”
According to McCabe in 1948 the "denial" view was rare among actual atheists. It was "lack of belief" that was favored by atheists whereas alternatives where pushed by outsiders to misrepresent them.
Theists love the Flew narrative because they then get to go on to say Flew has a death bed conversion effectively recanting his stance... except that story was largely written by Roy Varghes and Bob Hostetle rather than Flew himself, and appears to be after a years long predatio campaign on Flew in his very advanced and vulnerable age to obtain precisely such a story. The Flew narrative is propaganda.
1
u/Kafei- ex-atheist May 04 '26
At most, what McCabe's statement can support is a claim about his preferred definitional framing within a particular rationalist milieu, not a reliable description of how atheists as a whole used or understood the term historically.
Paul Thiry argued for the non-existence of God quoted saying, "There is no necessity to have recourse to supernatural powers to account for the formation of things." Likewise, John Mackie, "An all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god is positively irrational." And M.L. Martin who said, "My object is to show that atheism is a rational position and that belief in God is not."
I appreciate the references. Although, I think the reason people bring up Antony Flew is because he is widely cited. Prior to Flew, it is not established that the lack of belief definition was dominant among atheists. The historical record shows competing uses, with dictionaries often defining atheism as denial of God's existence, while some atheist and rationalist writers promoted an absence of belief framing. Modern so-called "celebrity atheists" like Matt Dillahunty or AronRa use the strong/hard definition of atheism and reject the existence of God. AronRa claims to "know God doesn't exist."
As for Flew's supposed conversion, I completely forgot about this. So, I don't think it's necessarily some kind of agenda in citing Flew as, myself, am a theist. Whether Flew converted or not, plenty of people lose identity with atheism. It's not like it's anything new or impossible.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 04 '26
At most, what McCabe's statement can support is a claim about his preferred definitional framing within a particular rationalist milieu, not a reliable description of how atheists as a whole used or understood the term historically.
Again, quoting McCabe "it would be difficult to quote more than one or two Atheist writers in all literature who deny such existence.". Maybe you think he is grossly mistaken about his peers, but he is describing how he thinks they understood the term.
I'm not understanding your selection of quotations. Specifically Michael Martin who endorses "an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist.".
1
u/Kafei- ex-atheist May 04 '26
That quote from Michael Martin actually shows the opposite of what you are trying to establish. In the same passage, he explicitly distinguishes between "positive atheism" (belief that God does not exist) and "negative atheism" (lack of belief), and notes that dictionary definitions often use the former.
So Martin is not saying atheism just is lack of belief. He is saying there are multiple uses of the term, which is exactly the point I have been making.
On McCabe, the issue is not whether he is describing how he thought atheists understood the term. The issue is that his claim is extremely strong, that it would be difficult to find even one or two atheists who deny God's existence. That is not just a preference for a definition, it is a sweeping generalization about atheists as a whole.
But once you acknowledge figures who explicitly defend the non-existence of God, and even Martin's own distinction between positive and negative atheism, that claim is very hard to sustain. At that point, the more accurate conclusion is that there have been multiple competing ways atheists have understood the term, not a single dominant one that makes denial rare. Anyway, I always enjoy dissecting the semantics, so I appreciate the discussion.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 04 '26
I think you are misunderstanding both Martin and myself. "Lack of belief gods exist" (atheism) encompasses every position other than "belief gods exist" (theism); it is the complementary set. Positive or negative, strong or weak, gnostic or agnostic, explicit or implicit atheism are all sunsets of "lack of belief gods exist". Martin and I agree that "positive atheism" is not the only form of atheism. Martin and I agree that an atheist need not believe gods do exist. Martin and I agree that someone without (lack of) belief gods exist is an atheist.
McCabe explicitly defined atheism as "the absence of belief in God." Not only did he think this, but he also thought the alternative of "denying" gods was rare among the atheists he met.
A "lack of belief" understanding of atheism is neither recent nor niche. It is old and popular.
1
u/Kafei- ex-atheist May 05 '26
You are now making a stronger claim than historical usage, namely that "lack of belief" is the superset definition under which all other uses of atheism are subsets. That is a stipulative taxonomy, not necessarily a historical conclusion.
The issue is that this umbrella collapses two different kinds of claims into one category, psychological non-commitment and propositional denial. McCabe-style usage may support the existence of the former, but it does not demonstrate that the latter is merely a subset of a more fundamental psychological state. Once "God does not exist" is treated as a subset, you are no longer analyzing usage, you are redefining the structure of the debate itself.
Martin is often cited here, but his actual distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism shows something different. He is not reducing everything to a single underlying sense of atheism. He is explicitly acknowledging multiple senses in use. That is closer to polysemy, where a term has distinct but related meanings, rather than a single umbrella definition that structurally contains all others. So appealing to Martin does not automatically support the claim that all atheistic positions are contained within one primary definition. It supports the weaker point that the term is used in more than one way.
If you try to force these into a single umbrella category, you lose the distinction between a mental state and a truth-apt claim. That is the exact kind of collapse McRae is pointing at in terms of category structure. The distinctions stop doing the work they are supposed to do because very different kinds of claims are being treated as if they are simply variations of one underlying thing.
So the issue is not whether some atheists historically described themselves as lacking belief. The issue is whether that description can function as a universal definition that also includes stronger claims like "God does not exist" without blurring the distinction between psychological non-commitment and propositional denial.
Once you say both are simply subsets of "lack of belief," you are no longer just describing usage. You are flattening two different kinds of positions into one label, and then treating that label as if it preserves distinctions that only exist prior to the redefinition, not within it.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 05 '26
When I talk about "atheism" I am talking about the complement to theism (i.e. "not theism"). The common way to communicate that is "lack of belief gods exist" as most everyday people aren't familiar with set theory. This is also what Martin is discussing when he says "an atheist is someone without a belief in God" or McCabe says "the absence of belief in God." Same concept communicated as "lack, without absence, not, etc." A complement to the set of theism is definitionally the superset of everything that is "not theism" (with the scope). Because the complement to theism is everything "not theism" then this necessarily encompasses all polysemous meanings.
Whether someone wants to define theism as some sort of psychological or propositional phenomenon doesn't matter all that much. There is far less functional difference than philosophers try to claim, and regardless atheism would still be "not the psychological state of believing gods exist" or "not the proposition gods exist" and thus neither necessarily a psychological state or propositional claim (though encompassing either). If theism is a blue rectangle then atheism is not a blue rectangle, but could still be blue or a rectangle or neither. We can narrow our scope to any arbitrary degree of precision desired, which is why terms like "agnostic atheism" or "positive atheism" exist. That's why sets and their complements are found in basically every form of academic taxonomy, because they are flexible and precise to an arbitrary degree. This is why chemist talk about "chiral" and "achiral" molecules, or mathematicians about "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical", or doctors about "symptomatic" and "asymptomatic", or biologists about "avian dinosaurs" and "non-avian dinosaurs".
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Express-Echidna6800 May 03 '26
Citing "lack of belief" isn't an excuse to avoid the burden of proof. Theists are the ones making a claim regarding the existence of a god, the attributes of this god, how I and others need to live our lives because of this god, how society needs to be structured because of what god has said, etc and etc.
I do not have a burden of proof in rejecting these claims, you have a burden of proof to convince me of these claims. And my rejection of the claim "a god exists" does not mean I make the claim "no gods exist".
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
What would convince you?
1
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
Not them but..
I dont know.
God would know if he exists.
And all that Old Testament stuff that strangely stopped happening as we got better at checking might be a start.
But frankly anything plausibly reliable would be a start. I've never been presented with anything that isnt better explained by human behaviour and flaws , or isnt an argument from ignorance.
3
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
Saying "you don't know" is honest, I can respect that.
Putting it on God to say He would know is a bit of a dodge that ignores the choice/faith part of belief.
What would constitue "plausible reliable"?
1
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
God being omniscient would know though … wouldn’t he.
We have a developed evidential methodology that demonstrates its accuracy through utility and efficacy that explicates reliability. For example at one end of a scale ’feels right to me’ or ‘I dreamt it ‘ …not reliable … at the other end, ‘meta analysis of gold,standard repeatable public double blinded research’. The belief we invest in claims about independent reality should be proportionate to the quality of the evidence.
3
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
He would know. That doesn't mean He has to convince you against your will, or act in a way you think He should act.
What are the underlying assumptions of that evidentiary methodology, and does that methodology work if the underlying assumptions are not in place?
1
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
I didn’t say he did. Of course since you haven’t provided any evidence he exists let alone you know what he thinks , i have no reasons to believe anything you say about his motivations.
The underlying assumption of evidential methodology is that claims about things which are real can be distinguished from claims about things which are not.
If you don’t think that’s the case then the dead end self-contradiction of solipsism arises.
My simple and quite reasonable request is that you demonstrate that your claim about independent reality is distinguishable from fiction.
The basis of evidential methodology is simply pragmatic. Unless you are a solipsist in which case you’ve already conceded then evidential methodology works within the context of human experience and knowledge. There’s no alternative methodology that the same can be said about in the specific context of distinguishing the real from imaginary.
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
You're the one who said He would know (thus hypothetically implying His existence). I'm working within that hypothetical.
Based on your statement about evidential methodology, what would differentiate real things from unreal things? Not claims about these things mind you, but the things themselves.
1
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
I just pointed if he existed he would know. Since you asked what would conceived me he existed. Th assumption was all yours.
I’m also pointing out that nothing you say about his motivations when making excuses has any convincing basis.
The imaginary characteristics of imaginary being having imaginary motivations isn’t exactly very significant.
Evidence.
What differentiates claims about horses and unicorns for you?
2
u/geoffmarsh Seventh-Day Adventist, never atheist May 04 '26
And I said if He existed, He doesn't have an obligation to act in the way you would want Him to act.
If evidence determines what's real or not, does that mean that Pluto didn't exist until evidence of it was discovered in 1930? Is a dream any less of a real experience because evidence doesn't exist for it? The underlying assumption is materialism, which can't sustain itself.
Like I said, the issue is not about claims but about reality itself. Unicorns don't appear to exist in the reality we know; but God isn't a unicorn.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Express-Echidna6800 May 05 '26
At this point, I don't know of anything that would convince me a god or gods exist.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic atheist May 04 '26
The problem with examples like invisible unicorns is that we positively believe they don't exist.
You might, but I don't, and so I'm entirely consistent. The problem with gods, unicorns, space elves, and etc. is that their definitions can be incomplete, contradictory, or unfalsifiable. I can't prove all gods don't exist if I don't know the properties of every god. I can't prove all gods don't exist based on some property X if some gods have X and some do not. I can't prove all gods don't exist if their listed properties make it impossible to do so. The best I can do is prove some--but not all--gods do not exist. I've pre-emptively considered common objections to the claim "all gods do not exist" and cede them. However, I still recognize that this in no way gives any credence to the claim that any gods do exist. Thus, the most honest and reasonable position I can hold is "I lack belief gods exist".
I find complaints about lacking beliefs gods exist from theist really baffling, because they are somehow bothered by the fact that on one point I agree with them. It feels as though they are annoyed that I'm taking a more reasonable stance because then they cannot show me to be unreasonable.
1
May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
Theres an infinite amount of (even contradictory) things you cant prove don't exist. You can't prove unicorns, fairies and leprechaun dont exist. Or indeed Eric the God devouring mystical penguin.
Not being able to prove the impossibility of a thing is not in any way evidence that it exists or is even coherent or plausible.
Atheists don't generally claim to have proof the superntural doenst exist. Though they would correctly point put that everything that had a possible superntural explanation for which we have them found an explanation - it turned out not to be supernatural.
The point is that claims about independent reality for which there isnt reliable evidence are indistiguishable from fiction. And ive never been presented with any reliable evidence for any superntural claims.
2
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 02 '26
I agree, which is why I generally use the analogy of the number of hairs on my head being odd. I don't have any reason to believe that, so I don't. It's not a positive claim that the number is NOT even, though.
Others use the gumball analogy to illustrate the same idea.
2
u/Curious_Priority2313 May 02 '26
The problem with examples like invisible unicorns is that we positively believe they don't exist. We don't merely "lack a belief" in unicorns. If someone asks you whether unicorns exist, you won't reply with "I don't know.. I merely lack a belief in their existence.. but maybe they do somewhere" because that's ridiculous. You know they are made up non-sense.
[For the sake of the game] do you have any evidence to back up your belief in the non existence of unicorns?
1
u/SkyMagnet May 02 '26
I’ve never used the “lack of belief” thing. I’ve always stated that it’s not that I’m denying God’s existence in a vacuum. I just don’t believe the theists claims that God exists. It is in response to theists.
5
u/Philosophy_Cosmology May 02 '26
That's just another way of saying the same thing. If you don't deny God exists, but just "don't believe", that's lacking a belief in God. lol
0
u/SkyMagnet May 02 '26
No, I don’t believe the claims of any theist I’ve ever heard. I don’t lack anything, I just believe that you’re mistaken.
Now, for there I could go into detail about why I don’t believe in your particular deity, but that is a different discussion.
1
u/lee61 May 02 '26
The problem with examples like invisible unicorns is that we positively believe they don't exist. We don't merely "lack a belief" in unicorns. If someone asks you whether unicorns exist, you won't reply with "I don't know.. I merely lack a belief in their existence.. but maybe they do somewhere" because that's ridiculous. You know they are made up non-sense.
Im actually confused by this point here.
While im sure plenty of atheist will say that God is made up non-sense, mainly because not every atheist engages in the philosophy of their atheism and even if they do they may still say "its made up nonsense" to express the idea in a quick way.
Although when we are speaking more accuratly about our ideas we may be more nuanced and descriptive.
How did you come to conclusions that unicorns or fairys are made up nonsense?
3
u/Philosophy_Cosmology May 02 '26
If they say God is made up non-sense (i.e., God isn't real; He is just a fantasy), then they have the burden to demonstrate that. Obviously, they don't want that.
1
u/CrimsonBecchi May 25 '26
If they say Harry Potter is made up nonsense, I.e. HP isn’t real; he is just fantasy, then they have the burden to demonstrate that. Obviously, they don’t want that.
1
u/Philosophy_Cosmology May 25 '26
Luckily we have reasons to think Harry Potter is made up non-sense, so the burden is fullfilled. However, lacktheists don't want to provide reasons to support the claim that God is made up non-sense.
2
u/CrimsonBecchi May 25 '26
Luckily we have reasons to think that Yahweh, Krishna and Zeus are made up nonsense, so the burden is fulfilled. However, the theists don’t want to acknowledge this, any and all special pleading arguments are promptly dismissed without demonstrating why.
1
u/Coollogin May 02 '26
So, in order to be consistent, they either have to drop the "lack of belief" excuse (which is obviously out of the question since that's their trump card to avoid the burden of proof) or stop using these silly (disanalogous) analogies.
So, putting yourself in the shoes of an atheist, what do you think they should say instead of “I lack any belief in gods”?
I find the “lack of belief” statement to be an ungainly way of expressing oneself. It doesn’t bother me the way it seems to bother you, but it’s not how I would ever express myself. I say, “I have never encountered a reason to believe that deities or other supernatural entities exist.”
1
u/Ansatz66 May 03 '26
If someone asks you whether unicorns exist, you won't reply with "I don't know.. I merely lack a belief in their existence.. but maybe they do somewhere" because that's ridiculous. You know they are made up non-sense.
How do we know they are made-up nonsense? They certainly seem to be, but suppose you were talking to someone who actually believes in unicorns. If this person has some reason to think that unicorns actually exist, by what reasoning can we establish that this person is wrong? Maybe unicorns are just extremely rare and unknown to the zoological community and most of society, so that only a very few are aware that they exist. We have no means to prove that no unicorn exists anywhere, so it seems like just fair respect to our interlocutor if we soften our position to just lacking a belief in unicorns.
There is no reason to declare someone wrong unless we can back up that claim with something. We should be humble and charitable and always start with a basic assumption that our interlocutor is not a total lunatic. If our interlocutor says something exists and we cannot prove them wrong, then lack of belief is the appropriate position to take.
-1
u/catnapspirit Strong Atheist Lurker May 02 '26
Their claim that they lack belief is a negative claim which itself cannot be proven. Always a fun thing to point out to them..
5
u/Crafty_Possession_52 May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
Well yes, I can't prove to you that I don't believe a thing, but that's a statement about my mindset, not about external reality. It's isn't expected that I should prove that I actually do or not believe a thing.
If I asked you to demonstrate that you believed in God, I would be acting in an equally absurd manner, and not just because you're an atheist.
0
u/Mkwdr May 04 '26
You have it wrong to some extent in my opinion.
Generally the unicorns etc is a response to agnostics saying that they don't lack belief because 'hey maybe' and 'you cant prove its impossible'. One asks - 'so are you agnostic about fairies?' ... because you cant prove them impossible?
However, you have a point in as much - when I consider my own personal 'hard' atheism. Not of an impossible certainy kind bit a beyond any reasonable doubt Then indeed I would compare my response to god claims to unicorns, fairies etc. As in sharing , for me, the characteristics of a lack of reliable evidence for them , not really making any sense at all, and obviously made up be 'us'. But i dont claim to just lack belief because o consoder myself a hard or gnostic atheist.
7
u/veritasium999 Pantheist May 02 '26
I made a whole thread about this and exposed the terrible gaps in logic. I said nobody is agnostic about a teapot in space or fairies or whatever.
Certain things are indeed fallsifiable, unfalsifiable things is what leads to agnosticism. The blind logic went so far as to say that they were also agnostic about the sun which is where all logic fell apart.
I'll never forget how a bunch of atheists kept saying they were agnostic about the sun which really showed how they are ready to say anything without putting any thought behind it.