Adrian, I realize you didn’t intend to … but please do not tell pretend to tell *me* what I intended to say.

My apologies, I could have phrased it better.

My point is that the lack of belief is what comes naturally to a new born as well as to an “oak tree”.

I agree with you that newborns and oak trees have no belief in god. However, the word “lack” suggests something is missing, something is wrong, etc. You cannot lack anything naturally. For instance, humans are born with 2 arms. This is natural. For a human to be born without an arm, they would lack an arm.

Since every newborn is born without a belief in god, we can assume that this is natural. Therefore you cannot say they “lack” something which wasn’t meant to be there.

As for the definitions of lack and absence, I quoted them in my previous response. You should be aware that the definition for “lack” uses the word “absence”, and synonyms are never used to define each other (it would be completely pointless). Yes, they are similar words, but the word “lack” is more commonly used to describe something that was meant to be there, rather than absence, which is more commonly used to mean something that simply isn’t there.

Now that the discussion has turned to semantics, I’m pulling out of it. I do not engage people in semantic debates anymore. If there is one thing I can speak from experience about, it is that everyone uses a different dictionary, and everyone has been brought up to understand certain words differently. Semantic debates are circular, they never resolve anything.

Adrian: By claiming that atheism is a “lack” of belief you are suggesting that this belief in god is something that comes naturally.

Adrian, I realize you didn’t intend to … but please do not tell pretend to tell *me* what I intended to say.

If there is some point of confusion, please ask.

My point is that the lack of belief is what comes naturally to a new born as well as to an “oak tree”.

Disbelief only comes as a the result of a choice.

Adrian: “Absence of belief is very different from a lack of belief”

Check out the definition of each word; lack and absence.

They are synonyms.

I use the term “agnostic atheist” only when I want a detailed description of my stance on god. “Atheist” is easier to say in conversation, and people understand what you mean :D

The point of *my* atheism is that we can live without “belief”

That’s exactly what I mean! By claiming that atheism is a “lack” of belief you are suggesting that this belief in god is something that comes naturally. You cannot lack something that was never meant to be there in the first place, and since we have already deduced that newborns do not believe in gods, then atheism cannot possibly be a lack.

I would accept your argument that atheism is an absence of belief. Absence of belief is very different from a lack of belief:

Lack: deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.

Absence: state of being away or not being present.

A lack of belief is something missing, something supposed to be there. An absence of belief is simply a belief that isn’t present.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts. I believe that we are thinking the same thing.

I think that the vagueness of the term “god” means that Atheists have to concede a lot in debate with theists.
We can end up sounding as if we concede the possibility of square circles.

I have in fact referred to myself, in the past, as an Agnostic Atheist. I will return to using the label Agnostic Atheist, because as you correctly point out, people can label anything “god” whether or not I agree that it merits the title.

(Where I proposed a hypothetical world where we cannot know anything, I meant that even agnosticism would be meaningless in that situation).

Thanks Adrian you’ve helped me to arrive at a better understanding of the term “Agnostic Atheist”!

You make a very good point regarding atheism and agnosticism. Agnostics claim to have no knowledge of the claim. Atheists make a statement of belief … as theists do.

The reality is we are all agnostic, with regards, to the general claim of the existence of at least one god.

Theists and atheists rely upon their own predispositions, perceptions, and knowledge to reach a conclusion as to what is most likely.

Huh?

The point of *my* atheism is that we can live without “belief” :-)

Adian: “Disbelief is far from an active position. It is simply a word meaning “doesn’t believe”. A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it.”

ahhhhh … no :-(

Disbelief is an active rejection of a claim. A new born is not cognizant enough to “disbelieve” … nor more than my “oak tree” metaphor.

In its broadest definition, atheism is a lack or absence of belief in gods. A rejection of belief is insufficient to encompass all atheists.

Adrian: “A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it.”

Agreed. They lack belief. They do not reject it. Disbelief is more than an absence of lack.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

The above is a rather standard definition, and requires an active position. A passive position is one of ignorance and/or apathy.

Most of you people seem much more versed in philosophical terminology than I, so my own stance will probably be seen as unsophisticated, which it certainly is.

For me it all comes down to the simple philosophical idea that no matter what, we cannot know anything absolutely. I always refer to it as the “Matrix Problem” when discussing the limits of scientific knowledge to students - i.e. from a philosophical standpoint, one can never be sure that we are not just in “The Matrix”. All science rests on the assumption that our senses (and extensions of them) portray real information about reality, but it is still only an assumption. Luckily, as Kuhn and the pragmatists before him noted, it seems to work, so we use it.

But for this reason I cannot claim absolute disbelief in some sort of Deistic entity beyond my comprehension. However, based on pragmatism alone, I find it astronomically unlikely such an entity exists.

Atheism to me means absolute disbelief, while agnosticism (or agnostic atheism) means that I do not believe in a God, in fact I find such a being highly improbable, but I cannot rule out all possibility.

Thus I call myself Agnostic Atheist.

Here’s my favorite definition (from wikipedia):

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical doctrine that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is both atheistic, in that he does not believe any deities exist, and agnostic, in that he does not claim to know that they don’t. Agnostic atheism contrasts with agnostic theism, the position of believing in one or more deities based on faith and not claiming to know that they exist.

A three wheeled car “lacks” a tire. A toothbrush without bristles “lacks” bristles. Both the tire and the bristles are elements that define the object as complete. You cannot use a toothbrush without bristles to brush your teeth, nor can you use a car with three wheels to drive (at least not well enough).

To say that atheists “lack” belief is to say that belief is something that humans cannot live without. As atheists do live perfectly fine and at the same level as people with belief, it cannot be an important function that defines a human.

An oak tree does not have any concept of belief to begin with, since it is not a sentient being. An oak tree can be without belief, but that isn’t the same as lacking it. A lack of something indicates that it should be there.

Disbelief is far from an active position. It is simply a word meaning “doesn’t believe”. A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it. This is passive disbelief, the kind that we all have when it comes to things we have no concept of. As soon as we have a concept of it, disbelief of it is more active.

If you have been an atheist all your life, it is fair to say that you are a passive atheist. The concept of god was one you never believed in.

I on the other hand, was once a theist. I am an active atheist because I had to reject my previous beliefs. I wouldn’t call it a choice, but more of a realization that I didn’t believe any of it anymore.

I do not think disbelief requires any sort of active position. It can be either. I also don’t think that an active position requires a decision, since most people seem to agree that belief isn’t something you can just decide upon. I can’t wake up tomorrow and just “decide” to believe in God, and many theists probably couldn’t wake up and “decide” not to believe.

Adrian: Actually, the most broad definition of atheism is “disbelief in gods”. Given that the status of belief and whether it is default is still in debate, saying that atheism is a “lack” is the suppose that we are all born with a belief in gods.

How is that? … don’t new borns lack belief in the same way an oak tree is?

I interpret “disbelief” to require an active position … meaning that the individual must make decision.

Where is our disconnect here?