If I lack a belief in tooth decay, there is no reason for me to brush my teeth. So when someone defines atheism as a “lack of belief” How then can a person who defines them self in this way, act upon that? Only a positive belief is supported by action.
If I don’t believe in the Gold Gate Bridge, I don’t walk across it! This just demonstrates the irrationality of Atheism. all of it’s definitions are not cogent nor do they pass the preconditions for intelligibility.
Truth Bombs Apologetics 
You keep making the same claims in your blog, I’m beginning to wonder if you want a serious discussion or you just want to inflame atheists. This is a perfect example of why Atheists take action.
The atheist label was not created by atheists, it was a term used by theists in a derogatory way to describe people who had no belief in gods (Atheos), or to people who did not believe in their particular god. (Just some history you can look up)
Whether they consider themselves Atheist, Secular or don’t label themselves at all, they have the right to defend themselves, they have the right to not want religion as part of their government, every person has a voice in the United States.
again, it is an atheists belief, it is the denial of your belief.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment.
I am open to a reasonable discussion. Your comment as I understand it means that you define Atheism as “a belief there is no God or gods” and that does not fit the context of my blogs where people define atheism as a lack of belief.
You seem to accept that atheism is a belief system and therefore I understand that you have reason (though I find it logically flawed) to act upon it. I question the reason of actions for those who define atheism as a “lack of belief”.
LikeLike
No, atheism is as I defined above (Atheos) is the lack of belief. You may have been confused where I wrote above “again, it is an atheists belief, it is the denial of your belief.”, it should have been “it is NOT an atheist belief”.
This is why I brought up the monotheism argument. Do you believe in one god? (Yes?) but you are aware of other gods, right? (Yes?) Do you believe in those other gods? (No?) then you do not have a “lack of belief”, you made a claim about what you belief, So you can’t claim you are a monotheist. You are a polytheist because you have a belief in those other gods.
Like another person wrote in the other blog post you made, it is all word salad.
LikeLike
“a lack of belief” is a definition that cannot be proven true. Therefore it is a faulty definition because someone can never assert any positive knowledge claim. Also it is found to be too broad of a definition. Do you mean that you “lack a belief” like an ignorant baby, or a rock?
I do not believe in Zeus because I can go to mount Olympus in Greece and I won’t find him there, therefore proving him false according to his own nature and characteristics.
I do not “lack a belief” in other gods, I hold a belief that there is only one God. Zeus does not fit a rational definition for the word “God” because he, by the folklore, was a finite and created being spawn by Chronos (another finite and created spawn by chaos and on and on).
It is not word salad, It simply shows that atheists do not think through the philosophical problems of their position. To quote Dr. Craig: “So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.” -Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism#ixzz4ApHE7lCr
LikeLike
Sorry, the theist has always made the claim of god. The atheist is not born with the philosophy that there is no god. Somehow the god claim must be made to them. Upon hearing the god claim, they can still state “I still lack a belief in god”. Atheists are those who do not accept the truth of your claim.
Like I said, I know what you are trying to argue. It is you who is trying to re-define atheism to state they are making a claim and you’re multiple blog postings about it clue me in that you are not open to a reasonable discussion.
LikeLike
I should say it is not intellectually honest. Instead of proving your positive claim, you are instead placing the onus on the atheist, claiming… no no no, you are making the positive claim.
LikeLike
Proving my point of a positive claim in a belief in God was not the context of the post. The context to show that the atheist is not without his epistemic responsibility.
LikeLike
Spocks premise is simply false.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheism is not a world view to walk out onto like the golden gate bridge. Fallacy much?
Atheism is just an answer to one question, do you believe in God or gods. Agnosticism is the same answer from the question of knowledge.
Neither are world views or truth claims or positive assertions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fallacy much? Have you read your statement? It is not a worldview? WOW! On that then you can make no knowledge claim under the “lack of belief” definition. And no, Agnosticism is not the same. At least the Agnostic will admit that they should not speak on things they do not know. You are simply negating your epistemic responsibility and feel perfectly justified to act on a “lack of belief”. In other words you are acting upon a your non belief which is evidence of a belief (and I fallacy much),all while simply claiming a “lack of belief” because, if you lack belief in God then you cannot prove GOD true or false because you cannot make a knowledge claim.
LikeLike
Good job. You have confirmed my suspicion that your purposeful misstatement of the definition of atheism was an attempt to dishonestly shift the burden of proof onto those who disbelieve. Kudos and congratulations. You have just won the ‘force your opponents to prove a negative’ prize.
LikeLike
Sir you missed the point, again. The point being, of why that definition of atheism (“lack of belief”) is flawed. If you subscribe to that definition then you believe that any belief in God, either belief in the existence of God or the belief in the non-existence of God, is absent within you.
First, you wrote “purposeful misstatement of the definition of atheism” but you have not proven that definition true or false by anything you stated. I have stated it clearly that this definition cannot be proven true in and of itself but you keeping acting upon a “lack of belief” which means you don’t really believe that you lack a belief or truth claim. Therefore you seem to be committing a Confirmation Bias or an apriori.
Something about what you wrote struck me: “force your opponents to prove a negative.” What? You can’t do that?
The idea that “you can’t prove a negative” is simply false. How many logicians do you think would agree with you on this? The answer is none, and here’s why:
There exists a law of logic (which you probably know), the law of non-contradiction. This is in fact a provable negative. A proposition cannot simultaneously be true and false. Courses on logic formally derived this law by using empty (null) sets and the rules of inference. Furthermore, upon doing this you will have demonstrated that it is indeed untrue that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative, thereby proving a negative in the process of deriving the law itself.
Also, the phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative statement, therefore contradicting yourself. If you could show it to be a true statement then it would, by definition, actually be false. The only alternative is that the law of non-contradiction is invalid, but if that’s the case then logic cannot exist.
To quote Dr. William Lane Craig: “For example, you could disprove the statement that “there are polka-dotted geese.” That would be a universal negative and you can disprove that. But more importantly, the claim that ‘God does not exist’ is not a universal negative. It’s a singular negative. And certainly you can prove negative singular statements, such as, ‘There is no planet between Venus and the Earth.’ You can provide arguments to show that a singular negative statement is true.” (William Lane Craig in William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler, Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point?, recording of a debate held on June 27, 1993 at Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, IL.)
Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (i.e. square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is that their existence is directly observable or their existence is not directly observable but the object’s causality (causes and effects) are directly observable.
First, the “lack of belief” definition is self contradictory if a person acts on that. Action requires purpose, require meaning, requires value, to which a nothing cannot hold value.
Second, if you accept that definition of atheism, then you believe that a nothing can cause something. Isn’t that against the nature and characteristics of nothing?
Third, your reaction is evidence of something and not nothing. So you have a positive truth claim and not the lack of one.
What people usually mean is that you can’t demonstrate the non-existence of an object, place or being. That is the point! Your definition of Atheism (or at least the one I am arguing about) is supposed to be a non-existent belief, so you cannot demonstrate the non-existence of a belief! So you are contradicting yourself. Any demonstrable action (causality) by you in the context of the existence of God, proves that a belief of some kind exists.
And here is why:
You are suffering from the “knowing/doing gap.” In this, your stated premise does not follow a logical conclusion (non sequitur fallacy). It does not follow that you should act upon non-existence. You state a non-existent object as your reason (“lack of belief”) for thinking and doing something. Similarly Christians that get tattoos, Muslims that kill Muslims, Jews that charge interest on other Jews are not affirming their belief system through their actions. So you clearly don’t believe in what you claim.
Now you may say something like “I don’t need a belief in either the existence or non-existence of God. I only believe you are wrong.” or “I don’t need a belief, I have motives.” Under this premise you cannot give an account of why I would be wrong or account for how you derive an absolute truth from an arbitrary emotional motive.
LikeLike
Based on your previous blog posts and your current several paragraph response, it sounds like you are really suffering over this.
There are various definitions of Atheist including it’s original intent to be a slang word against those who lacked belief in a god. You even defined it yourself in a similar way concerning those who are devoid of belief. Sure there are atheists, like me, who have a religious background but in turn, rejected those beliefs. Likewise, I am sure there are atheists who form a belief system around being atheist, such as Buddhists but I would not expect it is their epistemic responsibility to explain why they do not believe in a god.
Is it the responsibility of someone who is devoid of a belief to disclaim your belief? If, after years of religious education, is it my responsibility to explain why I rejected those beliefs?
I have a friend who is a lifelong atheist. Obviously from the time she was a baby, the belief in a god was not introduced to her. For the sake of argument, at age 12, one of her friends asks her if she believes in “god” and starts saying stuff like “he’s in heaven”, so upon this introduction, my friend finds this claim outrageous and just rejects her friends belief. Do you think it is my friends epistemic responsibility to explain her position?
It’s usually at this point in any debate that I agree to disagree. I’m pretty sure I know where you are going with it so I will give you the point that there are some “strong atheists”, who probably do need to be able to defend their position. (the theist making the claim, atheist making the counter-claim). I simply do not agree that all atheists have an epistemic responsibility. So now that you have an atheist who somewhat agrees with you, continue on with your argument in your next blog….
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments David. I also thank you for your civility and lack of sarcasm. I personally do expect someone to be able to justify their belief system. This seems to be the only way to determine if a belief is a justified true belief or not. And it does seem that people who cannot justify their belief will believe anything or at least cannot give an account for their position which leads me to think there is a high probability of falsehood. I think I will let that stand as the answer to all your questions in your last comment. It was a pleasure David.
LikeLike