No such thing, Nils. Furthermore, it makes no sense. There is no such thing as a non belief belief, just as there is no such thing as a non fish fish or a non bicycle bicycle.
That only works on your definition of atheism as non-belief, which is simple-minded.
As I’ve already pointed out to you, rocks have the property of non-belief regarding theism. Hence rocks are atheists just like you. Fish have non-belief regarding theism. Hence fish are atheists just like you. Monkeys have non-belief regarding theism. Hence monkeys are atheists just like you.
Rocks and perhaps fish may not be able to form beliefs. But monkeys can form beliefs about themselves, about other monkeys, about their external world, and a lot more. So you’re saying you’re no different than a monkey when it comes to your atheism?
Also, where’s the empirical “evidence” that atheism is non-belief? It’s just your bald assertion at this point.
A better definition of atheism is atheism as disbelief in theism. Or atheism as the rejection of theism. Or atheism as the claim that theism is false. Or atheism as the claim that theism is unbelieveable. Or atheism as the claim that theism is unreasonable. Any of these would be more intelligent than atheism as non-belief or the lack of belief.
Some atheists have even argued atheism entails nihilism. If so, then what I’ve said follows.
What on earth could it possibly mean to say something has a property of non belief? Again, that’s incoherent. It only makes sense if you ASSIGN a property. You certainly can’t extract one!
By linguistic rule, placing an a- in front of something is how we negate what follows. We’ve been over this but you don;t learn! What does theism mean? It means, “Belief in the existence of a god or gods” (OED). What is the negation of this term? A-theism, meaning non belief in the existence of a god or gods. You’re trying to change this linguistic rule to serve a purpose other than what’s true. The evidence for this rule, Nils, is in the language we share. I’m not warping anything. You are. You are ASSIGNING to the term ‘properties’ that simply are not there! That you refuse to wrap your head around this brute fact is not of my doing and claiming it is makes you look petulant and whining. My advice for you is to stop abusing the language to serve your partisan desires if you wish to have your ideas and opinions treated with respect rather than much earned disdain.
1) It’s funny to see how badly you’ve missed the forest for the trees. You certainly didn’t reply to the meat of what I’ve said. Rather, you hyper focused on a single (philosophical) use of the term property.
But let’s ignore that. Instead, let’s agree for argument’s sake that atheism is non-belief. Atheism is not a claim or argument or positive statement about anything. It’s just non-belief or a lack of belief. Therefore, because atheism is not a claim or agument about anything, then there’s nothing to say about atheism. Atheism is neither true or false. It’s just a lack of belief.
It’s like a lack of belief or non-belief about gnomes. I do not claim “gnomes do not exist.” I do not claim “I do not believe in gnomes.” I’m just an agnomist. I have non-belief about the existence of gnomes. I lack belief about the existence of gnomes. The existence of gnomes is neither true or false to me.
Therefore atheism doesn’t claim anything. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s not true or false. It’s just . . . meaningless.
No one that’s in their right mind would care about something that’s meaningless.
2) Since you brought up the OED, here’s how the OED defines atheism:
“Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”
OED says atheism could be either disbelief or lack of belief. You say lack of belief, I say disbelief. How’s that for compromise? 🙂
If atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or gods, then that is a claim. A claim needs to be argued for or against.
3) The use of “language” to argue for or against a claim goes both ways. It’s not just me, it’s also you. I could just as easily say to you, too, that you have “abused” the English language “to serve your partisan desires.” It’s clear you’re a strong atheist from past interactions with you. Don’t pretend you aren’t promoting atheism everywhere you go. That much is evident.
You haven’t been treating my “ideas and opinions” with any “respect” since we first started debating. In fact, you’ve already been “disdaining” whatever I say. Just look at the other thread. Again, stop pretending it’s been anything else.
The fact is that you’re a fundamentalist atheist.
Right. Atheism means no belief in gods or a god. That’s the whole thing right there.
So why all the mistrust and vilification aimed at those who freely admit they do not believe in gods of a god? Well, primarily because those who wish to promote tribal faith-based beliefs as if a virtue import all kinds of stuff to the term and then claim the stuff that they say comes attached to the term are associated with vice. That’s what you’ve done. That’s an error. That’s why I have corrected you, because you have doubled down on maintaining this fiction that atheism has some other content. Well, it doesn’t. Cope. It’s not meaningless because it has no belief content; it is meaningful in that it describes the person’s lack of belief in gods or a god.
I have no mistrust or vilification toward atheists in general. Just you, based on how you’ve behaved toward me and treated me. Here you attempt to adopt a more professional tone, in turn in an attempt to smooth over your image, but in our past interactions you were far worse in how you treated me. It doesn’t bother me on a personal level, because I don’t normally care about people I don’t know, but I point it out so that any people who come across you in the future can be aware of the kind of person you are. You’re a fundamentalist atheist, zealous and verbally abusive, though now you’ve adopted a more sober tone of voice. I do sincerely hope that lasts!
The problem is you keep equivocating between atheism as disbelief (“those who freely admit they do not believe in gods of a god”) and atheism as nonbelief (“the person’s lack of belief in gods or a god”). You seem to want to have it both ways. If you want to argue it’s nonbelief, then you’re right, it’s contentless (and, as I pointed out earlier, it’s meaningless, too, since what meaning would a “nonbelief” without content carry?). But if you want to agree with me that atheism is disbelief, then atheism does have content since atheism is the claim that there is no god or gods. That would entail that theism is false, which is a “content”-ful claim.