If lacking belief in God defines you as atheist then is the dog an atheist?

Arguing that you lack belief in God for you don't see good enough evidence is called negative atheism.  It denies that atheism needs to be an express belief that there is no God.

Some say negative atheism is just a belief. The correct view is that it is not but indicates that you deny God in the way that actions speak louder than words and statements and so on.

Here is an argument: "If a Catholic does not know that Hinduism exists, does that mean he believes there is no such religion as Hinduism? That makes no sense. Thus a lack of belief in God does not mean you believe no God exists. You either believe or are agnostic."
Many say that a lack of belief is still a belief. They allege that an atheist who lacks a belief in God is adhering to a belief that no God exists. Their stance is nonsense for a lack of belief is not a belief. You are not denying the existence of God. That would be a belief. You are saying you have no reason to believe. That is not a denial and so it is not a belief. That it is an implied denial is not the point.
Lack of belief on its own is not belief. But lack of belief in God is not on its own. It is not a direct denial of God but involves indirect denial. Lack of belief in the tooth fairy does not bring with it belief in her non-existence. Lack of belief in God is different for he is supreme explanation for all things and supremely important therefore to lack belief implies you have disbelief in God. The two go together.
The following is nonsense: "Atheists accuse Christians of believing in God without any or without sufficient evidence. But the atheists do this themselves for they believe that there is no God despite the fact that they have no evidence or have insufficient evidence for his non-existence." But we all treat things as non-existent if we have no evidence for them. God for some reason is the exception among the religious but he shouldn't be. Christians believing while having no evidence for God is not the same thing as atheists believing there is no God while having no evidence of his non-existence. If you believe a man lives in your attic without you having any evidence then you are crazy. You are not crazy if you lack belief in the existence of the man even though you have no evidence of his non-existence.

Suppose as the argument says, both atheists and believers were equally guilty of blind faith in relation to God's purported non-existence or existence. If both are irrational then which side would be the most irrational? If there is no evidence for a ghost haunting a house, and one person says there is a ghost that person is irrational. The person who sees no reason to believe and refuses to say there is one is rational.
And here is a gem of an argument! "Would you suggest that as your dog lacks a belief in God that he is an atheist?"

Why not? A dog has intelligence.
You might say its different for humans for we have the choice to believe or not unlike the dog. But do we have a choice? You cannot really help what you think for you cannot help what evidence says to you. If you use emotion and desire to blind yourself to what you think, you are not choosing to change your mind. You are trying to hide the fact that you have not changed your mind.


No Copyright