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.