Atheism: A belief?

[Copernicus]

I'm not trying to rebut your argument. Whether or not babies and stones are atheists doesn't need to be addressed to answer the question of whether or not atheism is a belief. The difference of opinion is whether "lack of belief in God" is a sufficient definition for atheism. You say it isn't, and you're claiming that stones and babies aren't atheists as fact and therefore as evidence for your opinion. The counterclaim is that, in fact, stones and babies could be considered atheists in the absolute broadest sense of the term, but it's unproductive.

I brought up the "babies" question originally, and "stones" got added in later. I think that we violently agree that calling babies and stones atheists is absurd. That makes it reasonable in this debate, because reductio ad absurdum is a reasonable method to use in order to disprove a claim.

And I suspect you're wrong about that.

Fair enough, but I'm the only one of us two that knows something about the community of lexicographers and lexicologists, since I belong to that community.

No, I'm using the parts of the word to explain that the definition in use today is based on the parts. You can use "atheist" anyway you want, but the best definition is " a person who lacks the belief in God".

Mball, I am getting the strong impression that you are in argumentum ad nauseam mode here. You used the parts of the word (i.e. its morphology) to make a claim. I pointed out that that is a classic etymological fallacy and gave you the Wikipedia definition to underscore my point. Your reaction was to ignore what I said and repeat the fallacy.

The fact is a theist is a person who believes in God. That means an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. It does not mean that an atheist is a person who believes God does not exist. That is also supported by the meanings of the parts of the word, as I explained.

And I explained why the linguistic argument is a fallacy--one that you apparently have never heard of before and still do not buy off on. Would you like to take that position explicitly? Do you deny that such arguments qualify as etymological fallacies? Do you want to deny that your particular argument qualifies as such?

A question is not always a request for a statement of belief. And yes, we all agreed you were right that the first question entails the second. My point was that that is irrelevant. The real question is whether "Do you believe God exists?" entails the question "Does God exist?". The answer is that it does not.

Argumentum ad nauseam. You agree that I said what I said. Then you make a claim that a false entailment is relevant and that it proves your point, even though I never used the false entailment in this discussion and agree with you that it is a false entailment.

 

[bobhikes]

Word meanings are determined purely by usage. Individuals cannot assign meanings like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland. Convention determines meaning, and convention can be discovered. If a community of speakers chose to call rocks and babies "atheists", then the mean of the word would take on a secondary sense in that community. It would not be valid outside of the community.

I like this, although we can make up words they only have meaning if another individual accepts them. Then you have made a community of two. Outside of that community the words are meaningless unless a convention can be discovered.

I grew up in PA and we moved to Jersey I walked into a store and asked for a hero and pop. The guy looked at me. It was frustrating right in front of me was what I wanted we both spoke english but I couldn't get it. I learned it was a sub and soda that I wanted in Jersey.

 

[cottage]

Incorrect, though it is agreeable that a majority is indoctrinated in multiple tenets. And it is as faithful as your faithfulness clings to skepticism.

I’m not sure what it is you are saying is incorrect. But anyway, my scepticism can be blown away in an instance if it can be shown that a supernatural being or causal agent exists.

The point is, a majority of people would actually change to what would be a hypothetical "truth" or discovery of the existence of "God(s)". Sure, we are all "skeptics", everyone adheres to their own path, not some strict denomination of a "belief".

While religious beliefs don’t require adherence to a particular religion or belief system they are nevertheless propositional, which it to say that something is being asserted. And the fundamental difference between believer and non-believer is that theists (regardless of any specific doctrine or affiliation) believe in a deity from faith, without the necessity for factual evidence or a final proof. For the sceptic those are wholly insufficient grounds for holding to such a proposition.

Ha, dogmatic. If one did not think so highly of his opinion, he would hardly consider others dogmatic.

Please consider again what I was saying, which is that if no evidence is necessary to affirm the theist’s faith then self-evidently it is a belief that is held dogmatically. But as a sceptic my thoughts concerning deities are contingent upon proof, or lack thereof. If it is true that God exists then that will be the case, my beliefs notwithstanding.

Faith is considered strong belief in the truth, it doesn't have to be supernatural, merely developed.

The very reason we are having this discussion is that we are not speaking of faith per se but theism, a belief as faith in a supernatural or unworldly being, a deity who brought the universe into existence. Isn't that so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No... unless by "ignore" you meant "empower." Then, yes.

Exactly how does it "empower" a person to redefine words to the point that they can no longer be used to communicate an idea?

:yes: Hopefully, she will also do her best to explain what 'equity' means as she understands it.

I disagree. IMO, the correct answer is "yes, I have equity in the house". Yes, hopefully, she'll explain what "equity" means, but whether she does this or not doesn't change the established meaning of the word.

If the child has "decided" that equity means unicorn droppings that adults keep in the basement to burn in the furnace, it was for a reason.

I suppose, but that's irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I brought up the "babies" question originally, and "stones" got added in later. I think that we violently agree that calling babies and stones atheists is absurd.

Why? I don't think it's absurd.

Personally, I think it's generally useless to describe a stone as an atheist, but it's technically true that it is one.

Like I said before, it'd be technically valid to describe a stone as apolitical or as a non-smoker. What a person will do with this description is up to them, but my instinct is to say that they won't do much that's useful.

 

[Copernicus]

The very reason we are having this discussion is that we are not speaking of faith per se but theism, a belief as faith in a supernatural or unworldly being, a deity who brought the universe into existence. Isn't that so?

This is a very important point in the discussion that people tend to lose sight of. Theism is not a religion. It is a belief that underpins many, if not most, religions. To qualify as a theist, it does not matter what the basis is for your belief in gods, only that you have such a belief. To qualify as an atheist, it is only necessary that you reject belief in gods.

There is an emotional debate going on around whether "lack of belief" is a sufficient component of the definition of "atheism". There is a near consensus that it is sufficient within the community of atheists, and I count myself in the minority on that score. I do not believe that "lack" is sufficient (or, rather, I believe that it isn't ), because it leads people to sometimes take that definition seriously enough to go around describing babies and stones as atheists--all just to maintain some special wording in a definition. I believe that you hit on the reason why all of that emotional energy exists in this debate. The real underlying debate here is whether atheism is a type of faith-based religious belief, not just whether it is a type of belief. While I disagree with my own community on how to define "atheism", I am certainly on their side when we leave the realm of linguistic debate and start to address the basis for the real difference between faith in gods and lack of faith thereof.

 

[Magic Man]

I brought up the "babies" question originally, and "stones" got added in later. I think that we violently agree that calling babies and stones atheists is absurd. That makes it reasonable in this debate, because reductio ad absurdum is a reasonable method to use in order to disprove a claim.

The point is it doesn't destroy any arguments. According to the definition "a person without a belief in God", a baby is an atheist. Including a tree in a discussion of the fastest living things isn't helpful, but that doesn't negate the fact that a tree is a living thing.

Fair enough, but I'm the only one of us two that knows something about the community of lexicographers and lexicologists, since I belong to that community.

Ah, so, because you belong to that community, you must be the only one of the two of us who knows anything about it? That's faulty reasoning. It's also an appeal to authority. In any case, I got my degree in linguistics, so while you might be a current part of that particular community, you're wrong to assume I don't know anything about it.

Mball, I am getting the strong impression that you are in argumentum ad nauseam mode here. You used the parts of the word (i.e. its morphology) to make a claim. I pointed out that that is a classic etymological fallacy and gave you the Wikipedia definition to underscore my point. Your reaction was to ignore what I said and repeat the fallacy.

My reaction was to point out how your accusation is incorrect. Sure, we can use words to mean things other than their original meanings. However, in this case we don't. We use theism to mean "belief in God". Do you agree with that? Do you agree that a theist is a person who believes in God? So, then an a-theist would be someone who doesn't believe in God. That includes all people who answer no to the question "Do you believe in God?".

And I explained why the linguistic argument is a fallacy--one that you apparently have never heard of before and still do not buy off on. Would you like to take that position explicitly? Do you deny that such arguments qualify as etymological fallacies? Do you want to deny that your particular argument qualifies as such?

What I'm saying is that it's an incorrect accusation here. In this case, we use the words as their morphemes suggest. We use theism to mean "belief in God" just as would be suggested by the use of the word it comes from, theos.

Argumentum ad nauseam. You agree that I said what I said. Then you make a claim that a false entailment is relevant and that it proves your point, even though I never used the false entailment in this discussion and agree with you that it is a false entailment.

Huh? What you said is true, but it's also irrelevant. The relevant way to say it is that the question "Do you believe in God?" does not entail the question "Does God exist?". Mentioning that the other way around works doesn't add anything at all to the discussion, except confusion.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly how does it "empower" a person to redefine words to the point that they can no longer be used to communicate an idea?

You're interpreting it as "redefine," rather than "define." That's your perogative, but in the process have you redefined something? I don't think so.

I suppose, but that's irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word.

Which is?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're interpreting it as "redefine," rather than "define." That's your perogative, but in the process have you redefined something? I don't think so.

When you take a word that already has a meaning and give it a different meaning, you have redefined the word.

Which is?

In this context, it's the value of the ownership interest in the house.

 

[Willamena]

When you take a word that already has a meaning and give it a different meaning, you have redefined the word.

And when you take a word that, for you, had no meaning and find meaning in it, you've defined it. Meaning has been assigned to the symbol.

In this context, it's the value of the ownership interest in the house.

Really? Good to know.

 

[Copernicus]

Ah, so, because you belong to that community, you must be the only one of the two of us who knows anything about it? That's faulty reasoning. It's also an appeal to authority. In any case, I got my degree in linguistics, so while you might be a current part of that particular community, you're wrong to assume I don't know anything about it.

You are right, and I apologize. You must have told me this once, but I had forgotten it. I'm actually more of a lexicologist than a lexicographer, Charles Fillmore having been one of my mentors, but my day job nowadays actually has me splitting hairs over dictionary definitions. Surely, then, you know about "neg transportation" verbs, don't you? I'm not sure what your background is, but you should know about this if you had any classes in early transformational theory. Also, why are you taking a prescriptivist position on the meaning of "atheism"?

My reaction was to point out how your accusation is incorrect. Sure, we can use words to mean things other than their original meanings. However, in this case we don't. We use theism to mean "belief in God". Do you agree with that? Do you agree that a theist is a person who believes in God? So, then an a-theist would be someone who doesn't believe in God. That includes all people who answer no to the question "Do you believe in God?".

I'm with you up to this point. It's the part about atheism as meaning "lack of belief" that gets to me. You do know about neg transportation and the use of negative polarity words to prove it, right? The debate here seems to depend on people getting tripped up by ambiguous linguist expressions like "X does not believe that God exists". That statement can represent either a denial of having a belief or a denial of the object complement of "believe". If you deny that gods exist, that entails your belief that they do not exist. It does not mean that you lack a belief with respect to gods, which is way too broad a definition.

What I'm saying is that it's an incorrect accusation here. In this case, we use the words as their morphemes suggest. We use theism to mean "belief in God" just as would be suggested by the use of the word it comes from, theos.

No, you are getting caught in an etymological argument that contradicts general usage. The prefix "a-" in English only attaches to adjectives, and it gets into nouns (like a-morality) by back formation. The word "atheism" was actually borrowed into English from French. The prefix came pre-attached because of its Greek etymology, but the Greek prefix is not the same as the one in English that Greek morphology gave rise to.

Huh? What you said is true, but it's also irrelevant. The relevant way to say it is that the question "Do you believe in God?" does not entail the question "Does God exist?". Mentioning that the other way around works doesn't add anything at all to the discussion, except confusion.

It does, because people have been denying that assertions entail beliefs. I mentioned Gricean maxims earlier. You are familiar with speech act theory, right? I feel that I can talk about these things at a higher level with you because of your academic background.

 

[Thief]

And still, everyone seems to be circumventing ...conviction.

Look at the length of this thread.

When a topic is taken to such length...it is because of conviction.

'Non-believers' insist there is no God.
They stand by this with long winded discussion...citing definition....
science....logic....and anything else they can throw at it.

THEY BELIEVE....there is no God.

 

[waitasec]

And still, everyone seems to be circumventing ...conviction.

Look at the length of this thread.

When a topic is taken to such length...it is because of conviction.

'Non-believers' insist there is no God.
They stand by this with long winded discussion...citing definition....
science....logic....and anything else they can throw at it.

THEY BELIEVE....there is no God.

i guess it boils down to how high the bar of acceptance is...
there are those who believe illusions are real while others are skeptical.

 

[Intrigued]

Non believers have absolute conviction in the fact that there is no God. Believers have the complete opposite view so there is a clash. But this clash is amazing because believers and non believers learn from the dispute and great ideas come from it.

 

[Copernicus]

Thief, the question of whether I believe that gods exist is independent of how I think one ought to define the word "atheism". We are debating a definition here, not whether gods exist.

 

[Copernicus]

Non believers have absolute conviction in the fact that there is no God. Believers have the complete opposite view so there is a clash. But this clash is amazing because believers and non believers learn from the dispute and great ideas come from it.

Intrigued, neither believers nor non-believers have to have absolute convictions about their beliefs in order to qualify as such. Belief is something that comes in degrees of conviction.

 

[Intrigued]

still counts regardless how subtle the belief

 

[Thief]

Thief, the question of whether I believe that gods exist is independent of how I think one ought to define the word "atheism". We are debating a definition here, not whether gods exist.

Actually...the participants are just tossing the potato back and forth.

Belief is an action...in your head.
All the earmarks are the same....whether you are shaking your head or nodding it.

Obviously...if it makes you feel better...
you can take your denial of God all the way to every word you speak...
and the words you refuse to say.

It is conviction either way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Non believers have absolute conviction in the fact that there is no God. Believers have the complete opposite view so there is a clash. But this clash is amazing because believers and non believers learn from the dispute and great ideas come from it.

:sarcastic

Have you ever actually talked to a non-believer?

 

[Revoltingest]

Non believers have absolute conviction in the fact that there is no God. Believers have the complete opposite view so there is a clash. But this clash is amazing because believers and non believers learn from the dispute and great ideas come from it.

You haven't been paying attention to me.
I & most atheists have no absolute convictions at all, & certainly not about the non-existence of gods.
How could one be certain about such a thing?