Atheism: A belief?

[ellenjanuary]

So, I didn't read through the last 10 pages, but it seems as though they're pretty much like the first 60, with a few people trying to explain the very, very simple idea that anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist, and others desperately trying to complicate the matter in order to assert that atheism is a belief. So, I'll leave it at this:

An atheist is anyone who doesn't hold the belief "God exists". That's all there is to it.

God does not exist as existence limits god... so, I'm an atheist now?

 

[Copernicus]

You've just restated what we've been saying and then claimed that it's unreasonable. That's not a very good argument...

My argument is based on the observation that English speakers only label people "atheist" who have an opinion about what "god" means. They do not use the label for people who lack the concept of a god. You have not disagreed with this observation, and some defending your "lack of belief" definition even admit that my observation is correct. Do you reject my observation? It seems to me that all you do is repeat your position with the claim that everything reduces to that. If you are just going to play argumentum ad nauseam with me, then I conclude that you are being unreasonable.

Yes, some atheists lack the belief "No gods exist", and no, it's not unreasonable to claim they are atheists, considering they fit the description of an atheist.

That is what I call procrustean logic. You take a stand on what the definition is, and then you insist on sticking with the definition no matter how absurd it makes you look. The meaning of any word is determined by usage, not fiat or decree. People do not use the word in the way you describe it. They especially do not use it to describe people who take no position on the existence of gods.

 

[outhouse]

doesn't hold the belief

boy those are key words right there.

doesnt hold = no belief

 

[Magic Man]

Then what am I?

First, for clarification's sake, answer the question: Do you believe in God (or a god)?

I completely agree.

I was never in disagreeance with what atheism was, simply that the self projected image of atheism promotes specious belief, and not a straight foward, concrete manner.

I'm saying that atheism is a belief, because for me personally it is easier to defend. On the axiom that the world is built off of axioms of course

Your first sentence is false, which is evidenced by the other sentences. You can't agree that atheism is not a belief while also saying that atheism is a belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My argument is based on the observation that English speakers only label people "atheist" who have an opinion about what "god" means. They do not use the label for people who lack the concept of a god.

Um... I'm an English spaker, and I do use the label that way.

You have not disagreed with this observation, and some defending your "lack of belief" definition even admit that my observation is correct. Do you reject my observation? It seems to me that all you do is repeat your position with the claim that everything reduces to that. If you are just going to play argumentum ad nauseam with me, then I conclude that you are being unreasonable.

Wait - so you're saying that the only reasonable thing for mball to do is to concede the point to you?

Interesting debate tactic. I'll have to try that approach some time: "if you don't stop disagreeing with me, you'll be unreasonable!"

That is what I call procrustean logic. You take a stand on what the definition is, and then you insist on sticking with the definition no matter how absurd it makes you look.

You've said things like this several times, and I've questioned you on it several times without getting a response. Why do you consider this absurd?

I don't consider it absurd to count babies or rocks as atheists any more than I'd consider it absurd to count them as non-smokers. They don't believe in gods and they don't smoke tobacco, so the definitions technically fit. I agree that this use of the term doesn't provide use with much in the way of useful fodder for conclusions or decisions, but that doesn't mean that the term isn't accurate.

The meaning of any word is determined by usage, not fiat or decree. People do not use the word in the way you describe it. They especially do not use it to describe people who take no position on the existence of gods.

Umm... are the people in this thread who say that they do use the word this way not people? Apparently, people do use the word this way. Not all people, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any word that everyone uses the same way in all cases.

 

[Magic Man]

My argument is based on the observation that English speakers only label people "atheist" who have an opinion about what "god" means. They do not use the label for people who lack the concept of a god.

Only if by "English speakers" you mean "some English speakers". That's obviously not the way it's applied by a lot of people, as evidenced by this thread. You seem to think it's generally only used to describe people who actively believe God doesn't exist. Can you explain why you think that?

You have not disagreed with this observation, and some defending your "lack of belief" definition even admit that my observation is correct. Do you reject my observation?

Of course I reject your observation. It goes against exactly what I'm saying. I'm still unsure why you're under the impression that's how people usually use the term.

It seems to me that all you do is repeat your position with the claim that everything reduces to that. If you are just going to play argumentum ad nauseam with me, then I conclude that you are being unreasonable.

It's not all I've done, but that's what it boils down to. I've tried explaining things, as have many others here. Those points have been ignored or rejected. So, it comes down to the one simple fact.

That is what I call procrustean logic. You take a stand on what the definition is, and then you insist on sticking with the definition no matter how absurd it makes you look. The meaning of any word is determined by usage, not fiat or decree. People do not use the word in the way you describe it. They especially do not use it to describe people who take no position on the existence of gods.

You're the only one who claims it makes me look absurd. Again, your debate techniques are usually much better than this. Nothing I've said makes me look absurd. You keep making this claim that people only use the word the way you say they do, but I have no evidence of this. In fact, in this very thread we have evidence that some people use the word to mean what I'm saying. And so, the response is "yes, they most certainly do use it to describe people who take no position on the existence of gods". Now, you can either try to provide evidence for your stance that no one uses the word the way I say, or you can keep looking absurd.

 

[Copernicus]

Um... I'm an English spaker, and I do use the label that way.

I'm a linguist who has taught introductory courses in the subject too many times to be able to tell you the number of English speakers whom I have known to eat those words.

Wait - so you're saying that the only reasonable thing for mball to do is to concede the point to you?

No, I would be happy if he would stop repeating his definition and calling it fact. Instead, I would prefer him to be as reasonable as Alceste and admit that it sounds like a silly thing to do to call a baby an atheist. She basically took the position it was an irrelevant point. My argument was that it felt odd to call babies atheists because the definition she (and most other atheists) have been defending was flawed. It reduces one to an absurdity.

You've said things like this several times, and I've questioned you on it several times without getting a response. Why do you consider this absurd?

I don't consider it absurd to count babies or rocks as atheists any more than I'd consider it absurd to count them as non-smokers. They don't believe in gods and they don't smoke tobacco, so the definitions technically fit. I agree that this use of the term doesn't provide use with much in the way of useful fodder for conclusions or decisions, but that doesn't mean that the term isn't accurate.

This is where your position reduces to absurdity. If you had to do a survey of non-smokers, you would probably confine it to adults. Technically, you could include human beings of all ages, but we normally think of a non-smoker as a possible smoker. Rocks are not possible smokers, and nobody publishing a survey would think it reasonable to insert a footnote in the study that excluded rocks and inanimate objects. So there are reasons why you "count" someone as a non-smoker, and any reasonable definition of the word would take such considerations into account. When some atheists insist that babies have to be classified as "atheists", they just make themselves look silly. Why do they do that? They've taken a stand on the definition of atheism that drives them into that corner.

Umm... are the people in this thread who say that they do use the word this way not people? Apparently, people do use the word this way. Not all people, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any word that everyone uses the same way in all cases.

Think about the difference between what people say they do and what they do. There isn't always a difference, but, in the case of atheism, we've already seen admissions that it does sound odd to call babies atheists. Surely, I'm not the only one here who thinks that such odd feelings have an explanation.

 

[Willamena]

You've said things like this several times, and I've questioned you on it several times without getting a response. Why do you consider this absurd?

I don't consider it absurd to count babies or rocks as atheists any more than I'd consider it absurd to count them as non-smokers. They don't believe in gods and they don't smoke tobacco, so the definitions technically fit. I agree that this use of the term doesn't provide use with much in the way of useful fodder for conclusions or decisions, but that doesn't mean that the term isn't accurate.

The absurdity lies in that we generally don't grant a conscious reasoning ability to babies and rocks, but we do to atheists.



(Though some give cause for doubt.)

 

[Tom Terrific]

Is it really that bad? If I understood you, you seem to be saying we cannot know anything without "trust" (code for "faith"??), and if we cannot know, we certainly cannot understand.

What's bad about it?

"Trust" isn't "code" for faith, but a functional approach to understanding what "faith" really is. Atheists and theists often debate faith as if it were merely subscribing to a proposition without "sufficient" evidence, which is meaningless in any objective sense because "sufficiency" is subjectively determined.

I think we can trust that there exists something we might call "objective reality."

I certainly do. I just recognize that it's something I choose to believe, not something self-evident.

That most of what our senses tell us about it is illusion is well demonstrated, but illusions do not come out of the vapor (we call things that come out of the vapor "delusions"). Given patience and work, scientists and others can often tease out realities behind the illusions -- e.g. we perceive a "blue" sky, the reality has to do with differential diffraction of light.

I'm not sure this is the best example of your point, because when you say "the sky is blue" you are projecting your subjective experience -- based on the way your eyes and brain process radiant energy -- onto the sky, making it a quality of skyness rather than merely the way you experience skyness. It's shorthand, and there's nothing wrong with that -- except that people often forget that it's shorthand and end up objectivizing subjective experience.

OTOH, maybe it is a good example, because this is what empiricism does. It projects subjective experience onto objective reality. The problems come when people then forget that their models are merely that.

Disagreements between religious and non-religious folk really come down to whose model is superior; and I think that's a waste of time. If your approach to life seems to work for you, go for it. Everyone thinks his model is superior for himself; otherwise he wouldn't use it. Many think their model is better for other people, too. There's nothing wrong with thinking this, so long as we never forget that we don't really *know*, that we could be wrong, that the other fellow's point of view -- ridiculous as it may seem -- is possible, and that he has a right to it. It's okay for Anjem Choudary to believe that the world should live under Sharia, but it's not okay for him to try to cram it down the world's throat. That's essentially pride and self-righteousness, not faith, by the way; people who think like this -- whether Islamists like Choudary or atheists like Bill Maher -- have forgotten their own limitations and no longer believe in their own fallibility.

 

[Alceste]

I'm a linguist who has taught introductory courses in the subject too many times to be able to tell you the number of English speakers whom I have known to eat those words.

Brilliant - appeal to your own authority. Backed into a corner, are we? "I'm a linguist, so I am the final arbiter on whether or not YOU are correctly using a word". To hell with the dictionary, right? Who needs them when we have linguists like yourself to instruct us on how we can and can't use words?

Here we all are - dozens of English speakers - defining atheism as a "lack of belief in a deity or deities", and yourself, with the self-confessed minority opinion that this definition is incorrect, claiming on the one hand that what defines a word is how it is used by the majority, while claiming on the other that your opinion outweighs the majority opinion on account of your qualifications.

Having your cake and eating it too, I see.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I wouldn't define babies or rocks as atheists, but it is still irrelevant to the point at hand. I'm an atheist because I have an absence of belief in the existence of god(s) one way or the other. I don't believe that god exists, nor do I believe that god doesn't exist.

I happen to think that someone does have to hold a meaningful concept of god for the term atheist to have any meaning in relation to them, but having a meaningful concept doesn't disallow for someone not believing one way or the other. And, regardless of the mental gymnastics and semantical games, nobody has yet put forth a reasonable argument why someone can't have an absence of belief.

I don't believe that god exists.
I don't believe that god doesn't exist.

Simply show why these two statements are logically inconsistent. And, no, I don't believe that god exists, and I believe that god doesn't exist are not the same logical statement. If you can't understand why they aren't, then neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.

 

[Willamena]

Here we all are - dozens of English speakers - defining atheism as a "lack of belief in a deity or deities", and yourself, with the self-confessed minority opinion that this definition is incorrect, claiming on the one hand that what defines a word is how it is used by the majority, while claiming on the other that your opinion outweighs the majority opinion on account of your qualifications.

I would think that the number of times atheists such as "we are" have to explain the "lack of belief" thing would be an indicator of how many people define it differently.

 

[Copernicus]

Brilliant - appeal to your own authority. Backed into a corner, are we? "I'm a linguist, so I am the final arbiter on whether or not YOU are correctly using a word". To hell with the dictionary, right? Who needs them when we have linguists like yourself to instruct us on how we can and can't use words?

Oh, give me a break! Penguin said that his definition was correct on his authority as an English speaker. I said that his reasoning (not his definition!) was incorrect on my authority as a linguist. The popularity of a definition does not determine its validity. A correct generalization about usage does.

Here we all are - dozens of English speakers - defining atheism as a "lack of belief in a deity or deities", and yourself, with the self-confessed minority opinion that this definition is incorrect, claiming on the one hand that what defines a word is how it is used by the majority, while claiming on the other that your opinion outweighs the majority opinion on account of your qualifications.

Why is not your argument here a popularity fallacy? And the fact remains that I backed up my definition by showing that even people like you, who insist on the "lack of belief" definition, find it difficult to call babies "atheists". Just because you are an English speaker, that does not mean that any definition you think up for a word is correct, even when you are backed up by a mob of angry atheists brandishing their torches and pitchforks.
:run:

Personally, I wouldn't define babies or rocks as atheists, but it is still irrelevant to the point at hand. I'm an atheist because I have an absence of belief in the existence of god(s) one way or the other. I don't believe that god exists, nor do I believe that god doesn't exist.

If that were true, then I would not call you an atheist. We do not think of atheists as people who take no position on the existence of gods. Look, you can put on a pink tutu and call yourself a ballerina, but that alone would not make you one. You would need to get the dance lessons and the sex change operation.

I happen to think that someone does have to hold a meaningful concept of god for the term atheist to have any meaning in relation to them, but having a meaningful concept doesn't disallow for someone not believing one way or the other. And, regardless of the mental gymnastics and semantical games, nobody has yet put forth a reasonable argument why someone can't have an absence of belief.

Nobody has tried to argue that you can't have an absence of belief. The argument has been over whether the label "atheist" naturally applies to someone who is completely neutral on the existence of gods.

I don't believe that god exists.
I don't believe that god doesn't exist.

Simply show why these two statements are logically inconsistent...

I have already explained in great detail why both sentences are ambiguous. I can cite voluminous quantities of published articles, theses, treatises, classroom notes, books, etc., to back up the claim. So, I'm guessing that you still don't believe me. Fine, I'm just someone off the street with 40 years of experience as a professional linguist, but it is still possible that I'm wrong about that.

Now, given that the sentences are--if you would just give me that benefit of the doubt for one second--logically ambiguous with respect to the relative scopes of "belief" and the negative operator --i.e. it can mean either "not have a belief that..." or "have a belief that...not..."--the first sentence is consistent with belief that there are no gods on one reading and inconsistent on the other. It is the inconsistent reading of the first sentence that I take for the meaning of "atheist". It is the consistent reading that you take for the meaning. Do you understand my point, or do you want me to start going on again about so-called "negative movement", "negative polarity", and various other concepts that linguists use to establish the ambiguity of negated belief claims?

And, no, I don't believe that god exists, and I believe that god doesn't exist are not the same logical statement. If you can't understand why they aren't, then neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.

I am not the one in need of help when it comes to understanding the semantics of these sentences. You are, but you do not know it (or acknowledge it, if you do know it).

 

[outhouse]

is everyone clear now that many atheist dont have beliefs about a god myth?

 

[Alceste]

I would think that the number of times atheists such as "we are" have to explain the "lack of belief" thing would be an indicator of how many people define it differently.

In which case the most inclusive definition wins and the most exclusive definition loses. The definition of mball, pengo, KT and myself go by includes Copernicus' unique brand of atheism. His definition excludes those who simply are not convinced by the claim "god exists" but do not make factual claims on the subject of "god's existence" themselves.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Rocks believe.

 

[NoneReligious]

It's really pretty simple. Atheism is the rejection of a belief. It's not like atheist have a book or some rules to what they believe in or not. Atheism is only the lack of belief in a god. There's atheists who does not believe in evolution, there's atheist who do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm a linguist who has taught introductory courses in the subject too many times to be able to tell you the number of English speakers whom I have known to eat those words.

I wait with baited breath.

No, I would be happy if he would stop repeating his definition and calling it fact. Instead, I would prefer him to be as reasonable as Alceste and admit that it sounds like a silly thing to do to call a baby an atheist. She basically took the position it was an irrelevant point. My argument was that it felt odd to call babies atheists because the definition she (and most other atheists) have been defending was flawed. It reduces one to an absurdity.

So... your argument comes down to a gut feeling that calling a baby an atheist seems weird to you?

Edit: it seems weird to me to describe an "empty" room as "full of air", but that doesn't mean I'm going to say that the description is incorrect... especially since it's not.

This is where your position reduces to absurdity. If you had to do a survey of non-smokers, you would probably confine it to adults.

That entirely depends on what sort of survey we were doing.

If it was a study of the effectiveness of tobacco advertising on turning non-smokers into smokers, sure - it makes sense to not worry about individuals who are too young to even read the ads. However, if you're studying the health effects of second-hand smoke on non-smokers, you may very well include infants as part of the group of non-smokers your study would consider.

BTW - I did a quick Google for "non-smoker survey". The web site for the first actual survey that came up says that they surveyed smokers and non-smokers over the age of 18. Were they being redundant when they said this?

Technically, you could include human beings of all ages, but we normally think of a non-smoker as a possible smoker.

Why? You're reading it into more than the term suggests. Why wouldn't you take the obvious option and think of a non-smoker simply as someone who doesn't smoke?

Rocks are not possible smokers, and nobody publishing a survey would think it reasonable to insert a footnote in the study that excluded rocks and inanimate objects.

Well no, since every legitimate survey I've ever seen is careful to define the population being studied, which normally implicitly excludes rocks. If a survey report says that their study group is made up of something like "American men and women from 18 to 44 with no history of cancer or lung disorders" (for example), then the fact that they're not studying rocks is implied.

So there are reasons why you "count" someone as a non-smoker, and any reasonable definition of the word would take such considerations into account.

Or maybe - just maybe - researchers don't blindly follow the definitions of terms like "atheist" or "non-smoker" when they're designing their studies. Instead, maybe they decide on who should and shouldn't be included in their study groups based on the characteristics they're interested in studying.

As an example from my own professional life, I've done traffic demand surveys for shopping centres that only cover 6 hours of the day and only consider cars and trucks. Does this mean that I think that cars outside those times or bikes aren't "traffic"? Of course not. They're just not relevant to what I'm trying to figure out.

When some atheists insist that babies have to be classified as "atheists", they just make themselves look silly. Why do they do that? They've taken a stand on the definition of atheism that drives them into that corner.

Again - I don't see how using the term this way makes anyone look silly. All I've got so far is that you have a personal dislike for this use of the term.

Think about the difference between what people say they do and what they do. There isn't always a difference, but, in the case of atheism, we've already seen admissions that it does sound odd to call babies atheists. Surely, I'm not the only one here who thinks that such odd feelings have an explanation.

Well, when you come up with that explanation, please let us know. Until then, I'm not really inclined to take your "odd feelings" as Gospel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The absurdity lies in that we generally don't grant a conscious reasoning ability to babies and rocks, but we do to atheists.

In your opinion, is it incorrect to describe a baby as "apolitical"?

BTW - what happened to your thing where everyone gets to assign meanings to words as they see fit? Are atheists exempt from that?

Oh, give me a break! Penguin said that his definition was correct on his authority as an English speaker. I said that his reasoning (not his definition!) was incorrect on my authority as a linguist. The popularity of a definition does not determine its validity. A correct generalization about usage does.

No, I didn't. And no, you didn't.

Here's what you said:

My argument is based on the observation that English speakers only label people "atheist" who have an opinion about what "god" means.

Your point didn't address anything about the correctness of definitions; it specifically addressed what English speakers - all English speakers, apparently - do.

You said that English speakers only do one thing; I pointed out that I, an English speaker, do something else. This refuted the only point you actually made with that statement.

If you were actually trying to make some point about how your interpretation is correct because you don't know anyone who uses the word in the way I'm suggesting, well, I still think it's relevant that I am one example you can recognize of someone who does use the word in the way you're saying that nobody uses it. If you'd like, I can provide you with more examples.

Hopefully you can see how this undermines your argument. The argument you actually made, anyhow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would think that the number of times atheists such as "we are" have to explain the "lack of belief" thing would be an indicator of how many people define it differently.

What should we infer from the (probably sizeable) number of people who define atheism as "being angry at God"?