Atheism: A belief?

[That Dude]

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

You learn that from Wikipedia?

 

[ellenjanuary]

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

That's me! Kinda... I'm angry at religion.

 

[NoneReligious]

I always find it funny when people ask atheist WHY they are angry at God. That just doesn't make sense lol. They do not believe in God, so how can they be angry at god?

 

[Copernicus]

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

No, others have admitted that, including Alceste, although she sides with you on the definition. I have also pointed out that the vast majority of people who will agree to call babies and animals "athiests" are atheists, not the general population of English speakers. However, I really have no doubt that a general survey would confirm my claim, since the primary definition in most dictionaries is not the one that atheists tend to favor, and dictionary are always vetted by usage panels. Dictionaries quite often make mistakes, but the word "atheist" has been in the language since Middle English. The usage is well-established. (I have researched the word in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

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

Exactly, and that is the point. Inherent in the meaning of a word like "non-smoker" or "bachelor" is eligibility to belong to the class. A smoker is a person (not inanimate object or animal) that could reasonably be expected to smoke. A non-smoker is always a potential smoker who does not smoke. Someone who is just out of cigarettes does not qualify as a "non-smoker". A "bachelor" is someone who could get married. An atheist is someone who could believe in a god. When you do surveys, you sometimes have to draw somewhat arbitrary lines for what counts as "eligible". Regarding atheists, a minimal eligibility requirement is that the person be capable of believing in a god, i.e. understands what a "god" is and rejects belief. Mere lack of belief is not a sufficient criterion to merit eligibility for the label.

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?

No, they were establishing eligibility criteria for potential membership in the smoker/non-smoker category. This underscores the point I have been trying to make

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?

Like you say, it depends on the point of the survey. In some cases, it could be that simple. In the case of religion, it would be more honest to distinguish between "theists" and "non-theists", "religionists" and "non-religionists", or "believers" and "non-believers". The word "atheist" almost always refers to someone who has rejected belief in gods, not someone who is a non-believer on account of never having been exposed to the concept of "god". Huxley made plain why he felt uncomfortable with the label "atheist", because he understood at an intuitive level that atheists are people who reject belief, not just people who think it impossible to know whether gods exist. He rejected the label "atheist", even though atheists can also be agnostics under his original definition.

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.

No, the age and gender criteria are never specified in order to exclude inanimate objects and animals. People know that "smoker" refers to a person who might reasonably be thought to smoke. They need age and gender criteria because one needs to understand the conditions and assumptions that governed the survey.

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.

But you do understand that it is absurd to include non-moving objects as "traffic", don't you? You do not bother to tell people that houses and bridges are excluded.

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.

I understand that, but I think that you are very strongly motivated not to give up a very popular definition of the term "atheist", because it puts atheists in their strongest position--that of being open-minded people who have yet to be convinced of the existence of gods. In reality, though, most of us have thought long and hard about the possibility of the existence of gods, and we have rejected that belief on grounds of plausibility. What makes us look absurd is when we end up calling babies and rocks "atheists" just to defend a bad definition. Far from making us look open-minded, it makes us look doctrinaire, dogmatic, and disingenuous (pardon my alliteration).

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.

Fine with me. All I can ask is that you look at your own usage and that of others objectively. Word meanings can be shifty, and so can our intuitions about what words mean.

 

[cottage]

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.

Quite so! Atheism is not a belief system but a broad church, if you'll excuse the pun. Under the banner of atheism there are all kinds of people lacking a belief in the existence of gods: the uninterested, the disinterested, the strong sceptic the weak sceptic and the cynical antitheist.

I must make the point once again that this subject only seems to arise (and it does so with monotonous regularity) due to theists wanting to say that atheism is a religion, or that it too is a 'mere belief.' The former is absurd while the latter lacks any proper argument or ignores the distinction to be made between ordinary belief and a commited belief as faith.

This is my last word on the subject - on any subject here in fact. These forums are way to addictive and the onset of Spring, and my life in general, calls me to other things. Perhaps we'll all speak again next winter?

 

[NoneReligious]

Quite so! Atheism is not a belief system but a broad church, if you'll excuse the pun. Under the banner of atheism there are all kinds of people lacking a belief in the existence of gods: the uninterested, the disinterested, the strong sceptic the weak sceptic and the cynical antitheist.

I must make the point once again that this subject only seems to arise (and it does so with monotonous regularity) due to theists wanting to say that atheism is a religion, or that it too is a 'mere belief.' The former is absurd while the latter lacks any proper argument or ignores the distinction to be made between ordinary belief and a commited belief as faith.

This is my last word on the subject - on any subject here in fact. These forums are way to addictive and the onset of Spring, and my life in general, calls me to other things. Perhaps we'll all speak again next winter?

I've been looking for a forum like this for a long time haha. Whenever religion or such are discussed at other forums i post at, people always get ****** off at me. It's like religion is off limits.

 

[Frank Merton]

There's atheists who does not believe in evolution.

Now that would be an anomaly.

 

[Willamena]

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

There are also many atheists who have strong beliefs about a god myth.

 

[NoneReligious]

Now that would be an anomaly.

For sure. It would be very unusual. Mainly because atheism is based on logic and reasoning, and so is evolution.

 

[NoneReligious]

There are also many atheists who have strong beliefs about a god myth.

such as?

 

[Willamena]

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

Someone "apolitical" has no opinion about or association with politics. Right? While babies have no apparent opinions, their "lack of interest" can't be claimed to be specifically disinterest specifically about politics. Their "lack of association" is circumstantial.

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

I did assign as I saw fit. Why would anyone else be beholden to accept what I say as true if it's not what they also see as true? Answer me that.

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

That there are even more people (than previously suspected) who define "God" as more than just "lack of belief."

 

[Frank Merton]

For sure. It would be very unusual. Mainly because atheism is based on logic and reasoning, and so is evolution.

Evolution is scientific; most scientists are atheists. The associations are hard to miss.

 

[NoneReligious]

Evolution is scientific; most scientists are atheists. The associations are hard to miss.

I'm agreeing with you completely lol. I'm just saying that there's probably a few who does not for whatever reason . It would be highly unlikely.

I once saw a Dr phil show where there was a black man on there who was racist TOWARDS BLACK MEN!! no joke. so obviously there's always someone out there

 

[Frank Merton]

Since I define atheism as the opinion that there is no God, I am not bothered by whether or not babies are atheists, since I don't think they have opinions.

Now, if you define an atheist, very carefully, as anyone who does not believe in God -- a very different definition but one that still meets the standard of being in wide use -- then whether or not a baby is an atheist is a little more difficult, but I think one can still say, "no" since a baby is not really "someone" (in the sense of a belief-holding entity).

Now I've done it and stuck my neck in this bear cave: hopefully most of the bears are tired of this subject by now and have gone away, so I may be able to keep it [my neck].

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, others have admitted that, including Alceste, although she sides with you on the definition.

Admitted what? That it sounds weird?

That may be - weirdness is a matter of personal taste. I just don't see how it's relevant to accuracy. Lots of accurate things can seem weird.

I have also pointed out that the vast majority of people who will agree to call babies and animals "athiests" are atheists, not the general population of English speakers.

So? Atheists tend to be the ones most concerned with proper use of the term.

Anyhow, as I pointed out in my other post, there's a substantial number of people who use the term in ways that both you and I would consider incorrect: that atheism is "anger at God", for instance. If correctness of language is determined by popularity, does this mean that these people's definition is right?

However, I really have no doubt that a general survey would confirm my claim, since the primary definition in most dictionaries is not the one that atheists tend to favor, and dictionary are always vetted by usage panels. Dictionaries quite often make mistakes, but the word "atheist" has been in the language since Middle English. The usage is well-established. (I have researched the word in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

So have I; I quoted the OED (the online version, anyhow) earlier in the thread.

Did you notice where it gave "disbelief in God or gods" as a definition for atheism and "lack of belief" as a definition for "disbelief"? What do you get when you put those two definitions together?

Exactly, and that is the point. Inherent in the meaning of a word like "non-smoker" or "bachelor" is eligibility to belong to the class. A smoker is a person (not inanimate object or animal) that could reasonably be expected to smoke. A non-smoker is always a potential smoker who does not smoke. Someone who is just out of cigarettes does not qualify as a "non-smoker". A "bachelor" is someone who could get married.

So... when the National Cancer Institute refers to children in a discussion of legal protections against secondhand smoke for non-smokers (see question 7), they're incorrect?

I think if any position is looking absurd, it's yours.

An atheist is someone who could believe in a god. When you do surveys, you sometimes have to draw somewhat arbitrary lines for what counts as "eligible". Regarding atheists, a minimal eligibility requirement is that the person be capable of believing in a god, i.e. understands what a "god" is and rejects belief. Mere lack of belief is not a sufficient criterion to merit eligibility for the label.

Why not?

Besides your gut feeling, I mean.

No, they were establishing eligibility criteria for potential membership in the smoker/non-smoker category. This underscores the point I have been trying to make

Really. So in studies of smokers vs. non-smokers, minors don't matter?

Your position is starting to get very bizarre.

Like you say, it depends on the point of the survey. In some cases, it could be that simple. In the case of religion, it would be more honest to distinguish between "theists" and "non-theists", "religionists" and "non-religionists", or "believers" and "non-believers".

Except "non-theist" and "atheist" are synonyms.

If you think one term is "honest", why don't you think the other is?

The word "atheist" almost always refers to someone who has rejected belief in gods, not someone who is a non-believer on account of never having been exposed to the concept of "god".

That would make sense, because it's exceptionally hard to find someone who's never been exposed to the concept of "god"... nobody who's capable of carrying on a conversation with you.

By the same token, the term "person" almost always refers to someone who has a nose. Should we exclude those without noses (who lost them by disease or accident, for instance) from the definition of "person"?

Huxley made plain why he felt uncomfortable with the label "atheist", because he understood at an intuitive level that atheists are people who reject belief, not just people who think it impossible to know whether gods exist. He rejected the label "atheist", even though atheists can also be agnostics under his original definition.

Though under Huxley's definition, agnosticism doesn't work as a "default" position either, because it depends on adherence to principles and positive assertions:

I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a &#8220;negative&#8221; creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.</I>

No, the age and gender criteria are never specified in order to exclude inanimate objects and animals.

They're given in order to specify what the study will consider. Specifying that the study will consider "X" and only "X" has the effect of specifying that the study will not consider anything that is not "X".

But you do understand that it is absurd to include non-moving objects as "traffic", don't you? You do not bother to tell people that houses and bridges are excluded.

OTOH, if a house or bridge did manage to turn into the shopping centre driveway somehow during the survey, we sure as heck wouldn't ignore it. That'd go in the report for sure.

However, you're right that non-moving objects aren't normally referred to as "traffic", because the term "traffic" implies conveyance, which implies movement. It's built into the definition that "traffic" only includes moving things.

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, this would be like me not specifying that the term "atheist" doesn't refer to people who believe in God. It's unnecessary because it's built into the definition... unlike your claim about active rejection of god-belief and atheism.

I understand that, but I think that you are very strongly motivated not to give up a very popular definition of the term "atheist", because it puts atheists in their strongest position--that of being open-minded people who have yet to be convinced of the existence of gods. In reality, though, most of us have thought long and hard about the possibility of the existence of gods, and we have rejected that belief on grounds of plausibility.

Edit (because I completely mis-read this the first time):

It's not about being open-minded. The most pig-headed, closed-minded person in the world would be an atheist if he simply lacked belief in God. All this is about is trying to come to an accurate, workable definition.

What makes us look absurd is when we end up calling babies and rocks "atheists" just to defend a bad definition. Far from making us look open-minded, it makes us look doctrinaire, dogmatic, and disingenuous (pardon my alliteration).

I disagree. My many posts in this thread notwithstanding, I think that the definition of the term "atheist" is a bit of a sideshow. The best thing that atheists can do to improve their image is to not focus on what we don't believe and instead focus on what we do believe... which is going to be different for every atheist.

This will make it difficult for theists (or anyone else) to tar all atheists with the same brush, but that's just fine by me.

Fine with me. All I can ask is that you look at your own usage and that of others objectively. Word meanings can be shifty, and so can our intuitions about what words mean.

I have looked at it objectively.

But speaking of shifty intuitions, do you realize that when it comes right down to it, your definition is unworkable as a general term for a person's worldview?

If atheism depends on active rejection of God or gods, then you're only an atheist about the specific gods you've considered. I'm sure you'll agree that there are plenty of god-concepts out there that you (or I) have never heard of; by your definition, you can't be an atheist about those, since you've never actively rejected them - how can you reject a concept you've never even thought about?

In that light, how can you call yourself an atheist generally? How can anyone? At some point, even in your worldview, atheism has to come down to simple lack of belief: you may not be capable of rejecting all those god-concepts you've never encountered, but you're certainly capable of not believing in them.

Your definition of "atheism" creates an inconsistency in its common use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that would be an anomaly.

That's putting it mildly:

The Raelian Movement teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim. Members of this species appeared human and when having personal contacts with the descendants of the humans they made, they were mistaken for angels, cherubim or gods.

Raëlism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone "apolitical" has no opinion about or association with politics. Right? While babies have no apparent opinions, their "lack of interest" can't be claimed to be specifically disinterest specifically about politics. Their "lack of association" is circumstantial.

Does the term "apolitical" imply that the disinterest in politics has to be specific to politics?

I did assign as I saw fit. Why would anyone else be beholden to accept what I say as true if it's not what they also see as true? Answer me that.

I have no idea. I just find it odd that you seem to be taking so much exception to it when I'm the one doing the "assigning".

That there are even more people (than previously suspected) who define "God" as more than just "lack of belief."

But are they right?

Do you agree with them?

 

[Magic Man]

No, I would be happy if he would stop repeating his definition and calling it fact.

Well, when it stops being a fact, I'll stop claiming it's one.

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.

Have you been paying any attention? I said it's not useful or productive to call a baby an atheist. A silly thing to do? Why? Why is applying a term to something when it's technically true a silly thing to do? The assertion is that babies are technically atheists. Instead of attempting to refute that, all you've done is call it silly. So, are you saying that the label "atheist" doesn't apply to babies? If that's what you're saying, why doesn't it?

Also, you must have missed the couple of posts of mine that you responded to where I said 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.

That's not a very good argument. The question is not whether it feels odd. The question is whether it's correct. The assertion is that anyone who lacks a belief in God is an atheist. By that definition babies are atheists. There is nothing absurd about that. Basically, what you're doing is claiming something as absurd, and assuming everyone will agree with that assessment, and when you're challenged on why you make that assessment, you just say "Well, it's absurd". Why is calling a baby an atheist absurd?

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.

Most people that would agree that babies are technically atheists would also agree that babies don't really need to be classified as anything other than babies. According to the definition of atheism, babies are technically atheists. I'm not in any corner; I'm just agreeing to the ramifications of the definition of atheism.

 

[Magic Man]

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.)

But that doesn't make the assertion that technically babies are atheists absurd. We have all agreed that calling babies atheists isn't very productive, but if you want to talk about technical uses of labels, it applies.

 

[Willamena]

Does the term "apolitical" imply that the disinterest in politics has to be specific to politics?

Is it possible to hold an interest in politics that isn't specific to politics?

I have no idea. I just find it odd that you seem to be taking so much exception to it when I'm the one doing the "assigning".

I don't take exception to your defining it. If the point that each assigns meaning has been taken, then good. Relativity is good.

But are they right?

Do you agree with them?

You keep asking for my opinion; my mistake is that I keep giving it.