Atheism: A belief?

[TEXASBULL]

A belief means you simply believe in something, do atheists? No. Therefore they can not call themselves a belief system.

Hello Christina and welcome!

I think being an atheists openly is still a very brave concept. There is still a huge social stigma attached to it in most society's.

Its like your the boogie man!

 

[Copernicus]

You can attempt to appeal to authority all you want, but I still don't see you making any attempt to form a cogent argument about why those two sentence are logically inconsistent.

The two sentences have a parallel ambiguity, which I think that you understand. The sentence "X does not believe that Y" can mean either
1) "It is NOT the case that [X believes that Y]" OR
2) "It is the case that [X believes that NOT Y]"
I'm going to assume that you understand this and agree with the generalization. You think of atheism as the negation of the proposition that one believes deities exist, and I think of it as the the affirmation of the proposition that one believes deities not exist.

Now pay attention. If you reverse the polarity of the complement clause--i.e. you say "X believes that NOT Y" or "X does NOT believe that NOT Y"--the sentences logically contradict each other as long as you stay consistent in how you interpret the negation in the main clause (i.e. the range of its scope).

Now, I'll go out on a limb here and say that you are smart enough to follow what I just said and to understand the "cogent argument", which I have made several times already. If you still cannot follow it, I hereby give up trying to make you understand it. Perhaps you just do not want to get it.

Indeed, I understand how, depending on context and usage, the first sentence could be interpreted both ways. However, I've been more than clear about how I mean it, so ambiguity is a moot issue...

No, it is not. We have been disagreeing about whether your interpretation applies to the word "atheism", haven't we? So merely repeating the assertion that your interpretation is the correct one no matter what anyone says is an argumentum ad nauseam argument. It is a fallacious argument.

And you also haven't made a successful argument about why only your definition of atheism applies. Remember, just saying so doesn't make it so...

Well, you seem to think it does. :slap: My argument has been based on a number of sources--the intuition whether a baby qualifies as an "atheist", for example. Do you honestly believe that people would call babies atheists because they haven't learned the concept of God yet? Do you believe that people would call someone an atheist because that person takes absolutely no position on the existence of God? I suppose that we could take a survey, if you doubt it, but I think you probably know that I'm right about how people use the word in everyday language. You just don't like that usage.

But every dictionary you look at is going to give the main definition of atheism as rejection or denial of belief in the existence of God. Some will also give "absence of belief" as a definition (partly because atheists often insist on that definition), but it is rare for lexicographers to describe atheists as being neutral about belief in Gods. They lack belief in God in roughly the same way that I lack belief that the moon is made of green cheese. There are certainly atheists whose rejection of belief is weak, but rejection of belief, not lack thereof, is the primary sense that people attribute to "atheism".

 

[Alceste]

A belief means you simply believe in something, do atheists? No. Therefore they can not call themselves a belief system.

We don't call ourselves a "belief system". Theists (and Copernicus) are doing it to us!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When someone admits that it's weird to use the word "atheist" to describe a baby or ape, that is a linguistic judgment that serves as data. Definitions are supposed to describe usage, so a proper definition needs to exclude babies and apes. (Frank Merton made this point very nicely.)

Except you're confronted with a problem: there's a sizeable number of people who use the word in the way you say they shouldn't. If definitions describe usage, then doesn't the definition of "atheist" have to account for this?

But just so we're clear: are you really saying that if we think that a usage of a word is "weird", this means that the word is being used incorrectly?

Nonsense. Anyone who uses the word is concerned with its proper use.

Have you ever tried that argument with a Canadian hockey fan bristling at a non-hockey-playing American using the term "ice hockey"?

Atheists like yourself have a particular axe to grind, however. Your insistence on the "lacks belief" definition has more to do with the debate between atheists and theists.

Does it now? Exactly how do you think I'm trying to sway the debate?

BTW - exactly what axe are you grinding?

There is a big difference between word meaning and the definition of a word sense. Meanings are very complex networks of associations. Definitions are succinct statements that help people distinguish between different senses of the word and serve as discovery procedures for setting up the correct meaning. Dictionaries do not determine what words mean. They provide readers with clues as to how words are commonly used by speakers of a language.

Is that your way of saying "no"?

Now what on Earth makes you think that the word "disbelief" would support your definition?

Umm... the definition, maybe? Note the second one:

disbelief

noun

[mass noun]

• inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:Laura shook her head in disbelief
• lack of faith:I'll burn in hell for disbelief

definition of disbelief from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Its primary meaning is the opposite of what you want. For example, dictionary.com gives two definitions:

Any reason why you went with dictionary.com definition and not the Oxford English Dictionary one? After all, you just held up the OED as an authority when talking about its definition of "atheism".

That aside, let's have a look at the dictionary.com definition:

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

In definition 1, note the term "inability". Didn't you just argue that atheism doesn't work (or is "weird") when it's applied to someone who doesn't have the capacity for belief? Would you say that lack of capacity for something is an inability to do that thing?

Merriam Webster's Unabridged dictionary defines "disbelief" as:

the act of disbelieving: mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true <listened to him with shocked disbelief>

Note the first definition: "the act of disbelieving". If you had clicked on the hyperlink for "disbelieving", this definition would've come up - note the part I've highlighted:

Definition of DISBELIEVE

transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

If you want to define "atheism" as "disbelief in gods", I'll agree. If you want to define it as "unbelief in gods", you have lost my vote.

But using your own dictionary definitions above, "disbelief in gods" ends up meaning just "lack of belief in gods".

No, because the meaning of "non-smoker" can be extended to children, who, like adults, have lungs that can be filled with second-hand smoke.

But you just finished telling us that a person has to be 18 to be a smoker. Were you wrong?

The word "atheist" cannot be so easily applied to infants or apes, because those individuals have no understanding of what a god is. That is, they are not potential theists, unlike children who are "potential smokers".

An infant who couldn't even hold a cigarette, let alone go to the store a buy a pack of them, is no more a "potential smoker" than he is a "potential theist".

Absurdity is in the mind of the beholder. I'm not the one straining to call babies atheists.

It's not a strain.

Only if you maintain that "atheist" can refer to people who are neutral about the existence of gods.

IOW, if I maintain the sensible, consistent definition of the term.

In fact, the reason that a word like "non-believer" or "non-theist" exists is to distinguish the class of individuals who lack belief in gods from those who reject it. We use them in contexts where we wish to avoid the lack of neutrality that is associated with with atheism.

I disagree. I think the terms exist because there's a social stigma associated with the term "atheist" that some atheists like to avoid. We're getting into that distinction between definition and meaning that you mentioned before: plenty of people have a mental image of an "atheist" as something close to "evil servant of Satan". There are plenty of reasons to avoid using the term that have nothing to do with its correctness.

... continued in part 2...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... continued from part 1 ...

Don't you know any children? Have you never had a pet? We can communicate some thoughts to dogs--for example, that we don't like them pooping in the house--but they probably do not have a concept of gods.

My conversations with dogs have been limited to things like belly-rubs and going for walkies. I have never had a theological conversation with a dog... not one where the dog communicated any clear point of view on the subject, anyhow.

And I know many children, but I haven't yet met one who was both old enough to talk and who hadn't already encountered some sort of god-concept.

Interesting question. I could answer it, but not easily or quickly here.

Really? You actually find it difficult to say that losing a nose doesn't deprive a person of personhood?

The point I was trying to get at is that the characteristics that define what we are are not necessarily simply the characteristics that are common among us... or even universal. If every car in the world was red, this wouldn't mean that if someone painted a car blue, it would cease to be a car.

The question isn't "what do all atheists have in common?" it's "what makes an atheist an atheist?" Whatever this necessary trait is must be common to all atheists, but commonality of a trait doesn't automatically imply that it's necessary.

What you need to understand about people who coin words is that the meanings people assign to them by convention of usage may not be the same as intended by the coiner. Usage has drifted away from Huxley's original concept. Nowadays, its primary sense is associated with indecisiveness.

Pulling out the dictionaries you cited earlier...

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

— ag·nos·ti·cism \-t&#601;-&#716;si-z&#601;m\ noun

Agnosticism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ag·nos·ti·cism

&#8194; &#8194;/æg&#712;n&#594;s

t&#601;&#716;s&#618;z

&#601;m/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tuh-siz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Agnosticism | Define Agnosticism at Dictionary.com

agnostic(ag|nos¦tic)

noun

• a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

adjective

• relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
• (in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform

definition of agnostic from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Do you notice what's common to every one of these definitions? An explicit position: doctrine, affirmation, unwillingness, belief.

I was referring to the purpose of the "lack of belief" definition. From the perspective of an atheist debater, claiming lack of prejudice is a way of claiming the high ground in the debate. My fellow atheists do not want to lose that high ground, so they fight for a more neutral and inclusive definition of atheism than is normally understood by the public at large.

Is that what you think I'm doing? It's not. My only concern here is my quasi-fetish for using language correctly.

I think that you are already losing focus. What we do believe is that gods are implausible beings. We reject belief in their existence, even if the rejection is fairly weak. If that excludes a lot of people who are on the fence about the existence of gods, so what?

It's just not an accurate use of the word.

A question for you: what's your opinion of the terms "weak atheism" or "implicit atheism"? In your view, are these just contradictions in terms?

Please remember that you said this. It underscores my point that the "lack of belief" claim is tied to a position in the theist-atheist debate, not an objective recognition of how people use the word "atheism". You fear being tarred, and you want to make it more difficult for your debating opponents to "tar" you.

Not so much, actually. I can recognize a consequence of my position without it being my reason for taking the position in the first place.

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, there is nothing you can ever talk about, because any word you use may be used differently by someone you have not met yet.

YES... for any word defined by "rejection".

The fact is that we both have a very good idea of what a god is and what the range of ideas are that people entertain when they use the word "god". I frequently take care to define a core concept--a prototypical--god as a usually immaterial intelligent agent that has absolute power over some aspect of reality.

But there are god-concepts that people actually believe in that don't meet that definition. For instance, any lesser god in a pantheon of gods couldn't be said to have "absolute" power, since it could be thwarted by a higher god.

And that's before we ask whether the idea of an immaterial agent controlling physical reality is even a coherent concept. It sounds to me that you may have created a definition for God that's a logical contradiction not believed in by any theist.

I am just as capable of rejecting belief in gods as I am in rejecting belief in flying saucers, pixies, and unicorns. If you feel that you cannot go quite that far, then I have mistaken you for someone with a sharper sense of reality.

The term "god" is far less specific than "flying saucers" or the like. If you want something closer in analogy to the problem of rejecting "gods", try "aliens": can you reject belief in aliens - all aliens?

... not just all aliens that you've thought of, but every alien that anyone, anywhere has ever considered?

For starters, can you even define the term "alien" so that the definition is:

- exhaustive enough to include everything that could be reasonably called an alien,
- rigorous enough that it excludes everything that isn't an alien, and
- coherent enough that it would allow you to actually reject it... i.e. that it would be something comprehensible enough that you could evaluate the statement "aliens exist" in order to reject it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you seem to think it does. :slap: My argument has been based on a number of sources--the intuition whether a baby qualifies as an "atheist", for example. Do you honestly believe that people would call babies atheists because they haven't learned the concept of God yet? Do you believe that people would call someone an atheist because that person takes absolutely no position on the existence of God? I suppose that we could take a survey, if you doubt it, but I think you probably know that I'm right about how people use the word in everyday language. You just don't like that usage.

How are you able to say that "people" don't do something while conversing with people who actually do the thing you say that people don't do? Do you not see the contradiction here?

Or do you not count us among "people"?

 

[Alceste]

How are you able to say that "people" don't do something while conversing with people who actually do the thing you say that people don't do? Do you not see the contradiction here?

Or do you not count us among "people"?

Lol - not only that, but while admitting he is in the minority.

 

[Orias]

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

Define what you believe "God" to be.

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.

I don't think you were actually reading my post.

I was in agreeance to Frank Merton's reference that Atheism is a based belief that functions soley off of the people who follow it, much like Christianity.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree. I think the terms exist because there's a social stigma associated with the term "atheist" that some atheists like to avoid. We're getting into that distinction between definition and meaning that you mentioned before: plenty of people have a mental image of an "atheist" as something close to "evil servant of Satan". There are plenty of reasons to avoid using the term that have nothing to do with its correctness.

Exactly. The way I see it, the reason for "non-theist" is to avoid calling yourself or someone else an atheist due to the negative connotations that word has in our society. It's not because non-theist describes your stance on God any better.

 

[Willamena]

A belief means you simply believe in something, do atheists? No. Therefore they can not call themselves a belief system.

We all believe in things, the things that we think are true. Atheists are those who've acquired this "god-thing" thing from others and decided it doesn't fit into their picture. Atheists are going to believe in all the things that do fit into their picture, just like everyone else, but they are also going to believe that this "god-thing" thing doesn't fit into their picture.

And welcome to the forums.

 

[Magic Man]

Define what you believe "God" to be.

No. You're missing the point. Would you say you believe in God or a god? It doesn't matter what I define those terms as.

I don't think you were actually reading my post.

I was in agreeance to Frank Merton's reference that Atheism is a based belief that functions soley off of the people who follow it, much like Christianity.

I did read your post. You said you agreed with my post where I said that atheism is not a belief, and then went on to say what you say here, that atheism is a belief. You can't have it both ways. Either you falsely believe that atheism is a belief or you correctly believe that atheism is not a belief.

 

[Ozzie]

Much of the discussion of atheism in the US is neurotic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, you seem to think it does. :slap: My argument has been based on a number of sources--the intuition whether a baby qualifies as an "atheist", for example. Do you honestly believe that people would call babies atheists because they haven't learned the concept of God yet? Do you believe that people would call someone an atheist because that person takes absolutely no position on the existence of God? I suppose that we could take a survey, if you doubt it, but I think you probably know that I'm right about how people use the word in everyday language. You just don't like that usage.

If you have been paying attention, I clearly stated that I don't think the term atheist meaningfully applies to babies - or rocks. It's also irrelevant to the point at hand.

But every dictionary you look at is going to give the main definition of atheism as rejection or denial of belief in the existence of God. Some will also give "absence of belief" as a definition (partly because atheists often insist on that definition), but it is rare for lexicographers to describe atheists as being neutral about belief in Gods. They lack belief in God in roughly the same way that I lack belief that the moon is made of green cheese. There are certainly atheists whose rejection of belief is weak, but rejection of belief, not lack thereof, is the primary sense that people attribute to "atheism".

So some definitions define atheism as rejection of belief, and some define it as absence of belief. Thank you, that clarifies the matter. Both correctly describe atheists. As I'm someone who has an absence of belief (I cannot honestly claim belief that god exists or doesn't exist), the label atheist correctly describes me, and others who share my view.

 

[Alceste]

I think monotheists and Copernicus are inexplicably convinced they have a workable definition of god - that being the Abrahamic god of the bible - and, as they are stuck on one possible and particularly implausible god-concept, don't get why many atheists balk at being told they believe 'god' doesn't exist. I can say with confidence that god doesn't exist, but what about Poseidon?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think monotheists and Copernicus are inexplicably convinced they have a workable definition of god - that being the Abrahamic god of the bible. I can say with confidence that god doesn't exist, but what about Poseidon?

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling that anyone who disagrees with the concept of an absence of belief in god(s), is being rather limited in what they describe, or could describe, as god(s). Sure, I reject all man-made concepts of god(s) that I've encountered (as they are quite rationally explained by understandable mechanisms), but if something that could be describe as god exists, why would there be any reason to even think that humans had any particular significance to it?

 

[Willamena]

...but if something that could be describe as god exists, why would there be any reason to even think that humans had any particular significance to it?

Well, if they are it... the thing that is being described... that might be one reason to suspect that they might possibly have some particular signficance to it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, if they are it... the thing that is being described... that might be one reason to suspect that they might possibly have some particular signficance to it.

That's certainly a perspective.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling that anyone who disagrees with the concept of an absence of belief in god(s), is being rather limited in what they describe, or could describe, as god(s). Sure, I reject all man-made concepts of god(s) that I've encountered (as they are quite rationally explained by understandable mechanisms), but if something that could be describe as god exists, why would there be any reason to even think that humans had any particular significance to it?

I agree. There's not really any logical reason to take such a Euro-centric position on what a "god" is or could be. With 6 billion different subjective definitions of "god" flying around the probability of somebody, somewhere, accidentally stumbling upon something true - or at least very nearly true - is actually rather high. OTOH, it doesn't seem likely that any workable definition of "god" would care whether I masturbate.

 

[Orias]

No. You're missing the point. Would you say you believe in God or a god? It doesn't matter what I define those terms as.

It applies very well.

If your not going to oblige, then all of the points will be missed.

I did read your post. You said you agreed with my post where I said that atheism is not a belief, and then went on to say what you say here, that atheism is a belief. You can't have it both ways. Either you falsely believe that atheism is a belief or you correctly believe that atheism is not a belief.

No, I said I was never in disagreeance with what you, among others, consider atheism to be. Just simply that this self preserved statement adheres to the denotative definition of belief.

I agreed with your statement that those who are complicating things are arguing against the fact that anyone that holds no belief in "Gods" is an atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

It applies very well.

If your not going to oblige, then all of the points will be missed.

OK, you're still missing the point. Try to follow along. In your opinion, do you believe in God? Would you make the claim "I believe in God" or "I believe in a god"? Just answer the question, and we can move on.

No, I said I was never in disagreeance with what you, among others, consider atheism to be. Just simply that this self preserved statement adheres to the denotative definition of belief.

I agreed with your statement that those who are complicating things are arguing against the fact that anyone that holds no belief in "Gods" is an atheist.

Um....so, those who are complicating things are arguing against the simple fact (in other words true claim) that those who hold no belief in gods are atheists. In other words, it's a fact that someone who doesn't hold a belief in gods is an atheist.

So, you weren't in full agreement with me, after all. What you're saying is that you hold the false belief that atheism is a belief. I'm trying to show you how that belief is false.