Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, your dog is an atheist? That's the question that you avoided answering. Even you must realize that your dog's lack of belief in gods does not qualify it as an atheist, although I believe that it does believe in the existence of humans and masters.

I don't have a dog.

While I can't get in a dog's head to see what it believes, I think it's reasonable to say that dogs don't believe in gods, which would make them atheists.

However, even if I had a dog, I wouldn't go out and buy him a membership in my local atheist association.

Actually, there has been some interesting research done on just such judgments. You might be interested to know that penguins are less "birdy" than flying birds with noticeable feathers. Birds typically fly. Similarly, humans typically have noses, but noses alone are not defining characteristics.

Hmm.

You think it's "weird" to call a baby an atheist, but you think it's normal to think that the question of whether someone without a nose is human is a matter for legitimate debate? And you're saying that I'm the one who's got problems with my definitions?

No. It would cease to be a typical car.

But atypical cars are still cars, just as atypical atheists are still atheists.

Make too many significant changes, and it stops being a car. Word meanings are almost always semantically vague around the edges.

Yet you demand the razor-sharp certainty around the edge of "atheist" that would let you say that it does not apply to babies. Hmm.

Actually, what I saw was a consistent denial of knowledge, which is characteristic of agnosticism, as opposed to denial of belief, which is characteristic of atheism.

But agnosticism is a positive assertion based on one's personal determination of lack of knowledge. A person has a bit of work to do before he's an agnostic; maybe not much work, but still enough that it can't be a default position.

Well, actually, it is what I think you are doing--clinging to a definition that improves your position in a debate. Your definition has no real use beyond that purpose, which is why the definition is repeated much more often in these debate threads than in dictionaries.

How exactly do you think that my definition improves my position?

Maybe if you tell me how it helps me, I can start using it that way. So far, I haven't used the definition of "atheist" to try to confer an advantage... if you're right, maybe I should start.

When you qualify words with adjectives or other modifiers, that can alter the meaning of the head noun significantly. Consider the kinds of objects that the following could refer to: "fake gun", "imitation gun", "toy gun", "imaginary gun", "water gun", "nail gun", "blue gun", "German gun", "broken gun", etc. Some of those expressions refer to guns, and some do not. Some are hard to categorize.

And some of those modifiers are negations: "fake", "imitation", "toy", and "imaginary" necessarily imply that the thing in question is not actually a gun. Are you saying that this sort of implication is built into the words "weak" or "implicit"?

For instance, if I was to say "this is a weak floor joist", would I really be trying to say that the piece of lumber in question isn't a joist at all?

Or do "weak" and "implicit" only imply a negation when it's convenient for you?

The terms "weak atheism" and "implicit atheism" tend to be brought up in classifications of types of atheism, and I think that people quite often come up with incompatible definitions. Some take "weak atheists" to be synonymous with "agnostics", and some make a strong distinction. I think of a "weak atheist" as a person who weakly rejects the existence of gods or who avoids arguments that give positive reasons for rejecting belief in gods.

Then you would be wrong. A person who "weakly rejects the existence of gods" would still be an explicit atheist, and therefore not an implicit (or weak) atheist. Look - there's even a Venn diagram here to show the distinction: Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latter tend to rely almost exclusively on placing the burden of proof on theists, which is a non-starter from the viewpoint of many, if not most, theists.

And also irrelevant to the meaning of the terms.

Yes, it is true that Zeus could trump Poseidon, but both were clearly gods, and Poseidon held dominion over the seas with Zeus's blessing.

So how does Poseidon have "absolute" power, then? You just conceded that the absolute power wouldn't be held by Poseidon, it'd be held by Zeus... although based on my foggy memory of Greek mythology, it'd probably be incorrect to say that Zeus had absolute power himself, since gods and people would sometimes trick him, thwart him, or overrule him (mostly Hera in that last case).

For some Christian sects, there are saints that have special powers to grant favors in specific areas, but they are not considered as autonomous as traditional gods. The distinction is not very big, and it probably helped the transition from more traditional polytheism to less traditional Christian monotheism. Gods have semantically vague characteristics around the edges, but the core concept is clear. The word "god" is not semantically vacuous.

If the concept is clear, then why can't you give a workable definition for "god" that applies to the things generally held to be gods and does not apply to the things generally held to be not gods?

Nonsense. It is perfectly clear that an immaterial agent is a disembodied mind. The concept may be implausible, but it is not difficult to grasp it.

No, it's a logical contradiction. To the extent that an agent can influence the physical, it itself is physical.

An alien is an "extraterrestrial being". You can find the definition in dictionaries, and it seems good enough for me. Why isn't it for you?

Actually, that definition sounds fine. The problem arises when you get to that last point in my post above: how would a person go about evaluating the expression "aliens exist" to decide whether or not to reject it?

Your definition gets us to "extraterrestrial beings exist". I understand "extraterrestrial"... but what spectrum of things might be validly called "beings"? Is it possible to conceive of this whole spectrum so that you can reject all of it?

More likely, you only reject the portion of the spectrum that you've directly encountered yourself (i.e. the specific concepts of hypothetical aliens from popular culture... little green men, "the greys", etc.) and for the rest, you simply fail to believe in aliens.

I think most people's atheism follows a similar pattern: you can't reject a concept you've never encountered, but it's not necessary to consider every single person's god-belief before declaring yourself to be an atheist. All that's necessary is that you reject the god-claims you have considered and simply lack belief in all of the rest.

And this works just fine in all cases: even in the case of a person who's never considered any god-claims, it still works. But if we take your definition, then we have to add in a special condition for the extreme end-case: that along with never having accepted any god-claims, a person must also have considered at least one god-claim as well.

I think that this is inelegant, arbitrary and unnecessary.

 

[Magic Man]

You've dug your heels in, and I fear that all you will do is repeat your claim as if it had never been refuted.

You say that as if it's any different from me "digging my heels in" to defend evolution to a creationist. Of course I've dug my heels in, since my assertion is correct. You seem to think, too, that my claim has been refuted when it hasn't. You have argued against it, but you have yet to refute it.

Words have core meanings (sometimes referred to as "prototypes") and meanings can be extended metaphorically and in other ways in special contexts. In the case of "atheist", your concept has special significance in a debate. It puts the atheist in the position of not having to advance positive evidence in favor of a "belief". What is there to defend? There is nothing there. Poof! It's gone! Everyone move along now.

I get it. You're hung up on this idea that the only reason I'm making my claim is so that I can win certain debates with theists. The problem is that you have come by this false belief, and it's influencing your opinion on this subject. If you drop your false belief, you'll be in a better position to determine whether or not my claims is true.

Here is the last thing I said to Penguin on that subject: "If you did a survey of atheists vs. non-atheists in the American population and counted babies as atheists, you would be laughed out of the room. Babies, on the other hand (and as I pointed out), have lungs and they breathe. They do not have a concept of God. In that sense, you can count them as "smokers", but not "atheists". "

Only if you assume that one has to have a concept of God to be considered an atheist. That's a qualification you haven't supported.

My generalization applies to theism, as well. No "god" concept, no "theist".

Well, duh. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Obviously, if you believe a certain thing exists, you have to have a concept of the thing. You don't have to have the concept of a thing to lack the belief in its existence.

My point--the one you keep ignoring--is that people can fall outside of both categories by having no understanding of what a god is or by having no opinion on the matter of their existence.

I'm not ignoring anything. You keep making these claims. Yes, according to your position on the issue, this is the case. However, since I disagree with your position on the issue, I disagree with this being the case. All you've done here is made a claim that logically goes along with your overall position. It does not support that position in any way. So, it ends up being just another claim you'd have to support.

To call a baby an "atheist" is a bit like calling the Pope a "bachelor". It is true that he is an unmarried male, but he does not meet the eligibility requirement. So we might say that he is "technically a bachelor", because the word "technically", oddly enough, is used to extend or broaden the common usage to fit a special circumstance. Babies are "technically atheists" only in the sense that we have moved the goalposts on what we commonly use the word "atheist" to refer to.

He's not technically a bachelor. He is a bachelor. We generally don't use the term to describe him because it's generally irrelevant, the same way we generally don't call babies atheists because it's irrelevant to most discussions.

So we are almost in complete agreement here. The "lacks belief" definition is only useful in debates with theists. It is an extension of meaning, not the core meaning of the word. That is the kind of situation that drives lexicographers crazy, because they have to decide whether the contextual extension really belongs in a dictionary. If it is just a rhetorical ploy--and I think that this one is--then it does not.

It's very simple. It only comes up at certain times because those are the only times it's relevant. Babies are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Neither of those ideas comes up in many discussions, and so they're not talked about much. That doesn't change the fact that they're true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can't honestly make the claim that I hold the belief that god(s) exist. At the end of the day, this is all that's required for the label atheist to correctly apply to me. I don't have any emotional attachment to the word - it's just the most correct in terms my view. I don't understand why others would be so emotionally invested in me not being an atheist, but when people hold positions rooted in emotion, rather than reason, it's fruitless to attempt to engage in rational debate with them.

 

[Willamena]

I can't honestly make the claim that I hold the belief that god(s) exist. At the end of the day, this is all that's required for the label atheist to correctly apply to me.

Now, that definition of atheism I can agree with.

 

[Alceste]

I can't honestly make the claim that I hold the belief that god(s) exist. At the end of the day, this is all that's required for the label atheist to correctly apply to me. I don't have any emotional attachment to the word - it's just the most correct in terms my view. I don't understand why others would be so emotionally invested in me not being an atheist, but when people hold positions rooted in emotion, rather than reason, it's fruitless to attempt to engage in rational debate with them.

Good point. I think Copernicus is just lonesome. There are so few strong atheists as opposed to weak atheists.

 

[Copernicus]

I get it. You're hung up on this idea that the only reason I'm making my claim is so that I can win certain debates with theists. The problem is that you have come by this false belief, and it's influencing your opinion on this subject. If you drop your false belief, you'll be in a better position to determine whether or not my claims is true.

Mball, I think you get the picture of why I believe you are taking the stand that you do. I think that things you've said have corroborated my opinion, but I do not expect you to agree. These arguments have become too long and repetitious for me to spend a lot more time defending my position. I'll concentrate on a reply to Penguin, because I think that he has done a better job of addressing my arguments. Also, he raises many of the same points you do, and I don't get the feeling that he is stonewalling me. I enjoy talking about word meanings and definitions, but such discussions quite often get heated. Normally, I'm on your side on these matters. This just happens to be one of my pet peeve subjects, so I've gone on too long about it.

 

[Copernicus]

Good point. I think Copernicus is just lonesome. There are so few strong atheists as opposed to weak atheists.

Alceste, it isn't normally worth my time to respond to repeated ad hominems, but like Mball and Penguin, I respect you a lot and enjoy your comments on RF. It could be that I am just lonesome and feel overwhelmed by the sea of "weak atheists" that you perceive out there. I don't think so, but, if it were true, that would not invalidate anything I've said, just as it does not invalidate anything you've said that you are being pig-headed and stubborn.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My generalization applies to theism, as well. No "god" concept, no "theist". My point--the one you keep ignoring--is that people can fall outside of both categories by having no understanding of what a god is or by having no opinion on the matter of their existence. To call a baby an "atheist" is a bit like calling the Pope a "bachelor". It is true that he is an unmarried male, but he does not meet the eligibility requirement. So we might say that he is "technically a bachelor", because the word "technically", oddly enough, is used to extend or broaden the common usage to fit a special circumstance. Babies are "technically atheists" only in the sense that we have moved the goalposts on what we commonly use the word "atheist" to refer to .

A lightbulb just went on in my head: I may be wrong, but our disagreement might just come down to connotation vs. denotation.

The denotation of the term "bachelor" (i.e. the "technical" meaning, to tie this back into the terms you've been using) is simply an unmarried man. The connotation, i.e. all the things that we think of when someone says "bachelor" (e.g. young age, living alone, a "swinger" lifestyle, not being ready to "settle down") may have an association with the term, but they aren't part of its actual meaning.

IMO, when someone says "the Pope is TECHNICALLY a bachelor", this is a way of saying that the Pope meets the denotation of the term "bachelor", but not the normal connotation. But since definition is a matter of denotation and not connotation, this shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Good point. I think Copernicus is just lonesome. There are so few strong atheists as opposed to weak atheists.

I suppose that may be due to the fact that most atheists reach their position rationally.

 

[Alceste]

I suppose that may be due to the fact that most atheists reach their position rationally.

I suppose so.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, it isn't normally worth my time to respond to repeated ad hominems [snip] ... you are being pig-headed and stubborn.

Mmm-hmmmm. * scratches in notepad *. Tell me about your mother.

 

[Willamena]

A lightbulb just went on in my head: I may be wrong, but our disagreement might just come down to connotation vs. denotation.

The denotation of the term "bachelor" (i.e. the "technical" meaning, to tie this back into the terms you've been using) is simply an unmarried man. The connotation, i.e. all the things that we think of when someone says "bachelor" (e.g. young age, living alone, a "swinger" lifestyle, not being ready to "settle down") may have an association with the term, but they aren't part of its actual meaning.

IMO, when someone says "the Pope is TECHNICALLY a bachelor", this is a way of saying that the Pope meets the denotation of the term "bachelor", but not the normal connotation. But since definition is a matter of denotation and not connotation, this shouldn't really be an issue.

Neither connotation nor denotation is its "actual meaning." The "actual meaning" is what you intended to communicate when you used the word, however you used the word. For instance, if I said you're "a big poopy-head," is its actual meaning connotation or denotation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither connotation nor denotation is its "actual meaning." The "actual meaning" is what you intended to communicate when you used the word, however you used the word. For instance, if I said you're "a big poopy-head," is its actual meaning connotation or denotation?

In that case, the matter's settled: when I say "atheism", I intend it to communicate the idea of a lack of belief in gods, not necessarily a rejection of belief.

Now... since we don't have anything to argue about any more, I guess we're all done with this thread, right?

 

[Willamena]

In that case, the matter's settled: when I say "atheism", I intend it to communicate the idea of a lack of belief in gods, not necessarily a rejection of belief.

Now... since we don't have anything to argue about any more, I guess we're all done with this thread, right?

Finally.

 

[Thief]

I still say not believing ...is a function of mind ...as much as believing.

 

[Tristesse]

I still say not believing ...is a function of mind ...as much as believing.

Yes, but do you think not believing is the same as believing?

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, but do you think not believing is the same as believing?

Consider the proposition: "The moon is made of green cheese".

Do you

A) Believe it is probably a true statement?
B) Believe that it is probably a false statement?
C) Lack belief one way or the other that it is made of green cheese?

We can probably agree that infants with no experience of moons or the concept of moons would take the (C) position.

 

[Alceste]

Consider the proposition: "The moon is made of green cheese".

Do you

A) Believe it is probably a true statement?
B) Believe that it is probably a false statement?
C) Lack belief one way or the other that it is made of green cheese?

We can probably agree that infants with no experience of moons or the concept of moons would take the (C) position.

Not at all similar. The moon has a single definition, as does the adjective green, and the noun cheese.

"God" on the other hand, can mean anything, according to theists.

So, to reconstruct your proposition with another meaningless word, consider the statement: "Fneeglemorph exists".

Do you:

A) Believe it is probably a true statement?
B) Believe it is probably a false statement?
C) Lack belief one way or the other that fneeglemorph exists?

 

[Willamena]

Not at all similar. The moon has a single definition, as does the adjective green, and the noun cheese.

"God" on the other hand, can mean anything, according to theists.

So, to reconstruct your proposition with another meaningless word, consider the statement: "Fneeglemorph exists".

Do you:

A) Believe it is probably a true statement?
B) Believe it is probably a false statement?
C) Lack belief one way or the other that fneeglemorph exists?

D) Believe that a claim can be made regarding the existence or nonexistence of fneeglemorph?
E) Believe that no claim can be made regarding the existence or nonexistence of fneeglemorph?

 

[Alceste]

D) Believe that a claim can be made regarding the existence or nonexistence of fneeglemorph?
E) Believe that no claim can be made regarding the existence or nonexistence of fneeglemorph?

Yep, or F) refuse to venture an opinion on the existence or non-existence of the fneeglemporph until a fneeglemorphist puts forward a workable and universally accepted definition of what a fneeglemorph actually is.

B, C, D and F can be defined as "afneeglemorphists", E can be defined as an "afneeglemorphist" depending on which positive claim she feels can be made.

Only A and E can be fneeglemorphists. Everybody else is an afneeglemorphist.