Atheism: A belief?

[Copernicus]

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

This is just false. There may be some theists who claim that, but you are more likely to find non-cognitive atheists who make it. The concept of a god is well-known and well-understood in most of the world's languages, and you will find conventional definitions for the word in every single dictionary ever published. Your argument fails because the word "god" is not a meaningless word. As for "fneeglemorph", that is for you to decide. You have already given it some semantic content. It is a singular noun, according to your subject-verb agreement usage.

 

[Alceste]

This is just false. There may be some theists who claim that, but you are more likely to find non-cognitive atheists who make it. The concept of a god is well-known and well-understood in most of the world's languages, and you will find conventional definitions for the word in every single dictionary ever published. Your argument fails because the word "god" is not a meaningless word. As for "fneeglemorph", that is for you to decide. You have already given it some semantic content. It is a singular noun, according to your subject-verb agreement usage.

My argument succeeds because there are pantheists, among other things.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Well, I understand why you didn't just admit this in your last post. It puts you in an absurd position, but I guess that consistency demands it. I see it as classic procrustean logic. Every thinking entity that is not a theist is an atheist.

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?

Not at all. I have no trouble saying that noseless people are humans. Human bodies are just part of what defines humans. What you do not understand is that word meanings have fuzzy borders, which lexicologists call "semantic vagueness". Vagueness is different from ambiguity. The reason I was hesitant to discuss this is that it is not a simple topic. I pointed you in the direction of Lakoff's book, if you are interested in the subject. It is heavy going for someone with no linguistic background, though.

Try this one on for size. You know what the difference is between a stool and a chair, right? Imagine a stool whose legs grow gradually shorter and a backrest that grows gradually larger. At what point does it cease to become a stool and move into the semantic category of "chair"? Human beings are far more complex than these simple objects, but the same principle applies.

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.

What I demand is that we give descriptively accurate definitions for the core meanings of words. In the case of atheism, we simply do not apply the word to babies and dogs. You do, because your definition drives you to that absurd length.

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.

An alternative, more popular meaning for "agnosticism" is the neutral meaning--unable to decide whether gods exist. I admit that that is not the historically accurate meaning, only that it has become the primary sense in modern times.

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

The "lacks belief" definition removes any perceived need to defend or explain the position. Admitting that atheism is a belief in a negative proposition, however weak, lessens the burden of proof on theists in the minds of some. Although theists do bear the burden of proof on the existence of deities, they usually believe that they can or have met it, so taking this stance is wishful thinking on the side of atheists who want to engage in debate.

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"?

I am saying that those adjectives modify the belief component of the meaning of atheism--the component that your "lacks belief" definition asserts is not there. Usually, we think of a "weak atheist" as one who is less doubtful than a strong atheist, or who believes that no other argument need be advanced in defense of atheism other than the "burden of proof" one. Typically, we call people who take no position on the existence of gods "agnostics", not "atheists", but lots of people like to treat "weak atheist" and "agnostic" as synonyms, primarily because of your artificial definition, I think. In the end, though, I think that all of these quibbles about different types of atheists have very little meaning outside of the community of people who have definitional axes to grind.

So how does Poseidon have "absolute" power, then?...

Poseidon's absolute domain is the sea. His dominion would have to be usurped by another god in order for him to lose that power. But, look, if you want to nitpick my definition, I'm quite happy to modify it (and have already done so). A god has near absolute power over some aspect of physical reality. By "near absolute", I mean that higher gods can trump that power. If you want to go down this rabbit hole, you will not come out on the other end having made the point that gods can be anything they imagine them to be--Alceste's apparent position. As I pointed out to her, every dictionary ever published has viable definitions of gods, and that includes for all languages.

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

So you do not believe in magic or the spirit world. I disagree that there is a logical contradiction here, just an extremely irrational and gratuitous belief in forces that can contravene the laws of physics.

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?

This question has no bearing on the meaning of "alien". Are you trying to promote a verificationist approach to meaning? That might explain why we are having this argument. Verificationism leads to the ridiculous position that almost nothing has meaning, because it is impossible to verify anything for certain.

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?

Sure, but I think it very likely that aliens exist in some form. It just has to be any form that qualifies as an extraterrestrial being.

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 have never encountered a hypothetical being. Meaning is a mental construct. You do not have to be able to verify the things that you imagine in order to assign meaningful words to describe them. Look, we can discuss the verificationist theory of meaning, if you like. Do you really feel yourself up to defending the idea that most words are meaningless? Is that the position you want to defend?

 

[Copernicus]

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

These are somewhat imprecise terms, so linguists tend not to use them. There is a difference between a dictionary entry (a discovery procedure) and an encyclopedia entry (an elaborate description of the word's meaning and related concepts). We have been talking about the best way to define "atheism" in light of how it is used by English speakers. There is such a thing as "intensional meaning" (the method that allows people to use a word to refer to things) and "extensional meaning" (an enumeration of the objects that a word can refer to). In our discussion of the meaning of "alien", that distinction seems to have been part of the problem. You want to treat meaning as "extensional" rather than "intensional".

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.

One of the reasons I brought this up is that it is a classic example from lexicology. Definitions are succinct. So "unmarried man" seems to be the universal definition that lexicographers have settled on. However, if you take usage to be the basis for assigning meanings to words, it becomes clear that this is only the most salient aspect of being an "unmarried man" bachelor. If you ask people to say whether someone is a bachelor, they almost always require that it be an unmarried male, but there are other criteria that affect usage: age, eligibility for marriage, ability to produce offspring, etc. The meaning of the word is more complex than its dictionary definition.

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.

The adverb "technically" has some very interesting aspects to it, and it would be a worthy subject for a linguistics term paper. It is almost always used to loosen the criteria for word usage along some characteristic "spoke" of meaning. Think of a meaning as a "hub" with conceptual "spokes" that radiate out from the center. So a "mother" is associated with a whole list of features: adult, parent, immediate genetic ancestor, female, child nurterer, lover of offspring, homemaker, etc. An infertile woman who adopts children is "technically" not a mother in that she is not the genetic parent of her children. She is "technically" a mother, because she acts as a mother in all ways that genetic mothers are expected to. You can actually use the word "mother" in a wide variety of contexts to mean different things by extending the usage along a conceptual "spoke".

Well, now you've done it. I've just started to describe Lakoff's metaphorical concept of "radially structured meaning". :cover:

 

[Copernicus]

My argument succeeds because there are pantheists, among other things.

I'm sorry, but I think that you misspelled "panfneeglemorphist".

 

[Thief]

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

Yes.

That your considerations and arguments took you to the negative....
instead of the positive.....

It's all the same.....in your head.

And you will conduct yourself accordingly....even if the results are nothing but dust.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I understand why you didn't just admit this in your last post. It puts you in an absurd position, but I guess that consistency demands it. I see it as classic procrustean logic. Every thinking entity that is not a theist is an atheist.

You keep on saying that it's an absurd position, but I disagree. There's nothing absurd about it. If dogs are atheists, so what?

Here's the thing: reductio ad absurdum only works if you can show that a person's argument has implications that contradict their other positions, or that the argument implies something that's demonstrably false. If you can't do that - and so far, you haven't - then it falls apart: it just turns into "if you believe ____, you'll look silly"... IOW, it's an appeal to the consequences of a belief, which is fallacious.

Not at all. I have no trouble saying that noseless people are humans. Human bodies are just part of what defines humans. What you do not understand is that word meanings have fuzzy borders, which lexicologists call "semantic vagueness". Vagueness is different from ambiguity. The reason I was hesitant to discuss this is that it is not a simple topic. I pointed you in the direction of Lakoff's book, if you are interested in the subject. It is heavy going for someone with no linguistic background, though.

Try this one on for size. You know what the difference is between a stool and a chair, right? Imagine a stool whose legs grow gradually shorter and a backrest that grows gradually larger. At what point does it cease to become a stool and move into the semantic category of "chair"? Human beings are far more complex than these simple objects, but the same principle applies.

I don't think that the categories "chair" and "stool" are mutually exclusive, so I don't see the issue. A stool with a backrest may very well be a chair as well. A long-legged chair might very well be a stool. There's no problem.

OTOH, the categories of "theist" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive, and they have a well-defined dividing line: the question of belief in gods.

What I demand is that we give descriptively accurate definitions for the core meanings of words. In the case of atheism, we simply do not apply the word to babies and dogs. You do, because your definition drives you to that absurd length.

Again, all this "absurd" business is fallacious until you can demonstrate an actual contradiction with either my other stated positions or reality. Until then, I've got no problem simply dismissing your argument. You consider my position absurd; so what? I don't think very highly of your position on this issue either. The difference is that I can argue (and have argued) how your position is inherently contradictory.

"We do not apply the words to babies and dogs"... do you have a mouse in your pocket?

The main issue I see here is that you're trying to use usage of the term "atheist" that we both agree is incorrect (i.e. a sense of the term that implies "evil", "anti-social", "anti-religious", etc.) as support for your position. People who consider "enemy" to be implied by "atheist" aren't going to extend the term to inoffensive babies and puppies. I think they're wrong to use the term this way, which is why I disregard their usage. Judging by your argument, you apparently disagree.

An alternative, more popular meaning for "agnosticism" is the neutral meaning--unable to decide whether gods exist. I admit that that is not the historically accurate meaning, only that it has become the primary sense in modern times.

FWIW, any meaning of "atheism" that's anything like "rejection of belief in gods" is not historically accurate as well. Historically, the word was more often used to mean something like "non-Christian". Actually, I think we're carrying some of the baggage of that usage forward when we exclude babies from the term "atheist", because I think that idea may come in a large part from the belief that a child becomes a Christian at baptism.

Back to your point, though: I still disagree. IMO, to be "on the fence", one has to actually climb up on it. The implicit argument here is that "undefined" equals 4. I've studied enough math to realize that there's a problem with this conclusion.

The "lacks belief" definition removes any perceived need to defend or explain the position.

Kinda. It means that "atheism" isn't really my position. My actual position is defined by things like humanism, secularism, skepticism, and freethought... all of which are positive assertions that don't benefit from any lesser burden of proof by how I define the term "atheism".

Admitting that atheism is a belief in a negative proposition, however weak, lessens the burden of proof on theists in the minds of some. Although theists do bear the burden of proof on the existence of deities, they usually believe that they can or have met it, so taking this stance is wishful thinking on the side of atheists who want to engage in debate.

So... you think the motive for my position is to help in the use of a debate tactic that I don't use, and would be ineffective if I tried to use it anyhow?

This makes no sense.

Not to mention that it's irrelevant: the motives for a position don't really have any bearing on whether the position is correct. Once again, you're treading into logical fallacy territory... this time ad hominem.

... continued in part 2...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... continued from part 1 ...

I am saying that those adjectives modify the belief component of the meaning of atheism--the component that your "lacks belief" definition asserts is not there. Usually, we think of a "weak atheist" as one who is less doubtful than a strong atheist, or who believes that no other argument need be advanced in defense of atheism other than the "burden of proof" one.

By "we", do you mean "people who aren't familiar with what 'weak atheist' means"?

Typically, we call people who take no position on the existence of gods "agnostics", not "atheists", but lots of people like to treat "weak atheist" and "agnostic" as synonyms, primarily because of your artificial definition, I think.

Or because people are a bit fuzzy on the real definition of "agnostic", as you touched on before.

In the end, though, I think that all of these quibbles about different types of atheists have very little meaning outside of the community of people who have definitional axes to grind.

Poseidon's absolute domain is the sea. His dominion would have to be usurped by another god in order for him to lose that power. But, look, if you want to nitpick my definition, I'm quite happy to modify it (and have already done so). A god has near absolute power over some aspect of physical reality. By "near absolute", I mean that higher gods can trump that power. If you want to go down this rabbit hole, you will not come out on the other end having made the point that gods can be anything they imagine them to be--Alceste's apparent position. As I pointed out to her, every dictionary ever published has viable definitions of gods, and that includes for all languages.

And can you actively (and honestly) reject every definition under "god" in the dictionary? I know I couldn't. Taking the Merriam-Webster's definition as an example, I don't even know how to make sense of the phrase "the supreme or ultimate reality" to the extent that I could evaluate it as existent or non-existent. I certainly couldn't reject the existence of all "persons or things of supreme value" or "powerful rulers".

So you do not believe in magic or the spirit world. I disagree that there is a logical contradiction here, just an extremely irrational and gratuitous belief in forces that can contravene the laws of physics.

I didn't say that I don't believe in these things. As it happens, I don't believe in them, but that's beside my point: what I'm saying is that if these unseen forces or realms exist, and if they do interact with the visible universe, then they're physical by definition.

I've mentioned this before a number of times on RF, but IMO, the term "supernatural" applies to only two types of thing:

- natural things that we don't understand (or only partially understand)
- things that don't exist

If some supernatural plane or "spirit realm" exists, then it's another form of the physical and natural. It may be a form of the physical and natural that follows different rules than other parts of the physical and natural, but it's still physical and natural.

This question has no bearing on the meaning of "alien". Are you trying to promote a verificationist approach to meaning? That might explain why we are having this argument. Verificationism leads to the ridiculous position that almost nothing has meaning, because it is impossible to verify anything for certain.

No, I'm not. Not in the general sense, anyhow. I'm just pointing out a problem that results when you define atheism in terms of rejection of belief and then go on to define people as "atheists" in a general sense (as opposed to only calling people "atheists" with respect to certain god-claims).

"Belief in gods" can be thought of as a set of beliefs. If you're going to reject the entire set, then you can take one of two tactics (or a combination of the two):

- consider each member of the set individually and explicitly reject each one. IOW, you could start with "I don't believe in Ahura Mazda" and work your way through the whole list to "I don't believe in Zeus", and once you've rejected every single god, then you've rejected the set as a whole.

- define a category that includes all members of the set of god-beliefs (which might just be the category "god-beliefs", if that works for you), and based on the attributes of the category, reject that... implicitly rejecting each god in the category and therefore the entire set.

Rejection of a belief claim implies evaluation of the belief claim. Evaluation of a belief claim implies that the claim - including the terms that make it up - can be coherently conceived.

If you take that second approach above, then a few things are necessary:

- you've got to define your category in a way that it can actually be validly defined and evaluated, because until that happens, you haven't rejected it.

- you've got to be sure that you've defined your category in such a way that it actually includes all of the members of the set in question. Until you reject each and every member of the set - either explicitly by rejecting it individually or implicitly by rejecting a category to which the member belongs, you haven't rejected the set as a whole.

Sure, but I think it very likely that aliens exist in some form. It just has to be any form that qualifies as an extraterrestrial being.

But you defined "alien" as "extraterrestrial being". Given that, how could an alien exist in a form that doesn't qualify as an extraterrestrial being?

I have never encountered a hypothetical being.

You've never heard of an alien? You've never seen ET?

I didn't mean "encounter" as in "close encounter". I just mean that you've come across concepts of aliens in different ways (e.g. movies and other popular culture) and (I assume) evaluated them and decided that they're imaginary or fictional.

Meaning is a mental construct. You do not have to be able to verify the things that you imagine in order to assign meaningful words to describe them. Look, we can discuss the verificationist theory of meaning, if you like. Do you really feel yourself up to defending the idea that most words are meaningless? Is that the position you want to defend?

No, it's not. And I don't see why you would think that it would be. AFAICT, it's a red herring you've thrown out to distract from the problems with your definition of the term "atheist".

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry, but I think that you misspelled "panfneeglemorphist".

Yep - if there were people who defined "fneeglemorph" as "the universe", that's what they'd be called, and they would make it impossible for honest, thinking afneeglemorphists to argue that fneeglemorph doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep - if there were people who defined "fneeglemorph" as "the universe", that's what they'd be called, and they would make it impossible for honest, thinking afneeglemorphists to argue that fneeglemorph doesn't exist.

Not necessarily. There would still be the issue of whether the universe fits within the valid range of definition of "fneeglemorph".

 

[Willamena]

You keep on saying that it's an absurd position, but I disagree. There's nothing absurd about it. If dogs are atheists, so what?

Here's the thing: reductio ad absurdum only works if you can show that a person's argument has implications that contradict their other positions, or that the argument implies something that's demonstrably false. If you can't do that - and so far, you haven't - then it falls apart: it just turns into "if you believe ____, you'll look silly"... IOW, it's an appeal to the consequences of a belief, which is fallacious.

Is atheism a reasoned position on the existence of "God"? If so, and if there's no reductio ad absurdum, the implication is that you believe in conscious rocks and reasoning babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is atheism a reasoned position on the existence of "God"?

Copernicus seems to be arguing that it is, but I'm not. I think that there can be reasoned positions within atheism, but I don't think that atheism itself is a reasoned position... or even really a "position" at all.

If so, and if there's no reductio ad absurdum, the implication is that you believe in conscious rocks and reasoning babies.

Except that since I don't believe that atheism is a reasoned position, this doesn't pose a problem for me.

 

[Orias]

When it comes to getting someone to understand my point? Usually.

Your point is hypocritical, not to mention a stubborn drive cements yourself in a narrowminded view.

Herd conformity isn't something for me

Well, if you wouldn't say you believe in a god, then you are an atheist. That was the point of my question.

So you would view autotheism as being "atheistic", as you would view panentheism?

The point of your question is skewed, when you ask the question, "do you believe in God?". "God" could range from a chair, to a sky daddy to me and you.

Exactly what? I just explained what I had said before that you said you fully agreed with, and now you're saying you don't agree with it at all. Is it that you don't understand anything I'm saying?

Not at all. I said "exactly" because I was in complete agreeance with what you said.

People are adding extra baggage onto atheism. If it isn't as so much a belief, then people wouldn't go through 800 different posts of trying to explain what they belief atheism is.

The "fact" of the matter is, you can't make objective claims about something that isn't material.

If you agree that "lack of belief in God" is a valid definition of atheism, then you shouldn't be making the claim that atheism is a belief. You could say "Atheism can include a belief, but it doesn't always", and that would be much more accurate.

I just find it hard to consider something not a belief when the very definition uses "belief". But whatever, apparently denotation escapes everyone.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. It's not a belief that atheism isn't a belief. It's a fact. One that you have said you agree with, and then said you didn't agree with. It would really help if you started being clear with your statements.

It is a "fact" which is also losely cemented in a subjective stance, since fact is also defined with "belief", give or take the objective material behind it.

If atheism isn't a belief and were truly "factual", other atheists and apparenty me wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

Labels aren't "factual", since they change to fit the scene all of the time. People give labels to labels, to define labels that they label.

If it were as consistent as you speak then it would just be, but a long study of human behavior makes our own inconsistency obviously clear.

Here's the deal. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It can also include the belief that gods don't exist. But at its core, it is simply a lack of belief.

No one is disagreeing with you.

Think of it like this: Football is a game played with 11 players on each team on the field who try to score touchdowns. That's it at its core. It can also include things like "players wearing football pads", but it doesn't have to. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Just as sometimes people who play football also wear pads, people who lack belief in gods also hold the belief that gods don't exist.

Ah yes, but football is something you see, a game made, specific to the eyes.

It could also be like, theism generally involves a set of tenets and a "God", but it doesn't have to.

I completely understand what you mean here, but I only see this argument in my favor, perhaps it is the redundant references towards belief.

If one is a "belief" then the label consistues belief, your example is like stating that you get purple (not a belief) from red (a belief) and blue (not a belief). The two functions serve the purpose of determining a "God" position, which would be, atheist (no God), theist ( yes God).

Now, what this means is your assertion that atheism is a belief is incorrect. Atheism can include a belief, but it doesn't have to.

This is a very specious statement, it should of been well recognized that the world is built off of axioms.

Just because a belief is commonly followed, does not make it any more infallible, in "fact" it makes it even more subjected to human turmoil, obviously, since there is all of these different types of "atheism", that range from being "not a belief" to extreme indifference.

Finally, if you are going to respond, please try to be clear with your words. Responses like the above only hinder communication.

Well it seems you speak what you believe to be English very fluently, it would only make sense for you to be able to peice words together.

The only one hindering communication is He who brings irrelevant examples into a simple statement.

Which leads me to ask you to prove something that everyone seemingly ignores or fails to answer, prove that you know anything.

 

[Alceste]

Not necessarily. There would still be the issue of whether the universe fits within the valid range of definition of "fneeglemorph".

If there are enough panfneeglemorphists gadding about, then it does. Who, after all, has the right to define what a "fneeglemorph" is except a devotee?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there are enough panfneeglemorphists gadding about, then it does. Who, after all, has the right to define what a "fneeglemorph" is except a devotee?

Why should the people who like fneeglemorphs get more of a right to define the term than the people who don't like them? Usage is usage.

Should the word "murder" only be defined by devotees of murder?

Edit: all the people who look at the universe and say "that's no fneeglemorph" are using the term, too.

 

[Copernicus]

So... you think the motive for my position is to help in the use of a debate tactic that I don't use, and would be ineffective if I tried to use it anyhow?

This makes no sense.

Not to mention that it's irrelevant: the motives for a position don't really have any bearing on whether the position is correct. Once again, you're treading into logical fallacy territory... this time ad hominem.

I'll respond to part II. I didn't see anything in Part I that we haven't already covered. If you want to call babies and dogs "atheists" and claim that that is not an absurd thing to say, then I'm fine with leaving things as they stand. I think that your position has been reduced to absurdity, and you think not.

As for the "ad hominem", I did not raise it as an argument against your position. I mentioned it in response to the question of why I thought so many people were pushing the "lacks belief" definition, even though their usage of the term does not usually reflect that.

 

[Willamena]

Copernicus seems to be arguing that it is, but I'm not. I think that there can be reasoned positions within atheism, but I don't think that atheism itself is a reasoned position... or even really a "position" at all.

So what relationship does atheism bear to the alleged object "God", if any?

 

[Alceste]

Why should the people who like fneeglemorphs get more of a right to define the term than the people who don't like them? Usage is usage.

Should the word "murder" only be defined by devotees of murder?

Edit: all the people who look at the universe and say "that's no fneeglemorph" are using the term, too.

You can disagree that "the universe" is a useful, accurate or meaningful synonym for "fneeglemorph", but nevertheless it must become included in the definition of "fneeglemorph" if enough people are using it that way.

 

[Orias]

I think that there can be reasoned positions within atheism.

I agree completely.

but I don't think that atheism itself is a reasoned position... or even really a "position" at all.

So...what you think isn't necessarily what it is, is it?

You just said that you think there can be reasoned positions within atheism, which contradicts this statement above.

If you don't think that atheism is a belief or a position for that matter, then why do you take the label atheist (without God) onto yourself?

Except that since I don't believe that atheism is a reasoned position, this doesn't pose a problem for me.

Then why are you reasoning your position on what atheism is?

 

[Copernicus]

Or because people are a bit fuzzy on the real definition of "agnostic", as you touched on before.

People are a bit fuzzy on the meanings (not definitions) of most words, because meaning is partly a matter of social convention and partly a matter of experience. Dictionaries help people to acquire what a publisher regards as the most common usage.

And can you actively (and honestly) reject every definition under "god" in the dictionary? I know I couldn't...

Huh? Where did I say that I rejected every definition? I think that some are better than others. I have given my definition, which I think is pretty good. But I'm obviously biased.

Taking the Merriam-Webster's definition as an example, I don't even know how to make sense of the phrase "the supreme or ultimate reality" to the extent that I could evaluate it as existent or non-existent. I certainly couldn't reject the existence of all "persons or things of supreme value" or "powerful rulers".

I think that Merriam-Websters did a pretty sloppy job on that definition. Oddly enough, Wordnet is much better, IMO, even though they didn't have the fancy high-paid usage panel. One of the problems with definitions of "god" (and let's please distinguish between the proper noun and the common noun) is that there is a lot of emotion and controversy attached to the concept. It is hard for believers not to engage in hyperbole when describing the object of their worship. Some of the wording tends to come from stock language used by the community of worshipers rather than an objective look at how people use the words. I think that we atheists tend to be guilty of the same crime when defining our own label (but that has been the topic of discussion here).

I didn't say that I don't believe in these things. As it happens, I don't believe in them, but that's beside my point: what I'm saying is that if these unseen forces or realms exist, and if they do interact with the visible universe, then they're physical by definition.

Actually, it is by definition that they are not. The idea is that there is another type of reality (by definition, spiritual, not physical) that exists independently of our reality. Forces in that reality can interact with our reality, but not vice versa. I understand the idea, which is grounded in mind-body dualism, but I do not believe that it is a plausible belief. For one thing, minds seem pretty obviously dependent on physical brains for their existence. Logically, they could exist independently of physical reality, but the evidence is against that conclusion.

I've mentioned this before a number of times on RF, but IMO, the term "supernatural" applies to only two types of thing:

- natural things that we don't understand (or only partially understand)
- things that don't exist

I will not argue with that statement, but it does not describe the meaning of "supernatural", which is grounded in our intuitive understanding of mind-body dualism. People believe in "mind over matter".

If some supernatural plane or "spirit realm" exists, then it's another form of the physical and natural. It may be a form of the physical and natural that follows different rules than other parts of the physical and natural, but it's still physical and natural.

If you want to pursue that semantic argument with others, it's fine with me. It boils down to a question of how we agree to use words. I think that most people will continue to believe in the spirit world as a fundamentally non-physical realm of existence. Such a realm may only exist in their imaginations, but words can be used to describe imaginary concepts.

No, I'm not. Not in the general sense, anyhow. I'm just pointing out a problem that results when you define atheism in terms of rejection of belief and then go on to define people as "atheists" in a general sense (as opposed to only calling people "atheists" with respect to certain god-claims).

I do not think that "atheist" can be narrowly restricted to "certain god-claims". All theists reject belief in some gods, just not gods in general. People do understand what the First Commandment means. The Christian God is supposed to be the only one of all possible gods that people are allowed to worship.

"Belief in gods" can be thought of as a set of beliefs. If you're going to reject the entire set, then you can take one of two tactics (or a combination of the two):

- consider each member of the set individually and explicitly reject each one. IOW, you could start with "I don't believe in Ahura Mazda" and work your way through the whole list to "I don't believe in Zeus", and once you've rejected every single god, then you've rejected the set as a whole.

This is basically the old "proving a negative" problem. You cannot exhaustively examine every conceivable instance, so the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim. We should all understand why this approach cannot work. Imagine if you applied the same approach to pixies, leprechauns, and banshees. We would never be able to reject belief in any mythical beings.

- define a category that includes all members of the set of god-beliefs (which might just be the category "god-beliefs", if that works for you), and based on the attributes of the category, reject that... implicitly rejecting each god in the category and therefore the entire set.

Yes, this is really the only viable approach, and not just with "god" belief. It works with other mythical beings, as well. All the god-believer has to do is come up with reasonable proof of the existence of one god to overturn this approach.

Rejection of a belief claim implies evaluation of the belief claim. Evaluation of a belief claim implies that the claim - including the terms that make it up - can be coherently conceived.

Yes. Within reason, that is true.

If you take that second approach above, then a few things are necessary:

- you've got to define your category in a way that it can actually be validly defined and evaluated, because until that happens, you haven't rejected it.

Did I not do this? A god is an intelligent agency (usually thought to be immaterial) that has absolute power over some aspect of reality (subject to usurpation by a more powerful god). We could go on to elaborate the core concept, but it is clearly modeled on human beings. That is, gods tend to be "anthropomorphic", although there have been many attempts to make up gods that have fewer anthropomorphic traits. I reject belief in such beings, but I'm not going to reject the logical possibility that one or more may exist any more than I will reject the logical possibility that Santa Claus may exist. We can imagine many types of beings and things that do not exist.

- you've got to be sure that you've defined your category in such a way that it actually includes all of the members of the set in question. Until you reject each and every member of the set - either explicitly by rejecting it individually or implicitly by rejecting a category to which the member belongs, you haven't rejected the set as a whole.

I do not really agree with this point. All we need to do is talk about a broad category that may not exhaustively include every conceivable scenario. We can reject broad categories of beings without having to reject everyone's pet concept of a god. If someone worships cats and considers them gods, I'm not going to say that their gods do not exist. I might disagree with them that cats have god-like properties, but I'm not going to engage in fisticuffs with every cat-lover over the matter.

But you defined "alien" as "extraterrestrial being". Given that, how could an alien exist in a form that doesn't qualify as an extraterrestrial being?

Given my definition, it could not.

You've never heard of an alien? You've never seen ET?

Why would you say that? I have been a devoted fan of science fiction all my life, and I loved the movie. It's a bit dated now, but I liked it at the time. I've never met a fictional character, but I do enjoy fantasies. Don't we all?

I didn't mean "encounter" as in "close encounter". I just mean that you've come across concepts of aliens in different ways (e.g. movies and other popular culture) and (I assume) evaluated them and decided that they're imaginary or fictional.

Well, thank you for clarifying that now, although you could have been more explicit about what you meant earlier. :slap: Yes, when I read a science fiction book or see a science fiction movie, I am aware that the beings depicted are very unlikely to be real. Should I not try to distinguish between reality and fantasy?

No, it's not. And I don't see why you would think that it would be. AFAICT, it's a red herring you've thrown out to distract from the problems with your definition of the term "atheist".

Fair enough. You reject verificationism. It is not necessary to be able to verify the existence of all possible gods in order to reject the existence of gods in general. I thought that you were going in a different direction, but I'm glad that we agree on this point, at least.