Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I've just refuted that. All you need to do is observe people communicating with dogs and babies. We talk about what their beliefs are all the time. We just don't think of them as atheists, because you have to know what "gods" are before you can accept or reject the likelihood of their existence.

Another thought: I can't recall ever hearing someone, in normal conversation, refer to their car as their "conveyance". Can I infer from this that people generally believe that cars are not conveyances?

 

[Thief]

If I don't collect stamps, that makes me the same as someone collects satmps?

Satmps?

That's okay...I know what you meant....and 'no'...

How about.....
someone using a rock on your head....
is the same as someone using a knife in your chest?

Pretty gruesome concept...it is.

But dead is dead.....

The point is.....what goes through your head as thought and reason could have different words...phrases...and such...
but the function remains the same.

Intent is intent....belief is belief.
In your head it's all the same.

What will make the difference will be standing up your last breath.

A lifetime of denial will make a difference.

Still...I would like to say there could be hope for those who....
do unto others as they would have it done unto them.

With such practice in hand...perhaps the act of denial will earn only...
a firm slap up side the head.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Satmps?

That's okay...I know what you meant....and 'no'...

How about.....
someone using a rock on your head....
is the same as someone using a knife in your chest?

Pretty gruesome concept...it is.

But dead is dead.....

The point is.....what goes through your head as thought and reason could have different words...phrases...and such...
but the function remains the same.

Intent is intent....belief is belief.
In your head it's all the same.

What will make the difference will be standing up your last breath.

A lifetime of denial will make a difference.

Still...I would like to say there could be hope for those who....
do unto others as they would have it done unto them.

With such practice in hand...perhaps the act of denial will earn only...
a firm slap up side the head.

A fine example of just one of the types of twisted beliefs that atheists don't have.

 

[Thief]

A fine example of just one of the types of twisted beliefs that atheists don't have.

Well okay.....but it holds....

If there is no life after death....dust you are....no problem.

But if there is life after death....
you are at the mercy of anyone standing over you.

Strange .....your choice of avatar.....

 

[Willamena]

Dogs are too stupid to hold opinions. My cat says so, and he should know.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course, you realize that you threw in a qualifier that takes care of most of your objections: if you define "atheist" as "a person who lacks belief in gods", then that excludes things like dogs and rocks without resorting to your approach of defining "atheist" in terms of rejection of belief...

Right. That is because I do not think it natural to call animals or inanimate objects "atheists". It is a subset of people. So, if you'll stipulate to that definition, then you do not need to worry about the "dog" problem. However, you still need to worry about the "baby" problem. Babies qualify as people, albeit very ignorant people. The question here is whether "lack of belief" accurately describes usage. I have already stipulated that people who deny or reject belief in something "lack" belief in that something. What I object to is the point is that the concept of "atheism" fails to include knowledge of a "god" concept. You cannot have atheists without the concept of "god" any more than you can have laps without the concept of sitting.

Um... I have volitional control over at least some aspect of reality. If I find some worshippers, will I be a god?

Not quite. You might just be a phony god--not one with control on a supernatural level. I'm not opposed to tweaking my definition to satisfy quibbles. Remember that word meanings are empirical. Definitions DEscribe, not PREscribe.

I think your definition is too broad now, since IMO it includes things that demonstrably exist... mortal human beings who are worshipped, for instance.

Perhaps. Most dictionaries seem to judge the "human god" concept as sufficiently different to merit a separate sense entry. Look, we can quibble over my definition, but any judgment on your part that it is lacking suggests that you assign meaning to the word. Try as you might, you cannot claim that the word is devoid of meaning.

Who says I'm a non-cognitivist? You keep on jumping to conclusions about me.

I could be wrong, but the position you are taking (especially having endorsed Alceste's "fneeblemorph" gambit) made you seem that way to me.

I'm not saying that the term "god" has no meaning at all; I'm saying that the term has multiple meanings, and that these meanings are so varied that there's virtually no characteristic that's common to all of them. The only one I've been able to come up with myself is worship.

I'm fine with that. It means that Alceste's "fneeblemorph" gambit is off the table. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you seemed to have no objection to it. Perhaps you guys are just trying to support each other's assertions, even if you aren't 100% on the same page.

The word "god" is no different from any other word in the language. It can be ambiguous. That is, it can have different senses (usages), wherein some are closer to a core "prototype" than others. That's what makes lexicography hard work, and lexicographers frequently differ with each other on how best to define a word. What you seem to be advocating here is special treatment for this one word--a kind of special pleading on your part. You could make the same argument to propose that most nouns in English are too ambiguous and vague to be defined, but you would clearly be wrong. What is so special about "god"?

Arrgh. Forget the checklist, because it seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I'll try again.

Fair enough, but I doubt that you'll get very far.

Imagine a Venn space that contains the region "gods". Imagine another region (or collection of regions, if you want) "things I reject". To meet your definition of "atheist", i.e. a person who rejects belief in gods, the region "things I reject" must completely contain the region "gods". IOW, there can be no part of the region "gods" that is not also within the region "things I reject"; if there is, then I'm not an atheist.

Agreed. The "gods" circle must be fully included in the "rejected things" (a.k.a. "non-existent beings") circle.

It's not a problem for me, because my beliefs are based on my understanding: if a person says "I believe in God" we can interpret this as them implicitly saying "I believe in what I understand to be God".

Agreed, but let's refer to the common noun "god". One can still reject the existence of "God" and be a theist. In our experience, people usually monotheists, but we should refer to the general class of things called "gods".

I'm the ultimate arbiter of my understanding and my belief. If I don't believe that a particular thing is a god, then believing in it doesn't make me a theist.

Harrrumph! Well, no, actually. Meaning is not necessarily determined by your belief, but by your actual usage. So you might well be deluded about your own usage. In fact, most people suffer some delusions about how they use language. For example, Strunk and White tell us to use "which" only as a nonrestrictive relative pronoun, but they use it restrictively all the time. Presumably, they tried to follow their own rules. They just weren't very competent grammarians.

If you believe in God, but you refuse to call God by the label English speakers conventionally use, you are still a theist, albeit a theist that claims God isn't really a god. Social convention, not personal preference, governs word usage.

However, you don't have this option open to you... not unless you're willing to budge on your "babies can't be atheists" position.

You must first give me a good reason to budge.

Remember the Venn diagram I mentioned before? Well, if "god" isn't meaningful for a baby, and if we base things on the individual's understanding of "god", then for that baby, the set "gods" becomes an empty set. IOW, the "gods" region takes up zero area in the Venn diagram. When that happens, there is no part of the region "gods" that is outside the region "things the baby rejects"... IOW, the baby's an atheist. If you use the person's understanding of "gods" as the criterion, anyhow.

So, what you are saying is that the baby's set of "gods"--the null set--is NOT found inside its set of "things the baby rejects". We did agree to a Venn Diagram in which atheism was defined as the set of gods circle being included inside of the set of "rejected things", did we not? And I'm not allowing takebacks on this one. My friend, you've just been hoisted by your own petard.

So... in my case, I can base my "checklist" on what I understand to be a god. I don't need to worry about any god I haven't thought of, because none of them are within my understanding of "god". But in your case, you need some sort of external, established definition for the term before you can go any further.

No, actually, you don't get to draw a circle if you cannot define the set. The set of gods is not just an unstructured collection. It is defined by the usage of the English word "god", not by your whim. That usage function is what licenses you to put items on a "god checklist", and it is the same function that allows you to put items inside a "gods" circle in a Venn diagram. You do not define English. The community of English speakers--i.e. the "we" that Mball keeps fussing at me about--defines usage. Word meanings are determined by social convention, not personal preference.

 

[Copernicus]

How many times have you heard a baby or a dog referred to as "not an atheist"? Outside this thread, for me, the answer is zero.

How many times have you heard a block of ice referred to as "not a fruit"? The answer is zero. This direction isn't going to get you where you want to be.

In normal conversation, the question of whether a baby is an atheist or not just doesn't come up. This fact provides no information at all for either your side or mine. You're trying to draw an inference from nothing.

First of all, there are an infinite range of things that we'll never talk about. The question of whether babies are atheists does come up, because I've seen atheists make such claims many times. You just don't want to call those "normal" conversations. It usually never comes up because it goes without saying that babies are not atheists. We are more likely to ask whether Buddhists are atheists, because they, at least, have some idea of what gods are.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well okay.....but it holds....

Right, it holds as an example of the type of twisted beliefs that atheists don't hold. Thank god.

 

[Willamena]

Harrrumph! Well, no, actually. Meaning is not necessarily determined by your belief, but by your actual usage. So you might well be deluded about your own usage. In fact, most people suffer some delusions about how they use language.

Yeah: like "existence."

 

[Willamena]

We did agree to a Venn Diagram in which atheism was defined as the set of gods circle being included inside of the set of "rejected things", did we not? And I'm not allowing takebacks on this one. My friend, you've just been hoisted by your own petard.

Technically, you two only agreed that the Venn diagram describes your definition.

 

[Willamena]

I'm the ultimate arbiter of my understanding and my belief. If I don't believe that a particular thing is a god, then believing in it doesn't make me a theist.

...if we base things on the individual's understanding of "god", then for that baby, the set "gods" becomes an empty set. IOW, the "gods" region takes up zero area in the Venn diagram. When that happens, there is no part of the region "gods" that is outside the region "things the baby rejects"... IOW, the baby's an atheist. If you use the person's understanding of "gods" as the criterion, anyhow.

So... in my case, I can base my "checklist" on what I understand to be a god. I don't need to worry about any god I haven't thought of, because none of them are within my understanding of "god". But in your case, you need some sort of external, established definition for the term before you can go any further.

The problem with this is that if there is no "region of gods" for the baby, then there is nothing to fall within the region of rejection. The wording "no part of the region of gods" isn't applicable to the baby, because for it there is no "region of gods" or part thereof.

But if it's agreed that there can be no atheism if there is no "region of gods" to fall within the "region of rejection," then we can all be on the same page.

Else, if an empty set "region" can be created by understanding or belief, you've become the ultimate arbiter of the baby's understanding and belief.

 

[Copernicus]

Technically, you two only agreed that the Venn diagram describes your definition.

Well, actually, I think that Penguin accepted the definition that his Venn diagram specified. I just went along with it.

 

[Copernicus]

Another thought: I can't recall ever hearing someone, in normal conversation, refer to their car as their "conveyance". Can I infer from this that people generally believe that cars are not conveyances?

No. Why would you infer that from that fact that you cannot recall such a conversation? It is possible that your memory is faulty, but that's not the point. Cars are conveyances, so it would not be unnatural for you to hear someone refer to a car as a "conveyance".
Referring to a baby as an "atheist" sounds weird, because babies have no general understanding of what a "god" is. Hence, they can hardly be expected to qualify as either a "theist" or an "atheist".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. That is because I do not think it natural to call animals or inanimate objects "atheists". It is a subset of people. So, if you'll stipulate to that definition, then you do not need to worry about the "dog" problem. However, you still need to worry about the "baby" problem.

Neither is a problem for me, so I think I'll pass.

It's enough for me to just point out that part of the justification for your position is based on a false dichotomy.

Babies qualify as people, albeit very ignorant people. The question here is whether "lack of belief" accurately describes usage. I have already stipulated that people who deny or reject belief in something "lack" belief in that something. What I object to is the point is that the concept of "atheism" fails to include knowledge of a "god" concept. You cannot have atheists without the concept of "god" any more than you can have laps without the concept of sitting.

If it was really that clear, do you think we would've been arguing for this as long as we have been?

Not quite. You might just be a phony god--not one with control on a supernatural level.

You're moving the goalposts. Your definition didn't mention anything about a "supernatural level".

I'm not opposed to tweaking my definition to satisfy quibbles. Remember that word meanings are empirical. Definitions DEscribe, not PREscribe.

Is that why you can't come up with a coherent, workable definition for "god"?

Perhaps. Most dictionaries seem to judge the "human god" concept as sufficiently different to merit a separate sense entry. Look, we can quibble over my definition, but any judgment on your part that it is lacking suggests that you assign meaning to the word. Try as you might, you cannot claim that the word is devoid of meaning.

Of course I have an idea of what I understand the term "god" to mean, but that's beside the point.

I don't need any understanding of the word "god" myself to simply say "your definition implies that X is a god. Do you think that X really is a god?"

I could be wrong, but the position you are taking (especially having endorsed Alceste's "fneeblemorph" gambit) made you seem that way to me.

Yes, you were wrong. And it's not the first time in this thread that I've had to correct you when you've jumped to conclusions about me.

I'm fine with that. It means that Alceste's "fneeblemorph" gambit is off the table. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you seemed to have no objection to it. Perhaps you guys are just trying to support each other's assertions, even if you aren't 100% on the same page.

Sometimes I'll explore people's positions by seeing where they lead if I take them as correct. I think that might've been what confused things.

The word "god" is no different from any other word in the language. It can be ambiguous. That is, it can have different senses (usages), wherein some are closer to a core "prototype" than others. That's what makes lexicography hard work, and lexicographers frequently differ with each other on how best to define a word. What you seem to be advocating here is special treatment for this one word--a kind of special pleading on your part. You could make the same argument to propose that most nouns in English are too ambiguous and vague to be defined, but you would clearly be wrong. What is so special about "god"?

It's not a matter of me asking for special treatment for "god". It's a matter of me recognizing that your definition of "atheist" puts demands on the definition of "god" that we don't normally place on words.

As an analogy, I realize that the word apple, for instance, has ambiguity around the edges (does it include Apple computers? Crabapples?). However (AFAIK), nobody's trying to come up with a special word for "people who hate all apples".

Agreed, but let's refer to the common noun "god". One can still reject the existence of "God" and be a theist. In our experience, people usually monotheists, but we should refer to the general class of things called "gods".

I was just using "God" as an example. That relationship works for any "I believe in ____" - it implicitly means "I believe in what I understand to be _____."

Harrrumph! Well, no, actually. Meaning is not necessarily determined by your belief, but by your actual usage. So you might well be deluded about your own usage.

I think we may be talking past each other here, because my point here logically follows from the point just before that you agreed with.

If you believe in God, but you refuse to call God by the label English speakers conventionally use, you are still a theist, albeit a theist that claims God isn't really a god. Social convention, not personal preference, governs word usage.

If I believe in God but lie about it, then my lie is irrelevant to my actual beliefs; I'm a theist. If I believe in something that someone else considers God but I really don't consider it God, then I'm not.

You must first give me a good reason to budge.

I wasn't trying to force you off your position; just pointing out that an escape route exists in case you choose to use it later.

So, what you are saying is that the baby's set of "gods"--the null set--is NOT found inside its set of "things the baby rejects".

No, I'm saying that as a null set; it has nothing to pin it down to any particular point. In this formulation, it's just as valid to say that the baby is an atheist as it is to say that he isn't one. Basically, the statement "this baby is not an atheist" would be logically indefensible.

We did agree to a Venn Diagram in which atheism was defined as the set of gods circle being included inside of the set of "rejected things", did we not? And I'm not allowing takebacks on this one. My friend, you've just been hoisted by your own petard.

It's your petard and nobody's been hoisted. Look back through my post: I started this line of argument with your definition of atheism. This whole thing was an exercise in showing how your definition needs a workable definition of "god" that's external to the understanding of the individual whose beliefs (or lack thereof) we're talking about.

No, actually, you don't get to draw a circle if you cannot define the set.

We did define the set. And you agreed: the statement "I believe in a god" is equivalent to "I believe in my understanding of a god." Therefore, if none of my beliefs include a belief in anything that I understand to be a god, then I do not hold the belief "I believe in a god".

The set of gods is not just an unstructured collection. It is defined by the usage of the English word "god", not by your whim. That usage function is what licenses you to put items on a "god checklist", and it is the same function that allows you to put items inside a "gods" circle in a Venn diagram. You do not define English.

I'm not saying that I define English; I'm saying that I define my understanding of English.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many times have you heard a block of ice referred to as "not a fruit"? The answer is zero. This direction isn't going to get you where you want to be.

Sure it is. It gets us to the point I've been arguing all along: no information gives us no information. People don't normally refer to babies as atheists; they also don't normally refer to them as "not atheists". All we can infer from this is that people don't talk about whether babies are atheists.

You can't infer anything from a lack of mention, because if you do, then you have to give equal weight to the lack of mention of babies as "not atheists" as you do to the lack of mention of them as atheists.

First of all, there are an infinite range of things that we'll never talk about. The question of whether babies are atheists does come up, because I've seen atheists make such claims many times. You just don't want to call those "normal" conversations.

I'm happy to accept them; I thought it was you who excluded them.

So... based on these conversations, when the question of whether babies are atheists comes up, what's the general consensus among the people who express an opinion on the subject?

Well, actually, I think that Penguin accepted the definition that his Venn diagram specified. I just went along with it.

No, I didn't accept it. I was assuming it for the purposes of that one line of argument.

And you would've realized this if you had actually bothered to follow what I wrote.

No. Why would you infer that from that fact that you cannot recall such a conversation?

No valid reason that I can think of, but it follows the same apparent reasoning as your "people never call babies atheists, therefore they're not atheists" argument.

It is possible that your memory is faulty, but that's not the point. Cars are conveyances, so it would not be unnatural for you to hear someone refer to a car as a "conveyance".
Referring to a baby as an "atheist" sounds weird, because babies have no general understanding of what a "god" is. Hence, they can hardly be expected to qualify as either a "theist" or an "atheist".

So really, your argument isn't about usage at all, is it?

If it was about usage, then usage would matter in other cases... e.g. in the question of whether a car is a conveyance. It sounds like it all really comes down to your personal preference.

BTW - I think it would sound very weird if a friend told me that he was going to take his "conveyance" to my house.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with this is that if there is no "region of gods" for the baby, then there is nothing to fall within the region of rejection. The wording "no part of the region of gods" isn't applicable to the baby, because for it there is no "region of gods" or part thereof.

That depends on your point of view. It works just as well to take it as a region of zero area as it does to take it as no region at all.

Actually, the fact that it's an empty set (as opposed to not a set at all) suggests to me more "region of zero area" than "no region".

 

[Magic Man]

Harrrumph! Well, no, actually. Meaning is not necessarily determined by your belief, but by your actual usage. So you might well be deluded about your own usage.

There it is again. I wish you could see how arrogant it is to tell people that they're not using words the way they say they are because they're deluded. Maybe if you could get off of your pedestal and come down to the real world, we could have a more productive debate.

 

[atanu]

.

Else, if an empty set "region" can be created by understanding or belief, you've become the ultimate arbiter of the baby's understanding and belief.

I suppose, that would be Buddha baby.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose, that would be Buddha baby.

I suppose.

 

[Willamena]

That depends on your point of view. It works just as well to take it as a region of zero area as it does to take it as no region at all.

Actually, the fact that it's an empty set (as opposed to not a set at all) suggests to me more "region of zero area" than "no region".

Philosophy gives us an image of existence as absolute: there is something, or there is nothing. There isn't something that works just as well as nothing.