Atheism: A belief?

[filthy tugboat]

That in blue is your idea of the word God.

Actually, rereading this I believe you are wrong. That is my idea of how the word God is commonly used, it has no relevance to my idea of the word God.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, rereading this I believe you are wrong. That is my idea of how the word God is commonly used, it has no relevance to my idea of the word God.

What are these people using the word for?

 

[filthy tugboat]

What are these people using the word for?

You're probably gonna have to ask them. It seems to be different for everyone.

 

[atanu]

Actually, rereading this I believe you are wrong. That is my idea of how the word God is commonly used, it has no relevance to my idea of the word God.

I acknowledge that you are correct and point out that it still is your idea.

 

[Willamena]

God being a word used to describe thousands of deities and an infinite amount of possible deities, how does a lack of belief in any or all of these require an ideal belief as to what a God is? To make the statement it sure does but to hold that lack of belief it doesn't.

Without an idea of what 'God' is, there is nothing to lack belief in.

 

[Copernicus]

Without an idea of what 'God' is, there is nothing to lack belief in.

This is an annoying detail for the lackers, I think. They don't know what it is they lack belief in. All they know is that they lack belief in it, whatever it is. At least, that is what they believe.

 

[Copernicus]

...If we assume atheist to be the definition you advocate then it would misrepresent many who associate with atheism, that wouldn't be accurate.

It would not misrepresent anyone. There are perfectly good labels for people who do not fit common usage. Why is "atheist" such a coveted name all of a sudden?

It doesn't buy me anything, it just so happens that the most accurate and inclusive definition of atheism would happen to include babies.

If this were correct, then you would expect more people to agree with you that babies ought to be classified as atheists, but most people, including possibly most atheists, reject that idea.

In this case accuracy is directly related to inclusion. If we want a definition that is accurate then we would need a definition that covers as many definitions of atheism as possible because that way it accurately describes the most atheists.

But yours includes persons that people do not usually call "atheists", so it makes false predictions about usage. That is what makes your definition inaccurate.

Should we, for example, expand the definition of "planet" to include moons and stars?
No, why would inclusion in this matter increase accuracy and decrease inclusion?

Exactly my point. Why would "inclusion" be a reason to expand the definition of the word? You want to expand the word "atheist" to cover more people than it normally does.

The advantage would be to increase the accuracy of the term and decrease confusion.

Sorry, but that is absurd. The definition "one who believes that gods do not exist" is clear and precise. English speakers have used it in that meaning for centuries. The "absence of belief" definition actually increases confusion by applying the label to people that it does not normally apply to. It has the exact opposite effect from what you claim.

Lexicographers base meanings on usage because people who buy dictionaries want to know how to use the words they look up. They don't want to be told that atheist refers to any human being who lacks a belief that gods exist, because that is not how English speakers normally use the word, although it is true that all atheists lack belief in gods.

Indeed, the definition I am advocating is the truthful one that accurately describes more atheists than the definition you advocate.

Does "indeed" mean that you think you are agreeing with something I said? The ideal is not to describe more people as "atheists". If you want to do that, just redefine it to mean "person". Then you get everybody, including theists. Why stop at babies?

How is your definition more accurate, from what I can tell you are basing accuracy on how people use the word rather than how accurately the definition describes something. Why?

Has everything that I've said gone over your head? An "accurate" definition of a word is one that captures how the word is used. If you think not, then explain your criterion for accuracy. Making the word refer to as many things as possible?

Indeed and the limits for broad and narrow should be determined by the accuracy of the terms. From what I understand the definition you are using is not as accurate as the definition I use. The broad and narrow comments should fit around the optimum accuracy.

You keep using terms that you do not define clearly. What makes you think that a word is more "accurate" if it can be defined to include people that the word does not normally refer to? It makes no sense to keep repeating that you definition is "accurate" when it makes false predictions about how people use a word.

I don't see why you feel the majority of people should determine the definition. It is not the most accurate definition as it misrepresents many that associate with the term atheist.

How many times do I need to explain this to you? The purpose of language is to enable communication between a speaker and a listener. Therefore, words mean what people in general use them to mean. The word "atheist" has a perfectly clear definition that is in no need of refinement or disambiguation. You seem to want to change it to include people that are not normally called "atheists". Therefore, your definition is both inaccurate and misleading, because it does not capture usage correctly. If you disagree, please explain what is wrong with my reasoning here. So far, you seem unable or unwilling to address it.

I do not accept usage as the criterion for the accuracy of a definition.

I think that we both know that you would lose the argument if you did accept usage. So, what is your criterion for determining the accuracy of word definitions? How do you do it without looking at how people use words?

Indeed, assuming your definition babies would not be atheists.

Indeed, but people who answered the "baby" surveys were not asked to assume my definition. That was the whole point--not to prejudice their intuitions.

Is this the motive for trying to change the common usage of the word "atheist"? Your point corroborates what I said earlier in the thread--that atheists promote the "absence of belief" definition because of a political agenda.

This is not the motive, no.

Then why bother to mention it? Perhaps you know that the political agenda is part of what is going on here. You are promoting a definition of "atheist" that goes beyond general accepted usage. Why else would you do that?

It doesn't matter what the majority of atheists are interested in, the fact is the definition you are trying to present misrepresents many, the definition I am trying to present misrepresents none.

In what sense does it misrepresent anyone? Do you think that we misrepresent babies by not calling them atheists until they suddenly acquire the concept of a god? Why would that even matter to you?

If we use a definition that makes assumptions then we would create more confusion than using a definition that although is different to the more widely used definition still includes that definition. What I'm proposing doesn't completely throw out the notion of your definition, it just removes assumptions that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I am glad that you agree with me about usage. That is something, at least. Now, why do you feel it necessary to go beyond the more widely used definition? Earlier, you talked about reducing that stigma associated with the word "atheist". Is that your reason for pushing what you call the "more inclusive" definition? I must admit that people will feel more kindly towards atheists if they have to call their babies atheists. I don't see them throwing out the baby with the bathwater, although a few determined theists might be tempted to put them in orphanages.

We aren't changing it, there is no established definition, there are many and this one is far more accurate than any other I've come across. The fact that the definition includes all of that does not add foolishness to it because in the same sense that babies and inanimate objects are not theists, they also don't collect stamps, there are many terms and statements that can be used for living organisms that also apply to inanimate objects, it doesn't take away from their meaning, it is just a byproduct of an accurate definition.

I tried to understand this last paragraph, but it was too rambling for me to follow it. I can agree with your point that babies and inanimate objects are similar in that they are not stamp collectors or theists. (Inanimate objects, also?) Nor are they atheists, but I gather that you are utterly convinced of the opposite. You do seem to accept my point that your definition would be wrong if we did use usage as the sole criterion for defining words. I suppose I should be grateful for that.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Without an idea of what 'God' is, there is nothing to lack belief in.

This sentence doesn't really make sense. Without a concept of 'God' there is nothing to believe in? If I have no concept of 'God' then I lack belief in 'God'.

 

[Gloone]

This sentence doesn't really make sense. Without a concept of 'God' there is nothing to believe in? If I have no concept of 'God' then I lack belief in 'God'.

If you have no concept of god then you don't have a lack of belief in my opinion, because you never had any belief to begin with.

 

[Willamena]

This sentence doesn't really make sense. Without a concept of 'God' there is nothing to believe in? If I have no concept of 'God' then I lack belief in 'God'.

No, nothing to lack belief in.

What is this thing you lack belief in?

 

[filthy tugboat]

It would not misrepresent anyone. There are perfectly good labels for people who do not fit common usage. Why is "atheist" such a coveted name all of a sudden?

Of course your definition would misrepresent many, myself included. Which labels would fit those that lack a belief in God?

If this were correct, then you would expect more people to agree with you that babies ought to be classified as atheists, but most people, including possibly most atheists, reject that idea.

Sweet.

But yours includes persons that people do not usually call "atheists", so it makes false predictions about usage. That is what makes your definition inaccurate.

The most popular usage of the term should not determine it's definition, the accuracy should be determined by the definition that has the least unwarranted assumptions.

Exactly my point. Why would "inclusion" be a reason to expand the definition of the word? You want to expand the word "atheist" to cover more people than it normally does.

It wouldn't be in the case of the term planets being used to describe stellar bodies and moons. It would be in the case of 'atheism' due to the contradictions between current definitions.

Sorry, but that is absurd. The definition "one who believes that gods do not exist" is clear and precise.

And also false in many cases.

English speakers have used it in that meaning for centuries. The "absence of belief" definition actually increases confusion by applying the label to people that it does not normally apply to. It has the exact opposite effect from what you claim.

Let me change that, "The 'absence of belief' definition actually increases confusion for those using a definition that does not describe many, if not most people that associate with the term, by applying the label to people that these people don't normally apply it to." There we go.

Does "indeed" mean that you think you are agreeing with something I said? The ideal is not to describe more people as "atheists".

I did not suggest that this was the ideal.

If you want to do that, just redefine it to mean "person". Then you get everybody, including theists. Why stop at babies?

Why would we do that?

Has everything that I've said gone over your head? An "accurate" definition of a word is one that captures how the word is used. If you think not, then explain your criterion for accuracy. Making the word refer to as many things as possible?

My criterion for accuracy of definition would be the one that makes the least unwarranted assumptions.

How many times do I need to explain this to you? The purpose of language is to enable communication between a speaker and a listener. Therefore, words mean what people in general use them to mean. The word "atheist" has a perfectly clear definition that is in no need of refinement or disambiguation.

False, it has many different definitions that are not clear and often contradict.

You seem to want to change it to include people that are not normally called "atheists".

Your definition is not the only currently accepted definition, there are many and many different people associate with different definitions, if we were to have a poll of your definition v my definition yours may win but that neither makes yours the currently accepted definition nor the one that should be the accepted definition.

Therefore, your definition is both inaccurate and misleading, because it does not capture usage correctly. If you disagree, please explain what is wrong with my reasoning here. So far, you seem unable or unwilling to address it.

I disagree with your definition as it makes unwarranted assumptions that add confusion and misrepresent many that associate with the term atheist. Given the many different accepted definitions they are still atheists, just not the way you define it. That's the problem with your definition.

Indeed, but people who answered the "baby" surveys were not asked to assume my definition. That was the whole point--not to prejudice their intuitions.

That is irrelevant, until we come to a conclusion on the criteria to determine a definition your opinion of accuracy and mine for that matter is useless.

Then why bother to mention it? Perhaps you know that the political agenda is part of what is going on here. You are promoting a definition of "atheist" that goes beyond general accepted usage. Why else would you do that?

I mentioned it because I believe the stigma has contributed a lot to the ignorance of many who use the term 'atheism'.

In what sense does it misrepresent anyone? Do you think that we misrepresent babies by not calling them atheists until they suddenly acquire the concept of a god? Why would that even matter to you?

I don't know why you keep focusing on babies as if what I am aiming for is for babies to be included as 'atheists' I have already told you that it is just a byproduct of my definition and it is not incorrect nor does it take anything away from the definition. Babies are also not stamp collectors, should we use different terminology to describe people who don't collect stamps just because babies don't have a concept of what 'stamps' are?

I am glad that you agree with me about usage. That is something, at least. Now, why do you feel it necessary to go beyond the more widely used definition? Earlier, you talked about reducing that stigma associated with the word "atheist". Is that your reason for pushing what you call the "more inclusive" definition? I must admit that people will feel more kindly towards atheists if they have to call their babies atheists. I don't see them throwing out the baby with the bathwater, although a few determined theists might be tempted to put them in orphanages.

I've already told you that it is not the reason. I'm pretty sure I've made my reasoning clear that using your definition would be inaccurate for many atheists.

I tried to understand this last paragraph, but it was too rambling for me to follow it. I can agree with your point that babies and inanimate objects are similar in that they are not stamp collectors or theists. (Inanimate objects, also?) Nor are they atheists, but I gather that you are utterly convinced of the opposite. You do seem to accept my point that your definition would be wrong if we did use usage as the sole criterion for defining words. I suppose I should be grateful for that.

Yes, if we accept your definition of atheist they would not be, I am unaware of that being the case though.

 

[atanu]

This is an annoying detail for the lackers, I think. They don't know what it is they lack belief in. All they know is that they lack belief in it, whatever it is. At least, that is what they believe.

Actually, mods must now lock this thread.

 

[Falvlun]

My point is that not everyone 'without theism' is properly labeled an "atheist". Your criterion for a valid definition seems to be that it include the greatest number of people, but isn't accuracy more important than inclusion? If babies are not really thought of as atheists, why apply that label to them? What does it buy you?

This. That was what I was wondering too.

 

[Falvlun]

In my opinion, those with no concept of "god" don't belong on a chart depicting the relationship between theism and atheism. People who are undecided are just that.

Really, I agree. I can see why they can be included in a technical sense, but generally, that's just useful as a snarky debate tactic.

The "I don't know" are people facing a dilemma, feeling they cannot choose one side or the other, or perhaps refuse to go either way, for whatever reason. Alternately, they can be people who feel that the contradiction is resolved within the scope of their worldview.

I suspect that there's more to your question about the decision --can you rephrase?

In describing your diagram, you originaly stated "Belief takes a second place to the picture we've painted of the world: if we feel it's an accurate picture, we're going to invest belief in it; if there's uncertainty, we'll just claim, "I don't know."

I was wondering how we "paint the picture of the world". We can perceive things-- that's knowledge. But we also interpret what we see-- that's belief. "Painting a picture" sounds closer to interpretation than perception to me. Thus, belief seemed a necessary component of the painting, rather than a product of it.

 

[Falvlun]

The reason a general definition of atheism is required because there are many differences between individual atheists and peoples perception of atheists. When we come to a conclusion on a definition confusion is alleviated somewhat and that makes conversation and debate much easier.

Does the "lack of belief" definition actually make debate easier? In my experience and case in point, it seems to spawn greater debate and confusion.

Indeed but when people start spouting off their interpretation of the word and apply it to everybody who associates with atheism then all we get is confusion. If we can clear up the definition issue then assumptions made are limited in this regard. That's why i continually say, if you are going to address someone as an atheist and discuss their atheism stick to the most general view possible and then ask for more specific information. It is rude to assume something of someone when there are many possibilities.

So, wouldn't the solution be to rather utilize more precise labels, such as "strong atheist" "negative atheist" etc, rather than creating an amorphous, generalized definition? The point is, this definition of atheism doesn't impart much information, so you are still going to have to ask for clarification both with and without it.

Furthermore, you're going to **** off a lot of "I don't know" people by calling them an atheist. If it's rude to assume something about someone's beliefs, it's also rude to slap them with a label they don't want.

 

[Falvlun]

That's an incorrect rewording of the diagram. The big circle is those who lack the belief "God exists". The smaller circle is those who lack the belief "God exists" and hold the belief "God doesn't exist". All of them lack the belief "God doesn't exist", which is why they're in the big circle.

That is correct... unless, as it has been, it is maintained that this general definition of atheism is not a belief. Atheism is only "not a belief" when someone both a) lacks the belief that gods exist" and b) lacks the belief that gods do not exist.

If both a and b are assumed-- which they must be in order for one to say that atheism is "not a belief"-- then Negative Belief atheism cannot be logically included in that umbrella definition.

Anyway, the overall point is atheism is not a belief. If you want to say it can be a belief, that's fine. I've said from the beginning that I have no problem with that. But to say that it is a belief is incorrect.

It works both ways, friend. It can neither be said that atheism is a belief, nor can it be said that atheism is not a belief (when you are talking about atheism as a whole). The best that can be said is that atheism is not necessarily a belief.

 

[Commoner]

If you have no concept of god then you don't have a lack of belief in my opinion, because you never had any belief to begin with.

What's the difference between "lack" and "does not have"?

 

[Willamena]

What's the difference between "lack" and "does not have"?

You'd be surprised.

 

[Commoner]

You'd be surprised.

And probably disinterested...

 

[Commoner]

No, nothing to lack belief in.

What is this thing you lack belief in?

The "concept of god" of which I have a concept. It's all about layers, baby! :danana:

If you don't know it, how could you "not know it"?