Atheism: A belief?

[Copernicus]

It is very telling to find out that NO tribe has ever benn found on earth, no matter how remote or isolated, that does not worship a god of some kind.

Actually, I have heard of a South American tribe that appears to have no god concept, and there are religions that are atheistic (e.g. Jainism, Buddhism--the so-called naastika religions).

Atheism is a religion!!!

Neither atheism nor theism is a religion, because they lack religious creeds. They are just opposing beliefs about the existence of gods.

The only thing about that is They are Idolaters, because the worship themselves, and there will be NONE in God's Kingdom...

The rest of your post was largely irrelevant to the discussion. Please note that proselytizing is discouraged in this debate forum. I suggest that you cut down on the amount of coffee you drink.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look, I was just trying to answer your question. That wasn't a "tactic". It was an opinion about why people sometimes insist on classifying babies as atheists. You are more likely to get that kind of usage behavior in an argument where somebody is trying to make a point, not under everyday usage.

Yes, because in everyday speech, people don't normally talk about the beliefs of babies at all. Nobody says "babies are atheists", and nobody says "babies aren't atheists".

In normal, everyday usage, we call a score of zero to zero a tie. One side doesn't normally say "hey! You scored zero! You must have lost!"

The definition "person who lacks belief in gods" is problematic because it adequately describes all atheists. It just does not definitively describe them.

I don't know what you mean. I think it's a perfectly workable definition.

And, because people treat dictionaries as authoritative, such definitions become self-fulfilling determinants of usage.

Wait... you just finished arguing that the dictionary says that I'm wrong. Now you're arguing that people are taking my definition because they're blindly following the dictionary? Which is it?

That is one aspect of all this that makes your definition so controversial. Another is that theists frequently do try to promote the idea that atheism is a type of religious faith--a category mistake, IMO. So claiming that atheism is not a belief at all is a way of defending against that ploy by theists.

More with the straw man. I'm not doing this. Neither is anyone else I know who uses the word "atheist" the way I do.

I just think that it is better to admit that atheism is a belief, albeit a negative belief.

"Better" in what sense? Again, I thought usage was all that mattered to you.

 

[Magic Man]

That is one aspect of all this that makes your definition so controversial. Another is that theists frequently do try to promote the idea that atheism is a type of religious faith--a category mistake, IMO. So claiming that atheism is not a belief at all is a way of defending against that ploy by theists. I just think that it is better to admit that atheism is a belief, albeit a negative belief.

Another swing and a miss. Claiming that atheism is not a belief is not in any way a defense against the claim that atheism is a religion. The defense against that is, as you said, neither atheism nor theism is a religion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I hope you don't think I was ever trying to label you Kilgore.

It is I who voiced to abstain from labels, because they are misleading.

This is why it gets confusing when you respond to a question posed to someone else.

 

[Commoner]

Not if you accept my simple criterion for the basis of a definition: usage. That is the criterion that all lexicographers go by. If you (like some) want to argue that usage is not the basis of word definitions, then you do have some obligation to propose an alternative.

No, I don't. Not that I think usage is necessarily a bad way to go - I just don't think your proposal, which does eliminate a possible misinterpretation of the term but is really no more than a red herring when it comes to any type of common usage, is a good one. Even then, an unweighted absolute majority opinion on something like atheism is hardly the most objective approach to establishing a definition. My inability or unwillingness to come up with something better doesn't make your argument a good one.

I don't find your argument convincing. A person who takes no stand at all with respect to the existence of gods has no opinion on their existence. Someone who has even a weakly held belief that they do not exist is an atheist. For some reason, you feel it very important to insist that you have no opinion on their existence, and maybe you don't. However, you do seem to express negative views in these discussions when the subject comes up. What you seem to be saying is that you believe the gods that you know about do not exist. You don't want to deny the existence of gods that you do not know about, so you claim to take no position on the existence of gods in general.

That's pretty much it. Of course I believe some gods do not exist - to a high degree of certainty. Hell, some god-concepts are completely paradoxical and as long as logic "holds up", I'm golden. This cannot possibly make me an atheist as this is something I share with theists who also reject specific god concepts - but don't necessarily hold the belief that their god is "one". The difference between me an such a theist is that, while a theist does believe in at least one god, I do not. That's it - that's the only possibly relevant distinction I can see.

This is similar to the view that Penguin articulated. My opinion of it is that you qualify as someone whose default opinion is that gods do not exist.

I understand what you're saying, obviously I do feel some sort of "oh, come on, enough of this nonsense already, god cannot possibly exist". I've never claimed not to. However, on the same level, I also believe that the non-poisonous spider in my room will kill me (or at least seriously harm me), while also knowing that that's completely irrational. Now, you may wish to say that I have a belief that non-poisonous spiders are deadly, but is that really accurate?

Like me, you reserve the right to change your opinion if evidence should present itself. Unlike me, you do not wish to characterize your atheism as an opinion that gods do not exist.

That's right.

The only problem I have with that is the use of the definition to classify people as "atheists" who really are neutral on the question of the existence of gods that they (unlike you) do know about.

That's not the only "problem" that your definition "remedies" though. It also makes me "not an atheist", at least not without some very specific inclusion exeptions. And you're back to the problems that appear when you want a "common usage" definition. Your solution is to eliminate the outliers, my solution is to include them.

The truth is that I think you are an atheist who wants to keep an open mind on the subject of the existence of gods. You consider them implausible beings, not logically impossible beings. I would call that an opinion that they do not exist until you see proof to the contrary. But, again, I am not in a position to say exactly what your opinions are. I can only gain an impression from what you write in these forums. I still am somewhat puzzled as to why you and other atheists expend so much effort on a definition of atheism that denies the idea that atheism is a belief. It is not a type of religious faith--just the opposite, in fact. But theism is not a type of faith either. It is just the opposite of atheism--i.e. a belief that one or more gods exist.

I don't know what to tell you - I don't think it's relevant what you think about what I "really" think about the issue, I don't even think it's relevant what I do think about it. So what if I were a closeted fully-pledged possibility-of-any-sort-of-god-concept denying non-believer, completely devoid of any sense of rationality or reason? How is this an argument in your favour?

In the context of a discussion on atheism, deism normally refers just to belief in gods. But it does have another sense that stands in opposition to theism. I don't see a need to get hung up over the lexical ambiguity, which is based on--you guessed it--usage.

(snippy, snippy...)

All good questions. I think of deists as a specific type of theist, but I agree with you that we most often think of theism as involving a religious creed, a practice of worship, and so on.

Going by either meaning though, that's really a bit like considering a rectangle as a specific type of square, isn't it?

Look, words can have more than one sense.

Ok, so "deists are theists" you're fine with (although I think it's both inaccurate and goes against common usage as well as specifically how deists and theists use the terms), yet "atheists are people who lack the belief in god" doesn't fly. Interesting...

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, because in everyday speech, people don't normally talk about the beliefs of babies at all. Nobody says "babies are atheists", and nobody says "babies aren't atheists".

That could be because nobody thinks of them as atheists. The label just doesn't apply. Nobody calls them theists, either. The whole point is that it is bizarre to make such a claim, but atheists do it all the time in these discussions. It was even in Teapot's video, which had nothing to do with this discussion. That video was a nice piece of propaganda put out by people who really, really want to convince everyone that your definition ought to be the common understanding of the word "atheist". Why go to all that trouble unless to make a point in a debate on religion? This is not a debate over how people construe the word, but over how you want people to construe the word. Nobody would be making such a video if that were the common understanding of what the word meant.

I don't know what you mean. I think it's a perfectly workable definition.

I've explained this repeatedly, but what the heck. Being an atheist entails having no belief that gods exist. Having no belief that gods exist does not entail being an atheist.

Wait... you just finished arguing that the dictionary says that I'm wrong. Now you're arguing that people are taking my definition because they're blindly following the dictionary? Which is it?

The dictionary doesn't say anything at all about you. Most dictionaries do not use the "lack of belief" language because it is misleading. If a dictionary were to use your definition, it would be a bad definition because dictionaries are not supposed to mislead their readers about how words are actually used in ordinary language.

"Better" in what sense? Again, I thought usage was all that mattered to you.

Better in the sense that using a bad definition (one that violates actual usage) to promote a religious argument is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That could be because nobody thinks of them as atheists. The label just doesn't apply. Nobody calls them theists, either.

Or "not atheists", which undermines your argument.

But back to a point I raised before that you never really addressed: the question of whether babies are atheists does lie at the edges of the meaning of the term "atheist". Effectively, you're arguing that babies lie just beyond the edge, and I'm arguing that they lie just within.

Given everything you said about how "fuzziness" in meaning on the edge of a word doesn't necessarily undermine its validity in its core sense (or at least it didn't when the word in question was "god", and when this argument worked in your favour), why do you keep harping on about meaning and usage on the edge of the word "atheist"? From where I sit, this is entirely inconsistent (and even hypocritical) on your part.

The whole point is that it is bizarre to make such a claim, but atheists do it all the time in these discussions. It was even in Teapot's video, which had nothing to do with this discussion. That video was a nice piece of propaganda put out by people who really, really want to convince everyone that your definition ought to be the common understanding of the word "atheist". Why go to all that trouble unless to make a point in a debate on religion?

I haven't watched the video yet. Streaming video and my computer don't always get along.

This is not a debate over how people construe the word, but over how you want people to construe the word. Nobody would be making such a video if that were the common understanding of what the word meant.

You know, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat in an occupational health and safety training centre saying without hitting five videos explaining why the term "incident" is better than "accident" for health and safety incidents in the workplace. Does this mean that people's understanding of the term "incident" wouldn't otherwise include workplace falls?

I've explained this repeatedly, but what the heck. Being an atheist entails having no belief that gods exist. Having no belief that gods exist does not entail being an atheist.

But I say it does. You're engaging in circular reasoning: you're assuming your conclusion to support your argument.

The dictionary doesn't say anything at all about you. Most dictionaries do not use the "lack of belief" language because it is misleading. If a dictionary were to use your definition, it would be a bad definition because dictionaries are not supposed to mislead their readers about how words are actually used in ordinary language.

Ah - "No True Scotsman". If a dictionary agrees with me it's a bad dictionary, but if it agrees with you it's a good one?

Better in the sense that using a bad definition (one that violates actual usage) to promote a religious argument is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

The "argument" straw man again. Three logical fallacies in one post; you score a hat trick.

As for your choice of terms, specifically "actual usage"... I use the word in the way that I say I do. Unless you're going to argue that I am not "actual", then please stop dismissing my usage as not "actual".

 

[Copernicus]

...My inability or unwillingness to come up with something better doesn't make your argument a good one.

OK, there is no point in arguing about this further. I have explained the lexicographic basis for definitions to you. You reject it, but you have no alternative proposals and don't think that you need to offer one. You will apparently continue to take a stand on the merits of definitions without any explicit criteria for doing so.

That's pretty much it...

Yes, I thought it was. Much of this debate seems to be over some very nuanced ideas about what it means to have an opinion. Penguin made much the same argument, and it didn't sound better coming from him. Ultimately, this comes down to the idea that there might be some definition of "god" that you have not encountered yet. As I pointed out to him (to no effect), that position works for just about any label you can think of, not just "gods". You cannot have an opinion that ghosts or leprechauns are imaginary beings, because you can never be sure how someone will define them.

I understand what you're saying, obviously I do feel some sort of "oh, come on, enough of this nonsense already, god cannot possibly exist". I've never claimed not to. However, on the same level, I also believe that the non-poisonous spider in my room will kill me (or at least seriously harm me), while also knowing that that's completely irrational. Now, you may wish to say that I have a belief that non-poisonous spiders are deadly, but is that really accurate?

I think I could say that you are conflicted about whether that spider really is poisonous. I assure you that it is more afraid of you than you of it. Well, that is my opinion, anyway. For all I know, it really is poisonous and you are just engaged in wishful thinking.

That's right.

See? We agree on substance, just not the definition of a label. I believe that you are an atheist (your quibbles about the nature of beliefs notwithstanding), not that people who truly "lack belief in gods" are by that fact alone "atheists".

I don't know what to tell you - I don't think it's relevant what you think about what I "really" think about the issue, I don't even think it's relevant what I do think about it. So what if I were a closeted fully-pledged possibility-of-any-sort-of-god-concept denying non-believer, completely devoid of any sense of rationality or reason? How is this an argument in your favour?

I don't know. You do seem to possess a number of irrational fears. What if you were in that closet with both the rabid non-believer and the spider? Somehow, I don't think that a definition would be of much use to you, although you would have my sympathy.

Going by either meaning though, that's really a bit like considering a rectangle as a specific type of square, isn't it?

Rather the reverse, I think.

Ok, so "deists are theists" you're fine with (although I think it's both inaccurate and goes against common usage as well as specifically how deists and theists use the terms), yet "atheists are people who lack the belief in god" doesn't fly. Interesting...

All I did was point out that at least one dictionary--dictionary.com--assigns two different word senses to the words "theist" and "deist". Both are legitimate in appropriate contexts. Why does that bother you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I should back up here for a moment to go over something again, just to emphasize the sheer illogic of the argument being presented:

Yes, because in everyday speech, people don't normally talk about the beliefs of babies at all. Nobody says "babies are atheists", and nobody says "babies aren't atheists".

In normal, everyday usage, we call a score of zero to zero a tie. One side doesn't normally say "hey! You scored zero! You must have lost!"

That could be because nobody thinks of them as atheists.

IOW, to put this back in terms of my analogy, "the reason our game came out to a zero-zero tie is because I played well and you didn't."

How on Earth can you argue this with a (virtual) straight face?

 

[Copernicus]

IOW, to put this back in terms of my analogy, "the reason our game came out to a zero-zero tie is because I played well and you didn't."

How on Earth can you argue this with a (virtual) straight face?

I think that you are so wedded to your definition that you can't see the point I was making. You were claiming that people do not call babies atheists because there is no reason to do so. I was pointing out that it could be because they have a reason not to--the label doesn't apply. Most people think of theists and atheists as people who advocate a position on the existence of gods. That label would not apply to babies or people who have no concept of gods.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That label would not apply to babies or people who have no concept of gods.

Indeed, it adds no useful information to say that something which doesn't hold any beliefs, doesn't hold a particular belief.

 

[Copernicus]

I just had a vision of all of us standing before this young kid named Virginia. She asks if there is a Santa Claus. I say no, and Penguin, Mball, Commoner, Killgore, Tugboat, and a whole crowd of other atheists say "We merely lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus." Who will Virginia hate worse? I'm betting that she will hate us all equally.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I just had a vision of all of us standing before this young kid named Virginia. She asks if there is a Santa Claus. I say no, and Penguin, Mball, Commoner, Killgore, Tugboat, and a whole crowd of other atheists say "We merely lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus." Who will Virginia hate worse? I'm betting that she will hate us all equally.

Indeed, this whole discussion is splitting hairs when it comes to how immoral and evil we all are.

Then again, I don't lack belief in Santa, or god.

 

[Willamena]

... or when they're somehow disphonous, which I think is the sense that Copernicus was going for (but since it was pretty far back in the thread, I may be wrong).

"Lacking sound"? What does disphonous mean?

If you can't conceive of a thing, then you can't believe in it. I'd call that person an atheist.

And yet, the definition supports a person who believes that god exists. Can one believe god exists without believing that one can have a concept of "god"?

 

[Commoner]

Actually doing something and not doing something both apply to human physiology, not collecting stamps is a hobby, as much as doing nothing is also a hobby, simply because it is an act of consciousness. At every moment, One is thinking, One is doing something, even if it is nothing

See, now that's completely nonsensical. Not every activity is a hobby and not every thought or not everything "of the mind" is a belief. We have different words for a reason.

But let me just say this - if not collecting stamps were a hobby, atheism would certainly be a belief. It would also be a hobby.

 

[Willamena]

See, now that's completely nonsensical. Not every activity is a hobby and not every thought or not everything "of the mind" is a belief. We have different words for a reason.

But let me just say this - if not collecting stamps were a hobby, atheism would certainly be a belief. It would also be a hobby.

Hey! I object --I'm extremely skilled at not collecting stamps, it's one of the few things I do well.

 

[Commoner]

OK, there is no point in arguing about this further. I have explained the lexicographic basis for definitions to you. You reject it, but you have no alternative proposals and don't think that you need to offer one. You will apparently continue to take a stand on the merits of definitions without any explicit criteria for doing so.

Seriously? You wanted to discuss Lexicography with me? That was the point of this conversation? Not whether or not your definition properly portrays how people in general and atheists in particular understand the term "atheist"?

Ok...

Yes, I thought it was. Much of this debate seems to be over some very nuanced ideas about what it means to have an opinion. Penguin made much the same argument, and it didn't sound better coming from him. Ultimately, this comes down to the idea that there might be some definition of "god" that you have not encountered yet. As I pointed out to him (to no effect), that position works for just about any label you can think of, not just "gods". You cannot have an opinion that ghosts or leprechauns are imaginary beings, because you can never be sure how someone will define them.

Yes and no. Either for an inconsistent/ever expanding definition of "god" or for a sufficiently broad definition, I would not necessarily claim to believe that god does not exist - unless you think that I can believe in something and also consider it irrational and false at the same time. Then you might have a point.

I think I could say that you are conflicted about whether that spider really is poisonous. I assure you that it is more afraid of you than you of it. Well, that is my opinion, anyway. For all I know, it really is poisonous and you are just engaged in wishful thinking.

I'm not conflicted - I'm 100% sure this is not a poisonous spider. It has no capacity of physically harming me whatsoever. But I do also feel that it's 100% going to kill me if I come within 10 feet of it. Do you think I believe this spider is poisonous or deadly?

See? We agree on substance, just not the definition of a label. I believe that you are an atheist (your quibbles about the nature of beliefs notwithstanding), not that people who truly "lack belief in gods" are by that fact alone "atheists".

Did I say they were?

Rather the reverse, I think.

What is there in deism that is not present in theism?

All I did was point out that at least one dictionary--dictionary.com--assigns two different word senses to the words "theist" and "deist". Both are legitimate in appropriate contexts. Why does that bother you?

Nowhere where "deist" and "theist" are used in the same context are they treated as the same thing or is deism considered to be theism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hey! I object --I'm extremely skilled at not collecting stamps, it's one of the few things I do well.

Heck, if you're going to be good at something, it might as well be at not doing something.

 

[Commoner]

I just had a vision of all of us standing before this young kid named Virginia. She asks if there is a Santa Claus. I say no, and Penguin, Mball, Commoner, Killgore, Tugboat, and a whole crowd of other atheists say "We merely lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus." Who will Virginia hate worse? I'm betting that she will hate us all equally.

Except Santa Claus is a specific imaginary figure as is, for instance, the God of the Bible, with a specific, falsifiable argument/story attached and I have no problem in saying that neither exists.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not conflicted - I'm 100% sure this is not a poisonous spider. It has no capacity of physically harming me whatsoever. But I do also feel that it's 100% going to kill me if I come within 10 feet of it. Do you think I believe this spider is poisonous or deadly?

Your belief lies where the truth lies. It's certainly not going to reside in someone else.