Atheism: A belief?

[Falvlun]

If you are referring only to weak atheism, then that would be true. If you are referring to atheism in general, that cannot be said definitively.

Yes it can, actually... so long as weak atheism is part of "atheism in general".

No, I'm not. I'm acknowledging that the term "atheism" encompasses both strong and weak atheism.

Not to belabor the point, but that is definitely a compositional fallacy: You are stating that a characteristic of the subset-- weak atheism-- can be definitively applied to the general set.

I don't recall ever putting it that way. My position all along has been that a belief in the non-existence of gods is not required to be an atheist.
But my point is that it is not necessary to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

I've got not bones there. We agree.

IMO, the question that would be properly analogous to the OP's question of "is atheism a belief?" would be "do balloons need a colour?" The answer to that question would be "no", regardless of the colour (or lack thereof) of any particular balloon.

Fair enough. But "is" does not equate to "need". Why did your argument become "atheism is not a belief" rather than "atheism does not require a belief"?

Hang on... I think I see the issue here, and why we seem to be talking across each other. If I'm wrong, please correct me:

- you're operating based on the title of the thread... effectively, "strong atheism is 'an atheism', and strong atheism is a belief, so yes, sometimes atheism is a belief."

- I'm operating based on the OP, which explains the title in further detail and suggests that the question asked is more intended in the sense of whether "atheism in general" is a belief.

I'm not trying to argue that strong atheism isn't a belief; I agree that it is. What I'm arguing is that atheism in general isn't a belief, and that belief is not required for atheism.

Frubals for sorting our miscommunication out. I still don't think you can claim that atheism (in general) is not a belief, but I agree that belief is not required for atheism.

 

[Magic Man]

Not to belabor the point, but that is definitely a compositional fallacy: You are stating that a characteristic of the subset-- weak atheism-- can be definitively applied to the general set.

Yes, because that characteristic is what both subsets have in common. All forms of atheism have the absence of belief in gods. That's why it's the best definition for atheism in general. It's like a soccer ball and a golf ball. They are made of different materials and they're different sizes, but the things they have in common are why they're called balls. Strong atheism and weak atheism have differences, but what they have in common (the lack of belief in gods) is what makes them atheism.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, that would mean it's a form of atheism. It doesn't mean it's atheism. Those are two completely different things. A foil balloon is a form of balloon, but it is not all balloons.

So, can you say "balloons are not made out of foil"?

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, because that characteristic is what both subsets have in common. All forms of atheism have the absence of belief in gods. That's why it's the best definition for atheism in general. It's like a soccer ball and a golf ball. They are made of different materials and they're different sizes, but the things they have in common are why they're called balls. Strong atheism and weak atheism have differences, but what they have in common (the lack of belief in gods) is what makes them atheism.

And that is why I originally asked whether you would claim that "Strong atheism is not a belief". You should be able to if you take what you say at face value.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Frubals for sorting our miscommunication out. I still don't think you can claim that atheism (in general) is not a belief, but I agree that belief is not required for atheism.

I think the issue is that (in this thread, anyhow), people have been throwing around the phrase "atheism is a belief" as shorthand for something like "all forms of atheism entail belief". This seems to be where the confusion has crept in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So how, exactly, does saying "atheism is not a belief" allow belief?

Atheism is a category. It includes members such as weak atheism (not a belief) and strong atheism (a belief). Categories are not beliefs themselves.

That's been my problem all along, and I why I proposed we say "atheism is not necessarily a belief" rather than an absolute in either direction.

This really doesn't make sense to me. Is theism not a belief then, because it is just a framework in which a range of god beliefs exists? It seems to mulitply layers to the word "atheism" that really don't need to be added.

Actually, I'd say that "theism" is a category of belief as well, not a belief itself per se. There is no single belief that is common to all of theism.

Not to belabor the point, but that is definitely a compositional fallacy: You are stating that a characteristic of the subset-- weak atheism-- can be definitively applied to the general set.

No, I'm saying that when we consider an individual (in this case, an atheist) who we know to be a member of a group (in this case, atheism), from this fact alone, all we can validly infer is that the member posesses the least restrictive set of characteristics in the group. If I say "Person A is an atheist", it would be valid for you to infer from this "Person A does not believe in any gods" (since lack of belief in gods is common to all forms of atheism), but it would not be valid for you to infer from it "Person A believes _____", where you fill in the blank with whatever belief you like (since an atheist need not be a strong atheist, and there are no belief requirements for weak atheism). This doesn't mean that Person A doesn't actually believe any particular belief; maybe he does (except for belief in gods, of course). However, we don't know whether he does or not from the information we have at hand so far.

Fair enough. But "is" does not equate to "need".

Okay, but the direct parallel would be something like "is 'balloonness' a colour?" which doesn't suggest "yes" either.

Why did your argument become "atheism is not a belief" rather than "atheism does not require a belief"?

As I mentioned in my post just now, for this whole thread, people have been using the phrase "atheism is a belief" as a shorthand for "all forms of atheism entail belief".

 

[Songbird]

Atheism is a category. It includes members such as weak atheism (not a belief) and strong atheism (a belief). Categories are not beliefs themselves.

Best description I've heard yet.

 

[Willamena]

If I say "Person A is an atheist", it would be valid for you to infer from this "Person A does not believe in any gods" (since lack of belief in gods is common to all forms of atheism), but it would not be valid for you to infer from it "Person A believes _____", where you fill in the blank with whatever belief you like (since an atheist need not be a strong atheist, and there are no belief requirements for weak atheism). This doesn't mean that Person A doesn't actually believe any particular belief; maybe he does (except for belief in gods, of course). However, we don't know whether he does or not from the information we have at hand so far.

The problem with this is that, in Plain English, "Person A does not believe in any gods," can also mean that person A believes gods do not exist. It's not only valid, it's common.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm probably not going to be able to keep up with all of these posts, but I'll try my best. On Penguin's point about "weak atheism" and "implicit atheism", let's bear in mind that "weak atheism", at least, is a controversial term. Sometimes it is conflated with "implicit atheism". Sometimes not. I would agree that "implicit atheism" is not a "belief" in the sense that atheism is. That is because the term describes a class of people who are not necessarily aware of gods. For me, "weak atheism" has always defined a negative belief that was held in a different manner from "strong atheism". Strong atheists will give positive reasons for rejecting belief in gods, but they accept all the arguments of weak atheists. Weak atheists tend to fall back on the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof. So they tend to be less proactive about listing reasons to reject belief in gods.

Before you all jump on me and start picking apart what I have just said, I have to admit that I do not consider the compound nouns to be as well-established in their usage as "atheism" and "atheist" are. The meanings of compound words can drift away from the meanings of their constituent words, so their usage needs to be examined separately. When "weak atheism" refers to "implicit atheism" it is not the kind of negative belief that I would attribute to the general term "atheism".

 

[Willamena]

It's not a compositional fallacy to say that atheism in general isn't a belief.

Atheism consists of:

- strong/explicit atheism - a belief (or a category of beliefs, maybe)
- weak/implicit atheism - not a belief

The category "atheism in general" must accommodate both strong atheism and weak atheism. IOW, it must allow belief (otherwise, strong atheism would be excluded) but it also must not require belief (otherwise, weak atheism would be excluded).

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that saying "'atheism in general' is a belief" is more of a category error than anything else: "atheism in general" is a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs, but it isn't a belief itself.

Basically, the phrase "atheism is a belief" is a mismatching of concepts... like "democracy is a colour".

OTOH, it's perfectly valid to say that "a framework that accommodates a range of beliefs but is not a belief itself" is not a belief... just as it would be valid to say "democracy is not a colour".

I'm good with this, as long as it's recognized that the category of theism, in general, is also not a belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm probably not going to be able to keep up with all of these posts, but I'll try my best. On Penguin's point about "weak atheism" and "implicit atheism", let's bear in mind that "weak atheism", at least, is a controversial term. Sometimes it is conflated with "implicit atheism". Sometimes not.

Can you provide some support for this? In my experience, weak atheism has always been used synonymously with implicit atheism... except in your use of the term.

I would agree that "implicit atheism" is not a "belief" in the sense that atheism is.

So then you disagree with the idea that implicit atheism is actually atheism at all?

That is because the term describes a class of people who are not necessarily aware of gods. For me, "weak atheism" has always defined a negative belief that was held in a different manner from "strong atheism".

That's all fine and good, but how is the term used generally?

Before you all jump on me and start picking apart what I have just said, I have to admit that I do not consider the compound nouns to be as well-established in their usage as "atheism" and "atheist" are.

Is this why you get to make up meanings for them that go against mainstream usage?

When "weak atheism" refers to "implicit atheism" it is not the kind of negative belief that I would attribute to the general term "atheism".

Maybe you wouldn't use the term that way, but tell you what: how about you go back to those other forums you posted polls on before and give them a few new polls:

- "is 'weak atheism' a form of atheism?"
- "is 'implicit atheism' a form of atheism?"
- "does 'weak atheism' mean implicit atheism?"

After all, their opinion was weighty to the point of authority when you cited it before; presumably, you'll lend the same amount of weight to it now, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with this is that, in Plain English, "Person A does not believe in any gods," can also mean that person A believes gods do not exist. It's not only valid, it's common.

... common among people who believe that failure to accept a claim automatically means acceptance of the claim's negation, sure. This doesn't make them right, though.

 

[Copernicus]

Wait a minute, that's not really the same. The ability to hold conflicting ideas is one thing, it's another thing to recognize those things as false/irrational and still have an emotional response to them - like some ex-theists do with "hell". Now, I'd like to see you go to someone who had been a Christian an has since become a non-theist, for instance, and argue to them that they sincerely believe in hell, sin, god's mercy, etc.

I think that you read too much into my comment. All I meant was that we all have contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. That is not necessarily a bad thing, since we need to be able to change our minds quickly under changing circumstances. Things that we believe to be true in one moment may turn out to be false in the next, and we need to be able to shift belief to accommodate new information.

Contradiction is not such a good thing for long-term belief structures like atheism or theism, which underpin our models of reality. Logic is not a tool for arriving at the truth. It is a tool for guaranteeing the consistency of a proposition with other propositions that we believe to be true. Atheism names a proposition that may or may not be true with respect to other things we believe, and we use logic to examine that very complex relationship. So we may hold contradictory beliefs because we have not yet determined to our own satisfaction that those beliefs are logically incompatible.

I do believe they have to be capable of understanding such concepts and consider them in order to be atheists. I wouldn't automatically label babies as "atheists", for instance. For all I know (and I know nothing of babies), their only thoughts are "food", "sleep" and "panic".

OK. This is progress for me. We agree completely on this point. I'm not always sure where we disagree, though, because you always seem to drift away the moment you perceive yourself to be too much in agreement with my conclusions.

Since I have been using theism as a hypernym of deism, deism would inherit all of the properties of theism. There is a narrower sense of theism where it is not a hypernym--and that is the one that you appear to favor.

I thought we were all about common usage...

What makes you think that we are not? Hypernyms and hyponyms are lexical relationships that are established by usage. One meaning of "theist" is as a hypernym of "deist". Deists are specific types of theists. In the other meaning of "theist", there is no such relationship. They are contrasted with each other. The definitions I gave you earlier made this very clear.

What does it matter what I do? Here you go: "Gods are, in general, implausible". Is this synonymous with "god doesn't exist?" Have we suddenly established a definition of an atheist? Has any value been added?

Yes, a lot of value has been added to the discussion if you take the same position I do--that atheists consider gods to be implausible beings. (This is another good definition of the word, by the way--someone who believes gods to be implausible beings.) What else could that mean other than that you believe they probably do not exist?

 

[Willamena]

... common among people who believe that failure to accept a claim automatically means acceptance of the claim's negation, sure. This doesn't make them right, though.

It's as right as what they mean to say.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Semantics- the most important, yet often misleading part of understanding. The irony..

Weak atheism runs synonymous with agnosticism in my book, just as agnostic theist runs synonymous with general gnostic.

Strong atheism is a belief, yes, as there is no way of knowing if it is true or not that gods do not exist, and therefore is assumed or trusted as one believes.

 

[Copernicus]

Can you provide some support for this? In my experience, weak atheism has always been used synonymously with implicit atheism... except in your use of the term.

We have different experiences of how the term is used. It was invented as a tool in these hair-splitting arguments over the meaning of "atheism", so people are naturally going to add it to the linguistic tug of war.

So then you disagree with the idea that implicit atheism is actually atheism at all?

Personally, I consider it something of an oxymoron. I can see how a theist might also call babies "implicit theists" and duke it out with atheists over the semantics of what these expressions mean. They don't really tell us anything about the core meaning of "atheism".

That's all fine and good, but how is the term used generally?

They are not used generally. They are part of the sublanguage of speech communities like ours, and they can be controversial. I think that "weak atheism" is open to different interpretations. "Implicit atheism" less so.

Is this why you get to make up meanings for them that go against mainstream usage?

To the extent that I do this, I am certainly no worse than you or anyone else in this thread. However, I do think that the question of word meaning depends on general usage, and definitions are good or bad with respect to how well they capture that usage.

Maybe you wouldn't use the term that way, but tell you what: how about you go back to those other forums you posted polls on before and give them a few new polls:

- "is 'weak atheism' a form of atheism?"
- "is 'implicit atheism' a form of atheism?"
- "does 'weak atheism' mean implicit atheism?"

I would be more interested in the usage of "weak atheism" than "implicit atheism", which isn't used very much. These are not good questions for a usage survey, however. People will just look at the words and base their responses on what they think the words ought to mean. Usage surveys need to be less direct than that in order to filter out metalinguistic biases.

After all, their opinion was weighty to the point of authority when you cited it before; presumably, you'll lend the same amount of weight to it now, right?

Yes, but we aren't focused on the question of what "weak atheism" means here. That is a red herring.

 

[Magic Man]

So, can you say "balloons are not made out of foil"?

Strong atheism includes a belief, and some balloons contain the quality "made out of foil". In the first case, the belief "God doesn't exist" is the reason for "strong" but not for "atheism. In the second case, "made out of foil" is the reason for "foil" but not for balloon". In other words, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. When you add "strong" to it, it becomes "lack of belief in gods, along with the belief that gods don't exist".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have different experiences of how the term is used.

Apparently, which is why I asked for you to back up your position with something to support it. Are you going to?

Personally, I consider it something of an oxymoron. I can see how a theist might also call babies "implicit theists" and duke it out with atheists over the semantics of what these expressions mean. They don't really tell us anything about the core meaning of "atheism".

IOW, the term doesn't mesh well with your preconception of what "atheism" means.

The oxymoron is easily resolved if you just change that preconception.

They are not used generally.

Convenient.

They are part of the sublanguage of speech communities like ours, and they can be controversial. I think that "weak atheism" is open to different interpretations. "Implicit atheism" less so.

Arrgh. Okay, then - let me re-phrase: in the circles in which the terms are used, how are they generally used?

To the extent that I do this, I am certainly no worse than you or anyone else in this thread.

I disagree, but even so, it's rather hypocritical to complain about someone's actions, and then when you're caught doing the same thing yourself, excuse it by saying "but everyone else was doing it".

However, I do think that the question of word meaning depends on general usage, and definitions are good or bad with respect to how well they capture that usage.

At this point, I seriously doubt that. If this were really true, you'd have stuck to asking about how people generally use the term "atheist" and wouldn't have gone off on this "baby" tangent at all.

I would be more interested in the usage of "weak atheism" than "implicit atheism", which isn't used very much. These are not good questions for a usage survey, however. People will just look at the words and base their responses on what they think the words ought to mean. Usage surveys need to be less direct than that in order to filter out metalinguistic biases.

Well, in your infinite wisdom as a linguist, a lexicographer, or whatever it is you claim to be, I'm sure you could figure out a way to word such a survey so that it gets to the point while still meeting your standards.

Personally, I think the reason you don't do this is because you realize it won't give the answer you want.

Yes, but we aren't focused on the question of what "weak atheism" means here. That is a red herring.

Well, no - it's directly relevant: if weak atheism is in fact a term for implicit atheism, and weak atheism is atheism, then the issue of the thread is settled.

 

[Commoner]

I think that you read too much into my comment. All I meant was that we all have contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. That is not necessarily a bad thing, since we need to be able to change our minds quickly under changing circumstances. Things that we believe to be true in one moment may turn out to be false in the next, and we need to be able to shift belief to accommodate new information.

Contradiction is not such a good thing for long-term belief structures like atheism or theism, which underpin our models of reality. Logic is not a tool for arriving at the truth. It is a tool for guaranteeing the consistency of a proposition with other propositions that we believe to be true. Atheism names a proposition that may or may not be true with respect to other things we believe, and we use logic to examine that very complex relationship. So we may hold contradictory beliefs because we have not yet determined to our own satisfaction that those beliefs are logically incompatible.

I think I've not made my point entirely clear, but it doesn't really matter, it's not that relevant to the discussion - and since we're all getting bogged down by the number of posts we are to respond to, let's just drop this.

OK. This is progress for me. We agree completely on this point. I'm not always sure where we disagree, though, because you always seem to drift away the moment you perceive yourself to be too much in agreement with my conclusions.

Copernicus, I've been very consistent with my position from the very beginning. The only thing we disagree on is whether or not one needs to believe in the inexistence of gods in order to be an atheist, we've never disagreed regarding "not having belief in god" not being sufficient when taken very literally. But for all practical situations, it is (imo) more accurate than your definition - and neither is "misuse-proof". But at least "lack of belief" can be misinterpreted only in one very specific example with which "common usage" has no connection, while "rejection of belief" can be misinterpreted quite readily to make a large population of people who consider themselves, as well as each other, atheist... "not atheists". And that's quite relevant, imo, unlike babies and brain dead people (no offense to creationists).

What makes you think that we are not? Hypernyms and hyponyms are lexical relationships that are established by usage. One meaning of "theist" is as a hypernym of "deist". Deists are specific types of theists. In the other meaning of "theist", there is no such relationship. They are contrasted with each other. The definitions I gave you earlier made this very clear.

Are you now infering common usage from dictionary definitions? Should I perhaps point you to the definition of "atheist" as "lack of belief". We need not go any further - both definitions already exist and, by inference and by analogy, necessarily represent "common usage". Which was my point all along - there is no "one" definition that is sufficient, there is no "one" majority on the matter.

Yes, a lot of value has been added to the discussion if you take the same position I do--that atheists consider gods to be implausible beings. (This is another good definition of the word, by the way--someone who believes gods to be implausible beings.) What else could that mean other than that you believe they probably do not exist?

See, this is where you make a no-no eevery time. You try to argue from my beliefs (or what you really think they are) to what the definition of atheism is. I don't accept this and I didn't say that I agree that atheists consider gods to be implausible things.

 

[Commoner]

Your right, hobby is a bad word used to describe this situation. Though in a weaker strength it could still apply, since One may pursue something for entertainment that may not apply to collecting stamps.

Every inaction, is an action.

This is true as long as inaction in one area implies action in another - which is not necessarily so.

Per the example, not collecting stamps is an activity, simply because action applies to conscious, which applies to mind.

It need not be. There needs to be no conscious decision or "alternative action" for "not collecting stamps", you're simply assuming that it must be so because it usually is.

Labels are believed. Everything of the Mind is believed.

Then "belief" means nothing and everything. I've already conceded the point that, if I were to agree with such a definition of "belief" in the context we're using it in, I would have to agree that atheism is a belief (and so would be stamp collecting).

What's your point? All of these words exist under the common belief that they actually mean something.
Not collecting stamps is a hobby, because it is a general interest for One to take no interest in collecting stamps and doing something else of amusement.

It is? I can quite happily not collect stamps without ever knowing the meaning of the word "stamp". I can also not collect stamps without having an alternative form of amusement. Having no hobby cannot possibly be a hobby and the usage of the word hobby to mean not doing something you don't like that may or may not result in doing something you do like is completely inappropriate, misleading and can add absolutely no value to the conversation - except for giving you a glimmer of a hope of establishing, by analogy, that the absence of a belief is a belief.