Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alright. But out of curiosity, why has "intellectually" been added? I mean, what other faculty are you going to use to accomplish assent?

To distinguish it from "royal assent", maybe?

I guess I was being redundant.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not ignoring it; I'm directly addressing it. That's been my point all along: without some sort of context to suggest which meaning is intended, you can't automatically assume that "I don't believe" implies your meaning #2.

Then you understand perfectly well why I would never use that expression to define the word "atheism" or "atheist". It is ambiguous. In such a situation, the best solution would usually be to split the definition into two distinct word senses rather than to leave it open to question. Most people clearly think of atheism as a negative belief. The definition that you favor could be offered as a secondary sense of the word, but I very much doubt that anyone other than ideologues use the word as you describe. I might consider your definition for an unabridged dictionary entry, but I am far from convinced that it is anything more than an artificial definition whose only utility is in debates over the meaning of atheism.

I'll have to dig up the posts, but I remember that as the general thrust of your argument. Maybe I'm wrong.

We did discuss etymology, but my consistent position has been to avoid etymological fallacies. To argue word meaning on the basis of historical origin or morphological parsing is an etymological fallacy. Usage is the only rational criterion.

No, what makes me an atheist is that I don't believe in any gods. My rejection of gods is just icing on the cake. I don't need it to get into the "atheist club"; I only need it for the "strong atheist" VIP room.

It is interesting that Mball has just taken the position that strong atheism is not really a belief. Well, you are clearly in favor of letting all sorts of riff-raff into our little club. Shame on you.

When I say "god", I am using my understanding of the term "god".

One can only hope that it bears a resemblance to the understanding that other English speakers have. We are supposed to be speaking the same language, you know.

The issue before was that you tried to suggest that the word "atheist" relies on some objective (or at least external) definition of the term "god". The point I raised was that by relying on this approach, and by phrasing your definition in terms of rejection of all gods, this means that there's no room in the definition of "atheist" for a person who rejects the vast majority of gods in general, but simply never considered some weird, fringe-y concept that is unpopular but is nevertheless a valid "god".

Again, I think that you are straining too hard to make a very subtle point. I am quite happy to acknowledge borderline cases--e.g. the one that Commoner started trying to describe. If there is someone just on the verge of becoming an atheist, I will be happy to issue a temporary pass into the club but keep a wary eye on him for theistic belief tendencies. The point is that meaning is a web of associations, and all word meanings are vague around the edges. There will always be grey areas. That does not mean that we have to create definitions that create a false impression of word usage.

If you modify your definition of "atheist" to be something more like "a person who rejects all the gods he's ever considered", then this allows a person who's never considered any gods at all (e.g. a baby) to be an atheist, since zero is 100% of zero.

As a lexicographer, I would never put a definition like that in a dictionary. I do not think that the more succinct "person who rejects belief in gods" is misleading. If a person discovers a god that he thinks probably exists, then that person ceases to be an atheist and becomes a theist. Or, one might just call him an agnostic, if he decides to therefore reject his earlier negative belief in favor of neutrality on the subject of the existence of gods.

There's a major difference in approach between our definitions, and I think it makes mine workable and yours not:

- yours: consider all valid concepts of gods and reject all of them.
- mine: consider all of my personal beliefs and confirm that they contain no god-concepts.

I would not characterize my position that way. My position is to consider the properties of beings that we think of as "gods". If one rejects the idea that beings with necessarily "godlike" properties can exist, then one can reject belief in gods without actually examining every god. Do you see my point on this? It is a rejection of belief in a functionally-defined set of beings, not the mere collection of beings that happen to be in the set at any given moment.

I doubt whether the burden that your definition creates is even practically possible. Mine is.

That is an artifact of how you choose to construe my position. You think of it as a matter of examining every individual in a set. I think of it as rejecting belief in whatever collection of beings is picked out by the functional set definition.

That's right. When the question is the existence of gods, I consider option 3 to fall under the umbrella of atheism; apparently, you don't.

That is correct. I have an absence of belief that you are right.

 

[Orias]

I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. Strong atheism is not a belief. It includes a belief, though. I am not an arm, but I do include one.

It's kind of like telling a half black person that they are black, and they keep saying "I'm half black".

They still are black. Even if they are "half".

 

[Orias]

That's right. When the question is the existence of gods, I consider option 3 to fall under the umbrella of atheism; apparently, you don't.

So to clarify, you wouldn't consider option 3 as being a belief then would you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you understand perfectly well why I would never use that expression to define the word "atheism" or "atheist".

I didn't say you did. I was just responding to the immediate point.

It is interesting that Mball has just taken the position that strong atheism is not really a belief. Well, you are clearly in favor of letting all sorts of riff-raff into our little club. Shame on you.

Well, I'm safe in the VIP room, and he's not getting past my doorman. Not with that attitude, anyhow.

One can only hope that it bears a resemblance to the understanding that other English speakers have. We are supposed to be speaking the same language, you know.

Yes... other usage informs my understanding, but ultimately, it's my understanding that's going to be used as the basis for my beliefs.

Again, I think that you are straining too hard to make a very subtle point.

As subtle as the point of whether a baby is an atheist?

Apparently, hair-splitting is just what we do in this thread.

I am quite happy to acknowledge borderline cases--e.g. the one that Commoner started trying to describe. If there is someone just on the verge of becoming an atheist, I will be happy to issue a temporary pass into the club but keep a wary eye on him for theistic belief tendencies.

What does this even mean?

You're talking about "Johnny"? But he utterly fails to meet the definition you gave. He rejected a grand total of one god-concept before deciding not to worry about the question any more. This is one away from the case of the "baby atheist" that weirded you out so badly.

The point is that meaning is a web of associations, and all word meanings are vague around the edges. There will always be grey areas.

But that example isn't "around the edges", it's smack-dab in the middle: while Johnny doesn't believe in any gods, he has rejected only one and not any others. By your definition, he's not an atheist.

Not even a "temporary" atheist, AFAICT, though I'm struggling to figure out what a temporary atheist would be.

That does not mean that we have to create definitions that create a false impression of word usage.

Then why do you insist on your definition, which does create a false impression? Your definition suggests that atheists have accomplished the impossible.

As a lexicographer, I would never put a definition like that in a dictionary.

Maybe not, but by your actual usage, it seems to me that it's what you mean.

I do not think that the more succinct "person who rejects belief in gods" is misleading.

It is when you word it that way. Most theists reject belief in some gods.

I would not characterize my position that way. My position is to consider the properties of beings that we think of as "gods". If one rejects the idea that beings with necessarily "godlike" properties can exist, then one can reject belief in gods without actually examining every god. Do you seem my point on this? It is a rejection of belief in a functionally-defined set of beings, not the mere collection of beings that happen to be in the set at any given moment.

I do see your point, but I think you're setting yourself up for failure. I don't think it's even possible to come up with the authoritative list of "godlike" properties or "functions" that you would need for such an endeavour in such a way that it covers all things that could be reasonably considered "gods".

That is an artifact of how you choose to construe my position. You think of it as a matter of examining every individual in a set. I think of it as rejecting belief in whatever collection of beings is picked out by the functional set definition.

No, I don't, and I wish I'd never brought up that whole "two approaches" thing, because you seem to have completely misunderstood me, but latched onto your misunderstanding anyhow.

Theoretically, if you could come up with one or more categories that, when taken together, cover all things rightly called "god" based on some sort of characteristics or attributes, and then reject based on those attributes, then yes, you would be able to reject all gods. However, in practical terms, I don't think this is possible. I don't think you can actually come up with a "functional set definition" that actually includes all gods.

When you tried to do it before, I pointed out the problems with the definitions you gave. You just brushed them off as unimportant, since, supposedly, word definitions only need to be valid in their core use, and we don't need to worry too much about the edges. Then, you went on to ignore the core use of "atheist" and instead dance around on the edge of that term.

That is correct. I have an absence of belief that you are right.

So you don't necessarily have the belief that I'm wrong. There's hope yet.

 

[Copernicus]

You're talking about "Johnny"? But he utterly fails to meet the definition you gave. He rejected a grand total of one god-concept before deciding not to worry about the question any more. This is one away from the case of the "baby atheist" that weirded you out so badly.

The "baby atheist" is a popular image in debates between theists and atheists. I did not invent it, but we did confirm that not everyone in these debate forums accepts it as reasonable usage. As for "Johnny", I do not honestly care whether he meets the definition of an atheist. He is a hypothetical person whose thought and behavior exists only in our minds. I allow for the possibility of people who are neither theists nor atheists (<cough>babies</cough>). It is you and others here who think that people must be labeled one way or the other.

Not even a "temporary" atheist, AFAICT, though I'm struggling to figure out what a temporary atheist would be.

Somebody who is an atheist for a period of time and then stops being one. A permanent atheist would be one who stays an atheist forever. A sporadic atheist would be one who is only an atheist from time to time. A periodic atheist is one who goes through regular intervals of atheism. An intrepid atheist is an unusually brave atheist. A cowardly atheist is one is afraid to stand his ground. I'm sure you could come up with many more different types of atheists.

Then why do you insist on your definition, which does create a false impression? Your definition suggests that atheists have accomplished the impossible.

Really? You yourself claimed to fit my definition of atheism. You just disagreed that my definition was correct. Have you accomplished the impossible? We are a real pair of over-achievers then.

It is when you word it that way. Most theists reject belief in some gods.

So do most theists and pure agnostics. I firmly believe that there is more to it than just rejection of belief in some gods.

I do see your point, but I think you're setting yourself up for failure. I don't think it's even possible to come up with the authoritative list of "godlike" properties or "functions" that you would need for such an endeavour in such a way that it covers all things that could be reasonably considered "gods".

No wonder us linguists, lexicologists, lexicographers, and philologists are so highly paid. Our jobs are considered impossible.

No, I don't, and I wish I'd never brought up that whole "two approaches" thing, because you seem to have completely misunderstood me, but latched onto your misunderstanding anyhow.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. I was only trying to make sense of what you said.

When you tried to do it before, I pointed out the problems with the definitions you gave. You just brushed them off as unimportant, since, supposedly, word definitions only need to be valid in their core use, and we don't need to worry too much about the edges. Then, you went on to ignore the core use of "atheist" and instead dance around on the edge of that term.

Nevertheless, lexicographers produce fairly reasonable definitions for most words in the language. One just shouldn't read too much into dictionary definitions. And there really are techniques for investigating the properties of words. That's what linguists do. I'm sorry that you think it an impossible job, but somebody's got to do it. In the words of the great American linguist, Edward Sapir, "All grammars leak". It sucks, but there you have it.

So you don't necessarily have the belief that I'm wrong. There's hope yet.

Oh. No. I'm sorry if I misled you. I said that I had an absence of belief that you were right. My belief that you were wrong entailed that absence.

 

[Magic Man]

I'll repeat my position on this again, since you seem to have forgotten it. The word "god" refers to a category of beings. If you believe the existence of beings in that category to be implausible, then you think that they probably do not exist. That makes you an atheist, not just your absence of belief in their existence.

That doesn't even remotely respond to what I said.

So now not even strong atheism is a negative belief. It merely includes a belief, whatever that means.

Yes, strong atheism includes a belief. I'd say that's pretty easy to understand. Strong atheism is atheism (absence of belief in gods) accompanied by the belief "gods don't exist", hence it includes a belief. What part are you having trouble with?

 

[Magic Man]

It's kind of like telling a half black person that they are black, and they keep saying "I'm half black".

They still are black. Even if they are "half".

Wow...please tell me you're not serious.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, strong atheism includes a belief. I'd say that's pretty easy to understand. Strong atheism is atheism (absence of belief in gods) accompanied by the belief "gods don't exist", hence it includes a belief. What part are you having trouble with?

The part that misleads people into thinking that someone must be either an atheist or a theist. There are cases of people that fit into neither category.

 

[Magic Man]

It is interesting that Mball has just taken the position that strong atheism is not really a belief. Well, you are clearly in favor of letting all sorts of riff-raff into our little club. Shame on you.

I'm still surprised by your inability to follow along in this thread. Yes, strong atheism is not itself a belief, but it includes one. In other words, to get into the "strong atheist" club, you'd still have to hold the belief included in strong atheism.

Look at it this way:

Atheism - lack of belief in gods
Strong (in this sense) - belief that gods don't exist
Strong atheism - lack of belief in gods and the belief that gods don't exist

If you want to be completely accurate, that's what it is. If you want to just talk about it casually, there's nothing wrong with calling it a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

The part that misleads people into thinking that someone must be either an atheist or a theist. There are cases of people that fit into neither category.

Um...OK. That wasn't even in my post, but since you brought it up again, you still haven't given a case where neither of those labels applies.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I'm safe in the VIP room, and he's not getting past my doorman. Not with that attitude, anyhow.

Out of curiosity, do you think "strong atheism is a belief" is the best way to phrase it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "baby atheist" is a popular image in debates between theists and atheists. I did not invent it, but we did confirm that not everyone in these debate forums accepts it as reasonable usage.

But several times now, you've rejected usage on these debate forums as reasonable, so what does that do for you?

As for "Johnny", I do not honestly care whether he meets the definition of an atheist.

Then why did you say you would consider him a "borderline" case that might be considered an atheist?

Somebody who is an atheist for a period of time and then stops being one. A permanent atheist would be one who stays an atheist forever.

When I said "temporary atheist", I was referring to your "temporary pass" idea... it sounds to me like it's something that you could "revoke" without Johnny doing anything, but that would imply that you're the arbiter of the meaning of "atheist", which seems to me to go against what you've argued so far.

Really? You yourself claimed to fit my definition of atheism. You just disagreed that my definition was correct. Have you accomplished the impossible? We are a real pair of over-achievers then.

If we go by your definition of "rejection of belief in gods", I meet it... with the understanding that I'm taking "gods" to mean "my understanding of gods" as opposed to "your understanding of gods".

If we drill down based on your later stipulation that "gods" means some external "functional" definition (as if we could even say what the "function" of a god was), then I can no longer meet it, because, as I said, this functional definition creates an impossible situation.

So do most theists and pure agnostics. I firmly believe that there is more to it than just rejection of belief in some gods.

Well, if you're basing your definition on rejection of belief, then it had better be nothing short of all gods, because many monotheists reject all but one god.

No wonder us linguists, lexicologists, lexicographers, and philologists are so highly paid. Our jobs are considered impossible.

And you get paid double for point-dodging, I presume.

Care to actually address my point? You've said that you define "god" in terms of functionality or "godlike attributes". What functions? What attributes? Let's see whether they actually cover all gods.

Nevertheless, lexicographers produce fairly reasonable definitions for most words in the language. One just shouldn't read too much into dictionary definitions. And there really are techniques for investigating the properties of words. That's what linguists do. I'm sorry that you think it an impossible job, but somebody's got to do it. In the words of the great American linguist, Edward Sapir, "All grammars leak". It sucks, but there you have it.

So... the fact that, according to your argument, my definition of atheist "leaks babies" shouldn't be taken to suggest that it's necessarily invalid, should it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity, do you think "strong atheism is a belief" is the best way to phrase it?

Enh. I'd probably go with "strong atheism entails belief", but it's close enough for folk music, IMO.

 

[Magic Man]

Enh. I'd probably go with "strong atheism entails belief", but it's close enough for folk music, IMO.

OK, thanks, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

 

[Copernicus]

But several times now, you've rejected usage on these debate forums as reasonable, so what does that do for you?

I've rejected a definition of usage, not the usage itself. Usage is data. The question is whether your usage merits a definition or is just part of a debate strategy. I have formed the opinion that it is the latter, but I am certainly open to a debate on the matter. I think that I have established that beyond all doubt.

Then why did you say you would consider him a "borderline" case that might be considered an atheist?

Because I hadn't had an adequate chance to interrogate Johnny. It is hard to work with Commoner as an intermediary. I fear that he may misrepresent Johnny.

When I said "temporary atheist", I was referring to your "temporary pass" idea... it sounds to me like it's something that you could "revoke" without Johnny doing anything, but that would imply that you're the arbiter of the meaning of "atheist", which seems to me to go against what you've argued so far.

Look, if I'm empowered to give out passes, then I am the arbiter of whether he deserves one. Seriously though, I think that the label "atheist" depends on a person's beliefs at a given point in time. I make allowances for people to change their minds.

If we go by your definition of "rejection of belief in gods", I meet it... with the understanding that I'm taking "gods" to mean "my understanding of gods" as opposed to "your understanding of gods".

Honestly, my friend, I do not see any daylight between our respective positions on the existence of gods. This is only about appropriate word usage.

If we drill down based on your later stipulation that "gods" means some external "functional" definition (as if we could even say what the "function" of a god was), then I can no longer meet it, because, as I said, this functional definition creates an impossible situation.

Excuse me for just a moment. :banghead3 OK, that's better. Now what were we talking about? :areyoucra

Well, if you're basing your definition on rejection of belief, then it had better be nothing short of all gods, because many monotheists reject all but one god.

Yes. Atheists reject belief in that one, too.

Care to actually address my point? You've said that you define "god" in terms of functionality or "godlike attributes". What functions? What attributes? Let's see whether they actually cover all gods.

Do we really need to do this again? You can refer back to my earlier definitions and your quibbles with them. We associate a lot of properties with gods--some more closely than others. A prototypical god is a supernatural being that controls some aspect of reality through volition alone and is considered worthy of worship. There are lots of other properties that we associate with them. I reject such beings on the grounds that I do not believe in the plausibility of brainless minds or magical powers, among other things. Hence, I consider all gods to be imaginary beings. I could, of course, be wrong. I can only base my opinion on what I think I know about reality. I suspect that there is little or no difference between us in our beliefs about gods.

So... the fact that, according to your argument, my definition of atheist "leaks babies" shouldn't be taken to suggest that it's necessarily invalid, should it?

My advice is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater by claiming that atheism is defined by absence of belief alone.

 

[Commoner]

Hold on. You are forgetting something. It isn't a matter of whose definition it is. Dictionaries are relevant to the discussion, because their job is to reflect popular usage. So the popularity of "belief that not" definitions and rareness of "absence of belief" definitions is relevant evidence.

No. Whatever meaning the English-speaking population uses for a word is its meaning. There are no other bona fide criteria for determining word meanings.

I can get on board with that - but then let me say it again, neither lack of belief, nor rejection of belief, in terms that we've each explained those phrases, is what the "English speaking population" uses. "Non believer" and "doesn't believe in a god" (and add a bit of "heretic" and "satanist" to the mix) are what the majority understand an atheist to be. You're trying to go past that meaning - so you either need additional criteria or you can stop trying to do that (or demonstrate that the general pop. has a detailed concept of an atheist). Either way, I'm on board.

Because dictionaries by and large do define word meanings correctly, although the quality of the definitions can vary. I can offer my personal opinion about general usage, but it is better to offer more objective evidence.

Ok, I'll make sure and be ready to receive this objective evidence.

I don't know. We would need to ask your hypothetical Johnny additional questions about what he believes with respect to beings like gods. Atheism is not just the rejection of a specific god, although that sense of the word has been used in the past. (For example, the Romans were said to have tried Christians for the crime of "atheism", but that wasn't in an English-speaking venue.) My guess is that most people would probably call him an atheist for rejecting belief in their God, which is the only god that they consider relevant, but we have no data to confirm such guesses. In the end, the question turns on who people use the word "atheist", not how we think they ought to use it.

Ok, then let me rephrase my question... Do you think most people, in your opinion, would consider Johnny an atheist after reading his little "life story"?

yes

 

[Commoner]

If you feel that spiders are going to kill you, and you act in accordance with this, then it is a belief, regardless of how it was obtained or why (ie, instinctual, reasoned, concious, unconcious.) Because even if it is an instinctual fear, once you are aware of it and choose to still act in accordance, then it is now conciously accepted.

If you did believe that spiders will kill you, then I also think it a reasonable assumption to assume that you believe the spider is deadly in some manner (as something cannot kill unless it is deadly.) Basically, we go through life making probability assumptions-- nothing is every 100% certain. This is necessary in order to operate in a world in which we never have complete knowledge; if we didn't, we would be immobilized, incapable of ever making any action. So, while, true, it is possible you are extremely irrational and do not believe that spiders are deadly while believing that spiders will kill you, that is the less likely explanation.

Are you sure that I'm just not entirely convinced I'm even looking at a spider?

 

[Commoner]

But it is, since when you aren't doing One thing, conscious manipulation continually proliferates another.

When you are doing nothing, you are doing something, even if this "nothing" lacks physical activity.

I wasn't speaking of direct or explicit conscious decision.

Just merely consciousness.

Again, every action applies to conscious which is literally One with the mind.

Well "truth" does contest with belief, since what One may contest as "true" may be Opposed by means of someone else who claims that certain "truth" false, and substitutes their own "truth" with the other person's reality.

Essentially, everything is believed, while the only true knowledge we hold, is that of our Self.

Therefore being amused by not collecting stamps.

Then you are a boring and unwillful person.

Being forced to do something and willfully doing it are two different things, a willful action that does not involve collecting stamps does involve an alternative form of amusement, since comfort is a drive that we all posses.

Even if some others copeing or "comforting" mechanisisms are less than hospitable to others.

Actually anything done outside of One's own regular occupation is a hobby, so if comming home and doing nothing is something done outside of One's own regular occupation, than not doing anything, or not possessing a "hobby" is a hobby. Consider the strength of it's implication, conscious direction plays a huge role in this.

Active implies direct, which correlates to consciousness.

Yes absence of belief is a belief to those who truly belief in it's connotation.

Not to mention "atheism" is not defined by "absence of belief", it is defined by "absence of belief in "God(s)"".

Orias, to me this is such a mess of illogical thinking, I'm not even going to respond to it. I feel we're just running in circles. So, good luck with that, I'm done arguing about this since I see absolutely no value added in such a discussion. Sorry, man.

 

[Copernicus]

Ok, then let me rephrase my question... Do you think most people, in your opinion, would consider Johnny an atheist after reading his little "life story"?

Possibly, but it is a very contrived example. It is for just this reason that people make up labels like "apatheist" and "agnostic"--to try to classify borderline cases. If Huxley had considered the definition promoted by folks here to be reasonable, he never would have rejected the label "atheist" and coined the word "agnostic". What I think is really going on with "atheist" is that it carries a great amount of social stigma. So some people don't want to use it to describe themselves. Others strive to keep the label but give it a broader definition than it has had in the past. The new definition then becomes a tool to try to drive change. After all, if babies are atheists, how can everyone stay mad at them? Sure, they whine a lot, and they sometimes make a mess, but aren't they also cuddly and cute?