Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

In which case the most inclusive definition wins and the most exclusive definition loses. The definition of mball, pengo, KT and myself go by includes Copernicus' unique brand of atheism. His definition excludes those who simply are not convinced by the claim "god exists" but do not make factual claims on the subject of "god's existence" themselves.

Or... definition wins.

 

[Frank Merton]

In which case the most inclusive definition wins and the most exclusive definition loses.

Definitions must include everything that belongs and exclude everything that does not belong, in accordance with the general educated understanding.

Babies and rocks, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

People who are not sure, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

People who believe in an unorthodox God, such as deists and pantheists, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Definitions must include everything that belongs and exclude everything that does not belong, in accordance with the general educated understanding.

Babies and rocks, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

Why? Do you have any reason beyond your personal opinion of "the general educated understanding"?

People who are not sure, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

Again - why? How do these people "not belong"?

People who believe in an unorthodox God, such as deists and pantheists, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

Of course - "an unorthodox God" is still a god, hence they don't meet the one requirement of atheism: lack of belief in God or gods.

BTW - I find it interesting that you're resorting to logical fallacies to support your argument.

 

[Frank Merton]

I'm arguing nothing. Look up lexicography and learn how definitions are constructed, this is a technical business. "Logical fallacies." Don't be ridiculous.

It is not appropriate to construct definitions to suit an agenda; special definitions are appropriate for technical purposes, so long as they are made clear. Otherwise, the entire objective should be to capture how educated people understand the word, including things that people include and excluding things they don't. Educated people without an axe to grind understand "atheist" to exclude those I said should be excluded.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm arguing nothing. Look up lexicography and learn how definitions are constructed, this is a technical business. "Logical fallacies." Don't be ridiculous.

Depending how you intended it, your comment about the "general educated understanding" was either an appeal to authority or poisoning the well. Either way, it's fallacious.

It is not appropriate to construct definitions to suit an agenda; special definitions are appropriate for technical purposes, so long as they are made clear. Otherwise, the entire objective should be to capture how educated people understand the word, including things that people include and excluding things they don't. Educated people without an axe to grind understand "atheist" to exclude those I said should be excluded.

So are you saying that I'm uneducated, or are you saying that I have an axe to grind?

 

[Magic Man]

Definitions must include everything that belongs and exclude everything that does not belong, in accordance with the general educated understanding.

Babies and rocks, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

Why not? I can understand excluding rocks on the basis of the fact that they have no mental capacities, but why should babies be excluded?

People who are not sure, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

Why?

People who believe in an unorthodox God, such as deists and pantheists, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

See, this makes an interesting discussion. According to me, deists and pantheists are not theists, but it all depends on how you define "God". I wouldn't consider either of them to be theists, as I consider their gods to be different from the theistic god. But they would answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God", and therefore aren't really atheists.

 

[Frank Merton]

So are you saying that I'm uneducated, or are you saying that I have an axe to grind?

I have no desire to engage you further. In fact I think this whole board seems to be dominated by a few long-timers who have refined the art of crude rudeness to a fine art. There are plenty of boards around.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If that were true, then I would not call you an atheist. We do not think of atheists as people who take no position on the existence of gods. Look, you can put on a pink tutu and call yourself a ballerina, but that alone would not make you one. You would need to get the dance lessons and the sex change operation.

Who is this "we" you're speaking of? It's irrelevant whether you call me an atheist. I can't make the claim that I believe in the existence of gods - I'm an atheist. Making poor analogies doesn't change this.

Nobody has tried to argue that you can't have an absence of belief. The argument has been over whether the label "atheist" naturally applies to someone who is completely neutral on the existence of gods.

Actually, several people have tried to argue that. But, I digress.

I have already explained in great detail why both sentences are ambiguous. I can cite voluminous quantities of published articles, theses, treatises, classroom notes, books, etc., to back up the claim. So, I'm guessing that you still don't believe me. Fine, I'm just someone off the street with 40 years of experience as a professional linguist, but it is still possible that I'm wrong about that.

You can attempt to appeal to authority all you want, but I still don't see you making any attempt to form a cogent argument about why those two sentence are logically inconsistent.

Now, given that the sentences are--if you would just give me that benefit of the doubt for one second--logically ambiguous with respect to the relative scopes of "belief" and the negative operator --i.e. it can mean either "not have a belief that..." or "have a belief that...not..."--the first sentence is consistent with belief that there are no gods on one reading and inconsistent on the other. It is the inconsistent reading of the first sentence that I take for the meaning of "atheist". It is the consistent reading that you take for the meaning. Do you understand my point, or do you want me to start going on again about so-called "negative movement", "negative polarity", and various other concepts that linguists use to establish the ambiguity of negated belief claims?

Indeed, I understand how, depending on context and usage, the first sentence could be interpreted both ways. However, I've been more than clear about how I mean it, so ambiguity is a moot issue. And you also haven't made a successful argument about why only your definition of atheism applies. Remember, just saying so doesn't make it so.

I am not the one in need of help when it comes to understanding the semantics of these sentences. You are, but you do not know it (or acknowledge it, if you do know it).

Again, no attempt to form a cogent argument outlining why the two sentences are logically inconsistent. Feel free to start at any time.

 

[Magic Man]

I have no desire to engage you further. In fact I think this whole board seems to be dominated by a few long-timers who have refined the art of crude rudeness to a fine art. There are plenty of boards around.

Wow, yeah, you might want to look elsewhere, if that's the impression you've gotten.

You posted your ideas on the subject. We responded. There was nothing rude or crude about our responses. So, if that's how you see it, I feel the need to suggest you just stay away from debate forums. Not being able to debate with Penguin doesn't bode well for your chances of debating with anyone else.

 

[ellenjanuary]

But they would answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God", and therefore aren't really atheists.

Are you laying some trampolinist doctrine in my faith? I don't believe in god because god is beyond belief.

 

[bobhikes]

Are you laying some trampolinist doctrine in my faith? I don't believe in god because god is beyond belief.

So your saying that your ablility to believe is limited. Hum!:sarcastic

 

[ellenjanuary]

So your saying that your ablility to believe is limited. Hum!:sarcastic

Limited to the awareness of self. seems a rational position.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I have no desire to engage you further. In fact I think this whole board seems to be dominated by a few long-timers who have refined the art of crude rudeness to a fine art. There are plenty of boards around.

Boards around, that aren't dominated by a few cranky ol' timers? :sarcastic

 

[Copernicus]

Boards around, that aren't dominated by a few cranky ol' timers? :sarcastic

Frank qualifies as a cranky old-timer, and he knows it. Every time he complains about the overbearing, dogmatic attitude of us folks here, I tell him how well he fits in. In this particular case, he and I are on the same side. The core definition of atheism ought to exclude people who have no opinions about gods. Atheism is a belief--an opinion--that gods probably do not exist. Agnosticism is not quite the same thing. It is the belief that you cannot know in an absolute sense whether gods exist. You can take that position that gods probably do exist and still be an agnostic.

 

[ChristineES]

I am going to make up for my non-answer in this thread a few days ago: I said then I was not going to argue with someone about what is a belief or not.

I personally believe that not believing in God is indeed a belief. I have heard a lot of arguments that say that it is not a belief so I say it is a "non-belief" or a "anti-belief". That is just my personal opinion and I gave the non-answer because I didn't really want to enter into a debate of why it is not a belief. I really have no arguments.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I am going to make up for my non-answer in this thread a few days ago: I said then I was not going to argue with someone about what is a belief or not.

I personally believe that not believing in God is indeed a belief. I have heard a lot of arguments that say that it is not a belief so I say it is a "non-belief" or a "anti-belief". That is just my personal opinion and I gave the non-answer because I didn't really want to enter into a debate of why it is not a belief. I really have no arguments.

Well then, beat it; sayeth the cranky ol' timer.

 

[Alceste]

Definitions must include everything that belongs and exclude everything that does not belong, in accordance with the general educated understanding.

Babies and rocks, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

People who are not sure, even though they do not believe, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

People who believe in an unorthodox God, such as deists and pantheists, do not belong, so a good definition should exclude them.

So a good definition would be "a person whose world view does not include belief in a deity or deities".

That is how it is most widely used as far as I can tell. It also solves the problem of babies and rocks (although that has always been a slippery slope fallacy anyway rather than a genuine problem), by virtue of them either not being people or not having anything we would recognize as a "world view".

The problem with the terribly narrow definition " one who believes 'god' does not exist" is that it leaves the vast majority of the world's atheists without any adjective at all. Agnosticism can not fill the gap because it makes a specific positive assertion (i.e. That the question of 'god's' existence is fundamentally insoluble).

 

[ellenjanuary]

Frank qualifies as a cranky old-timer, and he knows it. Every time he complains about the overbearing, dogmatic attitude of us folks here, I tell him how well he fits in. In this particular case, he and I are on the same side. The core definition of atheism ought to exclude people who have no opinions about gods. Atheism is a belief--an opinion--that gods probably do not exist. Agnosticism is not quite the same thing. It is the belief that you cannot know in an absolute sense whether gods exist. You can take that position that gods probably do exist and still be an agnostic.

Frank's alright in my book. We all do some kettle-calling once in a while; makes us authentic.

Yeah, I tried agnostic; now I'm deist.

 

[Copernicus]

Admitted what? That it sounds weird? That may be - weirdness is a matter of personal taste. I just don't see how it's relevant to accuracy. Lots of accurate things can seem weird.

When someone admits that it's weird to use the word "atheist" to describe a baby or ape, that is a linguistic judgment that serves as data. Definitions are supposed to describe usage, so a proper definition needs to exclude babies and apes. (Frank Merton made this point very nicely.)

So? Atheists tend to be the ones most concerned with proper use of the term.

Nonsense. Anyone who uses the word is concerned with its proper use. Atheists like yourself have a particular axe to grind, however. Your insistence on the "lacks belief" definition has more to do with the debate between atheists and theists.

Anyhow, as I pointed out in my other post, there's a substantial number of people who use the term in ways that both you and I would consider incorrect: that atheism is "anger at God", for instance. If correctness of language is determined by popularity, does this mean that these people's definition is right?

There is a big difference between word meaning and the definition of a word sense. Meanings are very complex networks of associations. Definitions are succinct statements that help people distinguish between different senses of the word and serve as discovery procedures for setting up the correct meaning. Dictionaries do not determine what words mean. They provide readers with clues as to how words are commonly used by speakers of a language.

Did you notice where it gave "disbelief in God or gods" as a definition for atheism and "lack of belief" as a definition for "disbelief"? What do you get when you put those two definitions together?

Now what on Earth makes you think that the word "disbelief" would support your definition? Its primary meaning is the opposite of what you want. For example, dictionary.com gives two definitions:

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

They go on to note that "disbelief" and be confused with "unbelief", which is

the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, especially in matters of doctrine or religious faith.

Merriam Webster's Unabridged dictionary defines "disbelief" as:

the act of disbelieving: mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true <listened to him with shocked disbelief>

If you want to define "atheism" as "disbelief in gods", I'll agree. If you want to define it as "unbelief in gods", you have lost my vote.

So... when the National Cancer Institute refers to children in a discussion of legal protections against secondhand smoke for non-smokers (see question 7), they're incorrect?

No, because the meaning of "non-smoker" can be extended to children, who, like adults, have lungs that can be filled with second-hand smoke. The word "atheist" cannot be so easily applied to infants or apes, because those individuals have no understanding of what a god is. That is, they are not potential theists, unlike children who are "potential smokers".

I think if any position is looking absurd, it's yours.

Absurdity is in the mind of the beholder. I'm not the one straining to call babies atheists.

Except "non-theist" and "atheist" are synonyms.

Only if you maintain that "atheist" can refer to people who are neutral about the existence of gods. In fact, the reason that a word like "non-believer" or "non-theist" exists is to distinguish the class of individuals who lack belief in gods from those who reject it. We use them in contexts where we wish to avoid the lack of neutrality that is associated with with atheism.

That would make sense, because it's exceptionally hard to find someone who's never been exposed to the concept of "god"... nobody who's capable of carrying on a conversation with you.

Don't you know any children? Have you never had a pet? We can communicate some thoughts to dogs--for example, that we don't like them pooping in the house--but they probably do not have a concept of gods.

By the same token, the term "person" almost always refers to someone who has a nose. Should we exclude those without noses (who lost them by disease or accident, for instance) from the definition of "person"?

Interesting question. I could answer it, but not easily or quickly here. I could refer you to George Lakoff's tour de force Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, which explains the amorphous nature and structure of word meanings, but that takes us well beyond this little discussion. Briefly, though, noses are part of the prototypical "core" human. Four legs is part of the core concept of a dog's body, even though three-legged dogs occur. How do we recognize what makes up the essence of a "person" or a "dog"? You need to study lexical semantics to understand that.

Though under Huxley's definition, agnosticism doesn't work as a "default" position either, because it depends on adherence to principles and positive assertions:

What you need to understand about people who coin words is that the meanings people assign to them by convention of usage may not be the same as intended by the coiner. Usage has drifted away from Huxley's original concept. Nowadays, its primary sense is associated with indecisiveness.

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, this would be like me not specifying that the term "atheist" doesn't refer to people who believe in God. It's unnecessary because it's built into the definition... unlike your claim about active rejection of god-belief and atheism.

It's not about being open-minded. The most pig-headed, closed-minded person in the world would be an atheist if he simply lacked belief in God. All this is about is trying to come to an accurate, workable definition.

I was referring to the purpose of the "lack of belief" definition. From the perspective of an atheist debater, claiming lack of prejudice is a way of claiming the high ground in the debate. My fellow atheists do not want to lose that high ground, so they fight for a more neutral and inclusive definition of atheism than is normally understood by the public at large.

I disagree. My many posts in this thread notwithstanding, I think that the definition of the term "atheist" is a bit of a sideshow. The best thing that atheists can do to improve their image is to not focus on what we don't believe and instead focus on what we do believe... which is going to be different for every atheist.

I think that you are already losing focus. What we do believe is that gods are implausible beings. We reject belief in their existence, even if the rejection is fairly weak. If that excludes a lot of people who are on the fence about the existence of gods, so what?

This will make it difficult for theists (or anyone else) to tar all atheists with the same brush, but that's just fine by me.

Please remember that you said this. It underscores my point that the "lack of belief" claim is tied to a position in the theist-atheist debate, not an objective recognition of how people use the word "atheism". You fear being tarred, and you want to make it more difficult for your debating opponents to "tar" you.

If atheism depends on active rejection of God or gods, then you're only an atheist about the specific gods you've considered. I'm sure you'll agree that there are plenty of god-concepts out there that you (or I) have never heard of; by your definition, you can't be an atheist about those, since you've never actively rejected them - how can you reject a concept you've never even thought about?

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, there is nothing you can ever talk about, because any word you use may be used differently by someone you have not met yet. The fact is that we both have a very good idea of what a god is and what the range of ideas are that people entertain when they use the word "god". I frequently take care to define a core concept--a prototypical--god as a usually immaterial intelligent agent that has absolute power over some aspect of reality. The monotheistic "God" is a god with a lot more semantic baggage--power over all of physical reality. What makes me an atheist is that I reject belief in such beings. I do not think it likely that brainless minds can exist, let alone have ultimate power to shape reality. If someone wants to start redefining "God" and use the term in some other way, they are free to do that with other speakers of English who will agree to it. I think that doing that leads people into lots of equivocation traps.

In that light, how can you call yourself an atheist generally? How can anyone? At some point, even in your worldview, atheism has to come down to simple lack of belief: you may not be capable of rejecting all those god-concepts you've never encountered, but you're certainly capable of not believing in them.

I am just as capable of rejecting belief in gods as I am in rejecting belief in flying saucers, pixies, and unicorns. If you feel that you cannot go quite that far, then I have mistaken you for someone with a sharper sense of reality.

 

[Christina]

A belief means you simply believe in something, do atheists? No. Therefore they can not call themselves a belief system.