Atheism: A belief?

[Falvlun]

Not exactly. The orange circle is also part of atheism, but I wouldn't say your sentence. Atheism is both circles, but if you're going to define it, you have to use a definition that includes both circles, since atheism isn't one of the other.

So, in other words, you do believe that there is only one valid definition for atheism, and that would be "Someone who lacks a belief that gods exist."

It would be incorrect to state "Cars are vehicles with gas engines". It is similarly incorrect to state "Atheism is a belief".

I understand your analogy now, and you are right if indeed there is only one true definition for atheism, just like there is only one definition for cars.

However, I disagree that there is only one definition. The "negative belief" definition is useful, descriptive, and in common use. It has a different enough connotation from the generalized "lack of the belief" definition that it's separateness is justified.

And that's incorrect. If you want to say that strong atheism is a belief, I'll agree to it. But atheism is not a belief, just as cars aren't vehicles with a gas engine.

I think we define weak vs strong atheism differently. I consider weak atheism to be the "I believe god doesn't exist" position, and strong atheism to be the "I know god doesn't exist" position-- no hedging around. But this Wiki article shares your definition: Negative and Positive Atheism. So I'm not married to my interpretation, though I do feel the distinction is important.

In other news, I appreciated your previously posted Wiki article's distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. I think that's the distinction-- and wording-- we should be using and making, rather than trying to cram all "atheism" into a one-size-fits-all definition.

Also, my car-- which is a vehicle with a gas engine-- wants to know what it should be called now, since "cars aren't vehicles with gas engines".

 

[Magic Man]

So, in other words, you do believe that there is only one valid definition for atheism, and that would be "Someone who lacks a belief that gods exist."

No, I believe the best definition is "someone who lacks the belief in gods, and might also believe that gods don't exist". But the main thing is that any definition used to make statements about what atheism is needs to take into account all definitions of the word, not just one. My definition takes all aspects into account, though.

I understand your analogy now, and you are right if indeed there is only one true definition for atheism, just like there is only one definition for cars.

However, I disagree that there is only one definition. The "negative belief" definition is useful, descriptive, and in common use. It has a different enough connotation from the generalized "lack of the belief" definition that it's separateness is justified.

If you just use my definition above, it clears all of this up. But aside from that, we're talking about atheism in general, not just one definition. If you want to say "atheism is...", you have to take all definitions into account.

I think we define weak vs strong atheism differently. I consider weak atheism to be the "I believe god doesn't exist" position, and strong atheism to be the "I know god doesn't exist" position-- no hedging around. But this Wiki article shares your definition: Negative and Positive Atheism. So I'm not married to my interpretation, though I do feel the distinction is important.

Yeah, I'd say your distinction isn't as important as the distinction between lacking belief and holding negative belief, which is why I'd still go with the Wiki ideas on weak and strong atheism.

In other news, I appreciated your previously posted Wiki article's distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. I think that's the distinction-- and wording-- we should be using and making, rather than trying to cram all "atheism" into a one-size-fits-all definition.

Sure, which is why I said, if you want to say "strong atheism is a belief", I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, "atheism is a belief" is a much different claim.

Also, my car-- which is a vehicle with a gas engine-- wants to know what it should be called now, since "cars aren't vehicles with gas engines".

Why I oughtta...

 

[Falvlun]

How about if we use the best definition, which is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". In that case, it's not a belief, but it includes everything.

Not a bad definition, actually. I dig it.

Although, I would still think the statement should be that "atheism is not necessarily a belief"; and not the absolute "atheism is not a belief", since that is patently untrue for certain types of atheism.

One other thing: Why is it so important to find a definition-- and preferentially use that definition-- that includes every single possible atheist? It's not like the undecided, the indifferent, and the "no god concept" people are clamoring for a label. Are they atheists? Technically. But, it's just not that interesting or important, except as a passing "oh, yeah, I guess they would be technically included."

We already have a pretty good working word for someone who is undecided-- the popular meaning of the word "agnostic" (yes, I know that the popular meaning is not the academic meaning of the word, but it does nicely fill a niche that was missing. A niche that you are seemingly trying to fill instead with the term "atheism", which only causes more ambiguity.)

One of your stated reasons is to be precise and descriptive. But a single giant one-size-fits-all term tends to reduce precision, because it is purposefully general. I think precision, and descriptiveness, is best served by specific terms for the various types of atheism, such as "weak" "strong" "implicit" "explicit". That way, people know exactly which type of atheism you are talking about.

 

[Copernicus]

A use that is valid.

It seems clear to me that you have no idea what you mean by "valid use". I would define a valid use as one that conforms to common usage, which your definition violates.

That doesn't even matter, although we can see from your survey that it seems a majority of atheists do agree with me.

If you are talking about the "baby" survey, there is a 50-50 split on this board. On the other two atheist-dominated boards, there is a 2-1 vote against your definition. So I think that you are being a little hasty in claiming the "majority" of atheists.

What you're arguing is that lacking belief in gods is insufficient to be an atheist. That is unsupported by Wikipedia, among other things.

I am saying that the "lacks belief" definition is a bad definition because of the distorted way that some atheists (like you) interpret it. Anyone who denies belief in gods can claim to lack belief in them, but not vice versa. You have taken the definition too literally to mean that "lack of belief" includes people who even lack the negative belief. That is where we are having our big disagreement, because you have used it to try to drive usage rather than reflect usage.

Of course that's what you believe. It can't be because it's accurate. There must be some other reason for it. At this point, you're showing that you're not open to being wrong. You have an excuse for everything. I don't see how either meaning would be politically incorrect. One is simply more inclusive. It's like someone defining a car as "a vehicle with four wheels and a gas engine", and then you reminding them that some cars have electric engines, and they agree to a new definition.

Actually, it is more like you taking that original definition and declaring that we must call a riding lawn mower a "car" because it is a vehicle with four wheels and a gas engine. You have utterly refused to consider the possibility that the definition is wrong and needs to be adjusted to reflect common usage. You have taken the dogmatic position that definitions determine how people use words rather than the other way around. Lexicographers observe how people use words in order to construct their definitions. If a definition misleads people into inventing non-existent usage, then it is a bad definition.

 

[ZeusTheist]

Not exactly. The orange circle is also part of atheism, but I wouldn't say your sentence. Atheism is both circles, but if you're going to define it, you have to use a definition that includes both circles, since atheism isn't one of the other.



It would be incorrect to state "Cars are vehicles with gas engines". It is similarly incorrect to state "Atheism is a belief".



How about if we use the best definition, which is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". In that case, it's not a belief, but it includes everything.



No, I'm denying that that in and of itself is a definition for atheism. The belief that gods don't exist is always, without fail, accompanied by the absence of the belief that gods exist. The reverse is not true.



And that's incorrect. If you want to say that strong atheism is a belief, I'll agree to it. But atheism is not a belief, just as cars aren't vehicles with a gas engine.

You're treating theism different from any other supersticous belief. Is it a "belief" that astrology is not efficacious? No. You've empirically evaluated evidence and found it severelly lacking and have therefore concluded the probability so low that you would be irrational TO believe. That is not belief its the suspension of belief until such time as evidence is shown that would allow you to provisionally conclude it is true. Treat theism as every other hypothesis. You put it on a pedestal.

 

[Copernicus]

I guess my assumption was based on your definition of Atheist. That is the typical disparaging definition theists use in clumsy attempts at turning the argument around to us and it is irrational. I'm surprisedd a "strong" atheist would use it. You may want to rethink.

ZT, there are a lot of ways to define "atheist". I have proposed "person who rejects belief in gods". Is that what you are referring to as a "disparaging definition"? It seems to accurately represent how most people use the word. We do not normally think of a person who lacks a concept of gods as an "atheist", which is why I have started surveys on whether people would classify babies as "atheists".

If you read a couple of pages back in this thread, you will see that mball referred to the Wikipedia definition, claiming that it supported his position that the "atheist" label applies correctly to babies. But "absence of belief" was not the primary sense that they advocated. I think that he is reading too much into the words "absence of belief", since people who deny the existence of gods also have no belief in gods. Moreover, if you read the footnote attached to Wikipedia's "absence of belief" sense--something that I doubt mball did--you find that they admit to the fact that there is controversy over this word sense. The Wikipedia footnote references the Religious Tolerance page of definitions, which clearly supports my position that most speakers consider atheists to be people who believe that gods do not exist. Mball and I are now down to disputing whether even a majority of atheists agrees with his definition. Even if he were right, that would still not make his definition a good definition.

 

[Orias]

Yes, the fact that it is not a belief does justify our claim that it's not a belief. You seem to be the only one unable to understand that.

No, you seem to be the only one pushing "lack of belief", when the entirety of "atheism" is defined as "lack of belief in "God(s)".

I would believe you if you weren't so determined to push your belief as correct.

"Lack of belief in "God(s)" does not imply simply not being a belief. If that were the case then the definition of atheism would simply state, "Lack of belief".

You're the only not capable of understanding that you cut the term down to what you want it to be.

:biglaugh: And you said I was the one making unsupported claims.

Your justification is simply that it's not a belief because you say it isn't. Though you clearly believe in that.

Seriously, think about how much simple concepts such as "belief" applies to you. It has been well recognized that atheists have beliefs outside of their "atheism", but it is you that should recognize that what you're doing is contrary to what you claim.

You're acting like your position is one that is of common usage, and it's not. Even so, such a presupposition could only of been thought of as being "true".

Simply, if "atheism" were not a belief, it would be highly irrelevant to the position it describes, which is "without "God(s)"". You are a very determined person after 1000 posts, which only implies that you feel very strongly towards your belief.

 

[Magic Man]

One other thing: Why is it so important to find a definition-- and preferentially use that definition-- that includes every single possible atheist? It's not like the undecided, the indifferent, and the "no god concept" people are clamoring for a label. Are they atheists? Technically. But, it's just not that interesting or important, except as a passing "oh, yeah, I guess they would be technically included."

Because when you're defining something, it's generally a good idea to make sure everything that should be counted under the label is covered by the definition.

We already have a pretty good working word for someone who is undecided-- the popular meaning of the word "agnostic" (yes, I know that the popular meaning is not the academic meaning of the word, but it does nicely fill a niche that was missing. A niche that you are seemingly trying to fill instead with the term "atheism", which only causes more ambiguity.)

First, "undecided" makes me think they have considered the options and can't make up their mind.

Second, here are the dictionary.com definitions for "agnostic":

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

That seems to point solely towards people who hold the positive belief that God's existence is unknowable. It doesn't seem to include the "I don't know" people.

One of your stated reasons is to be precise and descriptive. But a single giant one-size-fits-all term tends to reduce precision, because it is purposefully general. I think precision, and descriptiveness, is best served by specific terms for the various types of atheism, such as "weak" "strong" "implicit" "explicit". That way, people know exactly which type of atheism you are talking about.

Being general doesn't reduce precision. In this case, we need the best definition that fits atheism as a whole. It needs to be a general definition. Using it only as "belief that God doesn't exist" is not precise because that doesn't include many atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

It seems clear to me that you have no idea what you mean by "valid use". I would define a valid use as one that conforms to common usage, which your definition violates.

I'm sure you would. I'd define it as any use of the word that is valid, which is why I gave that definition.


Going by the definitions of the two terms, you'd get: an sound, just or well-founded instance or way of employing or using something.

If you are talking about the "baby" survey, there is a 50-50 split on this board. On the other two atheist-dominated boards, there is a 2-1 vote against your definition. So I think that you are being a little hasty in claiming the "majority" of atheists.

I'm going by this board, since that's the one I can see for myself. On this board you're about the only atheist who agrees with your definition.

You have utterly refused to consider the possibility that the definition is wrong and needs to be adjusted to reflect common usage. You have taken the dogmatic position that definitions determine how people use words rather than the other way around. Lexicographers observe how people use words in order to construct their definitions. If a definition misleads people into inventing non-existent usage, then it is a bad definition.

OK, I think we're pretty much done here. You're clearly not able to discuss this objectively. I have not refused to consider anything. I have also not taken any dogmatic position, much less that definitions determine how people use words rather than the other way around.

You have failed to show that most people use the term atheist to mean only people who actively believe God doesn't exist. You've also failed to show why we should even use the definition of the majority for these purposes. I've shown that there is at least a small minority that use my definition. I've also shown that what the majority use is not very relevant for the same reason that the majority usage of "Zen" is not relevant to a serious discussion of actual Zen Buddhism, just as the common usage of "theft" is not relevant to a legal discussion of the topic.

The fact is the best definition for atheism is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". That is supported by the existence of the terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", and by the existence of numerous instances of usage of the term to mean a broader group of people than simply those who belief gods don't exist.

 

[Magic Man]

No, you seem to be the only one pushing "lack of belief", when the entirety of "atheism" is defined as "lack of belief in "God(s)".

I would believe you if you weren't so determined to push your belief as correct.

"Lack of belief in "God(s)" does not imply simply not being a belief. If that were the case then the definition of atheism would simply state, "Lack of belief".

I'll try this slowly for you.

No one is even implying that atheism is lack of any belief at all. It is the lack of one particular belief (that being "God exists"). Atheism is the absence of that one belief, and therefore it's not a belief. The absence of a belief is not a belief.

Did any of that get through this time?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheists may or may not hold various beliefs, some of which may be about atheism and some of which may be related to them being atheists, but atheism itself isn't a specific belief or a system of beliefs.

Voila - next topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. Just like you can say "I'm not a dog person" even though you haven't met a representative of every breed of dog, or every specific dog individual. Your understanding of what a dog is allows you to make the statement based upon the general concept of a dog, without the need for experience with every possible dog.

OTOH, there's a saying in beer circles, which I think originally came from Charlie Papazian: "it's not that you don't like beer; it's just that you don't like the beers you've tried so far." The idea is that the category "beer", which covers everything from light lagers and dark bocks to chocolate stout and fruit-flavoured lambics, there's virtually no characteristic of the end product that's shared by all beers other than that they're liquid and they (normally) contain alcohol.

The phrase "I'm not a dog person" can only be valid insofar as one's experience with dogs is representative of dogs in general. If the category "dogs" was so varied that it can't be sufficiently represented by any particular person's experience, then it would be impossible to honestly say "I'm not a dog person".

 

[Copernicus]

OTOH, there's a saying in beer circles, which I think originally came from Charlie Papazian: "it's not that you don't like beer; it's just that you don't like the beers you've tried so far." The idea is that the category "beer", which covers everything from light lagers and dark bocks to chocolate stout and fruit-flavoured lambics, there's virtually no characteristic of the end product that's shared by all beers other than that they're liquid and they (normally) contain alcohol.

The phrase "I'm not a dog person" can only be valid insofar as one's experience with dogs is representative of dogs in general. If the category "dogs" was so varied that it can't be sufficiently represented by any particular person's experience, then it would be impossible to honestly say "I'm not a dog person".

If you do not like any beer that you've ever tasted, then it is reasonable to say that you don't like beer, even if there is one in your future that you will like. All you are doing is making a generalization that is based on your experience with beers. Similarly, being a "dog-person" is based on your idea of what dogs are. If you claim that it is impossible to make generalizations of that sort you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not sure that you are claiming that, but I'm also not sure that you aren't. So I guess I could say that I lack belief in your claim.

 

[Willamena]

OTOH, there's a saying in beer circles, which I think originally came from Charlie Papazian: "it's not that you don't like beer; it's just that you don't like the beers you've tried so far." The idea is that the category "beer", which covers everything from light lagers and dark bocks to chocolate stout and fruit-flavoured lambics, there's virtually no characteristic of the end product that's shared by all beers other than that they're liquid and they (normally) contain alcohol.

Actually, I suspect the idea is to get you to drink more beer.

They do have one thing in common. Beer = the fermented starches of grains

The phrase "I'm not a dog person" can only be valid insofar as one's experience with dogs is representative of dogs in general. If the category "dogs" was so varied that it can't be sufficiently represented by any particular person's experience, then it would be impossible to honestly say "I'm not a dog person".

It's valid, not because it's about one's experiences with dogs. It's valid because it's about "me", even if "I" have had only one experience with one dog.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Everything said by a person, who describes themselves as "not a dog person," is highly suspect in the first place.

 

[Willamena]

Do you have a specific color(s) for those who simply lack belief (are indifferent, undecided, or have no concept of god), or would they all fall under the green "I don't know"? In other words, does this diagram include every possible person, or could there be other bubbles not pictured?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that we make a decision about how the world is, and then belief follows. But what is this "decision": if it's not knowledge, is it not a belief itself?

Also, in response to those who thought the green "I don't know" can't be an overlapping of the two circles, I can see how it works: If you don't know, you could simultaneously hold "God" and "no God". Regardless, it does represent how we tend to vocalize the "I don't know stance": they are "on the fence", "in the middle". It's a visual representation of what we are saying; not necessarily a depiction of logical possibility.

2nd attempt at replying to this (20th, if you count interruptions at work).

In my opinion, those with no concept of "god" don't belong on a chart depicting the relationship between theism and atheism. People who are undecided are just that. The "I don't know" are people facing a dilemma, feeling they cannot choose one side or the other, or perhaps refuse to go either way, for whatever reason. Alternately, they can be people who feel that the contradiction is resolved within the scope of their worldview.

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I suspect the idea is to get you to drink more beer.

They do have one thing in common. Beer = the fermented starches of grains

I know; that's why I said "end product". Anyone who I've ever met who said they didn't like beer was basing their opinion on the characteristics of the thing they were drinking, not philosophical objections to the process that was used to create it.

 

[Falvlun]

Because when you're defining something, it's generally a good idea to make sure everything that should be counted under the label is covered by the definition.

But should those people even be counted? Why? What's the purpose? Like I said, you end up with a technical definition, but one that isn't very useful or descriptive.

First, "undecided" makes me think they have considered the options and can't make up their mind.

Second, here are the dictionary.com definitions for "agnostic":
That seems to point solely towards people who hold the positive belief that God's existence is unknowable. It doesn't seem to include the "I don't know" people.

That's how I was using "undecided". The indifferent have also not made up their minds, but in this case, its simply because they haven't considered either position.

In regards to your "agnostism" definitions, I specifically referred to the "popular" definition of agnosticism. People who have no experience with philosophical debates (read: most people) will define agnosticism as the "I don't know" or "undecided" position regarding the existence of god.

Being general doesn't reduce precision. In this case, we need the best definition that fits atheism as a whole. It needs to be a general definition. Using it only as "belief that God doesn't exist" is not precise because that doesn't include many atheists.

I have not advocated that we should use the negative belief definition as the only definition of atheism. I don't know how you can argue that precision is not lost with generalities. The more targeted the definition, the more specific characteristics you can include, and thus the more precise the definition becomes.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The lack of belief in a god or deity is a belief in itself, yes. The idea has to be founded on some degree of reasoning.
I myself am agnostic, and do not believe that there is any way of knowing for sure the origins of reality, but if you think otherwise, that is your business.

 

[That Dude]

Atheists may or may not hold various beliefs, some of which may be about atheism and some of which may be related to them being atheists, but atheism itself isn't a specific belief or a system of beliefs.

Voila - next topic.

Given that we are all the sum of our experiences. Atheism is simply an extension of beliefs and ideas that have been learned through experience or other means.
We are all Born an atheist, how we stay that way depends on the life we live.