Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

The proposition "God doesn't exist" needs a null hypothesis, yes, but as I've already explained that isn't the broad definition of atheism. Atheism is specifically a response to the claim that God exists - there is no claim implied, so no need for a null hypothesis response to atheism; only the CLAIM that a God doesn't exist, which is subset of atheism.

That--the adoption of the proposition that God does not exist through inference (lack of evidence) or the conclusion to reserve belief for only meaningful things--is precisely what "atheism" means to a great many people. When they adopt the name atheist, that is the unspoken implication; and when they put themselves in contrast to theist, it is meant to be obvious.

To assume a "broader" meaning that encompasses nothing more than a common outcome of rationality trivializes what atheism means. The theist too can argue the "null hypothesis" in regard to their position on God's existence.
(Well, the clever theist can.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

An opinion is a subset of belief - you can believe something as a matter of opinion, or you can believe something as a matter of fact, it depends entirely on whether you view your position as subjective or objective. An opinion is when you hold something to be true but still regard your position as subjective, i.e you think other people are equally justified even if they hold an entirely different opinion. It's a matter of interpretation, not necessarily truth. So "I believe X" is a statement of belief, not opinion.

Thanks for the thorough answer, but your view and your word usage are entirely foreign to my own way of seeing things. I have no objective positions. I'm just a fallible little human. How could I ever know an objectively-true thing?

I think that people who 'believe something as a matter of fact' are pretty confused about the smart ape's ability to know things.

But the big distinction is that the only thing atheism and theism deal with is whether or not you accept the proposition of God to be true.

I don't believe in such a thing as atheism or theism. Those are just little labels which humans like to give to themselves or others. It's not that AmbigGuy is an atheist. Not in any 'real' sense. It's just that somebody is willing to call AmbigGuy an atheist.

Try it with 'justman' and 'unjustman.' Are there any such objective things? Could you define 'justman' any more rigidly than you define 'atheist'?

As for accepting or rejecting the proposition that 'God is true,' I'd have no idea how to deal with such a proposition. I both accept and reject the proposition simultaneously, depending on the meaning of 'God'. I also simultaneously have no opinion on the matter, being too lazy to dig into the claimant's god concept or to bring out one of my own for analysis.

So what am I? Theist or atheist?

I am both and neither, of course.

In order to be one or the other, you only need to answer that proposition - no other kinds of belief are implied. So, while I have opinions about the existence or nonexistence of God, none of that matters to the question of whether or not I am an atheist or a theist. It's no different to me not drinking, really. The fact that I am categorized as a non-drinker doesn't imply anything about my opinions on alcohol beyond the simple fact that I do not drink. I may believe alcohol is evil, or I may be recovering alcoholic, or I may think that alcohol just tastes bad. People may believe that my not drinking implies all kinds of things about me, but those people are basing such opinions on preconceptions. The only fact that is relevant with regards to my "a-alcoholism" is whether or not I drink alcohol.

Forgive me for not reading your paragraph closely. I've watched for years and years as debaters have declared the true nature of atheism.

Me, I find it a useless endeavor. Worse than useless, really. It makes people believe that such labels are actually 'real' somehow.

 

[Almustafa]

this thought occured earlier in the shower

it doesnt matter what we claim to beleive or how, everyone worships the Absolute reality, & everyones got there own way of learning about it, science or religion, philosophy or ritual discipline. it doesnt matter because everyone thinks they know the "Truth" & they do, but filtered through their reasoning...
but the truth really cant be any thing but the truth, there are many theories on how the truth works but its all still the same truth...

only our personal prejudices against cirtain value systems that causes us to feel anger or any other negative emotions, are what keep us thinking "they are wrong & we are right" and this is true for everybody, not just atheists or theists, but any idea...

 

[Almustafa]

why would a scientist do science - to learn about the universe
why would a yogi do yoga - to learn more about the universe
we do this in an attemt to better know ourselves & our place in this universe.(the meaning or lack of meaning of life & death, & so forth)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That--the adoption of the proposition that God does not exist through inference (lack of evidence) or the conclusion to reserve belief for only meaningful things--is precisely what "atheism" means to a great many people.

So? How does that change the actual definition of atheism? There are a great many people, such as myself, who accept the broader definition as perfectly valid. What makes our definition invalid?

When they adopt the name atheist, that is the unspoken implication; and when they put themselves in contrast to theist, it is meant to be obvious.

I don't know how many atheists you claim to be speaking for, but the majority that I've encountered in forums such as this hold the same definition as I do. "Unspoken implications" is just another way of saying "presuppositions on the part of others".

To assume a "broader" meaning that encompasses nothing more than a common outcome of rationality trivializes what atheism means.

How?

The theist too can argue the "null hypothesis" in regard to their position on God's existence.

No they can't, because they are asserting that a given proposition is true (at least to some degree). When somebody believes a claim, they cannot by definition be holding to the null hypothesis for that particular claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for the thorough answer, but your view and your word usage are entirely foreign to my own way of seeing things. I have no objective positions. I'm just a fallible little human. How could I ever know an objectively-true thing?

You've shifted from talking about belief to talking about knowledge. There's a difference between saying "I hold this to be true" and "this is my opinion of what is true" and "this is what I know to be true". Knowledge and belief are separate things, and opinion is different than just "not knowing something for certain" since it is contingent on the notion that you believe the subject being addressed either has no objective answer (for example, the question of what is the best movie ever) or is held as equally valid to an opposing view (for example, liking or hating the taste of a cake). Would you say it is your opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, or is it something you believe - or even something you know? I doubt you would ever say that somebody who holds the opinion that the sun will not rise tomorrow has just as much a basis for it as you would have to believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

I think that people who 'believe something as a matter of fact' are pretty confused about the smart ape's ability to know things.

There are always degrees of certainty with all claim. I know for a fact that the sun rose this morning. There is minute possibility that I am wrong, but it is still a claim I am so certain of that I am willing to say it is known. I also know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Again, there is minute possibility that this prediction is wrong, but the evidence leads me to a very specific conclusion with very little room for uncertainty.

I don't believe in such a thing as atheism or theism. Those are just little labels which humans like to give to themselves or others. It's not that AmbigGuy is an atheist. Not in any 'real' sense. It's just that somebody is willing to call AmbigGuy an atheist.

They're just terms, like any other words. They have various meanings - some personal, some broad. I think people's refusal to admit to one or the other simply shows a lack of willingness to explain or extrapolate on their position. We have nothing to fear from terms or labels, provided we are clear and concise in understanding what those things mean to us. They're not supposed to define us, and they don't unless you let them.

Try it with 'justman' and 'unjustman.' Are there any such objective things? Could you define 'justman' any more rigidly than you define 'atheist'?

What difference would that make? The term still has an application and a clear definition. I don't see what's the fear from it.

As for accepting or rejecting the proposition that 'God is true,' I'd have no idea how to deal with such a proposition. I both accept and reject the proposition simultaneously, depending on the meaning of 'God'.

That depends entirely on what you define as Gods and what God claims are being made. You cannot simultaneously believe a proposition and not believe a proposition - you either believe that there is something you could adequately refer to as a "God" exists, or you do not. I honestly find positions of "neither theist nor atheist" to just be intentionally evasive rather than particularly thoughtful.

I also simultaneously have no opinion on the matter, being too lazy to dig into the claimant's god concept or to bring out one of my own for analysis.

So what am I? Theist or atheist?

I am both and neither, of course.

If you believe that something that fits the bill of a "God" exists, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. You cannot be both or neither.

Forgive me for not reading your paragraph closely. I've watched for years and years as debaters have declared the true nature of atheism.

I'm talking about the definition of the term, not the "true nature" as far as I'm aware.

Me, I find it a useless endeavor. Worse than useless, really. It makes people believe that such labels are actually 'real' somehow.

They're as real as any of the words you're using to converse with me now are. Words have meanings, and in debates about reality it is extremely important that we clearly establish what the terms we are using mean in a specific context, otherwise the entire discussion is meaningless. Like it or not, when I say "I am an atheist" I am saying something very real about myself that has an actual meaning to me as a person. Just like people who describe themselves as "tall", or "muscular", or "objectivist", or "ham-fisted", or "flatulent". These are just words used to describe things, and atheism describes a particular response to a particular claim. There is no reason to run in terror at the notion of using a word.

 

[Willamena]

So? How does that change the actual definition of atheism?

Actual definition is found in how people use the word.

No they can't, because they are asserting that a given proposition is true (at least to some degree). When somebody believes a claim, they cannot by definition be holding to the null hypothesis for that particular claim.

Not all theists assert the existence of God. Some, such as in the dharmic religions, assert an ultimateness that transcends the duality of even existence/non-existence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actual definition is found in how people use the word.

Most words have multiple definitions, but we have to have some collective understanding of what a word means or else there's no point in communicating. If I choose to define "theist" as "someone who poos in public" and we start discussing the merits of theism, I would suspect that after initially presenting the view that being a theist was disgusting and would put unneeded strain on the already insufficient resources of street cleaners, I'd imagine I'd quickly get a lesson in what the word "theist" actually means. Words have meanings, and in the case where we have personal definitions it's important to explain the definition we have and work with it.

Not all theists assert the existence of God. Some, such as in the dharmic religions, assert an ultimateness that transcends the duality of even existence/non-existence.

That means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You've shifted from talking about belief to talking about knowledge. There's a difference between saying "I hold this to be true" and "this is my opinion of what is true" and "this is what I know to be true".

Sure. They are different words, arranged differently. Anyone can see that.

But of course they all mean the same thing, at least to those who understand language and reality as I do, which is to say, you know... correctly.

Knowledge and belief are separate things....

Sure, and liking pie and loving pie are separate things. Pie-like is when we feel pretty good about having some pie. Pie-love is when we feel really really good about having some pie.

Same with belief and knowledge. Belief is when we feel kinda sorta like a thing is probably true. Knowledge is when we feel really really sure that a thing is true.

Separate things? I dunno. Sometimes I'm vague, even within my own mind, as to whether I like pie or love pie. It seems like my pie-lust exists on a sliding scale, very much like my belief/knowledge.

Would you say it is your opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow, or is it something you believe - or even something you know?

I might say any of the three, though I'd rarely claim to know it. They're only words, after all. So long as my listener understood my meaning, I might speak of tomorrow's sunrse in a hundred different ways.

I doubt you would ever say that somebody who holds the opinion that the sun will not rise tomorrow has just as much a basis for it as you would have to believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

One of us seems a bit lost in words. That can happen. Why are you now talking about 'basis of belief'? I can't see how that relates to our discussion.

They're just terms, like any other words. They have various meanings - some personal, some broad. I think people's refusal to admit to one or the other simply shows a lack of willingness to explain or extrapolate on their position.

I see it oppositely. Those who embrace such labels seem to me to be defaulting on all the hard work. So much easier to just accept a label and be done with hard thinking.

We have nothing to fear from terms or labels, provided we are clear and concise in understanding what those things mean to us. They're not supposed to define us, and they don't unless you let them.

Maybe you should tell that to the Sunnis who are being massacred by the Shias and vice versa. Nothing to fear from terms or labels? Do you have any idea what people have done here in the US to avoid being called/seen as 'black'? If we have nothing to fear from terms or labels, why did they go to such trouble to try and pass as white, I wonder?

That depends entirely on what you define as Gods and what God claims are being made. You cannot simultaneously believe a proposition and not believe a proposition - you either believe that there is something you could adequately refer to as a "God" exists, or you do not.

Nonsense. You are entirely confused about what I can simultaneously do.

I honestly find positions of "neither theist nor atheist" to just be intentionally evasive rather than particularly thoughtful.

I find the embrace of one of those terms, to the exclusion of the other, to be completely thoughtless. And to be based in fear. Uncertainty frightens the heck out of people. I need to know what I am! What is my name!.. the weak in thought are always shouting.

So we see things differently, I guess.

If you believe that something that fits the bill of a "God" exists, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. You cannot be both or neither.

I don't see you as either God or one of His prophets, so I can't accept you words as absolute truth. Sorry. I am both an atheist and a theist, and I am neither. Actually I'm both a hard atheist and an actual prophet of God.

I hope that news doesn't unsettle you too much.

I'm talking about the definition of the term, not the "true nature" as far as I'm aware.

There are no definitions of the terms, certainly not here in this thread. Just a bunch of loosey-goosey word tossinng. If you would like to discuss how a proper definition of 'atheist' might be concocted, I'll be happy to discuss that with you.

They're as real as any of the words you're using to converse with me now are. Words have meanings, and in debates about reality it is extremely important that we clearly establish what the terms we are using mean in a specific context, otherwise the entire discussion is meaningless.

Thanks for the sermonette, I guess, but you might want to go ahead and assume that I know as much about language as you do. Maybe even more. It could save us some time.

Like it or not, when I say "I am an atheist" I am saying something very real about myself that has an actual meaning to me as a person.

Obviously. Why would you say a thing if you weren't trying to mean something?

Just like people who describe themselves as "tall", or "muscular", or "objectivist", or "ham-fisted", or "flatulent". These are just words used to describe things, and atheism describes a particular response to a particular claim. There is no reason to run in terror at the notion of using a word.

In Iraq many people run in terror from labels like 'Sunni' or 'Shia'. I've heard that some of them even carry two different driver's licenses. On one, they have a Sunni name. On the other, they have a Shia name. I wonder why labeling seems to worry them so?

 

[Willamena]

Most words have multiple definitions, but we have to have some collective understanding of what a word means or else there's no point in communicating.

I never suggested otherwise.

That means absolutely nothing to me.

I know.

 

[Falvlun]

I ask why lack of belief can't be a position?

Tom comes up to you and says that he lacks a dog. Then he asks why he can't be considered a dog owner. If you don't have a dog, you can't be considered a dog owner. Likewise, if you claim you merely lack a belief, then you can't claim to have a position. If you have a position, you have a belief.

I do not believe in god. Why? Because I lack "belief" portion. Therefor I lack the belief in god. I have not stated that THERE IS no god but that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for god. So a lack of a belief is possible and it is a valid opinion.

None of this is relevant. It doesn't matter that you don't believe god exists because of a lack of evidence or because cheese gives you gas. The why doesn't matter. The fact that you have a position does.

For example I don't "know" there is no god. But I don't believe in one either.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief. You can believe something without claiming to know something. You do this, I suspect, with a whole bunch of things. Why, I wonder, does the question of gods bring out the cautiousness in so many people?

Someone tells me on the internet that they are 6'5 and buff with a 9th degree blackbelt in Karate. They don't show me a picture, certification or any proof other than their word. I don't "know" that he isn't all those things. But I will doubt it. So I disbelieve him without knowing it to be false. Same with god.

Except that it's not the same with god, unless your position is based on absolutely nothing.

Here's the difference: Theists have provided what they consider evidence for their position. The problem isn't that they haven't provided evidence. The problem is that you have decided that that evidence isn't good enough for you to believe it. You have considered your options. You have weighed the evidence. You have come to a conclusion. And that conclusion is a belief. The belief that gods don't exist.

Defaults exist if you believe it or not. The way claims work is someone has to support their claim. Otherwise it can be dismissed without evidence to the contrary. I don't have to prove your wrong.

How do you know that defaults exist, and how do you know what the default is? Amazing how your cautiousness vanishes!

I also despise the "burden of proof argument". It is a lazy argument, not worth any one's time. Any person who holds a position should have reason, evidence, and arguments to show why they hold that position. Anything less is an intellectual disservice to yourself, and a waste of time for anyone you are trying to convince.

Also note: Proof is for math. It really isn't relevant in any other venue.

Lets go back to the analogy of the guy on the internet. I don't have to prove he isn't any of those things. Disbelief is the default position till proof or evidence is provided to sway my opinion. This is with everything not just god.

Funny. Someone else might say that belief is the default position: After all, do you have reason to believe that this guy is untrustworthy?

Your decision not to trust the Internet guy is likely based upon a whole bunch of assumptions that you hold to be true, otherwise, you'd just believe him.

There is no default.

Additionally, "disbelief" is not synonomous with "lack of belief". In fact, in usual conversation, it means "belief in the negative".

In the case of the internet guy, perhaps if someone asked your opinion on whether he was telling the truth or not, you would say "I don't know". In this case, you would be like my "true agnostic": You have no opinion either way. If you tell me you disbelieve him, however, I would assume that you meant that you thought he was lying.

 

[Falvlun]

Saying that you don't believe someone's claim is indeed a claim. I don't see how it can be argued that it isn't.

It can and I do.

If you tell me "I don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun!" you would be making the claim that you don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun. You believe that the Earth does not orbit the sun.

Nope. Belief that god does not exist does not necessarily entail gnosticism.

yes it does. Gnostic means you Know for a fact or believe. Not knowing is agnostic.

You need to refresh yourself on what "gnostic" and "agnostic" means. It has everything to do with claims of knowledge and nothing to do with claims of belief.

The Wiki page might be a good overview for you: Agnosticism

Do you not acknowledge the difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge? Let's take a non-god example:
I believe Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.

I know Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever. (Or: Tom's dog is a Labrador retriever.)

Do you feel the difference between the two statements? One is a statement of belief-- I think something is true, but I am not certain-- and the others are statements of knowledge-- I am certain in the information I am imparting.

Likewise:
I believe that gods do not exist.

I do not know for certain that gods do not exist, hence, I do not say "I know gods do not exist" or "gods do not exist".

Where are you disagreeing with me on this?

You seem not to acknowledge a difference between a belief and a claim of knowledge. This example was meant to demonstrate the difference. Do you now acknowledge that there is a difference between a belief and a claim of knowledge?

I do not think that everyone needs must be lumped as an atheist or a theist.

Other than "don't care" where can someone neither believer or disbelieve in a god? There isn't an in between.

I have already said my 3 criteria for those who neither believe that god exists nor believe that god does not exist:
1. Have never heard of god concepts.
2. Have never considered the question.
3. Popular sense agnostics: those who believe that it's just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist.

Regardless, though, my statement was not about belief, but about labels. I do not think that everyone needs to be lumped in as a theist or an atheist.
I think theists should be defined as those who believe that a god exists, and that atheists should be defined as those who believe that gods do not exist. I am unconcerned that this may or may not include the entire human population. I don't think the two terms need to encompass the entire human population.

 

[McBell]

If not, then no. If you do not fall into one of the above categories, then I do not believe you merely lack a belief that a deity exists.

You are free to believe whatever you like.
I am familiar with many different deity concepts and lack the belief that any of them exist outside the minds of those who want them to exist.

 

[idav]

If you tell me "I don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun!" you would be making the claim that you don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun. You believe that the Earth does not orbit the sun.

The earth going around the sun doesn't fit what we see in front of our eyes. You may as well be claiming an invisible dragon sets the sun everyday. I really couldn't readily reject such a claim as "earth spins daily" until it is presented while offering another perspective. Whole other can of worms getting into things that are unseen.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are free to believe whatever you like.
I am familiar with many different deity concepts and lack the belief that any of them exist outside the minds of those who want them to exist.

What about 'the universe' or 'everything'? I've heard people describe God as 'everything that is.'

In the face of that, my atheism dissolves right away. Suddenly I'm transformed into a God believer -- an actual theist -- since I'm pretty sure that 'everything that exists' does indeed exist outside of that guy's mind.

Jeez. The whole thing is so complicated.

 

[Falvlun]

You are free to believe whatever you like.
I am familiar with many different deity concepts and lack the belief that any of them exist outside the minds of those who want them to exist.

I don't doubt that you lack the belief that any of them exist. I doubt that you "merely" have a lack of belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure. They are different words, arranged differently. Anyone can see that.

But of course they all mean the same thing, at least to those who understand language and reality as I do, which is to say, you know... correctly.

They have different meanings. If you cannot see that, then that is a the problem.

I might say any of the three, though I'd rarely claim to know it. They're only words, after all. So long as my listener understood my meaning, I might speak of tomorrow's sunrse in a hundred different ways.

That's the important thing - that people understand your meaning. And when I say "I am an atheist", I mean "I do not believe a God exists". This is the point.

One of us seems a bit lost in words. That can happen. Why are you now talking about 'basis of belief'? I can't see how that relates to our discussion.

You mentioned the idea of knowing and certainty. It was just an example of how different claims have different degrees of certainty.

I see it oppositely. Those who embrace such labels seem to me to be defaulting on all the hard work. So much easier to just accept a label and be done with hard thinking.

And it's easy to patronize and insult others rather than consider that a label doesn't make having a position less intelligent. Just as I suspected, your refusal to accept a label is less to do with thoughtful indifference and more to do with intellectual arrogance.

Maybe you should tell that to the Sunnis who are being massacred by the Shias and vice versa. Nothing to fear from terms or labels? Do you have any idea what people have done here in the US to avoid being called/seen as 'black'? If we have nothing to fear from terms or labels, why did they go to such trouble to try and pass as white, I wonder?

Are you serious? You're seriously comparing admitting that you fit a particular descriptive word to racism, religious war and persecution? That's so childish and manipulative it doesn't need responding to.

Okay, we're done. That's just completely absurd.

 

[Falvlun]

The earth going around the sun doesn't fit what we see in front of our eyes. You may as well be claiming an invisible dragon sets the sun everyday. I really couldn't readily reject such a claim as "earth spins daily" until it is presented while offering another perspective. Whole other can of worms getting into things that are unseen.

My example wasn't what was being debated. What was being debated was whether not believing something is a claim in and of itself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you tell me "I don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun!" you would be making the claim that you don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun. You believe that the Earth does not orbit the sun.

That's not an accurate comparison. With regards to the question of whether or not a God exists, there are only two possibilities: yes or no. And with regards to whether an individual has a belief in a particular proposition, the answer is also only one of two possibilities: yes or no.

Consider this analogy:

Two people are on a beach. One turns to the other and says "I believe there is an even number of grains of sand on this beach". With regards to this point, there are only two possibilities: either an odd number or an even number. His friend, however, looks at the beach and shrugs, saying "I don't believe you, because I don't think you could possibly have counted them all and found out".

Now, in this analogy, is the second person effectively making a claim about whether or not the number of sand on the beach is even or odd, or are they just stating their position of disbelief of the first person's claim? When you realize why saying "I don't think the number of grains of sand is even" is not equal to "I believe the number of grains of sand is odd", you will understand why "I don't believe a God exists" is not equal to "I believe God does not exist".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you serious? You're seriously comparing admitting that you fit a particular descriptive word to racism, religious war and persecution? That's so childish and manipulative it doesn't need responding to.

Okay, we're done. That's just completely absurd.

I'd hoped you might stick with me a bit longer, but as you please. Come back if you ever feel the urge.