Atheism does not exist

[ImmortalFlame]

Except, of course, that that's not usually the case. As I said before, more often a person disbelieves for a reason, and that reason is because they have another idea--a different belief--about what "god" is.

That's not even trying to make sense. If a person believes in any kind of God, they are not an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

That's not even trying to make sense. If a person believes in any kind of God, they are not an atheist.

I didn't say they believe in god, I said they have another idea--whether a firm or vague belief--about what god is.

Many people express this when they say things like, "God only exists in someone's imagination," or "God is a mythological symbol of the natural elements," or some such thing.

It not only is trying to make sense, it does make sense.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's not even trying to make sense. If a person believes in any kind of God, they are not an atheist.

Sometimes I think of God as 'the human passion for exploration.' Or even just 'curiosity'. God is the force which drives us into the mystery of the universe.

It's just a fun way to deal with language. Without the word 'God', my intellectual life would be much more drab.

Anyway, even though I believe in the God I've just described, I'm also fine with being called an atheist. That's because I've known lots of people who called themselves atheists and my thought is more like theirs than it is like the thought of people who call themselves Christians or Muslims.

In my view, atheism doesn't actually exist in the same way as 'apples' exist. I think we err when we take seriously labels like that. Denying a person's 'atheism' looks to me very much like a Baptist denying a Mormon's 'Christianity' or a born-again denying that Catholics are Christians.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't say they believe in god, I said they have another idea--whether a firm or vague belief--about what god is.

But how is that an example of a person who believes God doesn't exist but isn't absent of the belief that God does?

Many people express this when they say things like, "God only exists in someone's imagination," or "God is a mythological symbol of the natural elements," or some such thing.

And those people would be atheists, since they don't believe that a literal God exists.

It not only is trying to make sense, it does make sense.

Not really. It doesn't matter what definition of God you choose provided you do not believe in the actual existence of a literal God.

Sometimes I think of God as 'the human passion for exploration.' Or even just 'curiosity'. God is the force which drives us into the mystery of the universe.

It's just a fun way to deal with language. Without the word 'God', my intellectual life would be much more drab.

But that's just using poetic language. You don't have to call those things "God", and I would argue it doesn't really make any difference whether you do or don't.

Anyway, even though I believe in the God I've just described, I'm also fine with being called an atheist. That's because I've known lots of people who called themselves atheists and my thought is more like theirs than it is like the thought of people who call themselves Christians or Muslims.

In my view, atheism doesn't actually exist in the same way as 'apples' exist. I think we err when we take seriously labels like that. Denying a person's 'atheism' looks to me very much like a Baptist denying a Mormon's 'Christianity' or a born-again denying that Catholics are Christians.

This is a large part of the complication when it comes to these types of discussions on definitions, and the problem with words that have an abundant variety of personal definitions in general. We need to find a medium, a way to agree upon a definition which is both useful and accurate without misrepresenting those who use it. For me, this is why I get so frustrated with people telling me that my definition of atheism isn't accurate - because my definition clearly and accurately conveys my position.

 

[jmn]

I simply reject the notion of a god, gods, or any kind of afterlife.

 

[Willamena]

But how is that an example of a person who believes God doesn't exist but isn't absent of the belief that God does?

I have no idea--is it supposed to be? It's just an example of an atheist who is being ignored by Artie's definition.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But that's just using poetic language. You don't have to call those things "God", and I would argue it doesn't really make any difference whether you do or don't.

But what else can language be except poetry? I think it's illusion to believe that a real difference in kind exists between literal language and poetic language.

Let me ask you a question which I often ask but rarely get answered: Do you believe in justice? Or are you an ajusticist -- a denier of the existence of justice? Justicist? Or ajusticist?

That's how I feel about the existence of God -- most probably the same way you feel about my justice question. You're probably objecting that justice isn't actually a real thing... yes? That's how I feel about God. I have no urge to concede the god concept to Abrahamics or to the majority opinion of my culture. Just because most people in my language pool conceive of God as Some Guy in the Clouds, that doesn't mean that I've got to go along with that definition. I'm a theologian. I spend my time creating new and unusual concepts of God and arguing that my god concepts are more integrated than the other guy's. I'm out to change the God world!

It's just something to pass the time. Everybody needs a hobby.

This is a large part of the complication when it comes to these types of discussions on definitions, and the problem with words that have an abundant variety of personal definitions in general.

Yep. All words have a variety of personal definitions. The dictionary is no bible.

We need to find a medium, a way to agree upon a definition which is both useful and accurate without misrepresenting those who use it. For me, this is why I get so frustrated with people telling me that my definition of atheism isn't accurate - because my definition clearly and accurately conveys my position.

I'd be unlikely to tell you that your definition of atheism is inaccurate. Just the opposite. I tend to oppose those who insist that their own personal definition is somehow 'the' definition.

Especially for close dialogues like we have here, I think listening for the other guy's word-meanings is most of the game.

 

[ArtieE]

I have no idea--is it supposed to be? It's just an example of an atheist who is being ignored by Artie's definition.

I'm very flattered that you call it "Artie's definition" but I'm afraid I can't take the credit. It's so elementary that it's almost embarrassing. From atheism 101:

"What is Atheism? How is Atheism Defined?:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point."

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes

 

[Willamena]

I'm very flattered that you call it "Artie's definition" but I'm afraid I can't take the credit.

It's just a figure of speech.

It's so elementary that it's almost embarrassing. From atheism 101:

"What is Atheism? How is Atheism Defined?:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point."

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes

I have no objection to that definition. If everyone were to promote atheism as "not theism," I'd be thrilled. But they don't. Instead they pretend that, "I have an absence of belief...," is a comprehensive claim.

 

[ArtieE]

I have no objection to that definition. If everyone were to promote atheism as "not theism," I'd be thrilled. But they don't. Instead they pretend that, "I have an absence of belief...," is a comprehensive claim.

"not believing in any gods" means exactly the same as "having an absence of belief in any gods". Different wording, exact same meaning. It's the most comprehensive claim there is. It covers everybody who don't believe in gods even people who have never heard of gods. You can't get more comprehensive. The definition you had no objection to says and I quote: "an atheist is any person who is not a theist". How the heck can you get more comprehensive when you include every person on the planet who's not a theist? Who else do you miss? Should we include aliens?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no idea--is it supposed to be? It's just an example of an atheist who is being ignored by Artie's definition.

Except that they aren't ignored by it whatsoever.

But what else can language be except poetry? I think it's illusion to believe that a real difference in kind exists between literal language and poetic language.

If there were none, we would never be able to hold any kind of intellectual conversation. Words aren't just poetry - they're descriptive.

Let me ask you a question which I often ask but rarely get answered: Do you believe in justice? Or are you an ajusticist -- a denier of the existence of justice? Justicist? Or ajusticist?

Justice is a concept, so it doesn't literally exist (unlike, as you would say, an apple exists).

That's how I feel about the existence of God -- most probably the same way you feel about my justice question. You're probably objecting that justice isn't actually a real thing... yes? That's how I feel about God.

But do you understand that the question of "do you believe in God" is a question of whether you believe in a literal God or not? It's less like your question about justice and much more like "do you believe in bigfoot?" You're being asked whether you hold as true the proposition that a literal being that can be described as a God exists.

I have no urge to concede the god concept to Abrahamics or to the majority opinion of my culture. Just because most people in my language pool conceive of God as Some Guy in the Clouds, that doesn't mean that I've got to go along with that definition. I'm a theologian. I spend my time creating new and unusual concepts of God and arguing that my god concepts are more integrated than the other guy's. I'm out to change the God world!

It's just something to pass the time. Everybody needs a hobby.

But I would argue that that's kind of arbitrary. It's like me saying I'm going to change the meaning of bigfoot by creating new and unusual concepts of bigfoot, but in doing so I've answered absolutely nothing about the existence of a large, hairy creature that lives in the American wilderness. There is a general concept of what is meant by "God" when the question of their existence arises, just as there is a general concept of what is meant by bigfoot whenever the question of their existence arises.

Yep. All words have a variety of personal definitions. The dictionary is no bible.

Well, from my perspective, the Bible isn't much a Bible either. Which is kind of ironic, really...

I'd be unlikely to tell you that your definition of atheism is inaccurate. Just the opposite. I tend to oppose those who insist that their own personal definition is somehow 'the' definition.

Especially for close dialogues like we have here, I think listening for the other guy's word-meanings is most of the game.

This is true. When getting into these kinds of debates, I think the focus should be less on who has the "correct" definition and more about just understanding another's use of the term and how it represents them. We're all free to have our own understandings and categorizations of others, but those categorizations should never be based on preconceptions, but on consideration of their views. For example, I've met many deists who say something akin to "God is the Universe", and I personally class such people as atheistic - even if they would consider themselves theistic. I can reason my position all I want, and they can reason theirs, but what really matters is that I've at least factored their beliefs into my definition. Understanding of others beliefs should be the aim of any discussion on this subject. It should be less about the pointless squabbling over who has the "right" or "wrong" definition, and more about trying to reach an understanding as to what the use of that particular term can tell us about that person. We're always going to have our own categorizations for people, just don't let those categorizations become prescriptive rather than descriptive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If there were none, we would never be able to hold any kind of intellectual conversation. Words aren't just poetry - they're descriptive.

You and I apparently mean very different things by 'poetry.' In my vocabulary, poetry is the most descriptive sort of language. If I were trying to write a washing machine manual, I might go a little lighter on the poetry and heavier on the dry technical language, but I'd still want to punch it up with some poetic talk.

Actually, I don't even know what you mean when you declare that "words aren't just poetry."

Just poetry? That hurts my ears, for you to say something like that, man.

Justice is a concept, so it doesn't literally exist (unlike, as you would say, an apple exists).

Right. Just like God.

But do you understand that the question of "do you believe in God" is a question of whether you believe in a literal God or not?

It depends on who's asking, yes? If a conservative Christian is asking, then sure he's asking about That Bearded SkyGuy From the Bible. But if it's a serious theologian who has thought deeply about God, then I wouldn't expect him to be asking about a conscious Being at all.

It's less like your question about justice and much more like "do you believe in bigfoot?" You're being asked whether you hold as true the proposition that a literal being that can be described as a God exists.

As I say, it depends on the meaning which the asker has in his mind. And on the meaning which I have in mine. 'God' is just a word, after all. Just a bit of sound.

But I would argue that that's kind of arbitrary. It's like me saying I'm going to change the meaning of bigfoot by creating new and unusual concepts of bigfoot, but in doing so I've answered absolutely nothing about the existence of a large, hairy creature that lives in the American wilderness.

Well, no. I have often denied believing in the primitive version of 'God' which most Americans seem to assume is the only possible meaning of the word. I've answered absolutely everything about that God.

There is a general concept of what is meant by "God" when the question of their existence arises, just as there is a general concept of what is meant by bigfoot whenever the question of their existence arises.

In the US, yes. We are still theolgically primitive as a culture. But that's changing.

If you go to other places in the world and ask about 'God', though, the majority will not necessarily understand that you're asking about That BibleGuy. The Australian aborigines, for example, might conceive of a giant snake.

And if you go to a conference of theologians, of course, all God bets are off.

This is true. When getting into these kinds of debates, I think the focus should be less on who has the "correct" definition and more about just understanding another's use of the term and how it represents them. We're all free to have our own understandings and categorizations of others, but those categorizations should never be based on preconceptions, but on consideration of their views. For example, I've met many deists who say something akin to "God is the Universe", and I personally class such people as atheistic - even if they would consider themselves theistic. I can reason my position all I want, and they can reason theirs, but what really matters is that I've at least factored their beliefs into my definition. Understanding of others beliefs should be the aim of any discussion on this subject. It should be less about the pointless squabbling over who has the "right" or "wrong" definition, and more about trying to reach an understanding as to what the use of that particular term can tell us about that person. We're always going to have our own categorizations for people, just don't let those categorizations become prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Wise words, I think.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You and I apparently mean very different things by 'poetry.' In my vocabulary, poetry is the most descriptive sort of language. If I were trying to write a washing machine manual, I might go a little lighter on the poetry and heavier on the dry technical language, but I'd still want to punch it up with some poetic talk.

Actually, I don't even know what you mean when you declare that "words aren't just poetry."

Just poetry? That hurts my ears, for you to say something like that, man.

Again, this is an example of taking a word and being kind of fast and loose with it's meaning. "Poetry" is just one method of expression, and I love poetry, but it isn't meant to be entirely descriptive, or even really accurate. It's an artistic use of language intended to express or convey thoughts or feelings, but it's not useful when trying to express a more literal idea of reality.

Right. Just like God.

No, God is a literal thing that is claimed by some people to actually exist. "Bigfoot" exists "as a concept" as well, but when talking about bigfoot we are talking about a creature that either exists or doesn't exist in actual reality.

It depends on who's asking, yes? If a conservative Christian is asking, then sure he's asking about That Bearded SkyGuy From the Bible. But if it's a serious theologian who has thought deeply about God, then I wouldn't expect him to be asking about a conscious Being at all.

This is kind of presumptuous and perhaps insulting to any Christian theologians, and probably a lot of theologians in general. How is saying that people who have "thought deeply about God" share your particular interpretation of God any different than saying that only people who have "thought deeply about God" come to the conclusion that that it must be the Conservative Christian idea of a God?

As I say, it depends on the meaning which the asker has in his mind. And on the meaning which I have in mine. 'God' is just a word, after all. Just a bit of sound.

But the word that refers to a literal thing that either exists in reality or does not exist in reality.

Well, no. I have often denied believing in the primitive version of 'God' which most Americans seem to assume is the only possible meaning of the word. I've answered absolutely everything about that God.

Again, I think this referring to other versions of God as "primitive" is quite arrogant on your part, and kind of contradictory to some of your earlier arguments. You seem to have the idea that there are varieties of different interpretations of God and the concept of God, but you seem to denigrate particular interpretations of the concept which you do not like. I think this is somewhat hypocritical, but perhaps you could elaborate on your meaning more to try and more accurately explain your perspective.

In the US, yes. We are still theolgically primitive as a culture. But that's changing.

If you go to other places in the world and ask about 'God', though, the majority will not necessarily understand that you're asking about That BibleGuy. The Australian aborigines, for example, might conceive of a giant snake.

And if you go to a conference of theologians, of course, all God bets are off.

This is why a definition of God is always required for these sorts of interactions - both a general one on behalf of the questioner and a personal one on behalf of the person answering.

 

[Willamena]

But the word that refers to a literal thing that either exists in reality or does not exist in reality.

Things in reality don't fail to exist.

So perhaps you meant a literal existence. Okay, but that's Guy's point--the words we use do not refer to things literally, but poetically. The word "God" or "chair" or "you" breaks off a piece of the world and delineates it as if it was actually a broken off piece of the reality fabric instead of a symbol and a sound set used to communicate meaning. In reality, the fabric remains intact. We can refer to things, but when we do, we refer to a reality in poetry. A thing comes complete with all its ambiguity. Whatever the face of existence we "sit" on, to talk about a "literal chair" or "literally sitting" is invest in words rather than reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Things in reality don't fail to exist.

So perhaps you meant a literal existence. Okay, but that's Guy's point--the words we use do not refer to things literally, but poetically. The word "God" or "chair" or "you" breaks off a piece of the world and delineates it as if it was actually a broken off piece of the reality fabric instead of a symbol and a sound set used to communicate meaning. In reality, the fabric remains intact. We can refer to things, but when we do, we refer to a reality in poetry. A thing comes complete with all its ambiguity. Whatever the face of existence we "sit" on, to talk about a "literal chair" or "literally sitting" is invest in words rather than reality.

But those words are still referring to literal things. There is a huge difference between referring to something literally, descriptively and poetically. I think saying that all language is "poetry" is an oversimplification of the many faceted uses and purposes of language, and misses the point of this debate about definitions entirely.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Things in reality don't fail to exist.

So perhaps you meant a literal existence. Okay, but that's Guy's point--the words we use do not refer to things literally, but poetically. The word "God" or "chair" or "you" breaks off a piece of the world and delineates it as if it was actually a broken off piece of the reality fabric instead of a symbol and a sound set used to communicate meaning. In reality, the fabric remains intact. We can refer to things, but when we do, we refer to a reality in poetry. A thing comes complete with all its ambiguity. Whatever the face of existence we "sit" on, to talk about a "literal chair" or "literally sitting" is invest in words rather than reality.

A most excellent summary. I think language fools us into believing there is such a thing as 'literal' language vs.'figurative' or 'poetic' language.

To me, it all seems like poetry.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But those words are still referring to literal things. There is a huge difference between referring to something literally, descriptively and poetically. I think saying that all language is "poetry" is an oversimplification of the many faceted uses and purposes of language, and misses the point of this debate about definitions entirely.

I think it's the very essence of this debate. You can see there are people here who actually believe that they can define 'atheism' in some sense exterior to themselves.

As if words and their definitions exist in some real sense. To my sensibilities, that's a bit of confusion.

I'll answer your longer message as I can.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But those words are still referring to literal things.

You've used that term more than once... literal things. I'd be curious if you'd like to explain what you mean by it.

You think that the Abrahamic God is made of physical stuff? If so, where does He live? What atoms does He displace?

If he is not physical, in your view, what is the nature of his literal existence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think it's the very essence of this debate. You can see there are people here who actually believe that they can define 'atheism' in some sense exterior to themselves.

As if words and their definitions exist in some real sense. To my sensibilities, that's a bit of confusion.

Any discussion about definitions which takes the position that words have no meaning is utterly and completely pointless. In fact, such a position being adhered to makes any discussion on any subject meaningless. If words have no "exterior" definition, then discussion would be impossible and we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with. While you are a theologian, I am an English student, and I find these kinds of digressions about language to be pointless distractions from the actual debate.

You've used that term more than once... literal things. I'd be curious if you'd like to explain what you mean by it.

You think that the Abrahamic God is made of physical stuff? If so, where does He live? What atoms does He displace?

If he is not physical, in your view, what is the nature of his literal existence?

I didn't say "physical". Something can exist in any number of a variety of forms, but something which literally manifests is distinct from something that is defined as entirely conceptual. Justice is a concept for which existence is intrinsically the result of that concept being understood and explored, God is an entity that either exists by manifesting in reality in some form, or else does not exist in any form or it's existence can be said to be equal to nonexistence. This is what is meant by "literal" rather than "conceptual". The person who prays to "God" or "Allah" or "Ra" or "Zeus" is referring to an entity that they believe exists, not just a concept.

I'm really starting to find this digression frustrating and pointless. Do we really have to move the goalposts so wide?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Any discussion about definitions which takes the position that words have no meaning is utterly and completely pointless.

Well, it's good, I guess, that no one here has asserted that words have no meaning.

What I have said to you is that dictionaries are not Bibles. Words mean what you and i say they mean. The don't mean what the dictionary declares them to mean.

In fact, such a position being adhered to makes any discussion on any subject meaningless. If words have no "exterior" definition, then discussion would be impossible and we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with. While you are a theologian, I am an English student, and I find these kinds of digressions about language to be pointless distractions from the actual debate.

For the record, linguistics was my field of study in college, and I have been an English teacher. Not to pull rank or anything.