Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

I really think that if people want a close definition of atheism, they need to investigate the nature of 'a belief.'

Atheists don't believe in God? OK, but putting aside for the moment what 'God' might mean... what does it mean 'to believe' something, or 'to have a belief'?

Let's talk about plate tectonics, forty years ago. Did geologists believe in plate tectonics? Well, I'd say that most of them kinda believed and kinda didn't -- depending on how you phrased the question, whether they'd studied the latest evidence, how distracted they were about personal problems, and the politics of their academic departments.

I guess what bothers me most is that some people seem to see belief and non-belief as ON/OFF things. In my view, that's just the language fooling them. Since we have opposite words, we think that there are actually opposite things (belief states) out there to which the words refer. Actually I think that the existence of the words themselves may tend to push some folks into one camp or the other. They assume that they must either believe or not believe.

That's kinda sorta how it seems to me, anyway.

I see belief as a continuum, myself.

 

[Falvlun]

Am I the only person here who's heard of the law of the excluded middle? Am I the only one who cares about logic?

I don't think this is about logic, but rather, language and how it is normally used. If you decide to use language in a way that it is normally not used it results in you not being understood.

 

[Falvlun]

There is always varying degrees of knowing and not knowing. For an agnostic atheist, they may have some idea but they may also feel that it is unanswerable. Even a person who has a firm grasp of theology all there life, unlike a baby, could still say I don't know and not invest faith in there non-belief. Theism is about faith where as atheists can have faith but it isn't necessary for non-belief.

If someone told me "I don't know" in response to whether they believed in gods or not, I'd perfectly understand their position. It's those who want to say "I don't believe gods exist" and act as if that means "I don't know" that are muddying the waters.

 

[ArtieE]

If someone told me "I don't know" in response to whether they believed in gods or not, I'd perfectly understand their position.

That would be the atheist position. No beliefs, no disbeliefs. Just neutral.

It's those who want to say "I don't believe gods exist" and act as if that means "I don't know" that are muddying the waters.

I agree.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course. Absence of belief (not holding a belief) and non-belief (holding the belief that the first belief is wrong) are two completely different things.

1. I believe.
2. I am not holding a belief and I'm not holding a disbelief. I'm undecided. I don't care. I have never thought seriously about it.
3. I disbelieve.

You really don't understand the difference?

An elevator goes up (theism), the elevator stands still (atheism), the elevator goes down ("strong atheism"). You really don't understand the difference between those and find it meaningful?

I agree there's a difference. I just don't see why #2 should be considered atheism. We already have a word for #2: agnostic (the popular, not technical, definition). Doesn't it just make more sense to clarify all three groups with three different terms for them, rather than muddying the waters and confusing the heck out of people by lumping #2 and #3 together (and especially since most people outside of RF do consider #3 to be the definition of atheism?)

 

[Falvlun]

No, it implies that P is either true ("he's a fan") or false ("he's not a fan"). There is no third option.

Even in AmbiguousGuy's example of the guy who likes Keanu when he's drunk but not when he's sober, at any moment in time, he's either a fan or not. The question "is this guy a Keanu Reeves fan?" always has a single answer that's either "yes" or "no"... even if the answer will be different if you ask the question later.

The logics isn't the problem. It's how you say it. You can have your excluded middle, but you can't say "not P" and mean "neither" in English conversation, and act as if you should be understood. There's other words to describe the excluded middle. Use them.

 

[Willamena]

That would be the atheist position. No beliefs, no disbeliefs. Just neutral.I agree.

"I don't know" is the agnostic. That's what Falvlun expressed.

The atheist is "I don't believe."

 

[ArtieE]

I agree there's a difference. I just don't see why #2 should be considered atheism. We already have a word for #2: agnostic (the popular, not technical, definition).

The definition of agnostic is "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." What the heck has that got to do with number 2? If I wrote agnostic in #2 and somebody consulted a dictionary you think they would understand what an atheist is!?

Doesn't it just make more sense to clarify all three groups with three different terms for them, rather than muddying the waters and confusing the heck out of people by lumping #2 and #3 together (and especially since most people outside of RF do consider #3 to be the definition of atheism?)

We are not lumping #2 and #3 together because they are different. We use two different names for them. #2 is "atheist" number 3 is "strong atheist". Notice the extra word "strong"? That is because both an "atheist" and a "strong atheist" has an absence of belief in gods, therefore "atheist" but the "strong atheist" has in addition a "disbelief in gods", hence the term "strong". I don't find this confusing but logical and rational. Why do you find it confusing and why do you think people are that easily confused?

 

[Willamena]

The definition of agnostic is "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." What the heck has that got to do with number 2?

If you're going to be selective about which dictionary lines you pick, and choose only ones that make no sense, then you made the bed you lie in.

Agnostic: "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

 

[ArtieE]

"I don't know" is the agnostic. That's what Falvlun expressed.

Of course not. "I have no beliefs and no disbeliefs, that is I don't know" is the atheist position. If I wrote "agnostic" in #2 and somebody went to a dictionary and found "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." that has nothing to do with atheism. Do you want me to completely mislead people?

The atheist is "I don't believe."

No. That is the "strong atheist". The "atheist" is "I neither believe nor don't believe". I have explained this so many times now I'm beginning to think it will never sink in. Either that or you're just pretending to not understand it.

 

[ArtieE]

If you're going to be selective about which dictionary lines you pick, and choose only ones that make no sense, then you made the bed you lie in.

How the heck would a person reading #2 know he shouldn't pick that line!? Am I supposed to go through every dictionary so I can say it's an agnostic but don't pick those lines!? We have a perfectly good name for a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in gods, and that is atheist. To pick a definition that doesn't even include gods to describe a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in specifically gods is just ridiculous. You are not the least bit concerned about being taken seriously are you? Are you just being argumentative for the fun of it and don't give a hoot how you are perceived?

 

[LuisDantas]

Where did the notion that only strong atheists should be called atheists originate anyway?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where did the notion that only strong atheists should be called atheists originate anyway?

With strong atheists, and with those who wish to push atheism as an ideology.

And no, this is not based on any evidence, proof, or anything else. It's a faith-based call.

 

[ArtieE]

With strong atheists, and with those who wish to push atheism as an ideology.

Atheism isn't an ideology. "An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization)." Wikipedia. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. No more no less.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism isn't an ideology. "An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization)." Wikipedia. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. No more no less.

Yeah...I know. I worded my earlier response poorly, which is where the confusion is coming from.

There are plenty of non-atheist types who seem to want to push atheism as an ideology, or even more ridiculously, a religion. Incorrect as they are, there is a certain view that strong atheism is kinda like this atheistic ideology with people like the 'Four Horsemen' as it's prophets.

 

[ArtieE]

There are plenty of non-atheist types who seem to want to push atheism as an ideology, or even more ridiculously, a religion. Incorrect as they are, there is a certain view that strong atheism is kinda like this atheistic ideology with people like the 'Four Horsemen' as it's prophets.

That is true and just a misunderstanding. The "Four Horsemen" don't speak against gods but against religion. They can't speak against gods since they believe they don't exist. They make every effort to explain why it is irrational to believe in them and do their best to describe what is rational to believe in.

 

[LuisDantas]

With strong atheists, and with those who wish to push atheism as an ideology.

And no, this is not based on any evidence, proof, or anything else. It's a faith-based call.

Another possibility (no idea of how realistic it is) is that some people think the social stigma should be avoided and choose to present themselves (or "weak" atheists generally) as agnostics instead.

I am often surprised at how many people are described as (supposedly "pure" or "straight") agnostics as opposed to some specific variety of same. Agnosticism is such a sophisticated, arguably unnatural in its "unmixed" form belief, that I have a hard time believing there are many non-theistic, non-atheistic agnostics at all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I see belief as a continuum, myself.

I've heard people argue convincingly that they have no beliefs at all. I myself often claim not to know anything, to have no knowledge.

If pressed to the wall, I may start talking about my Best Guess Yet (BGY), expressed as a percentage, regarding various truth claims. My BGY regarding the historical Jesus has dropped from 52% to around 18% just in the past couple of years. In casual conversation I might claim that I don't believe in the historical Jesus, but that would just be shortcut talk, like talking about "the sun rising" rather than "the sun appearing to rise as the earth rotates from dark side to light side."

It's my observation and conclusion that most people understand about 'the sun rises' being shortcut language but do not understand about the other. They think that beliefs really exist, along with their opposite, unbeliefs. Opposite states, with no gray in the middle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The definition of agnostic is "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

You're Norwegian. Why should we listen to you about the meaning of American words?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are not the least bit concerned about being taken seriously are you? Are you just being argumentative for the fun of it and don't give a hoot how you are perceived?

Try to adjust yourself to the fact that others may see life differently than you do.

Otherwise, you'll eventually have no one to talk with.