Atheism does not exist

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's my bad for jumping in there.

Though it does get to the crux of my beef with your position.

There are three options (for just about anything), as you have established:

1. Belief
2. Neither disbelief nor belief. (Neutral; no opinion; don't know)
3. Disbelief. (Belief not)

You want the phrasing "I don't believe X" (or "I am not a fan of X" or "I don't like X") to encompass both groups 2 and 3.

Due to the loophole present in the English language, "I don't believe X" could be a truthful statement for someone in group 2.

It's not a "loophole"; it's just how it works: if a person neither believes nor disbelieves, then we can say:

- he doesn't believe
- he doesn't disbelieve

Neither statement becomes false just because we don't say it with the other one.

However, it is simply a curiosity, a play on words, the domain of comedians to exploit.

It is not how a normal English speaker would phrase such a position.

If they were in group 2, then they would either say "I don't know" or "I don't have an opinion" or even "I neither believe nor disbelieve". They would never simply, and only, say "I don't believe X" and expect their listener to know or suspect that it meant they were a neutral party.

To use such a phrasing, and to mean neutrality, is misleading.

Actually, I think it's your argument that's misleading. You're conflating two different contexts for language.

Yes, we use idioms and rhetorical devices all the time to express ideas, but this doesn't mean we can't drill down and talk about things in a more formal way, which is what I've been trying to do here.

And to be honest, I think such a phrasing on the part of many atheists who claim to merely "lack a belief" is indicative of a self-delusion. They phrase their non-belief as "I don't believe in Gods" because that accurately portrays how they feel on the subject-- that's the language they would naturally use to express themselves. But then they exploit the loophole to pretend as if they are neutral, to convince themselves of their neutrality.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they were truly neutral, if they were truly a group 2, then they would never say "I don't believe in gods". They would say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" or "I don't believe either position", etc.

You're missing the point here. Saying that atheism requires only lack of belief doesn't imply that all atheists are neutral. It means that atheism is a "big tent" that encompasses a range of views, all of varying degrees of certainty and non-neutrality.

The mere fact that atheism doesn't require a non-neutral position doesn't mean that any particular atheist hasn't adopted a non-neutral position. Obviously, people naturally develop opinions about the ideas they're exposed to, whether about gods or anything else. I think you're conflating two different things:

- the argument about where the boundaries of the category "atheism" should be (e.g. "if a person was neutral on the subject of gods, would he be an atheist?")

- your points about actual atheists (e.g. "this atheist says he's neutral on the subject of gods; I don't believe him.")

They're separate issues. The fact that a hypothetical neutral person would be an atheist doesn't imply that any particular atheist is necessarily justified in saying that he's neutral on the issue of gods.

 

[Willamena]

If I say I don't like Keanu Reeves, it most certainly implies that I dislike him, and that would be what I meant by using that phrasing.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not a "loophole"; it's just how it works: if a person neither believes nor disbelieves, then we can say:

- he doesn't believe
- he doesn't disbelieve

Neither statement becomes false just because we don't say it with the other one.

It is, however, misleading.

Actually, I think it's your argument that's misleading. You're conflating two different contexts for language.

Yes, we use idioms and rhetorical devices all the time to express ideas, but this doesn't mean we can't drill down and talk about things in a more formal way, which is what I've been trying to do here.

We can. But the problem is that this isn't a formal situation, or an argument that remains confined to formal situations. You are advocating a position here that people are going to go out into the world and use.

If your position requires you to express yourself in a misleading way, then I think that's a poor position. Or, rather, you've chosen a poor way to express your position.

You're missing the point here. Saying that atheism requires only lack of belief doesn't imply that all atheists are neutral. It means that atheism is a "big tent" that encompasses a range of views, all of varying degrees of certainty and non-neutrality.

The mere fact that atheism doesn't require a non-neutral position doesn't mean that any particular atheist hasn't adopted a non-neutral position. Obviously, people naturally develop opinions about the ideas they're exposed to, whether about gods or anything else. I think you're conflating two different things:

- the argument about where the boundaries of the category "atheism" should be (e.g. "if a person was neutral on the subject of gods, would he be an atheist?")

- your points about actual atheists (e.g. "this atheist says he's neutral on the subject of gods; I don't believe him.")

They're separate issues. The fact that a hypothetical neutral person would be an atheist doesn't imply that any particular atheist is necessarily justified in saying that he's neutral on the issue of gods.

I wasn't talking about all the people you think fall under the umbrella of atheism. I wasn't even talking about atheism at all. I was talking specifically about those people who claim to merely "lack a belief" and yet state "I don't believe that gods exist."

 

[Willamena]

It's not a "loophole"; it's just how it works: if a person neither believes nor disbelieves, then we can say:

- he doesn't believe
- he doesn't disbelieve

Neither statement becomes false just because we don't say it with the other one.

Oftentimes I will be asked, "Do you like so-and-so?" and I don't have any particular like of him but also no dislike, so I will respond, "Well, I don't dislike him."

People usually get it.

 

[Falvlun]

My goal isn't to win some debates on an internet forum. It's to come up with something that any normal person on the street could understand and relate to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is, however, misleading.

I disagree, but you know that already.

We can. But the problem is that this isn't a formal situation, or an argument that remains confined to formal situations. You are advocating a position here that people are going to go out into the world and use.

If your position requires you to express yourself in a misleading way, then I think that's a poor position. Or, rather, you've chosen a poor way to express your position.

I'm not expressing myself in a misleading way. Your argument reminds me a lot of the people who claim things like "evolution is 'just a theory'", confusing how the term "theory" is used in everyday speech and how it's used in science.

I'm trying to tell you with precision, and in a formal way, how I think the term should be used. You're ignoring this context to try and twist my meaning by taking language that, by context, shouldn't be ambiguous and picking a usage that just doesn't work.

... but rather than keep on going on this snipe hunt, let's try a different approach to how to define "atheist". Let's define it in terms of theism:

- theist: a person who believes in one or more gods.
- atheist: any person who is not a theist.

There... does that work? I realize you probably won't agree with the definition, but hopefully now I'll have avoided terms that you can pull out of context, so you can understand what I'm trying to say.

I wasn't talking about all the people you think fall under the umbrella of atheism. I was talking specifically about those people who claim to merely "lack a belief" and yet state "I don't believe that gods exist."

I just don't see how they're relevant.

As an analogy, if a particular Canadian is patriotic and denies it, this has no bearing on whether you need to be patriotic to be Canadian.

 

[Willamena]

I'm just trying to image how insensitive it would be to say to someone to their face, "I don't like you," and leave them thinking you dislike them when in fact that's not what you meant at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just trying to image how insensitive it would be to say to someone to their face, "I don't like you," and leave them thinking you dislike them when in fact that's not what you meant at all.

I find it hard to believe that an adult who's used lanuage her whole life hasn't figured out that the mere act of communicating, as well as the manner of communication, imparts meaning beyond just the explicit content of the communication.

Going up to someone to tell you about your feelings toward them necessarily implies that you care enough about those feelings to make the effort to tell the person. A person who doesn't care at all about a person doesn't make a point to talk to them. The mere fact that you've singled them out means that you care about them in some way.

Have you ever heard the McLuhan quote "the medium is the message"? You may want to look into the thought behind it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My goal isn't to win some debates on an internet forum. It's to come up with something that any normal person on the street could understand and relate to.

I think we've covered "understand" to death, so I think the only point left to talk about is "relate to".

I wonder about this "normal person on the street" you're talking about. Exactly what does he or she think about atheists? For instance, would this "normal person on the street" relate to any definition for "atheism" that allows for the possibility that an atheist can be moral?

Edit: would Sterling Archer's friend who he described in the OP be a "normal person on the street"?

 

[idav]

That's my bad for jumping in there.

Though it does get to the crux of my beef with your position.

There are three options (for just about anything), as you have established:

1. Belief
2. Neither disbelief nor belief. (Neutral; no opinion; don't know)
3. Disbelief. (Belief not)

You want the phrasing "I don't believe X" (or "I am not a fan of X" or "I don't like X") to encompass both groups 2 and 3.

Due to the loophole present in the English language, "I don't believe X" could be a truthful statement for someone in group 2.

However, it is simply a curiosity, a play on words, the domain of comedians to exploit.

It is not how a normal English speaker would phrase such a position.

If they were in group 2, then they would either say "I don't know" or "I don't have an opinion" or even "I neither believe nor disbelieve". They would never simply, and only, say "I don't believe X" and expect their listener to know or suspect that it meant they were a neutral party.

To use such a phrasing, and to mean neutrality, is misleading.

And to be honest, I think such a phrasing on the part of many atheists who claim to merely "lack a belief" is indicative of a self-delusion. They phrase their non-belief as "I don't believe in Gods" because that accurately portrays how they feel on the subject-- that's the language they would naturally use to express themselves. But then they exploit the loophole to pretend as if they are neutral, to convince themselves of their neutrality.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they were truly neutral, if they were truly a group 2, then they would never say "I don't believe in gods". They would say "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" or "I don't believe either position", etc.

I dont know really encompasses everyone just as the answer being no encompasses someone who says maybe. If you ask someone on a date you want a yes. Maybe is no until the proposition is accepted.

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree, but you know that already.

You honestly believe that it is reasonable to expect someone to assume or suspect that you are making a statement of neutrality when you claim "I don't believe X"?

If a phrase nearly always means something, and you intentionally use it to mean something else, then yes, your use of the phrase is misleading.

It's no different than the juvenile game of calling things "gay" and then acting like you meant "happy".

I'm not expressing myself in a misleading way. Your argument reminds me a lot of the people who claim things like "evolution is 'just a theory'", confusing how the term "theory" is used in everyday speech and how it's used in science.

I'm trying to tell you with precision, and in a formal way, how I think the term should be used. You're ignoring this context to try and twist my meaning by taking language that, by context, shouldn't be ambiguous and picking a usage that just doesn't work.

How have I twisted your meaning? I have acknowledged that, yes, technically the phrase can mean what you want it to mean. I have simply stated that it is is misleading to use it that way, since that is not what it normally means or how it is normally used. The ambiguity does not come from me or my argument but from the fact that you want to use a phrase to mean something different than its normal usage.

You are talking about formality, but what formal venue are you talking about? If we are talking about theories in science, then it is appropriate to utilize the scientific definition of the word. But what is the analogous situation with the phrase "I don't believe gods exist"?

This is a phrase that will be used in everyday conversation. There is no distinction between whatever formal venue you think there is and the normal usage.

If you are concerned with precision, then why do you cling to this position? It is about as imprecise a wording as you can get.

What is wrong with "I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods?" I would think that is the formal, precise phrase you should be looking for.

... but rather than keep on going on this snipe hunt, let's try a different approach to how to define "atheist".

I don't think this is a snipe hunt, but a fundamental problem with your position.

It has less to do with the definition of atheism, and how your position is encouraging people to categorize and describe their beliefs in a way that is misleading, both to their audience and to themselves.

Let's define it in terms of theism:

- theist: a person who believes in one or more gods.
- atheist: any person who is not a theist.

There... does that work? I realize you probably won't agree with the definition, but hopefully now I'll have avoided terms that you can pull out of context, so you can understand what I'm trying to say.

I have pulled nothing out of context. I have merely tried to apply your theory, and am pointing out that it doesn't work. As an engineer, you should appreciate that: Things might look all pretty on paper, but simply fail at the application stage.

Note: I have no problem with the original wording of your atheism definition: the absence of belief in the existence of gods.

Yes, I do not believe that should be the definition of atheism. But that is not what this branch of the argument was about.

I just don't see how they're relevant.

As an analogy, if a particular Canadian is patriotic and denies it, this has no bearing on whether you need to be patriotic to be Canadian.

We were discussing how I feel that your usage of "I don't believe in the existence of God" to indicate neutrality to be misleading.

I was pointing out the other side of the coin: The usage is not merely misleading to those you are talking to. I believe it is also misleading to the person using it.

That is why I am so vehemently opposed to it.

 

[Falvlun]

I think we've covered "understand" to death, so I think the only point left to talk about is "relate to".

I wonder about this "normal person on the street" you're talking about. Exactly what does he or she think about atheists? For instance, would this "normal person on the street" relate to any definition for "atheism" that allows for the possibility that an atheist can be moral?

Edit: would Sterling Archer's friend who he described in the OP be a "normal person on the street"?

I don't control the image of dogs that people might get if I were to say "I like dogs." Similarly, why should I expect to control the image of atheists they get when I say "I don't believe that gods exist?"

I can, however, control the image they have of me. Imagine I accept your position that "I don't believe" is an acceptable statement of neutrality. Here's the converstion:

Me: I don't believe that gods exist.

Person on street: Oh really? That's fascinating. I've never met someone who believes that gods don't exist.

Me: Oh, well you still haven't. Because I don't believe that.

Person on the street: But you just said that you don't believe that gods exist.

Me: Yeah, that's because I don't believe that gods exist. I just left out the part where I also don't believe that gods don't exist.

Person on street: .... Oh. *walks away thinking: Dang. That was pretty slimy. I wonder if all atheists are like that.*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We were discussing how I feel that your usage of "I don't believe in the existence of God" to indicate neutrality to be misleading.

I was pointing out the other side of the coin: The usage is not merely misleading to those you are talking to. I believe it is also misleading to the person using it.

That is why I am so vehemently opposed to it.

No, we were talking about what the word "atheist" means. The whole "don't believe" sideshow was only in this context. I've provided several ways to define "atheist" and "atheism" that don't use "don't believe", so can we please just move on? I don't think I can have any more productive conversation on the issue with you - I've run out of ways to explain myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't control the image of dogs that people might get if I were to say "I like dogs." Similarly, why should I expect to control the image of atheists they get when I say "I don't believe that gods exist?"

You're talking about stereotypes.

The image I get when someone says "dog" in normal conversation is a friendly (and sometimes slobbery) furry companion of people. However, I can step out of my preconcption and recognize that a rabid dingo that would rip out my throat as soon as look at me is a dog, too.

But you sidestepped my question: I asked about what sort of atheist this "normal person on the street" would relate to. Would this person be able to relate to a moral atheist? An atheist who really, truly doesn't believe in God? An atheist who doesn't get mad at Ten Commandments monuments?

 

[idav]

I asked someone why they are saying they are atheist now, this person recently a church goer, and tney said they are atheist cause they dont go to church any more. I didnt gather it had to do with God when I tried to ask more.

 

[BornAgain]

I asked someone why they are saying they are atheist now, this person recently a church goer, and tney said they are atheist cause they dont go to church any more. I didnt gather it had to do with God when I tried to ask more.

there is no such things as atheist. Only unbelievers and believers.

 

[Falvlun]

No, we were talking about what the word "atheist" means. The whole "don't believe" sideshow was only in this context. I've provided several ways to define "atheist" and "atheism" that don't use "don't believe", so can we please just move on? I don't think I can have any more productive conversation on the issue with you - I've run out of ways to explain myself.

I understand your position; you haven't had to explain anything. I just don't know why you'd advocate using a misleading phrase when you could just as easily use a phrase that wasn't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I asked someone why they are saying they are atheist now, this person recently a church goer, and tney said they are atheist cause they dont go to church any more. I didnt gather it had to do with God when I tried to ask more.

Thanks for telling us about that. I know a guy who claims to be a Southern Baptist, a good Christian. He goes to church each and every Sunday.

But he no more believes in Yahweh than I do, and I'm guessing that he'd have no problem being called an atheist... so long as the preacher isn't listening.

And if he is a Christian atheist, then he seems to me to be a theistic atheist.

He's both theist and atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

You're talking about stereotypes.

The image I get when someone says "dog" in normal conversation is a friendly (and sometimes slobbery) furry companion of people. However, I can step out of my preconcption and recognize that a rabid dingo that would rip out my throat as soon as look at me is a dog, too.

But you sidestepped my question: I asked about what sort of atheist this "normal person on the street" would relate to. Would this person be able to relate to a moral atheist? An atheist who really, truly doesn't believe in God? An atheist who doesn't get mad at Ten Commandments monuments?

I don't know what sort of atheist the person on the street would relate to. That wasn't really what I was referring to when I said that.

It was more the relation between someone who takes language at face value, and someone who makes arcane arguments with it. It's hard to relate to someone you don't trust because their arguments come off as slippery and misleading.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't know if I was responded to 20 or so pages ago and i'm not gonna check.

But just to reiterate. Atheism is anyone who doesn't believe in god. Gnostic Disbelief is not a prerequisite to lack of a belief.