Atheism is not a default position

[Augustus]

Are you now saying there are theists who believe god exists but consider the statement "god exists" to be meaningless!? You better stop now...

I said arguably, because it really depends on what makes somebody a theist. A Christian, for example, who subscribes strongly to the ideas of apophatic theology might say that you cannot say that God exists because you cannot describe God with any positive characteristics.

What is arguable is whether or not this person is a theist. Seeing as 'theist' is an artificial category that tries to classify peoples beliefs into nice neat boxes, when the real world is not quite so clear cut means we might get some grey areas.

The following was said by a Christian who refused to consider that 'exists' was not a label that could be applied to God:

"Our salvation depends upon our knowing and recognizing the Chief Good which is God Himself. I have a capacity in my soul for taking in God entirely. I am as sure as I live that nothing is so near to me as God. God is nearer to me than I am to myself... Thus must the soul, which would know God, be rooted and grounded in Him so steadfastly, as to suffer no perturbation of fear or hope, or joy or sorrow, or love or hate, or anything which may disturb its peace..." Meister Eckhart

Whether such a person is a theist or not a theist is arguable, as Christianity is theistic, and he is a Christian who believes in the doctrines and divine origins of the faith.

You want things to be nice and easy, black and white, but the pesky nature of our existence means that many things don't nicely fit into neatly defined boxes.

How would you describe the beliefs of Eckhart? I'd just call him a Christian, but then again, I don't really like the term theist.

Whether or not you agree with this, would you accept that what you previously claimed about atheism, that 'all self-identified atheists don't believe in the existence of god' is clearly false?

 

[Shad]

Well, there is truth to the point that people look up unfamiliar words in order to get a sense of how to use them. That is one of the purposes of a dictionary, and I can see where my statement could be construed in that way. What I meant to say was what I took to be agreement with Bunyip (although he prefers to construe everything I say as some kind of curmudgeonly disagreement, for some reason), that dictionary entries are not intended to create or enforce prescriptions for usage. Their function is primarily descriptive--to inform people how words are commonly used. Naturally, people usually wish to use words in a way that others understand them, so that is why they think dictionaries tell them how words "ought to be used". The problem is that bad dictionary definitions can actually influence people to use words in new ways. It is fascinating to see how people take some of these definitions as doctrinaire assertions of how the words must be used rather than how native speakers intuitively know to use them.

Dictionary definitions have been called heuristic in the sense that they only give an indication of what the actual meaning of the word is. They help users to discover a word's meaning without actually exhaustively describing the properties of the word. So a lot of dictionaries will give definitions for the word "bachelor", one of which is simply "unmarried male". The online Merriam-Webster definition for bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". However, English speakers know that there is more to it than that. The definition doesn't tell you this, but eligibility for marriage is an essential component of the meaning. Hence, it would be strange to refer to a Catholic priest as a "bachelor", since Catholic priests can't marry. That won't stop some people from looking the word up in a dictionary and letting the definition drive them to claiming that the Pope is a "bachelor". And they will do so with the same dogmatic assurance that our internet friends have in touting the silly "babies are atheists" claim.

My solely point was that just because anyone makes up a definition of a word does not mean that it is valid. Especially when it fails to pass the mildest of scrutiny. I placed the definition under scrutiny and it fails. Only by denial of valid logical counters is it acceptable. However people that do this already shows they used flawed logic thus I have no obligation to entertain their illogical definition because they like said definition.

 

[David M]

The consensus position in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related fields is that religion is "natural" while atheism is not.

Another consensu position is that some religions are not theistic so their followers are, by definition, atheists.

 

[David M]

I think your definitions need work. M-W gives the definition of atheist as ": a person who believes that God does not exist." This contradicts your asserted definition; it is a very particular belief about god.

M-W is incorrect, the proper defintion of atheists is "a person that does not have a belief that God(s) exist"

 

[ArtieE]

The following was said by a Christian who refused to consider that 'exists' was not a label that could be applied to God:

"Our salvation depends upon our knowing and recognizing the Chief Good which is God Himself. I have a capacity in my soul for taking in God entirely. I am as sure as I live that nothing is so near to me as God. God is nearer to me than I am to myself... Thus must the soul, which would know God, be rooted and grounded in Him so steadfastly, as to suffer no perturbation of fear or hope, or joy or sorrow, or love or hate, or anything which may disturb its peace..." Meister Eckhart

Whether such a person is a theist or not a theist is arguable, as Christianity is theistic, and he is a Christian who believes in the doctrines and divine origins of the faith.

How would you describe the beliefs of Eckhart? I'd just call him a Christian, but then again, I don't really like the term theist.

Whether or not you agree with this, would you accept that what you previously claimed about atheism, that 'all self-identified atheists don't believe in the existence of god' is clearly false?

Where does this Meister Eckhart say he's an atheist but believes god exists?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry you took it that way, I was never at all offended.

Good.

 

[Augustus]

Where does this Meister Eckhart say he's an atheist but believes god exists?

He didn't. He was a religious Christian who thought that you couldn't say whether or not God existed as nothing could be said of God. It was an example of someone who, arguably, could be considered a theist even though he didn't think it could be said that God existed.

Anyway, whether or not there are 'theists' who don't believe in God's existence isn't in any way important to what I was saying about atheists. I mentioned it as trivia.

My point was about the fact that some people who self-identify as atheists cannot be said to 'not believe in god', as they say 'god exists' is a meaningless statement. An example would be:

"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] whereas others have considered it to be distinct." Wikipedia

So we know that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are genuine perspectives. We know that such people think the statement 'god exists' is meaningless and so can neither be said to believe in or not believe in the existence of god. And we know that at least one person considers it a form of atheism.

As such, your statement that '100% of atheists don't believe in the existence of god' can't be true.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Great. So deists are atheists because deism quite literally developed as a position in opposition to theism. And ditto for polytheists, as the same is true of polytheism. (i.e., it was defined in opposition to theism, albeit less specifically:

Spoiler: OED entries for polytheist and polytheism

Polytheist:
"A person who believes in or worships more than one god; an adherent of polytheism.

a1620 M. Fotherby Atheomastix (1622) i. vi. §3. 45 They were of all other the most palpable Polytheists.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe no one supreme designing Principle or Mind, but several, is to be a Polytheist.
1705 W. Wall Hist. Infant-baptism II. 104 They can be content to..have believ'd that the whole Body of the Profession were for several Ages Polytheists.
1776 Gibbon Decline & Fall I. viii. 205 In the true spirit of a polytheist, he accuses them of adoring Earth, Water, Fire, the Winds, and the Sun and Moon.
1830 I. D'Israeli Comm. Life Charles I III. xv. 330 Sabbatarians became a term of reproach for the Jews with the Polytheists.
1877 J. E. Carpenter tr. C. P. Tiele Outl. Hist. Relig. 109 The Aryans like the Indo-Germans, were polytheists.
1925 G. K. Chesterton Everlasting Man i. iv. 96 A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists.
1992 J. Piscatori in J. Baylis & N. J. Rengger Dilemmas World Polit. xii. 316 This is one dimension of the idea of Jihād, which is particularly emphasized in the case of polytheists."

Polytheism:
"The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods.

1613 S. Purchas Pilgrimage ix. 43 Theu built afterward..an exchanged Polytheisme in worshipping of Saints, Images, and the Host.
1638 T. Herbert Some Yeares Trav. (rev. ed.) 315 Some Temples..furnisht with wooden gods for politheisme.
1658 E. Reynolds Vanitie of Creature in Wks. (1679) 8 There is yet a bitter root of Atheisme, and of Polutheisme in the minds of Men by nature.
1709 Ld. Shaftesbury Moralists i. iii. 28 For Theism can only be oppos'd to Polytheism, or Atheism.
1782 J. Priestley Hist. Corruptions Christianity I. i. 101 Celsus..justifies the polytheism of the heathens.
1835 C. Thirlwall Hist. Greece I. vi. 183 It has sometimes been made a question whether polytheism or monotheism is the more ancient form of natural religion.
1893 in J. H. Barrows World's Parl. Relig. II. 1542 Hinduism is not the idolatry and unrooted polytheism of savages.
1925 G. K. Chesterton Everlasting Man i. vi. 129 In this very varied and often very vague polytheism there was a weakness of original sin.
1949 H. A. R. Gibb Mohammedanism viii. 138 Orthodox theology (which regarded the invocation of saints as trespassing into polytheism by derogating from the worship of God alone).
1988 P. Toynbee End of Journey 198 Pantheism—to my mind a far worse mistake than polytheism."

)

A diest believes in a god who does not interact with mankind. Anyone who is not a deist (And any other god-faith) is an atheist (opposite of a theist)

Most theist I know believe in God no matter how he or she is defined and whether or not this god is involved with us or not. Anyone who had beliefs opposite (a) of those is a atheist.

If you reject or against any belief with gods, you are an anti-theist. A (opposite) anti (against).

Polytheist believe in more than one god. So, they are theist. (Theist does not mean monotheist or polytheist it just means belief in deities)

 

[Desert Snake]

A diest believes in a god who does not interact with mankind. Anyone who is not a deist (And any other god-faith) is an atheist (opposite of a theist)

Most theist I know believe in God no matter how he or she is defined and whether or not this god is involved with us or not. Anyone who had beliefs opposite (a) of those is a atheist.

If you reject or against any belief with gods, you are an anti-theist. A (opposite) anti (against).

Polytheist believe in more than one god. So, they are theist. (Theist does not mean monotheist or polytheist it just means belief in deities)

So, if someone worships an object as a god, does a person have to deny the existence of that object, in order to be an atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

My point was about the fact that some people who self-identify as atheists cannot be said to 'not believe in god', as they say 'god exists' is a meaningless statement.

DOH! Well of course they do not believe in the existence of god if they regard "god exists" a meaningless statement!

So we know that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are genuine perspectives. We know that such people think the statement 'god exists' is meaningless and so can neither be said to believe in or not believe in the existence of god.

LOL! A person who thinks the statement "god exists" is meaningless obviously doesn't believe in the existence of god!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, if someone worships an object as a god, does a person have to deny the existence of that object, in order to be an atheist?

If that object IS a God and someone does not believe (not, denies) in Any Gods including that God-object, their "belief would be 'opposite' of the person believing in the God-object. If that be thr case, they are an athiest (if they believe in No Gods at all).

If you are denying a god because "you dont believe gods exist" then you'd still be an atheist. If you are denying a god "but have no position on whether or not they exist", you are an anti theist. Id probably say agnostic antitheist. Atheists dont believe in gods point blank.

Thiest believe in gods
Athiest believe in the opposite

Denial, rejection, etc has no barring if you dont believe a god exist to deny him in thr first place. Kind of like my denying that I am typing on a chair and sending you messages. We can deny something that is the truth or fact. But to deny something that isnt there to begin with, I dont know what that is definitely not atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Thiest believe in gods
Athiest believe in the opposite

No.

Theists believe god(s) exist.
Weak atheists don't believe god's exist.
Strong atheists don't believe god's exist + believe god(s) don't exist.

 

[Copernicus]

...Just curious: If a person tells you he's an atheist what do you automatically know 100% sure about this person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods... and yet you say that isn't the definition of atheist? How is that logical?

Artie, you have repeated your position ad nauseam without actually addressing the arguments I've made--at least, to my satisfaction--so I have really stopped taking you seriously. Nevertheless, if you truly want to know, then I'll make another effort to engage you. I won't be surprised if I fail to get past your defensive shields on this subject yet again, but what the heck.

You have repeatedly made the same point over and over: "If a person tells you he's an atheist, you automatically know 100% that he doesn't believe that gods exist." That's an exaggeration--you don't "automatically know 100%" anything at all about that person--but that's beside the point. Can you reasonably make that inference? What is wrong with it?

One problem with such a claim is with the seemingly unambiguous sentence: "X does not believe that Y exists." It is utterly ambiguous. You could either infer that "X has no such belief" or "X has a belief that Y does not exist". Do you see the ambiguity? The logical scope of negation can be limited to just the object of "believe" or it can have wider scope. If you see the ambiguity, then you understand what I object to in your repetitious argument. A definition should not be ambiguous. It is supposed to be a precise indication of how a word is used. So the definition "An atheist is a person that does not believe that gods exist" is a poor definition. We need one that is less prone to misinterpretation.

Now, why not just say that the word "atheist" can mean anyone who fulfills either meaning of the definition? Well, that might work, but only if people actually use the word both ways. And here is where we come to the nub of the argument. Do people really use the word in both senses? I believe that you take the position that they do, but you prefer to use the expressions "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" to resolve the ambiguity. This is where we part ways, because I don't even agree with your characterization of what those terms mean, and it distracts us from the original question of how the word "atheist" is actually used. IOW, we are now embroiled in what is sometimes called a logic chopping fallacy: a morass of tangential quibbles over precise terms.

So let's return focus to just the question of how the word "atheist" is used. Do people use it to refer to just anyone who lacks a belief in gods? Lots of people strenuously object to calling babies atheists, so internet disputes often focus on that example. We have also listed others. One possible position is that people should just look up a definition in the dictionary and use the word as instructed. I believe that that is your position, right? One problem with that position is that it begs the question of whether the definition is a good definition. Lexicographers argue the merits of definitions all the time, but they all agree to one standard for judging them: how the words are actually used. That is why it is relevant to ask whether one could reasonably call a baby an "atheist". If not, then a good definition would not lead us to do that. Hence, the doctrinaire argument that babies are atheists because a dictionary defines the word as "lack of belief in gods" is actually a bad argument. From the perspective of people who make up definitions, dictionaries should not describe usage unless it is empirically validated by actual usage. That is why all lexicographers use citations of actual usage to validate their claims about good and bad definitions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No.

Theists believe god(s) exist.
Weak atheists don't believe god's exist.
Strong atheists don't believe god's exist + believe god(s) don't exist.

Here is a good discription of prefixes.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/prefix.htm

I haven't heard the terms (each being one word)"Weak atheist" and "Strong atheist" until I came on RF actually. There are many different type of theists as well. The Core of it all is "belief/disbelief in deities". How strong, how its defined, who, when, how many is Not the point.

Nouns that have the prefix A is the opposite of the noun (default) itself. The noun is the foundation. The prefixes and suffixes could change the definition of the word. Usually, it means just means the opposite of whatever the noun is. Legal....permitted by law. illegal not permitted by law.

So if a bookworm loves book, a abookworm (making up a word here), does not love books.

If the bookworm was an antibookworm, he will be against books.

Whether how much he loves or doesn't love books (weak or strong) is not the point. The word means "a person who loves books" and the opposite "a person who doesnt love books."

Likewise with atheism. I don't understand why its complicated. We have our own way of definiting atheism. I am an atheist because I do not believe in deities (mono, poly, whatever). Yet, I do believe in spirits. Am I atheist to someone else, who knows. We got different definitions.

But the Core definition of theism is belief in deities, the opposite is a disbelief in deities. One is a theist and the other atheist.

Excluding descriptions and adjectives and sticking with nouns, prefixes, and suffixes
-
Edit:

Noun (default): Theist
Description "belief" in deities

Prefix with noun (not a default): A-theist
Description "dis-belief" in deities.

Weak and strong just describes the degree that person believes or disbeliefs in god/s. Has nothing to do with the definition: belief verses disbelief/theist versus atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie, you have repeated your position ad nauseam without actually addressing the arguments I've made--at least, to my satisfaction--so I have really stopped taking you seriously.

Likewise!

You have repeatedly made the same point over and over: "If a person tells you he's an atheist, you automatically know 100% that he doesn't believe that gods exist." That's an exaggeration--you don't "automatically know 100%" anything at all about that person--but that's beside the point. Can you reasonably make that inference? What is wrong with it?

One problem with such a claim is with the seemingly unambiguous sentence: "X does not believe that Y exists." It is utterly ambiguous. You could either infer that "X has no such belief"

That is what we call a "weak atheist" or just "atheist" for short. This is elementary basic knowledge about atheism Copernicus.

or "X has a belief that Y does not exist".

That is what we call a "strong atheist". A strong atheist is a person who "has no such belief" that Y exists plus "has a belief that Y does not exist". Again this is elementary basic knowledge about atheism Copernicus. If there was an atheist school this would be something you would learn in first grade. And if you don't even accept what weak and strong atheism actually means then you must continue to live in your own world.

So let's return focus to just the question of how the word "atheist" is used. Do people use it to refer to just anyone who lacks a belief in gods?

Most atheists do and they are the ones who have the right to define what they are. "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." about.com

Lots of people strenuously object to calling babies atheists, so internet disputes often focus on that example.

You aren't seriously suggesting that we should drop a definition accurately describing every atheist on the planet just because some people can't handle that the definition happens to implicitly include infants? I would suggest that these people seek therapy instead.

 

[Augustus]

DOH! Well of course they do not believe in the existence of god if they regard "god exists" a meaningless statement!LOL! A person who thinks the statement "god exists" is meaningless obviously doesn't believe in the existence of god!

Despite your lols, your statement is more ambiguous than you think. It is not phrased in a way which makes it unambiguous.

If the (non)proposition 'god exists' is meaningless, you neither believe it nor don't believe it. You reject it as meaningless.

If 'god exists' is meaningless, 'I don't believe god exists' could also be considered meaningless. It could be interpreted as saying 'I don't know what you mean by 'god exists', so I can't say I if I believe in it or not. I simply don't know what you mean by it'.

Your statement relies on 'self identified atheists', which also adds a level of subjective interpretation into the question. You rely on self-identified atheists answering 'yes', to the statement 'I don't believe god exists'. A self-identified atheist might answer 'I don't know' to that statement, and even a single person answering I don't know, would falsify your statement. (yes, I understand the difference between I don't believe god exists and I believe god doesn't exist)

How can you say that the subjective category of self-identified atheists, factually, does not contain a single person who 'doesn't know' if they do not believe in the existence of god?

You could say "a self-identified atheist does not consider 'god exists' to be both a) a proposition and b) true"

But this would mean that there are adherents of the traditional 'monotheistic' religions that are atheists, and so self-identified atheists might share a characteristic with people who reject the label atheist and consider themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim. This is why identifying what people mean by the term 'atheist' is much more complicated than most people think.

 

[ArtieE]

Nouns that have the prefix A is the opposite of the noun (default) itself.

Not at all. The prefix a- literally means "not, without" as described here. https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm

So if a bookworm loves book, a abookworm (making up a word here), does not love books.

The opposite of loving books isn't not loving books but hating books. The opposite of being on one side of the room isn't not being on that side of the room but being on the opposite side of the room. Obviously.

Whether how much he loves or doesn't love books (weak or strong) is not the point. The word means "a person who loves books" and the opposite "a person who doesn't love books."

The opposite of a person loving books is a person hating books...

But the Core definition of theism is belief in deities, the opposite is a disbelief in deities.

No it isn't. The opposite of believing god(s) exist (theists) is believing god(s) don't exist. (Strong atheists.)
"Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.[1][2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

[Copernicus]

...So if a bookworm loves book, a abookworm (making up a word here), does not love books.

If the bookworm was an antibookworm, he will be against books.

Whether how much he loves or doesn't love books (weak or strong) is not the point. The word means "a person who loves books" and the opposite "a person who doesnt love books."

Likewise with atheism. I don't understand why its complicated. We have our own way of definiting atheism. I am an atheist because I do not believe in deities (mono, poly, whatever). Yet, I do believe in spirits. Am I atheist to someone else, who knows. We got different definitions.

But the Core definition of theism is belief in deities, the opposite is a disbelief in deities. One is a theist and the other atheist...

Hi, Carlita. Your argument would seem to be valid, but it is actually a type of genetic fallacy called an etymological fallacy. That is, you are arguing that we ought to use a word in a certain way because of the way the word is structured--in this case, with a negative prefix--and its etymological origin.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on what an etymological fallacy is:

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology. This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. Notable examples include the terms antisemitism and philosemitism, which were coined to refer to Jews specifically, rather than to Semites in general.​

From a purely linguistic perspective, the "a-" prefix in "atheism" is not actually as productive as you think. In modern English, we tend to use it productively to form adjectives, not nouns. The word originally came into English from French, although its origin was ultimately Greek. When it came into use, it was used to refer to people who rejected belief in the Christian concept of God. In modern usage, it refers to anyone who generally rejects or denies belief in gods, although the dispute in this thread is over whether it can refer to anyone who, for whatever reason, lacks a belief in gods. That includes people who do not even have a concept of what a god is. Anyway, the basis for any definition is always going to be in how people actually use the word, not necessarily how the word is structurally composed or what its meaning was when people historically started using it.

 

[ArtieE]

If the (non)proposition 'god exists' is meaningless, you neither believe it nor don't believe it. You reject it as meaningless.

And you can't believe something that is meaningless to you so you don't believe it.

If 'god exists' is meaningless, 'I don't believe god exists' could also be considered meaningless. It could be interpreted as saying 'I don't know what you mean by 'god exists', so I can't say I if I believe in it or not. I simply don't know what you mean by it'

And if you don't know what "god exists" means obviously you can neither believe god exists nor believe god doesn't exist. So you don't believe god exists.

Your statement relies on 'self identified atheists', which also adds a level of subjective interpretation into the question. You rely on self-identified atheists answering 'yes', to the statement 'I don't believe god exists'. A self-identified atheist might answer 'I don't know' to that statement,

All atheists don't believe gods exist. That's what defines them as atheists.

How can you say that the subjective category of self-identified atheists, factually, does not contain a single person who 'doesn't know' if they do not believe in the existence of god?

Because saying "I'm an atheist" is the same as saying "I am not a theist. I don't believe in the existence of gods."

You could say "a self-identified atheist does not consider 'god exists' to be both a) a proposition and b) true"

No idea what that means.

But this would mean that there are adherents of the traditional 'monotheistic' religions that are atheists, and so self-identified atheists might share a characteristic with people who reject the label atheist and consider themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

There are many religious atheists. Don't see the point. All that defines an atheist is an absence of belief in gods. He can be as religious as he likes beyond that.

 

[Augustus]

No idea what that means.

Which is one of the major reasons you don't understand the arguments presented by multiple posters in this (and other) threads.

Never mind.