Atheism, part 3: Definitions

[Heyo]

I didn't "change the definition" of atheism, I simply expressed the logical, reasonable definition of the term. One with actual philosophical content, and in keeping with how I have seen it expressed many times by atheists, themselves ... when they are't trying to pretend they're invisible.

If you object to my reasoning, feel free to rebut it with logical reasoning of your own. But be aware that "unbelief" is neither logical nor reasonable as it defines nothing, everyone, and no one.

Do you think that logic has to be binary?

 

[PureX]

Do you think that logic has to be binary?

Do you think logic should not apply to the definition of atheism? After all, a word with no definitive meaning is useless. And a definition that doesn't define anything isn't really a definition, is it.

 

[ChristineM]

But be aware that "unbelief" is neither logical nor reasonable as it defines nothing, everyone, and no one.

I am an unbeliever in leprechauns. No evidence for leprechauns so completely logical to not believe in them.

I am an unbeliever in invisible pink unicorns. No evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist so my unbelief is completely logical.

I am an unbeliever in gods for the same reason.

On the contrary, blind belief in the unevidenced is not logical

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

PureX's definition of an atheist is somebody who denies the existence of gods, a position few hold. He goes on from that straw man position to call atheists frauds and intellectual cowards (see below)

Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too." Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it." Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.

Problems like these are easily and only resolved by defining words clearly enough that one can tell whether any given entity or process falls within its extension. My definition of a god is a sentient a universe creator. My definition of a religion is a worldview that includes a god. Is atheism a religion by this reckoning? No. It's only when we admit vague definitions that can't be handled this way that we have problem. And keep in mind that this is only nomenclature, not claims about reality, so disagreements here are semantic, not substantive.

It's also worth noting that plenty of atheists do believe in the supernatural, too. There are atheist Buddhists who still believe in karma and rebirth. There are atheist Satanists who still believe in a supernatural form of magic. And so on.

There are also people who would call none of that supernatural even if it occurred. If the universe doles out cosmic justice or recycles souls, those are manifestations of nature. I find the word incoherent and useless except to hide from reasonable debate a la Sagan's invisible dragon.

Supernaturalism is a device for claiming that that which does not exist actually does exist albeit with none of the characteristics of existence. For me, to say that something exists, is real or actual, is part of reality, etc., it needs to occupy some time and space and be able to interact with other existents, which means being detectable through those interactions. So, if I want to claim that some imaginary creature actually exists , I claim that it exists outside of time and space and is undetectable just like Superman, and then I make the incoherent comment that it can affect us yet be undetectable in principle (necessarily undetectable).

And thanks for introducing me to the word apistevist. I have always worded that position as "Faith is not a path to truth."

So things that today might be classified as "supernatural" might be explainable in the future. Let's take nuclear fusion power as an example. If an advanced race visited the earth 150 years ago with a working fusion generator, it might have been classified as "supernatural".

Agreed, and why the term supernatural is problematic. It assumes that nature is not up to the task based on nothing but incredulity. If gods exist, they exist in nature and are another aspect of it.

Let's get a dictionary...a good one.
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com
It has 2 entries...
1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Think of these definitions as creating the
spectrum between...
Strong atheism - There are no gods!
Weak atheism - I don't believe in gods that might or might not exist (ie, agnosticism).

The way strong atheism is defined here (and everywhere else) makes it a subset of atheism just like agnostic atheism. A common definition we find is, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." This is redundant and can be simplified, since disbelief, if it understood to mean denial of the existence of gods, is a subset of unbelief, by which I mean rejection of the claims of theism without asserting that they are incorrect, merely not substantiated. And of course God, whatever that means to the person using the word, which is generally reserved for one's personal conception of a preferred deity, is a subset of gods. So, that definition can be rewritten "lack of belief in gods," and it includes people who assert that "God" does not exist.

I’m going to be a little sceptical of a person who says “I don’t need spirituality, faith or religion”, then takes up semi permanent residence on something called “religious forums”.

So you can't think of any other reason why somebody like me would participate in and enjoy discussions like these except that they need spirituality, faith or religion? Do you think I do?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Atheism is a lack of belief in gods" clarifies and substantiates nothing. Because it offers nothing.

Disagree. It identifies a clear and distinct subset of humanity. As soon as I tell you that I am an atheist, you know that I have no god belief, that I am probably agnostic about gods (most atheist are), a critical thinker, an empiricist, and a humanist. It turns out that that makes me an apistevist. You also know that the chances that I am also an antitheist and an apatheist are much more than non-zero as would be the case were I to claim theism. I happen to be both if antitheist is not understood as the enemy of theists or all forms of theism, but just organized, politicized religion - the kind that turns women into human incubators, calls atheists immoral, or besets LGBTQ+ with its bigotry.

If the claim of atheism says nothing to you, that is your choice, one which prevents you from engaging with productive discussion with atheists, since the claim has no meaning to you except that you are dealing with a myopic and intellectually dishonest person. That pretty much makes anything you say about the topic of no value to atheists.

"Lack of belief" is nothing. It's meaningless in terms of logical debate.

Just to you apparently.

The truth is that the atheist's position is that no gods exist unless and until someone proves otherwise to them.

This is your strawman. You are not speaking to most self-identifying atheists.

they will reject any and all evidence anyone offers them by defining it out of existence.

Defining evidence out of existence? I don't know what that means. The empiricist and critical thinker rejects what theists offer as evidence as sufficient reason to hold that belief. There's a thread on RF called Evidence in progress now. Take a look there to see what those theists, mostly Baha'i, offer as evidence for their beliefs - the words and lives of messengers. I'd bet even you would reject such arguments. I don't recall you offering any compelling evidence for a god belief yourself. Do you claim to have any? Of course, it's never been clear to me what you mean by God. At one time, you said it was whatever is the source of reality, which doesn't meet my definition of a god given above, which is a sentient entity.

They place themselves in the position of being the decider of what constitutes evidence, and then they decide any evidence being offered isn't evidence.

Yes. So do you, but you use different criteria. Don't you decide what is convincing evidence for you, and then decide that what you have *IS* sufficient?

Atheists believe that no gods in any form exist.

You probably should learn how atheists define themselves, and learn the difference between unbelief (all atheists) and disbelief (strong atheist) as I used the words earlier.

 

[PureX]

I am an unbeliever in leprechauns. No evidence for leprechauns so completely logical to not believe in them.

I am an unbeliever in invisible pink unicorns. No evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist so my unbelief is completely logical.

I am an unbeliever in gods for the same reason.

The giant flaw in your reasoning, here, is that you know what to look for as evidence of leprechauns, and where and how to look for it. You also know what to look for as evidence of unicorns, and where and how to look. So that when you look for this evidence, and you don't find any, you can reasonably conclude that there isn't any. And so there probably isn't any leprechauns or unicorns, either. But you have no idea what a God is, or where a God is, or what evidence a God might generate, or where or how to look for it. All you have are a billion conflicting ideas and stories about what people think God is and why they think so. So the lack of any such "evidence" is hardly surprising, or indicative of anything but your own confusion (and everyone else's).

And yet I'll bet money that even though I've just pointed out this glaring flaw in your "no evidence" theory, you will completely ignore it and continue to insist that there is no evidence and that this means there are no gods. You will just blindly continue to repeat ...

... belief in the unevidenced is not logical

Even though "belief" is completely irrelevant and you have no idea what, how, or where to even look for evidence. And you will automatically dismiss any evidence anyone else presents to you.

 

[Heyo]

Do you think logic should not apply to the definition of atheism? After all, a word with no definitive meaning is useless. And a definition that doesn't define anything isn't really a definition, is it.

You didn't answer my question. Bad style. But I guess it is because you already know that the Socratic method will dismantle your argument.

 

[ChristineM]

The giant flaw in your reasoning, here, is that you know what to look for as evidence of leprechauns, and where and how to look for it. You also know what to look for as evidence of unicorns, and where and how to look. So that when you look this evidence, and don't find any, you can reasonably conclude that there isn't any. And so there probably isn't any leprechauns or unicorns, either. But you have no idea what a God is, or where a God is, or what evidence a God might generate, or where or how to look for it. All you have are a billion conflicting ideas and stories about what people think God is and why they think so. So the lack of any such "evidence" is hardly surprising, or indicative of anything but your own confusion (and everyone else's).

And yet I'll bet money that even though I've just pointed out this glaring flaw in your "no evidence" theory, you will completely ignore it and continue to insist that there is no evidence and that this means there are no gods. You will just blindly continue to repeat ...
Even though "belief" is completely irrelevant and you have no idea what, how, or where to even look for evidence. And you will automatically dismiss any evidence anyone presents to you.

No flaw. Please tell me what i must look for to find leprechauns, where to look and how to look.

In the same way there is no evidence for gods, that is not a flaw, that is fact.

It is not up to people to tell me what they believe counts as the evidence god leaves, it is up to god.

And I'll bet money that the flaw is in your reasoning and of course I'll insist there is no evidence for gods... Until the moment a god provides falsifiable evidence for their existence.

 

[PureX]

As soon as I tell you that I am an atheist, you know that I have no god belief...

I couldn't care less about how sure you are that you're right (i.e., what you "believe"). What I will know is that you have just aligned yourself verbally with the proposition that no gods of any kind exist in any way, ... unless you mitigate or amend your declaration to illuminate some exceptions. Atheism is the antithetical to theism, and theism is the philosophical proposition that existence as we know it has some kind of creative and sustaining source/force that is not us, and that we should or perhaps need to relate ourselves to it in some way as it's existential participants. So that when you declare yourself an atheist, I have to take that to mean that you align yourself with the antithetical to that proposition: that there is no creative and sustaining source/force apart from ourselves that we should or perhaps need to relate ourselves to as existential participants. And this is what I will understand you to be saying until you choose to clarify any exceptions you might hold to that position. Using the words "belief" and "gods" to define atheism is not necessary, and only serve to unnecessarily constrain and confuse the discussion.

If the claim of atheism says nothing to you, ...

It's the idiotic claim of atheism as "unbelief" that means nothing to me, or to anyone else. I am a theist and even I don't "believe in God", as I am also profoundly agnostic. Yet you want to label me an atheist by this idiotic "unbelief" nonsense, which I clearly am not.

Yet you are NOT going to give it up. And I know why.

Defining evidence out of existence? I don't know what that means.

Of course you don't. And I could waste a lot of time writing yet another post explaining it to you. But that you will then waste a bunch of your own time arguing with and dismissing by whatever means you can muster, and so learn nothing. Which is why you still don't know what I'm referring to.

Don't you decide what is convincing evidence for you, and then decide that what you have *IS* sufficient?

No. I have no need to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in any gods, so I don't need to stand in judgment of whatever the truth is. I don't even presume that I could know that. Theism is just a proposition. A possibility. So is atheism. And I can choose to align myself with either of them or even with both of them at any time for any reason. But that doesn't stop either of them from being what they are: philosophical propositions about the conceptual source and sustenance of existence.

 

[PureX]

You didn't answer my question. Bad style. But I guess it is because you already know that the Socratic method will dismantle your argument.

You couldn't even offer a rebuttal to my explanation for defining atheism as I have, and for not defining atheism as "unbelief". So I think Socrates is safe.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Antisupernaturalism? Maybe apistevism or animism, depending on the context?

Apistevism was the word! Thanks a lot.

 

[icehorse]

theism is the philosophical proposition that existence as we know it has some kind of creative and sustaining source/force that is not us,

"Existence as we know it". That's a key idea. Cosmologists would say that we know almost nothing about how the cosmos works. That lack of understanding does NOT prove the existence of anything supernatural.

 

[Revoltingest]

The way strong atheism is defined here (and everywhere else) makes it a subset of atheism just like agnostic atheism. A common definition we find is, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." This is redundant and can be simplified, since disbelief, if it understood to mean denial of the existence of gods, is a subset of unbelief, by which I mean rejection of the claims of theism without asserting that they are incorrect, merely not substantiated. And of course God, whatever that means to the person using the word, which is generally reserved for one's personal conception of a preferred deity, is a subset of gods. So, that definition can be rewritten "lack of belief in gods," and it includes people who assert that "God" does not exist.

So many words.
So wrong.
I was right about the breadth of "atheism".

Have you ever noticed that "breadth" has "bread"?
Yet the 2 meanings are as different as "military" & "intelligence".

 

[ChristineM]

You couldn't even offer a rebuttal to my explanation for defining atheism as I have, and for not defining atheism as "unbelief". So I think Socrates is safe.

A - theos.
Greek.
Without - gods.

That is the root of the definition

 

[Heyo]

You couldn't even offer a rebuttal to my explanation for defining atheism as I have, and for not defining atheism as "unbelief". So I think Socrates is safe.

And you are save on my ignore list.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I will know is that you have just aligned yourself verbally with the proposition that no gods of any kind exist in any way

You apparently don't understand what the term agnostic atheist means, and don't seem to be able to learn. I've told you what I believe, and it is not what you just wrote. Why is this? Can you account for it? I can't.

theism is the philosophical proposition that existence as we know it has some kind of creative and sustaining source/force that is not us,

No. Theism is the belief in gods. I share the belief you just cited, but I don't not accept that that creative force is a god. That is only one logical possibility, and not the most likely one.

you align yourself with the antithetical to that proposition: that there is no creative and sustaining source/force apart from ourselves

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. All I can do is correct you of the same errors over and over. And the value in this discussion resides in me trying to discern why you think this way. Is it an intellectual deficit? A cognitive bias? Some kind of psychological defense? You think clearly when discussing politics and economics, but in this area, you go into another space.

It's the idiotic claim of atheism as "unbelief" that means nothing to me, or to anyone else.

No, it's just you. I've never heard that claim from anybody else. Most anglophones know what unbelief and unbelief in gods means, but not you.

I am a theist and even I don't "believe in God", as I am also profoundly agnostic. Yet you want to label me an atheist by this idiotic "unbelief" nonsense, which I clearly am not.

I consider your use of language here idiotic. Words seem to have no meaning to you. If you don't believe that gods exist, you're an atheist. If you believe that they do, you're a theist. Does it get any simpler than that? This is just nomenclature, semantics, but it's best to have a coherent set of definitions - ones with fixed meaning that don't contradict one another. Perhaps this is why you spin in circles. I have no idea what you mean by theist now. Or God. You would have a very clear idea of what I am saying when I use those words if you'd pay attention to what was previously written you and assimilated it - a must to disagree with it.

So many words. So wrong.

Nice rebuttal.

 

[Revoltingest]

You apparently don't understand what the term agnostic atheist means, and don't seem to be able to learn.

You don't seem to learn when you're wrong.

 

[Curious George]

A - theos.
Greek.
Without - gods.

That is the root of the definition

Do you think that this word was used to describe an absence of belief as opposed to a belief that a particular god or set of gods did not exist or had no power?

 

[Twilight Hue]

A - theos.
Greek.
Without - gods.

That is the root of the definition

Yep. It's the root meaning of the term and is perfectly fine as it is.

 

[Heyo]

Do you think that this word was used to describe an absence of belief as opposed to a belief that a particular god or set of gods did not exist or had no power?

Historically "atheists" was used to describe those who didn't believe in the same gods as the speaker, much like "pagan" was used in the middle ages.
But that was a long time ago.