"Atheist"--the term itself

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

Can you describe the way that, in your opinion, adult human beings "qualify" as atheists?

All of the ways I've ever seen that rely on some sort of rejection of belief as the criteria have ended up conflicting with one of two things that I'll hope you argree are part of how we use the term "atheist":

- atheists exist in reality. Not only is it possible for a person to be an atheist, many people are atheists.

- theists are not atheists and vice versa.

If you've figured out a way to do it, please share. If not, then I'd have to say that you haven't thought your position through.

 

[Augustus]

Person 2 does not hold a belief that flying saucers don't exist.

They hold some form of belief as regards the existence of flying saucers, you just don't know what it is yet. Maybe 'they exist', maybe 'we don't know' or whatever else. They don't lack belief as they are aware of the concept of flying saucers.

There is a fundamental difference between believing something is not true ( let's call it active atheism) and not believing something is true (passive atheism).

Both of these can fall within the boundaries of active disbelief. The only difference being I don't include those people who are unaware or incapable of comprehension as being atheists.

Disbelief can be either belief that something is false or the refusal to accept something as true. It is an active stance though, unawareness is not disbelief. I only put active before it as some posters have previously argued that disbelief simply means 'absence of belief' and thus babies and rocks disbelieve in god.

The only objection I have is that people/things that are unaware of the concept of god or are incapable of forming any beliefs are neither theist nor atheist. Trying to make babies and rocks atheists is where the word's value disappears. The only purpose of making rocks and babies and farmyard animals 'atheists' is to score points. This is done purely for rhetorical purposes and renders the word as meaning literally nothing. But not only nothing, a special type of nothing, a subset of nothing.

As soon as someone becomes aware of a god concept, they hold some kind of belief about the existence of god(s) that will put them into one of the atheist/agnostic/theist/etc. camps. A lack of belief is not possible, it is simply an absence of something. If you can comprehend the meaning of 'do god(s) exist?' You have some form of answer, some kind of belief as regards the existence of god(s): 'Yes, of course'; 'I find it improbable', 'that question can not be answered'. What you don't have though is the absence of a belief, a mental vacuum, there is something there no matter how small and unconsidered.

Not believing the existence of God is what i define as atheism.

I would agree as long as this person can comprehend the question 'do god(s) exist?'

 

[leibowde84]

No alternative, no default.

As he explained, he meant initial or starting condition. I agree, default isn't the best word to use.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure. That's how you like it. I think it's an unnecessary label to identify oneself with, having a not-having of something. I don't collect stamps, but I don't identify myself as an astampist, simply because it really doesn't add anything to my own view of life and doesn't add anything to anyone else to what I actually do. But to each his/her own. I realize that it somehow is important to atheists to identify themselves as having lack of faith or belief in things they're ignorant of.

By the way, I don't think it's absurd to have atheism to mean someone that actively believe that deities don't exist. I think it makes more sense that way than to have it mean something that's just lacking of.

If it is active disbelief, no one can be a true atheist, as one cannot actively disbelieve in a deity that they are unaware of.

 

[Augustus]

Rejecting every god-concept ever conceived would be impossible. Heck - it's probably impossible for one person to even know all their names, to say nothing of learning all their attributes to the point where it would even be possible to form an opinion on every single one of them.

This means that if we're going to define the term as active disbelief - and if we concede that atheists exist in reality - then it can only be defined as something like "active disbelief of the god(s) that matter" with all the attendant problems of deciding which gods 'matter' and which gods don't.

You don't have to know and understand every single god in history. It's just subjective belief, not an exercise in absolute objective truth and pure logical consistency.

There are monotheistic gods of the Abrahamic variety and there are duelistic gods of good and evil, polytheistic gods which are powerful but limited beings/creatures.

I don't believe in any of them. I don't need to know their names. I can't imagine that there exists something I would categorise as a god that actually exists.

Other god concepts I don't consider to be god. That's my subjective belief. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone will change my mind later. Maybe I'm totally deluded. It doesn't matter. I don't believe in god or gods.

It describes a current belief only, so the gods I don't know about are totally irrelevant to the equation.

Bob: I don't believe in unicorns.
Frank: What about green unicorns?
B: No, they are just unicorns.
F: Pink unicorns?
B: No, they are just unicorns. Anything that meets my definition of unicorn no matter its characteristics is something I don't believe in.
F What about moople unicorns
B: What's that?
F: One of those
B: I don't consider that to be a unicorn.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't have to know and understand every single god in history. It's just subjective belief, not an exercise in absolute objective truth and pure logical consistency.

There's that two-tier approach I mentioned: some gods matter, other gods don't.

And yes, you would have to reject every single god, either case-by-case or in categories. Rejecting *most* gods isn't enough; the vast majority of theists do that.

There are monotheistic gods of the Abrahamic variety and there are duelistic gods of good and evil, polytheistic gods which are powerful but limited beings/creatures.

I don't believe in any of them. I don't need to know their names. I can't imagine that there exists something I would categorise as a god that actually exists.

A baby also can't imagine this.

So you aren't actually talking about "active disbelief"?

Other god concepts I don't consider to be god. That's my subjective belief. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone will change my mind later. Maybe I'm totally deluded. It doesn't matter. I don't believe in god or gods.

It describes a current belief only, so the gods I don't know about are totally irrelevant to the equation.

Only if you're defining atheism in terms of lack of belief. What you're saying doesn't work if you're defining it in terms of rejection of belief: you can't reject what you've never even conceived.

Bob: I don't believe in unicorns.
Frank: What about green unicorns?
B: No, they are just unicorns.
F: Pink unicorns?
B: No, they are just unicorns. Anything that meets my definition of unicorn no matter its characteristics is something I don't believe in.
F What about moople unicorns
B: What's that?
F: One of those
B: I don't consider that to be a unicorn.

You can do that because you can define "unicorn" (probably something like "a horse-like creature with a single horn growing from its forehead", right?). To do the same, you would need to define "god". Can you do it?

When giving your definition, be sure that it includes:

- every single god
- nothing that any atheist believes in

Good luck.


Edit: for bonus points, make your definition work so that it doesn't imply that monotheists are polytheists. IOW, don't include any angels, demons, djinn, or ghosts (other than the Holy Ghost, of course). But make sure that when a pagan god has a corresponding saint, the pagan god qualifies as a god even while the saint does not.


I've never been able to do it myself. I've only ever been able to reject gods (in the few cases where I've actually rejected a god and not just an argument for a god) one-by-one, list-style.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As he explained, he meant initial or starting condition. I agree, default isn't the best word to use.

... especially with regards to people, since we don't start as blank slates.

 

[Augustus]

There's that two-tier approach I mentioned: some gods matter, other gods don't.

Correct, the gods that I consider to be gods matter. The gods I don't consider to be gods don't matter as regards my atheism, attitudes towards things other than gods are irrelevant.

It's not an exercise in PC equal opportunity diversity management; it's purely subjective belief. Just as somebody gets the right to see whatever they like as being god for the purpose of their belief, I get the right to decide what I believe qualifies as a god for the purpose of my disbelief.

So you aren't actually talking about "active disbelief"?

Active disbelief is just disbelief. I added the active because some people here have tried to argue that disbelief means the same as absence of belief.

You can do that because you can define "unicorn" (probably something like "a horse-like creature with a single horn growing from its forehead", right?). To do the same, you would need to define "god". Can you do it?

When giving your definition, be sure that it includes:

- every single god
- nothing that any atheist believes in

Good luck.

You don't have to consider the possibility that somebody in Peru might have another 'unicorn concept' to disbelieve in unicorns. You decide what unicorns are and whether or not you believe in them.

Lulu thinks that cats are gods so she is a theist. It doesn't matter that other people don't consider cats to meet the definition of a god, what matters is her subjective belief.

I believe in cats. Lulu believes that cats are god. I don't believe in god though as cats don't fit within the boundaries of what I subjectively consider to be a god.

I just don't believe that anything I would describe as a god is real.

You are adding a qualification that doesn't exist: that we create some objective definition of god. Belief is subjective though, disbelief in god(s) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[prometheus11]

Disbelief is quite different than lack of belief or unbelief or no belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct, the gods that I consider to be gods matter. The gods I don't consider to be gods don't matter as regards my atheism, attitudes towards things other than gods are irrelevant.

You have the same stance as a newborn baby towards the gods you've never heard of. Why would you be an atheist and the baby not be?

It's not an exercise in PC equal opportunity diversity management; it's purely subjective belief. Just as somebody gets the right to see whatever they like as being god for the purpose of their belief, I get the right to decide what I believe qualifies as a god for the purpose of my disbelief.

But that's not what you're doing. As soon as you start making declarations about whether people who have never expressed an opinion either way (e.g. babies) are or aren't atheists, you're appealing to an objective standard.

Think about one of the many people presumably out there who have a unique god-concept but haven't shared it with anyone. If we ignore that god-concept when deciding whether people are atheists, then we'd say this theist is an atheist: an absurd conclusion. If we don't ignore it, then how can you be said to have rejected a concept you've never even heard, let alone evaluated and rejected?

Active disbelief is just disbelief. I added the active because some people here have tried to argue that disbelief means the same as absence of belief.

Absence of belief does qualify as disbelief, so I think you need to explain what you mean better.

... but I do note that you've done absolutely nothing "active" towards any god concept that you haven't so much as contemplated.

You don't have to consider the possibility that somebody in Peru might have another 'unicorn concept' to disbelieve in unicorns. You decide what unicorns are and whether or not you believe in them.

Lulu thinks that cats are gods so she is a theist. It doesn't matter that other people don't consider cats to meet the definition of a god, what matters is her subjective belief.

I believe in cats. Lulu believes that cats are god. I don't believe in god though as cats don't fit within the boundaries of what I subjectively consider to be a god.

Ah... so you do have a definition for "god" that you use for your judgements. Good.

By your definition of "god", are Christians and Muslims polytheists, or are Pagans atheists? If your answer is "neither", can you tell us how you managed to craft a coherent definition of "god" that excludes angels but includes Pagan gods?

I just don't believe that anything I would describe as a god is real.

The same can be said of a baby.

You are adding a qualification that doesn't exist: that we create some objective definition of god. Belief is subjective though, disbelief in god(s) is in the eye of the beholder.

You're certainly imposing a definition of "god" on others when you insist that atheism be based on rejection of gods.

When it's defined by lack of belief, things are easy: conceptually, you just do a Venn diagram: as long as the "things I believe in" blob doesn't overlap the "things I consider gods" blob, then you're an atheist.

 

[Augustus]

You have the same stance as a newborn baby towards the gods you've never heard of. Why would you be an atheist and the baby not be?

Because I understand the word god and have decided what I consider it to mean. I have then decided that I don't believe in anything that falls into that category.

Babies and rocks haven't.

You're certainly imposing a definition of "god" on others when you insist that atheism be based on rejection of gods.

No I'm not, you seem to misunderstand what I am saying.

It's their rejection of what they consider to be gods that matters.

Theists get to choose what they consider to be a god, and I accept their right to do this. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them that I also consider it a god.

If someone says "I'm a theist; I consider the sun to be a god" then I consider them to be a theist. It's their right to choose.

I don't consider the sun to be a god though as it doesn't fit into my personal definition. It doesn't fit into yours either as you are an atheist and believe that the sun exists. You don't have an absence of belief in the sun, you believe the sun is not a god.

We all get to decide what we consider to be a god; not just theists. It's all subjective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I understand the word god and have decided what I consider it to mean. I have then decided that I don't believe in anything that falls into that category.

Babies and rocks haven't.

So only people who are aware of their atheism qualify as atheists?

No I'm not, you seem to misunderstand what I am saying.

It's their rejection of what they consider to be gods that matters.

Theists get to choose what they consider to be a god, and I accept their right to do this. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them that I also consider it a god.

If someone says "I'm a theist; I consider the sun to be a god" then I consider them to be a theist. It's their right to choose.

I don't consider the sun to be a god though as it doesn't fit into my personal definition. It doesn't fit into yours either as you are an atheist and believe that the sun exists. You don't have an absence of belief in the sun, you believe the sun is not a god.

I'm an atheist? How do you figure?

I consider myself to be an atheist (because I consider atheism to be a matter of lack of belief, not rejection of belief) and I certainly don't believe in any gods, but I haven't even outright rejected all the gods I'm familiar with, to say nothing about the ones I've never heard of.

I've rejected countless arguments for gods, but this is distinct from rejecting those gods themselves. A correct conclusion can be argued for with an incorrect argument, so no matter how many bad theistic arguments I reject, this doesn't exclude the possibility that the god in question might exist for some other reason.

All I can do in the meantime is note that the conclusion hasn't been demonstrated and fail to accept - not reject, but fail to accept - the gods they're arguing.

The only gods I can actually reject are the ones that are internally contradictory, but that's a very small number of them. I can't reject the vast majority that are merely unjustified, because I have no way to tell the difference between "can't be justified ever" and "just hadn't been demonstrated yet."

This still lets me make all sorts of conclusions about the reasonableness of religions, but I still have to acknowledge that I can't say with certainty that one of them hasn't stumbled onto the right answer for the wrong reasons.

 

[viole]

Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

Funny thing, Dr. Dawkins would agree with you. If it absurd to call a child Christian or Muslim, then it is equally absurd to call a child Atheist. All these ideas that we are natural born atheists are not convincing at all, because they do not say anything about what that child will become, even in the total absence of external conditioning. It is a claim witthout evidence. On the contrary, if humanity would reboot, I believe it will become theist, again.

It is like saying that children are a-political, ergo having a political stance in adult life is the product of conditioning. Does not make a lot of sense, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I'd say on the spectrum of strong atheist to strong theist, babies don't fit on it at all.


Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

The whole point is that consideration is not required for someone to merely "lack" or "be without" a belief in God or gods.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it is active disbelief, no one can be a true atheist, as one cannot actively disbelieve in a deity that they are unaware of.

Except that atheists are extremely active about arguing for their lack of belief.

 

[Augustus]

So only people who are aware of their atheism qualify as atheists?

Only people who are aware of a concept of god.

I'm an atheist? How do you figure?

It says so on your profile and you have said it many times on the forum.

All I can do in the meantime is note that the conclusion hasn't been demonstrated and fail to accept - not reject, but fail to accept - the gods they're arguing... but I still have to acknowledge that I can't say with certainty that one of them hasn't stumbled onto the right answer for the wrong reasons.

So you disbelieve; you refuse to accept as true.

You hold a belief as regards the existence of god(s); you don't have an absence of belief. There is no requirement for certainty in belief. It is a state of mind, not a statement of objective truth. Large numbers of atheists, me included, accept that it is possible there may be a god or god(s). I might be wrong in my disbelief. I'm not god after all

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is there so much confusion over this term?

For the same reason there is so much confusion over other terms: people tend to attach a lot of personal emotional and psychological baggage onto identity labels which deal with beliefs. Therefore, they will argue themselves into all sorts of irrational positions in order to attempt to maintain their sense of personal identity with their identity labels.

This often results in all sorts of silly arguments and positions, but, surprisingly, even moreso with the term "atheism" than with many other labels, such as the oft-repeated argument that babies and/or rocks are atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting? Yes, I agree with you there. Especially since -- in my view, at least -- there seems to be a "political" agenda that is often enough involved in insisting that atheism means and only means "active disbelief". In fact, I don't think this thread, or so many similar threads, would go on for as long as they do if none the participants wanted to score "political" points against atheists. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.

Or atheists are trying to score points by starting threads like these (Prometheus started this thread you know). If it's a dead topic, then it shouldn't be discussed by neither side. Also, what's interesting is that there are two or three atheists on the either side of this debate in this thread. Not all atheists agree on the "lack of belief" definition.

And what's even more funny is that I'm actually a Strong Atheist when it comes to the old traditional anthropomorphic Christian God. I don't just lack belief in Jesus. I disbelieve in that jesus-God. I actively believe that the traditional Christian God doesn't exist at all. So that makes me in this particular case a stronger atheist than most of the "lack of belief" atheists. On top of that, I lack belief in most or all other gods that I don't know about, but I don't consider myself an atheist based on such loose grounds. It's a useless label if it was just lack of belief. We all lack belief in the majority of gods, so what's the difference except that the one that lacks belief in all gods has to make a strong and active point about not having an active belief.

 

[Mister Emu]

In fact, why even discuss an idea you find absurd? Why waste your time?

It is fun.

Can you describe the way that, in your opinion, adult human beings "qualify" as atheists?

Atheists reject or are unconvinced by all god beliefs/concepts they have encountered.

On the contrary, if humanity would reboot, I believe it will become theist, again.

It would. It is in our biology and psychology to produce religion. Our "default" state as humans is religious-indeterminate.

 

[Augustus]

Also, what's interesting is that there are two or three atheists on the either side of this debate in this thread. Not all atheists agree on the "lack of belief" definition.

I'm frequently 'forcibly baptised' by other atheists though so I'm not sure if I still number amongst the heathens

"Onward Christian soldiers...."