Fundamentalist Atheists

[Falvlun]

Why? Do you object to the other terms I used? Non-smoker? Non-drinker? Apolitical?

No. Why should I?

I don't believe that the term "atheism" should be analogous to "apolitical". This doesn't mean that I believe that the common understanding of apolitical is incorrect.

Maybe this can clarify:
To me, the term atheism is (or should be) more analogous to "abstainer from alcohol", than "non-drinker". Abstain has connotations of choice, while "non-drinker" is merely descriptive. Both don't drink (non-drinker applies to both) but you know a bit more about the former-- s/he chose not to drink.

(As an aside, it also struck me that even though babies could be described as non-smokers, etc, nobody does. It's not a normal or natural thing to do. And yet, the argument at hand is because some people insist on applying atheism to babies. While in all cases it can be argued to be technically true-- definitional arguments aside-- it just isn't normal. So why is the exception being made with atheism?)

 

[Quagmire]

Why? Do you object to the other terms I used? Non-smoker? Non-drinker? Apolitical?

I think "non-theist" would be a more accurate comparison than "atheist".

 

[LuisDantas]

You were the one who promoted it as meaningless.

Which is why I say it makes no sense to artificially promote it to the status of an ideology. It simply can't sustain such a pretension.

 

[LuisDantas]

To a point. The idea that it is significant to hold a concept of deity and to keep faith in it is certainly more directed and significant than atheism.

I would personally not consider pantheism or deism significant as ideological matter. Monotheism and even politheism, however, are something else entirely.

Why do you think this?

Monotheism, as history has shown time and again, is all too easily used for political and ideological purposes. That is perhaps unavoidable, since belief in the existence one sole, true god demands deciding who is pleasing his will and who is not.

I don't think that makes monotheism wrong per se, just more dangerous and demanding of more wisdom and responsibility than most or all of the competing stances.

Politheism tends to be safer, but it is ultimately a matter of degree and of the wisdom of believers.

Pantheism and deism, however, are naturally very hard to use to justify taking sides or portraying people as misguided and in need of repudiation.

As is atheism, really.

Oh, and anti-theism is certainly ideologically significant as well.

Could you elaborate more please?

Anti-theism has an actual purpose - to challenge theism in some way - as opposed to atheism, which is simple absence of theism.

Along with the purpose, there is some kind of motivation, and perhaps a justification.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think "non-theist" would be a more accurate comparison than "atheist".

That might be something worth exploring. What difference, if any, there is in the meaning of the two descriptors?

I don't really see any. In theory it would include agnostics and arguably deists as well, but in practice people are rarely pure agnostics, and for practical purposes they might as well be atheists even then.

 

[yoda89]

Are comatose people atheist too?

Does it matter? When in fact I'm bringing up the point that without religious teaching very few people would be religious. Some may discover Christianity and believe in it. But it would have the same results of Roman mythology. A very small percentage would believe as such.

If wanting people to be able to choose without being told what to believe at a young age makes me fundamentalist atheist than I am.

 

[Quagmire]

That might be something worth exploring. What difference, if any, there is in the meaning of the two descriptors?

Well, a rock could be a non-theist, since it doesn't have an opinion one way or the other.

"Atheist", on the other hand, suggests an opinion. It's more an active sort of dis-belief than a simple lack of belief.

Even if the broadest definition of atheist included anyone (or anything) that lacked a belief in any sort of God, in common usage the term does imply an actual opinion. In order to have an opinion one would have to have the capacity to understand the concept (leaving rocks and babies out).

In a nutshell, I don't think that "I don't believe" equates exactly to "I disbelieve". I think "I don't believe" can be applied to a neutral stance, whereas "I disbelieve" is much more of an active stance.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't really see any. In theory it would include agnostics and arguably deists as well,

"Non-theist" would include agnostics and (possibly) deists.

but in practice people are rarely pure agnostics, and for practical purposes they might as well be atheists even then.

To put my point in context, I was responding to this exchange between Falvlun and ImmortalFlame:

Just to note: My opposition doesn't stem from prejudice, but because I reject the definition that would include babies.

Why? Do you object to the other terms I used? Non-smoker? Non-drinker? Apolitical?

So this

I think "non-theist" would be a more accurate comparison than "atheist".

was specifically in reference to a babies theological stance, or lack thereof.

 

[LuisDantas]

By my reading, that means that the terms have the same meaning.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atheism demands an opinion. It really doesn't need to.

 

[Quagmire]

By my reading, that means that the terms have the same meaning.

I don't subscribe to the idea that atheism demands an opinion. It really doesn't need to.

Thing is, atheists usually do (have an opinion). Whether or not that's true in the bigger picture, it's definitely true here. So, unless we can come up with another term to specifically identify people who deny the existence of a God, or who actively reject the idea, rather than those who simply lack a belief, people will probably continue to use "atheist" for that purpose.

I doubt we could find anyone in here who had no opinion one way or the other, or if we could, I would bet frubals they'd identify as agnostic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. Why should I?

Because, by the broad definition, calling a child an atheist is no more significant than those terms. When you see it like that, you shouldn't have any more of a problem with it.

I don't believe that the term "atheism" should be analogous to "apolitical". This doesn't mean that I believe that the common understanding of apolitical is incorrect.

Maybe this can clarify:
To me, the term atheism is (or should be) more analogous to "abstainer from alcohol", than "non-drinker". Abstain has connotations of choice, while "non-drinker" is merely descriptive. Both don't drink (non-drinker applies to both) but you know a bit more about the former-- s/he chose not to drink.

If you like. But what "should be" the definition of a word is not always the definition of the word, and nor is it accurate. In the case of atheism, I feel it is inaccurate with regards to the literal definition and my personal definition of the word in terms of how I define myself as an atheist. Your objection comes from your inability to dissociate your clearly personal definition of atheism, from the definition when used in broader terms. This doesn't make your definition wrong, it just makes it a personal definition which is inaccurate given the broader context that word can (and does) define.

(As an aside, it also struck me that even though babies could be described as non-smokers, etc, nobody does. It's not a normal or natural thing to do.

Yes, they do. How many babies do you see sitting with their families in the "smoking" section of restaurants (when they existed). Not to mention the examples of religious beliefs imposed on children in my earlier post. The point is that you wouldn't object to the labelling of a child as "non-smoker", and would most likely agree that - by the definition of the term - they can be defined as belonging to that particular group. It's not about what's "normal", it's about what is true and accurate.

And yet, the argument at hand is because some people insist on applying atheism to babies. While in all cases it can be argued to be technically true-- definitional arguments aside-- it just isn't normal. So why is the exception being made with atheism?)

It isn't an exception. If you can define babies as non-smokers, then you can define them as atheists. It's as simple as that.

 

[Falvlun]

Because, by the broad definition, calling a child an atheist is no more significant than those terms. When you see it like that, you shouldn't have any more of a problem with it.

A further clarification: My problem isn't that this particular definition allows babies to be defined as atheists. My problem is that I think that this particular definition is a poor one. Hence, your solution does not solve my particular problem.

If you like. But what "should be" the definition of a word is not always the definition of the word, and nor is it accurate.

As I've said before, the definition of atheism is currently in flux. I do not think either of us can claim to have the definition... though I do think mine corresponds more closely to how the majority of people use the term.

In the case of atheism, I feel it is inaccurate with regards to the literal definition and my personal definition of the word in terms of how I define myself as an atheist. Your objection comes from your inability to dissociate your clearly personal definition of atheism, from the definition when used in broader terms. This doesn't make your definition wrong, it just makes it a personal definition which is inaccurate given the broader context that word can (and does) define.

I certainly have a clear preference for a more limited definition of atheism, but I don't think it is rightly classified as a personal definition. Indeed, one of the reasons why I prefer the more restricted versions is because I believe it aligns more closely with how the majority of people utilize the term-- which is the opposite of "personal".

Yes, they do. How many babies do you see sitting with their families in the "smoking" section of restaurants (when they existed). Not to mention the examples of religious beliefs imposed on children in my earlier post. The point is that you wouldn't object to the labelling of a child as "non-smoker", and would most likely agree that - by the definition of the term - they can be defined as belonging to that particular group. It's not about what's "normal", it's about what is true and accurate.

Sitting in a particular section doesn't make anybody a smoker or non-smoker. That aside, yes, using words in proper contexts is important. Technicalities are just that: technicalities. They are peripheral players, or semantic accidents. They are not meant to be.

It isn't an exception. If you can define babies as non-smokers, then you can define them as atheists. It's as simple as that.

Unless, of course, the definition of atheism does not include babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(As an aside, it also struck me that even though babies could be described as non-smokers, etc, nobody does. It's not a normal or natural thing to do. And yet, the argument at hand is because some people insist on applying atheism to babies. While in all cases it can be argued to be technically true-- definitional arguments aside-- it just isn't normal. So why is the exception being made with atheism?)

So... if I Google "effects of second-hand smoke on non-smokers", none of the hits that come up will mention the effect that second-hand smoke has on rates of sudden infant death syndrome?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, a rock could be a non-theist, since it doesn't have an opinion one way or the other.

"Atheist", on the other hand, suggests an opinion. It's more an active sort of dis-belief than a simple lack of belief.

Even if the broadest definition of atheist included anyone (or anything) that lacked a belief in any sort of God, in common usage the term does imply an actual opinion. In order to have an opinion one would have to have the capacity to understand the concept (leaving rocks and babies out).

In a nutshell, I don't think that "I don't believe" equates exactly to "I disbelieve". I think "I don't believe" can be applied to a neutral stance, whereas "I disbelieve" is much more of an active stance.

It's the difference between connotation and denotation.

Even though the word "bachelor" brings up images of a swinging single guy, the strict definition of the word is still only "a man who has never married". Despite the connotation and imagery surrounding the word "bachelor", the Pope is a bachelor.

Same for "atheist": even if the word makes people think of Richard Dawkins or Madalynn Murray O'Hair, it still just means "someone who doesn't believe in any gods".

 

[Quagmire]

It's the difference between connotation and denotation.

Even though the word "bachelor" brings up images of a swinging single guy, the strict definition of the word is still only "a man who has never married". Despite the connotation and imagery surrounding the word "bachelor", the Pope is a bachelor.

Same for "atheist": even if the word makes people think of Richard Dawkins or Madalynn Murray O'Hair, it still just means "someone who doesn't believe in any gods".

Which is why, like I say: we need a new term. Ambiguity doesn't benefit anybody except the propagandists, proselytizers, and trolls.

 

[Falvlun]

So... if I Google "effects of second-hand smoke on non-smokers", none of the hits that come up will mention the effect that second-hand smoke has on rates of sudden infant death syndrome?

That would be a rather convoluted way to ask about the effects of secondhand smoke on infants.

But regardless, I think my point stands: It is uncommon, and feels forced, to refer to babies as apolitical, non-smokers, non-drinkers, etc. In contrast, it seems like there is a popular push here to refer to babies as atheists.

But, even if it were common, it still doesn't answer the fundamental question: Is this definition a good one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be a rather convoluted way to ask about the effects of secondhand smoke on infants.

It's just the first example that popped to mind of one way in which people refer to babies as non-smokers.

But regardless, I think my point stands: It is uncommon, and feels forced, to refer to babies as apolitical, non-smokers, non-drinkers, etc. In contrast, it seems like there is a popular push here to refer to babies as atheists.

Set aside the question of babies for a moment.

If you just asked people whether theism and atheism formed a MECE set (and explained what a MECE set is, if necessary), what percentage of people do you think would say that it does?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's not zero.

But, even if it were common, it still doesn't answer the fundamental question: Is this definition a good one?

That probably depends on what criteria we use to determine whether a definition is "good", but it looks that way from where I sit. It certainly doesn't have the problems (i.e. either logical inconsistency or weird, arbitrary, artificial usage rules) that happen when you try to exclude babies, so I'd say it's the best of the available options.

 

[Falvlun]

It's just the first example that popped to mind of one way in which people refer to babies as non-smokers.

It wasn't a bad example.

Set aside the question of babies for a moment.
If you just asked people whether theism and atheism formed a MECE set (and explained what a MECE set is, if necessary), what percentage of people do you think would say that it does?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's not zero.

I'd suspect it wasn't zero either.

But I also suspect that many of the same people would object to calling babies atheists. Which means that they would then have to modify their original assessment.

Most people don't think as deeply or thoroughly about these things as people on this forum do.

That probably depends on what criteria we use to determine whether a definition is "good", but it looks that way from where I sit. It certainly doesn't have the problems (i.e. either logical inconsistency or weird, arbitrary, artificial usage rules) that happen when you try to exclude babies, so I'd say it's the best of the available options.

Atheism: The belief that gods do not exist.

That would be the most extreme definition on my side of the road, but you can hardly claim that it causes weirdness or artificial usage rules.

There are, of course, more moderate definitions, or understandings, that would exclude babies, that aren't arbitrary or weird either.

For example:
Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of gods.

 

[Falvlun]

Which is why, like I say: we need a new term. Ambiguity doesn't benefit anybody except the propagandists, proselytizers, and trolls.

I have to say, I am really liking your "non-theist" suggestion, as distinct from "atheist". It's pretty perfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd suspect it wasn't zero either.

But I also suspect that many of the same people would object to calling babies atheists. Which means that they would then have to modify their original assessment.

That's one way to deal with the contradiction. Many people would also object to calling the Pope a bachelor. A negative emotional reaction to an implication doesn't necessarily mean that the implication is wrong.

Most people don't think as deeply or thoroughly about these things as people on this forum do.

Probably. There's also a pretty large number of people who use definitions for "atheist" that everyone in this thread rejects (e.g. "someone who's rebelling against God's authority").

Atheism: The belief that gods do not exist.

That would be the most extreme definition on my side of the road, but you can hardly claim that it causes weirdness or artificial usage rules.

It causes huge weirdness. It means that a person who doesn't have a robust definition of "gods" can't be an atheist.

I don't have a robust definition of "gods". You keep going back to usage as a measure of correctness. Do you think that I'm an atheist?

As we've touched on before, I'm not sure that a robust definition of "gods" is even possible. You do agree that atheists exist, right?

There are, of course, more moderate definitions, or understandings, that would exclude babies, that aren't arbitrary or weird either.

For example:
Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of gods.

Same problem: what's a god?