Fundamentalist Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe you could reword it as "the lack of the lack of belief in the existence of gods."

At the end of the day, I've never understood this consistent use of the word "lack" in regards to atheism. My non-belief in the existence of gods isn't lacking in any way. It seems most people seem to be unaware that a primary connotation or sense of the word "lack" is to be absent something that is needed or desirable, i.e., to lack something is to be deficient in something.

I think this is a bit of hair-splitting, but if you like, "being free from" beliefs in god works as an alternate way of expressing the same idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking for myself, the "definition of an atheist" debate fascinates me because I think it displays a worrying trend within atheism-- the desire to frame their position as not a position at all, but as some sort of "blank slate" state.

I say this as an atheist-- I don't have prejudice against those who don't believe in the existence of god.

Babies aren't born as "blank slates" - it seems we're born with innate ideas and instincts, or at least that they're present as early as we can test for them.

That aside, I think it's eminently reasonable to say that not adopting a position does not require support. I've seen many theists of various stripes ask atheists to defend why they aren't theists. I hope you agree that merely "not being a theist" is not something that ought to need defense.

 

[Thief]

Two sides of the same coin?....I'm ok.....you're ok?....

I see way too many head attacks.

 

[Falvlun]

I think you're having trouble understanding my meaning. The fact that I acknowledge that language has inherent ambiguity in it doesn't mean that I'm going to turn a blind eye to that ambiguity when the way you use the term "atheist" demands a lack of ambiguity that I think is impossible to achieve.

Just a quibble: Such a definition of atheism doesn't require a lack of ambiguity in regards to the word "god". That would be unrealistic. It just requires it to be understandable.

As I've said many, many times, I don't "understand the concept of the word god"; all I have is a mental list of things that the term "god" is applied to and a mental list of things that the term is not applied to.

I'm pretty sure that's pretty much how the development of definitions and concepts work.

But since your post suggests that you do have a concept of the word god, tell me something. Consider two figures from religious mythology:

- Gabriel, the divine messenger of Yahweh in Christianity
- Hermes, the divine messenger of Zeus in traditional Greek religion

Gabriel is considered by Christians to certainly not be a god. Hermes was considered by the ancient Greeks to be a god.

Does your concept of god allow both the Christians and the Greeks to be right? If so, how? If not, is it the ancient Greeks or the Christians who are wrong?

Both are right, not least because part of the concept of gods is what or who people have traditionally considered gods.

If I ask you what you mean by "evolution", "gays", "asparagus", or "Bigfoot", you can tell me what these words mean. Can you tell me what the word "god" means?

Yes, I can, as most native English speakers are able to do.

In general, I'd define "god" as a supra or supernatural entity or force that has some aspect of control over reality, with the connotation that humans have worshiped or acknowledged them as such.

My god concept covers three broad types of gods:
Monotheistic God: A single, usually omnimax, Creator Being. Interested in humans in theistic forms, and not interested in deistic form.

Polytheistic gods: Multiple beings with magical powers over a specific aspect of nature or human life, often with some role in creation. Conceptualized almost as a higher race of humans.

Pan(en)theistic god: An entity synonymous with the Universe/ Everything, with or without some central consciousness.

That's the difference. If someone says "I believe that Bigfoot exists" because they think "Bigfoot" means "the British monarch", then their definition of "Bigfoot" is simply wrong.

This isn't how we use the word "god". Almost universally, we use a person's own understanding of the word "god" to judge what their beliefs make them. We don't call Christians who believe in angels or Muslims who believe in djinn "polytheists" even though similar figures are considered gods in other religions, because that person doesn't consider them to be gods.

You changed the goalposts in the middle there, Peng.

If someone says "I believe that god exists" and then defines "god" as their pencil, then that would similarly be considered wrong. (And by "pencil" I mean exactly that: A wooden writing utensil with graphite. Not someone who thinks their pencil is the Creator of the Universe.)

To keep the analogy the same, we could have some people who think that Bigfoot is a lost species of great Ape living in North America, with other people arguing that it's a separate human species residing in the Alps, etc. (This would be easier for the words "fairy" or "elf" or even "Santa Claus" which do have widely varying descriptions. I am not as familiar with the Bigfoot mythos. )

Same for atheism: whether you want to define atheism as "lack of belief in gods" or "disbelief in gods", the thing that matters is the individual's definition of "gods". And in the case of a person with no beliefs whatsoever and no definition of "gods", it is valid and correct to say that both that they don't believe in anything they consider a god AND that they reject everything they consider a god.

If the word "god" is so undefined, how do you know that you lack belief in one? I would think that, if we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, you wouldn't be able to say anything about yourself in regards to belief in gods.

 

[Falvlun]

That aside, I think it's eminently reasonable to say that not adopting a position does not require support. I've seen many theists of various stripes ask atheists to defend why they aren't theists. I hope you agree that merely "not being a theist" is not something that ought to need defense.

If the person in question has decided that they are not a theist, and goes as far to label themselves in way which highlights this fact, then yes, it is a position that requires defense.

If someone claims that they do not accept heliocentrism, you would expect them to defend their position. You would want to know why they reject the various evidences or arguments put forward in favor of heliocentrism. Of course, refusing to defend their position is their right, but it doesn't really look good. It makes it seem like they have taken an arbitrary, thoughtless, even unreasonable, stance--- even when that could be further from the truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both are right, not least because part of the concept of gods is what or who people have traditionally considered gods.

So "the concept of gods" is not a single concept, but a collection of concepts?

It seems to me that your definition of "gods" implies that any entity that has not been traditionally considered a god cannot be a god. IOW, if some previously unknown entity appeared before humanity, regardless of any of his/her/its characteristics, it would not be a god by definition. Do you agree?

Yes, I can, as most native English speakers are able to do.

In general, I'd define "god" as a supra or supernatural entity or force that has some aspect of control over reality, with the connotation that humans have worshiped or acknowledged them as such.

This definition gets very strange when we think about it:

1. What does "supra or supernatural" mean? What's the difference between a "supra or supernatural" thing and a natural thing that works by unknown means?

2. What do you mean by "has some aspect of control over reality"? AFAICT, every agent - including every living thing that is capable of having and acting on its own will - has some aspect of control over reality.

3. As I pointed out above, when you say "... that humans have worshipped or acknowledged them as such", you're effectively saying that nothing that is currently unknown to humanity can possibly be a god.

Problem #1 effectively ties the definition of "god" to the supernatural. If the supernatural is an invalid concept (and I'd argue it is; IMO, the term "supernatural" only ever means "natural things we don't understand" or "things that don't exist"), then your definition becomes meaningless.

Problem #2 doesn't necessarily create logical inconsistencies, but the phrase "some aspect of control over reality" is so vague as to be effectively meaningless.

Problem #3 might be the biggest of the three. You've made arguments before about usage. In my experience, the idea that an unknown "godike" thing wouldn't be a god is one that's rejected by most people. In fact, theologians through the ages have put forward arguments under the premise that if a previously unknown God was proven to exist, it would be recognized as God. Even though I think most of these arguments are fallacious, I still acknowledge the implicit assumption: the people who put them forward believed that an unknown god is still a god.

My god concept covers three broad types of gods:
Monotheistic God: A single, usually omnimax, Creator Being. Interested in humans in theistic forms, and not interested in deistic form.

Polytheistic gods: Multiple beings with magical powers over a specific aspect of nature or human life, often with some role in creation. Conceptualized almost as a higher race of humans.

Pan(en)theistic god: An entity synonymous with the Universe/ Everything, with or without some central consciousness.

So angels are gods, then? They fit the definition you gave for polytheistic gods.

You changed the goalposts in the middle there, Peng.

If someone says "I believe that god exists" and then defines "god" as their pencil, then that would similarly be considered wrong. (And by "pencil" I mean exactly that: A wooden writing utensil with graphite. Not someone who thinks their pencil is the Creator of the Universe.)

To keep the analogy the same, we could have some people who think that Bigfoot is a lost species of great Ape living in North America, with other people arguing that it's a separate human species residing in the Alps, etc. (This would be easier for the words "fairy" or "elf" or even "Santa Claus" which do have widely varying descriptions. I am not as familiar with the Bigfoot mythos. )

I really don't see your point here, or how I moved any goalposts.

If the word "god" is so undefined, how do you know that you lack belief in one? I would think that, if we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, you wouldn't be able to say anything about yourself in regards to belief in gods.

I've gone over this several times now.

I do have mental lists of "gods" and "not gods", which are mainly based on a lifetime of inference from people saying that certain things are gods and certain things are not. What I don't have is any sort of set of generalized criteria that lets me figure out in a general sense whether or not a thing is a god. AFAICT, there are no criteria that are common to all gods (determined based on that mental list I mentioned) that are not also shared by certain things that are not gods (again, based on that mental list).

When I say that I lack belief in gods, what I'm saying is that there is no overlap between my mental list of gods and the set of things that I believe actually exist.

If we apply this standard to a baby (i.e. someone whose mental list of gods is empty and who doesn't yet believe in the existence of anything), then the baby is an atheist.

This is why this is such an issue for me: arguing that babies aren't atheists denies the rationale that I use to call myself an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the person in question has decided that they are not a theist, and goes as far to label themselves in way which highlights this fact, then yes, it is a position that requires defense.

No, they don't. All the defense they need is "I have not been convinced by any of the arguments or evidence for theism that I have encountered."

Edit:

If someone claims that they do not accept heliocentrism, you would expect them to defend their position. You would want to know why they reject the various evidences or arguments put forward in favor of heliocentrism. Of course, refusing to defend their position is their right, but it doesn't really look good. It makes it seem like they have taken an arbitrary, thoughtless, even unreasonable, stance--- even when that could be further from the truth.

You're speaking to a different issue than I am. An atheist can speak intelligently about why they reject various arguments for theism, but in the absence of convincing arguments for theism, there is absolutely no need for him to justify his atheism in its own right.

Atheism is the reasonable position until theism meets its burden of proof.

 

[yoda89]

It's not a "sides" thing. It's a human thing - when something impacts somebody emotionally, they express it emotionally.

Damn your Vulcan Logic.

 

[Falvlun]

Penguin, could you define for me a couple of things?

Dog

Animal

Life

Elf

 

[Falvlun]

No, they don't. All the defense they need is "I have not been convinced by any of the arguments or evidence for theism that I have encountered."

So, you don't need any reasons to not be convinced of something?

So, I can reject evolution, and need not justify my position, simply because I have not been convinced?

Personally, I think you need reasons for why you reject evidence presented. Rejection is an action. It's a position. It's taking a stance about something.

Edit:
You're speaking to a different issue than I am. An atheist can speak intelligently about why they reject various arguments for theism, but in the absence of convincing arguments for theism, there is absolutely no need for him to justify his atheism in its own right.

Atheism is the reasonable position until theism meets its burden of proof.

Who decides that the burden of proof has or hasn't been met? Who decides that there is an absence of convincing arguments?

There is no impartial moderator.

What is stopping my a-heliocentrist from saying "Heliocentrists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need not justify my position."?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin, could you define for me a couple of things?

Dog

Animal

Life

Elf

Sure, once you answer what I asked earlier:

1. What does "supra or supernatural" mean? What's the difference between a "supra or supernatural" thing and a natural thing that works by unknown means?

BTW: I would probably have a very hard time coming up with a definition for "elf" that distinguishes elves from gnomes, but I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any case where the difference between elves and gnomes matters the way that the difference between gods and angels matters when we call someone who believes in many angels a "monotheist".

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't there a distinction between a passive lack of acceptance and an active rejection of something?

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, once you answer what I asked earlier:

1. What does "supra or supernatural" mean?

Supernatural means "above or beyond what is natural". This basically means something that can supersede (our understanding of) physical laws and what is normally possible.

What's the difference between a "supra or supernatural" thing and a natural thing that works by unknown means?

Nothing. If gods were to exist, obviously, their powers would be part of nature, and thus "natural".

But the word is useful regardless as it indicates powers that are currently viewed as impossible or outside the natural laws.

 

[Falvlun]

Isn't there a distinction between a passive lack of acceptance and an active rejection of something?

What would you consider a passive lack of acceptance?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Isn't there a distinction between a passive lack of acceptance and an active rejection of something?

I think so. A passive lack of acceptance would be "apatheist," while an active rejection of something would be "atheist."

 

[Falvlun]

I think so. A passive lack of acceptance would be "apatheist," while an active rejection of something would be "atheist."

I agree.

People who have never considered the subject, either out of ignorance or out of apathy, would indicate a passive lack of acceptance.

 

[Uberpod]

Isn't there a distinction between a passive lack of acceptance and an active rejection of something?

I think I can assert that all agnostics are atheist whether they self-describe that way or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't there a distinction between a passive lack of acceptance and an active rejection of something?

Of course.

And there's a difference between a person who has never smoked because of a lack of opportunity and a person who rejects smoking because of its health effects, but both are non-smokers.

 

[Uberpod]

Of course.

And there's a difference between a person who has never smoked because of a lack of opportunity and a person who rejects smoking because of its health effects, but both are non-smokers.

No, one is clearly an apathosmoker.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think I can assert that all agnostics are atheist whether they self-describe that way or not.

You might not have many friends if you make that assertion haphazardly. It's like the Mormon/JW thing. Are Mormons and JWs Christians or non-Christians? Well it depends on one's point of view. It's political.

Same with agnostics and atheists. The words don't have a set meaning all by themselves. They're just labels. Use them carefully if you want to make friends.