How do you define "Athesim"?

[Debater Slayer]

The same way you reject the general concept of all the fairy, Santa Claus, Big Foot, elf, and mermaid conceptions out there even though you've never heard of all the various conceptions. I really don't see why gods are unique or should be considered an exception.

That's partially the point I was trying to make. I don't think that I have to learn about all the different fairy, Santa Claus, Bigfoot, and mermaid conceptions in the world to say that I don't believe in them; I don't have to "reject" every one of them on an individual basis simply because it happens to be believed by some people.

If I thought that idea 'X' doesn't have enough evidence to warrant belief in it and I heard that there were many other similar ideas, e.g., 'Y', 'Z', 'M', etc., that are also held to be true by some people, then I don't see why I'd have to examine every one of them before I can reach the conclusion that I don't really believe any of them to be true.

In other words, if a set of ideas contains similar elements and all of those elements make a similar assumption (in this case, the existence of an entity without sufficient evidence), I don't think it'd be unreasonable to view that one element of the set as generally representative of the others without necessarily examining all of them in detail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I should explain better why I think saying "babies aren't atheists" implies the need for a rigorous, objective definition for God.

If you define "atheist" as "someone who rejects all things that they consider a god", then this can be expressed in terms of sets: I consider the set "things I consider gods" and the set "things I reject". If all members of the set "things I consider gods" also appear in "things I reject", then I'm an atheist.

But consider what happens when both sets are empty: the test is satisfied. The two empty sets are exactly equal so that criterion is satisfied. A person who has never rejected anything is an atheist as long as the person doesn't consider anything to be a god.

To get around this problem, you need some way for the sets not to match. IOW, you need to base your test not on what the person himself believes "god" to be, but on some external definition.

... and that's where you run into all sorts of issues, because IMO, it's impossible to come up with a definition of "god" that includes every god and excludes every non-god. And while a big part of this is because of vagueness in the definitions, a lot of it is because different conceptions of "god" contradict each other. *We* don't consider Superman or the Archangel Gabriel to be gods, but plenty of people would. Since we're forced to use an objective definition for "god", we have to resolve the conflict somehow and effectively say "sorry, group of cultures 'X', your ideas of what 'god' means are wrong."

 

[Debater Slayer]

Maybe I should explain better why I think saying "babies aren't atheists" implies the need for a rigorous, objective definition for God.

If you define "atheist" as "someone who rejects all things that they consider a god", then this can be expressed in terms of sets: I consider the set "things I consider gods" and the set "things I reject". If all members of the set "things I consider gods" also appear in "things I reject", then I'm an atheist.

But consider what happens when both sets are empty: the test is satisfied. The two empty sets are exactly equal so that criterion is satisfied. A person who has never rejected anything is an atheist as long as the person doesn't consider anything to be a god.

To get around this problem, you need some way for the sets not to match. IOW, you need to base your test not on what the person himself believes "god" to be, but on some external definition.

... and that's where you run into all sorts of issues, because IMO, it's impossible to come up with a definition of "god" that includes every god and excludes every non-god. And while a big part of this is because of vagueness in the definitions, a lot of it is because different conceptions of "god" contradict each other. *We* don't consider Superman or the Archangel Gabriel to be gods, but plenty of people would. Since we're forced to use an objective definition for "god", we have to resolve the conflict somehow and effectively say "sorry, group of cultures 'X', your ideas of what 'god' means are wrong."

If both of the "things I consider gods" and "things I reject" sets are empty, that doesn't seem to make a person fit the definition of atheism as "the rejection of all god concepts." I think both sets being empty would instead make them agnostic simply because the "things I reject" set is empty.

 

[Mellonhead]

If both of the "things I consider gods" and "things I reject" sets are empty, that doesn't seem to make a person fit the definition of atheism as "the rejection of all god concepts." I think both sets being empty would instead make them agnostic simply because the "things I reject" set is empty.

That depends on whether or not they think about God to begin with. You can't be indecisive about something you don't know exists.
Atheistic by circumstance perhaps?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If both of the "things I consider gods" and "things I reject" sets are empty, that doesn't seem to make a person fit the definition of atheism as "the rejection of all god concepts." I think both sets being empty would instead make them agnostic simply because the "things I reject" set is empty.

I disagree about agnosticism. It's not simply an "on the fence" position halfway between theism and atheism; it's a position based on the positive assertion that the existence of God is unknowable. It cannot be the "default" position for a person who has taken no position.

But to your other point, I think it's correct (albeit not particularly useful, I admit) to say that a someone who has never conceived of a concept of "god" has a perfect record of rejecting all god-concepts, just as I have a perfect record as a pitcher in major-league baseball (not a single earned run off me EVER! ).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I disagree about agnosticism. It's not simply an "on the fence" position halfway between theism and atheism; it's a position based on the positive assertion that the existence of God is unknowable. It cannot be the "default" position for a person who has taken no position.

But to your other point, I think it's correct (albeit not particularly useful, I admit) to say that a someone who has never conceived of a concept of "god" has a perfect record of rejecting all god-concepts, just as I have a perfect record as a pitcher in major-league baseball (not a single earned run off me EVER! ).

I've always viewed agnosticism as merely saying "I don't know whether a god exists or not," or at least that's how I use the term to convey a measure of uncertainty in the stance I assume (although I don't think that the existence of God is unknowable). Maybe most people use it differently... I'm not sure.

Also, another point that appears to be relevant is that some believers would argue that non-acceptance of the god concepts they believe in constitutes rejection of said concepts — it's an either-or thing for them, which doesn't allow for considering other options such as agnosticism that don't hinge on holding a solid opinion one way or the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that lack of acceptance necessarily implies rejection. That's the point I was trying to make before with th pancake analogy: the fact that you don't believe "Penguin had pancakes this morning" doesn't mean that you believe "Penguin did not have pancakes for breakfast this morning."

Also, some religions come to the "babies aren't atheists" position by arguing that everyone is born with belief in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW: as for agnosticism, the definition I gave matches Huxley's definition when he coined the term.

 

[Mellonhead]

I don't think that lack of acceptance necessarily implies rejection. That's the point I was trying to make before with th pancake analogy: the fact that you don't believe "Penguin had pancakes this morning" doesn't mean that you believe "Penguin did not have pancakes for breakfast this morning."

Also, some religions come to the "babies aren't atheists" position by arguing that everyone is born with belief in God.

That's what I was trying to touch on.

While humans seem to have quite frequently come to a conclusion that some God must exist that doesn't mean it is true in a case by case situation, each case being an individual person.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think that lack of acceptance necessarily implies rejection.* That's the point I was trying to make before with th pancake analogy: the fact that you don't believe "Penguin had pancakes this morning" doesn't mean that you believe "Penguin did not have pancakes for breakfast this morning."

*Emphasis mine.

Neither do I; I was just pointing out that some believers think that it does, which might explain why 'agnosticism' and 'atheism' are conflated by some.

Also, some religions come to the "babies aren't atheists" position by arguing that everyone is born with belief in God.

And I think that assertion is unfounded. I don't see how babies can even grasp detailed god concepts, let alone 'believe' in them.

BTW: as for agnosticism, the definition I gave matches Huxley's definition when he coined the term.

Yeah, the definition you used appears to be closer to Huxley's, now that I looked it up again.

Maybe the way I use it (i.e., to indicate a degree of uncertainty) is just uncommon, then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No... unfortunately, it is common. It's just common and wrong.

 

[B.athiest]

it's the same, its like saying, i am a theist;
-i believe there is a God
-i lack the belief that there isn't a God

 

[Willamena]

Why would you say that?

Do you believe that I had pancakes for breakfast this morning?

I have no information of what you had for breakfast, so I'm ignorant of it. I cannot form a specific belief.

Assuming your answer is "no" (since I assume that you have no beliefs about what I had for breakfast this morning), does this mean that you believe that I did not have pancakes for breakfast?

IOW, does "I have no idea what you had for breakfast" somehow become "I believe you either had something other than pancakes or skipped breakfast altogether" just because of how I phrased the question to you?

No. It also doesn't mean I lack for belief. There's a certain set of things people generally have for breakfast, and if necessary (if I really have to give a response to a question asked knowing I don't know the answer) I can generalize that you had "food for breakfast." So while I don't know what you had for breakfast, I can make an informed guess and it becomes the extent of my opinion.

Beliefs are derived only of what I know--their negation isn't derived of what I don't know, it's simply the negation of the belief. And I'm not going to negate belief without reason.

Knowledge->belief->negation of belief. "I know (in the familiar sense); I believe; I don't believe."
(More accurately: "I know; Is it possibly true?; I believe [or] I don't believe (opinion).")

I explained my position on this to Willamena before. I recognize that there is a set of things commonly called gods, but I think it is defined thing-by-thing: Thor is in, Superman is out. The Sun is in when it's Helios or Sol Invictus (or any of the other sun-gods) and out otherwise. Mercury, the messenger of Jupiter, is in; Gabriel, the messenger of Jehovah, is out.

I have a list of gods, but I know it doesn't include every god worshipped by humans. By my definition (which I explained in my last post), that doesn't matter: the things that *I* regard as gods is a finite and rather short list, so I don't need a rigorous definition of god to recognize that I don't believe in anything I consider a god.

But I realize that the same is true for a baby: a person who has no concept of "god" is incapable of believing anything he considers to be a god. It's trivial, but a necessary implication of my definition... which, as I alluded to earlier, is how I think people generally use the term.

A finite and rather short list is entirely appropriate from which to form a generalized belief. My list of what you probably had for breakfast is equally small.

If the baby has no list, it's tough luck for the baby.

Don't know = nothing on which to form belief = ignorance

 

[Debater Slayer]

No... unfortunately, it is common. It's just common and wrong.

Based on how Huxley defined it, I think you're probably right.

According to some definitions I've read, however, agnostic atheism is defined as "not believing in any deities while also holding that the existence of a deity is either unknowable or [italicizing and underlining mine] currently unknown," the keyword being "currently."

But that's probably a topic for another thread, even though it's tempting to throw definitions of agnosticism into discussions about atheism.

 

[Willamena]

I was taking "I don't know" in the colloquial sense. I define "atheist" as "a person who does not have any god-beliefs." For the purposes of this definition, I base the term "god-belief" as what the person themselves regards as a god.

Yes, this means that by this definition, babies are atheists. I don't really care about this by itself, but I realize that this definition, which I think is how people do actually use the word, doesn't work if we refuse to allow for babies to be atheists.

A colloquialism doesn't make your argument stronger.

 

[Willamena]

Reluctantly, I'll throw my hat in the poll, but I still believe that "opinion" (rather than belief) best describes an atheist. In adopting a belief, or in throwing off the shackle of "belief" (negating it), one arrives at opinion.

 

[Mellonhead]

The results of the poll are pretty interesting, a pattern emerges it seems.

The Atheist results are likely more valuable because you are taking a demographic of the mind and the individuals the questions are posed at are more likely to have a more accurate response, and yet the people who are religious (the majority) believe the exact opposite of what most of the votes the Atheists are making. Rather curious.

Is it offensive to say that an Atheist is more likely to know how an Atheist thinks about God than a Christian? I hope I worded that above section properly so as not to offend anyone.

 

[Falvlun]

Based on how Huxley defined it, I think you're probably right.

According to some definitions I've read, however, agnostic atheism is defined as "not believing in any deities while also holding that the existence of a deity is either unknowable or [italicizing and underlining mine] currently unknown," the keyword being "currently."

But that's probably a topic for another thread, even though it's tempting to throw definitions of agnosticism into discussions about atheism.

I think there are two definitions for agnosticism that can be correctly used in English.

The first is the technical definition, the Huxley definition, as Penguin has described it. It's a belief about knowledge and whether we can have it, and most often used specifically regarding knowledge about god(s).

The second is the popular definition, the way your average English speaker will use it (aka, people who don't spend their free time debating on a religious website). They will usually describe an agnostic as someone who has no opinion either way regarding the existence of god; they "don't know"; or they believe that the evidence for and against is equal, thereby making it impossible to choose one or the other.

 

[Falvlun]

The results of the poll are pretty interesting, a pattern emerges it seems.

The Atheist results are likely more valuable because you are taking a demographic of the mind and the individuals the questions are posed at are more likely to have a more accurate response, and yet the people who are religious (the majority) believe the exact opposite of what most of the votes the Atheists are making. Rather curious.

Is it offensive to say that an Atheist is more likely to know how an Atheist thinks about God than a Christian? I hope I worded that above section properly so as not to offend anyone.

My personal opinion, as an atheist, is that atheists have been waging a semantic battle in order to a) make atheism more easily defended and b) to make it seem more natural and less threatening.

 

[Falvlun]

Reluctantly, I'll throw my hat in the poll, but I still believe that "opinion" (rather than belief) best describes an atheist. In adopting a belief, or in throwing off the shackle of "belief" (negating it), one arrives at opinion.

Interesting. I generally equate "opinion" with "belief". They are synonomous.