How do you define "Athesim"?

[Willamena]

I have a feeling there's something more behind what "belief" means to you. For instance, I used to believe that God existed. I no longer believe that God exists. My belief changed. Not sure how that meshes with the above.

What changed is what informs your belief.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think that I'd have to research every single god concept and reject it in order to be able to define myself as an atheist, mainly because I wouldn't presume to make a positive claim about the existence of any of them in the first place. There is nothing to "reject" if I don't know about every single one of them on an individual basis. The lack of positive claim would itself be a qualifier for me to be an atheist according to the definition I use ("atheism is the lack of belief in any gods," that is).

If I had a slate and nothing was written on it, I wouldn't define it in terms of all the words that can potentially be written on it but aren't; I'd simply define it in terms of what it is: a clean, white slate.

So instead of saying "this is a slate that doesn't have the word 'gods' carved on it" or "the word 'stars' isn't written on this slate," I'd say, "this is a blank slate that has no words carved on it." I don't think there would be a need to individually mention all of the words that can be carved on it but aren't for whatever reason.

To further clarify my point, I don't think one even has to attempt to reject that which has no perceived supporting evidence. I don't actively try to accept that 1+1=2 or that the Sun shines from the east; I just can't help but view them as facts without even attempting to convince myself of them. Conversely, I don't see how an atheist would have to 'reject' all god concepts if they thought that no god concept has enough evidence to support it.

It all depends on whether a "clean, white slate" implies missing words carved on it. It doesn't, necessarily.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may be wrong, but I think I know what most of the argument here is rooted in: a conflation of connotation and denotation.

Only the denotation is part of the actual definition of the term, but we bring baggage to any word that is based on common associations, even if they're added on.

When I say that I have a perfect pitching record in Major League Baseball, I know full well that this creates an impression that I'm good at baseball (which I'm not - I stink at it) even though my statement was entirely accurate.

Last night, I jokingly (but accurately) told one of my friends that her new guy wouldn't have been my type, partly because he has too many penises and not enough vaginas. I know that this probably elicits a bizarre mental image, but hopefully you will agree that when you break it down to what I actually said, it fits just fine with the idea that I prefer women to men.

I think that's what a lot of this objection to what I think is a straightforward, accurate definition is rooted in: a confusion of connotation with denotation. Put another way, it's about preconceptions: while I don't care whether babies are atheists in and of itself, I think a lot of the "babies aren't atheists" rhetoric is rooted in stereotypes of what an atheist is "supposed" to be, and I do object to them.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Nothing was rejected, because there was nothing to reject.

But even allowing for rejection, this is fine, as long as you don't also define "atheism" in terms of a lack of belief. "Lack" denotes something that is missing or deficient. The empty set isn't missing the set of anything, therefore it also isn't missing belief in anything.

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."

I'm still not getting why the empty set relies on knowing every notion of "god."

 

[Willamena]

After emptying the sets, you still treat the situation as if there are only two sets.

The "two empty sets" are actually identical, because they are the same set: the empty set. The set of "things I consider god" is a set that allows for "belief in god," and the set of "things I reject" is a set of things from the first set rejected, or "belief negated." The empty set is neither of them: it is a third set. It is unique.

There can be no differentiating between the "two empty sets," because they are just one. There is no need for the empty set "not to match," and nothing for it to match with.

 

[idav]

The empty set isn't missing the set of anything, therefore it also isn't missing belief in anything.

Like lacking charisma. Not everyone needs it.

I'm still not getting why the empty set relies on knowing every notion of "god."

Rejecting only works on a god by case basis. Lacking belief covers the rest without needing to see the plethora of god pictures to reject.

 

[Willamena]

Like lacking charisma. Not everyone needs it.

Not having it is only "lacking it" if we resort to making comparisons to others--i.e. an unneccessary, superfluous step.

Rejecting only works on a god by case basis. Lacking belief covers the rest without needing to see the plethora of god pictures to reject.

But the set of "things I consider god" also, by default, includes the general idea (concept) of god composed of (the most shiney) bits and pieces of all the things in the first set strung together. Rejecting that concept, then, is enough to cover rejecting all those things.

 

[idav]

Rejecting that concept, then, is enough to cover rejecting all those things.

That doesn't work cause I can be monotheist and reject Yahweh over Allah or vice versa. Rejecting is case by case. Maybe it can be a general rejection but that atheist would need to be up on their theology haha.

 

[Warren Clark]

we lack the evidence to support the claim that there is a god. therefor we lack belief in such a thing.
If it were said there was a picture of an ice cream sunday next to each word on this forum, there is be no evidence to make me think that it is remotely true.
same goes for god or any conscious deity.

 

[Willamena]

we lack the evidence to support the claim that there is a god. therefor we lack belief in such a thing.
If it were said there was a picture of an ice cream sunday next to each word on this forum, there is be no evidence to make me think that it is remotely true.
same goes for god or any conscious deity.

Alright. That allows for the perpetual notion of evidence that "we" haven't found yet, and a suspension of belief until such evidence presents.

Is that really a useful notion?

 

[Warren Clark]

Alright. That allows for the perpetual notion of evidence that "we" haven't found yet, and a suspension of belief until such evidence presents.

Is that really a useful notion?

well there most definitely could be a huge discovery that has yet to be made. It doesn't mean we should conclude that there are pictures of ice cream sundays on the forum.
We should merely leave it open for suggestion and future reference... it shouldn't be something that is killed and fought over. Which it has ignorantly become.

 

[Orias]

I don't see how not believing in a God and believing in a God make the claim any more valid.

 

[Willamena]

well there most definitely could be a huge discovery that has yet to be made. It doesn't mean we should conclude that there are pictures of ice cream sundays on the forum.

True; but it doesn't answer the question.

We should merely leave it open for suggestion and future reference...

But do you really think casting it into the future, and then sitting on our hands waiting for the future to arrive, is useful?

We could be waiting a very long time. (Very... very...)

 

[Warren Clark]

True; but it doesn't answer the question.


But do you really think casting it into the future, and then sitting on our hands waiting for the future to arrive, is useful?

We could be waiting a very long time. (Very... very...)

Well, it may be a very long time relative to our single lifespan.

It is a useful notion only because, as I suggested, making a fuss over who's god is more real when there is no evidence to suggest that either are, it is just pure nonsense.

Its like 5 year olds playing space rangers.
Timmy got mad at Bobby for making up an imaginary gun that has bigger badder lasers than his gun.

Its just as ridiculous.

Right now everything about deities is scientifically in the air. There is no telling who is more right than the other. There is no point in fighting over it and causing "holy war".

This is the whole reason the middle east is at a never ending war. They just can't stand to play nicely. You have your radicals on both sides casting stones and in this sense missiles.

 

[Orias]

This is the whole reason the middle east is at a never ending war. They just can't stand to play nicely. You have your radicals on both sides casting stones and in this sense missiles.

I'd say this is simply because the turmoil in the middle east is more about objective materials, oil, money, drugs, than it is about "God".

But if you want to delve into the whole shibang about their religious beliefs, then I wouldn't blame it on who's God is more right or more likely to exist, but who's God has a larger influence on the larger more dominant population.

Its not about who's God is more right, but who's God exists for reasons pertaining to their Godly function, like creation, destruction, life, death, etc. etc. Then its not a matter of if they exist or not, its a matter of if we can create a new, more dominate and functioning breed.

 

[Orias]

I don't see how not believing in a God and believing in a God make the claim any more valid.

And by this I mean I don't see if you believe in a God, how it makes your definition of atheism anymore or less valid than that of the opposing side.

I'll say it again, anything involving "God" is a belief (since it cannot be proved nor disproved). Why is it so darned complicated?

 

[Warren Clark]

I'd say this is simply because the turmoil in the middle east is more about objective materials, oil, money, drugs, than it is about "God".

But if you want to delve into the whole shibang about their religious beliefs, then I wouldn't blame it on who's God is more right or more likely to exist, but who's God has a larger influence on the larger more dominant population.

Its not about who's God is more right, but who's God exists for reasons pertaining to their Godly function, like creation, destruction, life, death, etc. etc. Then its not a matter of if they exist or not, its a matter of if we can create a new, more dominate and functioning breed.

Well, for example, the Muslims.

They have deep devotion to their God.
The radicals become so outraged and angry when a rule is dishonored that they permit the death penalty for things that we take for granted in America.

If a Jewish or Christian boy were to look at a Muslim girl with any eye of interest, he would be called to be beheaded by the radical leaders.

In the case of Israeli/Palestinian territory, there is a discrepancy of it being holy to their people according to their God. They both feel equally entitled to the land for the same reason. Only difference is the religion.

When a civilization such as England and Spain go to another country such as the Americas, they try to convert the natives to their religion and claim what they find is rightfully theirs. All this by simply sticking a flag on a stick in the ground. ("the cunning use of flags" - eddie izzard)
This flag represents the founders beliefs and moral code.
All different nations (and pirates) have their own flag representing their moral code.

 

[Orias]

Well, for example, the Muslims.

They have deep devotion to their God.
The radicals become so outraged and angry when a rule is dishonored that they permit the death penalty for things that we take for granted in America.

If a Jewish or Christian boy were to look at a Muslim girl with any eye of interest, he would be called to be beheaded by the radical leaders.

In the case of Israeli/Palestinian territory, there is a discrepancy of it being holy to their people according to their God. They both feel equally entitled to the land for the same reason. Only difference is the religion.

When a civilization such as England and Spain go to another country such as the Americas, they try to convert the natives to their religion and claim what they find is rightfully theirs. All this by simply sticking a flag on a stick in the ground. ("the cunning use of flags" - eddie izzard)
This flag represents the founders beliefs and moral code.
All different nations (and pirates) have their own flag representing their moral code.

This is all very true. But for the sake of reality, you can't narrow it down to just Muslims.

One should always remember that war is a two way street, both in spark and in fire. We may think its wrong for them to kill anything that dishonors their code, but how are we excluded from any of this "code" or "moral" obeying? If its wrong to us for them to do that (kill anything that dishonors or contradicts their moral codes), then don't you think its wrong for us in their eyes to do what we do?

This all goes back to my whole, creating a new breed type thing :bat:

 

[Copernicus]

We have this debate over how to define atheism periodically, and the popular choice among atheists on the internet is usually that it should be defined as "lack of belief in gods". And then people end up going around in circles over the confusion over the difference between definitions and meanings.

My preferred definitions of theism and atheism are:

1) theism = acceptance of a belief in one or more gods
2) atheism = rejection of a belief in one or more gods

That is, I see both as positive beliefs about something, and I don't count people who lack an understanding of what gods are as either theists or atheists. I believe that this accurately captures the way people use words like theism and atheism. We do not think of babies or animals as "atheists", and those who argue that they ought to be considered atheists are engaging in a converse accident fallacy. That is, they are using a general definition to override exceptions to standard usage of the word atheism. They argue that, because of the way they have chosen to define the word, babies and animals must then be considered atheists, since beings that are unable to have a belief in gods are ipso facto atheists.

A complication in these arguments is that definitions are precise heuristic statements, whereas meanings are very complex bundles of associated concepts. All words exhibit a certain amount of ambiguity (different precise word senses) and vagueness (lack of precision). So, to the extent that the concept of "god" shifts around, the concept of "atheism" shifts around.

 

[Orias]

We have this debate over how to define atheism periodically, and the popular choice among atheists on the internet is usually that it should be defined as "lack of belief in gods". And then people end up going around in circles over the confusion over the difference between definitions and meanings.

My preferred definitions of theism and atheism are:

1) theism = acceptance of a belief in one or more gods
2) atheism = rejection of a belief in one or more gods

That is, I see both as positive beliefs about something, and I don't count people who lack an understanding of what gods are as either theists or atheists. I believe that this accurately captures the way people use words like theism and atheism. We do not think of babies or animals as "atheists", and those who argue that they ought to be considered atheists are engaging in a converse accident fallacy. That is, they are using a general definition to override exceptions to standard usage of the word atheism. They argue that, because of the way they have chosen to define the word, babies and animals must then be considered atheists, since beings that are unable to have a belief in gods are ipso facto atheists.

A complication in these arguments is that definitions are precise heuristic statements, whereas meanings are very complex bundles of associated concepts. All words exhibit a certain amount of ambiguity (different precise word senses) and vagueness (lack of precision). So, to the extent that the concept of "god" shifts around, the concept of "atheism" shifts around.

Or you could just say that anything involving God is a belief.