I see no value in atheism

[outhouse]

It's the person who disbelieves or lacks belief in god/gods.

You don't get to define atheism.

You just ignore implicit atheism, which does not require a conscious rejection or disbelief, and that is not an option.

 

[Curious George]

Agreed.


"Lacking" is not the same thing as "the elimination of". If I "lack" a sandwich, that doesn't mean I "eliminate" the concept of sandwiches or believe there are no such things as sandwiches. All it implies is that I do not possess a sandwich.

Likewise, lacking a belief in God makes you an atheist, and lacking a belief does not imply a belief in a negation of that belief or the elimination of it. I merely lack a belief.


Holding a "negative, eliminative belief" is not the same as lacking a belief.


I think it could be more accurately worded to "I don't believe..." rather than "I don't say..." if that helps.

The way you are distinguishing lack makes me think that you are simply unsure. Why does someone who is unsure need to be labeled as anything but uncertain?

 

[outhouse]

That is How the term is defined. Even according to the definition you provided. Where are you getting this different definition from?

Some people hate the reality of the definition, and refuse academia.

 

[leibowde84]

No, the term atheist signifies the person who lacks belief in god. You're shifting the negation to be about the act of belief itself.

"Lacking" (the elimination of "There is a god") is the act it should be about.

"There is no god." = the negated, eliminative belief that corresponds to "There is a god."

Ok. Here is the definition of atheism (not "atheist"):

Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods."

 

[leibowde84]

The way you are distinguishing lack makes me think that you are simply unsure. Why does someone who is unsure need to be labeled as anything but uncertain?

It is merely what the term "atheist" means. The first Christians were referred to as "atheists" because they lacked belief in certain Gods, even though they did believe in the Abrahamic God. It simply requires a "lack of belief". That would certainly include those that do not hold a belief either way due to lack of evidence.

 

[Curious George]

Ok. Here is the definition of atheism (not "atheist"):

Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods."

Didn't she say that exact same thing here

And to wrap it up, once more, the definition of atheist is not, "not the theist." It's the person who disbelieves or lacks belief in god/gods.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The way you are distinguishing lack makes me think that you are simply unsure. Why does someone who is unsure need to be labeled as anything but uncertain?

Well I, for instance, am not unsure. I do not believe that there is a God, and am very clear in my position that I have no good reason to believe God exists. I am in no way "unsure" about my position as an atheist.

However, I do not believe there isn't a God.

There is no confusion between these views. Atheism, broadly speaking, is defined as lacking a belief - be it because you are unsure, hold a null hypothesis, simply don't know or even if you hold a negative belief. It is simply what the word means, and there is nothing else implied by it. I see no problem in "labelling" people with the term atheist if they are unsure because, quite simply, it is what the word means. I don't see why it should have any more significance than labelling someone as "uncertain". They're both words we use to describe particular states, nothing more.

Didn't she say that exact same thing here

She did, but she seemed to define disbelief or lack of belief as meaning the same thing as holding a negative belief.

 

[Curious George]

It is merely what the term "atheist" means. The first Christians were referred to as "atheists" because they lacked belief in certain Gods, even though they did believe in the Abrahamic God. It simply requires a "lack of belief". That would certainly include those that do not hold a belief either way due to lack of evidence.

Yes if you were to ask those early xtians whether Zeus existed was true they would say "no" they did not believe or they lacked belief in Zeus.

 

[leibowde84]

Didn't she say that exact same thing here

No, she claims that we were defining the wrong term, "atheist", and should have been defining the term "atheism". It seems to be redundant to me as well, but she seems to be grasping at straws. She has not provided any objective reasons for mislabeling the term "atheism" against it's definition. "Lacking belief" is surely not the same as "believing something". Thus, lacking belief in God is certainly not the same as believing that God doesn't exist. A belief in one or the other is not necessary, and I don't see why it would be.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes if you were to ask those early xtians whether Zeus existed was true they would say "no" they did not believe or they lacked belief in Zeus.

Right. And, I'm sure there were some of them who lacked belief in both, but thought that both were plausible. These people, even today, could be considered "atheists", as they lack belief in god or gods.

 

[Curious George]

Well I, for instance, am not unsure. I do not believe that there is a God, and am very clear in my position that I have no good reason to believe God exists. I am in no way "unsure" about my position as an atheist.

However, I do not believe there isn't a God.

There is no confusion between these views. Atheism, broadly speaking, is defined as lacking a belief - be it because you are unsure, hold a null hypothesis, simply don't know or even if you hold a negative belief. It is simply what the word means, and there is nothing else implied by it. I see no problem in "labelling" people with the term atheist if they are unsure because, quite simply, it is what the word means. I don't see why it should have any more significance than labelling someone as "uncertain". They're both words we use to describe particular states, nothing more.



She did, but she seemed to define disbelief or lack of belief as meaning the same thing as holding a negative belief.

Because if I were to ask you if the premise god exists is true you would not answer yes or no, you would answer "I don't know" That is very different than yes, but that is also very different than no. If we are applying classical logic the statement is either true or false. If we want to incorporate all of the semantics that is fine but let us remember that we are are arbitrarily assigning a portion of people to the atheist definition. It would be equally valid to assign the unsure group to the theist side.

 

[Curious George]

Right. And, I'm sure there were some of them who lacked belief in both, but thought that both were plausible. These people, even today, could be considered "atheists", as they lack belief in god or gods.

I am ok with that definition as well. But I think she is using classic logic and rules of negation to define the term atheist.

Language provides us all sorts of semantics. But it is really a bunch of hoopla Tbh. It is a bunch of people trying to categorize people into boxes. It is much simpler to use language to express complex beliefs. We have ended up doing this by creating almost countless definitions of atheism...we say implicit atheist, positive atheist, strong atheist, weak atheist etc etc

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because if I were to ask you if the premise god exists is true you would not answer yes or no, you would answer "I don't know" That is very different than yes, but that is also very different than no. If we are applying classical logic the statement is either true or false. If we want to incorporate all of the semantics that is fine but let us remember that we are are arbitrarily assigning a portion of people to the atheist definition. It would be equally valid to assign the unsure group to the theist side.

Why would that be equally valid? A theist is defined as anyone who accepts the premise of God to be true, so it could only be people who answered "yes" to your question by definition. An atheist is defined as anyone who DOES NOT accept the premise of God to be true, which could only be people who answer "no" or "I don't know". If someone says "I don't know", then they have NOT accepted the premise. Rejecting a claim does not require belief in a contrary claim, it only requires you to NOT ACCEPT the claim as true. When somebody says "I don't know" in response to a claim, they are effectively saying "I have not reached the conclusion that the premise is true". That's disbelief, by definition.

 

[leibowde84]

I am ok with that definition as well. But I think she is using classic logic and rules of negation to define the term atheist.

Language provides us all sorts of semantics. But it is really a bunch of hoopla Tbh. It is a bunch of people trying to categorize people into boxes. It is much simpler to use language to express complex beliefs. We have ended up doing this by creating almost countless definitions of atheism...we say implicit atheist, positive atheist, strong atheist, weak atheist etc etc

This seems like reasoning to use the general definition of the term. Subcategories are fine, but the term "atheist" needs to represent anyone who "lacks a belief in God" by definition. Think of "Deism". Deism is a subcategory of Theism. Deists "believe that god/gods exist" based solely on reason and nature, or empirical evidence. They still fit into the Theism category, obviously, because they "believe in God". The only requirement for the term.

I think this is a way for language to develope. There must be general terms so that basic concepts can be communicated, but added subcategories can be used to describe more specific or defined ideas.

 

[Curious George]

Why would that be equally valid? A theist is defined as anyone who accepts the premise of God to be true, so it could only be people who answered "yes" to your question by definition. An atheist is defined as anyone who DOES NOT accept the premise of God to be true, which could only be people who answer "no" or "I don't know". If someone says "I don't know", then they have NOT accepted the premise. Rejecting a claim does not require belief in a contrary claim, it only requires you to NOT ACCEPT the claim as true. When somebody says "I don't know" in response to a claim, they are effectively saying "I have not reached the conclusion that the premise is true". That's disbelief, by definition.

It would be equally valid because we can simply switch true with false for a definition of atheist and nothing would change except the uncertain folks would shift sides. There is really no reason to favor one course over the other.

Unknowns are simply on the fence.

 

[Curious George]

This seems like reasoning to use the general definition of the term. Subcategories are fine, but the term "atheist" needs to represent anyone who "lacks a belief in God" by definition. Think of "Deism". Deism is a subcategory of Theism. Deists "believe that god/gods exist" based solely on reason and nature, or empirical evidence. They still fit into the Theism category, obviously, because they "believe in God". The only requirement for the term.

I think this is a way for language to develope. There must be general terms so that basic concepts can be communicated, but added subcategories can be used to describe more specific or defined ideas.

Yes language is used to communicate ideas. But language is not binary. We have different terms for different things. Affirmative, uncertain, inapplicable and negative are four valid answers you can give to a yes or no question. Why only have 2 terms atheism and theism? All four answers have vastly different implications. Why lump the last three together?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes language is used to communicate ideas. But language is not binary. We have different terms for different things. Affirmative, uncertain, inapplicable and negative are four valid answers you can give to a yes or no question. Why only have 2 terms atheism and theism? All four answers have vastly different implications. Why lump the last three together?

There are more terms to be more specific. It is like apples and banannas and apples. There are many kinds of each and some are even strange colors, which is why we have subcategories. There are certainly more than enough subcategories, which you even complained about, so why do you have a problem. There are plenty of other terms, but theists often want to change the meaning of the term atheist so that atheists are easier to beat-up on. I think they should be held to the correct definition of the term. If they want to address "strong atheists" they can do so. But, atheism has a very simple, specific meaning.

 

[Willamena]

Why would that be equally valid? A theist is defined as anyone who accepts the premise of God to be true, so it could only be people who answered "yes" to your question by definition. An atheist is defined as anyone who DOES NOT accept the premise of God to be true, which could only be people who answer "no" or "I don't know". If someone says "I don't know", then they have NOT accepted the premise. Rejecting a claim does not require belief in a contrary claim, it only requires you to NOT ACCEPT the claim as true. When somebody says "I don't know" in response to a claim, they are effectively saying "I have not reached the conclusion that the premise is true". That's disbelief, by definition.

*Pokes her head in for a moment*
You haven't negated a premise by including the "I don't knows," you've negated the fact that there is a premise.

 

[Curious George]

There are more terms to be more specific. It is like apples and banannas and apples. There are many kinds of each and some are even strange colors, which is why we have subcategories. There are certainly more than enough subcategories, which you even complained about, so why do you have a problem. There are plenty of other terms, but theists often want to change the meaning of the term atheist so that atheists are easier to beat-up on. I think they should be held to the correct definition of the term. If they want to address "strong atheists" they can do so. But, atheism has a very simple, specific meaning.

Fair enough, I have already stated I am fine with the various definitions, but let's just be aware that the inclusion of the I don't knows and the inapplicables is arbitrary. It comes from distinguishing atheist as not theist. We could just as well define atheist and theist as not atheist.

As long as we are aware of the consequences of the definitions that we use and set the parameters I think we are fine. It is pointless to quibble over the definitions of we are all aware of the semantic nuances.

But that said, if we are all chiming in on how things should be categorized banana is not to fruit what unknown is to negative.

 

[leibowde84]

*Pokes her head in for a moment*
You haven't negated a premise by including the "I don't knows," you've negated the fact that there is a premise.

The premise is belief in God, not God existing in reality (which is not on the table in this context). So, the positive and negative would be as follows ... remember the action which defines the term is "belief".
Positive = believing that God exists (anyone who holds the belief that God exists)
Negative = not believing that God exits (anyone who lacks a belief in God, including undecideds)