Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?

[Kirran]

Ah you remember!
It was more about skepticism I was speaking of. A cleanser that dissolves all impurities so that only beliefs and ideas that stand the test of reason and experience and individual growth through the ups and downs of life remain.

Something like that.

Yeah I liked it. What lab procedure was it precisely you compared it to?

 

[sayak83]

Yeah I liked it. What lab procedure was it precisely you compared it to?

I don't remember.

 

[Kirran]

I don't remember.

Oh Sayak (ever seen the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup? A scene comes to mind)

Maybe if I have time and inclination I'll trawl for the post sometime

 

[Ponder This]

Isn’t Atheism a world view without any positive reasons and arguments for its truthfulness?
Regards

Hmm. If I look for milk in the fridge and don't find it, is that a 'negative' reason or a 'positive' reason?

Am I rejecting presence or confirming emptiness? (Half-empty = Half-full)
Is there a compelling reason to reject my disbelief in milk if I don't find any?

As for people claiming not to believe in the presence or absence of milk in their fridges... Please go open the door to your fridge.

 

[Cacotopia]

NOT

A

WORLDVIEW

.

JUST

A

POSITION

 

[Apologes]

Atheism isn't about spreading a "truth". It's about not believing what theists are arguing for.

What is it you think I'm trying to prove?

Atheism isn't touted as a "truth", so that doesn't apply.

No. It's the response to a single claim.

Atheism is touted as a statement about what a person does not believe in, namely deities.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

No it is not. Just like a lack of belief in magical unicorns is not a world view without any positive reasons and arguments for its truthfulness. It's merely a lack of belief in magical unicorns.

What does atheism have to do with truthfulness, or a world-view? Don't you have to have some belief for truth or a world-view to apply?
What, "spread truth?"
There is very little atheist proselytizing. We don't bring up the subject ourselves. We respond to your preaching.

Because atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief.

It's a position on belief, the lacking of. nothing more. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp.

The fact that so many people echo this statement shows that it's a statement that needs to be adressed. All of you (and others who I didn't bother quoting) are going by a very particular version of atheism and are equivocating it with atheism in general. Some of these posts do it implicitly and others explicitly deny that atheism means anything else than "lack of belief", "not believing" or something else along those lines.

This is indeed what many atheists take their atheism to mean, however it is far from being the only way atheists have understood their position. Throughout centuries (and even today) there are plenty of positive atheists who hold a positive belief that "There is no God" and who thereby make a truth claim and a claim to knowledge.

They thus do bear a big burden of proof and have attempted throughout history (and still do just as actively) to present positive arguments for the truth of atheism (the claim that there is no God). Examples of these famous attempts would be the various versions of the problem of evil or perhaps (more recently) the problem of non-resistant non-belief.

The whole distinction between negative and positive atheism is a relatively recent one as early proponents of the distinction such as Flew admitted that atheism (in the negative sense) would have to be understood in a very unusual way, different from how it was understood before both by theists and atheists.

Bottom line is, atheism is not a view that can be generally limited to any one thing. There are different kinds of atheism and not all of them are negative, so just as it is unhelpful for the OP to limit atheism to a positive sense, it is equally unhelpful for you lot to limit it to the negative sense.

 

[Jesster]

The fact that so many people echo this statement shows that it's a statement that needs to be adressed. All of you (and others who I didn't bother quoting) are going by a very particular version of atheism and are equivocating it with atheism in general. Some of these posts do it implicitly and others explicitly deny that atheism means anything else than "lack of belief", "not believing" or something else along those lines.

This is indeed what many atheists take their atheism to mean, however it is far from being the only way atheists have understood their position. Throughout centuries (and even today) there are plenty of positive atheists who hold a positive belief that "There is no God" and who thereby make a truth claim and a claim to knowledge.

They thus do bear a big burden of proof and have attempted throughout history (and still do just as actively) to present positive arguments for the truth of atheism (the claim that there is no God). Examples of these famous attempts would be the various versions of the problem of evil or perhaps (more recently) the problem of non-resistant non-belief.

The whole distinction between negative and positive atheism is a relatively recent one as early proponents of the distinction such as Flew admitted that atheism (in the negative sense) would have to be understood in a very unusual way, different from how it was understood before both by theists and atheists.

Bottom line is, atheism is not a view that can be generally limited to any one thing. There are different kinds of atheism and not all of them are negative, so just as it is unhelpful for the OP to limit atheism to a positive sense, it is equally unhelpful for you lot to limit it to the negative sense.

You're right about some atheists taking it a step further to claim that there are no gods. That isn't redefining atheism in any way though. Atheism with a simple disbelief in god claims is the larger category. Strong atheism (there is no god) is a subcategory that fits within that larger category. The first is the minimal requirement of being an atheist and the second is adding more onto it.

To say that atheism carries a burden of proof means you are ignoring the general definition in order to equivocate it with the smaller specific subcategory.

Think of it in the reverse sense if it will help you. Theism is a larger category of general belief. Christianity is a subcategory of theism with more specific beliefs. You wouldn't say that Christianity defines theism just like you wouldn't say that strong atheism defines atheism.

 

[Apologes]

You're right about some atheists taking it a step further to claim that there are no gods. That isn't redefining atheism in any way though. Atheism with a simple disbelief in god claims is the larger category. Strong atheism (there is no god) is a subcategory that fits within that larger category. The first is the minimal requirement of being an atheist and the second is adding more onto it.

To say that atheism carries a burden of proof means you are ignoring the general definition in order to equivocate it with the smaller specific subcategory.

Think of it in the reverse sense if it will help you. Theism is a larger category of general belief. Christianity is a subcategory of theism with more specific beliefs. You wouldn't say that Christianity defines theism just like you wouldn't say that strong atheism defines atheism.

If you think that I said positive atheism (or strong if you prefer that term) "defines" what atheism is, then you misunderstood my post. I said atheism is a general position which can be both negative and positive, both weak and strong. It's not the case that negative atheism is the general view (it hasn't been historically and there's certainly no conseus in the academia that it is today). Sure, atheism is at the very least absence of belief but it isn't necessarily just that.

My point was not to argue that negative atheism is a term that shouldn't be used (although I have my reservations with respect to it), but that, just as atheism shouldn't be limited to the positive sense, it shouldn't be limited to the negative.

Your comment was among the unhelpful ones as it didn't really explain that there were different kinds of atheism, but simply stated that atheism is not about truth but is a lack if belief. It is a very general statement that doesn't do justice to the full meaning of the word and as such is counter productive since the OP was clearly asking if there is more to atheism than just negation, the answer to which is "there certainly is".

 

[Cacotopia]

The fact that so many people echo this statement shows that it's a statement that needs to be adressed. All of you (and others who I didn't bother quoting) are going by a very particular version of atheism and are equivocating it with atheism in general. Some of these posts do it implicitly and others explicitly deny that atheism means anything else than "lack of belief", "not believing" or something else along those lines.

This is indeed what many atheists take their atheism to mean, however it is far from being the only way atheists have understood their position. Throughout centuries (and even today) there are plenty of positive atheists who hold a positive belief that "There is no God" and who thereby make a truth claim and a claim to knowledge.

They thus do bear a big burden of proof and have attempted throughout history (and still do just as actively) to present positive arguments for the truth of atheism (the claim that there is no God). Examples of these famous attempts would be the various versions of the problem of evil or perhaps (more recently) the problem of non-resistant non-belief.

The whole distinction between negative and positive atheism is a relatively recent one as early proponents of the distinction such as Flew admitted that atheism (in the negative sense) would have to be understood in a very unusual way, different from how it was understood before both by theists and atheists.

Bottom line is, atheism is not a view that can be generally limited to any one thing. There are different kinds of atheism and not all of them are negative, so just as it is unhelpful for the OP to limit atheism to a positive sense, it is equally unhelpful for you lot to limit it to the negative sense.

yes or no: is a lack in belief a statement that there are no gods?

 

[Jesster]

If you think that I said positive atheism (or strong if you prefer that term) "defines" atheism is, then you misunderstood my post. I said atheism is a general position which can be both negative and positive, both weak and strong. It's not the case that negative atheism is the general view (it hasn't been historically and there's certainly no conseus in the academia that it is today). Sure, atheism is at the very least absence of belief but it isn't necessarily just that.

My point was not to argue that negative atheism is a term that shouldn't be used (although I have my reservations with respect to it), but that, just as atheism shouldn't be limited to the positive sense, it shouldn't be limited to the negative.

Your comment was among the unhelpful ones as it didn't really explain the that there were different kinds of atheism, but simply stated that atheism is not about truth but is a lack if belief. It is a very general statement that doesn't do justice to the full meaning of the word and is counter productive since the OP was clearly asking if there is more to atheism than just negation, the answer to which is "there certainly is".

Okay. Now when I talk about theism, I'll make sure to carry all the baggage of Christianity along with it. Maybe when I talk about Christians, I'll make sure to include Westboro Baptist Church every time.

It's like you missed the entire subcategory explanation I repeated several times.

 

[Cacotopia]

Antitheism would be a belief that there are no gods, which would also subsequently place them in the category of atheism which is merely the position on not believing in gods, not claiming that there aren't any. I am not sure how many times I can reiterate this.

I am not arrogant enough to label myself an anti-theist. therefore I withhold my conviction of belief.

 

[Cacotopia]

Okay. Now when I talk about theism, I'll make sure to carry all the baggage of Christianity along with it. Maybe when I talk about Christians, I'll make sure to include Westboro Baptist Church every time.

It's like you missed the entire subcategory explanation I repeated several times.

I feel like they miss this every time all the time.

 

[Apologes]

Okay. Now when I talk about theism, I'll make sure to carry all the baggage of Christianity along with it. Maybe when I talk about Christians, I'll make sure to include Westboro Baptist Church every time.

It's like you missed the entire subcategory explanation I repeated several times.

You will then be doing the exact thing I argued against in the case of atheism. For some reason you think the opposite.

I never claimed you have to be a positive atheist to be an atheist. All I was pointing out is that atheism is not only understood in the negative sense and that the negative sense is far from the default understanding of the word atheist (I drew on the lack of academic conseus and the relatively recent emergence of the term in a predominantly positive historical debate).

That's not to say positive atheism should be taken as such either. All I'm saying is be honest and be precise. Honest, because insisting negative atheism just is what atheism is is dishonest as atheism has been and still is taken in the positive sense (as a truth claim). Precise, because hiding behind a general term atheist in the context of a thread like this which clearly begs for the positive-negative distinction to solve the apparent confusion is unhelpful and counter-productive.

You trying to make it seem like I'm forcing some additional baggage on your view rather than calling for clarity is disingenuous.

 

[Apologes]

I feel like they miss this every time all the time.

Says a person who can't even read what I said in my post and therefore asks redundant questions like in post #89.

 

[Jesster]

You will then be doing the exact thing I argued against in the case of atheism. For some reason you think the opposite.

That's precicely what I'm trying to avoid. You seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely. When you say you are a Christian, as you've labeled yourself on your profile, I am not automatically assuming you have anything to do with the Westboro Baptist Church. The only thing I get to start with is the general defitinion of Christianity. Adding more will just make me look like a fool.

When working with definitions, you start with the general and work towards the specific later for a reason. It helps you to avoid making broad generalizations where they don't belong.

When I say I am an atheist, you don't get to assume anything about me other than that I do not have a belief in any number of deities. Adding anything else onto that before it is warranted is an irresponsible waste of everyone's time. Maybe I do believe that there are no gods (not my actual position), but you'd be a fool to think that at first just because I claimed the atheist label and nothing else. Once I go further than just that label, then you can assume the rest.

 

[Earthling]

Isn’t Atheism a world view without any positive reasons and arguments for its truthfulness?
Regards

It is to me, but perhaps not to someone else.

 

[Cacotopia]

Says a person who can't even read what I said in my post and therefore asks redundant questions like in post #89.

yet still thinks atheism is a belief in there not being gods.

 

[Apologes]

That's precicely what I'm trying to avoid. You seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely. When you say you are a Christian, as you've labeled yourself on your profile, I am not automatically assuming you have anything to do with the Westboro Baptist Church. The only thing I get to start with is the general defitinion of Christianity. Adding more will just make me look like a fool.

When working with definitions, you start with the general and work towards the specific later for a reason. It helps you to avoid making broad generalizations where they don't belong.

When I say I am an atheist, you don't get to assume anything about me other than that I do not have a belief in any number of deities. Adding anything else onto that before it is warranted is an irresponsible waste of everyone's time. Maybe I do believe that there are no gods (not my actual position), but you'd be a fool to think that at first just because I claimed the atheist label and nothing else. Once I go further than just that label, then you can assume the rest.

But I didn't assume that you do believe the claim "There is no God" just because you called yourself an atheist. If anything, I'd ask what kind of atheist you are. That's if I was interested in knowing your personal views.

The crux of our disagrerment is that you take it that the word atheist should be taken to mean negative atheism by default unless one explicitly claims they are a positive atheist. I on the other hand think that no default meaning should be ascribed to the term atheist as there is no conseus on that yet and that it is more useful in discussions about atheism to specify the exact kind we're talking about.

Theism is in a similar position in some contexts where different cultures clash as then it's useful to define what we mean by God. (Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism etc) There is one set of circumstances in which negative atheism could be taken as the default meaning of the term atheism and that is if the alternative versions fall out of favor so much that they might as well be ignored. If, for example, almost noone was advocating positive atheism then in most cases the word atheist could be taken to mean simply someone who lacks a belief in God and nothing more would need to be said. This is the case in most debates among laymen and in almost all debates on theism in the academia, where polytheistic and pantheistic notions of God are rarely taken serioisly so the term God is taken in the classical theist sense. (Likewise, atheism is considered with respect to that notion of God.)

This, however, is not the case with the word atheism. Atheism is still often discussed as a truth claim and new arguments for it are being advanced. As such, it is still a very much relevant thing to specify which atheism we are talking about.

 

[Jesster]

If anything, I'd ask what kind of atheist you are. That's if I was interested in knowing your personal views.

Good. Then until you ask, you start with the most basic form of the label.

The crux of our disagrerment is that you take it that the word atheist should be taken to mean negative atheism by default unless one explicitly claims they are a positive atheist. I on the other hand think that no default meaning should be ascribed to the term atheist as there is no conseus on that yet and that it is more useful in discussions about atheism to specify the exact kind we're talking about.

A lack of belief in god or gods is the default though. All of atheism starts there. Specific atheists can add more into their views beyond that, but that's not the default. Similarly, the default theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. The default theist is not a Hindu, a Christian, or a Norse polytheist.

General first (default), then specific. You seem to want to start with the specific first and I can't determine why. You shouldn't make that leap before you are certain.

This, however, is not the case with the word atheism. Atheism is still often discussed as a truth claim and new arguments for it are being advanced. As such, it is still a very much relevant thing to specify which atheism we are talking about.

Theists tend to talk about atheism that way, and they are often mistaken. What these theists are actually pointing fingers at is things like antitheism while mistaking the labels entirely. You just need to learn to separate your labels more. Just because a person has two labels does not mean the two labels are equal or always tied together universally.

 

[Apologes]

Good. Then until you ask, you start with the most basic form of the label.

I don't assume you're a positive atheist, but I also don't assume you're a negative atheist. I'll expand on this below.

A lack of belief in god or gods is the default though. All of atheism starts there. Specific atheists can add more into their views beyond that, but that's not the default. Similarly, the default theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. The default theist is not a Hindu, a Christian, or a Norse polytheist.

General first (default), then specific. You seem to want to start with the specific first and I can't determine why. You shouldn't make that leap before you are certain.

I have no idea where you got the impression that I want to start with any particular specific definition as I explicitly stated that we ought to avoid ambiguous words (or words which other people participating in the conversation find ambiguous) and instead use a more precise and transparent definition if possible.

It could be granted for the sake of the argument that all of atheism starts with the lack of belief in God (then you would run into problems such as agnosticism becoming a type of atheism as well, despite the historical insistence of agnostics not to be labeled as atheists even in the negative sense), but I just don't think the default meaning of words should be decided by picking the one meaning that holds least information content.

Definitions are, in my view at least, a matter of practicality. If most people agreed that atheism meant a mere lack of belief in gods and took it as obvious, then I'd have no problem with the term "negative atheism" being considered unnecessary. I do not think, though, that this is at all the case. It certainly isn't the case with the OP who is asking if atheism is restricted to the negative sense (that's my takeaway) so insisting on calling negative atheism simply atheism and avoiding to bring up the distinction when it is needed is highly misleading, if not downright deceptive.

Theists tend to talk about atheism that way, and they are often mistaken. What these theists are actually pointing fingers at is things like antitheism while mistaking the labels entirely. You just need to learn to separate your labels more. Just because a person has two labels does not mean the two labels are equal or always tied together universally.

It is telling that you assume this is just something the theists do. Even more uncharitable is your claim that this is a product of the theists' confusion of atheism with anti-theism. What I was referring to in that paragraph was actual academic discourse on this subject. Take the article on atheism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy whose author is an atheist:

"Atheism is the view that there is no God. Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism." [1]

In one paragraph he does both things I talked about. He also writes against negative atheism in his other work, which shows that positive atheism is not necessarily just negative atheism with some additional arguments against God. Here's the article on atheism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”." [2]

After some discussion on how the terms atheism and theism relate to one another, the author says:

"Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." [3]

This article was written by another prominent atheist scholar Paul Draper. These were just two examples of atheist scholars who specialize in the field of philosophy of religion who not only don't think the term atheist is negative by default, but they downright say the positive meaning should be preferred. I was being quite charitable in trying to find a compromise and I'm a Christian, so no, this isn't the issue of me needing to learn to separate labels (that was never an issue to begin with as it is actually you who wishes to collapse two labels together while I'm advocating for a clear distinction).