"Lack of belief"

[Augustus]

They're all theists. Do you agree that theists aren't atheists?

They all meet the definition of theist you are using; one of the possible usages of the word . This definition is more recent and is not the Official One True Usage of the word.

Do you agree that there is a legitimate reason that people might see your usage as being flawed and prefer not to use it? (this doesn't mean you must agree with it, just you acknowledge that their point is reasonable)

Are all atheists not theists? The way I use the words, atheists are not theists.

You're actually making the problem by insisting that atheism be based on rejection of gods. The fact that your definition of "god" doesn't reconcile with how the term is actually used is your problem to solve, not mine.

Now you are just making things up randomly.

Most people have no trouble with the word atheist meaning that. It never seemed to be a problem until the 1980s when atheist writers decided it was problematic. How can someone uses a word according to one of its most common and long-standing definitions be 'making the problem'? There is no problem with this definition, the only problems are of your creation and don't affect most other people because they don't agree with them.

I've also never insisted on this definition, I've explained why I find it to be the most useful and accurate, and why I find the newer definition to be based on a cognitive impossibility. The only people who seem to 'insist' on a definition are the 'lack of belief' crowd.

And are you really trying to claim God doesn't mean the creator and ruler of the universe? That no one actually uses it to mean this? (please note I have repeatedly acknowledged multiple meanings)

I get that you don't like the normal definition of theism, but this fact doesn't mean that the definition magically changes.

I explained why I find it meaningless if we use your preferred definition. Actually meaningless is probably the wrong word as it does convey meaning. I do not find your conveyed meaning to be conceptually useful in describing the world: it distorts more than it enlightens imo.

This is not about changing the definition, it is about explaining what I believe is a more useful way to describe reality.

So I can understand you way of thinking:

Can you give me an example of when you think it is particularly useful to use the word theist? An example of why grouping together a whole host of contradictory and incompatible beliefs into a single category adds real value to a discussion rather than being focussed on convenience at the expense of accuracy? Where attitudes towards god are best described by a theist/atheist binary rather than a more nuanced perspective (especially given that many 'theisms' aren't really concerned with belief anyway)?

So accept that polytheists and deists are atheists? Do you think this is how anyone but you refers to them?

Again you are just making things up. I clearly differentiated them, go back and check if you like. Feel free to quote me saying anything you claim here if you want to show you didn't just make this up.

On a side note (this is not the point I was making previously), I could find plenty of examples of people describing polytheists and deists as atheists. I could even find them calling (mono)theists atheists. OED def 2:One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him

On Ibn Sina for example:

He and his household and followers were known as atheists by the Muslims (Ibn Taymiyya: Refutation of the Logicians, p.141) ...

... the chief of the atheists and those that disbelieve in God, His angels, His books, His Prophets and the Day of Resurrection” (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292-1349): Aid for the Grieving, II,374)

A number of sources concur that Ibn Sina is the “chief of the atheists, of a philosophical creed, both an errant one and a seducer into error, a Bātinī Qarmatī – both he and his father being Ismā‘īlī propagandists – a disbeliever in God, His angels, His books, His Prophets and the Day of Resurrection.”

 

[Willamena]

If we define atheism and theism as they should be, in terms of "god" instead of in terms of each other, all this goes away.

 

[Valjean]

I think this video sums up some of the issues involved nicely:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we define atheism and theism as they should be, in terms of "god" instead of in terms of each other, all this goes away.

All of the problems with defining "theism" are really problems with the word "god".

And I've been defining "atheist" in terms of god all along: an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

It's Augustus and other people who insist on defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods who have the problems to deal with. My definition is workable and reflects how the term "atheist" is actually used; definitions based on rejection aren't workable and don't reflect how people use the term.

 

[Desert Snake]

All of the problems with defining "theism" are really problems with the word "god".

And I've been defining "atheist" in terms of god all along: an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

It's Augustus and other people who insist on defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods who have the problems to deal with. My definition is workable and reflects how the term "atheist" is actually used; definitions based on rejection aren't workable and don't reflect how people use the term.

Atheism, and Theism, are positional, stances. They are adherences. Neither requires a burden of proof. They are not inherently, arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism, and Theism, are positional, stances. They are adherences. Neither requires a burden of proof. They are not inherently, arguments.

I didn't say that they were.

My point is that no human being could even list every god, let alone form an opinion about all of them. The rejection definition ends up implying that real-life atheists can't possibly exist. Obviously, this doesn't match how the word is used.

 

[Augustus]

It's Augustus and other people who insist on defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods who have the problems to deal with. My definition is workable and reflects how the term "atheist" is actually used; definitions based on rejection aren't workable and don't reflect how people use the term.

I can guarantee that the majority of people who use the word, use it to mean disbelief, denial of the existence of god, the rejection of belief in god, etc. not 'lack of belief'. We have no problems, don't worry. Your definition isn't even listed in the OED, go and check if you like.

I'm not appealing to the dictionary here to say I'm 'right' about the better definition, just to refute your point that it doesn't reflect how people use the term. That is just a blatant untruth. It is the most common way to use the term.

We disagree on conceptual issue, fair enough. This is subjective preference so there is no right/wrong. What you are claiming here though is simply incorrect.

As I said before, despite claims to the contrary, it always seems to be the lack of belief crowd who won't even accept that there are multiple legitimate usages of the word.

Anyway, I wasn't even focussing on defining atheism, I've been trying to avoid it in this thread, I was talking about the problems of the word 'theist', and whether or not it is a valuable addition to the English Language. And as Willamena pointed out, the two words are independent of each other.

 

[Willamena]

All of the problems with defining "theism" are really problems with the word "god".

And I've been defining "atheist" in terms of god all along: an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

It's Augustus and other people who insist on defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods who have the problems to deal with. My definition is workable and reflects how the term "atheist" is actually used; definitions based on rejection aren't workable and don't reflect how people use the term.

Not believing is rejecting ("I don't believe..." or "That's nothing I believe"). Explicit atheism, the firm "no."

 

[Willamena]

I didn't say that they were.

My point is that no human being could even list every god, let alone form an opinion about all of them. The rejection definition ends up implying that real-life atheists can't possibly exist. Obviously, this doesn't match how the word is used.

I still don't see why a rejection of a belief (proposition) must entail every deity. I don't get that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not believing is rejecting ("I don't believe..." or "That's nothing I believe"). Explicit atheism, the firm "no."

When you phrase a statement in the first person, you imply a level of self-reflection that isn't inherent in the term itself. If I say "I'm tall", my statement implies not only that I'm tall, but that I'm aware of my tallness, which further implies that I have an understanding of both the concept "tall" and how it relates to me... but none of that self-reflection is implicit in the term "tall" itself.

When we phrase things in a less obfuscating way (e.g. "he's tall", or "he doesn't believe"), it's easier to recognize what's really going on with the terms under discussion.

Take this statement: "he just arrived in the country and has never even heard of Christmas, so he doesn't believe in Santa Claus, unlike most children his age." Do you think that anyone would take this to mean that I'm saying the boy has considered and rejected Santa? Do you have any trouble understanding that sentence?

I still don't see why a rejection of a belief (proposition) must entail every deity. I don't get that.

Because rejecting only some deities allows for the possibility of atheists who believe in a god or gods.

Do you agree that a person who believes in even a single god is not an atheist?

 

[Willamena]

Not believing is rejecting ("I don't believe..." or "That's nothing I believe"). Explicit atheism, the firm "no."

Similarly, not being able to believe is disbelief ("I can't believe she did that" or "I can't believe you said that!").

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Similarly, not being able to believe is disbelief ("I can't believe she did that" or "I can't believe you said that!").

Idioms that don't refute any point I've made.

 

[Willamena]

When you phrase a statement in the first person, you imply a level of self-reflection that isn't inherent in the term itself. If I say "I'm tall", my statement implies not only that I'm tall, but that I'm aware of my tallness, which further implies that I have an understanding of both the concept "tall" and how it relates to me... but none of that self-reflection is implicit in the term "tall" itself.

When we phrase things in a less obuscating way (e.g. "he's tall", or "he doesn't believe"), it's easier to recognize what's really going on with the terms under discussion.

Take this statement: "he just arrived in the country and has never even heard of Christmas, so he doesn't believe in Santa Claus, unlike most children his age." Do you think that anyone would take this to mean that I'm saying the boy has considered and rejected Santa? Do you have any trouble understandingthat sentence?

That's where the rejection is implicit, though, where the "no" is not an explicit answer to the question unasked.

Because rejecting only some deities allows for the possibility of atheists who believe in a god or gods.

Do you agree that a person who believes in even a single god is not an atheist?

But rejecting deity doesn't require any particulars. But we've been through this before.

 

[Willamena]

Idioms that don't refute any point I've made.

It wasn't in response to any.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's where the rejection is implicit, though, where the "no" is not an explicit answer to the question unasked.

What's your basis for this?

But rejecting deity doesn't require any particulars. But we've been through this before.

If you have a workable definition for "deity" that lets you reject gods as a category, please share.

 

[Willamena]

What's your basis for this?

English. And what little I've read from George Smith.

If you have a workable definition for "deity" that lets you reject gods as a category, please share.

Deity is a representation of god, which practically speaking is any individual or group's idea of what the word "god" should mean. Saying "no" to belief in deity is prejudging that none of those ideas will be acceptable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi Guy,



I'm afraid it does not work that way at all, in fact. You are making purely and superficially grammatical arguments without regard to the actual meaning of the terms you are using. You can't just pick a random word, insert the letter "a" in front of it, and then illogically shift the burden of proof. Words mean things, and whether sticking an "a" in front of a word makes it a claim requiring substantiation entirely depends on the meaning of the particular word in question.

The term theist is defined as one who believes in one or more deities, a claim about entities which we have no evidence for beyond the confines of the human imagination. The term evolution however denotes a natural process for which there is very ample evidence (unlike deities). Therefore, the former term concerns belief, while the latter concerns knowledge.

When someone states they disbelieve in the existence of deities, they are indeed making a negative claim which does not require proof. When someone says they disbelieve in evolution, however, they are actually making a claim which requires evidence to prove. This is because the "a-evolutionist" is actually rejecting the knowledge of something that is evidently true. The work has already been done to establish proof for evolution, so it is therefore in the hands of the "a-evolutionist" to provide evidence to counter this. Claiming a lack of belief in evolution is otherwise akin to claiming a lack of belief in gravity, or in atoms: two other scientific theories, and also evidently knowable phenomena.

Edit: Edited in light of Mestemia's valid point concerning positive vs negative claims. My point is still valid though, that claims must be substantiated.

Hi Kartari-

So as an a-evolutionist, I make no claims at all, I simply lack belief in evolution. Period

You can argue that the evidence for your belief is entirely convincing to you, and for most people obviously it is not convincing at all. So that's an entirely subjective point of view is it not?

I don't even know which particular version of evolution you find convincing, Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium?

Whichever it is, I believe in one less version that you do. I lack belief in any of them until I see sufficient scientific evidence..

 

[McBell]

Hi Kartari-

So as an a-evolutionist, I make no claims at all, I simply lack belief in evolution. Period

You can argue that the evidence for your belief is entirely convincing to you, and for most people obviously it is not convincing at all. So that's an entirely subjective point of view is it not?

I don't even know which particular version of evolution you find convincing, Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium?

Whichever it is, I believe in one less version that you do. I lack belief in any of them until I see sufficient scientific evidence..

More comedy!

You should take your act on the road!

 

[Acim]

Atheism is pretty funny. If you think about it.

 

[McBell]

Atheism is pretty funny. If you think about it.

I do not find atheism or theism funny.
I do, however, find some theists and some atheists funny.