I know, but it is superfluous to the discussion to make the distinction. Would adding an "S" in brackets really add anything?
Of course it does. Theism isn't just classical monotheism. Rejecting theism would mean rejecting every single god humanity has ever believed in, not just a single god (or just the group of gods with the name "God"). It's a superhuman undertaking; it isn't just a matter of deciding that one particular church isn't for you.
Do you "lack a belief" concerning the god who pulls the sun by chariot? Or rather, do you categorically disbelieve that there's any such thing going on? Yes, if you hold a naturalistic view of reality you categorically deny the supernatural whether you admit it or not.
The "god who pulls the Sun across the sky of a stationary Earth with a chariot" is one of the gods I actively reject. It's falsifiable and - IMO - has been falsified.
OTOH, there are plenty of gods that are unfalsifiable. For them, all I can say is "your justifications for this god are irrational" or "I see no reason to accept that this god exists."
Rocks don't consume anything, but they do have an absence of theism.
Since they don't consume anything, they don't consume meat. QED.
I have actually seen atheists argue this point. Babies are atheists because they aren't cognitively developed enough to believe in anything, and since atheism is "not-theism" they are atheists. So why is it when I say the same thing, but instead to point out the absurdity of the position, all the sudden I'm the one being ridiculous?
Yes: it's you who are being ridiculous because you're using an obvious double standard.
"If an adjective doesn't refer to some sort of thought process, how can I ever figure out how to only apply it to people?!" Give me a break. You figured it out for countless other terms. You can do it again.
It is an obvious attempt to have things both ways.
No, it isn't. The fact that atheism isn't a position doesn't mean that atheists hold no positions. If some specific atheist has rejected your favourite god, feel free to ask him why.
I know if utter confidence that you, and every single self-identified atheist are anything but non-committal about the god question. I categorically reject any notion of "lacking a belief". Because not only is it nonsensical, the human mind simply doesn't work that way.
You don't seem to be listening to me. There's a distinction between
atheism, which covers a vast range of positions, and
atheists, who each have one specific set of positions.
When I say that atheism is a lack of belief in gods, I'm not saying that any particular atheist has no opinions about gods at all. A person who flat-out rejects every single god would still lack belief in gods.
Basically, anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. There are infinitely many ways to not be a theist.
As an analogy: if I say that you don't need to live in New York to be an American, this doesn't imply that no Americans live in New York.
I know, but it's enough of a correlation that you'd be right ninety-five percent of the time. The vast majority of atheists have predictable naturalistic beliefs.
And you think that "naturalistic" necessarily excludes gods?
Some naturalists (e.g. me) don't put any limits on what is "natural" other than "that which exists". If someone demonstrated that a god existed for me, my concept of what is natural would expand to include the god.
You don't need to "know of" every single notion of god that could potentially be out there to disbelieve in any notion of god categorically.
I agree. You would just have to define the category well enough that someone could say that everything that belongs to it doesn't exist.
So define the category. Give us a workable definition of the term "god" that we can use to establish a category that we can evaluate. I only have two criteria:
- since theists aren't atheists,
your category can't exclude any gods that anyone believes in. Believing in even a single god makes someone a theist, and therefore not an atheist.
-
it has to match how we actually use the word "god". You can't invent a special definition of "god" for atheists that doesn't match how we think about gods generally. So, for instance, if your definition would imply that a Muslim who believes in angels is a polytheist, then your definition is wrong.
Can you do it? I've given this challenge to other people before and nobody's been able to do it.
You may be open to changing your mind on a particular concept of god should you encounter it, but that does not make you currently devoid of any beliefs regarding whether or not there is a god.
I have no opinion at all on any of the gods that I've never heard of (i.e. most of them).
I presume you are sentiment. You have a concept of god in your head, and you reject that it could exist. I know that with certainty, sorry. My position is that to "lack a belief" is cognitively impossible.
And my position is that your position is irrelevant. The fact that you keep on putting it forward suggests that you don't understand what I'm telling you.
