What do people think "atheist" means?

[Ouroboros]

If one is going to call it atheism, it should, though. It looks exactly the same to me anyways; /no belief in deities/, wheres the complication?

There's no real complication of importance. Basically, I don't like the "lack of belief in God(s)" as a definition of atheism to begin with, but I'm accepting now that this is what atheists want to define themselves. I'm fine with it from the standpoint that it's their choice, not mine. My concern is more that this definition is so vague and open, and it basically says that ignorance is a philosophical view. I don't think it's necessary for a person to identify or label him/herself to a concept of "I don't believe in giant bananas". To use a label or identification on oneself, it usually stems from a little bit more than just ignorance about the subject. But I've come to accept that this is what atheists want, so I'm not going to meddle with it anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you can be an implicit atheist, then why not?

Someone can have a presence of theistic belief without conscious acknowledgement of it.

So seeing as we can't tell the difference between implicit atheists and implicit theists, shouldn't we just ignore both categories as pointless?

How can someone be an implicit theist?

A theist is someone who believes in at least one thing that they consider a god. If someone hasn't given the question of god any consideration, how can he or she be a theist?

Can just imagine someone in the 1970s shouting out: "Hey chaps, I've got an idea. The current definition of atheism 'denial of the existence of gods' is silly as it is too precise and meaningful thus can't be used to describe the attitude of inanimate objects, babies, the non-committed, the unaware and people whose belief state is currently unknown. Wouldn't it be great if we could craft a new definition so that inanimate objects, babies, the non-committed, the unaware and people whose beliefs we don't actually know anything about would also be atheists too? Wouldn't that be much more logical?"

There was never any period when the definition of "atheism" was "denial of the existence of gods."

Arguably, in some circles, it was defined as something like "denial of the only god that matters" (typically the Christian god), but hopefully now we aren't this ignorant: in a world with an uncountable number of different god-beliefs - i.e. the one we live in - it's impossible to even hear about every god, let alone reject all of them.

... and it isn't good enough for an atheist to only reject some gods; even the average theist does that much.

The only rational approach is to compare a person's set of "things he believes in" to his set of "things he thinks are gods" and see if there's any overlap.

Anything else either creates logical contradictions (e.g. theists who qualify as "atheists") or requires atheists to do mental feats beyond the ability of any human being (e.g. having omniscience enough to see every god-belief in the head of every theist dead, living, or yet to be born, and then be able to evaluate all of them to the point that they can all be rejected).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no real complication of importance. Basically, I don't like the "lack of belief in God(s)" as a definition of atheism to begin with, but I'm accepting now that this is what atheists want to define themselves. I'm fine with it from the standpoint that it's their choice, not mine. My concern is more that this definition is so vague and open, and it basically says that ignorance is a philosophical view.

No, it doesn't. It says that atheism ISN'T a philosophical view.

I don't think it's necessary for a person to identify or label him/herself to a concept of "I don't believe in giant bananas". To use a label or identification on oneself, it usually stems from a little bit more than just ignorance about the subject.

If I tell you "Bill's a non-swimmer", would you assume that I'm saying that Bill has a philosophical objection to swimming? Would you say that someone who just never learned to swim can't be a non-swimmer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One other thing:

To use a label or identification on oneself, it usually stems from a little bit more than just ignorance about the subject.

You aren't the only person I've seen use this sort of bait-and-switch, but you'll do as an example.

There's a big difference between what a label means and what we can infer when a person applies the label to themselves.

If I tell you "I'm tall", you can infer that I've thought about my height and what it means to be tall, that I've compared my height to the heights of other people, and come to conclusions based on this.

... but NONE of that reflection and self-awareness is part of the definition of "tall"; it's all inferred from the context in which it's used.

Short version: I think all this focusing only on people who self-apply the term "atheist" is at least a bit dishonest.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it doesn't. It says that atheism ISN'T a philosophical view.

It used to be. But, if you say so, then so be it.

If I tell you "Bill's a non-swimmer", would you assume that I'm saying that Bill has a philosophical objection to swimming? Would you say that someone who just never learned to swim can't be a non-swimmer?

Then why call oneself an "atheist"? It's like Bill is putting the phrase "not a swimmer" under his avatar to show everyone that he doesn't swim. What does it mean to Bill to say such a thing unless it has some meaning?

If atheism isn't a view, philosophy, belief, or anything, then it's an empty term that doesn't signify anything important. How can it be important to a person to tell everyone else that he doesn't swim? If that's what you want to do, then fine, do it.

 

[Ouroboros]

One other thing:

You aren't the only person I've seen use this sort of bait-and-switch, but you'll do as an example.

It's not a bait and switch. If your label of yourself is "I don't fix cars." Then it doesn't say anything about you. If you find it important to tell everyone else that you don't fix cars, then go ahead, it still is a matter of negative identification.

There's a big difference between what a label means and what we can infer when a person applies the label to themselves.

You mean that most atheists don't apply the term atheist as "lack of" but as something else?

If I tell you "I'm tall", you can infer that I've thought about my height and what it means to be tall, that I've compared my height to the heights of other people, and come to conclusions based on this.

Which means that there's more to the term "atheist" than just "lack of". Now, so say "I'm tall" is a positive statement about a person's views.

... but NONE of that reflection and self-awareness is part of the definition of "tall"; it's all inferred from the context in which it's used.

Short version: I think all this focusing only on people who self-apply the term "atheist" is at least a bit dishonest.

So to you, atheism is not just simply "lack of belief in God(s)", but it is something more than that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not a bait and switch. If your label of yourself is "I don't fix cars." Then it doesn't say anything about you. If you find it important to tell everyone else that you don't fix cars, then go ahead, it still is a matter of negative identification.


You mean that most atheists don't apply the term atheist as "lack of" but as something else?


Which means that there's more to the term "atheist" than just "lack of". Now, so say "I'm tall" is a positive statement about a person's views.


So to you, atheism is not just simply "lack of belief in God(s)", but it is something more than that?

You completely missed my point.

Instead of "I'm an atheist", say I tell you "Bill's an atheist". What do you think I've told you about Bill? Have I told you that Bill has taken some sort of philosophical stance?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why call oneself an "atheist"? It's like Bill is putting the phrase "not a swimmer" under his avatar to show everyone that he doesn't swim. What does it mean to Bill to say such a thing unless it has some meaning?

It has meaning when he's surrounded by swimmers. For one thing, it tells other people not to expect him to join the water polo team.

If atheism isn't a view, philosophy, belief, or anything, then it's an empty term that doesn't signify anything important.

Its importance is tied to the importance of theism. Do you think the question of whether or not a person is a theist is important?

How can it be important to a person to tell everyone else that he doesn't swim?

"It's a long walk to the bridge. We could just swim across the river here. Anyone have a reason why we shouldn't?"

 

[Ouroboros]

You completely missed my point.

Instead of "I'm an atheist", say I tell you "Bill's an atheist". What do you think I've told you about Bill? Have I told you that Bill has taken some sort of philosophical stance?

In the old days, yes. That's how I would've understood it in the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

However, in the past 10 years the idea has become more popular that atheism isn't a philosophy but just the definition of lacking something. And I won't fight that anymore. If that's what you want it to be, then it's your prerogative. The definition of atheism does belong to the atheists to define, so if this is what the majority of atheists want it to be, then so it is.

 

[Deidre]

I've come to realize that many believe atheism is a religion unto itself. This is of course, false...but, usually the people who think this are religious types. I will say though that there are atheists in the mainstream media who can give it that kind of connotation because of how vocal and preachy they can be, but in some ways, it is only in response to drowning out the religious right.

 

[Ouroboros]

It has meaning when he's surrounded by swimmers. For one thing, it tells other people not to expect him to join the water polo team.

Yes, but it has no meaning going around and making it a point. Why have an association, American Atheists, and people being members of it? It's like having "Not a swimmer" club and people join it and pay fees and even post billboards "We don't swim!". It's an association to what a person is not, instead of having an association to what a person is.

Its importance is tied to the importance of theism. Do you think the question of whether or not a person is a theist is important?

Not so much, simply because that term is also vague. It's vague since the term "God" isn't very clear or even agreed upon.

"It's a long walk to the bridge. We could just swim across the river here. Anyone have a reason why we shouldn't?"

So then he can say, "I can't swim." That's different than him telling people he's a member of "aswimists". Why create a term just to declare one's lack of something? I don't fly. Therefore I need a label that declares me as part of the "I don't fly"-ism (non?)philosophical view.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've come to realize that many believe atheism is a religion unto itself. This is of course, false...but, usually the people who think this are religious types. I will say though that there are atheists in the mainstream media who can give it that kind of connotation because of how vocal and preachy they can be, but in some ways, it is only in response to drowning out the religious right.

It being a philosophical view isn't the same as it being a religion, though. Just wanted to point that out. If you go to any philosophical dictionary/encyclopedia, you will find the term theism and also atheism in there, described from a philosophical standpoint. Anthony Flew, considered on of the greater atheists in our lifetime, he was a philosopher and wrote philosophical treaties on atheism.

 

[Deidre]

It being a philosophical view isn't the same as it being a religion, though. Just wanted to point that out. If you go to any philosophical dictionary/encyclopedia, you will find the term theism and also atheism in there, described from a philosophical standpoint. Anthony Flew, considered on of the greater atheists in our lifetime, he was a philosopher and wrote philosophical treaties on atheism.

True. In reality though, atheism is just a response to theism. If theism didn't exist, there would be no philosophy to counter it. It's not a philosophy unto itself in as much as it is a mere reaction to theism.

 

[Ouroboros]

True. In reality though, atheism is just a response to theism. If theism didn't exist, there would be no philosophy to counter it. It's not a philosophy unto itself in as much as it is a mere reaction to theism.

That's probably true. Atheism grew out of distrust of different religions. We can see atheists through history when someone stood up and rejected the old gods and ideas. But it was an action. It was an active stand against theism. It wasn't just losing faith or belief in the old religion, but also seeing how crazy and irrational the old religion was. Atheism, when it became more formulated, it was through philosophers who started to frame the idea of what it stood for.

Today, however, it has changed and it's not an philosophical idea anymore, neither is it standing for anything since it's more and more formulated as a negation of having any stand at all. It's not a belief. It's not a philosophy. Is it even an idea? Is it just... emptiness? It's a nothing? It can't be formulated on its own. It has to have theism declared and defined, and then it just is defined as "not that."

And that's a big part of why I'm not labelled atheist anymore. It's a negative stand (or non-stand). It only describes what a person is not. It's like having a house, family, car, and job, but no money, and because of that, putting a sticker on the car saying "I'm broke" or "I have no money." The person is then missing all that he/she has. It's more positive to identify with what you have and what you are, than identifying with what you don't have and what you aren't.

 

[McBell]

Yes, but it has no meaning going around and making it a point. Why have an association, American Atheists, and people being members of it? It's like having "Not a swimmer" club and people join it and pay fees and even post billboards "We don't swim!". It's an association to what a person is not, instead of having an association to what a person is.

Just as some people feel the need to promote what they are, there are those who feel the need to actively promote that they are not one of them.

So then he can say, "I can't swim." That's different than him telling people he's a member of "aswimists". Why create a term just to declare one's lack of something? I don't fly. Therefore I need a label that declares me as part of the "I don't fly"-ism (non?)philosophical view.

Until you can provide an example that is on the same level as being a theist as opposed to not being a theist, you comparisons will be severely lacking and more to the point, not representative.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just as some people feel the need to promote what they are, there are those who feel the need to actively promote that they are not one of them.

Which means that they are something. Who joins a forum for swimmers only to promote that he can't swim? Actively promoting something means that you have something to give. Atheism is the lack of something, so it doesn't have anything to promote.

It's like starting a party that stands for: "not standing for anything, and especially we're not standing for what the other parties stand for."

Until you can provide an example that is on the same level as being a theist as opposed to not being a theist, you comparisons will be severely lacking and more to the point, not representative.

Same level as theist? You mean as a philosophy? I used to think it was at least, or even better than theism. I used to think atheism was the bee's knees because it was based on reason, rationality, logic, naturalism, etc. Just lack of belief in God isn't much of an argument for atheism. It's just a declaration of what someone is lacking. Hard to compare that to philosophies that have thousands of pages behind it. So obviously, the modern atheism is not on the same level as theism at all, since it's just a negation of all what theism stands for.

By the way, last time we spoke, you said goodbye. I assumed you didn't want to talk to me anymore. What changed? From what I remember, you called my hypocrite or something.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

That's the entire point. This is simple (symbolic/formal/mathematical) logic. Or, alternatively, you could formulate it in set-theoretic terms, abstract algebras, modal logic, many-valued logics, etc.

None of which are convincing arguments for the existence of a god or gods. So I'll skip addressing the mathematical window dressing you've offered up. Don't get me wrong, however. It was all very impressive looking.

... when I say "I don't believe Elves exist" it is absurd to require that I name e.g., every elf in Tolkien's work.

Again, I think Tolkien would have argued that he only resorted to calling them "elves" based on linguistic convenience. He wasn't trying to insist that they bore any resemblance to the faerie beings of known folklore. But as I've already said, the reference to elves seemed like a red herring anyway.

Indeed, to say that I don't in any single-celled mammals, I don't need to know any mammals or single-celled organisms.

I presume that when you say "that I don't in any single-celled mammals" you meant "I don't believe in single-celled mammals."

I'll grant that one way to lack belief in any single-celled organisms would be to be totally ignorant of them. But if the non-believer in this case is offered evidence that single-celled organisms exist, it would seem to me that they've been afforded an opportunity.

Your basic understanding of a rather simple matter would be one issue.

And which rather simple matter would that be? Not the one that required all the flashy math and brackets, I hope?

It is utterly irrelevant. The issue is what statements about belief entail and imply. When you can't distinguish between "doesn't believe" and "believe doesn't", the issues involved evaluating rational beliefs, epistemology, etc., are much too sophisticated, nuanced, and subtle.

I'm fairly certain that you're talking down your nose to me without justification. You've certainly not demonstrated that the distinction is lost on me. You've merely asserted it.

Meanwhile, one who "doesn't believe" isn't making a positive assertion. One who "believes doesn't" is. One who "believes doesn't" has adopted the same burden of proof that one who "believes does" is obliged to shoulder. If they want to convince anyone else, that is

Of course not. I'm not even saying that the statement "I don't believe any gods exist" actually means that "I believe no gods exist"

I don't believe that there are any spuds on this plate. I also believe that there are no spuds on the plate. The obvious difference with this example is that we have a concrete item to examine as evidence. So perhaps it isn't admissible?

...

I think most atheists are simply saying something akin to: "None of the theistic arguments that I've heard concerning the existence of a god or gods has convinced me." And they're not obliged to resort to intricate mathematical razzle dazzle.

Yet there certainly are atheists who claim to know that a god or gods don't exist. It really depends upon the claims being made by the theist(s) in question. If someone claimed that their god was a circle with 359° ... then I'd feel confident in declaring that I know no such god exists. But typically, theistic claims aren't that specific.

I'm saying that the statement "I don't believe any gods exist" has the minimal interpretation that "for any possible entity/thing X that I believe in/believe exists, X doesn't have the property of being a god".

It sounds like you've erred there somewhere. When someone says "I don't believe any gods exist" they aren't looking at a set of things that they already believe in and then denying that these admittedly extant things lack "the property of being a god" (whatever that happens to be).

Wouldn't it be better to say: "For me to believe that any possible entity/thing X exists (whether it has the property of being a god or not*), that entity/thing X would have to be demonstrated to actually exist?"

Who cares what X's properties are if you cannot demonstrate that it exists? Apparently, one of the properties of every god throughout human history has been that none of them can be convincingly demonstrated to actually exist.

A stronger interpretation (that equivalent with "I believe no gods exist") is "for any possible entity/thing X, I believe that X doesn't have the property of being a god".

Again, we're still waiting for a demonstration that 'X' exists. Then perhaps we can hash out its qualities. I don't see how rational people profit by debating the alleged properties of a possible entity that hasn't been demonstrated to exist.

In which case, you're little reference to which gods one doesn't believe in is completely unfounded and irrelevant.

Wow. So you're saying that the entire history of religious conflict on this planet has been unfounded and irrelevant? Thanks. I think we might be making some progress here. May I quote that blurb freely any time a theist tries to argue that it's crucially important regarding which god or gods we don't believe in?

After all, one possible way of describing the situation is that all "anyone who wishes to make assertions one way or the other concerning the existence of [gods] really needs to know is that there's no evidence", and not the names given to particular non-existent gods.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think at this point you're reduced to semantic tap-dancing.

Your idiomatic definitions aside, agnosticism was quite literally defined by a single person and adopted more widely as a needed term to describe a belief regarding god(s) that wasn't non-belief/atheism or belief (theism, polytheism, deism, etc.).

The reason that agnosticism isn't about belief is becasue it never was about belief. It was about knowing. O claiming to know. Or claiming to not know.

There is a distinction between knowledge and belief.

Obviously.

As soon as you move into the area of god's actual "verdict", you leave the metaphor entirely. The point is that one can render (and in the metaphor/example indeed MUST render) a verdict yet need not (and in this case can't) know what the actual verdict should be.

Imagine if our courts were required to issued verdicts without knowing what those verdicts should be?

Every belief can be phrased as non-belief and vice versa.

So for instance, if I asserted that I believe 1 + 1 = 2, how would you phrase your non-belief of that equation?

Heath Ledger's Joker's quote (from The Dark Knight). Not a typo.

Sorry. I've managed to miss most of the Batman films that didn't involve Adam West.

Then you cannot believe the proposition "there is nothing in the box that is a cabbage" is true

I don't know what's in the box. I merely believe what's been told to me about the contents of the box. All of my knowledge concerns what's going on outside the box.

meaning that you are making claim about the nature of contents of the box

Wrong. Simply and elegantly wrong. If I am told by a person outside the box that there's a cabbage in the box ... and that's enough to convince me that there's a cabbage in the box ... I'm am not simultaneously making knowledge claims about what is or isn't inside the box. All I'm saying when I say "I believe that there's a cabbage in the box" is "I believe it when I'm told that there is a cabbage in the box." I have no way of knowing. I cannot possibly know. To make knowledge claims based solely on personal testimony is absurd.

meaning that you claim to know something about the contents of the box.

Sorry. You've failed to demonstrate that the words 'belief' and 'knowledge' may be used interchangeably.

Every epistemic (belief) claim is a function of degree of subjective certainty regarding the truth of the claim.

Epistemology is concerned with knowledge, not mere belief. Correct? Beliefs don't need to be demonstrably true, correct?

You seem to have a difficulty with understanding the difference between an epistemic claim or belief and the truth of the statement that the belief/claim concerns.

How so? If someone claims to know that the world is flat, what sort of truth is underpinning that belief statement? And can we really declare that a belief in a flat earth somehow constitutes knowledge?

You can possess no knowledge about X proposition, but to say you believe that X is true is to claim that you have knowledge about (the truth of) X.

Does it? If I say that I believe it's true that vanilla ice cream is the tastiest ice cream, what sort of knowledge would we be dealing with? Please elaborate.

Perhaps because, in addition to the problem I referred to immediately above, you've conflated theism with non-theistic beliefs

'Example A' would be ... ?

have failed to differentiate between the various demarcations among those who don't believe in any god(s) by incorrectly and inadequately shoehorning all such beliefs (which, as demonstrated above, you can't adequately evaluate/analyze) into the category "atheism"

Atheism is simply not accepting the proposition that a given god or gods exist. Simple. The rest of your accusations are irrelevant. Feel free to come back with some more ornate mathematical gingerbread if you think that'll help.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the old days, yes. That's how I would've understood it in the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

What philosophy would that have been? What are the tenets of "atheism the philosophy" that you would have understood in the 80s or 90s?

However, in the past 10 years the idea has become more popular that atheism isn't a philosophy but just the definition of lacking something.

It was always the lack of something.

... as long as you didn't think that only one religion mattered (so that you could become an atheist by rejecting, say, Christianity alone), or didn't think that atheists are omniscient (as would be needed to reject every god-concept).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that's a big part of why I'm not labelled atheist anymore. It's a negative stand (or non-stand). It only describes what a person is not. It's like having a house, family, car, and job, but no money, and because of that, putting a sticker on the car saying "I'm broke" or "I have no money." The person is then missing all that he/she has. It's more positive to identify with what you have and what you are, than identifying with what you don't have and what you aren't.

There are lots of negative labels: for example, along with being an atheist (someone who doesn't believe in gods), I'm also a non-smoker (someone who doesn't smoke) anda civilian (someone who isn't in the military). None of these labels - and none of the positive labels that apply to me, too - define me completely. They all only describe small aspects of me.

If you want to emphasize the positive labels that apply to you, fine... but this doesn't mean that negative labels don't apply to you.

 

[chinu]

When a person tells you he/she is an atheist, what do you think that tells you? No philosophical treatises please, just a few short sentences.

I think, that person is interested in some kind of debate with me.
Otherwise there's no need of telling theist/atheist because all people on this earth are atheists by-default. The only difference is some are 99%-theist, some are 50-50, some are 1%. Different people with different degree.

There's no-one with 100% or 0% believe in the existence of God.