What do people think "atheist" means?

[`mud]

Negative....positive....and all about...just labels...a patchwork
Each of us is the patchwork of many influences impressed into our minds.
These are the ripples on that convulated mind you all (not connectively) possess.
They are the meanings of your being, and the destruction of your life.
All we have is our patchwork.
~
'mud

 

[Augustus]

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?

...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

How do you know that someone doesn't implicitly believe in one of them then?

You aren't going to implicitly believe in Woden, but you can in theory implicitly believe in something that meets the description of some form of god without being consciously aware of it. Maybe someone gives them an explanation of the god they believe in and the 'implicit theist' says 'Yes, that's what I have always believed too!'

Does a child love its mother before it learns the word love? They implicitly love their mother without being aware of the terminology.

I'm not advocating using the expression implicit theist, but if some people are going to use implicit atheist then it is worth pointing out that there remains at least a possibility that some of these 'implicit atheists' may meet the definition of being an implicit theist. Seeing as we can't clarify who is an implicit atheist or an implicit theist without making them a actual atheist or theist, both statements are pretty pointless in my opinion. I don't see why anyone feels the desire to use them.

As sceptics, should we not reserve judgement on such people rather than jumping to some conclusion without any evidence?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

I hardly think it's a majority - just a small, but vocal (and persistent) minority.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Tenets of atheism philosophy? A philosophy doesn't have tenets. Tenets are in religion. It's not the same thing.

It was always the lack of something.

No. It wasn't.

... 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).

I rejected (and still reject) the Judeo-Christian version of God. I'm a hard atheist when it comes to the personal supernatural God that is supposed to interact with the world. I'm agnostic when it comes to other versions of God(s).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know that someone doesn't implicitly believe in one of them then?

You aren't going to implicitly believe in Woden, but you can in theory implicitly believe in something that meets the description of some form of god without being consciously aware of it.

Whose description?

Not yours - other people can have different views on what constitutes a god.

Not some objective definition of "god"; there isn't one.

The only view that matters when deciding if the person is a theist is the person's own view. If they have formed a concept of god and believe in at least one thing that meets it, then the person is an explicit theist. If a person has no concept of god, then they can't be a theist at all, implicit or explicit. You can't believe in sonething you haven't conceived.

Maybe someone gives them an explanation of the god they believe in and the 'implicit theist' says 'Yes, that's what I have always believed too!'

If one person convinces another to adopt a particular definition of "god" that matches up with something they already believe, that's the moment when they become a theist.

Does a child love its mother before it learns the word love? They implicitly love their mother without being aware of the terminology.

We don't base judgements of love on the understanding of the person doing the loving. We do base judgements of theism on the understanding of the person doing the believing. This is why a Christian can still be a monotheist even though he believes in an entity (the divine messenger Gabriel) that is almost identical in any relevant respect to an entity that another religion considers a god (the divine messenger Mercury): only the Christian's understanding is what makes the difference between monotheism and polytheism.

... BTW: what sort of theists are these "implicit theists"? Are they monotheists? Polytheists? Pantheists?

I'm not advocating using the expression implicit theist, but if some people are going to use implicit atheist then it is worth pointing out that there remains at least a possibility that some of these 'implicit atheists' may meet the definition of being an implicit theist.

An implicit atheist is someone who doesn't have any belief in gods because he hasn't given thought to the question of gods.

Using the same formulation, an implicit theist would be someone who has belief in a god or gods because he hasn't given thought to the question of gods.

... but to be a theist, one must have a concept of god, which means he must have given thought to the question of gods.

As sceptics, should we not reserve judgement on such people rather than jumping to some conclusion without any evidence?

As skeptics, shouldn't we reject concepts that are inherently contradictory?

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Ok. Fine. I'm not going to argue it anymore.

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.

Didn't say they didn't apply to me. I'm talking about identifying oneself to a label. There are labels that can describe me, but what label you use to identify yourself with, that's what I'm talking about. Identification. The label that you put on yourself to tell others who you are.

 

[Ouroboros]

I hardly think it's a majority - just a small, but vocal (and persistent) minority.

Yes. I think you're right. I've met many atheists who are quite realistic and reasonable about these things. It's the vocal few who are so loud that it seems to be a large group.

 

[Willamena]

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.

It's much more than a reaction, it was a revelation and a revolution, the overturning of a metaphysical paradigm and the promotion of a substantial new ontological model.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So how do you explain the existence of this god in the first place? That is the interesting question. If you assume that the existence of the universe is explained by the existence of a god the next thing you must do is explain the existence of this god. Otherwise what's the point?

We certainly agree it's an interesting question

As is: how do you explain the existence of any spontaneous/naturalistic universe creating mechanism?

Both are apparent paradoxes, yet here we are- so whatever the 'first cause' it is besides the more important point

Which is whether or not this universe came to be by chance or design, both have very distinct implications.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationism might claim to have answers, but, since they aren't backed up with evidence, they are merely speculative guesses.

evidence is a very subjective term, we're all speculating on the reason we're here.

 

[leibowde84]

evidence is a very subjective term, we're all speculating on the reason we're here.

There is a difference between basing theories on objective, verifiable evidence and basing theories on speculative assumptions that "make sense" personally.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a difference between basing theories on objective, verifiable evidence and basing theories on speculative assumptions that "make sense" personally.

Big bang v steady state for example?

 

[leibowde84]

Big bang v steady state for example?

Yes, exactly. The "steady state theory" has been discredited due to the available evidence contradicting it. It was speculative at best. The "big-bang theory", on the other hand, is supported by objective, verifiable evidence.

 

[Augustus]

An implicit atheist is someone who doesn't have any belief in gods because he hasn't given thought to the question of gods.

Using the same formulation, an implicit theist would be someone who has belief in a god or gods because he hasn't given thought to the question of gods.

... but to be a theist, one must have a concept of god, which means he must have given thought to the question of gods.

Implicit theism "presence of theistic belief without conscious acknowledgement of it".

Let's go back to the first person to 'invent' a god. Surely this must have been based on a set of latent feelings that became crystalised over time before the person decided upon the concept of god. Unless the 1st believer simply made up a character like JK Rowling made up Harry Potter, god was an evolved response to various phenomena and experiences that manifested itself in the (sub) consciousness of the individual.

So is god ultimately only the symbol g-o-d (or equivalent), or can god also be some set of characteristics, feelings and manifestations that can be perceived or imagined by the individual independently of the symbol g-o-d? As you stated earlier, there are all sorts of concepts of god, so can we rule out the latter definitively?

Your argument only works if god is only a symbol, and ignorance of the symbol means ignorance of god. It's basically a tautology - anyone who is unaware of the symbol god lacks awareness (belief) of the symbol god. An implicit atheist is someone, and only someone, who had never been introduced to the symbol g-o-d and this person must be an implicit atheist because the definition of implicit atheist is someone who is unaware of the symbol g-o-d.

 

[Ouroboros]

Implicit theism "presence of theistic belief without conscious acknowledgement of it".

Let's go back to the first person to 'invent' a god. Surely this must have been based on a set of latent feelings that became crystalised over time before the person decided upon the concept of god. Unless the 1st believer simply made up a character like JK Rowling made up Harry Potter, god was an evolved response to various phenomena and experiences that manifested itself in the (sub) consciousness of the individual.

Agree. The first "theist" in the world (who then later convinced all the other "implicit atheists" to believe) must've come to this theism without explicit information or influence. He/she must've been implicit theist to start with.

So is god ultimately only the symbol g-o-d (or equivalent), or can god also be some set of characteristics, feelings and manifestations that can be perceived or imagined by the individual independently of the symbol g-o-d? As you stated earlier, there are all sorts of concepts of god, so can we rule out the latter definitively?

Your argument only works if god is only a symbol, and ignorance of the symbol means ignorance of god. It's basically a tautology - anyone who is unaware of the symbol god lacks awareness (belief) of the symbol god. An implicit atheist is someone, and only someone, who had never been introduced to the symbol g-o-d and this person must be an implicit atheist because the definition of implicit atheist is someone who is unaware of the symbol g-o-d.

You're getting to the core of the problem. Is atheism a rejection of the word "God" itself and any use of that word in any context (i.e. pantheism is rejected because it uses "God" to describe the universe), or is it a rejection of the concepts of God(s) (supernatural beings who meddle with things in this world), or perhaps it's both?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Implicit theism "presence of theistic belief without conscious acknowledgement of it".

Let's go back to the first person to 'invent' a god. Surely this must have been based on a set of latent feelings that became crystalised over time before the person decided upon the concept of god. Unless the 1st believer simply made up a character like JK Rowling made up Harry Potter, god was an evolved response to various phenomena and experiences that manifested itself in the (sub) consciousness of the individual.

Sure: we have a tendency towards attribution of agency in inanimate things and inference of purpose and intent behind random events. This gets us most of the way to god-belief, but it doesn't get us all the way there.

So is god ultimately only the symbol g-o-d (or equivalent), or can god also be some set of characteristics, feelings and manifestations that can be perceived or imagined by the individual independently of the symbol g-o-d? As you stated earlier, there are all sorts of concepts of god, so can we rule out the latter definitively?

If you think there's some set of characteristics for what constitutes a god (besides an individual's understanding of "god"), I'd love to hear what they are. Make sure they exclude Gabriel and include Mercury. Good luck.

Your argument only works if god is only a symbol, and ignorance of the symbol means ignorance of god.

Almost, but not quite. Gods are defined by their relationship with humanity. The only common element to all god-concepts I've ever encountered is that a god is an object of worship; therefore, whether something is or isn't a god depends on whether the thing is worshipped.

It's basically a tautology - anyone who is unaware of the symbol god lacks awareness (belief) of the symbol god.

Anyone who hasn't even conceived of a concept can't believe that thing conceived manifests in reality.

An implicit atheist is someone, and only someone, who had never been introduced to the symbol g-o-d and this person must be an implicit atheist because the definition of implicit atheist is someone who is unaware of the symbol g-o-d.

Well, no: someone who has heard of gods but not come to a conclusion on them would also be an implicit atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

Agree. The first "theist" in the world (who then later convinced all the other "implicit atheists" to believe) must've come to this theism without explicit information or influence. He/she must've been implicit theist to start with.


You're getting to the core of the problem. Is atheism a rejection of the word "God" itself and any use of that word in any context (i.e. pantheism is rejected because it uses "God" to describe the universe), or is it a rejection of the concepts of God(s) (supernatural beings who meddle with things in this world), or perhaps it's both?

This seems to be refuted by the evidence. With every claimed "creator" of religions, the initiator does seem to claim direct divine communication. This should lead us to believe that, before that point, they were without belief in God, as direct communication was necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're getting to the core of the problem. Is atheism a rejection of the word "God" itself and any use of that word in any context (i.e. pantheism is rejected because it uses "God" to describe the universe), or is it a rejection of the concepts of God(s) (supernatural beings who meddle with things in this world), or perhaps it's both?

It's either, and it depends on the context and the god in question.

I accept that Haile Selassie existed, but I'm still not a Rastafarian because I don't accept that Haile Selassie is God. OTOH, I agree that Odin would be a god if he existed, but I don't accept that he does exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

This seems to be refuted by the evidence. With every claimed "creator" of religions, the initiator does seem to claim direct divine communication. This should lead us to believe that, before that point, they were without belief in God, as direct communication was necessary.

So they invented the creator first, then they started to believe in that creator they just made up?

Or, did they have some inner conviction and belief first, then described it as God?

I think it would be very strange if someone just invented a new concept "God", and then started to convince everyone about it, and he/she didn't even consider it him/herself first. The concept in his/her mind must've come first, not the term "God" and then invented what it was and then start preaching it and then start believing it. The idea must've come first. Makes more sense. Whichever way we take it, they must've had an inner idea, conviction, or such about this "God" that could communicate with them before they started to make words to describe them. The concept comes first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tenets of atheism philosophy? A philosophy doesn't have tenets. Tenets are in religion. It's not the same thing.


No. It wasn't.


I rejected (and still reject) the Judeo-Christian version of God. I'm a hard atheist when it comes to the personal supernatural God that is supposed to interact with the world. I'm agnostic when it comes to other versions of God(s).

You missed my point again.

In your definition of "atheist", how many gods does a person have to reject to be an atheist?

- all of them?
- some of them?
- just one (presumably the "most important" god-concept)?