What do people think "atheist" means?

[ArtieE]

I didn't drag it in. You did. I responded to what you said about "undecided". Here are your words,

"What if one person says "I don't believe they exist and I don't believe they don't exist either I'm undecided..." and another person says "I believe they don't exist" do you really think they say the same thing?"​

In your example the first person is not an atheist. They are agnostic. The second person is an atheist. So do you agree with this, since you just acknowledged that undecided means agnostic?

I didn't. Then how come there are both agnostic theists who have decided to believe god(s) exist and agnostic strong atheists who have decided to believe gods don't exist if agnostic means undecided Windwalker?

 

[leibowde84]

I believe Aristotle and then, almost directly, Wittgenstein. That's a huge leap, admittedly, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Aristotle's law of identity gives us existents: identity is the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. Wittgenstein's "the world is everything that is the case."

The world is all that is the case.
What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
A thought is a proposition with sense.
A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth function of itself.)
The general form of a truth-function is [p, ξ, N(ξ)].
This is the general form of a proposition.
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

None of this creates a requirement for knowledge of things that are absent though.

 

[Willamena]

None of this creates a requirement for knowledge of things that are absent though.

I'd certainly hope so. There is no such requirement.

Rather, there is a requirement for something to be an existent. The argument is that we cannot talk about things that are not in the scope of our familiarity, even (especially) to the extent of addressing their existence. We cannot address them as propositions. Belief is the proposition.

 

[ArtieE]

Since when does "undecided" mean atheist?

Always. An atheist is a person who hasn't decided whether to believe gods exist or believe gods don't exist. In atheist school this is what you learn in first grade Windwalker.

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods and doesn't believe that gods don't exist either. An atheist is just any person who is not a theist. A strong atheist in addition to not believing gods exist also believes that gods don't exist.

"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

I suggest you read some beginners information about atheism and agnosticism before posting anything else.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd certainly hope so. There is no such requirement.

Rather, there is a requirement for something to be an existent. The argument is that we cannot talk about things that are not in the scope of our familiarity, even (especially) to the extent of addressing their existence. We cannot address them as propositions. Belief is the proposition.

I agree, we can't speak about it, but that is not at issue. We can be absent of something without speaking to it. We don't even have to realize that it is absent for it to be so.

 

[Willamena]

I agree, we can't speak about it, but that is not at issue. We can be absent of something without speaking to it. We don't even have to realize that it is absent for it to be so.

Until we are aware of its absence, its absence cannot be assigned a truth value. So it's not a proposition, there is no fact which can be the case. There is essentially no absence to assign truth value to. For example, you proposed above an absence we are not aware of, but as we are aware of what we are discussing, it has been posed as hypothetical. If we allow that we discuss an actual (not hypothetical) absence that you are not aware of, what are we to discuss?

 

[viole]

Always. An atheist is a person who hasn't decided whether to believe gods exist or believe gods don't exist. In atheist school this is what you learn in first grade Windwalker.

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods and doesn't believe that gods don't exist either. An atheist is just any person who is not a theist. A strong atheist in addition to not believing gods exist also believes that gods don't exist.

Since a strong atheist is, by definition, an atheist, your general definition of atheism is logically problematic. There are indeed atheists who believe there is no god.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Until we are aware of its absence, its absence cannot be assigned a truth value. So it's not a proposition, there is no fact which can be the case. There is essentially no absence to assign truth value to. For example, you proposed above an absence we are not aware of, but as we are aware of what we are discussing, it has been posed as hypothetical. If we allow that we discuss an actual (not hypothetical) absence that you are not aware of, what are we to discuss?

There is no reason to discuss it. It is implicitly absent. There is no need for us to recognize the absence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When a person tells you he/she is an atheist, what do you think that tells you?

That they've considered the concept of god(s) enough the reach the conclusion that they don't accept the existence of god(s) as true, and that they find it a significant enough conclusion that they feel the need to outwardly apply the label to themselves.

In fact, I'm yet to encounter anyone who this didn't describe.

 

[ArtieE]

Since a strong atheist is, by definition, an atheist, your general definition of atheism is logically problematic. There are indeed atheists who believe there is no god.

Well of course there are. Never said otherwise. They don't believe gods exist like all atheists, they just also believe gods don't exist so they are a subset of all atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Since a strong atheist is, by definition, an atheist, your general definition of atheism is logically problematic. There are indeed atheists who believe there is no god.

Ciao

- viole

Why is this problematic? Strong atheism is a subset of atheism. They still lack belief in God or god's.

 

[viole]

Why is this problematic? Strong atheism is a subset of atheism. They still lack belief in God or god's.

It is problematic because he said atheism (unqualified) entails lack of belief that God exists AND lack of of belief that He does not. Since strong atheism believes the latter and is a subset of atheism, it is obvious that the general definition of atheism is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That they've considered the concept of god(s) enough the reach the conclusion that they don't accept the existence of god(s) as true, and that they find it a significant enough conclusion that they feel the need to outwardly apply the label to themselves.

In fact, I'm yet to encounter anyone who this didn't describe.

But something like this could be said for any self-applied label. If I was to say "I'm tall", you could infer that I've reflected on my height, even though there's nothing in the meaning of the term "tall" that implies that tall people have reflected on what it means to be tall.

What if you heard someone say "he's an atheist", referring to someone who hasn't self-applied the label? What would you take from the word "atheist" then? What would you assume the speaker is claiming about that person?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But something like this could be said for any self-applied label. If I was to say "I'm tall", you could infer that I've reflected on my height, even though there's nothing in the meaning of the term "tall" that implies that tall people have reflected on what it means to be tall.

What if you heard someone say "he's an atheist", referring to someone who hasn't self-applied the label? What would you take from the word "atheist" then? What would you assume the speaker is claiming about that person?

I would assume that the other person had told them that they are an atheist at some point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would assume that the other person had told them that they are an atheist at some point.

Why on Earth would you think that?

What if someone said to you "I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." Tyson specifically avoids answering whether he is or isn't an atheist (in public, at least - I have no idea what he tells his close friends). Let's assume that the person telling you this doesn't know Tyson personally. What would you think he was trying to tell you about Neil deGrasse Tyson?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why on Earth would you think that?

Because I'm adept at logic and common sense regarding language usage.

What if someone said to you "I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist."

Well, make up your mind first - is someone telling me that someone else is an atheist, or that they think they are an atheist. I'm sure you realize those are two different scenarios.

If you want to start with me again, try to keep the goal-post moving to a minimum, as I'm not going to let any of your attempts slip by.

 

[ArtieE]

It is problematic because he said atheism (unqualified) entails lack of belief that God exists AND lack of of belief that He does not. Since strong atheism believes the latter and is a subset of atheism, it is obvious that the general definition of atheism is wrong.

Viole, when we say atheist that is shorthand for weak atheist. The word weak is automatically implied when we aren't specifically saying "strong atheist". A weak atheist has an absence of belief in gods and an absence of belief that gods don't exist. Atheist because of the absence of belief that gods exist, weak because of the absence of belief that gods don't exist. A strong atheist has also an absence of belief in gods but a presence of belief that gods don't exist. Atheist for the absence of belief that gods exist, strong for the presence of belief that gods don't exist. Colloquially we say atheist when we mean weak atheist because we assume all who knows anything about atheism knows this. It didn't occur to me that people would have to have this explained.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I'm adept at logic and common sense regarding language usage.

And you think that the only sign that someone is an atheist is when they say "I'm an atheist"?

Well, make up your mind first - is someone telling me that someone else is an atheist, or that they think they are an atheist. I'm sure you realize those are two different scenarios.

If you want to start with me again, try to keep the goal-post moving to a minimum, as I'm not going to let any of your attempts slip by.

No goalpost-moving. Pick whichever one you like.

Interesting way of avoiding the question, BTW.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And you think that the only sign that someone is an atheist is when they say "I'm an atheist"?

It's the only time it's a meaningful label.

No goalpost-moving. Pick whichever one you like.

Interesting way of avoiding the question, BTW.

No, you pick which one you mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's the only time it's a meaningful label.

So if I said to you "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist" and let you know that I've never talked to him personally, never heard him say that he's an atheist in an interview, and never heard any account of any private conversation he's had, you would have absolutely no idea what I could possibly mean?

No, you pick which one you mean.

Fine: "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." Do you cconsider this statement meaningless (or an admission that I've been spying on his private conversations or something)?