Ambiguity of Atheism

[Acim]

2 desires here for this thread.

One is to collect various assertions about atheism from around the forum and essentially cut and paste wherever someone has made claim about atheism (mainly in fashion of defining it, stating what it entails).

Second is to hopefully reach a consensus, via discussion, that summarizes atheism.

While I am aware of "weak" and "strong" atheism, that to me is part of 2nd aim of this thread. On that level, anyone is welcome to come in and provide definitions, personal assertion, sub-classifications, whatever. I will do my best to be person who is seeking clarification among participants and reaching consensus.

I will admit bias up front that says I think the term is rather ambiguous, and I desire to collect from this site the many pronouncements I find about the term. To be clear, I am most interested in those who are self identified atheists, according to "Religion" field, and will do what I can to separate those assertions from others who I think are presenting something viable.

Also, if a self identified theist, or pantheist, or even satanist (or other) were to assert something along lines of, "atheism sucks and is plain deception," I will refrain from adding to this thread.

Updated: Am done for research on first night I care to do the searching for quotes. I would estimate I am about 1 percent complete. Not trying to exaggerate, that strikes me as how far I am, with how much I would like to search. So far, the process has been fairly educational for me. I would also note that I am bypassing a lot of posts where atheists say things about atheists, and trying my best to stick to what is said about atheism.

 

[Acim]

This space reserved for atheist assertions

I'm not just an atheist; my atheism is only one expression for me of freethought. I think that people should be free to form their beliefs based on free inquiry, and should not be coerced into believing or not believing any particular view.

Atheism isn't a worldview, but atheists have worldviews just like anyone else. Don't confuse the two.

Atheism is the only rational position to hold, as their is no evidence for anything else.

For me, atheism isn't just a matter of falling into some default position because theism doesn't cut the mustard. IMO, the atheist position really does make sense on its own merits.

atheism isnt a faith
God cannot be proved or disproven beyond imagination.

 

[Acim]

This space reserved for "other" assertions about atheism

Free thought atheism just as an individual's freedom of belief without any state interference is a good thing, but State atheism stinks.

the very reason atheism exists is because that is the very principle atheism endorses, freedom of thought...

It is not a religion but just one particular aspect of disbelief.

Atheism is the default position - what one is at before one makes up a god to worship.

atheism is absence of a certain type of belief...

atheism is a disbelief based on a lack of evidence.

A religion's a set of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of beliefs.

Atheism's the intellectual default position.

Strong atheism consists of a single, basic doctrine. I suppose it could be embellished into an ethical doctrine.

[A]-theism - without a belief in a higher being. In other words, disbelief in a higher power. It is as simple as that. This is not a positive claim, rather it is a response to a positive claim.

Atheists lack belief in a higher power since there is no evidence for it, and therefore there is no reason to believe in such a higher power.

Atheist simply mean not theist.

Atheism is a belief.

Atheism based in rationalism, is about what there is evidence of, not what gives you fuzzy feewings. All in all, rationalism isn't a worldview suited for most people, as they don't have the emotional fortitude to deal with things as they are.

I think atheism is much more about faith in suffering no eternal damnation for say being punished by a being so vain he took offence for using his name in an expletory just only once in your life because you stubbed your toe.

 

[idav]

It isn't that complicated. Atheist simply mean not theist.

 

[charles brough]

Atheism to me means that it is logical to reject any belief in anything that no reliable evidence exists to justify it. This includes "spirits" of any sort. Also, it means not resorting to "spiritual" platitudes and the use of meaningless "religious" words or concepts such as "evil" instead of dishonest, "truth" instead of accuracy, ""love" instead of compassion, and "holy" instead of respected.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Atheism = no gods. Simple as that. Anyone is welcome to build upon that foundation, but that doesn't make every construct with an atheist foundation "atheism".

 

[gnomon]

In common usage of the term there are two primary meanings. One is that of the etymological root of the word in a-(not) theist(belief in a deity). One does not believe in a god. The other common meaning which can be seen in every thread created on this site asking why atheists come to a religious forum is that atheism means non-religious.

I think with the activities of certain atheist organizations and the continuing use I see of the term by theists, especially prominent ones in the media such as televangelists, the usage of the term as non-religious will become the more common usage.

 

[SPACKlick]

Just my two cents but this is how it has best been described to me.

There are two claims, linked but seperate
1 one (or more) god(s) exist(s)
2 no gods exist

If you believe the first you are a theist and necessarily disbelieve the second.
If you believe neither you are an atheist (weak atheist)
If you believe the second you are an atheist (strong atheist) and necessarily disbelieve the first.
No other belief, viewpoint, action, property, thought or idea affects that.

If we were to but beliefs on a surety scale. Where 0 is believe neither statement. 100 is absolute surety that 1 is true and -100 is absolute surety 2 is true then you can break it down into the following sections (numbers are approximate) [x is the level of surety of the believer]

x=100 - Gnostic theist. Certain of god's existence.
95<x<100 - Gnostic theist. Knows god exists but is not certain.
15<x<95 - Theist. Believes god exists
-15<x<15 - Weak atheist. May not be exactly 50/50 but does not believe either way
-95<x<-15 - Strong Atheist. Believes there is no god.
-100<x<-95 - Gnostic Strong Atheist. Knows there is no God.
x=-100 - Gnostic Strong Atheist. Certain there is no god.

 

[HonestJoe]

I will admit bias up front that says I think the term is rather ambiguous

The term isn't ambiguous. The problem is that people expect it to cover so much more than it actually does, expecting it to define the entire worldview of an individual rather than one very small, very simple aspect of it.

It's like someone being described as having blond hair and trying to extrapolate from that everything from the colour of their eyes and skin through to their favourite ice-cream flavour.

The key aspect to remember is that atheism is the opposite of theism. You can only generalise about all atheists as much as you can generalise about all theists (i.e. not very much at all).

Of course, a major part of the problem, especially in places like this, is self-defined atheists committing the same offence of stretching the term to mean much more than it does (presumably as an attempt to create a group to oppose religions).

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Will everyone please stop describing their beliefs using terms Acim is uncomfortable with?

-Nato

 

[Valjean]

Are you confusing ambiguous with general?
"Atheist" is fairly general but can be modified for specificity, just as biology can be subdivided.

 

[Meow Mix]

1) All people are either theists or atheists.
2) All atheists are either strong or weak.
3) All strong atheists are explicit.
4) All weak atheists are either explicit or implicit.
5) All atheists that are both weak and explicit are either agnostic or not.

Red positions carry an onus of proof. Black positions do not.

Strong vs. Weak:
i) Strong atheists hold a non-default epistemic position that gods don't/can't exist. It carries an onus of proof since it makes an assertion.

ii) Weak atheists include anyone that doesn't explicitely hold the positive position that at least one god exists. They can be explicit or implicit. They can be agnostic or not. Weak atheism is not a positive epistemic position; it is epistemically default (meaning it makes no assertion and has no onus of proof).

Implicit vs. Explicit:
i) Implicit atheists either aren't aware of god concepts, for whatever reason don't have the ability to ponder the issue, or otherwise haven't been exposed to theism to form any kind of decision about it. Implicit atheism is simply the state of not believing that theism is true because a person doesn't know what theism is (such as young children, the mentally disabled, anyone who lives remotely and hasn't run into theistic beliefs yet, etc). All implicit atheists are also weak atheists since they can't possibly be strong atheists.

ii) Explicit atheists are aware of what theism is and have made some sort of decision on it: either to withhold judgement (weak atheists) or that gods don't/can't exist (strong atheists). Explicit atheists must also decide whether the question is solvable or not -- if they decide it's insoluble, they're also agnostic.

Agnostics
Explicit, weak atheists who decide that whether or not theism is true isn't a solvable problem are also agnostic. Those who aren't sure whether or not the question is answerable or who decide the question may ultimately be decidable are not agnostic, even if they aren't sure whether or not gods exist -- at least they're not agnostic in its original intended sense by Huxley. Since agnosticism makes an assertion (that some problem, in this case theism/atheism, is unknowable or undecidable), it carries an onus of proof.

So, you have a finite number of possibilities:
a) Strong atheists (all are explicit)
b) Weak/implicit atheists
c) Weak/explicit/non-agnostic atheists
d) Weak/explicit/agnostic atheists

There are other terms some people like to use, like "apatheists" (apathetic atheists, those who just don't care) but those are by definition weak/explicit atheists. Whether or not they're agnostic can't be determined by their apathy, though -- guess they'll have to clarify that.

Another term some people use is "non-theist," but this is again just weak/explicit atheism -- again ambiguous on whether it's agnostic or not.

Atheism, when used by itself, generally refers to weak/explicit atheism when used by the philosophical community and atheists themselves. The general population often uses the word "atheism" to refer to strong atheism -- which is, as I'm sure everyone already knows, gravely annoying to atheists.

For the record, I'm a weak/explicit/non-agnostic atheist.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

[youtube]sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube]
Lack of belief in gods - YouTube

 

[Willamena]

The ambiguity exists because people --whether theists, atheists or other --eqivocate and conflate the opinion of the atheist with atheism. Thus, "explicit atheist" becomes a person who holds an explicit opinion, and "implicit atheist" becomes someone who doesn't. The atheist who is himself explicit or implicit (as was brilliantly shown to me recently, and suddenly the whole 'lack of belief' thing made sense) gets ignored or completely eliminated from the picture; this is what I argue against.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Red positions carry an onus of proof. Black positions do not.

Strong vs. Weak:
i) Strong atheists hold a non-default epistemic position that gods don't/can't exist. It carries an onus of proof since it makes an assertion.

That this continues to be a point accepted by otherwise intelligent individuals amuses me.

I consider the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") to be exactly like declaring the non-existence of thylacine wolves. These creatures were common in Australia and Tasmania up until the 1930's, and there hasn't been so much as a confirmed sighting in decades. I believe thylacine wolves no longer exist, not because I have some philosophical bias toward the notion, but because it's reasonable to assume that they would be able to be detected if they continue to exist. If someone captured one, or there were a confirmed sighting, I'd change my mind. But the burden of proof isn't on me. And if someone says that the question of whether thylacine wolves still exist isn't one that can be settled on the basis of facts and evidence, but in the soul of the person pondering the question, then I guess no valid claims can be made about the matter either way.

Similarly, if God is considered something beyond human comprehension, then I think it's a waste of time to try to analyze such a notion rationally. But the burden of proof is still on the believer. I think this is the same idea as saying "I believe a two-dimensional object can't be both a square and a circle." The nonsensical nature of a square circle is enough for me to consider it an impossibility. There's a rational explanation for my disbelief, but it requires no evidence per se.

Explicit atheists are aware of what theism is and have made some sort of decision on it: either to withhold judgement (weak atheists) or that gods don't/can't exist (strong atheists). Explicit atheists must also decide whether the question is solvable or not -- if they decide it's insoluble, they're also agnostic.

I'm okay with this. In that case, I'd be an agnostic atheist.

-Nato

 

[Willamena]

Strong vs. Weak:
i) Strong atheists hold a non-default epistemic position that gods don't/can't exist. It carries an onus of proof since it makes an assertion.

Burden of proof is not on the person who asserts, "I believe god doesn't exist." If, though, you meant the assertion, "There is no god," then, if this truly is an epistemic position, it is an expression of opinion ("fact" belonging to ontology). It still means, "I believe... there is no god." And still there is no burden of proof.

'Knowledge' is a justified true belief. Its status as a 'belief' speaks of it epistemically (the opinion); its status as 'true' speaks of it ontologically (the fact).

ii) Weak atheists... They can be... implicit.

Only if they're very clever at hiding.

Implicit atheism is simply the state of not believing that theism is true because a person doesn't know what theism is (such as young children, the mentally disabled, anyone who lives remotely and hasn't run into theistic beliefs yet, etc).

They're not very good at hiding, either.

If you can point at a person and say, "There goes an implicit atheist," then you've made them explicit by the definition of what they believe or don't believe, and why. The "implicit atheist" is implied, not because of what he doesn't believe but because he's not present for the claim (which only means that the claim isn't about him). He's absent.

Like so:
1. God exists (theism is true).
2. God doesn't exist (theism is not true).

Holding these two options as the dichotomy at issue, there is the person who either doesn't hear or hasn't heard them, or doesn't understand them. This person cannot be honestly or geniuinely described as holding either state --that theism is true, or that theism is not true --hence, the situation is one of a "lack" of belief in resolving the dichotomy.

It's not the person who "lacks belief" here, nor is it a case of the person does not believe, which resolves to #2. The person, the atheist, is absent, only implied, not actively present in the issue regarding the resolution of the dichotomy. It is the situation we see that is one of "lack of belief." Not the person.

It's an often mistaken position, and if the dichotomy is held to falsely for the implicit atheist, we also have an illogical position.

 

[Meow Mix]

That this continues to be a point accepted by otherwise intelligent individuals amuses me.

I consider the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") to be exactly like declaring the non-existence of thylacine wolves. These creatures were common in Australia and Tasmania up until the 1930's, and there hasn't been so much as a confirmed sighting in decades. I believe thylacine wolves no longer exist, not because I have some philosophical bias toward the notion, but because it's reasonable to assume that they would be able to be detected if they continue to exist. If someone captured one, or there were a confirmed sighting, I'd change my mind. But the burden of proof isn't on me. And if someone says that the question of whether thylacine wolves still exist isn't one that can be settled on the basis of facts and evidence, but in the soul of the person pondering the question, then I guess no valid claims can be made about the matter either way.

Similarly, if God is considered something beyond human comprehension, then I think it's a waste of time to try to analyze such a notion rationally. But the burden of proof is still on the believer. I think this is the same idea as saying "I believe a two-dimensional object can't be both a square and a circle." The nonsensical nature of a square circle is enough for me to consider it an impossibility. There's a rational explanation for my disbelief, but it requires no evidence per se.

Making the assertion that thylacine wolves don't exist does require an onus of proof. In fact, you provide yours:

and there hasn't been so much as a confirmed sighting in decades

Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, but it can be a justifier -- particularly when one should reasonably expect to find certain kinds of evidence.

Strong atheism does carry a burden of proof. I'm not saying that it's unprovable. If God is defined as a square-circle, then indeed we are fully justified in being strongly atheist towards that particular god: our onus of proof is fulfilled by our understanding of the impossibility of contradictions.

 

[Meow Mix]

Burden of proof is not on the person who asserts, "I believe god doesn't exist." If, though, you meant the assertion, "There is no god," then, if this truly is an epistemic position, it is an expression of opinion ("fact" belonging to ontology). It still means, "I believe... there is no god." And still there is no burden of proof.

I disagree that we should treat the expression "There is no god" as an expression of opinion. That's very clearly an ontological assertion. You have a point with "I believe God doesn't exist," sure. We're just separating the connotations of the two possible truth values here:

1) Is it true that X believes God doesn't exist?
2) Does God not exist?

Even "I believe God doesn't exist" carries connotations of (2) even if it focuses more on (1).

Like so:
1. God exists (theism is true).
2. God doesn't exist (theism is not true).

Holding these two options as the dichotomy at issue, there is the person who either doesn't hear or hasn't heard them, or doesn't understand them. This person cannot be honestly or geniuinely described as holding either state --that theism is true, or that theism is not true --hence, the situation is one of a "lack" of belief in resolving the dichotomy.

This is the ontological dichotomy. Normally we don't have the kind of justification we need to get on such a steep level. Normally we're dealing with epistemic alternatives, which don't end up dichotomous.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, but it can be a justifier -- particularly when one should reasonably expect to find certain kinds of evidence.

Strong atheism does carry a burden of proof. I'm not saying that it's unprovable. If God is defined as a square-circle, then indeed we are fully justified in being strongly atheist towards that particular god: our onus of proof is fulfilled by our understanding of the impossibility of contradictions.

In one breath you're saying the strong atheist has the burden of proof, and in the next conceding that the believer's inability to carry the burden of proof itself constitutes evidence supporting strong atheism.

I think we're in agreement, essentially, but I wouldn't have put it that way.

-Nato

 

[TheGodHypothesis]

This space reserved for atheist assertions

To paraphrase some of the greats. The word "Atheism" itself is decidedly silly in the extreme and always has been; are you an Atheist in respect to Zeus or Poseidon, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus? Why is it that no other non-belief of silly superstitious beliefs have to be justified by a word? It is largely a disparagement on the part of Theists who, instead of justifying their irrational beliefs, choose instead to ridicule a LOGICAL position.