Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Copernicus]

Where do you come up with all this? Atheism isn't a denial of anything, it's not an assertion of anything, and it's not a belief in anything. And in the absence of theism you're left with atheism.

It would be fair to ask you where you come up with your definition, but I suppose we can turn to dictionaries for arbitration. Just about every dictionary I am aware of calls atheism a belief or a claim that gods do not exist. Negative claims are still claims. Not taking any position at all on the existence of gods is a lack of belief, but atheism is actually a negative claim. It only makes sense as a response to theism.

No, no, no! Obviously we're discussing two entirely different things. Why would it be a stretch to call someone completely ignorant of God or gods, or a baby, or a Cocker spaniel athiet? They're epitome of athiest!

I think that we're talking about the same thing here, and I am disagreeing with you for the reasons stated in the OP and my responses to you. So far, you are just denying my claim. I have no problem with that, but can you back up your claim with a reference? Dictionaries are useful, although they have their flaws. What determines word meanings is purely usage, and the word "atheism" is typically used to describe the belief that gods do not exist.

What you're talking about is some kind of dogmatic Strong Atheism.
Some people split atheism into non-belief, or Weak Atheism and a positive disbelief, or Strong Atheism, but the basic, unadorned essence of atheism is a simple non-belief -- Weak Atheism.

I think that you've taken the claims of some weak atheists a bit too literally. Weak atheism is still a denial of the existence of gods, but its claim is based purely on an assumption of lack of evidence. I believe that you are confusing lack of a belief with the lack of a claim, but those are very separate things. Anyone who denies something lacks belief in it, but not vice versa.

I think you'll find that atheists themselves are split over the weak/strong dichotomy, but some of us have come to believe that it is a somewhat specious distinction. Myself, I think of weak atheists as people who would rather knock down the arguments of theists than get involved in trying to disprove the existence of gods to the theist's satisfaction. In arguing with believers, one usually encounters the position that theism is the default position. Strong atheists are those who tend to accept the challenge that gods are disprovable on empirical grounds. While all atheists qualify as 'weak atheists', both camps assert the belief that gods do not exist. People who take no position on the existence of gods are usually called 'agnostics'.

 

[Random]

Rejection of belief in God or gods implies they exist, ie. there is something tangible and real to warrant active rejection of belief in - whereas Atheism is not that, as it is active disbelief in the existence of God or gods. How can one reject belief in something one holds to be non-existent?

 

[Copernicus]

To reject something, you must have knowledge of it. To lack something means you do not have enough of it. Atheism as all religions is (faith process, belief attributed, knowledge based, etc.) by relevant experience and factual basic understanding of the person's conceptual perception of activities and/or perception of activities that can contribute to their or any one else's beliefs.

Thanks for the response, horizon. We agree that lacking knowledge of gods would not be atheism. We disagree on whether atheism counts as a religion. Atheism is no more a religion than theism. Both are philosophical positions. Religions have doctrines, but both atheism and theism lack specific doctrines. They are just about claiming the existence or non-existence of gods. Technically, you do not even have to deny belief in the supernatural to qualify as an atheist, but most atheists are naturalists.

 

[Copernicus]

Rejection of belief in God or gods implies they exist, ie. there is something tangible and real to warrant active rejection of belief in - whereas Atheism is not that, as it is active disbelief in the existence of God or gods. How can one reject belief in something one holds to be non-existent?

So, do you believe that Santa Claus exists? If you are right, then how is it possible for anyone to deny the existence of anything?

 

[doppelganger]

If you are right, then how is it possible for anyone to deny the existence of anything?

It isn't. This is called the Problem of Induction, and there is no solution to it other than delusion (confusing the signs for the thing signified) or embracing uncertainty (recognizing that ontological reality is experienced as a system of probabilities).

 

[Storm]

Forgive me for intruding, but I agree with Copernicus. One who lacks knowledge of all God-concepts is not the epitome of atheism, but of agnosticism. Now, I realize that the two relate to different things, but hear me out.

To my mind, atheism, weak or strong, strongly implies that a decision has been made. If I ask you if you believe in muons, your first reaction is to ask what muons are, not to deny belief in them.

 

[Random]

So, do you believe that Santa Claus exists?

No. I am dumbfounded that you would stoop so low as to introduce the Santa Claus argument in response to a post of mine. Disappointing.

If you are right, then how is it possible for anyone to deny the existence of anything?

Technically, it is not possible at all. That's the point.

Beliefs or disbeliefs in the existence or non-existence of signs and things, no matter what they are, are merely features of reality models. Yours doesn't include "God", but so what? That doesn't mean there is no God, just that you reject belief in Him. That's not atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

So, do you believe that Santa Claus exists?

No. I am dumbfounded that you would stoop so low as to introduce the Santa Claus argument in response to a post of mine. Disappointing.

Random, it was not my intention to insult you, and I apologize for any offense you felt. I believe that your position leads to a reductio ad absurdum. I expected you to deny existence in Santa Claus. Hence, my next question:

If you are right, then how is it possible for anyone to deny the existence of anything?

Technically, it is not possible at all. That's the point.

Then, technically, you cannot deny the existence of Santa Claus. I consider that a reductio ad absurdum--an absurd consequence of your argument.

Beliefs or disbeliefs in the existence or non-existence of signs and things, no matter what they are, are merely features of reality models. Yours doesn't include "God", but so what? That doesn't mean there is no God, just that you reject belief in Him. That's not atheism.

It most definitely is atheism. I would just quibble on one point, though. I reject belief in the existence of all gods, not just that one. Since my reality model does not include God, that entitles me to deny belief in his existence even on technical grounds, does it not?

 

[Copernicus]

If you are right, then how is it possible for anyone to deny the existence of anything?

It isn't. This is called the Problem of Induction, and there is no solution to it other than delusion (confusing the signs for the thing signified) or embracing uncertainty (recognizing that ontological reality is experienced as a system of probabilities).

As you can see, I enjoy quibbling over such things. I do embrace uncertainty. All empirical beliefs slide up and down the scale of certainty. My view is that, once a belief makes it onto the scale, one is perfectly entitled to deny its opposite. The position of the denied belief on the scale of uncertainty would be proportional to the position of the asserted belief on the scale of certainty. My belief in gods is high on the scale of uncertainty, and my disbelief in their existence is high on the scale of certainty.

 

[Random]

Random, it was not my intention to insult you, and I apologize for any offense you felt.

No, that's ok - I wasn't offended as such, just that the Santa Claus argument is usually reserved for when all of the same old tired staples of debate between theists and atheists have been used. You hit me a bit early on with it...

I believe that your position leads to a reducto ad absurdum.

It may well do, but since that isn't very useful, perhaps the wiset thing to do would have been to avoid bringing Santa into it...

 

[Runewolf1973]

Our thoughts are a form of energy even if all they are are just vibrations or chemical reactions produced in our brains. That's my belief anyways. They exist in some manner. Therefore, in some similar manner, Gods and the like do exist. They exist as "thought forms" generated by our minds. The more personal energy people give to those thought forms, the more power they have to exist. Perhaps to someone who does not believe in God, that thought-energy is nothing, but to someone who does believe in God, that energy is very real. It is that same power of belief that can create miracles and such things to happen. It is basically mind over matter. God exists only to those who strongly believe that God exists. But that's just my opinion.

I personally don't believe in God in the Christian sense of a deity, but I do know that whatever that energy is, it does exist. I call it spirit.

 

[Copernicus]

Fair enough, Runewolf. I'm not going to try to talk you out of what you clearly want to believe in, but "energy" is something that physicists have had a lot to say about. Einstein even established an equation between energy and matter. Both energy and matter seem to be related in a way that can be measured and verified. Scientists haven't detected the kind of spiritual energy that you seem to think exists, but I don't think that you require your beliefs to be verifiable by scientific investigation.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Scientists have yet to come to the complete understanding of why we are "alive" and "conscious". Why is there life? To me it is just another form or change of energy. Why should life be "supernatural"? It is natural and it exists. The "anima" in animism. Even our cave-dwelling ancestors knew it existed. Perhaps scientists are afraid of finding out that something such as the "spirit" actually does exist, but why? It would only amount to the discovery of yet another natural form of energy. It does not mean that Gods and "supernatural beings" exist. It just means that WE exist. Our thoughts, emotions, and awareness, our "spirit" actually exists. It is the essence of what life and existence is. But that's just my unscientific perspective.

Thank you for your opinion Copernicus.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Runewolf & Copernicus,

Science is all about *THOUGHTS* and living is when one is in harmony with existence and that only happens when one's mind is STILL i.e. no-thoughts.

Atheism is again about thoughts arising out of the MIND.

Love & rgds

 

[Halcyon]

I don't know whether my stand will generate any controversy, but let's see if there are any negative reactions. Here is my claim: Atheism is not mere lack of belief in gods. It is the rejection of belief in gods.

It is sometimes said that we are all born atheists, but that is just not true. We cannot be said to reject claims before we even consider them. Atheism can only be meaningful after one dismisses arguments in favor of God and/or gods. When an atheist claims that there is no evidence of God's existence, he means that the proofs offered so far have either not really been evidence, or it is insufficient evidence.

Now, I will go a step further and say that there is a difference between so-called weak and strong atheists. Strong atheists claim to have positive evidence against the existence of gods. Weak atheists tend to fall back on the claim that theists have so far failed to meet their burden of proof (meaning that all of their arguments fail).

BTW, the claim that atheism means just "not theism" because a- is a negative prefix in Greek is not a valid argument. It is an etymological fallacy. Word meanings are determined solely by usage, not by their etymological history.

Am I right to criticize the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in gods?

I thought as you did until very recently and I can understand very well why you think as you do, but now I believe that the ideas of weak and strong atheism are an illusion and if you'll humour me I'll try to explain my reasoning.

I believe, as many others have said, that atheism is simply the non-belief in god or gods - it's not specifically a rejection of the concept of gods, but is one half of what is essentially a dualistic system. Either you believe in a god or gods or you don't. In this regard I reckon it could fairly be argued that agnostics are in fact atheists as well, since they have no actual faith in a god, but that's another thread.

The factor I believe creates the illusion of different types of atheism is actually separate from atheism itself, although it could be argued that it is related. That factor is called anti-theism. I've made a little diagram to help explain my idea;

I would suggest that the appearance of a person being a weak or strong atheist is dependent upon their position on the diagram above. As you can see I have drawn the bar of atheism as unchanging across the diagram, because in reality one person cannot be more atheist than another, either you are atheist or you are not.

If we found a person on the far left of the diagram (I'm thinking specifically of myself as a child, since I was raised by atheist parents) then we would find a person who lacks any belief in a god. God for them would be as irrelevant to their daily lives as goblins, ghosts and dragons are to most other people, they would all occupy the same category in their mind. What they lack is any hostility toward religion or believers, they also lack any feeling to justify their lack of belief (having been raised in an atheist environment). Thus we have a person for whom gods are simply not a part of their lives.

On the far right of the scale we will find people that, for example, have de-converted from a religion, read the God Delusion and now embody the cliched militant atheist. They are as atheistic with regard to their worldview as the person on the far left, yet they have a strong anti-religious streak as well, and it is this anti-theism which gives them the illusion of being a "strong atheist". They aren't any stronger in their atheism within themselves, and probably not in expression, than the guy on the left, they are just more vocal in their opposition to theistic beliefs and religions.

Anybody with half a brain knows that a god concept cannot be disproved, but the beliefs of religious followers can be, such as the Flood or intelligent design. And it is these parts of religions that the anti-theists attack - not the god itself because that is beyond any reasoned attack, only its supposed effects and interventions can be subject to debunking.

It is my opinion that it is these attacks of the atheists who are also strong anti-theists which create the illusion of some atheists being stronger in their disbelief than others.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for you comments, Halcyon. My reaction to what you have done is the following. You have accepted the popular internet definition (and the one most favored by atheists) of "atheism" without regard to its traditional meaning--i.e. that it is a mere "lack of belief" rather than a "rejection of belief". So now you face a couple of dilemmas. One is that you lose the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, since the two now overlap almost completely in meaning. Hence, you call the distinction an "illusion", although it is your redefinition that causes the problem. And you don't have a word for people who do, in fact, just reject belief in gods. So you need to coin the new word "anti-theist" to fill that gap. But "anti-theism" doesn't just connote rejection of god-belief. It also connotes a militant attitude. I don't actually have a problem with "anti-theist" in that meaning, but it doesn't really capture the category of people who reject belief in gods, many of whom do not consider themselves anti-theists.

So I'm still going to stick to my original point. Atheists are invariably people who lack belief in gods, but not all people who lack belief are atheists. To be an atheist, one has to know what gods are and to take the position that they are probably purely imaginary beings.

 

[Valjean]

I think much of our misunderstanding revolves around definitions, Copernicus. This being a serious discussion, I'm using the term athiest in a technical, not popular sense. I didn't think Mr Webster was invited.
What term would you use for someone whose non belief stems from unfamiliarity with the concept of God or for someone who, while familiar with the concept, simply ignores it? I don't think agnostic has much advantage. Agnostic seems rather like cowardly atheist.

 

[Copernicus]

I think much of our misunderstanding revolves around definitions, Copernicus. This being a serious discussion, I'm using the term athiest in a technical, not popular sense. I didn't think Mr Webster was invited.

Hi, Seyorni. I'm not really sure how you have determined what the "technical" sense of the word "atheism" is. I think that we all ought to make an effort to use words in their appropriate meanings and senses for at least ordinary conversation, and dictionaries are reasonable reference tools for that purpose. I don't say that as someone who takes dictionaries at face value, though. I have worked for Random House briefly as a linguistic consultant, and I have done professional work in both lexical semantics and technical vocabulary. So I understand something of the weaknesses of dictionaries.

What term would you use for someone whose non belief stems from unfamiliarity with the concept of God or for someone who, while familiar with the concept, simply ignores it? I don't think agnostic has much advantage. Agnostic seems rather like cowardly atheist.

That's an amusing way of putting it. I would just say that people who do not understand a concept are ignorant of the concept. How would you describe the verb "devein" to the category of people who have never eaten shrimp and have no idea what a shrimp is? Agnosticism was originally a word coined by Thomas Huxley to describe the view that knowledge of absolute reality is impossible. Huxley himself was anything but ambivalent about religion. In modern usage, however, it has come to describe people who refuse to take a position on the existence of God for lack of information.

Here is how I make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is a provisional belief for most atheists, not usually a claim to know for certain that God or gods do not exist. (Some atheists will make that claim, but very few in my experience.) Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge--that we cannot know for certain that gods do not exist. So atheism and agnosticism are compatible with each other in principle. One is a denial of belief, and the other is a denial of knowledge. So some atheists will call themselves "agnostic atheists".

 

[Halcyon]

Thanks for you comments, Halcyon. My reaction to what you have done is the following. You have accepted the popular internet definition (and the one most favored by atheists) of "atheism" without regard to its traditional meaning--i.e. that it is a mere "lack of belief" rather than a "rejection of belief".

I guess it depends on your "traditional meaning" - if you mean traditional in the sense that the Romans labelled Christians as atheists because they rejected the pagan pantheon then I suppose you're right, but I prefer the modern broader usage.

So now you face a couple of dilemmas. One is that you lose the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, since the two now overlap almost completely in meaning.

So, you know lots of agnostics who worship a god?

I understand the definition of agnosticism, I just suggest that since all (as far as I'm aware) agnostics don't believe in or worship a god, they are by default also atheist - "without theistic beliefs"

Hence, you call the distinction an "illusion", although it is your redefinition that causes the problem.

The illusion I see is the one distinguishing weak from strong atheists, not agnostics from atheists - I think it could be argued that agnosticism is a compatible position that coexists happily with atheism, but not with theism.

And you don't have a word for people who do, in fact, just reject belief in gods. So you need to coin the new word "anti-theist" to fill that gap.

I didn't invent it; Antitheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But "anti-theism" doesn't just connote rejection of god-belief. It also connotes a militant attitude. I don't actually have a problem with "anti-theist" in that meaning, but it doesn't really capture the category of people who reject belief in gods, many of whom do not consider themselves anti-theists.

Hence my diagram having a sloping gradient for anti-theism. People in the blue portion of the chart wouldn't be militant at all, just uninterested in religions. I can see why you emphasise rejection over lack of belief, I just see them as the same thing, whether you describe your stance as a lack or rejection being dependant on your feelings toward theism i.e. how anti-theistic you are.

So I'm still going to stick to my original point. Atheists are invariably people who lack belief in gods, but not all people who lack belief are atheists. To be an atheist, one has to know what gods are and to take the position that they are probably purely imaginary beings.

I see atheist, for all intents and purposes, as the default setting.

You don't worship the Galactic Overlord King Flibble, prior to today you were a-Flibblist, you had no concept of Flibble and Flibble had no effect on your daily life. Now that you've heard of him you can chose to augment your aFlibblism with an agnostic point of view, after all King Flibble could be out there, somewhere, but you'd have a hard job proving it just now.
Or you could become a die-hard Flibbleist, putting all your faith in King Flibble and worshipping him as your Galactic Overlord.
You could say "this whole King Flibble stuff is a load of nonsense" and ignore the entire concept and thus not allowing Flibble any affect upon your daily life.

Could you explain how a person who has never heard of King Flibble and so lacks all belief in Flibble has a different belief system to a person who has heard of King Flibble and lacks all belief in Flibble?

 

[Copernicus]

I guess it depends on your "traditional meaning" - if you mean traditional in the sense that the Romans labelled Christians as atheists because they rejected the pagan pantheon then I suppose you're right, but I prefer the modern broader usage.

But modern usage conforms to my position, not yours. Consult any dictionary. We do not normally refer to infants as atheists, even though they don't believe in God before they learn the word. Anyone who denies a god's existence lacks belief in that god, but not vice versa.

I understand the definition of agnosticism, I just suggest that since all (as far as I'm aware) agnostics don't believe in or worship a god, they are by default also atheist - "without theistic beliefs"

And, again, that is because your definition of atheism is far too broad. BTW, it matters not whether a believer worships the god in question. All that matters is whether to believer thinks that it exists. Belief is a necessary component of the meaning of "theist". Worship is not.

The illusion I see is the one distinguishing weak from strong atheists, not agnostics from atheists - I think it could be argued that agnosticism is a compatible position that coexists happily with atheism, but not with theism.

Weak and strong atheism can be distinguished under the normal dictionary definition, as well. Weak atheists reject belief in gods on the grounds that their existence is unproven. They rely on Ockham's Razor to license rejection. Strong atheists argue that there is also positive evidence to license rejection of belief in gods.

I didn't invent it; Antitheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I did see Hitchens' use of that term when I read his book, but it is not very common. As I said, not all atheists are anti-theists, but all reject the belief that gods exist. Not all agnostics reject the belief that gods exist or identify with atheists. A person who takes no position on the existence of gods can be an agnostic, but not an atheist.

Hence my diagram having a sloping gradient for anti-theism. People in the blue portion of the chart wouldn't be militant at all, just uninterested in religions. I can see why you emphasise rejection over lack of belief, I just see them as the same thing, whether you describe your stance as a lack or rejection being dependant on your feelings toward theism i.e. how anti-theistic you are.

Look, you have a perfectly good word for "anti-theism". That word is "anti-theism". It does not mean the same thing as "atheism", which does not connote any hostility towards the belief in gods, although most atheists may, in fact, be anti-theists. Most are also materialists and humanists, but those words are not synonyms of "atheist" either.

I see atheist, for all intents and purposes, as the default setting.

Granted. My position, as spelled out in the OP, disagrees with you. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.

Could you explain how a person who has never heard of King Flibble and so lacks all belief in Flibble has a different belief system to a person who has heard of King Flibble and lacks all belief in Flibble?

Why do I need to do that? You've just done a superb job of explaining the difference without my help. Read your own words.