Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Willamena]

Atheism is not mere lack of belief in gods. It is the rejection of belief in gods.

I'd say, rather, that it is the rejection of the idea of "God" either in favour of something better, or in favour of nothing.

 

[Panda]

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.

Using a dictionary to define a atheism is quite weak. I mean if you wanted to understand Christianity you do not look it up in a dictionary do you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Using a dictionary to define a atheism is quite weak.

:clap Bravo :clap

 

[Valjean]

In science, philosophy, technology, &c words frequently have technical meanings that differ from colloquial usage. In serious discussions it's sort of assumed both parties are using the technical definition.
If we were discussing idealism, for example, one of us using the technical definition and the other deferring to Mr Webster, we'd be talking about two completely different ideas and wondering how our interlocutor could possibly be so obtuse!

 

[Halcyon]

Anyone who denies a god's existence lacks belief in that god, but not vice versa.

If someone lacks a belief in god then they are atheist, you said it yourself, although in reverse;

Belief is a necessary component of the meaning of "theist".

If belief is the necessary component of being a theist, then the logical implication is that lack of belief is the necessary component of being an atheist.
Whether the atheist in question acknowledges the possibility of a god out there (agnostic) or refuses to do so (militant/anti-theist) is in addition to their basic atheistic worldview i.e. a worldview of which god is not a part.
But I see we're not going to agree on this.

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.

If that person has no actual belief in the existence of gods, then whether they are open-minded about the possibility of gods existence or not is irrelevant to my mind, they have no belief, thus they aren't theistic, therefore they are a-theistic. They might be open-minded to possibilities, but they don't actually believe.

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.

This suggests to me that you didn't read my initial post properly. I implicitly said that anti-theism wasn't the same as atheism, but that a person's level of anti-theism can alter other people's perceptions of their atheism, creating the illusion of some people being more atheistic than others, which is of course impossible.

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.

Humour me. I ask you how the belief system of a person who has never heard of God is, in theory or practicality, different to the belief system of someone who has heard of God and rejected it?

 

[Copernicus]

Using a dictionary to define a atheism is quite weak. I mean if you wanted to understand Christianity you do not look it up in a dictionary do you?

What would you use a dictionary for if not to look up definitions of words? If you want an in-depth understanding of a subject, you can go to an encyclopedia, textbook, or other more detailed exposition.

 

[Copernicus]

In science, philosophy, technology, &c words frequently have technical meanings that differ from colloquial usage. In serious discussions it's sort of assumed both parties are using the technical definition.

Words have technical meanings in technical contexts. In this context, we are discussing the most reasonable meaning of the word, and a dictionary suffices for that purpose.

If we were discussing idealism, for example, one of us using the technical definition and the other deferring to Mr Webster, we'd be talking about two completely different ideas and wondering how our interlocutor could possibly be so obtuse!

There are various word senses for "idealism", and dictionaries tend to do a good job of distinguishing word senses, including technical definitions. I suspect that you have consulted some dictionaries to see what they say about "atheism", and you have found that they essentially agree with my description of the meaning. Hence, you seek to downplay their relevance to the discussion.

BTW, I am not taking the rigid position here that dictionaries are always right. I know that they are not. I am taking the position that they give us a reasonable understanding of the various word senses associated with a word in normal English usage. That is their function.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Humour me. I ask you how the belief system of a person who has never heard of God is, in theory or practicality, different to the belief system of someone who has heard of God and rejected it?

Are you seriously telling us that your belief system is independent of the choices you make and your reasons for making them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What would you use a dictionary for if not to look up definitions of words? If you want an in-depth understanding of a subject, you can go to an encyclopedia, textbook, or other more detailed exposition.

The OED on Atheism ...

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you cannot prove a negative, there will never be any proof that God does not exist - so to be atheist rather than agnostic is to believe in a reality that cannot be proven.

Rubbish. It is precisely the opposite.

 

[Willamena]

you cannot prove a negative, there will never be any proof that God does not exist - so to be atheist rather than agnostic is to believe in a reality that cannot be proven. It is one thing to say you are agnostic (ie - you don't know if God exists). It is quite another to be atheist.

As Jay indicated, the atheist does not believe in the reality of "God", but rather in the reality we experience around us everyday, that being the one that can be proven.

 

[Copernicus]

Anyone who denies a god's existence lacks belief in that god, but not vice versa.

If someone lacks a belief in god then they are atheist, you said it yourself, although in reverse;

What I have been saying is that atheism entails lack of belief but is not equivalent to it. That is why I said but not vice versa. Put another way, lack of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but not a sufficient one.

If belief is the necessary component of being a theist, then the logical implication is that lack of belief is the necessary component of being an atheist.

Exactly. Necessary, but not sufficient. Belief in at least one god makes one a theist. Atheism presupposes theism, because it is a rejection of belief.

If that person has no actual belief in the existence of gods, then whether they are open-minded about the possibility of gods existence or not is irrelevant to my mind, they have no belief, thus they aren't theistic, therefore they are a-theistic. They might be open-minded to possibilities, but they don't actually believe.

It is possible for one to lack both belief and disbelief, isn't it? Indecision is a well-recognized state of mind. Someone who neither accepts nor rejects belief in gods is an agnostic.

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.

This suggests to me that you didn't read my initial post properly. I implicitly said that anti-theism wasn't the same as atheism, but that a person's level of anti-theism can alter other people's perceptions of their atheism, creating the illusion of some people being more atheistic than others, which is of course impossible.

I don't agree, and I think that you are confusing atheism too much with anti-theism. Beliefs are scalar. One can be more or less certain of a belief. Strong atheists are not people who are necessarily more hostile to theism. They are people who believe they have very good evidence for rejecting belief in gods. Weak atheists seem to feel that the evidence against gods is less convincing, but they do feel that the failure of theists to make their case is sufficient to license rejection of belief.

Humour me. I ask you how the belief system of a person who has never heard of God is, in theory or practicality, different to the belief system of someone who has heard of God and rejected it?

Very well. Let's call the former Smith and the latter Jones. Smith might well accept belief in God after hearing the concept explained to him. Jones knows what God means and has already rejected the belief. When asked his opinion of God, Jones will say, "God does not exist." Smith will say "What is 'God'?" Different beliefs, different behaviors. Smith is an atheist, and Jones is someone who lacks an opinion on the matter.

 

[Copernicus]

What would you use a dictionary for if not to look up definitions of words? If you want an in-depth understanding of a subject, you can go to an encyclopedia, textbook, or other more detailed exposition.

The OED on Atheism ...

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Jayhawker, nothing in that link contradicts anything I have said. The verb "disbelieve" does not mean merely to lack belief. If I have no opinion on whether you are a male or a female, that does not mean that I disbelieve that you are a male or a female.

Also, notice that the sentence "John does not believe in God" is ambiguous. Absent a context, we tend to take it as a report that John rejects belief. It can also be a report that John takes no position. Here are paraphrases of the two senses:

1) John has a belief that God does not exist.
2) John has no belief that God exists.

If you like, I can go into the linguistic details on the ambiguity, but I don't think that you want to go there.

 

[Copernicus]

you cannot prove a negative, there will never be any proof that God does not exist - so to be atheist rather than agnostic is to believe in a reality that cannot be proven. It is one thing to say you are agnostic (ie - you don't know if God exists). It is quite another to be atheist.

That all depends on what you mean by "proof". There is a sense in which you cannot prove any empirical claim. If you are going to take it to the extreme, then you will find out that you have painted yourself into the same corner as the atheist. Is there any advantage to saying that disbelief in Santa Claus or Zeus has you believing in a reality that cannot be proven?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker, nothing in that link contradicts anything I have said. The verb "disbelieve" does not mean merely to lack belief.

Good point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you cannot prove a negative, there will never be any proof that God does not exist - so to be atheist rather than agnostic is to believe in a reality that cannot be proven. It is one thing to say you are agnostic (ie - you don't know if God exists). It is quite another to be atheist.

I don't know of anyone who requires absolute certainty before holding a belief.

Do you believe that there isn't an elephant in your basement? You can't be sure, after all - someone could have snuck it in while you were away. Your neighbours could have tunnelled under your house last night and brought it in that way.

Would you consider yourself "agnostic" about the existence of an elephant in your basement?

Very well. Let's call the former Smith and the latter Jones. Smith might well accept belief in God after hearing the concept explained to him. Jones knows what God means and has already rejected the belief. When asked his opinion of God, Jones will say, "God does not exist." Smith will say "What is 'God'?" Different beliefs, different behaviors. Smith is an atheist, and Jones is someone who lacks an opinion on the matter.

... or an ignostic, but that might be needlessly complicating things further.

 

[doppelganger]

... or an ignostic, but that might be needlessly complicating things further.

As long as we are pretending that a taxonomy of belief states has any validity, don't forget "apatheist."

 

[Halcyon]

Are you seriously telling us that your belief system is independent of the choices you make and your reasons for making them?

With regard to atheism, the answer is obviously a yes. If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god - you can't disbelieve in different ways, but you can disbelieve for different reasons.

 

[Halcyon]

What I have been saying is that atheism entails lack of belief but is not equivalent to it. That is why I said but not vice versa. Put another way, lack of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but not a sufficient one.

I don't believe that makes any sense. If you lack belief in the cosmic teapot, that lack of belief is sufficient to declare yourself an a-teapotist - same goes for god.

It is possible for one to lack both belief and disbelief, isn't it? Indecision is a well-recognized state of mind. Someone who neither accepts nor rejects belief in gods is an agnostic.

Perhaps, but I would personally say no, its isn't possible in reality. If a person doesn't have faith in the existence of a god, but is open-minded enough to accept the fact that we can't know for sure either way, then I would still say that the person has an atheistic worldview simply due to them not actually having a positive belief in god's existence. If they want to call themselves agnostic then fine, but in my opinion not believing in a god = not believing in a god.

I don't agree, and I think that you are confusing atheism too much with anti-theism. Beliefs are scalar. One can be more or less certain of a belief. Strong atheists are not people who are necessarily more hostile to theism. They are people who believe they have very good evidence for rejecting belief in gods. Weak atheists seem to feel that the evidence against gods is less convincing, but they do feel that the failure of theists to make their case is sufficient to license rejection of belief.

I disagree. "I don't believe in god" equals precisely "I don't believe in god", there is no need for a "I don't believe in god because..." and such an addition doesn't affect the nature of the original disbelief.

Very well. Let's call the former Smith and the latter Jones. Smith might well accept belief in God after hearing the concept explained to him. Jones knows what God means and has already rejected the belief. When asked his opinion of God, Jones will say, "God does not exist." Smith will say "What is 'God'?" Different beliefs, different behaviors. Smith is an atheist, and Jones is someone who lacks an opinion on the matter.

With respect, you've dodged the actual question I was asking. I didn't ask you "what would happen if you asked the two people "what is God?"" I asked you, as it stands at the moment, what is the difference in their belief system.

The answer is, there is no difference. Neither believe in a god, one because he's never heard of the concept, one because he's rejected it. The circumstances which originate their belief system don't affect it's nature in reality - neither believe, it really is that simple.

 

[AllanV]

Hi, I have had a number of "experiences" and can only say now that everything that exists has some relevance into any answer that can be given. Atheism to me is, in a sense being honest because with no experience how can any determination be made. A person who says they believe but has no experience then what are they basing their ideas on? I would say they are allowing themselves to become part of a culture.
It would be totally normal to be unaware and to be caught up in own life experience, this was how my life until the age of 26 years. Something very unusual happened that changed my mind.

Science is showing that human cells are damaged by free radicals which is oxidizing and over time the host of these cells ages and dies. The planet shows oxidizing in the sense we have rusting of steel and all the elements tend to reduce by some degree.

The human body is influenced by the earth forces. Most people would have times of being energetic and other times of being some what lazy. We all have an ebb and flow of energy.
Other people or situations can effect our level of energy. The state of a persons mind can determine motivation.
The Bible describes being transformed by the renewing of the mind. The bible takes this to a whole new level and says if we are able to increase our energy, being energized inwardly there is the possibility of immortality.

Science is investigating aging and those discoveries can be read over the net.
Everyone has some experience in observing religion and the conclusions drawn would produce opinions of something that is false.
All human interaction de-energizes because a tussle using personal mind power has to take place to maintain the persons emotional well being. An energized person would have refined away and been sanctified or made holy or be perfect in the sense of the energy and would not take part in the usual human example.
It is easy to see where the human is, there are examples everywhere but unfortunately there are no true examples of an energized person at the moment.

If a person states they believe something but have no experience in what they are talking about are they being dishonest. A person needes to be educated and tested, examined and then qualified. There are qualifications for everthing and they are sought after to gain worthwhile employment. Cheating is penalized. The only qualification for what I am saying is to be in the energized state. This would qualify the person to being potentialy immortal. The bible shows the simplicity of what needs to be done and how to go about it. Everyone is in a self protective mode developed over their life with the earth forces weakening any ability to overcome reactive mental states. Humans have developed weapons to back themselves and the risk is they will be used.

I am able to say that a future technology could include dimensional travel. The planet earth is actually doing this now at a molecular level. If humans do not refine themselves and are bound to the earth because of a de-energized emotional state they will not be able to use the ultimate technology.

Athiesm is more of a stand against being anything except what they are. It is Just a full exceptance inwardly of the energy they have. This is really no different to any body else and everyone has opinions and these are given weight by personal energy.