All atheists have these characteristics?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We're not defining these ourselves, are we?

We've considered a few different definitions of atheist here. One of them is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Four different classes of objects/people can be identified to meet this definition: People who have heard god claims and not found them credible, people who have never heard of gods, infants/pets and other sentient beings incapable of believing in gods, and inanimate objects like rocks.

How many of these classes do we want to refer to when we ask a question such as, "What fraction of people in a given group are atheists?" Obviously not the rocks and pets, and I find no value in including the infants either, so for me, I want to mean members of the first two groups, even though there is almost nobody over the age of eight has never heard of gods, so that second group is very small. For all practical purposes, it's really only the first group that matters when considering such things as the fraction of atheists compared to Christians in America in 2017, for example.

The point is that we prefer words that embody the ideas we find meaningful over those that we don't, and are free to define concepts according to their usefulness. I have no use for a definition of atheist that includes rocks or infants.

I also have no use for definitions such as the one that defines atheists as people who say that there is no god, a definition that excludes more people that have rejected god claims than it includes if so-called weak atheists outnumber strong atheists. What value is there in dividing weak atheists from strong atheists and calling only one group atheists? The few times one has reason to do this, he can add the modifier weak or strong to atheist.

So, my preferred definition is the one that reflects that: those that give a "No" answer to the question of whether they believe in a god or gods. It includes people that might not call themselves atheists, such as weak atheists who call themselves agnostics but not atheists, people who think that they have to actively disbelieve in the existence of gods to use that word, or perhaps have too many negative associations with the word to self-identify as atheists.

I call them atheists even if they don't because they reject god claims, and that is what matters to me in the culture wars. Those people won't be voting for candidates because they thump Bibles. The won't vote for Trump on the hope that he puts an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court or put Roy Moore into the Senate. He won't fight to keep In God We Trust on the currency or to get creationism school-led prayer into the public schools.

So, in answer to your question, in my case, yes, I will define the words to meet my needs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lack means to be "without" something. Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Agreed.

Does this answer if a baby is an atheist? Of course it does! You admit that a baby will not have an action of consent on the existence of God. Therefore, babies are necessarily "without" belief in the existence of God, as they are not able to accept the truthfulness of the proposition. Actually, they aren't even familiar with the concept.

Consideration of the belief is not required in order to be "without" it. In actuality, everyone who is not familiar with a concept will necessarily be without belief in that concept.

And this is why I find the "lack of belief" definition pretty good, but suboptimal. It's good enough because it's unimportant to me whether babies are called atheists or not, and I doubt that too many people are thinking of babies when they hear or read that definition.

But still, I'd prefer a definition that excludes them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this is why I find the "lack of belief" definition pretty good, but suboptimal. It's good enough because it's unimportant to me whether babies are called atheists or not, and I doubt that too many people are thinking of babies when they hear or read that definition.

But still, I'd prefer a definition that excludes them.

That is on the order of "informed consent" when it comes to sex. An underage person cannot have informed consent with an adult and a baby does not have the knowledge to think the concept through. So though they may technically be an atheist, I would not include them in the ranks either.

 

[Augustus]

You are addressing exactly my issue with personal definitions and why it is important to have one universal definition.

This makes no sense in the context of your argument though.

The definition you called 'proper' was a 'personal definition' promoted by Anthony Flew only 30 years ago and was popularised for ideological reasons.

If we stuck to your 'universal definition' rule it wouldn't even be an option today as there was a pretty much universal definition: someone who believes there are no gods.

If we accept that the meanings of words can change (which you do), we also need to accept that words may not have a single universal definition.

 

[suncowiam]

This makes no sense in the context of your argument though.

The definition you called 'proper' was a 'personal definition' promoted by Anthony Flew only 30 years ago and was popularised for ideological reasons.

If we stuck to your 'universal definition' rule it wouldn't even be an option today as there was a pretty much universal definition: someone who believes there are no gods.

If we accept that the meanings of words can change (which you do), we also need to accept that words may not have a single universal definition.

I never said such. I sourced a dictionary for the definition. That is besides the point. If you read all my comments concerning the litigation process then I believe it should become more apparent. I never cared to define atheist. The point again is to defer to a "proper" source.

 

[leibowde84]

And this is why I find the "lack of belief" definition pretty good, but suboptimal. It's good enough because it's unimportant to me whether babies are called atheists or not, and I doubt that too many people are thinking of babies when they hear or read that definition.

But still, I'd prefer a definition that excludes them.

Why?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And this is why I find the "lack of belief" definition pretty good, but suboptimal. It's good enough because it's unimportant to me whether babies are called atheists or not, and I doubt that too many people are thinking of babies when they hear or read that definition.But still, I'd prefer a definition that excludes them.

Why?

From All atheists have these characteristics?

"We've considered a few different definitions of atheist here. One of them is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Four different classes of objects/people can be identified to meet this definition: People who have heard god claims and not found them credible, people who have never heard of gods, infants/pets and other sentient beings incapable of believing in gods, and inanimate objects like rocks.

"How many of these classes do we want to refer to when we ask a question such as, "What fraction of people in a given group are atheists?" Obviously not the rocks and pets, and I find no value in including the infants either, so for me, I want to mean members of the first two groups, even though there is almost nobody over the age of eight has never heard of gods, so that second group is very small. For all practical purposes, it's really only the first group that matters when considering such things as the fraction of atheists compared to Christians in America in 2017, for example.

"The point is that we prefer words that embody the ideas we find meaningful over those that we don't, and are free to define concepts according to their usefulness. I have no use for a definition of atheist that includes rocks or infants."

 

[leibowde84]

"We've considered a few different definitions of atheist here. One of them is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Four different classes of objects/people can be identified to meet this definition: People who have heard god claims and not found them credible, people who have never heard of gods, infants/pets and other sentient beings incapable of believing in gods, and inanimate objects like rocks.

This is a fraudulent argument, as objects cannot be considered "atheists". The term explicitly only applies to people.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is a fraudulent argument, as objects cannot be considered "atheists". The term explicitly only applies to people.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

It's neither fraudulent nor an argument. It's a definition, and an explanation for why I prefer that definition to yours.

Do you know what fraud is? Please explain how an explanation of what I believe is a fraud.

 

[leibowde84]

It's neither fraudulent nor an argument. It's a definition, and an explanation for why I prefer that definition to yours.

Do you know what fraud is? Please explain how an explanation of what I believe is a fraud.

It ignores the fact that the terms "atheist" and "theist" are both limited to people.

 

[leibowde84]

It's neither fraudulent nor an argument. It's a definition, and an explanation for why I prefer that definition to yours.

Do you know what fraud is? Please explain how an explanation of what I believe is a fraud.

But, you are right. "Fraudulent" might be too strong, as I can't say for sure that you knew that the terms were explicitly limited to people. But, this fact makes the issue you noted regarding inanimate objects dissappear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with this argument is that if we were discussing this 30 years ago, the 'proper' definition of atheism wouldn't include the 'lack of belief' option.

This arose relatively recently because some people had a philosophical disagreement with the 'proper' definition.

No; people's worlds just got bigger.

Atheism was never a matter of rejecting every god. We transitioned from a period where "atheism" meant not participating in the religion of a society to a period where there was no single dominant religion that could be considered "the" religion of a society.

Over those last few decades, the change is that it has become more and more untenable for people to believe that everyone - or at least everyone that matters - believes in only one specific god.

This was possible when Pagans, Hindus, practitioners of Native American religion, etc., were thought of as curiosities or props if they were thought of at all. Now that we acknowledge all of these diverse people as actual people, the "rejection of God" definition of atheism just doesn't work.

Once we acknowledge a huge spectrum of theists who reject the Christian god but believe in any number of other gods, we have to acknowledge that merely rejecting the Christian god can't be the criterion for atheism. At this point, we have three possibilities:

- go with a consistent "rejection" definition and demand that atheists reject all gods. Since it's humanly impossible to do this, clearly anyone who talks about atheists as if they actually exist hasn't taken this approach.

- use a two-tier aporoach: require atheists to reject some "standard" god (usually tge Christian god) but allow them to merely not accept any of those lesser gods that lesser people believe in.

- use a "lack of belief in gods" approach. This one works fine, doesn't have any latent racism or cultural chauvinism, and most importantlyvin terms of corectness of language, reflects common usage today.

 

[Augustus]

No; people's worlds just got bigger.

Even if we accept that as true, in what way would that not count as a 'philosophical disagreement'?

- go with a consistent "rejection" definition and demand that atheists reject all gods. Since it's humanly impossible to do this, clearly anyone who talks about atheists as if they actually exist hasn't taken this approach.

You already know why I believe your reasoning here starts from a fundamentally flawed premise. You think it necessitates ticking names off a list, I don't.

 

[Willamena]

No; people's worlds just got bigger.

Atheism was never a matter of rejecting every god. We transitioned from a period where "atheism" meant not participating in the religion of a society to a period where there was no single dominant religion that could be considered "the" religion of a society.

Over those last few decades, the change is that it has become more and more untenable for people to believe that everyone - or at least everyone that matters - believes in only one specific god.

This was possible when Pagans, Hindus, practitioners of Native American religion, etc., were thought of as curiosities or props if they were thought of at all. Now that we acknowledge all of these diverse people as actual people, the "rejection of God" definition of atheism just doesn't work.

Once we acknowledge a huge spectrum of theists who reject the Christian god but believe in any number of other gods, we have to acknowledge that merely rejecting the Christian god can't be the criterion for atheism.

Generally, it isn't rejecting just the so-called Christian god. It's rejecting God or gods, which includes any god.

At this point, we have three possibilities:

- go with a consistent "rejection" definition and demand that atheists reject all gods. Since it's humanly impossible to do this, clearly anyone who talks about atheists as if they actually exist hasn't taken this approach.

- use a two-tier aporoach: require atheists to reject some "standard" god (usually tge Christian god) but allow them to merely not accept any of those lesser gods that lesser people believe in.

- use a "lack of belief in gods" approach. This one works fine, doesn't have any latent racism or cultural chauvinism, and most importantlyvin terms of corectness of language, reflects common usage today.

The definition that rejects God or gods (no god) is consistent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we stuck to your 'universal definition' rule it wouldn't even be an option today as there was a pretty much universal definition: someone who believes there are no gods.

There was? When, exactly? When was the definition you just gave ever in common usage?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if we accept that as true, in what way would that not count as a 'philosophical disagreement'?

I was taking issue more with your description of a definition that, AFAICT, no person in history has ever used as the "proper" definition.

You already know why I believe your reasoning here starts from a fundamentally flawed premise.

No, I don't.

You think it necessitates ticking names off a list, I don't.

Rejecting all gods necessitates rejecting all gods. If you think this can be done by rejecting gods as a category, then define the category. Exactly what can a person reject in order to reject all gods as a group?

Heck - you don't even need to do it in a single group. Use as many groups as you need to as long as the number is manageable enough for it to be practically possible for a human being to reject all of them.

... either that or acknowledge the inherent bigotry in the "rejection of gods" definitions of atheism.

 

[Augustus]

I was taking issue more with your description of a definition that, AFAICT, no person in history has ever used as the "proper" definition.

At least one person has:

Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)

No, I don't.

In that case, explaining it again is probably pointless.

Rejecting all gods necessitates rejecting all gods. If you think this can be done by rejecting gods as a category, then define the category. Exactly what can a person reject in order to reject all gods as a group?

Heck - you don't even need to do it in a single group. Use as many groups as you need to as long as the number is manageable enough for it to be practically possible for a human being to reject all of them.

... either that or acknowledge the inherent bigotry in the "rejection of gods" definitions of atheism.

Ghosts don't exist.
What about poltergeists?
No
What about the Grey Lady of Hampton Court Palace?
No
What about a suster ngesot?
Never heard of it
Well how can you say ghosts don't exist unless you reject every single individual ghost anyone has ever thought about? Your rejection of the existence of ghosts displays inherent bigotry

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least one person has:

Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)

The version of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy that I'm able to find online defines "god" in terms of only an omnimax monotheistic creator-god, so your definition isn't exactly as advertised.

BTW: what do the next few sentences of the entry on atheism say?

In that case, explaining it again is probably pointless.

Unless you're planning to give a rational justification of your position this time, I'm inclined to agree.

Ghosts don't exist.
What about poltergeists?
No
What about the Grey Lady of Hampton Court Palace?
No
What about a suster ngesot?
Never heard of it
Well how can you say ghosts don't exist unless you reject every single individual ghost anyone has ever thought about? Your rejection of the existence of ghosts displays inherent bigotry

I take it from your response that you don't understand why I think there's inherent bigotry in your approach. Do you want me to explain it again?

Edit: gods are categorically different from ghosts. With gods, we have a whole host of things that are similar to gods but are definitively not gods (angels, djinn, spirits, etc.). If you need to manipulate the definition of "god" in a way that implies that a monotheist is a polytheist or that a polytheist is an atheist, then your definition doesn't reflect how the word "god" is actually used. We don't get this weirdness with words like "ghost."

 

[Willamena]

Edit: gods are categorically different from ghosts. With gods, we have a whole host of things that are similar to gods but are definitively not gods (angels, djinn, spirits, etc.)...

Some of which are ghosts.

...If you need to manipulate the definition of "god" in a way that implies that a monotheist is a polytheist or that a polytheist is an atheist, then your definition doesn't reflect how the word "god" is actually used. We don't get this weirdness with words like "ghost."

We usually don't get this weirdness with "god," either, except on RF.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We usually don't get this weirdness with "god," either, except on RF.

Anyone who can answer questions like "how many gods does a Muslim believe in?" is mired in the weirdness.