Atheism: A belief?

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, you are filled with them.

I don't use the good china for feeding the dog.

 

[Orias]

I don't use the good china for feeding the dog.

You'd be silly to use china at all.

 

[Magic Man]

From this article....
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
we have....
"In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[55] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."
People who operate this way would seem to lack belief.
It looks like refutation to me.

I'm not sure if all of this word talk is getting things confused, but I think you agree with us, right? Kilgore was saying that atheism is not a belief, and he was agreeing with the point that no one has refuted that yet. He was also latching onto the poor wording by Orias. Orias did mean that no one has refuted that atheism is a belief, and your post does definitely refute that claim.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You'd be silly to use china at all.

I guess I was silly for hoping you'd understand a simple metaphor.

 

[Orias]

I guess I was silly for hoping you'd understand a simple metaphor.

I understood it alright.

I was just pointing out your sillyness for using a metaphor that applies us wolves.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I understood it alright.

I was just pointing out your sillyness for using a metaphor that applies us wolves.

Yes, how silly of me for using a metaphor that applies you wolves. What the heck was I thinking? I should know better than to do anything that applies you wolves.

 

[Copernicus]

It's part of your argument to explain why we "use an incorrect definition".

No, I could be wrong about what motivates your fervor in defending a bad definition, and my argument could still be correct. People normally construe an atheist as a person who holds a negative belief with respect to the existence of gods. Your attempt to broaden the definition of the word is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

We agree that it has the advantage of not carrying the stigma of "atheist", but all it is is a rebranding. It's like a company renaming their newest version of a product to get away from a bad reputation and start anew. The product is the same, only the name has changed. Whether you want to call it "non-theist" or "atheist" doesn't matter. They're all the same.

I find your choice of words here truly ironic. You promote a definition that admittedly fails to capture the intuition of most English speakers. Dictionaries corroborate my definition as the primary sense of the word, and we have seen that the Religious Tolerance definitions page confirms this. Nevertheless, you accuse me of "rebranding" because I reject a definition that is only popular with a minority of religion debaters (most of whom are religious skeptics). You are truly blinded by your dogma.

It's not broadening anything. It's using the correct definition. But here's my point. In these arguments you're talking about, the argument by the atheists is that certain people fit into the group "people who don't believe in gods". Whether you want to label that group "non-theists" or "atheists" really doesn't even matter. Whichever one you use, you're still using it to refer to that group.

And you keep clinging to the expression "people who don't believe in gods", even though you know that it has two very distinct interpretations. Your entire argument is built on this equivocation. The only substantive issue that we disagree on is my position that all atheists lack belief in gods, but not that all those who lack belief are atheists.

Poisoning the well, are we?

All I said was that most people view atheism as a belief--an "ism". How is that casting aspersion on an information source?

So you disagree with this summary, then?

I think that the passage you cited tries to put too fine a point on these distinctions by setting up an artificial taxonomy of religious skeptics. People do not always mean the same thing by "weak atheism" and "strong atheism". Terms like "implicit atheism" and "soft atheism" are seldom mentioned outside of very specialized contexts. Merely setting up these taxonomies does not contribute much to the question of what people mean when they use the word "atheist" or "atheism".

I disagree. Much of this discussion has been a matter of myself and others explaining to you how we do use the term, and you arguing that we don't use it the way we say we do.

I think that it is fair to distinguish between people's claimed behavior and their actual behavior. I am not claiming that you are insincere, but I do think that you are mistaken. For the most part, you and I both reject belief in the existence of the kinds of gods that most people believe in. We both lack belief in them. What we are having here is a terminological dispute over the words "atheist", "atheism", and "god". I'm sorry that you haven't found my points very illuminating, but I think that we've made a little progress over the course of this long discussion. I've learned a lot about your passions over these terms. That passion doesn't surprise me. I've seen it many times before in my decades of experience as a linguist and a lexicologist. People can say the strangest things about language.

Yes - the term "atheist" does tend to be used more often in discussions of religion and god-belief than, say, everyday conversation.

That is just plain false. It appears all over the news, and people talk about it a lot in everyday conversations. What they do not talk about are "weak atheists", "positive atheists", "implicit atheists", "apatheists", etc. The percentage of English speakers who would be inclined to call babies "atheists" is probably in the single digits. That is not because the subject seldom comes up, nor is it because most English speakers believe in gods. It is because most English speakers think of atheists as people who deny the existence of gods, and babies aren't thought of as individuals who hold that belief.

So... you want your definition to be used because that way, the point can be made in debates explicitly, instead of having it hidden in the meaning of the word?

I want people to use the word "atheist" in its ordinary sense in religious debates, because I think that that would be less confusing. There is nothing wrong with holding the opinion that gods are mythical or imaginary beings, no matter how weakly one holds that opinion. Calling babies "atheists" in order to make a point (ultimately about burden of proof) strikes me as a very weak and counterproductive tactic in these debates.

IMO, the idea that there might be a distinction between "atheist" and "non-theist" doesn't get much play outside forums like this one, either.

I'm glad we agree on that.

There's both, actually. As the term "atheist" increases in popularity and usage, more people consider whether it's their preferred label for themselves. Some atheists like it fine; others decide they'd prefer something else. Personally, I label myself things like "humanist" and "skeptic" before I label myself an atheist, just because I think they express more about what I actually believe, rather than about what I don't believe... but I still recognize that the label "atheist" does apply to me.

I think that it applies to you as well, although I disagree with your linguistic arguments about the word. I have always considered your posts clear-headed and reasonable on the subject of religious skepticism. I have no doubt that you could claim to believe that most gods (in the sense that most people use that term for) probably do not exist. It is up to others to decide whether they are comfortable with the label. I do not see any advantage to changing usage to accommodate more people.

 

[Magic Man]

You are truly blinded by your dogma.

This is ridiculous. Either give a good reason why we shouldn't use the more inclusive definition (that is obviously a valid definition, since it's quoted as one in more than one place) in in-depth discussions about atheists and theists, or just give it up. The only one blinded by dogma here is you, which is sad, considering you're usually very good at reasoned thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I said was that most people view atheism as a belief--an "ism". How is that casting aspersion on an information source?

You're setting things up so that if an "ism" goes against your position, it's not the "right" kind of "ism".

I think that the passage you cited tries to put too fine a point on these distinctions by setting up an artificial taxonomy of religious skeptics. People do not always mean the same thing by "weak atheism" and "strong atheism". Terms like "implicit atheism" and "soft atheism" are seldom mentioned outside of very specialized contexts. Merely setting up these taxonomies does not contribute much to the question of what people mean when they use the word "atheist" or "atheism".

Except that it itself is an example of usage, and the intended meaning is clearly expressed.

I think that it is fair to distinguish between people's claimed behavior and their actual behavior. I am not claiming that you are insincere, but I do think that you are mistaken.

No, I really do use the word "atheist" in the way I say I do. If I don't often talk about babies being atheists, it's because I don't see any value in bringing up the point, not because I think they're not.

That is just plain false. It appears all over the news, and people talk about it a lot in everyday conversations.

More than here? I'd be very surprised.

What they do not talk about are "weak atheists", "positive atheists", "implicit atheists", "apatheists", etc. The percentage of English speakers who would be inclined to call babies "atheists" is probably in the single digits. That is not because the subject seldom comes up, nor is it because most English speakers believe in gods. It is because most English speakers think of atheists as people who deny the existence of gods, and babies aren't thought of as individuals who hold that belief.

I disagree. I think it's because once you discount the Catholics who normally consider a baby a Christian from the moment of baptism, the Muslims who consider everyone and everything in the universe to be "Muslim" except for the people who actively reject Islam, and all the other theists who reject the idea for no deeper reason than that they see the "badness" of atheism to be incompatible with the "goodness" of their sweet little baby, you're not left with very many people who would be in a position to consider a baby an atheist anyhow.

I want people to use the word "atheist" in its ordinary sense in religious debates, because I think that that would be less confusing. There is nothing wrong with holding the opinion that gods are mythical or imaginary beings, no matter how weakly one holds that opinion. Calling babies "atheists" in order to make a point (ultimately about burden of proof) strikes me as a very weak and counterproductive tactic in these debates.

But I don't make that point. I don't see how it would be useful in a debate over whether religious belief is reasonable to throw "you know, babies are atheists" out as a point in the debate, regardless of the fact that it's true.

... especially since I think (and IMO, what research on the subject seems to bear out) that what we're born with is something closer to rudimentary animism. It's not god-belief, but it's sure not what I believe.

I'm glad we agree on that.

You agree? How does that support your argument?

My point was that "most English speakers" just don't care about the question of whether "non-theist" and "atheist" refer to the same people or not. If we use them to refer to different groups, the general public won't care. If we use them to refer to the same group, the general public won't care. They're not clamoring to support either option, but they're not exactly forming angry mobs to protest either one either.

I think that it applies to you as well, although I disagree with your linguistic arguments about the word. I have always considered your posts clear-headed and reasonable on the subject of religious skepticism. I have no doubt that you could claim to believe that most gods (in the sense that most people use that term for) probably do not exist. It is up to others to decide whether they are comfortable with the label. I do not see any advantage to changing usage to accommodate more people.

It's not a matter of advantage; it's a matter of correctly reflecting actual usage.

IMO, what this whole debate comes down to is this: even though many people do use the term "atheist" in the way I describe, you've decided that this usage doesn't count.

 

[Magic Man]

My point was that "most English speakers" just don't care about the question of whether "non-theist" and "atheist" refer to the same people or not. If we use them to refer to different groups, the general public won't care. If we use them to refer to the same group, the general public won't care. They're not clamoring to support either option, but they're not exactly forming angry mobs to protest either one either.

Just thought of this while reading this post. When I first started on the forums here, I noticed the use of the word "non-theist" and wondered what the point was. I didn't understand why you'd have a redundant word, since it seemed to me that that was exactly what "atheist" meant. It later became clear that "non-theist" exists just because some people want to avoid the stigma attached to "atheist". So, before starting here I was a regular person, and I hadn't even heard of the word "non-theist".

 

[lunamoth]

Atheism. A-the-ism. Holding a worldview in which the word "the" is prohibited.

Easy.

 

[Orias]

Yes, how silly of me for using a metaphor that applies you wolves. What the heck was I thinking? I should know better than to do anything that applies you wolves.

Well I certainly wouldn't consider you a sheep.

 

[Copernicus]

Atheism. A-the-ism. Holding a worldview in which the word "the" is prohibited.

Easy.

Stop it! They will start a movement to keep everyone from using the definite article. If someone attacks the indefinite article, we will all end up sounding like Russians.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I really do use the word "atheist" in the way I say I do. If I don't often talk about babies being atheists, it's because I don't see any value in bringing up the point, not because I think they're not.

Exactly my point. The value that you see in using that label for babies tells us what governs your usage. It is not why others reject that label for babies. That was why I started the "baby" survey--to establish that fact.

...That is not because the subject seldom comes up, nor is it because most English speakers believe in gods. It is because most English speakers think of atheists as people who deny the existence of gods, and babies aren't thought of as individuals who hold that belief.

I disagree. I think it's because once you discount the Catholics who normally consider a baby a Christian from the moment of baptism, the Muslims who consider everyone and everything in the universe to be "Muslim" except for the people who actively reject Islam, and all the other theists who reject the idea for no deeper reason than that they see the "badness" of atheism to be incompatible with the "goodness" of their sweet little baby, you're not left with very many people who would be in a position to consider a baby an atheist anyhow.

I'm saying that not even a majority of people in this forum agree with the idea that babies are properly called "atheists". The best we could come up with here was a 50-50 split among those who saw the survey and cared to answer it. And the number is even lower in forums where your definition is not actively under discussion. That was just a straw poll, but the trend does not look like it would be in your favor.

But I don't make that point. I don't see how it would be useful in a debate over whether religious belief is reasonable to throw "you know, babies are atheists" out as a point in the debate, regardless of the fact that it's true.

I didn't accuse you personally of making that point, but I've seen it being made often enough by folks in these debates. You've apparently bought into the tactic. To me and many others, it just sounds lame.

My point was that "most English speakers" just don't care about the question of whether "non-theist" and "atheist" refer to the same people or not. If we use them to refer to different groups, the general public won't care. If we use them to refer to the same group, the general public won't care. They're not clamoring to support either option, but they're not exactly forming angry mobs to protest either one either.

That is true about any word that people use. This isn't an argument over what people care about. It is an argument over usage--about the meanings that people have for words and the quality of definitions in describing those meanings.

IMO, what this whole debate comes down to is this: even though many people do use the term "atheist" in the way I describe, you've decided that this usage doesn't count.

It doesn't count as a good definition of the word, because it gives a misleading impression of actual usage. It is a slogan, not a definition.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It doesn't count as a good definition of the word, because it gives a misleading impression of actual usage. It is a slogan, not a definition.

How can it be misleading if it's the actual definition of the word?

 

[Commoner]

It doesn't count as a good definition of the word, because it gives a misleading impression of actual usage. It is a slogan, not a definition.

Seriously, this "ulterior motive" thing is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I think it's equally "sloganny" to go the other way and say someone who lacks the belief in a god is not an atheist. Babies aside, to say that anyone who answers "no" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" can't be properly labeled an atheist, seems to me to go against "actual usage" just as much if not more than stressing that "absence of a belief" is all it takes to be an atheist.

And I have to say I find this whole debate a bit iffy, while I don't mind engaging in semantic arguments from time to time, this has gone too far for my taste. Whatever...

 

[Copernicus]

How can it be misleading if it's the actual definition of the word?

Can you explain what an "actual definition" is? How do you tell the difference between it and a non-actual one?

Seriously, this "ulterior motive" thing is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I agree, but there was a question a while back about why people would defend an incorrect definition. The argument over the adequacy of the definition has nothing to do with motives.

I think it's equally "sloganny" to go the other way and say someone who lacks the belief in a god is not an atheist.

Absolutely nobody has defended this idea.

...Babies aside, to say that anyone who answers "no" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" can't be properly labeled an atheist, seems to me to go against "actual usage" just as much if not more than stressing that "absence of a belief" is all it takes to be an atheist.

I agree, and I have not been defending the idea that negative answers to that question mean that you cannot be properly labeled an atheist. I have maintained all along that all atheists lack belief in gods. My position is that people who are completely neutral on the question of the existence of gods, or who do not know what gods are, are not really considered atheists any more than they are considered anarchists because they don't know what a government is. Babies are neither atheists nor anarchists.

And I have to say I find this whole debate a bit iffy, while I don't mind engaging in semantic arguments from time to time, this has gone too far for my taste. Whatever...

Fair enough. My hope is that people who really don't care about this issue will simply not feel obliged to respond to posts in the thread.

 

[Commoner]

Absolutely nobody has defended this idea.

Ok... not "necessarily" an atheist then...

I agree, and I have not been defending the idea that negative answers to that question mean that you cannot be properly labeled an atheist. I have maintained all along that all atheists lack belief in gods. My position is that people who are completely neutral on the question of the existence of gods, or who do not know what gods are, are not really considered atheists any more than they are considered anarchists because they don't know what a government is. Babies are neither atheists nor anarchists.

So you think that, in order for someone to answer "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" or "do you hold the belief that god exists?", he/she would have to know what god was first?

In order for someone to be amoral, would they have to know what morality means?

Fair enough. My hope is that people who really don't care about this issue will simply not feel obliged to respond to posts in the thread.

I care about the issue, I just don't like the way the thread has developed into something that's far from constructive.

 

[Willamena]

So you think that, in order for someone to answer "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" or "do you hold the belief that god exists?", he/she would have to know what god was first?

In order for someone to be amoral, would they have to know what morality means?

In order to define amorality, we must have some idea of what morality is.

 

[Commoner]

In order to define amorality, we must have some idea of what morality is.

I agree.