Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Copernicus]

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?

 

[Panda]

Yes and no.

Some atheists just do not believe in a god. Others reject the belief in god.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes and no.

Some atheists just do not believe in a god. Others reject the belief in god.

Perhaps we have a habit of happily following along in the trap of projecting thought without self-reflection that so many of the theists we tend to criticize also do.

I mean that in more than one way.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes and no.

Some atheists just do not believe in a god. Others reject the belief in god.

Panda, can you give me an idea of an atheist who does not reject the belief in god but still does not believe in God? Not sure I get what you are trying to say.

 

[doppelganger]

can you give me an idea of an atheist who does not reject the belief in god but still does not believe in God?

{Raises hand}

 

[Panda]

I do not reject a belief in god as that implies that at one point I had such a concept as god. I do not actively disbelief in god and have in no way made a concious decision to be an atheist. I can not reject something when consciously I have had no part in deciding how I believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

God is either a fictional concept or so close to it that doubting its existence proves to be inconsequential. There is as little point in affirming its inexistence as there is in affirming its existence. In a nutshell: God is not real enough to be worth rejecting.

Read a bit about "weak atheism". It does exist, and it does make a lot of sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., can you give me an idea of an atheist who does not reject the belief in god but still does not believe in God?

While I applaud the OP, I'm not at all sure what you mean here.

I see insufficient warrant for a belief in God, but also find insufficient grounds to rate this judgment as anything other than a necessarily provisional one based on a severely limited understanding of the cosmos. It's an atheism that coexists easily with the possibility of theism. It is not so much rejection as it is acceptance deferred.

 

[Dunemeister]

I see insufficient warrant for a belief in God, but also find insufficient grounds to rate this judgment as anything other than a necessarily provisional one based on a severely limited understanding of the cosmos. It's an atheism that coexists easily with the possibility of theism. It is not so much rejection as it is acceptance deferred.

This is about the most rational expression of atheism I've ever read (and I've read a lot of them). Indeed, as a theist I hope to express my theism with the same sort of provisionality. (Not sure about my degree of success, though.) I'm as sure as I can be given the circumstances, but I could well turn out to be mistaken as more information comes to light, and then I'd have another decision to make. A sort of atheism deferred, I guess.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not reject a belief in god as that implies that at one point I had such a concept as god. I do not actively disbelief in god and have in no way made a concious decision to be an atheist. I can not reject something when consciously I have had no part in deciding how I believe.

Thanks, Panda. I now understand a little better where you are coming from on this. I suspect that you are what is sometimes called a "cognitive atheist", in that you deny that the word "God" is used in a meaningful way. Notice, however, that atheism is not merely the rejection of belief in the Christian or Abrahamic concept of God, which some philosophers have argued is a meaningless concept. It is the rejection of belief in gods insofar as the word "god" refers to a meaningful entity. That was sort of implicit in my definition of atheism, but I am happy to make it explicit.

That said, I would also take the position that even the concept of the Christian God is sufficiently meaningful to take a position on whether or not God exists. I have been in lengthy discussions with cognitive atheists, and I don't find their linguistic argument in the least bit compelling.

 

[Copernicus]

God is either a fictional concept or so close to it that doubting its existence proves to be inconsequential. There is as little point in affirming its inexistence as there is in affirming its existence. In a nutshell: God is not real enough to be worth rejecting.

Thanks for the response, Luis. Let me just say that I have never found a fictional character to be so inconsequential as to not be worth doubting its existence.

BTW, do you doubt the existence of Santa Claus, or do you also consider him too inconsequential to be worth rejecting belief in?

 

[Copernicus]

I see insufficient warrant for a belief in God, but also find insufficient grounds to rate this judgment as anything other than a necessarily provisional one based on a severely limited understanding of the cosmos. It's an atheism that coexists easily with the possibility of theism. It is not so much rejection as it is acceptance deferred.

That sounds like a verbose way of saying that you provisionally reject belief in the existence of gods. That fits my definition exactly, although I found it unnecessary to include the adverb "provisionally". When assessing an empirical claim, acceptance or rejection of belief is always provisional.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found it unnecessary to include the adverb "provisionally".

That may say more about you than the quality of the evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the response, Luis. Let me just say that I have never found a fictional character to be so inconsequential as to not be worth doubting its existence.

BTW, do you doubt the existence of Santa Claus, or do you also consider him too inconsequential to be worth rejecting belief in?

I don't go out of my way to prove that he does not exist, that's for sure.

The most important characteristic of God is that he does not change anything, either by existing or by failing to. Despite (or due to) its supposed enormous importance, it is actually very hard to detect its existence. A less ambitious supernatural concept such as Santa Claus is more limited in its supposed effects, and therefore easier to detect or disprove.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, I've had the opportunity of talking with some spirits on my way. I've asked them what they think of God. Funny thing, even the spirits (ghosts or whatever you wish to call them) don't believe that God exists. They claim to have never contacted such a being, even those who have died as Christians. As far as I'm concerned, God does not exist, but spirits do. I've even asked one of those "spirits" what they thought they were. They are not even entirely sure what "they" are, only that they are some form of disembodied energy. I've had one that considered himself a kind of "ectoplasm". Some of you probably think I'm crazy, but that's your opinion and you are entitled to think whatever you want. Is it so outlandish to think there is some obscure form of energy out there that scientists just haven't "discovered" yet? There are many things scientists still don't understand. At any rate, I don't believe any such God-being to exist. At least not in the typical biblical sense of what God supposedly is. To me "God", "Spirit" or whatever you wish to call IT is the balancing factor in nature. It is the natural animating force that is within us all and all around us. It simply exists.

 

[rojse]

That sounds like a verbose way of saying that you provisionally reject belief in the existence of gods. That fits my definition exactly, although I found it unnecessary to include the adverb "provisionally". When assessing an empirical claim, acceptance or rejection of belief is always provisional.

Perhaps you need to go and talk to some more "certain" atheists.

 

[rojse]

The most important characteristic of God is that he does not change anything, either by existing or by failing to.

Where do miracles fit into this?

 

[darkendless]

Where do miracles fit into this?

Miracles? Come on do you really believe miracles have happened. Im suspicious at best about these miracles. There would always be logical reasons for these. Things don't 'just happen.'

 

[LuisDantas]

Where do miracles fit into this?

Miracles are just unexplained phenomena. Quite often their very existence is debatable, but their defining characteristic is the wishful thinking that lends them a supernatural meaning. In the end they don't have much (if any) religious meaning.

 

[Masourga]

their defining characteristic is the wishful thinking that lends them a supernatural meaning. In the end they don't have much (if any) religious meaning.

Kinda like a grilled cheese sandwich with an image of the Virgin Mary on it.