Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Copernicus]

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.

Not at all. An a-teapotist, at a minimum, should have an idea of what a teapot is. If you do not know what a flurb is, and therefore lack belief in flurbs, that does not make you an a-flurbist. Even if you do know what one is, you may have no opinion regarding the existence of flurbs. I think that I've made myself clear on this, so I won't be surprised if you disagree. It seems pointless to just keep repeating the same arguments at each other and expecting different results.

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.

Again, this just restates your position. But I did get that grudging "perhaps" out of you, so maybe you budged just a little. We just disagree here on what is possible in reality, I suppose.

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.

Note that a disbelief is not equivalent to a lack of belief. That distinction has been at the heart of our semantic quibble here. A disbelief is a belief that something is not the case. Here is the entry from Wordnet:

Noun 1. disbelief - doubt about the truth of something
Synonyms: incredulity, mental rejection, skepticism
2. disbelief - a rejection of belief
Synonyms: unbelief

Lack of belief can include the sense of lack of opinion, but that is what disbelief means. Atheists are people with disbelief in gods, not people who merely lack an opinion about gods.

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.

I believe that my response answers your question sufficiently. Not only have I explained the difference in painful detail several times, but I have given you an illustration of how the differing beliefs bring about different behaviors. I honestly don't know what more I can do, but I appreciate your taking the time to elaborate on your views. This is one where we'll both have to just remain in disagreement.

 

[doppelganger]

Not at all. An a-teapotist, at a minimum, should have an idea of what a teapot is. If you do not know what a flurb is, and therefore lack belief in flurbs, that does not make you an a-flurbist.

And there you run into a problem. "God" is a lot of things to a lot of people. At best, an "atheist" is only lacking belief in some of the the things signified by "god", ignorant of most of them and certainly does believe in some of the things signified by "god." So a definition of "atheist" that doesn't define "theism" is completely meaningless as everyone would be an atheist (they don't believe in some things people call "god") and everyone would also be a theist (they do believe in some other things people call "god").

 

[Panda]

And there you run into a problem. "God" is a lot of things to a lot of people. At best, an "atheist" is only lacking belief in some of the the things signified by "god", ignorant of most of them and certainly does believe in some of the things signified by "god." So a definition of "atheist" that doesn't define "theism" is completely meaningless as everyone would be an atheist (they don't believe in some things people call "god") and everyone would also be a theist (they do believe in some other things people call "god").

While that looks like an interesting concept I do believe it to be irrelevant. I would say you do not need to define theism to define Atheism. For example I do not need to know every concept of god to know I do not believe in it just as a christian doesn't need to know every definition of every other religion to know they don't believe in that.

 

[doppelganger]

While that looks like an interesting concept I do believe it to be irrelevant. I would say you do not need to define theism to define Atheism. For example I do not need to know every concept of god to know I do not believe in it just as a christian doesn't need to know every definition of every other religion to know they don't believe in that.

But you're just confusing the sign for the thing signified.

Here's the dopp guarantee: answer my questions honestly and I guarantee that there are significant things that some people call "god" the existence of which even YOU acknowledge.

 

[Copernicus]

And there you run into a problem. "God" is a lot of things to a lot of people...

Granted, but every word in the language has some amount of ambiguity and vagueness. All of us have a fairly good general idea of what a god is and what traits the Christian "God" has. The differences that people have, IMO, are in their various efforts to deal with apparent (sometimes glaring) contradictions in the ideal.

At best, an "atheist" is only lacking belief in some of the the things signified by "god", ignorant of most of them and certainly does believe in some of the things signified by "god."

I don't see how that matters. Atheism is still a rejection of what one believes gods to be, however mistaken one's understanding might be. It is impossible to affirm or reject claims that one is ignorant of. And be careful with your semantic claims. You are dealing with a linguist here, and I do not have a lot of respect for Korzybski's General Semantics. Traditionally, words are associated with three aspects: name (or "sign"), reference (or "signified"), and meaning (or...er..."signified"?). There is more to lexicology than sign and signified. And, just for fun, let's distinguish definition from meaning. A definition is a parsimonious description of a word sense. A meaning is a complex structured tangle of mental associations.

So a definition of "atheist" that doesn't define "theism" is completely meaningless as everyone would be an atheist (they don't believe in some things people call "god") and everyone would also be a theist (they do believe in some other things people call "god").

I do agree that the concept of atheism presupposes a concept of theism. I have been arguing that all along. Where we disagree is in your approach to the nature of word meanings. People who are atheists deny the existence of gods as they understand the concept. It is not necessary for them to understand all conceptions of gods in every detail before they can have an opinion on their existence. Indeed, I think that you have painted yourself into a linguistic corner on this one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you're just confusing the sign for the thing signified.

Here's the dopp guarantee: answer my questions honestly and I guarantee that there are significant things that some people call "god" the existence of which even YOU acknowledge.

Sure... for instance, I believe in love, Eric Clapton and the universe, all of which I've heard called "god" at one time or another. I don't think that this makes them gods, though.

 

[Panda]

But you're just confusing the sign for the thing signified.

Here's the dopp guarantee: answer my questions honestly and I guarantee that there are significant things that some people call "god" the existence of which even YOU acknowledge.

Then the question is invalid until you define god, not theism. However surely by atheism I only have to not believe in what I define as god?

 

[Copernicus]

Then the question is invalid until you define god, not theism. However surely by atheism I only have to not believe in what I define as god?

Panda, theism requires a definition of gods, not just Christian versions of God. We need to be careful not to confuse theism with doctrinal beliefs. Typically, though, I think that we tend to think of theists as people who worship gods. So some Buddhists might consider themselves non-theists, even though they believe in the existence of gods, because they don't worship them. Atheists reject even deism.

BTW, I define gods as intelligent entities that have absolute control over some aspect of reality. The Christian God has control over all aspects of reality.

 

[Panda]

Panda, theism requires a definition of gods, not just Christian versions of God. We need to be careful not to confuse theism with doctrinal beliefs. Typically, though, I think that we tend to think of theists as people who worship gods. So some Buddhists might consider themselves non-theists, even though they believe in the existence of gods, because they don't worship them. Atheists reject even deism.

Worship is not necessary to be a theist, look at most LHP religions. I wasn't talking about the Christian God, hence using god (little g).

 

[Willamena]

Granted, but every word in the language has some amount of ambiguity and vagueness. All of us have a fairly good general idea of what a god is...

People who are atheists deny the existence of gods as they understand the concept. It is not necessary for them to understand all conceptions of gods in every detail before they can have an opinion on their existence. Indeed, I think that you have painted yourself into a linguistic corner on this one.

Then surely "All of us have a fairly good general idea of" what we understand "god" to be. What it is is another matter (one destined, now, to be perpetually ambiguous and vague).

 

[doppelganger]

Sure... for instance, I believe in love, Eric Clapton and the universe, all of which I've heard called "god" at one time or another. I don't think that this makes them gods, though.

Sure, but of course you reach that conclusion precisely because you agree with me. :yes:

 

[doppelganger]

Granted, but every word in the language has some amount of ambiguity and vagueness. All of us have a fairly good general idea of what a god is and what traits the Christian "God" has.

You make my point then. You are not directing your comments to an atheism about "God" in any form, but rather that particular concept of "God" you frequently find in mainstream Christianity.

The differences that people have, IMO, are in their various efforts to deal with apparent (sometimes glaring) contradictions in the ideal.

Hardly. The theistic "God" of mainstream Christianity is not the ideal. It's an attempt to find an emotional way to relate to the impersonality of the cosmos. "God" is discussed without any regard to notions of deity, personality or anything that looks familiar to what Christians call "God" by such luminary thinkers and writers and Baruch de Spinoza, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Constantin Brunner and Paul Tillich (and to some extent even by the likes of Meister Johannes Eckhart).

Atheism is still a rejection of what one believes gods to be, however mistaken one's understanding might be. It is impossible to affirm or reject claims that one is ignorant of.

So shouldn't the first question be, "what am I rejecting"? Until you know, you don't know that you don't believe in it.

And be careful with your semantic claims. You are dealing with a linguist here, and I do not have a lot of respect for Korzybski's General Semantics.

Tee hee. This should be fun. Though I've read Science and Sanity and found some value in it, I'm not a devotee of Korzybski, and I don't limit myself to the tools of G.S. My first love, academically speaking, is linguistic philosophy as well. I have my own approach that is most influenced by Nietzsche's treatment of semiotics and perspectivism, synthesized with Cassirer's Philsophy of Symbolic Forms and informed by Jungian psychoanalysis, among many other things.

Traditionally, words are associated with three aspects: name (or "sign"), reference (or "signified"), and meaning (or...er..."signified"?).

The third one you're looking for is "relationship" or "context." Reference and relationship together form "meaning" which also folds in all manner of aesthetic sensibilities and subconscious memories as well.

I do agree that the concept of atheism presupposes a concept of theism. I have been arguing that all along. Where we disagree is in your approach to the nature of word meanings. People who are atheists deny the existence of gods as they understand the concept.

Well, of course. And that's my point. That doesn't preclude them believing in "God." They may merely use a different symbol for the same thing(s) that some others call "God." And for that reason, taking the word "atheist" to mean anything more than "rejection of theistic interpretations of 'god'" renders the word useless and confusing. You yourself said it best above:

" All of us have a fairly good general idea of what a god is and what traits the Christian "God" has."

In other words, you also agree with me. "Atheism" is limited to the rejection of certain notions of "god" - specifically "theistic" ones, as the word itself indicates. When it is taken to mean more than that, it no longer serves any purpose, because everyone is then an "atheist" (and also a "theist"), depending on who they are talking to at the time.

Indeed, I think that you have painted yourself into a linguistic corner on this one.

You don't know me very well, do you, Copernicus?

 

[doppelganger]

Then the question is invalid until you define god, not theism.

That's my point. "Theism" is a set of definitions of "God" that share some salient characteristics (I outlined them above, but the key one is belief in the existence of one or more deities). By understanding "atheism" as the "rejection of theism" one is putting some limit on the things one doesn't believe in, and through the imposition of those limits, thereby bringing some actual meaning to the statement "I'm an atheist."

 

[Copernicus]

Granted, but every word in the language has some amount of ambiguity and vagueness. All of us have a fairly good general idea of what a god is and what traits the Christian "God" has.

You make my point then. You are not directing your comments to an atheism about "God" in any form, but rather that particular concept of "God" you frequently find in mainstream Christianity.

I'm glad to see that we are making each other's points. Maybe there is some value to be found in lack of communication. I know what my point was, but I am now beginning to wonder just what yours is. Can you restate it?

The differences that people have, IMO, are in their various efforts to deal with apparent (sometimes glaring) contradictions in the ideal.

Hardly. The theistic "God" of mainstream Christianity is not the ideal. It's an attempt to find an emotional way to relate to the impersonality of the cosmos. "God" is discussed without any regard to notions of deity, personality or anything that looks familiar to what Christians call "God" by such luminary thinkers and writers and Baruch de Spinoza, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Constantin Brunner and Paul Tillich (and to some extent even by the likes of Meister Johannes Eckhart).

Here you seem to have misconstrued what I wrote. There is an idealized version of the Christian God as an "omnimax" being. I was not saying that that there can be no different conceptions or that that verson of God was somehow "the ideal" that we ought to hold. The gentlemen that you mentioned had some very interesting things to say about the nature of God as they conceived it, but I don't think that we ought to treat their views as being "the ideal" any more than more conventional views of God are. If you want to define "God" as a coke bottle, then I am not an atheist. I believe in coke bottles. But if you want to define God or gods more conventionally, then I am an atheist.

So shouldn't the first question be, "what am I rejecting"? Until you know, you don't know that you don't believe in it.

Indeed. I think that I have already answered that question. I have defined what I mean by gods--intelligent entities that have absolute control over some aspect of reality. We could examine various other senses of the word, but that will suffice for now. The Christian God is normally taken to be such a being--an intelligent entity that has absolute control over all aspects of reality. I am rejecting the belief that such a being exists.

Tee hee. This should be fun. Though I've read Science and Sanity and found some value in it, I'm not a devotee of Korzybski, and I don't limit myself to the tools of G.S. My first love, academically speaking, is linguistic philosophy as well. I have my own approach that is most influenced by Nietzsche's treatment of semiotics and perspectivism, synthesized with Cassirer's Philsophy of Symbolic Forms and informed by Jungian psychoanalysis, among many other things.

Fine. I'll take George Lakoff for my corner, then. I have other favorites, but you might have heard of George.

Many years ago, I taught a rather large introductory course in Linguistics at Columbia University. During the final, a student that I had never seen before approached me and explained that he had not come to class the entire semester because of personal difficulties. He did say that, although unable to attend class, he had managed to read a book on General Semantics. He offered to let me quiz him on the subject, which he claimed to have mastered very well, in exchange for a "D" grade. I explained to him that, had he come to class, he might have understood why that did not qualify him for a "D" in an introductory course on linguistics. He had not just mistaken the map for the territory, but he was using the wrong map.

Traditionally, words are associated with three aspects: name (or "sign"), reference (or "signified"), and meaning (or...er..."signified"?).

The third one you're looking for is "relationship" or "context." Reference and relationship together form "meaning" which also folds in all manner of aesthetic sensibilities and subconscious memories as well.

No, I was not looking for that. I fear that your use of the words "relationship" and "context" need to be understood as structuralist terms. So we could easily end up talking at cross purposes here, as I am not a structuralist. One of the problems inherent in structuralism is that it focuses more on the relationships in a system than the content of the things that exist between them. "Things" in the system are defined purely in terms of how they differ from other "things". But there are more problems with structuralism than that very general one. If structuralism is your thing, then I understand a little better why you are saying some of the things that I disagree with.

I do agree that the concept of atheism presupposes a concept of theism. I have been arguing that all along. Where we disagree is in your approach to the nature of word meanings. People who are atheists deny the existence of gods as they understand the concept.

Well, of course. And that's my point. That doesn't preclude them believing in "God." They may merely use a different symbol for the same thing(s) that some others call "God."...

I disagree. You may choose to redefine "God" to be something else--a coke bottle, as I said earlier. That does not give you the right to impute the redefinitions to the language of others. What you are doing then becomes equivocation.

In other words, you also agree with me. "Atheism" is limited to the rejection of certain notions of "god" - specifically "theistic" ones, as the word itself indicates. When it is taken to mean more than that, it no longer serves any purpose, because everyone is then an "atheist" (and also a "theist"), depending on who they are talking to at the time.

I am almost willing to believe that that is true only when they are talking to you. But I do have a problem with defining gods as something other than what English speakers normally take them to be.

Indeed, I think that you have painted yourself into a linguistic corner on this one.

You don't know me very well, do you, Copernicus?

Nor you me, eh?

 

[doppelganger]

I'm glad to see that we are making each other's points. Maybe there is some value to be found in lack of communication. I know what my point was, but I am now beginning to wonder just what yours is. Can you restate it?

#82.

The gentlemen that you mentioned had some very interesting things to say about the nature of God as they conceived it, but I don't think that we ought to treat their views as being "the ideal" any more than more conventional views of God are.

Again, you make my point. I'm not sure we actually disagree on any of this. Though you seem to want to be disagreeable.

If you want to define "God" as a coke bottle, then I am not an atheist. I believe in coke bottles. But if you want to define God or gods more conventionally, then I am an atheist.

There you go. That's my point. And we agree on it. A definition that includes "anything anyone calls 'god'" is rather useless. A definition that limits "atheism" to rejection of theistic 'god' concepts is quite a bit more useful.

 

[Panda]

That's my point. "Theism" is a set of definitions of "God" that share some salient characteristics (I outlined them above, but the key one is belief in the existence of one or more deities). By understanding "atheism" as the "rejection of theism" one is putting some limit on the things one doesn't believe in, and through the imposition of those limits, thereby bringing some actual meaning to the statement "I'm an atheist."

I'm finding it hard to articulate exactly what I mean I will try though.

I see atheism as the "normal" (as in way we are born) stage. To have any other ideas you normally need the concepts introduced to you. For example if we didn't teach about god how many people would conclude it exists on there own?

 

[Storm]

I see atheism as the "normal" (as in way we are born) stage.

I think you know where I stand on that.

To have any other ideas you normally need the concepts introduced to you. For example if we didn't teach about god how many people would conclude it exists on there own?

More than you might think. After all, at some point we developed it, and it's virtually universal.

 

[Magic Man]

I think you know where I stand on that.

I know I do.

More than you might think. After all, at some point we developed it, and it's virtually universal.

But a theistic god is not universal. Sure, many people will have mystical and spiritual experiences, but I doubt that that many of them would attribute that to a theistic god.

 

[Storm]

I know I do.

. Love ya.

But a theistic god is not universal. Sure, many people will have mystical and spiritual experiences, but I doubt that that many of them would attribute that to a theistic god.

Firstly, Panda didn't specify a theistic God, and it didn't even occur to me to assume such.

Secondly, I don't know about that, either. Theism is far and away the most popular understanding of God, and the spandrel theory (or hypothesis, if you want to be technical ) explains why rather neatly.

 

[Magic Man]

. Love ya.

Right back atcha.

Firstly, Panda didn't specify a theistic God, and it didn't even occur to me to assume such.

No, but (and, yes, I know I'm assuming) that's what he meant. I'm sure he would not say "For example if we didn't teach about nature how many people would conclude it exists on there own?". Or you can insert many other non-theistic definitions for "God", and make it a statement that Panda would not make. He is welcome to correct me, if I'm wrong about his view. However, that's my view of it.

Secondly, I don't know about that, either. Theism is far and away the most popular understanding of God, and the spandrel theory (or hypothesis, if you want to be technical ) explains why rather neatly.

I didn't realize the spandrel hypothesis explained why. Would you mind telling me how briefly? I don't want to take up too much space, as this is a little off-topic, but I'm curious.