Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Storm]

I just wonder if more primitive... make that primal forms of life understand God instinctively.

 

[Copernicus]

I just wonder if more primitive... make that primal forms of life understand God instinctively.

That all depends on how you define "God". I do not define the concept as broadly as you do.

Understanding is a process of relating new experiences to past experiences. One never understands anything completely, because our experiences are always changing and we are always finding new associations between even familiar concepts and our other experiences. Seen in that light, the usual concept of omniscience--knowledge of everything--makes little sense. But I would take the position that having knowledge of anything minimally requires having a brain that can store and manage experiences.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, dictionaries are reviewed by lexicographers and linguists, and a great many errors beyond typos are almost always found. Since definitions are intellectual property, some of the major publishers even insert a fake entry or two to catch plagiarizers. I worked for a very brief stint as a consultant to Random House. It is a fascinating business.

That's very interesting. Actually, I tried to get a job at Random House at one point, but something else came along.

I guess that you're not having any of my nonsense. The example I cited is often used as a teaching exercise in linguistics courses. The point is that dictionary entries are parsimonious, and they should not be confused with the actual meaning, which is always more complex than people realize.

Interesting. I actually majored in French/linguistics. I never came across something like that. I agree with your point, though.

That is true, but usage is the only valid determinant of what a word means. The fact that people don't refer to babies as atheists is significant.

Well, that's only some people. My point is that I think more people wouldn't be opposed to it if they knew more about atheism.

But we aren't in disagreement about that. The question has been over how to construe "don't believe in". Dogs and chimpanzees have beliefs, and they don't believe in God. Are they atheists? Certainly not. Then why would a baby be called an atheist?

Because a baby is human. I wouldn't be opposed to calling animals atheists, but we don't know for sure is the main thing. We assume that animals don't have any concept of religion for good reason, but we can't say for sure. Babies we know have the capability.

 

[Copernicus]

Interesting. I actually majored in French/linguistics. I never came across something like that. I agree with your point, though.

Incroyable! Je connais bien la langue. Je suis aussi bretonnant. The meaning of "bachelor" has been in the general literature for a few decades now, but it may depend on where and when you studied. I currently work as an industrial linguist and haven't taught since 1987.

Because a baby is human. I wouldn't be opposed to calling animals atheists, but we don't know for sure is the main thing. We assume that animals don't have any concept of religion for good reason, but we can't say for sure. Babies we know have the capability.

Neither babies nor animals have language, despite their potential or lack thereof. So I wouldn't classify them as believers in deities, since they haven't learned the concept to have an opinion about it.

 

[Smoke]

A lot of atheists object to calling children of Christians "Christian" on the grounds that children don't really make a serious decision about religious faith until they mature into adulthood. Until then, they are undergoing an extended period of religious indoctrination. I see the point of the argument, but I would still call children who believe in Christian doctrine as they understand it "Christians".

I don't think intellectual assent to Christian doctrine is really necessary. Christian children are Christian because they belong to a Christian faith community, regardless of whether they understand it or believe it -- just as a child can be a Canadian child without having any concept of Canada.

I realize that some Christian sects would say the child himself isn't really a Christian yet, but the vast majority of Christians actually initiate the child into Christianity via baptism long before he has the remotest concept of god or religion.

 

[Storm]

That all depends on how you define "God". I do not define the concept as broadly as you do.

Understanding is a process of relating new experiences to past experiences. One never understands anything completely, because our experiences are always changing and we are always finding new associations between even familiar concepts and our other experiences. Seen in that light, the usual concept of omniscience--knowledge of everything--makes little sense. But I would take the position that having knowledge of anything minimally requires having a brain that can store and manage experiences.

Yeah, "understanding" is a bad word, but I can't think of a better one.

 

[Truls]

Copernicus I really recommend that you reread this post by Halcyon carefully (especially the bolded paragraph) because, as I see it, this is the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of the term atheist that has appeared in this thread. I'm almost discouraged from trying to expand on it.

I thought as you did until very recently and I can understand very well why you think as you do, but now I believe that the ideas of weak and strong atheism are an illusion and if you'll humour me I'll try to explain my reasoning.

I believe, as many others have said, that atheism is simply the non-belief in god or gods - it's not specifically a rejection of the concept of gods, but is one half of what is essentially a dualistic system. Either you believe in a god or gods or you don't. In this regard I reckon it could fairly be argued that agnostics are in fact atheists as well, since they have no actual faith in a god, but that's another thread.

The factor I believe creates the illusion of different types of atheism is actually separate from atheism itself, although it could be argued that it is related. That factor is called anti-theism. I've made a little diagram to help explain my idea;

I would suggest that the appearance of a person being a weak or strong atheist is dependent upon their position on the diagram above. As you can see I have drawn the bar of atheism as unchanging across the diagram, because in reality one person cannot be more atheist than another, either you are atheist or you are not.

If we found a person on the far left of the diagram (I'm thinking specifically of myself as a child, since I was raised by atheist parents) then we would find a person who lacks any belief in a god. God for them would be as irrelevant to their daily lives as goblins, ghosts and dragons are to most other people, they would all occupy the same category in their mind. What they lack is any hostility toward religion or believers, they also lack any feeling to justify their lack of belief (having been raised in an atheist environment). Thus we have a person for whom gods are simply not a part of their lives.

On the far right of the scale we will find people that, for example, have de-converted from a religion, read the God Delusion and now embody the cliched militant atheist. They are as atheistic with regard to their worldview as the person on the far left, yet they have a strong anti-religious streak as well, and it is this anti-theism which gives them the illusion of being a "strong atheist". They aren't any stronger in their atheism within themselves, and probably not in expression, than the guy on the left, they are just more vocal in their opposition to theistic beliefs and religions.

Anybody with half a brain knows that a god concept cannot be disproved, but the beliefs of religious followers can be, such as the Flood or intelligent design. And it is these parts of religions that the anti-theists attack - not the god itself because that is beyond any reasoned attack, only its supposed effects and interventions can be subject to debunking.

It is my opinion that it is these attacks of the atheists who are also strong anti-theists which create the illusion of some atheists being stronger in their disbelief than others.

You seem to differentiate between disbelief and rejection by claiming that there is an argument against the existence of God put forth by atheists, but there isn't. As Halcyon said it is completely impossible to disprove an entity that cannot be observed and therefore no atheist can make an argument against God because God as an entity is imperceptible. You can't argue against the existence of something, only against its actions or descriptions. If a theist is reduced to their most basic claim (there is an imperceptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being) then an atheist can no longer offer any arguments they must simply say they don't believe in that.

Because an atheist cannot really disprove or even attempt to disprove this essential theist claim no atheist can really claim to "reject" the theist claim. They simply don't accept it, atheism is defined by disbelief because rejection is simply impossible.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus I really recommend that you reread this post by Halcyon carefully (especially the bolded paragraph) because, as I see it, this is the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of the term atheist that has appeared in this thread. I'm almost discouraged from trying to expand on it.

OK, Truls. Here is the paragraph you bolded:

Anybody with half a brain knows that a god concept cannot be disproved, but the beliefs of religious followers can be, such as the Flood or intelligent design. And it is these parts of religions that the anti-theists attack - not the god itself because that is beyond any reasoned attack, only its supposed effects and interventions can be subject to debunking.

You seem to differentiate between disbelief and rejection by claiming that there is an argument against the existence of God put forth by atheists, but there isn't...

Actually, atheists do not reject the existence of God. They reject the existence of all gods. It is possible not to be a monotheist and still be a theist. I know I'm being technical here, but we are all splitting some hairs in this thread. I am as much an atheist as anyone else here.

...As Halcyon said it is completely impossible to disprove an entity that cannot be observed and therefore no atheist can make an argument against God because God as an entity is imperceptible. You can't argue against the existence of something, only against its actions or descriptions. If a theist is reduced to their most basic claim (there is an imperceptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being) then an atheist can no longer offer any arguments they must simply say they don't believe in that.

No disrespect to you or Halcyon, but God has never been consistently claimed to be imperceptible. If God has ever intervened in human affairs, and that intervention has been noticed, then he has been as perceptible as anything else in our physical world. Imperceptibility is only claimed when believers have to account for the fact that God doesn't show up at times when we might reasonably expect him to show up. But this is all about what licenses belief and disbelief. You do not have to have an absolute proof of nonexistence to have a reasonable case for nonexistence. Atheism is not about whether gods can possibly exist, but whether they can be reasonably said to exist. Denial of belief is not quite the same as merely lacking a belief. It is the assertion of an opinion about the existence of something. And there are plenty of arguments to justify rejecting belief that there is a giant, invisible rabbit in a room. But those arguments only make sense after one has considered the arguments for why one ought to believe in the existence of that giant, invisible rabbit.

Because an atheist cannot really disprove or even attempt to disprove this essential theist claim no atheist can really claim to "reject" the theist claim. They simply don't accept it, atheism is defined by disbelief because rejection is simply impossible.

You are wrong. There are plenty reasons to reject belief in gods. All you have to do is look at the arguments in favor of belief in gods, and there are no few of them. Most of our opinions are based on what is plausible, not what is merely possible. After all, it is possible that you really live on Mars, but you suffer from the delusion that you live on Earth. Are you going to claim that it is impossible to prove that you don't live on Mars? Well, it may make me look foolish to you, but I reject the belief that I live on Mars. I'm willing to entertain counterarguments, but first I want the proponent to be properly medicated.

The position I'm really denying here is that rejection of belief can only be based on some kind of absolute proof. If that were the only valid way to license rejection of belief, then we would never be able to license rejection of belief in anything at all. If that is your ultimate argument, then I think that you are defending an absurdity.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, atheists do not reject the existence of God. They reject the existence of all gods.

Not true. We only reject theistic gods. I would say that none of us reject all gods. We just might not call them gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not true. We only reject theistic gods. I would say that none of us reject all gods. We just might not call them gods.

I think it depends what you mean by "gods". In the sense that "god" denotes a human concept, I think I'm at the point now where I reject all such concepts as not based on a proper foundation.

Do I completely reject the possibility that there might exist some intelligent entity out there somewhere that people would regard as a god once they saw it? Well, in an infinte universe, there's a non-zero chance of the existence of anything you could possibly dream up, so I guess I don't reject it completely... though I do place it in the same category as the existence of a planet populated by intelligent mattresses all named "Zem" (tip of the hat to Douglas Adams).

However, coincidental similarity between a human concept and some aspect of reality that nobody was previously aware of still doesn't make the concept "true".

 

[Magic Man]

I think it depends what you mean by "gods". In the sense that "god" denotes a human concept, I think I'm at the point now where I reject all such concepts as not based on a proper foundation.

Do I completely reject the possibility that there might exist some intelligent entity out there somewhere that people would regard as a god once they saw it? Well, in an infinte universe, there's a non-zero chance of the existence of anything you could possibly dream up, so I guess I don't reject it completely... though I do place it in the same category as the existence of a planet populated by intelligent mattresses all named "Zem" (tip of the hat to Douglas Adams).

However, coincidental similarity between a human concept and some aspect of reality that nobody was previously aware of still doesn't make the concept "true".

I just mean that many people's concepts of "god" is something like nature that we already "believe in", but we don't call it "god" or consider it a religious pursuit. That's why it's easier to say that we only reject theistic gods, to me.

 

[Copernicus]

I just mean that many people's concepts of "god" is something like nature that we already "believe in", but we don't call it "god" or consider it a religious pursuit. That's why it's easier to say that we only reject theistic gods, to me.

I don't mind going along with you on this point. I thought that it went without saying that I rejected the existence of theistic gods. Not being aware of what the other ones are, I have no opinions on their existence.

 

[Truls]

Actually, atheists do not reject the existence of God. They reject the existence of all gods. It is possible not to be a monotheist and still be a theist. I know I'm being technical here, but we are all splitting some hairs in this thread. I am as much an atheist as anyone else here.

Apologies, I didn't mean to specify a particularly theological debate. Force of habit you know?

No disrespect to you or Halcyon, but God has never been consistently claimed to be imperceptible. If God has ever intervened in human affairs, and that intervention has been noticed, then he has been as perceptible as anything else in our physical world. Imperceptibility is only claimed when believers have to account for the fact that God doesn't show up at times when we might reasonably expect him to show up.

Well no one has ever claimed that God has a physical measurable manifestation (to my knowledge) so it is usually implied that God is imperceptible. Older pagan religions had God as perceptible beings (which were disproven) and modern monotheistic religions tend to have an omniscient, omnipresent being who I can only assume is imperceptible. You're right its an assumption but it seems to be a rather well purported one and I wouldn't hesitate to describe modern gods as imperceptible. Perhaps we should lay out a concrete definition of a 'god' before we continue?

But this is all about what licenses belief and disbelief. You do not have to have an absolute proof of nonexistence to have a reasonable case for nonexistence. Atheism is not about whether gods can possibly exist, but whether they can be reasonably said to exist. Denial of belief is not quite the same as merely lacking a belief. It is the assertion of an opinion about the existence of something. And there are plenty of arguments to justify rejecting belief that there is a giant, invisible rabbit in a room. But those arguments only make sense after one has considered the arguments for why one ought to believe in the existence of that giant, invisible rabbit.

But the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion. The default condition is skepticism and from there an individual is convinced to accept a proposition. You needn't create a disproof for every claim that anyone ever makes, that would be an endless task. Rather they need to prove to you that their assertion is correct.

You do not (or at least should not) accept that a giant invisible bunny is in the room until you have proof to the contrary, you should simply ignore that proposition until evidence is offered.

You are wrong. There are plenty reasons to reject belief in gods. All you have to do is look at the arguments in favor of belief in gods, and there are no few of them.

But to reject a belief you have to believe it to some degree. Gods you can simply ignore until you are convinced that they have merit.

Any proposition can be made, but it isn't accepted until evidence is offered.

Most of our opinions are based on what is plausible, not what is merely possible. After all, it is possible that you really live on Mars, but you suffer from the delusion that you live on Earth. Are you going to claim that it is impossible to prove that you don't live on Mars? Well, it may make me look foolish to you, but I reject the belief that I live on Mars. I'm willing to entertain counterarguments, but first I want the proponent to be properly medicated.

No, I don't disagree that it is possible, but until I see some evidence for it I do not believe it. It seems to me that you believe everything and then come up with a case to deny it (rejection.)

The position I'm really denying here is that rejection of belief can only be based on some kind of absolute proof. If that were the only valid way to license rejection of belief, then we would never be able to license rejection of belief in anything at all. If that is your ultimate argument, then I think that you are defending an absurdity.

Well I never said anything about absolute proof. What I am suggesting is that the natural response to any proposition is skepticism, then something convinces you that the proposition is true, then you accept the proposition as true because something reasonably convinced you it was true.

You seem to suggest that all ideas deserve respect and acceptance until reasonably proven false.

 

[Storm]

Well no one has ever claimed that God has a physical measurable manifestation (to my knowledge) so it is usually implied that God is imperceptible.

They're not the same thing. People have always had mystical experiences which they interpret as percptions of God.

But the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion.

No, it lies with the positive claim - not the same thing. Positive claim is a statement of fact as opposed to belief/ opinion. "I do not believe in God" is not positive claim, but "There is no God" is.

But to reject a belief you have to believe it to some degree.

No, you don't. In fact, that defies the very concept of rejecting a belief. I reject theism, which means I do not believe it at all.

Well I never said anything about absolute proof. What I am suggesting is that the natural response to any proposition is skepticism, then something convinces you that the proposition is true, then you accept the proposition as true because something reasonably convinced you it was true.

If I tell you I am a brunette, do you assume I'm lying?

You seem to suggest that all ideas deserve respect and acceptance until reasonably proven false.

The key word being "reasonably," don't they?

 

[Panda]

If I tell you I am a brunette, do you assume I'm lying?

Not the same thing. You being a brunette has no real importance to others. However when you start to claim bigger things, that might have effect on someone life then it is natural to be sceptical. If I claimed to be Obama would you believe me?

 

[Storm]

Not the same thing. You being a brunette has no real importance to others. However when you start to claim bigger things, that might have effect on someone life then it is natural to be sceptical. If I claimed to be Obama would you believe me?

Then it's not a blanket rule. I'm not saying that there's no place for skepticism, just that it's not "the default." There is no default.

 

[Truls]

Well I would believe that you are a brunette because there are many people who have brown hair, thus there is some (albeit not absolute) evidence for your idea. Thus I would assume based on your statement and the abundance of brunettes I believe you. Now if evidence came to light that you were not a brunette then I would reject that belief (negating my previous agreement.) Now if you were to claim something that seems less likely, that has no evidence at all or basis for comparison then yes I would assume you are lying and not believe your claim. If you claimed that you could turn invisible for example I would not believe you because unlike brown hair there is no precedent for it. Thus I wouldn't believe your claim of invisibility.

Claims aren't true until something indicates they're true. You can't accept all claims as true and then wait for a logical disproof, that would result in you believing all sorts of things for no reason at all.

 

[Storm]

Claims aren't true until something indicates they're true. You can't accept all claims as true and then wait for a logical disproof, that would result in you believing all sorts of things for no reason at all.

Absolutely true! Now, given your rather elegant explanation of this simple truth, it stands to reason that the religious have indications that their claims are true, does it not?

 

[Truls]

Absolutely true! Now, given your rather elegant explanation of this simple truth, it stands to reason that the religious have indications that their claims are true, does it not?

I suppose I'm just harder to convince than they are. Its a claim that has very questionable evidence and bases most of its arguments on sentiment rather than any form of logic. There is also nothing that is absolutely observed that God can be compared to. The indications that they have of God seem extremely flimsy, but I suppose that could just be my perspective.

But this all began with a claim (there is a god), some accepted this claim based on the indicators there, others were unconvinced by the claim and thus believed it no more than they had before they were aware of it. The atheist does not need to disprove the theist argument, he simply is unconvinced by the evidence and carries on in a state of disbelief.

 

[Storm]

I suppose I'm just harder to convince than they are. Its a claim that has very questionable evidence and bases most of its arguments on sentiment rather than any form of logic. There is also nothing that is absolutely observed that God can be compared to. The indications that they have of God seem extremely flimsy, but I suppose that could just be my perspective.

But this all began with a claim (there is a god), some accepted this claim based on the indicators there, others were unconvinced by the claim and thus believed it no more than they had before they were aware of it. The atheist does not need to disprove the theist argument, he simply is unconvinced by the evidence and carries on in a state of disbelief.

Well, I myself think that the only compelling evidence is personal experience. The claim came from that.

If I may be so bold, it's not that you're harder to convince; it's that your experience differs.