Lack of belief (yet again)

[Erebus]

In my experience, atheists often don't outright reject all the things they believe would qualify as gods.

Would you mind expanding on this point, please?

If an atheist believes a thing qualifies as a god and doesn't reject it, wouldn't that make them a theist?

I have a feeling that I may have misunderstood what you were going for here.

 

[ArtieE]

For me, the difference between I don't believe that exists and I believe that doesn't exist is grammatical. Others believe it is cognitive.

Each to their own.

There's a huge difference between not having a certain belief and having the opposite belief.

1. Theist: Belief God exists.
2. Weak atheist: No belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist.
3. Strong atheist: No belief God exists, belief God doesn't exist.

You can't tell the difference between 2 and 3?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you mind expanding on this point, please?

If an atheist believes a thing qualifies as a god and doesn't reject it, wouldn't that make them a theist?

I have a feeling that I may have misunderstood what you were going for here.

Two examples:

- "This god you're describing is unfalsifiable. While it can't be disproven, there's no good reason to accept it as true."

- "This argument you're making for your god has holes big enough to drive a truck through; I'd be a fool to accept it. Still, even correct conclusions can be argued for using poor arguments, so I can't take your failure to support your claim as a sign that it's necessarily false. I can't exclude the possibility that you've serendipitously stumbled on the right answer for the wrong reasons."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The question isn't whether some (or even many) people reject everything preternatural as a class; it's whether they would consider "an atheist who believes in ghosts" to be a contradiction in terms. I've never met a single person who holds this position. Have you?

Having never asked anyone such a question I really do not know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having never asked anyone such a question I really do not know.

How about you? Do you understand what I'm describing when I say "an atheist who believes in ghosts" or do you think I'm contradicting myself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not about rejecting all gods ever, just whatever meets your personal idea of gods.



IMO, anything that you don't consider to be gods doesn't matter one bit regarding your disbelief in gods.

We are talking about different things

Me: Someone who disbelieves in the existence of whatever they consider to be gods. [Just as an example, perhaps they have only considered Abrahamic God and generic polytheist gods and believe both are mythical]
You: Someone who disbelieves in the existence of every single god and god concept ever created whether they are aware of them or otherwise and has individually crossed each of their names and definitions off a list.

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Seeing how in my last post, I gave two examples of god-concepts that I don't disbelieve in (the Sun and Haille Selassie), you should know better than to characterize my position the way you just did.

Most people don't believe that their knowledge of gods is complete; many people believe their concept of god, whatever it is, to include gods they haven't encountered yet.

This is why you keep thinking people don't use the word the way they claim they do. You misunderstand the way they are using it.

No; you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

First off: keep in mind that we're talking about a multi-step process, and so far, our discussion is stuck on the first step: recognizing that there's even a god-concept to consider. After that, there are still more steps before we get to actually rejecting the god-concept:

- evaluating the god-concept
- concluding that the god-concept is false

And we need to do this for everything we believe would be a god - individually or by category - before it can be said that we've rejected all gods. We haven't even gotten that far yet. Some god-concepts we're aware of can't be evaluated; some god-concepts we can evaluate can't be rationally concluded to be false.

When talking about claims regarding existence, I see no difference between false and not true.

When we're talking about our beliefs regarding claims, the two states are actually:

- to accept the claim
- not to accept the claim.

And "X is true" and "X is false" are separate claims. Accepting both claims creates a conflict, but any other combination is fair game, including accepting neither claim.

For me, the difference between I don't believe that exists and I believe that doesn't exist is grammatical. Others believe it is cognitive.

Each to their own.

It sounds like you fall into a category I mentioned earlier: people who hold the position that atheists can't be rational... because what you're saying would create an irrational requirement for atheists. Weird for an atheist to do this, but as you say: each to their own.

 

[Erebus]

Two examples:

- "This god you're describing is unfalsifiable. While it can't be disproven, there's no good reason to accept it as true."

- "This argument you're making for your god has holes big enough to drive a truck through; I'd be a fool to accept it. Still, even correct conclusions can be argued for using poor arguments, so I can't take your failure to support your claim as a sign that it's necessarily false. I can't exclude the possibility that you've serendipitously stumbled on the right answer for the wrong reasons."

Ahh I'm with you now. Thank you for clarifying

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about you? Do you understand what I'm describing when I say "an atheist who believes in ghosts" or do you think I'm contradicting myself?

I understand the words. My problem here is that you are referring to an individual and one can find individuals who believe in all manner of things. I would rather depersonalize the phrase, changing it from "an atheism who believes in ghosts" to "an atheism that posits ghosts." I understand hat this will be rejected out of hand by those who militantly oppose viewing 'atheism' as an opinion.

My general problem with the topic in general stems from my view of us as an intensely pattern-matching species. Whatever the input, we form opinions automatically and immediately. With the possible exception of someone who has mastered the mental state of mushin no shin, the absence of opinion is simply not an option.

I appreciate our discussion. Let me end by offering a second article from the Secular Web, this one by *Theodore M. Drange: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998).

* more on Drange here.

 

[Augustus]

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Seeing how in my last post, I gave two examples of god-concepts that I don't disbelieve in (the Sun and Haille Selassie), you should know better than to characterize my position the way you just did.

OK I missed out *"or has ruled them out on the basis of not considering them gods" but you could probably infer that as we've been through it enough times.

And we need to do this for everything we believe would be a god - individually or by category - before it can be said that we've rejected all gods. We haven't even gotten that far yet. Some god-concepts we're aware of can't be evaluated; some god-concepts we can evaluate can't be rationally concluded to be false.

For most people there are probably 1 or 2 god concepts: monotheist and polytheist.

It doesn't take them long to decide they believe neither exists.

And "X is true" and "X is false" are separate claims. Accepting both claims creates a conflict, but any other combination is fair game, including accepting neither claim.

And things exist or they don't, so rejecting the idea that they do exist...

It sounds like you fall into a category I mentioned earlier: people who hold the position that atheists can't be rational... because what you're saying would create an irrational requirement for atheists. Weird for an atheist to do this, but as you say: each to their own.

Nah.

My view is "It's not about rejecting all gods ever, just whatever meets your personal idea of gods." Just like being a 'theist' means believing in something that does meet your definition of god. Whether or not this matches with other people's definitions or conceptions is totally irrelevant.

But we won't get beyond our differences on this issue

 

[Augustus]

1. Theist: Belief God exists.
2. Weak atheist: No belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist.
3. Strong atheist: No belief God exists, belief God doesn't exist.

You can't tell the difference between 2 and 3?

I can tell the difference grammatically, I just don't think 2 is cognitively possible for someone who comprehends the word god. But that's another story...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand the words. My problem here is that you are referring to an individual and one can find individuals who believe in all manner of things.

But not ones whose attributes contradict each other. If I had asked you whether you thought "a married bachelor" is a contradiction in terms, I'm sure you would have had no problem agreeing without having to "depersonalize the phrase."

I would rather depersonalize the phrase, changing it from "an atheism who believes in ghosts" to "an atheism that posits ghosts." I understand hat this will be rejected out of hand by those who militantly oppose viewing 'atheism' as an opinion.

Right, because your approach would be begging the question.

My general problem with the topic in general stems from my view of us as an intensely pattern-matching species. Whatever the input, we form opinions automatically and immediately. With the possible exception of someone who has mastered the mental state of mushin no shin, the absence of opinion is simply not an option.

I think this is speaking to a different issue than the one I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're saying that, due to something about human nature, a person who is an atheist can't help but adopt a position over and above mere atheism. This is a separate question to what "atheism" means.

It's also worth pointing out that plenty of opinions on issues surrounding the question of gods aren't opinions about the existence of gods. For instance, take the two examples I gave to Erebus: "this god is unfalsifiable" and "this argument for a god is irrational" are both opinions, but neither of them necessarily imply "this god does not exist."

Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism
I appreciate our discussion. Let me end by offering a second article from the Secular Web, this one by *Theodore M. Drange: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998).

* more on Drange here.[/QUOTE]
Thanks - I appreciate it, too.

I disagree with a fair bit of that article. He talks about ways how "almost everyone" uses terms in ways that, IMO, virtually nobody uses. He then proposes a system that bears no resemblance at all to how people use the terms (i.e. qualifying "I am an atheist" with "... with regard to (insert specific God)"). In normal language, a Christian is described as a theist, full stop, not "an atheist with regard to Thor."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK I missed out *"or has ruled them out on the basis of not considering them gods" but you could probably infer that as we've been through it enough times.

You've misunderstood or misrepresented me every single time we've talked about these issues. I point this out every time, but it doesn't seem to do any good.

For most people there are probably 1 or 2 god concepts: monotheist and polytheist.

It doesn't take them long to decide they believe neither exists.

That's ridiculous.

And things exist or they don't, so rejecting the idea that they do exist...

Rejecting an argument for a conclusion is not the same thing as rejecting a conclusion. Rejecting an argument doesn't get us to "that doesn't exist;" it gets us to "if that thing exists, it isn't for the reasons you're giving."

Nah.

My view is "It's not about rejecting all gods ever, just whatever meets your personal idea of gods." Just like being a 'theist' means believing in something that does meet your definition of god. Whether or not this matches with other people's definitions or conceptions is totally irrelevant.

But we won't get beyond our differences on this issue

Really: the approach you describe is irrational. If you're saying that atheists can't be atheists unless they follow it, then you're saying that a person has to be irrational to be an atheist.

My position is also "It's not about rejecting all gods ever, just whatever meets your personal idea of gods." For most people, even rejecting whatever meets one's personal idea of gods is practically or theoretically impossible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems to me that you're saying that, due to something about human nature, a person who is an atheist can't help but adopt a position over and above mere atheism.

Mere atheism ...

My point was that a person - atheist or not - will, first and foremost, form an opinion.

This is a separate question to what "atheism" means.

But, again, here you suggest that 'atheism' has some canonized meaning, which is simply not the case.

 

[Augustus]

That's ridiculous.

I don't really care about the other points, but this has piqued my interest.

Why is it ridiculous to think most people don't really know much beyond monotheism and polytheism?

What else would you consider that most people know about?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Theist: Belief God exists.
2. Weak atheist: No belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist.
3. Strong atheist: No belief God exists, belief God doesn't exist.

You can't tell the difference between 2 and 3?

I can tell the difference grammatically, I just don't think 2 is cognitively possible for someone who comprehends the word god. But that's another story...

^ this

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mere atheism ...

Christians don't have some sort of trademark on the word "mere."

My point was that a person - atheist or not - will, first and foremost, form an opinion.

I understand that. My point was that this is irrelevant to what "atheist" means.

But, again, here you suggest that 'atheism' has some canonized meaning, which is simply not the case.

No, I haven't. In fact, I pointed this out the first time you used the term "canonized."

What I've said is that we can infer a meaning of "atheism" from usage, and virtually nobody uses it in a way that reflects a "rejection" definition.

 

[ArtieE]

I can tell the difference grammatically, I just don't think 2 is cognitively possible for someone who comprehends the word god. But that's another story...

That's ok. Good luck trying to convince all the people out there who call themselves weak atheists that there's no such thing and that they're actually strong atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really care about the other points, but this has piqued my interest.

Why is it ridiculous to think most people don't really know much beyond monotheism and polytheism?

Not all monotheisms are the same or can be rejected on the same basis. Same with all polytheisms.

What else would you consider that most people know about?

For starters, most people realize that the Greek gods are not the Norse gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's ok. Good luck trying to convince all the people out there who call themselves weak atheists that there's no such thing and that they're actually strong atheists.

It seems to me that @Augustus 's position is rooted in a pretty low view of humanity. In his world, people aren't thoughtful enough to tell the difference between different monotheistic god-concepts or rational enough to tell the difference between rejecting an argument and rejecting a conclusion.

 

[Jesster]

I love it when theists tell me what I believe.