Lack of belief (yet again)

[Curious George]

Your definition of atheism is something like "rejection of the existence of all gods," right?

Edit: my point wasn't about the definition; it was about putting the definition into practice. How does someone go about rejecting all gods, in your view?

By holding that a god does not exist.

This requires a definituon of a god of course. And that is the definition to which i was referring. But for your convenience again.

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

 

[Curious George]

Hmmm... people who are not theists and call themselves atheists disagree that people who are not theists should be called atheists?

Yes, actually.

 

[Curious George]

.
And even considering the god-concepts we are aware of, there's a difference between "I have seen no reason to accept the claim you're making" and "I have concluded that the claim you're making is false."

What is the truth value of the claim then, if it is not true, nor false?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... virtually nobody uses it in a way that reflects a "rejection" definition.

That is, indeed, your claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is, indeed, your claim.

That's right. By far, the most common definition I run into - as inferred by how people use the term - is that an atheist is someone who lacks belief in any gods and has made an explicit choice not to be Christian.

The vast majority of people I talk to about this can't even explain what it would mean to reject all gods - or everything they would consider to be a god - let alone come up with a method to do it. So far, the only person I've encountered who believes that every person they call "atheist" has come up with a definition for "god" and rejected the existence of every single thing that meets it is @Augustus, but to do that, he had to make a number of... um... unique leaps to do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the truth value of the claim then, if it is not true, nor false?

The claim is either true or false, but the truth or falsehood of the claim is a separate question from whether we accept it or not, or reject it or not.

Accepting a claim is a matter of recognizing the claim as justified. Criteria for justification vary from person to person (and sometimes from claim to claim for one person), but it's very common for neither the claim "X is true" nor "X is false" to meet a person's criteria for justification. When this happens, neither claim is accepted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Going back to something:

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

So from the Drange article you posted:

Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:

(1) Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
(2) If so, then is that proposition true or false?

[...]

[Y]ou are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, "The evidence is insufficient" (or words to that effect).

I think that the person Drange is describing should be considered an atheist (along with possibly an agnostic - I don't consider the categories mutually exclusive like he does). It seems that what you and @Augustus are saying is that the people Drange describes as "agnostic" don't really exist, and that anyone who claims to be in this category actually accepts or rejects the existence of gods, regardless of their claims that they're non-committal. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Curious George]

The claim is either true or false, but the truth or falsehood of the claim is a separate question from whether we accept it or not, or reject it or not.

Accepting a claim is a matter of recognizing the claim as justified. Criteria for justification vary from person to person (and sometimes from claim to claim for one person), but it's very common for neither the claim "X is true" nor "X is false" to meet a person's criteria for justification. When this happens, neither claim is accepted.

Which is fine, but we are not talking about agnosticism.

It doesn't matter if the person marks the claim unknown.

The question is not about knowledge. It is about belief.

 

[Curious George]

That's right. By far, the most common definition I run into - as inferred by how people use the term - is that an atheist is someone who lacks belief in any gods and has made an explicit choice not to be Christian.

The vast majority of people I talk to about this can't even explain what it would mean to reject all gods - or everything they would consider to be a god - let alone come up with a method to do it. So far, the only person I've encountered who believes that every person they call "atheist" has come up with a definition for "god" and rejected the existence of every single thing that meets it is @Augustus, but to do that, he had to make a number of... um... unique leaps to do it.

You can add me to that list as well. I needn't make any leaps except that some people are internally inconsistent. That is there are some people who define god in such a way that it becomes internally inconsistent to recognize have disbelief in all gods. That said you and I differ in that I suggest that there is a internally consistent way to do this. If I am wrong, then I would like you to explain how, so I can see the error.

 

[Glaurung]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in God or gods. The absence of theism. That's all it means, as it is an extremely general term (like "theism").

When you say that atheism is an absence of theism, what that implies is that atheism is a state of being without any concept of theism. This is clearly not the case as the atheists on this thread demonstrate. An atheist cannot talk about theism without a concept of theism, therefore they are not without its absence. They are in a state of disbelief.

Why does it seem so many "non-atheists" are fond of sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of atheists who disagree with the lack of belief, no positive claim argument.

You're right, I shouldn't generalise. Nonetheless I still maintain that the whole argument is dishonest and it's not by-in-large theists who push it.

Atheism is the absence of the belief that God exists. You can in addition claim or have the belief that there is insufficient evidence for God. So?

One more time.

I am saying that you cannot have an absence of belief (about God) whilst simultaneously making claims about the evidence for God. I am saying that you cannot coherently say that there is insufficient evidence for God, if as you claim you have an absence of belief about God. Because the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God is a belief about God. It's one or the other, you cannot have both.

What you call "justifying atheism" is actually just explaining why a person hasn't accepted some version of theism.

But what is being claimed is that atheism is not even a non-acceptance, it's an utter lack of any movement towards either acceptance or disavowal. I am saying that if you maintain this, you cannot even talk about theism at all because the moment you do you betray a concept of theism.

If you have a concept of theism, any concept at all, then you cannot describe your atheism as an absence of belief or position about that theism. You cannot disavow something whilst claiming to have an utter lack of position about it. That is incoherent.

 

[Augustus]

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

They are rejected on the basis that you choose not to believe in them, what other basis is needed?

(and you really think most people make any distinction between monotheist god concepts?)

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

If you understand the concept of 'police officer', you understand Greek police officer, Norwegian police officer etc.

If you believe all gods are mythical beings created in older cultures to fulfil social and psychological functions then this covers all gods. You understand this happened the world over, you understand they take many forms, you see them as part of the same archetype though.

You say I misrepresent your views, but then keep making exactly the same bizarre point about some kind of imaginary checklist that needs to be gone through one by one.

You reject the category, not each individual named member of the category.

Do you believe in fire breathing dragons? No.
Well what about Smaug? No
Drogon? No
Puff the Magic Dragon? No

I don't need to tick them off individually.

So far, the only person I've encountered who believes that every person they call "atheist" has come up with a definition for "god" and rejected the existence of every single thing that meets it is @Augustus, but to do that, he had to make a number of... um... unique leaps to do it.

Unique leaps?

Unique leap 1: Understand concept(s)of god(s)
Unique leap 2: Choose to believe gods don't exist.

~~~~fin~~~~


Anyway, no solution to this. You get in a fankle about things I consider totally irrelevant, and I can't convince you that they are totally irrelevant as the only thing that matter is what one believes.

 

[Curious George]

You're right, I shouldn't generalise. Nonetheless I still maintain that the whole argument is dishonest, and it's not by-in-large theists who push it.

While dishonest and manipulative have certainly crossed my mind when discussing the topic with others, I just cannot claim that so many people who have demonstrated honesty and integrity in so many other areas would be doing it for such reasons.

I think the argument arises for several reasons.

1) proponents of the view have made a mistake in reasoning.

I have done this before as well. One mistake in reasoning and you can believe very strongly that something untrue is true. Sometimes it is very difficult to see or accept the mistake. In fact, you and I could be operating right now under such a mistake and that is why we conclude as we do.

2) believing that Atheism is simply a lack of belief feels better to them.

Sometimes when something feels better or more right a group of people will go to extremes to justify it. IMO this parallels many religious perspectives quite well.

3) babies and rocks.

Some people see this perspective as the only logical way to categorize groups like babies and rocks. People love categories and the varying levels of atheism supply a category for groups that would otherwise be labeled not applicable.

4) Some other honest reason of which I have not thought.

 

[Curious George]

If you believe all gods are mythical beings created in older cultures to fulfil social and psychological functions then this covers all gods. You understand this happened the world over, you understand they take many forms, you see them as part of the same archetype though.

Wouldnt that be begging the question though.

If we define god as something that does not exist in reality and then say a god not exist in reality because the definition of a god is something that does not exist in reality?

 

[Augustus]

Wouldnt that be begging the question though.

If we define god as something that does not exist in reality and then say a god not exist in reality because the definition of a god is something that does not exist in reality?

It wasn't supposed to be a definition of god, but a description of a person's attitude.

 

[Curious George]

It wasn't supposed to be a definition of god, but a description of a person's attitude.

Just making clear. Do we agree that it is possible to both believe no god exists in a logically consistent way; in addition to logically inconsistent ways.

My understanding is that penguin believes that only logically inconsistent ways exist for people to believe no god exists.

Since your example falls into that category, I wanted to clarify.

 

[Augustus]

Just making clear. Do we agree that it is possible to both believe no god exists in a logically consistent way; in addition to logically inconsistent ways.

Yes.

 

[ArtieE]

When you say that atheism is an absence of theism, what that implies is that atheism is a state of being without any concept of theism.

Blithering nonsense. It is a state of being where the person is without a belief in the existence of gods but may very well have a concept of theism. You can both have a concept of theism and also be without belief in the existence of gods. Are you mentally incapable of understanding this?

 

[ArtieE]

Some people see this perspective as the only logical way to categorize groups like babies and rocks. People love categories and the varying levels of atheism supply a category for groups that would otherwise be labeled not applicable.

A theist is defined as "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods"

the definition of theist

however, some people think we start talking about rocks if we put the prefix a- in front of theist. If you engage these people in conversation don't expect logical and rational arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am saying that you cannot have an absence of belief (about God) whilst simultaneously making claims about the evidence for God. I am saying that you cannot coherently say that there is insufficient evidence for God, if as you claim you have an absence of belief about God. Because the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God is a belief about God. It's one or the other, you cannot have both.

"Lack of belief IN," not "lack of belief ABOUT."

If you have a concept of theism, any concept at all, then you cannot describe your atheism as an absence of belief or position about that theism. You cannot disavow something whilst claiming to have an utter lack of position about it. That is incoherent.

Lack of belief IN gods encompasses everything from complete unawareness of gods to utter rejection of gods. It includes anything that isn't theism.

All this "lack of belief ABOUT" stuff is rooted in your misunderstanding of what the rest of us are talking about.

 

[Glaurung]

Blithering nonsense. It is a state of being where the person is without a belief in the existence of gods but may very well have a concept of theism. You can both have a concept of theism and also be without belief in the existence of gods. Are you mentally incapable of understanding this?

The problem is that you do not grasp that I think your use of language is flawed.

You claim over and over again that atheism is an absence of theism, not a rejection but rather a total lack. You want me to accept that atheism qua atheism is a position of total neutrality. I understand this in the abstract but the problem is that I don't see how this is at all meaningful in describing how beliefs exist in reality. An infant may be an atheist in the stated sense but the moment you have any concept of God you cannot be in a state of non-position. You will either believe it or reject it regardless of how certain or tentative that belief or disbelief may be.

My position is this. Atheism as you describe it may make sense conceptually, but cannot exist in actuality once a person has the faculties of judgement. You cannot avoid but to make a judgement. And negative belief is not an absence of a belief, it is not a non-position.