Lack of belief (yet again)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, we have other fish to fry. However non-smoker is not the negation of smoker. Rather it is a person who has not smoked.

This should make clear that putting non/a in front of a word is not simply a negation. We have to look at more than just 'not a smoker' to understand the definition.

Okay - so you do get it. Now apply the same thought process to "atheist."

 

[Curious George]

Okay - so you do get it. Now apply the same thought process to "atheist."

Sure... Atheist is a word that we use to describe a person who believes no god exists. Not simply "not a theist."

 

[Curious George]

Sure... Atheist is a word that we use to describe a person who believes no god exists. Not simply "not a theist."

Or better yet an intelligent entity who believes no god exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure... Atheist is a word that we use to describe a person who believes no god exists. Not simply "not a theist."

Atheists could originally be theists, or more accurately deists. Their 'atheism' was more in relation to the accepted belief systems of society.

Word usage changes over time. I have to admit I find it disconcerting that these semantic arguments frame anyone's thoughts about non-belief.
The full range of beliefs and non-belief remain, regardless of fashion in terms of labelling.

 

[Curious George]

Atheists could originally be theists, or more accurately deists. Their 'atheism' was more in relation to the accepted belief systems of society.

Word usage changes over time. I have to admit I find it disconcerting that these semantic arguments frame anyone's thoughts about non-belief.
The full range of beliefs and non-belief remain, regardless of fashion in terms of labelling.

And what is that full range?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And what is that full range?

Everything you can possibly imagine.

 

[Curious George]

Everything you can possibly imagine.

Incapable of belief
Capable of belief and assents to a proposition
Capable of belief and assents to the negation of a proposition
Capable of belief and refuses to assent to either the proposituon or the negation

Have I left any out?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Theism is the belief in God or gods. Atheism is the absence of belief in God or gods (which is theism). Being without theism does not mean that you aren't familiar with the term. It means that you are without the specific belief.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Incapable of belief
Capable of belief and assents to a proposition
Capable of belief and assents to the negation of a proposition
Capable of belief and refuses to assent to either the proposituon or the negation

Have I left any out?

Probably.
I tend to think of it as a spectrum, rather than categories.
Also, whilst atheists might not believe in a God, they obviously hold all sorts of beliefs, so categorizing by position re: belief in God (whatever God is) is of limited use anyway.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Curious George]

Probably.
I tend to think of it as a spectrum, rather than categories.
Also, whilst atheists might not believe in a God, they obviously hold all sorts of beliefs, so categorizing by position re: belief in God (whatever God is) is of limited use anyway.

Just my opinion though.

Perhaps. How would you define limited use.

Categories and categorization is important. You rely on this to understand and interact with the world in which you live. Whie discussions in ontology may seem trivial, the differences however can have far reaching consequences. And the logic which we use to arrive at such conclusions can also have far reaching consequences.

Some people enjoy contemplating these, others, who are perhaps more pragmatic, do not.

That is just my opinion belief though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps. How would you define limited use.

Heh...fair point.

Categories and categorization is important. You rely on this to understand and interact with the world in which you live.

Completely agree. I think in this particular case the umbrella label (theist/atheist) is of very little use, and can be misleading. Subcategories (eg. Anti-theist, Deist, Roman Catholic) are more informative.

People are interested that I'm an atheist, but not that I'm a Methodological Naturalist. Which is more informative of my world view?

Whie discussions in ontology may seem trivial, the differences however can have far reaching consequences. And the logic which we use to arrive at such conclusions can also have far reaching consequences.

I completely agree. It is, in fact, my point. By elevating the importance of the theist/atheist dichotomy, and even moreso the meaning of 'atheist', it starts to become more important than it should be.
All focus and effort is relative. Effort determining whether a rock is an atheist reduces focus on secularism, or any of a thousand other related, and more meaningful topics.

Some people enjoy contemplating these, others, who are perhaps more pragmatic, do not.

I don't enjoy contemplating the meaning of atheism, but I do think it's important NOT to attach too much meaning to it. I think too many currently conflate atheism with a whole grab bag of beliefs and philosophies.

Atheism isn't much of anything.

That is just my opinion belief though.

Heh...yep.
This is where I undermine my own consistency by going off on a rant about opinion versus belief, right?

Let's just say my position on this lacks empirical evidence, but it's pretty clear to me that many people attach things to atheism, and then commonly conflate them.

So I'm fine if you want to call that a belief. Atheists have em, just like theists. Just sometimes not about God...lol

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If people stopped posting because they couldn't support their claim, then doesn't that say something about the claim?

Even if we aren't talking about deity, that's how conversations go...

If I started a thread my ability to throw a 200mph fastball - wouldn't your first line of questioning be something about the proof of my ability to actually throw a baseball that fast?

This wasn't just happening in threads started more-often-than-not by Christians who claimed they had proof of God. It was happening in threads in the religious DIRs - places you'd assume theists would have been granted the courtesy of at least being allowed to presume the existence of their god(s) for the sake of discussion. The forum's mods - being mostly atheists - did little to stop this. It also crept into threads where the plausibility of the existence of deity was not the issue of discussion - thus it was a derail. Again, the mods did very little about this.

I don't have a problem with atheists wanting to see evidence for the claims made by others about the gods - it's a very rational approach to life. When atheists aren't even the target audience of a discussion though, it does start to get a bit wearing. Especially when they've already made identical demands in multiple threads and aren't content to wait for replies in those threads.

 

[ArtieE]

Or better yet an intelligent entity who believes no god exists.

What would you call a stupid entity who believes no god exists?

 

[Curious George]

Heh...fair point.



Completely agree. I think in this particular case the umbrella label (theist/atheist) is of very little use, and can be misleading. Subcategories (eg. Anti-theist, Deist, Roman Catholic) are more informative.

What informs is relative.

People are interested that I'm an atheist, but not that I'm a Methodological Naturalist. Which is more informative of my world view?

What informs is relative; but generally the latter.

I completely agree. It is, in fact, my point. By elevating the importance of the theist/atheist dichotomy, and even moreso the meaning of 'atheist', it starts to become more important than it should be.
All focus and effort is relative. Effort determining whether a rock is an atheist reduces focus on secularism, or any of a thousand other related, and more meaningful topics.

Were this a debate about secularism, you would be correct. I agree in many topics this specific argument is a common tangent. Yet, talks of secularism become the tangent when this specific argument is the topic.

I don't enjoy contemplating the meaning of atheism, but I do think it's important NOT to attach too much meaning to it. I think too many currently conflate atheism with a whole grab bag of beliefs and philosophies.

Sometimes it is important to contemplate even the simplest of things.

Atheism isn't much of anything.

Simplicitity doesn't mean unworthy of contemplation.

Heh...yep.
This is where I undermine my own consistency by going off on a rant about opinion versus belief, right?

Let's just say my position on this lacks empirical evidence, but it's pretty clear to me that many people attach things to atheism, and then commonly conflate them.

So I'm fine if you want to call that a belief. Atheists have em, just like theists. Just sometimes not about God...lol

I wouldn't expect you to undermine your position. Everyone has beliefs. Some people are more pragmatic than others. You seem intent coming at it from that perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

What would you call a stupid entity who believes no god exists?

Probably the same thing i would call a stupid entity who believed in a god: indoctrinated.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, really.
That you and so many other people do not see any difference is a big part of the problem.

The problem of people disagreeing on the internet?

Outside of endless internet quibbling, it really doesn't cause many problems whether a self-confessed atheist has a 'lack of belief' or a belief.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This wasn't just happening in threads started more-often-than-not by Christians who claimed they had proof of God. It was happening in threads in the religious DIRs - places you'd at least assume theists would have been granted the courtesy of at least being allowed to presume the existence of their god(s) for the sake of discussion. The forum's mods - being mostly atheists - did little to stop this. It also crept into threads where the plausibility of the existence of deity was not the issue of discussion - thus it was a derail. Again, the mods did very little about this.

I don't have a problem with atheists wanting to see evidence for the claims made by others about the gods - it's a very rational approach to life. When atheists aren't even the target audience of a discussion though, it does start to get a bit wearing. Especially when they've already made identical demands in multiple threads and aren't content to wait for replies in those threads.

That's fair.

A problem that I have with these discussion is one that you can see happening right now, in this very thread. The basic concept of the burden of proof as a philosophical requirement for discussion is being eliminated and it's being replaced with such rigorous supporting arguments as:

• "Nuh-uh..."

• "I don't have to support my beliefs..."

• And "You can't prove that it doesn't exist..."

Or other such nonsense.

That's a problem that's much bigger than our forum discussions. It's a degradation of modern discourse and an unraveling of the basic foundations of logic. It's akin to rewriting math and science books because we don't like how hard they are... It's dangerous.