Who gets to decide?

[jojom]

In another thread (Atheism is not a default position | ReligiousForums.com ) I had reason to go to the American Atheist web site to get their take on the nature of atheism. I had always regarded atheism as the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. But they say No, that isn't right. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." As I read it, this means that even if one grows up never hearing about god, the concept of a god, or even the word---one has total ignorance of it---one would be an atheist. This they say is in contrast to the common dictionary definition of atheism, one that's in accord with my view: "atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods." It is also in contrast to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

The American Atheist web site then goes on to say . . .

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.


So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

 

[Bunyip]

Of course. Makes perfect sense.

Read the various threads here - theists delight in trying to define atheism into some sort of illogical position. As if you can make disbelieving in fairy tales seem illogical by a simple trick of semantics alone.

 

[Laika]

I do wonder about this. 'Atheists' are extremely broad and diverse group of people and there a large number of ways to reaching the conclusion there is no god, as well as lacking belief in a god. There isn't a single atheist "identity".

Defining atheism as "lack of belief" rather than "denial of god" drastically waters down the implications and radicalism of atheism. the more fervent the atheism, the more profoundly it seeks to change society. there is a massive gulf between lack of belief in god and denying god and it blurs the distinction between agnosticism and atheism. My hesitation is because I think of atheism as a positive, radical and humanist identity in which I- to a greater or lesser extent- consciously reject religion. trying to define "lack of belief" as atheism is an attempt to gain acceptance by mainstream society. But what is the point of atheism if it only becomes complicit in the attack on reason, science and progress and a doormat to religious fundamentalism in the name of tolerance?

Unapologetically Atheists need to aggressively recliam the label of militancy and anti-theism and anti-religion, if only to restore the seperation of church and state in the US ans stop ignorance being a political currency. the relationship between atheism and enlightenment means it is the spearhead against religious conservatives. people complian about atheists being militant, but it's paranoia not persecution.

Theists should hear the word atheist and be afriad, filled with visions of burning bibles and churches; freedom of religion is not freedom to force your beliefs on to others; society should embrace the triumph of the worldly knowledge and pleasures over their totems and taboos. The truth will set you free and science will give us the power to play god. An army of people going door to door saying "have you heard the good news? God is dead!" The Enlightenment is coming and we're hear to save you from Jesus.

[cue evil laughter....coughs and splutters]

But I disgress.

 

[Jumi]

Well we could create a new term for people who just lack belief in the gods. Actively denying gods sounds like something theists would do when they have a hard time following their religion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well there seems to be an argument for two main types of Atheists..
Those who straight out disbelieve.
Those who lack a belief.

Per definition, lack of belief takes priority as disbelief classifies within "lack".
Lack as in 'to be without'.

The only thing that you need to be classified as an Atheist is lack belief in God.
Likewise, all you would need to be a theist is a God belief.

So when someone doesn't believe in God they are inherently Atheists.
If someone tries to go for an in between they are also Atheists.
God belief is a polarity, you get one or the other. You can't kinda believe and kinda disbelieve.
Anyone who does may need to get a mental health checkup, IMO

There is supposedly a logical sequence in which a middle position is possible.
I just say that the definitions are the way they are for a reason.
No reason to fix something that isn't broken or to change something that's fine how it is.

Theist and Atheist are the roots of two opposing trees.
Both of which have grown large with many branches.
I see no issue leaving it that way, nor do I think I will ever.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think some atheists are trying too hard to appropriate people who aren't atheists. It's bad enough when they try to insist that agnostics are atheists, even though there is a distinct difference between the two, but I have even seen some apply the label atheist to theists just because they disbelieve in certain gods.

If someone tries to go for an in between they are also Atheists.

No, we aren't. The difference between atheism and agnosticism, which is why they are two different terms to begin with, is that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. A theist believes, an atheist disbelieves (and according to Stanford, is the denial of the existence a god), but an agnostic does not hold either position. To call us (especially those of us who do not lean either way) atheists is to incorrectly describe our views, is to give false impressions, to ignore our views and positions, and is no different than calling a Christian an atheist because they don't believe in Amun-Ra.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In another thread (Atheism is not a default position | ReligiousForums.com ) I had reason to go to the American Atheist web site to get their take on the nature of atheism. I had always regarded atheism as the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. But they say No, that isn't right. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." As I read it, this means that even if one grows up never hearing about god, the concept of a god, or even the word---one has total ignorance of it---one would be an atheist. This they say is in contrast to the common dictionary definition of atheism, one that's in accord with my view: "atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods." It is also in contrast to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

The American Atheist web site then goes on to say . . .

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.


So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I think every group has a right to self-definition. As a pagan and animist, I have the right to define those terms as I see them. I also have the responsibility to understand that then every time I speak about those terms, I have to define exactly what I mean, because my definitions are different than what people will find in the dictionary--which is based on common usage, not on uses by specialized groups (although good dictionaries include definitions used in specific fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, music, etc.). If I use those terms without making my definition clear, it's going to lead to trouble in talking with others.

One of the issues I have with this whole definitional discussion is that it seems most are arguing for a simple binary classification: either believe or disbelieve, yes or no, + or -. Yet all the discussions we have here on this topic (as well as the external literature) reflects that there is a range of possible positions on the question of God or gods (actually, two or more separate questions). There seems to be an active effort on the part of some to do away with the agnostic position by subsuming it into atheism--which is what the American Atheist definition does.

A second issue is the apparent focus--both by theists and atheists--on the omnimax Judeo-Christian version of deity, lumping all other conceptions of deity under the term "God," when the differences in what constitutes a "god" or something worthy of respect/worship varies greatly in other belief systems.

Thus, I am highly agnostic, perhaps even atheistic, about the proposition of a universal omnimax creator God, as represented in the Judeo-Christian traditions. I cannot comprehend such a deity, and I've given up trying--I just can't wrap my head around a universe that may be infinite, but is at least (based on current measurements) 80 trillion lightyears in radius, with a creator god that knows what's happening at every point in space and time within that volume, and has a personal relationship and concern with me. It may be true, but just can't go there any more.

I'm also agnostic about the specific historical polytheistic pantheons. However, I am what would have to be called (using these terms) theistic about the existence of spirit of various sorts, even though my belief in spirits does not approach the kind of extensive modeling that has gone into creating the current idea of the omnimax J/C creator god. I recognize that some might call some of the spirits I recognize gods, but I don't.

So where in this binary world of theism/atheism does that put me? At the very least, there needs to be an agnostic category, a category for people who don't reject the idea of God or gods outright, but also don't believe in an omnimax J/C creator, or maybe even in the other established polytheistic pantheons.

 

[Marisa]

In another thread (Atheism is not a default position | ReligiousForums.com ) I had reason to go to the American Atheist web site to get their take on the nature of atheism. I had always regarded atheism as the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. But they say No, that isn't right. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." As I read it, this means that even if one grows up never hearing about god, the concept of a god, or even the word---one has total ignorance of it---one would be an atheist. This they say is in contrast to the common dictionary definition of atheism, one that's in accord with my view: "atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods." It is also in contrast to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

The American Atheist web site then goes on to say . . .

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.


So what do you think? Do they have a good argument here?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I'm inclined to agree with AA here. Consider: is it really all that easy to conceive of anyone alive today who's never been exposed to some kind of god(s) based religion? If we find (intelligent) life on a distant planet, will those beings be atheists or theists?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well there seems to be an argument for two main types of Atheists..
Those who straight out disbelieve.
Those who lack a belief.

Per definition, lack of belief takes priority as disbelief classifies within "lack".
Lack as in 'to be without'.

The only thing that you need to be classified as an Atheist is lack belief in God.
Likewise, all you would need to be a theist is a God belief.

So when someone doesn't believe in God they are inherently Atheists.
If someone tries to go for an in between they are also Atheists.
God belief is a polarity, you get one or the other. You can't kinda believe and kinda disbelieve.
Anyone who does may need to get a mental health checkup, IMO

There is supposedly a logical sequence in which a middle position is possible.
I just say that the definitions are the way they are for a reason.
No reason to fix something that isn't broken or to change something that's fine how it is.

Theist and Atheist are the roots of two opposing trees.
Both of which have grown large with many branches.
I see no issue leaving it that way, nor do I think I will ever.

So, Atheists demand the right to define themselves, then insist that agnostics (and others) must adhere to their definition, and be counted either amongst them, or amongst the opposition...

Agnostics (and other non-atheist non-theists) of the World, Unite! We have much to gain by rejecting the theist/atheist dichotomy!

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think some atheists are trying too hard to appropriate people who aren't atheists. It's bad enough when they try to insist that agnostics are atheists, even though there is a distinct difference between the two, but I have even seen some apply the label atheist to theists just because they disbelieve in certain gods.

To call us (especially those of us who do not lean either way) atheists is to incorrectly describe our views, is to give false impressions, to ignore our views and positions, and is no different than calling a Christian an atheist because they don't believe in Amun-Ra.

Well when it comes to theists many are technically atheistic towards a God that isn't their own.
But that is indeed a bit overboard, and obviously is subbed into their overall belief.

No, we aren't. The difference between atheism and agnosticism, which is why they are two different terms to begin with, is that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve.

Ah, but you lack a belief in God, do you not?
Besides I see it as a category within Atheism anyways, same way abrahamic religions are within theism.

It's a point you will not really be able to convince me on, you're welcome to try though.
I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, just throwing out where that belief is categorized.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So, Atheists demand the right to define themselves, then insist that agnostics (and others) must adhere to their definition, and be counted either amongst them, or amongst the opposition...

Agnostics (and other non-atheist non-theists) of the World, Unite! We have much to gain by rejecting the theist/atheist dichotomy!

I have no intention of forcing a title.
I could care less what you believe or where you stand on whatever topic.
There are definitions to account for, and if you want me on your side then get them changed.

It doesn't matter to me if people dislike being classified as what they are.
I tend to keep my thoughts to myself, however; we are on the internet so I have little to worry about.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well when it comes to theists many are technically atheistic towards a God that isn't their own.
But that is indeed a bit overboard, and obviously is subbed into their overall belief.



Ah, but you lack a belief in God, do you not?
Besides I see it as a category within Atheism anyways, same way abrahamic religions are within theism.

It's a point you will not really be able to convince me on, you're welcome to try though.
I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, just throwing out where that belief is categorized.

You see, I would classify someone "without belief" as an agnostic, and someone who believes there is no J/C omnimax creator deity as atheists. Why? Because the world is not black and white, but all kinds of shades of gray. The attempt to force binary on a multi world is just not logical.

 

[Marisa]

So, Atheists demand the right to define themselves, then insist that agnostics (and others) must adhere to their definition, and be counted either amongst them, or amongst the opposition...

Agnostics (and other non-atheist non-theists) of the World, Unite! We have much to gain by rejecting the theist/atheist dichotomy!

Theists accept the existence of god(s), atheists do not accept the existence of god(s) and agnostics believe that the term "god(s)" is not sufficiently defined to take a position. If you can't take a position, how have you taken a position? To paraphrase Rush, you can choose not to decide but you still have made a choice.

ETA: As a general rule, I let people tell me what they are and refrain as much as possible from telling them what they are. I find it far more respectful that way, and since as an atheist I spend a fair amount of time listening to religious people of various sort tell me what I think and believe, I'd like to think I'm far more interested in understanding other people than they often are in understanding me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm inclined to agree with AA here. Consider: is it really all that easy to conceive of anyone alive today who's never been exposed to some kind of god(s) based religion? If we find (intelligent) life on a distant planet, will those beings be atheists or theists?

I think first we must ask is would they even care enough to use either term?

Ah, but you lack a belief in God, do you not?

It isn't that simple. I don't know if there is a god or not. There might be, there might not be. To focus simply on the "lack of belief" part is to over simplify my views, for I do not reject the idea of god.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You see, I would classify someone "without belief" as an agnostic, and someone who believes there is no J/C omnimax creator deity as atheists. Why? Because the world is not black and white, but all kinds of shades of gray. The attempt to force binary on a multi world is just not logical.

A belief is not the entire world.
This is a polarity, if you bother to research definitions then you will realize that.
There are logical arguments against that polarity that you can follow to you hearts content.
However, until the definitions change that polarity remains.

You either believe or lack belief, those are the options given.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ugh...semantics drive me nuts.
How could you ever disbelieve all forms of theism? It would require you first being aware of them, surely?

One thing theists and atheists have in common is that they practically all disbelieve some forms of theism.

Where atheists and theists differ is that theists believe in one.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have no intention of forcing a title.
I could care less what you believe or where you stand on whatever topic.
There are definitions to account for, and if you want me on your side then get them changed.

It doesn't matter to me if people dislike being classified as what they are.
I tend to keep my thoughts to myself, however; we are on the internet so I have little to worry about.

Yes, and the American Atheist site is attempting to change the classification, compared to other established reputable sites that provide definitions--such as the Stanford Philosophy site, and many dictionaries. It really doesn't matter to me that you insist that there are only two categories for your own personal use. The problem comes when groups in society start making policy decisions based on classifications that ignore very real and very legitimate differences--as we have seen with race, gender, sexual expression, ethnicity. The real world is not binary, it is multivariate, and we need to recognize that fact.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It isn't that simple. I don't know if there is a god or not. There might be, there might not be. To focus simply on the "lack of belief" part is to over simplify my views, for I do not reject the idea of god.

I don't see how that's a concern of mine.
Petition for the change of the definition of Atheism if you have this much of an issue with it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes, and the American Atheist site is attempting to change the classification, compared to other established reputable sites that provide definitions--such as the Stanford Philosophy site, and many dictionaries. It really doesn't matter to me that you insist that there are only two categories for your own personal use. The problem comes when groups in society start making policy decisions based on classifications that ignore very real and very legitimate differences--as we have seen with race, gender, sexual expression, ethnicity. The real world is not binary, it is multivariate, and we need to recognize that fact.

Not my concern, I follow the definitions of words.
When those definitions change then I still follow them.
I am the one who is colorless on these topics.

I'm not the type to call a snake a turtle.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

A belief is not the entire world.
This is a polarity, if you bother to research definitions then you will realize that.
There are logical arguments against that polarity that you can follow to you hearts content.
However, until the definitions change that polarity remains.

You either believe or lack belief, those are the options given.

No, those are the options that you will accept. You, and in fact no one, is the absolute arbiter of meaning. That's why we need to have civil discussions, and recognize that other people have other views about things. At one time in the US, "one drop" of African ancestry made a person Negro under law. The definition was meaningless, but held implications in real life for the people affected.