(July 4, 2014 at 2:09 pm)SkepticismFirst Wrote: This whole conversation seems ultimately useless, because the "lack belief" crowd is wrong anyway. There are good reasons to belive that the proposition "God does not exist" is true. If you don't believe that, you should.

Oh I do suspect that whatever it is the word 'gods' refers to probably does not exist in the physical sense. Of course, if it turns out that 'gods' are allegorical or aspects of consciousness produced by our brains then those may very well exist. If it is literal gods we are talking about then no those I dismiss without argument.

But my belief that literal gods do not exist is not the reason I identify as an atheist, and that seems to be what this conversation is about: what does it mean to say one is an atheist? As far as I'm concerned the term 'god' is too poorly defined to jump to any conclusions about the nature of their existence. As an element of the psyche I think they really do exist. Of course when those believers die, so does their on-board god. But until the last practitioner of that religion dies, the god carries on.

So for me it matters to say that I am an atheist in the sense that I don't harbor any, and that is true because I have no active belief in gods. But you go ahead and insist on making a literal argument for a literal god if that's entertains you. Not interested.

(July 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think atheism is "theism is false". It is a necessary condition of atheism to be "not theism", but it's not sufficient in my view. Just like it's a necessary condition of negative numbers to be "not positive", but it's not sufficient since the number 0 is "not positive", and yet it's still not a negative number.

Finally, some sense in a concise form!

Now then, what word would describe "not theism"?
If not atheism, then what?

Gotta second the above, necessary and sufficient conditions escape us alot of the time. Makes us misuse logic without realizing it - and form compelling arguments both for absurdity and against what we might call self evidently true. Necessary and sufficient condition is why not every mp, is another mans mt.

(July 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think atheism is "theism is false". It is a necessary condition of atheism to be "not theism", but it's not sufficient in my view. Just like it's a necessary condition of negative numbers to be "not positive", but it's not sufficient since the number 0 is "not positive", and yet it's still not a negative number.

Yes, it is a necessary condition of atheism to be "not theism". But it doesn't follow from "not theism" to "theism is false".

I've pointed this out to you previously, that you are trying to respond to 2 prongs of a dilemma simultaneously.

There are 2 truth claims with regards to the existence of a god;

1. a god(s) exists
2. a god(s) do not exist

Only one of these can be true.

But disbelieving the 1st truth claim does not mean that one accepts the 2nd truth claim by default. The both have to be evaluated separately.

(July 4, 2014 at 4:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Finally, some sense in a concise form!

Now then, what word would describe "not theism"?
If not atheism, then what?

I manage it sometimes.

Not sure if there's single term just for that, since it describes every non-theist. Strict agnostics aren't theists, but aren't atheists on my view either, and I think they'd agree. They don't think theists or atheists are justified in affirming their positions.

Perhaps ignostic/theological noncognitivists.

(July 4, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes, it is a necessary condition of atheism to be "not theism". But it doesn't follow from "not theism" to "theism is false".

Sorry, but I should have been clearer. When i say atheism is "theism is false", I mean that statement is a belief. But I did not say that "not theist" = "theism is false". I said atheism = "theism is false".

Quote:I've pointed this out to you previously, that you are trying to respond to 2 prongs of a dilemma simultaneously.

There are 2 truth claims with regards to the existence of a god;

1. a god(s) exists
2. a god(s) do not exist

Only one of these can be true.

But disbelieving the 1st truth claim does not mean that one accepts the 2nd truth claim by default. The both have to be evaluated separately.

I agree. I never said those were the same. I said the only sensible definition of atheism would be to those who affirm belief that #2 is, or is probably, true. I also said strict agnostics (and ignostics) cannot be called an atheist or theists, and that to do so just seems unwarranted, & requires redefining things weirdly to do so.

(July 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 4:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Finally, some sense in a concise form!

Now then, what word would describe "not theism"?
If not atheism, then what?

I manage it sometimes.

Not sure if there's single term just for that, since it describes every non-theist. Strict agnostics aren't theists, but aren't atheists on my view either, and I think they'd agree.

Some of them would agree.
Others wouldn't.

"internet atheists" seem to regard 'atheism' as "not theism" and "theism is false", hence the need for further clarification with extra terms.
There are some dictionaries that carry both those definitions.... others carry only one.
If we assume that the union of all dictionaries has all the usages of a given word, then it is reasonable to accept that 'atheism' is a large scope word encompassing both "not theism" and "theism is false" and maybe something else I'm not considering/remembering.

(July 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: They don't think theists or atheists are justified in affirming their positions.

Perhaps ignostic/theological noncognitivists.

ugh... weird words.
We'd have to change the forum's name to "ignostic forums"!

lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (agnostic atheist? weak atheist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (strong atheist)
has belief + has knowledge + there is no god (gnostic atheist)

lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (apostatic theist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (weak theist; faith based theism)
has belief + has knowledge + there is a god (strong theist; fundamentalist)

???

It suggests to me, because there are two variables, and a proposition that can be stated in the affirmative or the negative, there are a large range of possible positions. I don't think you can determine what the term atheism means by applying a sort of linguistic calculus, because words aquire meaning through convention, not logic. In the case of the word 'atheism', there are competing conventions. Because lexicographers have traditionally been theists, they've tended to frame the definition in ways that are understandable from the perspective of theism. This is somewhat proscriptive, however since atheist's proper are a minority language group, there's some sense to this. Then there's the sociological approach, that those to whom a term applies have the say in how it is defined; this has led to the "lack of belief" definition, possibly because it is the most inclusive. So you have two separate social conventions for the term, neither is necessarily more right than the other.

As you've been quick to point out, most people (theists) who use the word atheist aren't going to distinguish between an ignostic and atheist. We're both atheists by their lights.

(July 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)rasetsu Wrote: lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (agnostic atheist? weak atheist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (strong atheist)
has belief + has knowledge + there is no god (gnostic atheist)

lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (apostatic theist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (weak theist; faith based theism)
has belief + has knowledge + there is a god (strong theist; fundamentalist)

???

It suggests to me, because there are two variables, and a proposition that can be stated in the affirmative or the negative, there are a large range of possible positions. I don't think you can determine what the term atheism means by applying a sort of linguistic calculus, because words aquire meaning through convention, not logic. In the case of the word 'atheism', there are competing conventions. Because lexicographers have traditionally been theists, they've tended to frame the definition in ways that are understandable from the perspective of theism. This is somewhat proscriptive, however since atheist's proper are a minority language group, there's some sense to this. Then there's the sociological approach, that those to whom a term applies have the say in how it is defined; this has led to the "lack of belief" definition, possibly because it is the most inclusive. So you have two separate social conventions for the term, neither is necessarily more right than the other.

I think I agree with most of that. However, as I said on the first page, I don't have a problem with people opting to use different definitions of words (meaning is just usage, after all). But the flip-side of that is that there are consequences in terms of relevance and coherence when one starts changing words to mean something different than what people expect. In other words, I don't think rightness comes into this, but reasonableness and pragmatism do, as I think this lacking belief stuff removes the ability for one to actually give a nuanced position when asked to. If you either have to choose asserting theism is true or not asserting it as true (and yet not calling it false) and still call oneself an atheist or theist (and not strictly an agnostic or ignostic), then where can you go from there? You can't strongly lack belief, by the very definition employed they've made it a bivalent choice, free from degrees.

(July 4, 2014 at 7:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: as I think this lacking belief stuff removes the ability for one to actually give a nuanced position when asked to.

'Lack of belief in deities' is a useful general term which covers people who class themselves as 6 or 7 on the theistic probability scale. Nuanced positions can be given in the context of what's being discussed. Here are two examples of what I mean.

1: Theist: Atheists have rejected God because they're angry with him.

Atheist: Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. We can't be angry with something we lack belief in.

2: Theist: Atheists hate God.

Atheist: Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. There are many different concepts of God ranging from Christianity to Hinduism. It's possible to hate somebody's concept while lacking belief that the concept is of something which exists as objective reality.