(March 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief.
1) I admit to having tried the mocking technique on this subject, and have concluded that such activity is mostly just an advertisement for my own emotional immaturity, and a practice which typically generates far more heat than light. Not mocking your mocking :-) just doubting it will accomplish much.
2) I agree the "lack of belief" definition is less than useful. I prefer to see atheism as a belief that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods that may be contained within. Reason is to the atheist what holy books are to the theist, a chosen authority which is referenced because it is assumed qualified.
As best I can tell, the "lack of belief" definition of atheism persists because many or most atheists sincerely consider the infinite power of human reason to be an obvious given. Their faith in that power is typically so strong that they don't recognize it as faith, and thus they don't define themselves in relation to their own beliefs, but in relation to the theist's belief.
As example, the label "reasonist" would reframe the atheist position more accurately, as the positive assertion that it is. The "reasonist" could then proceed to argue for the infinite power of their chosen authority in the same way the theist argues for his chosen authority.
The person who concludes that neither the reasonist nor the theist has proven their most fundamental assertion, the qualifications of their chosen authority, can still be called an agnostic.
The person who rejects the premise the god debate is built upon, a widely shared belief that knowing is preferable to ignorance on such subjects, might be called a fundamentalist agnostic.
