"Laughing At Religion" Meme Thread

[Belacqua]

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

Sheldon, however, is using a newer definition of "atheism" which is popular now on the Internet. For him, the word simply means a lack of belief in any god, and implies nothing further. By his definition, if a person says, "I am an atheist," we know nothing except that he lacks belief in certain propositions. 

From this, he concludes that the Soviet atrocities were motivated by something other than simple lack. If atheism is ONLY and ALWAYS simply lack, then it can not lead to further conclusions. 

People who are more familiar with the older definition sometimes call Sheldon's definition "lacktheism." 

I was interested to see that recently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been edited to include Sheldon's preferred definition. They call this "psychological atheism." While at the same time reiterating that in philosophy, the standard definition remains "the position that no gods exist." 

Some lacktheists argue that since atheism is a nothing -- merely an empty space where belief might have gone -- then nothing can be concluded from a lacktheist position and no results -- good or bad -- can be attributed to it.

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you before that the lack of belief definition has been around since the 1800s.

I expect you're right. 

As I understand it, the Greek equivalent was a pejorative, so it was different from either of the English meanings. Then it got into English from French in the 16th century sometime. That was in the sense of active disbelief.

But of course people use words differently, and meanings evolve. I just want to make sure that the people who use it in the sense of lacktheism are aware that not everyone understands it that way. Any time a word is polysemous it's probably better to say at the beginning which sense you're using. 

Probably we've also spoken in the past about how a lacktheist position doesn't actually mean that an atheist has nothing to explain or defend. I hope people aren't using it as an evasion -- to pretend that they don't have things they hold to be true regarding religious belief. And of course these things they hold to be true may be challenged and defended. The common claim, "I don't believe because there's no evidence," of course contains assumptions about what constitutes evidence, etc., and isn't simply an empty space.