Definition of Atheism
July 4, 2014 at 4:07 am
(This post was last modified: July 4, 2014 at 4:21 am by MindForgedManacle.)
I got a little bored with my last input on this topic because the post sizes were getting massive, but I figured I give it another go (Rasetsu has said I'm a stubborn person before; true). I'll just lay out what are the issues here. And if I could perhaps be a bit impertinent, could you limit your quotes of me to the section titles you're referring to (unless you're only quoting a small part)? I usually get on the site from my phone, so responding to long posts is really time consuming and annoying. I'm clearly being hypocritical (this post can't help but be long), but here I go:
Definitions:
So, this topic is a minefield. I was rather surprised that this even gets emotional at times. My main gripe is that atheists who define atheism as just being a "lack of belief in the existence of gods" suffer many problems as a result of that, linguistically, culturally and conceptually.
Linguistic Problems:
Okay, so right off the bat atheists are up against the usual usage of the word and a few other words. If you really don't think the average English speaker doesn't think "atheism" is what they use to refer to people who claim God doesn't exist, I suggest you talk to more people. And you all should know this already. I mean how many times have you had to explain to theists that when you say "atheist", you just mean those who lack belief? If that wasn't what people usually mean by the word, you wouldn't have to explain that to theists, just like you don't have to explain to them what theists are. And in fact, the usual definitions of atheism and theism are what those in academic philosophy, where people are being the most precise with their definitions, use them to mean.
Now, these are generally what people mean by these words:
There are good reasons we regard these words as meaning those things (or rather, we use those words to convey those concepts), as opposed to this lack of theism definition. Firstly, think about comparable situations. When someone asks you if you believe Santa Claus exists, it is absurdly obvious their question is exactly equivalent to saying "Do you think Santa exists or do you think he does not exist?" They are not asking you if you lack belief in Santa. All sorts of people lack belief in Santa. In fact, you MAY in fact lack belief in Santa, but that's not what they're asking you. To answer "I lack belief in Santa" is just to avoid what they're saying. This seems patently obvious.
Now, just because a question was asked doesn't mean you can answer in the terms specified. After all, I cannot answer the question "Do Extra Terrestrials exist?" reasonably for or against the proposition. The question doesn't seem answerable currently, if ever in the foreseeable future. I am agnostic in regards to that question. Now, let's say an "a-ET-ist" tells me that I can't be an agnostic on this because an "a-ET-ist" is defined by him as those who don't answer "Yes" to that question, i.e they lack belief in "ET-ism". Well sure, if this person is going to define things such that there are only two positions (true and lacking truth), then I'm an "a-ET-ist". But that's just dishonest.
Some of you were complaining that I was "Telling you what you are/what position you hold". Okay firstly, you're full of shit on that. You're doing the EXACT same thing to strict agnostics, saying that they are actually atheists because they lack belief, so don't give me that.
Secondly, you're trying to exploit an ambiguity in language. When we say we disbelieve or don't believe something, we usually mean that something is false, a la disbelief in Santa Claus. Some of you (Mister Agenda comes to mind) are trying to treat "Disbelief" as if it were always equivalent to saying "Merely not affirming X to be true", and thus atheism is just a lack of theism. Okay, let's assume that is the case: So what? You're missing the point. Even if you say that atheism is just a lack of belief, then theists are going to ignore those who only lack belief and focus on those who are being coherent enough to answer their question. If you just lack belief, fine. They're going to simply change the question to match your terminology: "Why are you a strong atheist?" If you're not a strong atheist (under your own definition of it), then why bother answering the question? This is the point. Words are just a means of conveying concepts to other people. Being sneaky with the definitions is pointless when you miss the point they're trying to convey. Worse, even if you just lack belief you have to have REASONS why, after hearing of god concepts, to continue lacking belief. And those reasons are going to be reasons to believe it is either false or unprovable, which just moves you back to the standard definitions.
Nuanced Atheisms:
Now, some think that atheism has to be a mere lack of belief because there is nuance in atheists' thinking. But this is contradictory. By your own definition, there cannot be any nuance. Under your definition, you're either a theism or an atheist, because you either have belief or lack it and that's all those are. But it makes no sense to append modifiers to atheism under that view. Watch, using your definitions:
Now wait a second. If atheism is just a lack of belief, how can you append words to it to alter it? You can't strongly lack belief, but you can believe it to be false. In other words, on your guys' view, it makes no sense to have atheism be the modular term, because it permits NO degrees of difference that are actually RELEVANT to the word "atheist", by your own arguments for it. An agnostic/gnostic atheism are redundant for the former and nonsensical for the latter. If you don't believe something (or you lack belief, I should say), by definition you do not know it because knowledge is a type of belief. And if you claim to know something, you cannot apply that to a mere "lack of belief". What sense does it make, on y'alls definition, to say call oneself any nuanced version of atheism, when your own definition of it excludes that possibility? It would be like defining all non-positive numbers as negative numbers, and then assigning the number 0 a special modifier, when in fact it is neither positive or negative.
You guys also seem to be confusing the belief that no gods exists with the claim that one knows that no gods exist, which are two different things. I might believe it is the case that there is an even number of existing objects, but that doesn't mean I claim to know that is true.
Now, under my view these terms actually have usefulness and coherence:
Under this view, it actually makes sense to modify atheism with other words, because I haven't ridiculously set up atheism as a thing you have if you aren't a theist.
Anyway, that's all I've got to say. Let the witch hunt begin.
Definitions:
So, this topic is a minefield. I was rather surprised that this even gets emotional at times. My main gripe is that atheists who define atheism as just being a "lack of belief in the existence of gods" suffer many problems as a result of that, linguistically, culturally and conceptually.
Linguistic Problems:
Okay, so right off the bat atheists are up against the usual usage of the word and a few other words. If you really don't think the average English speaker doesn't think "atheism" is what they use to refer to people who claim God doesn't exist, I suggest you talk to more people. And you all should know this already. I mean how many times have you had to explain to theists that when you say "atheist", you just mean those who lack belief? If that wasn't what people usually mean by the word, you wouldn't have to explain that to theists, just like you don't have to explain to them what theists are. And in fact, the usual definitions of atheism and theism are what those in academic philosophy, where people are being the most precise with their definitions, use them to mean.
Now, these are generally what people mean by these words:
Quote:-Theist: One who believes God/gods exists, to some degree
-Agnostic: One who views the question of the existence of gods either unknown or unknowable
-Atheist: One who believes gods don't exist, to some degree
-Belief: To accept a proposition as true
-Disbelieve: To affirm a proposition as false
There are good reasons we regard these words as meaning those things (or rather, we use those words to convey those concepts), as opposed to this lack of theism definition. Firstly, think about comparable situations. When someone asks you if you believe Santa Claus exists, it is absurdly obvious their question is exactly equivalent to saying "Do you think Santa exists or do you think he does not exist?" They are not asking you if you lack belief in Santa. All sorts of people lack belief in Santa. In fact, you MAY in fact lack belief in Santa, but that's not what they're asking you. To answer "I lack belief in Santa" is just to avoid what they're saying. This seems patently obvious.
Now, just because a question was asked doesn't mean you can answer in the terms specified. After all, I cannot answer the question "Do Extra Terrestrials exist?" reasonably for or against the proposition. The question doesn't seem answerable currently, if ever in the foreseeable future. I am agnostic in regards to that question. Now, let's say an "a-ET-ist" tells me that I can't be an agnostic on this because an "a-ET-ist" is defined by him as those who don't answer "Yes" to that question, i.e they lack belief in "ET-ism". Well sure, if this person is going to define things such that there are only two positions (true and lacking truth), then I'm an "a-ET-ist". But that's just dishonest.
Some of you were complaining that I was "Telling you what you are/what position you hold". Okay firstly, you're full of shit on that. You're doing the EXACT same thing to strict agnostics, saying that they are actually atheists because they lack belief, so don't give me that.
Secondly, you're trying to exploit an ambiguity in language. When we say we disbelieve or don't believe something, we usually mean that something is false, a la disbelief in Santa Claus. Some of you (Mister Agenda comes to mind) are trying to treat "Disbelief" as if it were always equivalent to saying "Merely not affirming X to be true", and thus atheism is just a lack of theism. Okay, let's assume that is the case: So what? You're missing the point. Even if you say that atheism is just a lack of belief, then theists are going to ignore those who only lack belief and focus on those who are being coherent enough to answer their question. If you just lack belief, fine. They're going to simply change the question to match your terminology: "Why are you a strong atheist?" If you're not a strong atheist (under your own definition of it), then why bother answering the question? This is the point. Words are just a means of conveying concepts to other people. Being sneaky with the definitions is pointless when you miss the point they're trying to convey. Worse, even if you just lack belief you have to have REASONS why, after hearing of god concepts, to continue lacking belief. And those reasons are going to be reasons to believe it is either false or unprovable, which just moves you back to the standard definitions.
Nuanced Atheisms:
Now, some think that atheism has to be a mere lack of belief because there is nuance in atheists' thinking. But this is contradictory. By your own definition, there cannot be any nuance. Under your definition, you're either a theism or an atheist, because you either have belief or lack it and that's all those are. But it makes no sense to append modifiers to atheism under that view. Watch, using your definitions:
Quote:1) Atheism: Lack of belief in the existence of gods
2) Strong atheist: One who believes no gods exist
3) Gnostic atheist: One who claims to know no gods exist (not sure this synonymous with strong atheism)
4) Agnostic atheist: One who neither believes nor knows God doesn't exist?
5) Anti-theist: You guys seem to treat this as synonymous with strong atheism, even though it's generally synonymous with being anti-religious.
Now wait a second. If atheism is just a lack of belief, how can you append words to it to alter it? You can't strongly lack belief, but you can believe it to be false. In other words, on your guys' view, it makes no sense to have atheism be the modular term, because it permits NO degrees of difference that are actually RELEVANT to the word "atheist", by your own arguments for it. An agnostic/gnostic atheism are redundant for the former and nonsensical for the latter. If you don't believe something (or you lack belief, I should say), by definition you do not know it because knowledge is a type of belief. And if you claim to know something, you cannot apply that to a mere "lack of belief". What sense does it make, on y'alls definition, to say call oneself any nuanced version of atheism, when your own definition of it excludes that possibility? It would be like defining all non-positive numbers as negative numbers, and then assigning the number 0 a special modifier, when in fact it is neither positive or negative.
You guys also seem to be confusing the belief that no gods exists with the claim that one knows that no gods exist, which are two different things. I might believe it is the case that there is an even number of existing objects, but that doesn't mean I claim to know that is true.
Now, under my view these terms actually have usefulness and coherence:
Quote:Atheism: The belief, to some degree, that no gods exist
Weak Atheist: The belief that gods probably don't exist
Strong atheism: The belief that no gods exist. One could even claim that one knows this, given sufficient justification, I think.
Agnostic atheist: I think this would have to be more or less synonymous with weak atheism if it is to be coherent.
Agnostic: The belief that the proposition of deities existing is an epistemic boundary, either in principle or for the time being.
Under this view, it actually makes sense to modify atheism with other words, because I haven't ridiculously set up atheism as a thing you have if you aren't a theist.
Anyway, that's all I've got to say. Let the witch hunt begin.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
-George Carlin
