Question for Atheists

[Mister Agenda]

My beagle lacks a belief in God. He's an atheist.

So's my rock

---

Not for me, I believe no gods exist and that's a gnostic claim, not an anti-theist one, I am not against belief in god simply because I believe he doesn't exist - Let's imagine I was like our former fellow Mozart Link and thought religion brought lots of benefits, therefore I'd incentive it - Is this anti-theism? It looks the opposite to me.

*risks the derail

The only discrete definition of atheism is 'absence of theism'. In no accurate use is atheism a 'belief in the non-existence of god/s'. In fact, that misdefinition is commonly used by theists in order to misrepresent the position of most atheists, often for nefarious purposes. As soon as you start adding values (e.g. belief in the non-existence of god/s), you need to start looking for different words. Since 'belief in the non-existence of god/s' is a position which is in direct opposition to theism, it is, by definition, 'anti-theistic'. That's only one of the possible definitions of anti-theism but it is an accurate one; as we've discussed before, 'opposition to religion/religious organisation' is another (and your default definition, I assume from your use). Remember that anti-theism is a term which can be applied to specific context, depending on the definition being used.

I know you prefer the term 'gnostic atheist' and I think I've explained to you why I prefer to use 'anti-theist'. Both are accurate.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Both have very specific meanings, and they aren't the same. Anti-theism is literially 'against theism', that is, 'against belief in God'. An anti-theist opposes belief in God, probably because he or she thinks the cons of belief outweigh the pros. But, just like an atheist can be pro-theism, a theist can be anti-theist: someone who thinks theism is ill-advised but can't help the fact that they believe. Like a communist party member who can't get over their god-belief, as much as they would like to.

Using 'anti-theist' as a synonym for 'gnostic atheist' is relatively new, and in my opinion, confuses the issue.

Minimalist (I apoogize in advance Min, for assuming you won't mind being used as an example) is an anti-theistic atheist, beyond doubt. However, I cannot then assume that Minimalist's epistemic position on God is that he or she is positive that God does not exist, there's no contradiction involved if Minimalist is an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist. I personally don't know whether Minimalist's atheism is agnostic or gnostic, and knowing Minimalist is an anti-theist does not resolve my ignorance on the matter.

---

Ahem... as per our other discussions: no, that's anti-theism

My beagle lacks a belief in God. He's an atheist.

I guess I'm in nitpicking mode, please don't take it personally, I realize you don't intend to be entirely serious here. Once upon a time I would have agreed with you, but then I realized the suffix 'ist' in 'atheist' denotes 'a person holding the position of atheism'. The etymology is athe-ist, not a-theist. If it were a-theist, it would mean 'not a theist' and beagles and rocks aren't theists, so they would be atheists. However, since the derivation is from athe-ist, an atheist is a person who does not believe in deities; and a theist is a person who does. In my opinion, this also disqualifies babies from being atheists or theists, any more than they can be elitists or Calvinists.

[Dystopia]

My beagle lacks a belief in God. He's an atheist.

So's my rock

---

Not for me, I believe no gods exist and that's a gnostic claim, not an anti-theist one, I am not against belief in god simply because I believe he doesn't exist - Let's imagine I was like our former fellow Mozart Link and thought religion brought lots of benefits, therefore I'd incentive it - Is this anti-theism? It looks the opposite to me.

*risks the derail

The only discrete definition of atheism is 'absence of theism'. In no accurate use is atheism a 'belief in the non-existence of god/s'. In fact, that misdefinition is commonly used by theists in order to misrepresent the position of most atheists, often for nefarious purposes. As soon as you start adding values (e.g. belief in the non-existence of god/s), you need to start looking for different words. Since 'belief in the non-existence of god/s' is a position which is in direct opposition to theism, it is, by definition, 'anti-theistic'. That's only one of the possible definitions of anti-theism but it is an accurate one; as we've discussed before, 'opposition to religion/religious organisation' is another (and your default definition, I assume from your use). Remember that anti-theism is a term which can be applied to specific context, depending on the definition being used.

I know you prefer the term 'gnostic atheist' and I think I've explained to you why I prefer to use 'anti-theist'. Both are accurate.



...although 'anti-theist' is more accurate

If I think socialists are wrong does that automatically make me anti-socialist? If not, you've got your answer.

Saying I'm against something just because I disagree with it is an insult to my intellectual capacities

[DeistPaladin]

Sorry I'm late to this party. My apologies if I repeat what others have posted.

If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking),

My wife is an atheist and she earnestly believes in ghosts. She tells a story about how her grandfather visited her a few states over from where he died and she found out later that morning that he'd passed away. She's a big fan of the show "The Dead Files" and watches it all the time.

I'm a deist and believe that we live in a strictly natural universe. I have no idea what happens when we die and won't form any opinions on the "afterlife" (or "beforelife" for that matter) as it is something I regard as unknowable. I'm comfortable with the idea that God gives us one shot at the brass ring and then it's fade-to-black, credits roll.

Atheism is just a lack of a belief in any god or gods. It does not necessarily mean the person believes a negative, that there is no god. It only means there is a lack of a belief in one. It does not preclude other beliefs in the supernatural.

I believe in God. I do not believe in souls.
My wife believes in souls but does not believe in any gods.

These are two different subjects.

Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally. We can't take one test tube and say that the mixture in it is "more right" than the one in another tube. Natural laws simply dictate their behavior.

Morality is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

This is an important distinction for the Christian, or other religious person, to understand. With religion, the "is" is often intertwined with the "oughts". As in "God made it this way" follows with "and so it ought to be". Religion covers topics dealt with by both science and philosophy.

Science just deals with the "is". It makes no prescriptions of what "ought" to be. It makes no prescriptions about politics, philosophy, morality or the sense of meaning we get from life. The latter are subjects dealt with by philosophers.

If it turns out souls don't exist and our consciousness is a matter of brain chemistry, that would not have any impact on our discussions of human rights, morality, meaning and purpose or any other philosophical issues. We still exist as conscious beings, souls or no, and as such the lack of anything supernatural does not preclude having meaningful discussions on philosophical issues.

Again, separate issues that you're conflating.

The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.

Again, you're conflating issues, this time "free will/determinism" with theism.

You can be a theist (God exists) and believe choice is an illusion, that all is planned by God (providential determinism)

You can be an atheist (no belief in any god) and believe we make choices, that there is no fate but what we make for ourselves (atheistic free will).

You can be a theist and believe in free will.

You can be an atheist and be a determinist.

These are two separate issues.

On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another?

On the reasons we have for what we believe. Can you present an argument and back it up with empirical data?

Another conflation common to the religious is the idea that the lack of a god means "anything goes" and all opinions are equal (a.k.a. solipsism). The reality is that not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported than others.

Once I had a salesman working for me for a few months. When we sat down to review his performance, he and I had different subjective evaluations of his accomplishments. He felt he was a good salesman and I disagreed. My subjective evaluation was supported by objective data, specifically all the zeroes he had in his "new customer", "cross-sales with existing accounts" and "recovered accounts". He had only the conviction of his beliefs and his excuses for all his zeroes. My subjective evaluation was therefore stronger.

But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements.

See above.

Hope this is helpful.

---

I don't agree. I think there are basic moral truths which transcend cultural and national boundaries and are, therefore, objective.

I understand what you're saying but I make a distinction between "subjective morals" and "cultural relativism".

The former is merely an acknowledgement that morality is a matter of evaluation and can't be plugged into a spreadsheet, reflected in numbers and units of measure that can tell us what is more moral in an empirical way. Temperature, velocity, mass and other measures are objective. Whether these things are "good" or "bad" are subjective evaluations.

This is distinguished from "cultural relativism" which takes subjectivity to the extreme of solipsistic thinking. We can make the case that stoning adulterers is wrong as a violation of human rights, based upon Mill's "Social Contract", Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance", Jesus' "Golden Rule" or any other number of philosophical tools.

Not all subjective opinions are equal.

[Ben Davis]

*I feared that this would happen

I'm afraid I can't agree. Both have very specific meanings, and they aren't the same.

Anti-theism has 4 meanings:

1. Belief in the non-existence of god(s)
2. Belief that religion/religious organisation should be opposed
3. Belief that god(s), if it (they) were proven to exist, should be opposed
4. Opposing belief in god

1. is the same as 'gnostic atheist'. Further, I contend that it's a more accurate usage due to the etymology.

Anti-theism is literally 'against theism', that is, 'against belief in God'.

Not quite. 'Anti' literally means 'in opposition to' and was used to represent positions with 'in principle' opposition (i.e. contradictory/negatory) as well as 'active' opposition.

An anti-theist opposes belief in God

Only under definition 4.

But, just like an atheist can be pro-theism, a theist can be anti-theist: someone who thinks theism is ill-advised but can't help the fact that they believe. Like a communist party member who can't get over their god-belief, as much as they would like to.

There's quite a bit of confusion of definitions going on here, if you don't mind me trying to clarify...

An atheist might believe that religious organisations are a good thing (one definition of 'pro-theism' but they couldn't promote their belief in god (another definition of 'pro-theism'). A theist might oppose the concept of religious organisation (definition 2.) whilst still believing in a deity.

Would that be a more accurate way of putting it?

Using 'anti-theist' as a synonym for 'gnostic atheist' is relatively new, and in my opinion, confuses the issue.

Because it's the most literal meaning, it's actually the oldest. It's your conflation of multiple meanings that's causing your confusion.

Minimalist (I apoogize in advance Min, for assuming you won't mind being used as an example) is an anti-theistic atheist, beyond doubt.

Indeed. Under all 4 definitions, too, IMO.

However, I cannot then assume that Minimalist's epistemic position on God is that he or she is positive that God does not exist

Min's definitely said that specific gods don't exist. Min's definitely anti-theistic under definition 1. with regard to certain specific gods.

there's no contradiction involved if Minimalist is an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist.

I agree. It depends entirely on the definition in context.

I personally don't know whether Minimalist's atheism is agnostic or gnostic, and knowing Minimalist is an anti-theist does not resolve my ignorance on the matter.

It doesn't under definitions 2, 3 or 4 but does under definition 1.

On your other point...

The etymology is athe-ist, not a-theist.

Actually, it's both but I'm out of time so I'll have to continue on this tomorrow.

[Dystopia]

Ben Davis, you are coining a 4th meaning to the expression anti-theism. While I respect that, I still have to disagree with you - It is true that the word anti means in opposition to/against something, but nowadays it is socially affiliated with a vehement opposition to something, a positive affirmation. Being anti something is socially perceived by others as being aggressively/actively against something (and sometimes even fighting that something).

I'll give the former example again - If I disagree with the political purpose of socialism, and I present my arguments against it, does that make me anti-socialist? I don't think so, I could disagree with socialists all day an still respect their opinion, or at least tolerate it.

My stance remains - Saying I'm anti-something just because I do not agree with it is an offence to my intellect - Following your line of thoughts, then all atheists would be anti-theists since they don't believe in god, and therefore the non belief is in opposition to belief in god.

[Mudhammam]

This is an excellent question, although I think it would be more apt to title the thread a “Question for Materialists or Physical Determinists,” rather than “Atheists.” As far as I know, there’s nothing barring an atheist from being a dualist.

This morning on my way home from work I was thinking about ways one could possibly test for the proposition of some type of dualism, or at least discredit the common view of physical monists, and I came up with this experiment. I’d like to get your thoughts on it (my language may be a little vague as I’m no expert on brain chemistry and their functions, but hopefully my point will be clear).

Last time I checked, scientists had mapped out about 4% of a typical, model brain. When they do eventually have the whole brain and its processes computed, my experiment then would be this:
Have two persons think the following idea, say: “The red apple fell from the tree.” Examine what neurons and/or clusters of neurons are activated and what synaptical firings occur for the first person, slowing down the computations immensely to view the exact structure of the physical process in place. Have a team of scientists see if the second person, possessing that same idea, shows a similar pattern in their neural activity. Try it in different languages, and see then if the same brain structure is responsible for the same abstract thoughts, and whereas the each person's language symbols differ, perhaps that would show brain regions for those specific processes differing as well. Could a scientist, if this was ever feasible, read the structure and then determine that "You were thinking about a blonde with B-size cups" or "You thought of a man with a uni-brow and mustache holding an ice cream cone?" I have no idea if an experiment like this would possible. Someone mentioned the bits of zeroes and ones in a computer; can a computer expert read a line of bits and determine what the exact function is from the “manifest perspective” (for lack of a better phrase)? If the physical processes of the brain were completely mapped out, and yet the “thoughts” for each person still appeared completely private and unpredictable, I think this would be a significant problem for materialism/physicalism, and might be a point for those who argue that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to physical processes.

What do you think?

[Mister Agenda]

*I feared that this would happen

I'm afraid I can't agree. Both have very specific meanings, and they aren't the same.

Anti-theism has 4 meanings:

1. Belief in the non-existence of god(s)
2. Belief that religion/religious organisation should be opposed
3. Belief that god(s), if it (they) were proven to exist, should be opposed
4. Opposing belief in god

1. is the same as 'gnostic atheist'. Further, I contend that it's a more accurate usage due to the etymology.

What is your source for these definitions? None come up on the first page of GOOGLE where 1. is listed, let alone listed first. Dictionary definitions are listed in order of most common usage.

[DeistPaladin]

What happened to the OP author? For a guy wanting to open a discussion, he disappeared right after starting this thread.

[JesusHChrist]

What happened to the OP author? For a guy wanting to open a discussion, he disappeared right after starting this thread.

I think he found out the hard way his Armor of God was made of iron; pretty worthless when being shot at with RPGs.

[Natachan]

"I think he found out the hard way his Armor of God was made of iron; pretty worthless when being shot at with RPGs."

Perhaps he thought we were the aelfinn and eelfinn from the Wheel of Time, if you'll excuse the immensely dorky reference.