Atheism a positive belief, because 'lack of belief' is not a definition...

Thomas Eshuis

Hey everyone,

I'm new here, so if I break any rules feel free to point them out.

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone, who claimed that all atheists believe there is no god.

His argument is mainly this and I quote:

"Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition"

He's also clinging to the, imo flawed definition of atheism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Knasher

My initial reaction would be to ask him to define what darkness is.

Thomas Eshuis

Knasher wrote: »

My initial reaction would be to ask him to define what darkness is.

Good point, I will try that.

Edit: I expect he will say something to the effect of "black".

Dades

Also ask him what vegetarians are!

robindch

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone, who claimed that all atheists believe there is no god.

Here's how the beliefs break down in reality:

Thomas Eshuis

robindch wrote: »

Here's how the beliefs break down in reality:

I know, this is my viewpoint as well, but he argues that a lack of belief isn't a definition because it does not say anything about the person.
Like the quote in my OP.

18AD

It is known as a negative definition. It's pretty common in all sorts of areas of study. Negative theology is a big one.

desertcircus

Lack of X is not a type of X. That's simply ridiculous.

"Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition" is just straight-up wrong. Any word that ends in -less disproves it. Do you know someone who's homeless? Are they in a hopeless situation? If you watch out for them, at least they're not friendless.

Having no beer is not the same as having a particular type of beer. Claiming that religious belief comes in Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Atheist is like claiming that you can buy whiskies like Jameson, Jack Daniels, Glenfiddich, Johnnie Walker, and No Bloody Whiskey Left.

Thomas Eshuis

Dades wrote: »

Also ask him what vegetarians are!

This is his reply to defining vegetarians:

"Another one; vegetarian, how do you define it?"
A person whose diet consists solely of vegetables and dairy products. Too easy, man. However, I think I have jumped through enough of your hoops now to have made my point. Thank you very much."

Thomas Eshuis

Knasher wrote: »

My initial reaction would be to ask him to define what darkness is.

And on defining darkness:

"Reduced levels of light. Darkness is relative of course and not just either or. A room with one lit candle in it late at night will be dark but the room will not lack light. Colours can be described as dark yet to be able to see the colour you need light. And of course those things that truly lack light such as mathematics or love would never be described as dark (in a physical sense of course, not metaphorically)."

18AD

Emptiness?

Standman

It's such a waste of energy debating over definitions, it basically boils down to a "whose dictionary is the best" competition.

Ellis Dee

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I'm new here, so if I break any rules feel free to point them out.

Anyway I was having a discussion with someone, who claimed that all atheists believe there is no god.

His argument is mainly this and I quote:

"Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition"

He's also clinging to the, imo flawed definition of atheism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Actually, atheists do not believe that there is no god.:rolleyes: They fail to believe that there is a god. In other words, they do not believe the unbelievable. If anyone could come up with any testable proof that a god, sky fairy, great universal spirit or whatever deity you're having yourself existed, they might change their minds. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen.:D

Sarky

Cold?

His explanation of darkness is a total cop out. I suspect he knows it, too but doesn't want to admit he's wrong.

King Mob

Anything that starts with "A" as that would mean it's "Lacking"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosmia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolitical

And of course there's stuff like a total vaccum and absolute zero.
Ask him where this rule comes from.

robindch

Standman wrote: »

It's such a waste of energy debating over definitions, it basically boils down to a "whose dictionary is the best" competition.

You're right, inasmuch as whoever's definitions are best is often the person who understands what's going on the best.

Here's a new version of the above, this time easily-readable:

Thomas Eshuis

Standman wrote: »

It's such a waste of energy debating over definitions, it basically boils down to a "whose dictionary is the best" competition.

You don't quite understand. He's not just arguing against a specific definition or dictionary, he's actually arguing that
"Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition"

Thomas Eshuis

Sarky wrote: »

Cold?

His explanation of darkness is a total cop out. I suspect he knows it, too but doesn't want to admit he's wrong.

I know, but frankly I gave up.
I cannot remain calm when someone is using such philosophical handwaving and cop-out tactics just to win the argument.

I was going to ask him to define emptiness, but he said he "jumped through enough of my hoops" ....

Just in case some of you are interested in this debate, here's the video:
Why all atheists believe there is no god.
by mungbeanman

Edit: link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjL7PjKPFGw&lc=jU4hczS0FoBfhmzE3otXRHdaJ9Nh6I__9Nv2YjDg1Bw&feature=inbox

Standman

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

You don't quite understand. He's not just arguing against a specific definition or dictionary, he's actually arguing that
"Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition"

Backed up to his clinging to a Stanford encyclopedia definition. I don't get the impression he cares much about definitions being understood correctly as he seems perfectly happy to dilute other definitions to suit his own argument

Thomas Eshuis

Standman wrote: »

Backed up to his clinging to a Stanford encyclopedia definition. I don't get the impression he cares much about definitions being understood correctly as he seems perfectly happy to dilute other definitions to suit his own argument

I agree, but he seems blind to his own fallacies.

Stercus Accidit

Sounds like he is more interested in a rhetorical monologue than a dialogue. His darkness definition was terrible, how would he define a vacuum?

Thomas Eshuis

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Sounds like he is more interested in a rhetorical monologue than a dialogue. His darkness definition was terrible, how would he define a vacuum?

You should ask him, as he does not want to "jump through any more hoops for me". In other words he's probably realised he's dodging the challenge and tries to hide it by acting dismissive.

desertcircus

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

This is his reply to defining vegetarians:

"Another one; vegetarian, how do you define it?"
A person whose diet consists solely of vegetables and dairy products. Too easy, man. However, I think I have jumped through enough of your hoops now to have made my point. Thank you very much."

That's an abysmal definition of vegetarianism. That would imply that I'm a vegetarian in the mornings when I have cereal and milk for breakfast, or when I happen to eat a meal without meat, or that someone who can't afford meat or is off it for medical reasons is a vegetarian.

Michael Nugent

Arguing about dictionary definitions of atheism is largely futile. As a tool of communication, the word means different things to different people, and nobody on any side of the debate has the authority to assert that theirs is the ‘real’ or ‘true’ or ‘only’ accurate definition.

One of the several legitimate meanings of the word is believing that there is no god or gods, and it is a mistake to seek to write that concept out of the equation, and to seek to replace it with the concept of lacking a belief in a god or gods, as is done in the diagram that Robin posted.

robindch wrote: »

Here's how the beliefs break down in reality:

If you look at the definition of ‘Agnostic Atheist’ in that diagram, it reads ‘Lacks belief in a God or Gods, but doesn’t claim to know with 100% certainty.” That doesn’t even make sense. How can you not claim to know that you lack belief in something?

For a diagram like that to make sense, rather than be an attempt to illustrate and reinforce a predetermined position, let’s ignore the emotive labels and just look at the four quadrants, and describe the concepts that actually contrast with each other across both axes.

The top left quadrant should read: Claims to know there is a god or gods.
The top right quadrant should read: Claims to know there is no god or gods.
The bottom left quadrant should read: Believes there is a god or gods, but does not claim to know this.
The bottom right quadrant should read: Believes there is no god or gods, but does not claim to know this.

Whatever labels you prefer to use for each concept, these are the key concepts to include in any meaningful discourse about the topic.

The 'lack of belief' concept can be a useful debating tactic for emphasizing where the onus of proof should be, but personally I am more comfortable arguing that believing that there are no gods is more consistent with the available evidence than is believing that there is a god.

coffee_cake

that's a stupid argument
tell him to stop being stupid

Michael Nugent

robindch wrote: »

Here's a new version of the above, this time easily-readable:

This is much closer to being accurate.

I should have read all of the posts before responding to the first diagram.

Edit: Although it still writes out of the equation the concept of believing that there are no gods. It's okay to say that.

And the 'Fully Certain' is not quite accurate either. Or if it is, the horizontal axis should be located almost at the top of the diagram, at 99.9999999999999% of the way between 0% and 100%, rather than at 50% as it is now.

recedite

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

And on defining darkness:

"Reduced levels of light. Darkness is relative of course and not just either or. A room with one lit candle in it late at night will be dark but the room will not lack light. Colours can be described as dark yet to be able to see the colour you need light. And of course those things that truly lack light such as mathematics or love would never be described as dark (in a physical sense of course, not metaphorically)."

Try "suffering from reduced levels of religious fervour" then...

Thomas Eshuis

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is much closer to being accurate.

I should have read all of the posts before responding to the first diagram.

Edit: Although it still writes out of the equation the concept of believing that there are no gods. It's okay to say that.

And the 'Fully Certain' is not quite accurate either. Or if it is, the horizontal axis should be located almost at the top of the diagram, at 99.9999999999999% of the way between 0% and 100%, rather than at 50% as it is now.

The thing is that atheism does not exclude the belief that no gods exist.
Gnostic atheism is a form of atheism. The problem is people trying to define atheism as the belief that no gods exists, which is to narrow a definition.

And it especially makes no sense when you make this argument, because "a lack of something is not a definition".

Michael Nugent

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

The thing is that atheism does not exclude the belief that no gods exist.
Gnostic atheism is a form of atheism.

I agree. And agnostic atheism also includes the belief that no gods exist. If you believe that no gods exist, but do not claim to know that, you are an agnostic atheist.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

The problem is people trying to define atheism as the belief that no gods exists, which is too narrow a definition.

That is one problem. Another problem is people trying to define atheism as only the lack of belief that gods exist, and nothing else, which is also too narrow a definition.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

And it especially makes no sense when you make this argument, because "a lack of something is not a definition".

Well, in this context, "a lack of belief in god" is not a definition of atheism, though it could be included as part of a definition of atheism. But on its own it is not an exact description of either the word or the nature or scope or meaning of the concept that the word points to.

MagicMarker

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Sounds like he is more interested in a rhetorical monologue than a dialogue. His darkness definition was terrible, how would he define a vacuum?

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

[...] being accurate.

Attempt number two?