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

Peregrinus

Standman wrote: »

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

This.

The bottom line is that the OP's friend can define "atheism" however he likes. But he cannot insist that everyone else must employ his definition. Still less can he insist that everyone else already does employ his definition, so that everyone who identifies as an atheist can be take to positively believe that there is no god.

The only way to find out of someone who identifies as an atheist positively beleives that there is no god is to ask him.

Thomas Eshuis

Michael Nugent wrote: »

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.


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.


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.

Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
I]mass noun[/I
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
disbelief
Pronunciation:/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun

I]mass noun[/I
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
lack of faith


Yes I know, primarily, U.S. dictionaries will give a different definition, but this definition includes all varieties of atheism and is the one most commonly used by atheists, at least to my experience.

Chuck Stone

What is the colour of no tomatoes?

Peregrinus

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
I]mass noun[/I
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god' . . .

Funny, that's not what my Oxford English Dictionary says. Are you sure you;re not looking at the Concise, or the Shorter?

Mine - the twenty-volume one, the whole shootin' gallery - has this:

"Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."

In other words, atheism embraces both those who deny that God exists, and those who simply disbelieve it. (Disbelieve: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to.")

In this definition, someone who does not believe in the existence of God because he has simply never asked himself the question, or has not been sufficiently interested in it to come up with an answer - someone, in short, who is completely indifferent to the question of whether God exists - is an atheist. He does not believe in the existence of God. That's all it takes to be an atheist.

Of course, other narrower definitions are possible. But if someone identifies as an atheist, we have no right to assume that he is using a narrower definition. If we want to know whether he postively denies the existence of God, we have to ask him.

Michael Nugent

I’m going to make some general points first, then apply them to the particular case of the word atheism.

Words are tools of communication. They are used to convey a meaning that the sender assumes that the receiver will attach to the words. This is a continuous process, with the meanings of words gradually evolving over time. Dictionary definitions are attempts by people to describe the most recently-recorded phase of this continuous process. The dictionary definitions do not cause the words to have a certain meaning.

When someone uses any word, we should assume that person to mean whatever we believe to be the most likely meaning that particular person is trying to convey by using that particular word, given all of the circumstances of the situation that we are in, and we should always be ready to continuously change our minds as we get additional information about what they are trying to communicate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, other narrower definitions are possible. But if someone identifies as an atheist, we have no right to assume that he is using a narrower definition. If we want to know whether he postively denies the existence of God, we have to ask him.

This demonstrates one of the problems of using dictionary definitions over common sense. If we use the dictionary definition you have quoted, which is:

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."

then we have no right to assume that a person who identifies as an atheist even disbelieves in God. They might believe in God, but be using the part of the definition that says ‘Disregard of duty to God.’

In general real-life public discourse, independently of both dictionary definitions and the theological and atheological debates that theist and atheist activists enjoy, I find that most ordinary people use approximately the following meanings:

Theism: There is a God.
Atheism: There is no God.
Agnosticism: I don’t know.

Actually, the word theism rarely arises in ordinary day-to-day discourse. More usually it would be something like:

Religion: There is a God.
Atheism: There is no God.
Agnosticism: I don’t know.

Also, I find that most people make no default distinction between the concepts of 'I don't believe in God' and 'there is no God.'

Even among nonreligious and secular activists, many if not most seem to use meanings close enough to these ordinary day-to-day meanings. There is a tendency among many nonreligious activists to self-identify as either agnostic or humanist, to avoid conveying the harder meaning that they attach to the word atheism.

So let’s return to this question:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, other narrower definitions are possible. But if someone identifies as an atheist, we have no right to assume that he is using a narrower definition. If we want to know whether he postively denies the existence of God, we have to ask him.

Using ordinary day-to-day language, and unless the specific context suggests otherwise, when someone identifies as an atheist, my default assumption is typically that they are seeking to convey something like the following:

“I don’t believe in God, and I am happy to use a strong word like atheist to describe my disbelief, because my disbelief is stronger than simply saying that I don’t know, and I want people to realise that I have thought about it and have concluded that there is no God.”

And then I remain constantly open to changing this default assumption as I get new information.

One of the specific contexts in which I would start with a different default assumption is when discussing atheism on message boards such as this, where it is more likely that people may be using more nuanced meanings that do not typically arise in ordinary day-to-day discourse.

Michael Nugent

Just for clarity, in the above post I am describing my experience of ordinary day-to-day discourse about atheism, using words as tools of communication with other people, rather than conveying what the word atheism means to me personally.

If I am asked what the word atheism means to me, I typically say that atheism can mean ether believing that there are no gods, or else not believing that there are gods.

I then say that some people divide atheists into different types: strong or positive atheists are people who say they actively believe that gods do not exist, while weak or negative atheists are people who say they passively lack a belief that gods exist.

I also describe the difference between atheism and agnosticism; that atheism is about what you believe, and agnosticism is about what you claim to know. So if you believe that gods do not exist, but you do not claim to know this, then you are an agnostic atheist.

That’s my best effort at impartially describing the different nuances while trying to avoid showing bias towards or against any position.

I then add that personally I believe strongly that there are no gods, based on applying reason to the best currently available evidence, but that I am always open to changing my mind if I get new reliable evidence that I am mistaken.

vibe666

Sarky wrote: »

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

he should sign up to boards.ie this place is full of people like that!

and i refuse to admit otherwise, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary! :pac:

vibe666

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What is the colour of no tomatoes?

it depends if they're not ripe or not not ripe.

Dades

The irritating thing about this is that the person claiming atheism to be a "positive" belief is usually only doing it so they can declare atheism a faith, or a belief without evidence.

"Ha! so wheres UR proof athiestz?"

Michael Nugent

Dades wrote: »

The irritating thing about this is that the person claiming atheism to be a "positive" belief is usually only doing it so they can declare atheism a faith, or a belief without evidence.

"Ha! so wheres UR proof athiestz?"

I agree that this can be irritating.

It can also be irritating when some atheists respond to this tactic by effectively disowning the legitimate concept of atheism being expressed as a positive belief, and by insisting instead that atheism only means a lack of belief and nothing else.

That retreat effectively concedes the false argument that positively believing that there are no gods is as irrational as positively believing that there are gods.

Actually, positively believing that there are no gods is proportionate to the available evidence, while positively believing that there are gods is disproportionate to the available evidence.

Proportionality to the available evidence is the test that should be applied to differentiate reliable beliefs from unreliable beliefs.

Thomas Eshuis

Peregrinus wrote: »

Funny, that's not what my Oxford English Dictionary says. Are you sure you;re not looking at the Concise, or the Shorter?

Mine - the twenty-volume one, the whole shootin' gallery - has this:

"Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."

In other words, atheism embraces both those who deny that God exists, and those who simply disbelieve it. (Disbelieve: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to.")

In this definition, someone who does not believe in the existence of God because he has simply never asked himself the question, or has not been sufficiently interested in it to come up with an answer - someone, in short, who is completely indifferent to the question of whether God exists - is an atheist. He does not believe in the existence of God. That's all it takes to be an atheist.

Of course, other narrower definitions are possible. But if someone identifies as an atheist, we have no right to assume that he is using a narrower definition. If we want to know whether he postively denies the existence of God, we have to ask him.

I don't see how the Extended definition contradicts the definition of the on-line Oxford Dictionary. Sure yours is more precise, but the on-line definition does not exclude the definitions given by the Extended version.

"In other words, atheism embraces both those who deny that God exists, and those who simply disbelieve it." As I've said several times before. If you read the definition of the on-line dictionary you'll see it does not exclude believing that no gods exists, as that is also a form of not believing in the existence of gods.

"In this definition ..... is an atheist." My point exactly. The guy I argued with does not accept this though, because it "does not tell me anything about you" and because "that would make babies atheists".

I can see you and I are on the same page. Good to see I'm not the only one.

Thomas Eshuis

Dades wrote: »

The irritating thing about this is that the person claiming atheism to be a "positive" belief is usually only doing it so they can declare atheism a faith, or a belief without evidence.

"Ha! so wheres UR proof athiestz?"

It's even worse, this guy is an atheist.
It is my impression that he wants to show of his knowledge of Stanford philosophy and his own intellect.

Thomas Eshuis

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It can also be irritating when some atheists respond to this tactic by effectively disowning the legitimate concept of atheism being expressed as a positive belief, and by insisting instead that atheism only means a lack of belief and nothing else.

I agree, I never do this. All I do is explain that atheism in general does not mean "the belief that no gods exists" but disbelief in the existence of god.
Which can be positive or negative.

Dades

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It can also be irritating when some atheists respond to this tactic by effectively disowning the legitimate concept of atheism being expressed as a positive belief, and by insisting instead that atheism only means a lack of belief and nothing else.

I'd agree with that. I don't give a damn if someone thinks I lack belief in gods, or a actively don't believe in any god they care to mention. As long as they don't pull the "faith" nonsense that some people think it gives them licence to.

This reminds me of the "Christian country" debate. People are going to seize on any recognition of Ireland's Christian heritage as a stick to beat secularists with, which makes non-believers very reluctant to give the concept credence.

Gregor Samsa

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

The guy I argued with does not accept this though, because it "does not tell me anything about you" and because "that would make babies atheists".

In "Atheism: The Case Against God", George H. Smith discusses what he calls "implicit atheism", which he applies to people who have have not encountered the concept of god(s), including children (and I suppose babies). But seems to be more of a semantic affair than a philosophical one.

recedite

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

"that would make babies atheists".

LOL but I suppose that is true, except that for a baby, its parents are gods.
Perhaps its no coincidence that as a child grows and sees more and more imperfections in the parents, then the concept of a deity tends to be appear and be used as a replacement.

Logical Fallacy

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)."

Sounds to me like your friend struggles with very simple concepts.

strobe

Peregrinus wrote: »

This.

The bottom line is that the OP's friend can define "atheism" however he likes. But he cannot insist that everyone else must employ his definition. Still less can he insist that everyone else already does employ his definition, so that everyone who identifies as an atheist can be take to positively believe that there is no god.

The only way to find out of someone who identifies as an atheist positively beleives that there is no god is to ask him.

I just want to say thanks for taking the time to post in this forum Peregrinus. Your convivial, non confrontational and reasonable attitude in general has been a breathe of fresh air in terms of theists posting in A&A and I have found your knowledgeable posts on matters of theology here and in the Christianity forum both informative and a pleasure to read.

You're a credit to 'your people'.

Go raibh maith agat.

marienbad

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

I agree, I never do this. All I do is explain that atheism in general does not mean "the belief that no gods exists" but disbelief in the existence of god.
Which can be positive or negative.

Try telling him the ''fcuk off '' argument , it usually works for me.

Sarky

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

It's even worse, this guy is an atheist.
It is my impression that he wants to show of his knowledge of Stanford philosophy and his own intellect.

I think he has rather spectacularly failed to do either.

joseph brand

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?

Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as "cold" just heat, or less heat. Heat is energy, cold is lack of energy. Heat can be measured, cold is the absence of heat. You can't measure cold.

pH

I still want someone to explain to me the practical difference between these two statements.

A: I don't believe OJ killed his wife.
B: I believe OJ didn't kill his wife.

And I don't mean in some incredibly technical linguistic or philosophical sense, one is expressing a "belief", the other a "lack of belief", yet both would find him not guilty.

In fact in everyday usage, people would probably find statement A the stronger one.

I accept that if you were being anal about things, technically the person saying A could be hiding their true position in that they "don't know" and have only told you they aren't in the "kill" camp - whereas statement B is firmly in the "didn't kill" camp - this seems to be pointless sophistry - if your real point is that you don't have an opinion then you could just say that - 99.9% of people would understand that a person making statement A and a person making statement B mean the same thing.

Thomas Eshuis

pH wrote: »

I still want someone to explain to me the practical difference between these two statements.

A: I don't believe OJ killed his wife.
B: I believe OJ didn't kill his wife.

And I don't mean in some incredibly technical linguistic or philosophical sense, one is expressing a "belief", the other a "lack of belief", yet both would find him not guilty.

In fact in everyday usage, people would probably find statement A the stronger one.

I accept that if you were being anal about things, technically the person saying A could be hiding their true position in that they "don't know" and have only told you they aren't in the "kill" camp - whereas statement B is firmly in the "didn't kill" camp - this seems to be pointless sophistry - if your real point is that you don't have an opinion then you could just say that - 99.9% of people would understand that a person making statement A and a person making statement B mean the same thing.

A: I don't believe OJ killed his wife. = I do not believe the claim that OJ killed his wife. (He could have, I just don't believe it without evidence)

B: I believe OJ didn't kill his wife. = I positively belief OJ did not killed his wife. (You believe he did it, regardless of the evidence of lack thereof).

In terms of atheism, the first would be negative atheism and the second positive atheism.
Atheism is the name for people who disbelieve, i.o.w. not positively believe in the existence of gods.
This includes both those who do not believe and those who believe gods don't exists.

Improbable

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

B: I believe OJ didn't kill his wife. = I positively belief OJ killed his wife

What?

Thomas Eshuis

pH wrote: »

99.9% of people would understand that a person making statement A and a person making statement B mean the same thing.

Then 99% of the people would be wrong.
Since we are talking about a court case, it is easy to explain what you misunderstand.

A jury has to either find OJ guilty or non guilty.
However if some people are unconvinced, they cannot convict OJ.

Atheists that do not believe in gods, but also do not believe no gods exists, would be people who would not vote guilty, because of a lack of evidence for example.
That does not mean they belief OJ is innocent, just that there is not enough evidence to conclude that he did murder his wife.

Again, changing this back to the god discussion; Quite a lot of atheists are not convinced by theistic claims and due to this lack of evidence do not believe those claims. But neither do they positively belief there is no god.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

It's even worse, this guy is an atheist. It is my impression that he wants to show of his knowledge of Stanford philosophy and his own intellect.

I think he has rather spectacularly failed to do either.

On the contrary, he may well have adequately demonstrated both.

Thomas Eshuis

Improbable wrote: »

What?

Of course I meant to say did not kill his wife.

Thomas Eshuis

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, he may well have adequately demonstrated both.

I assume you mean lack of in respect to his intelligence?

pH

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

A: I don't believe OJ killed his wife. = I do not believe the claim that OJ killed his wife. (He could have, I just don't believe it without evidence)

B: I believe OJ didn't kill his wife. = I positively belief OJ did not killed his wife. (You believe he did it, regardless of the evidence of lack thereof).

This is exactly what I mean - someone invariably comes along, rewrites them in a bizarre and arbitrary way and declares "Ta Da!"

Thomas Eshuis

pH wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean - someone invariably comes along, rewrites them in a bizarre and arbitrary way and declares "Ta Da!"

Would you care to explain what part of my explanation is arbitrary or wrong exactly?