Define “Atheist”

[lupus_in_fabula]

Saying "I am apolitical" does not imply a lack of belief in the existence of politics. It's simply a personal ontological declaration about one's relationship with the issue under consideration.

It's entirely logical to be an atheist and agnostic at the same time.

One simply needs to understand the difference between:

• the ontological ("I don't have a belief in a god" | "I'm not theistic");
• the epistemological ("I don't know whether there is a god or not").

 

[ynot]

"Lack of belief" can only stem from lack of knowledge.

Having a belief is what stems from lack of knowledge. Knowledge that others have a belief doesn’t mean you have to accept or reject that belief, but until and unless you do accept and adopt that belief, you lack (don’t have) that belief.

you can choose to believe it or disbelieve it.

A typical “You’re either with us or you’re against us” theistic attitude. You can of course also not choose to either believe it or disbelieve it. This “You have to either accept or reject a god belief” is really “You have to either accept or reject my God” (because the “good book” says you have to make a choice). Seems it’s important for theists to believe that all atheists are nasty sinners that have rejected/denied their loving god that everyone (including atheists) knows actually exists.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm answering the thread in general from the title, so I don't know where it's been.

Atheism is a term that assumes theism as the default. We don't usually name the lack of something unless we assume that it is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack. Take a group of people and demand that they divide themselves by their favorite god. Atheists are among those that didn't choose. More specifically, atheists are the people that refused to participate on the grounds that they don't know that any gods exist. They aren't properly a named group. The question they answered isn't the same one as the other groups answered. In very real social terms, atheists are the ones refusing to play a game that religionists demand they play.

I suppose I'm a de facto atheist, but I refuse to identify with the term because its framing suggests deviance. On the contrary, it's actually the norm in some circles. Since when are we required to participate in groupthink about deities? While it is true that some societies have required it of us for centuries, that's not a good thing. I'm not deviant or rebellious. I only seem such to some because they wrongly assume that religion is required. The question it answers presumes an authority which I never ceded. I am not required to answer the question of deities at all, and usually, I prefer not to answer absurd questions. I'll just leave that one blank. It doesn't deserve an answer. It's a false dichotomy, for one. People aren't entirely temporally consistent, and sometimes their answer will depend on context. We assume by the way we attribute it that people aren't sometimes an atheist and sometimes not, but the fact is that this is actually a fairly common condition. To top it off, you don't even have an opinion all the time unless you're constantly thinking about it.

My definition of atheism would be: "The practice of answering a ridiculous question that doesn't even deserve consideration with a negative, ignoring the fact that the question itself is illegitimate and manipulative." The real question intended isn't about whether gods exist or not. It's about which one you grovel to. Their existence or lack thereof is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of religion. The dividing lines aren't even where we pretend that they are. There are people who don't believe in the factual existence of gods who nonetheless identify with a theistic religion, and there are people who believe in some vague concept of a deity who don't follow a religion. There are even people that believe one way in some situations, and another in others. This particular episode of "separate and classify" doesn't clarify anything meaningful. It's mostly just an identity crutch. In that, it's not notably different from religion. It makes much more sense to me to just be a non-participant and decline to discuss the matter.

That said, I can't resist discussing the matter because I find it fascinating.

 

[Manopolus]

In other words, atheism and theism are like all the other "personal identity" words: completely unnecessary and misleading. It is more a role to play than it is a designation of an actual condition, although some are more attracted to one role than the others. Even between these concepts, there are some who decline to play the game. You can't find a word for us we'll accept, because the whole point is to remain unclassified, and thus, free. Atheism happens to be one that pretends to name the unnamable -- but you can't put a name to it without accepting the rules and participating in the game. Once you accept a name for it, you're in a box and have a designated role to play, which is kind of silly if your intent was to decline to participate. It's better to leave that blank unfilled. The only way to end a stupidity is to decline to participate. Actively fighting against it just gives them an enemy to add as fuel to their fire.

 

[lomiller]

If an Atheist can be anything from someone who actively believes there is no god to a religious person who thinks god is a matter of faith not physical evidence why bother with the concept at all? Telling us you are one tells us nothing, so as a concept it’s DOA.

I come at this problem by first asking - what do you call someone who doesn't have any belief in a god or gods?

Agnostic doesn't seem to fit here because the non believers are not saying "I don't know", and they are also not saying "I know/believe that gods do not exist" either (well they may say that too, but they don't have to). Here from the above "I have no belief in any God or Gods" the label Atheist seems most appropriate. If not then what are they (label wise since we are talking about labels here)

How are these meaningfully different? All that appears to be happening is that the second seems to be trying to disavow any responsibility for the formation of one’s beliefs. Essentially all it really tells us is that you have no particular reason for your beliefs, or at least no reason you are willing to stand behind.

 

[lomiller]

Matt Dillahunty gives the jar of gumballs as an example.

If a jar of gumballs is presented to me and a friend, and my friend says "there are an even number of gumballs in that jar", even though I know he has never seen the jar before, I can say "I'm not convinced of that".

A more apt analogy would be they believe the number of gumballs to be even because someone wrote “100 gumballs” on the container. IOW whether it’s a good reason or not, they have an actual reason for their conclusion. Conversely the “Atheist” in this scenario has no particularly reason for saying the number is not even but is simply saying they don’t believe that it is, no reason given.


While not strictly wrong it’s a position that neither convincing nor constructive and one you could fully justify ignoring out of hand.

 

[ynot]

Atheism is a term that assumes theism as the default. We don't usually name the lack of something unless we assume that it is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack.

Wrong!

Theist is a term that assumes theism as the default and is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack.

Atheism/atheist are terms that don't assume theism as the default and is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack.

Atheism merely defines that an atheist isn't a theist. Atheism is the default, people become theists.

 

[Manopolus]

Wrong!

Theist is a term that assumes theism as the default and is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack.

Atheism/atheist are terms that don't assume theism as the default and is a needed and proper thing that people shouldn't lack.

Atheism merely defines that an atheist isn't a theist. Atheism is the default, people become theists.

Well, yeah. An atheist would consider atheism a default (technically, "animism" has some small evidence in its favor, but whatever). However, it's sort of like non-stamp-collecters. The very existence of the term unnecessarily legitimizes its opposite and creates a name for further stereotypes. It's a matter of defining yourself by what you are not. It can become an archetype that people aspire to in some cases -- which is ridiculous. When it becomes something which defines in-groups and out-groups, it has effectively become a religion (and I have seen that on some websites, including here). Unfortunately, the better you define it, the more "devout" you become.

 

[ynot]

Well, yeah... an atheist would consider atheism a default. However, it's sort of like non-stamp-collecters. The very existence of the term unnecessarily legitimizes its opposite and creates a name for further stereotypes. It's almost a matter of defining yourself by what you are not. It can become an archetype that people aspire to in some cases -- which is ridiculous. When it becomes something which defines in-groups and out-groups, it has effectively become a religion (and I have seen that on some websites, including here).

Atheism is the default as a matter of fact, not consideration. No person is a theist before they're an atheist.

Sure the label "atheist" is superfluous, but as it's been used for some time and continues to be commonly used, then the label needs some defining (that doesn't make it a belief or religion). Seems clear that theists have a different definition from atheists and there will never be a consensus. Labeling someone as an atheist is defining them as "what they're not" by the "not theist" definition, but not by the "believes there's no god(s)" definition.

Perhaps theists should be defined as "not atheists" .

 

[Manopolus]

Atheism is the default as a matter of fact, not consideration. No person is a theist before they're an atheist.

Sure the label "atheist" is superfluous, but as it's been used for some time and continues to be commonly used, then the label needs some defining (that doesn't make it a belief or religion). Seems clear that theists have a different definition from atheists and there will never be a consensus. Defining someone as an atheist is defining them as "what they're not" by the "not theist" definition, but not by the "believes there's no god(s)" definition.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I just don't like the term. My main beef has to do with the assumption of internal consistency on the subject. An atheist can accept the "hypothetical" existence of gods for the sake of a story or a metaphor, for instance. Does that mean that they're temporary theists when watching certain movies? There's this assumption of identity involved which seems inaccurate. I see belief as something that people do rather than something that people are.

 

[ynot]

I think we agree more than we disagree. I just don't like the term. My main beef has to do with the assumption of internal consistency on the subject. An atheist can accept the "hypothetical" existence of gods for the sake of a story or a metaphor, for instance. Does that mean that they're temporary theists when watching certain movies? There's this assumption of identity involved which seems inaccurate. I see belief more as "stuff that people do" than as "stuff that people are."

I don't particularly like the term/label either, but I can easily live with it.

Does watching murder movies make anyone a temporary murderer?

I see belief more as "stuff that people accept when they can't know".

Belief is what people think, not what they do or are.

Perhaps those that don't have any god(s) beliefs simply need to care less what those that do have god(s) beliefs think of and label them.

 

[Manopolus]

Perhaps those that don't have any god(s) beliefs simply need to care less what those that do have god(s) beliefs think of and label them.

That I'd definitely agree with. I just don't like the idea of labeling ourselves.

 

[ynot]

That I'd definitely agree with. I just don't like the idea of labeling ourselves.

Appropriate labels can have a "shorthand" usefulness. Inappropriate labels with ulterior motives can be annoying however, but there are many worse things .

 

[maximara]

Sorry, no. There is no more rational way to act than as if there are no gods. Unless you can offer a better idea?

I have noticed that Atheism is often confused with deism. And if you think about it it is understandable as if god doesn't interfere with his creation then functionally it is as if there is o god.

 

[ynot]

I have noticed that Atheism is often confused with deism. And if you think about it it is understandable as if god doesn't interfere with his creation then functionally it is as if there is o god.

That applies equally to all claimed and merely believed gods (not that there's any other type).