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.

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.

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?

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.