arguments for atheism

[Wiploc]

Other dictionaries don't include "lack of belief" as the primary definition, maybe even most of them.

Hmm. Maybe not in those words.

Not in any other words, as the primary definition.

How about Merriam-Webster?

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [emphasis added]

Or how about the Urban Dictionary?

Top definition
The lack of belief in a deity or deities.
Just that. Nothing else.

Vocabulary.com?

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I typed "dictionary" into Google, and went to the first four hits.

Three of those four (see above) gave my preferred definition first.

The other one, dictionary.com, gave your definition first, and gave mine as number two.

I have a two-volume Oxford at hand, so I'll look there:

... Without God, denying God ... Disbelief in, or denial of the existence of God or gods ... Also godlessness

Your claim, then, is flatly wrong. You should retract.

 

[Wiploc]

It used to be my habit to tell people I'm "not religious."

When Christians ask, I like to say, "I'm on the other team."

 

[ideologyhunter]

Do they assume you have Black Mass and microwave kittens?

 

[Wiploc]

Originally Posted by Wiploc

You've pointed out that "atheism" defines in more than one way. I'll point out that "disbelief" does too. It can be either not-believing-X or believing-not-X.

As such, it's a good word to avoid in discussions of this type, unless, for instance, you're a dictionary trying to include all non-theists as atheists.

I'd say that's a minor definition, so not worried about it.

The two-volume Oxford gives this as the definition of "disbelieve":

1. ... refuse to believe (a person, statement, etc.) ...

2. ... Be a skeptic; have no belief or faith in ...

I don't see why you think my definition is minor. I don't find your definition in there at all.

 

[Treedbear]

... Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state.

This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

Where's the utility in that? It is logically incoherent that atheism can represent a proposition in one case and a psychological state in another. This only invites epistemic inconsistencies, which is pretty evident in this and many other threads on the subject.

I don't see the problem.

Here's a proposition: "God exists."

I agree.

Is that proposition a theist? No.

I agree.

People who believe the proposition are theists.

I agree.

People who don't believe that proposition are atheists.

I don't agree.

Here's a proposition associated with strong atheism: "Gods do not exist."

Perhaps, but if atheism is a proposition, as I would argue it always is, then "strong" adds nothing to it.

Is the proposition an atheist?

Seems like a strange question to ask. But OK.

No, but people who believe it are atheists (specifically, strong atheists).

I agree except that the proposition that "Gods do not exist." doesn't benefit from the "strong" qualifier.

I'm not saying that there's no problem. I'm just saying I don't see the problem.

If you still think there's a problem, I'd like you to explain it.

The problem is that when the word "atheist" can be used as either a proposition (that a God or gods do not exist) or a psychological state (simply the lack of affirmative knowledge on the matter) it inserts a tremendous amount of misunderstanding into debates and invites insinuations of duplicity. Is there a problem here?

Show

 

[Copernicus]

I just want to remind people that dictionaries can contain bad definitions, and they do not prescribe word usage. You cannot establish how one ought to use the word "atheism" by surveying the definitions that lexicographers come up with to describe its actual usage, because word usage patterns tend to drift over time. Where one dictionary might have a few broad definitions for a word, another might have several more narrow definitions. Lexicographers debate with each other all the time over the quality of their work.

We can all agree that there are people who merely lack belief in gods but do not consciously reject belief in their existence. They just lack conviction. There are others who strongly believe that gods do not exist. Broadly speaking, it is probably more common for the general English-speaking population to construe an atheist as someone who knows what a god is and simply rejects beliefs. IOW, an atheist believes that we live in a godless universe. However, it is also legitimate to use the term to describe agnostics who just think of gods as mythical or implausible beings. It becomes less clear on whether the term applies to people who are merely unfamiliar with the concept of what a god is. And it is very easy to get into a terminological brouhaha over just what we mean by the term "god". So we can all agree on what belief patterns are, but we end up arguing over how to use words to describe those patterns. This is no longer a religious dispute. It is a terminological dispute. And dragging lexicographers into it as expert witnesses doesn't help.

 

[skepticalbip]

arguments for atheism

Skepticism generally results in better outcomes than naive gullibility.

 

[Jarhyn]

arguments for atheism

Skepticism generally results in better outcomes than naive gullibility.

But you can be skeptical of such a thing while still maintaining belief.

I am skeptical, for example, of any "magic" that is an attempt to produce causal adjacency (conjuring, manifestation, love spells, etc.). Rather, skepticism is a filter for belief. If skepticism can't find purchase against a belief, or if you can't find something to take it's place, then usually it's better to just keep believing.

Skepticism and belief are not opposites. The knife is not the opposite of the wood it carved just as skepticism is not the opposite of the belief it carved.

 

[abaddon]

A godless universe... Yeah, that's what you get when all proposed gods or goddesses are consistently found residing in the human imagination and never anywhere else.

I live near a monsterless lake. How do I justify 'believing' it's a monsterless lake? Because there are no signs of monsters in it. Because I trust my senses more than anyone's unsubstantiated testimony about it.

I guess, in some folk's minds, that makes me a devout believer in Amonsterism. But this 'believing' on my part happens only for the reason that Monsterists have, in the past, brought such things up.

 

[skepticalbip]

arguments for atheism

Skepticism generally results in better outcomes than naive gullibility.

If skepticism can't find purchase against a belief, or if you can't find something to take it's place, then usually it's better to just keep believing.

Not at all. If something can't be found to replace an unsupported claim then "it's better" to remain skeptical and accept that "I don't know" than to believe the unsupported claim.

Insistence on an answer, any answer, even an unsupported answer, is what gave us blind religious belief.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If skepticism can't find purchase against a belief, or if you can't find something to take it's place, then usually it's better to just keep believing.

Oh, no doubt. So say the faculty of Wheaton College, the Holy See of Vatican City, the LDS Office of the First President, the ulama class in Islam, and ten guys venerating a juju charm in Cameroon.

 

[atrib]

Which question? The original one that the unknown variable (a god) was offered as an answer to or the newly created question of the unknown variable itself?

The original question would be the venue of the scientists. The newly created question of the nature of the unknown variable (god) offered as a solution to the original question would be the venue of religious naval gazers.

The question I asked, which is whether an atheistic model could be somehow derived from the material circumstances of the universe itself, a posteriori. I am explicitly not asking for traditional apologetic arguments for or against God that come down to fundamental differences of perspective rather than empirically demonstrable conclusions.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that gods are necessary to explain anything about the workings of the universe, or its formation. Or even vaguely hint at such a necessity. Your "question" makes no sense.

Do you believe in universe creating fairies? Do we have empirically demonstrable conclusions that universe creating fairies were not involved in the creation of our universe? If not, are you willing to consider universe creating fairies to be a potentially valid supernatural explanation as to our existence? What distinguishes god from universe creating fairies, and what makes god special? You are simply begging the question here, while pretending to hold a rational, unbiased position.

 

[Elixir]

The question I asked, which is whether an atheistic model could be somehow derived from the material circumstances of the universe itself, a posteriori. I am explicitly not asking for traditional apologetic arguments for or against God that come down to fundamental differences of perspective rather than empirically demonstrable conclusions.

All models are wrong, some are useful. Any model that does not assume a god and ascribe some value to it, is an atheistic model.
Just offhand I'd say most useful models don't do that.

 

[Politesse]

Which question? The original one that the unknown variable (a god) was offered as an answer to or the newly created question of the unknown variable itself?

The original question would be the venue of the scientists. The newly created question of the nature of the unknown variable (god) offered as a solution to the original question would be the venue of religious naval gazers.

The question I asked, which is whether an atheistic model could be somehow derived from the material circumstances of the universe itself, a posteriori. I am explicitly not asking for traditional apologetic arguments for or against God that come down to fundamental differences of perspective rather than empirically demonstrable conclusions.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that gods are necessary to explain anything about the workings of the universe, or its formation. Or even vaguely hint at such a necessity. Your "question" makes no sense.

Do you believe in universe creating fairies? Do we have empirically demonstrable conclusions that universe creating fairies were not involved in the creation of our universe? If not, are you willing to consider universe creating fairies to be a potentially valid supernatural explanation as to our existence? What distinguishes god from universe creating fairies, and what makes god special? You are simply begging the question here, while pretending to hold a rational, unbiased position.

So your answer is "no." Valid, common, even dogmatic. But the reason for the thread is that a contrary situation had been implied (or I thought had been implied) by a comment in another thread, and the OP seemed to take an interest in the idea as well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The supernaturalism that constitutes a fairy and a god and a soul and a ghost is the same. So if gods are real, why aren't fairies?

 

[bilby]

The supernaturalism that constitutes a fairy and a god and a soul and a ghost is the same. So if gods are real, why aren't fairies?

Duh. The pixies ate them all, obviously.

 

[DBT]

The Goblins got the Pixies, the Trogs finished the Goblins and global warming destroyed Trog habitat and way of life...a tale of tragedy and woe in the otherworldly realm. So few are left now, so few....

 

[ideologyhunter]

A hypothetical here. If it could be determined, through polling or twitter analysis, that the goblins, pixies, trogs, sprites, elves, and CAFs (cognizant, autonomous farts) do not believe in God, would the ontological argument for God fall apart? And leave out the CAFs, if it helps. That joke didn't turn out as funny as I'd hoped.

 

[atrib]

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that gods are necessary to explain anything about the workings of the universe, or its formation. Or even vaguely hint at such a necessity. Your "question" makes no sense.

Do you believe in universe creating fairies? Do we have empirically demonstrable conclusions that universe creating fairies were not involved in the creation of our universe? If not, are you willing to consider universe creating fairies to be a potentially valid supernatural explanation as to our existence? What distinguishes god from universe creating fairies, and what makes god special? You are simply begging the question here, while pretending to hold a rational, unbiased position.

So your answer is "no." Valid, common, even dogmatic. But the reason for the thread is that a contrary situation had been implied (or I thought had been implied) by a comment in another thread, and the OP seemed to take an interest in the idea as well.

My answer is NOT no. My answer is that your question is nonsensical, which I clearly stated in my post (see highlight). Please try to read and understand what I said before you start to put words in my mouth.

Every model that we have derived that is any good at describing the workings of the universe is naturalistic, which is not the same as atheistic. That is, the models do not require the intervention of supernatural entities to describe whatever phenomenon the model is trying to describe. You are trying to muddy the waters by substituting one for the other, likely because of some bias in your worldview. It is presently impossible to draw empirical conclusions regarding the nature of, or even the existence of gods BECAUSE nobody can produce a god whose interventions in our universe can be empirically tested. We disregard God as an explanation for exactly the same reasons we disregard universe creating fairies as an explanation.

In an earlier post, Bilby had talked about the Standard Model (SM) of physics, and how the SM describes every single particle/interaction that could potentially have any impact on our everyday existence. I suggest you go back and reread his post, perhaps even do some independent reading to figure out what he was talking about, because I don't think you understood what he was talking about either. And what he was talking about is immensely relevant to your line of questioning.

 

[Wiploc]

Broadly speaking, it is probably more common for the general English-speaking population to construe an atheist as someone who knows what a god is and simply rejects beliefs.

So, explicit atheists: Pretty much all non-theists except for babies and boys raised by wolves.

IOW, an atheist believes that we live in a godless universe.

"In other words"?

Now you're describing strong atheists, people who believe there are no gods. How are they the same as explicit atheists?

However, it is also legitimate to use the term to describe agnostics who just think of gods as mythical or implausible beings.

That sounds like strong atheists again. Those who view gods as implausible myth are the same people who believe gods do not exist.

It becomes less clear on whether the term applies to people who are merely unfamiliar with the concept of what a god is.

Implicit atheists: Wolf boys and babies.

And it is very easy to get into a terminological brouhaha over just what we mean by the term "god". So we can all agree on what belief patterns are, but we end up arguing over how to use words to describe those patterns. This is no longer a religious dispute. It is a terminological dispute. And dragging lexicographers into it as expert witnesses doesn't help.

I get to call lexicographers in rebuttal. If someone claims that my meaning of "atheism" is wrong, then I get to point out that it is correct according to both dictionaries and common usage.

I have yet to have someone come back with, "Well, yeah, the dictionaries and the people use your definition, but it is still wrong according to some undisclosed third standard."

The most they can legitimately say is, "I still don't like it."