Atheist, agnostic, or non theist?

[Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

"Non theist" recognizes 'theism' is a vague term that can mean different things. For the purposes of this debate 'theism' represents the classic belief in a god or gods who are personal, formed in the image of man, or that man was formed by in 'his image.' The 'theist' believes in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and 'knows' us personally, a 'God' who walks with us and talks with us; a god in the fashion of the 'God' in Job who walks with Satan and communes with Job.

The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 32 by wiploc]

Regardless of whether you call group C "weak atheists" or "agnostics," we still have to deal with the distinction based on what people think they know:

X. The gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
Y. The agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.

Ultimately lacking belief in gods as "atheist" is only relevant to ignorance if it is accepted that babies are all born ignorant.

Again, you've lost me. I don't understand the above sentence. I suspect you left out words.

If you want to call one of the categories "ignorant," it would be the agnostics, category Y.

There are therefore no real atheists,

I don't know why you say that. I'm an atheist.

apart from babies, because everyone shifts from that position, regardless of what labels they wish to assign to themselves and everyone else.

Essentially...there are no grow-up atheists...

wtf?

[wiploc]

"Fancy new terminology"? If you look in the OED, you'll find that calling all non-theists "atheists" is an ancient practice.

I don't have the OED handy, but Wikipedia suggests quite the opposite; that its Greek origins...

Thanks. That's good information. I'm not handy to an OED myself these days.

I'm not sure I've been contradicted, but maybe I should be prepared to backpedal. Something, perhaps, like, "If this usage isn't ancient, it is at least several hundreds of years old?

were as a pejorative term for rejection of (or by) the 'true' gods, even being applied against Christians.

Right. There are many various and conflicting meanings of the word. Thousands, perhaps.

But there are two main ones today. Consider these three categories:

A. People who believe that gods do exist.
B. People who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

According to the two main meanings in use today, supported by both dictionaries and common usage, the word "atheist" applies to either group B or else to groups B and C.

Other definitions are so little used that we don't have to worry about them.

-

The word "atheist" is still often used pejoratively. This doesn't change what we mean by it.

-

You use the word rejection above, so I looked it up. Here is the first hit (or the first five hits, depending how you count) at dictionary.com.

- to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
- to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
- to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff: The other children rejected him. The publisher rejected the author's latest novel.
- to discard as useless or unsatisfactory: The mind rejects painful memories.
- to cast out or eject; vomit.

I like the third one, according to which anyone who has heard of gods without believing in them would be an atheist. This doesn't include babies and boys raised by wolves (or anyone else who never thought about gods).

It's the same with dictionaries that define atheists as denying gods. The definitions of deny include all explicit atheists, but not the implicit ones (no babies or wolf boys).

Myself, I don't see the reason for excluding implicit atheists. They are non-theists, atheists. Why should we have a fourth category?

A. People who believe that gods do exist.
B. People who believe that gods do not exist.
D. People who don't fall into categories A and B, but who also haven't even heard of gods.
E. People who don't fall into categories A and B, but who have heard of gods.

That's just tiresome. And not useful.

I'd much rather have just three categories:

A. People who believe that gods do exist.
B. People who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

...
"denying the gods"[/color]. . . .

Again from dictionary.com:

- to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
- to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.
- to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information.
- to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar.
- to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods.
- to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments.

Emphasis added.

All explicit non-theists qualify as atheists.

...
Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16]

I have to wonder what atheists called themselves. I mean, what would they have called themselves if they weren't afraid of being killed by theists.

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[146]

Disbelief is another of those words that define both ways, and therefore fail to lend clarity to discussions of this type.

- to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
- to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

Oh, well, happens that both of those would describe weak atheists, which supports my position: All non-theists are atheists if we define atheism as disbelieving in gods. But, I assure you, if we we looked further, we would soon find definitions that of disbelieve that would have only strong atheists disbelieve in gods.

In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45] [/list]

So, the meaning of atheism shifted from

You don't believe in my my particular god

to

I don't believe your particular god

to

I don't believe in any gods.

And who accords with the modern definition? Who doesn't believe in any gods? Babies, that's who. And wolf boys. And all other non-theists.

Baron d'Holbach's rhetorical point aside, as far as I can find the earliest outline of ideas such as 'implicit' atheism and 'weak' atheism occur in the 1970s from philosophers such as Antony Flew and George H. Smith.

Yeah, you'd think the terms wouldn't be that useful. But you sometimes get people who want a forth category for non-theists haven't heard of gods. So, if we have to talk about that, it's good to have a name for the category.

The weak/strong distinction seems like a potentially useful one - for use among those who reject belief in gods - to easily clarify whether or not they also express a positive belief that there are no gods. But there seems to be no reason for indulging the invention of 'implicit' atheism, as far as I can tell, besides the tendency noted above of stacking the stats in favour of one's own position.

The primary reason for theists arguing against the atheists preferred definition of atheism is, as far as I can tell, their preference for baiting us rather than engaging in substantive discussion.

I would find it equally irrational and objectionable to label babies as theists.

Babies aren't theists, so, yeah, that would be perverse.

I would find it irrational and objectionable to label babies as strong atheists.

Babies are weak atheists.

If you come up with a word for everybody who isn't a strong atheist, then that word will apply to babies just as much as the "atheist" does.

I can see why some Christians might think that belief is an important distinction between the saved and the unsaved, and I've seen some atheists promoting a 'lack of belief' definition with a view to claiming babies and the like for the atheist fold.

We're just telling you what we mean by the word. Don't assume we have ulterior motives.

The actual motive, in my case, at least, is clarity of communication.

I didn't say anything about your personal motives,

Nor did I say anything about yours in my jab above.

You have repeated your insinuation enough times that I have taken offense. If you intend to keep repeating it, then we should break off this discussion.

but I've seen too many threads and posts on this forum over the years trying to claim atheism as some kind of 'default position' to think that this novel, convoluted and lop-sided categorization scheme has been promoted so vigorously - almost exclusively by avowed atheists - out of a mild objective interest in semantics and communication.

We're tired of being baited by people who don't want to talk substance. We get heated when we are deliberately misconstrued by people think that's entertaining.

If this makes you want to argue that we get so het up about our definition that we must be lying about it, then you and I aren't going to play well together.

Or, we could talk about some subject other than whether atheists are being honest about what we mean by the word "atheist."

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by wiploc]

Babies are weak atheists.

But isn't that what agnostics are referred to as?

[Mithrae]

I can see why some Christians might think that belief is an important distinction between the saved and the unsaved, and I've seen some atheists promoting a 'lack of belief' definition with a view to claiming babies and the like for the atheist fold.

We're just telling you what we mean by the word. Don't assume we have ulterior motives.

The actual motive, in my case, at least, is clarity of communication.

I didn't say anything about your personal motives,

Nor did I say anything about yours in my jab above.

You have repeated your insinuation enough times that I have taken offense. If you intend to keep repeating it, then we should break off this discussion.

I didn't think that you had said anything about my motives. I had to scroll back up a couple of paragraphs to try to work out what you meant. Obviously I can't stop you from taking personal offense at my analysis of the (intended or unintended) general effect and (explicitly intended) occasional usage which we see for the broad 'lack of belief' / 'everyone else' definitions of atheism. You are the one choosing to lump all atheists together with yourself as a unitary "we," contrary to my careful comments about "some Christians" and "some atheists." But just as obviously, your decision to take personal offense is not a valid argument for me to either change my views or refrain from discussing the subject on an open forum.

but I've seen too many threads and posts on this forum over the years trying to claim atheism as some kind of 'default position' to think that this novel, convoluted and lop-sided categorization scheme has been promoted so vigorously - almost exclusively by avowed atheists - out of a mild objective interest in semantics and communication.

We're tired of being baited by people who don't want to talk substance. We get heated when we are deliberately misconstrued by people think that's entertaining.

If this makes you want to argue that we get so het up about our definition that we must be lying about it, then you and I aren't going to play well together.

Or, we could talk about some subject other than whether atheists are being honest about what we mean by the word "atheist."

I never suggested any kind of dishonesty. Even those people for whom a major intention is trying ensure that as many people as possible are classified as atheists obviously do honestly think that such a definition and usage are preferable. Others may have been genuinely persuaded that dividing humanity into the two categories of 'theist' and 'atheist' - trying to change common usage of the term 'agnostic' and impute an unknowable stance to infants in order to accomplish this - somehow aids communication rather than confusing it.

I think that the former is more a point of rhetoric/propaganda than something which has any clear philosophic or linguistic utility, and I think that the latter view is obviously incorrect - witness these extensive discussions which crop up on a semi-regular basis as avowed atheists try to persuade us that their term is actually the best one for describing self-identified agnostics and 'everyone else.' And because it seems so clear that this novel usage of the term is more confusing than anything else, I can only assume that it is proponents from the former group who are the primary driving force behind the push for its acceptance, whether proponents from the latter group recognize it or not. But I don't think and haven't suggested that there's any reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of either group.

By the by, discussion of semantics is proverbially famous for not being something of substance, so I'm not entirely sure that's the best objection to raise I'm pretty sure the net global effect would be quite close to zero even if everyone on the planet accepted your view, or mine, so if you're not enjoying the discussion there's surely no harm in discontinuing. Just don't try to build up to your departure by painting me as some kind of bad guy for expressing my views.

I would find it equally irrational and objectionable to label babies as theists.

Babies aren't theists, so, yeah, that would be perverse.

I would find it irrational and objectionable to label babies as strong atheists.

Babies are weak atheists.

If you come up with a word for everybody who isn't a strong atheist, then that word will apply to babies just as much as the "atheist" does.

If and when I need to talk about everyone else who has not identified or thought about their stance regarding gods' existence, then I'll use the words "everyone else" - it's rather strange that anyone would consider this an inadequate term.

Out of interest, how many babies have you asked whether they are theists or not, as William perhaps facetiously suggested in post #28? We really have no way of knowing whether or not they hold any god concepts. As I pointed out in post #25 there are at least two fairly obvious ways in which they might: 1) If they possess an incorporeal soul, as the majority of humanity believes, their conceptual capacity needn't necessarily be limited by either brain development or bodily experience; and 2) even under the presumption of philosophical naturalism it seems plausible that infants' experience of their mother within the womb and beyond would be one of an 'all-powerful' provider/caregiver which matches the primary features of the god concept, and helps explain the remarkable resilience of the mother goddess archetype even in monotheistic faiths such as Catholicism.

Can we infer anything from the fact that some atheists so readily embrace the unprovable if not downright dubious positive assertion that babies hold no god-concept? If and when we need to talk about everyone else who has not identified a stance on gods' existence, why can we not just say "everyone else" rather than applying a label which assigns a stance to them which we cannot possibly know?

[brunumb]

I don't really get this weak and strong atheist stuff. To me it's a bit like describing some women as weakly non-pregnant or strongly non-pregnant.

[Tcg]

My reasoning is correct as far as I have mapped it out.

Perhaps you might like to explain your claim regarding these major flaws you see in my reasoning....

I already have. You claim there are no grown-up atheists. There are in fact many of us. If your reasoning leads to a conclusion that denies this reality, it is flawed in at least one, but perhaps many ways.


Tcg

[Tcg]

What would you call that, if not padding the numbers or stacking the stats?

One poster's attempt to help others understand their view of what it means to be an atheist. Of course if you don't accept this obvious explanation, I can double check the payroll records of "Atheists United to Dominate the World" to see if I've overlooked something.

Yep, checked it, no payments to wiploc.


Tcg

[Mithrae]

Of course if you don't accept this obvious explanation, I can double check the payroll records of "Atheists United to Dominate the World" to see if I've overlooked something.

Yep, checked it, no payments to wiploc.

Haha. As if we're not all fully aware that the payments are code-named, not to mention diverted through the International Atheist Subversion Fund!

Seriously though, such biting wit might have more 'oomph' behind it if you had deigned to answer my other question first:
The perception of atheism as a radical stance held by only a tiny fringe minority has been held historically and continues to be held by some folk today - not least by Americans with their "in God we trust" and prior decades' demonization of "godless commies" and a recent president's "I'm not sure atheists should be considered citizens": So there would seem to be an obvious incentive there for some atheists to engage in the same kind of numbers-boosting antics that we see from all kinds of other groups. Is there some reason to imagine that atheism confers any kind of immunity from such temptation?

But more to the point, while such an approach would obviously be quite limited in numerical/demographic terms, we certainly have seen (including often on this forum) attempts to paint atheism as the norm or 'default' and theism as an aberration in chronological terms, via a definition (and dubious assumption) claiming that we're all born atheists.

Seems to me that the most natural and sensible approach when talking about folks' stance on gods would be to accept the common usage of 'agnostic' as being a position between or somewhat distinct from theist and atheist; and if we ever need to talk about everyone else who haven't identified or given any thought to their stance on gods, we could use the category "everyone else." Instead we see the proposal from Wiploc and others in various threads that we put both neutral agnostics and 'everyone else' into an atheist category. What would you call that, if not padding the numbers or stacking the stats?

One poster's attempt to help others understand their view of what it means to be an atheist.

Obviously it is not a poster's explanation of what it means for them to be an atheist, but rather an explanation that the poster wants to classify neutral agnostics and 'everyone else' as atheists too. It may be that there are some atheists who suggest that their lack of belief via consideration and rejection of belief in gods is no different from infants' supposed lack of belief via having no concept of gods, if that's what you mean? I would say that is patently untrue on about the same level as saying that there's no difference between making a discovery through research versus dumb luck or breaking a law wilfully versus ignorantly. In most if not all other cases I can think of our understanding and intentions constitute a noteworthy if not highly relevant distinction, so it would seem strange for them to be so determinedly downplayed and glossed over in this context. Similarly in the case of self-identification; one would have thought that atheists of all folk might be particularly tired of the labels which others have historically thrust upon them, and not be so keen to introduce a novel classification scheme which would subsume both self-identified agnostics and the unknowing under their own label.

Interestingly some folk have proposed that they don't have any beliefs - that what they know and rationally conclude etc. do not constitute 'beliefs' - and similarly some religious folk assert that they don't 'believe' but rather know that their God exists. By implication therefore, any 'lack of belief' definition broad enough to encompass folk who would instead identify themselves as agnostics and infants presumed to not even have any concept of gods would also classify those religious folk who 'know' rather than believing that their God exists as atheists too. Seems like a useful definition

[Mithrae]

Perhaps a slightly less broad definition of atheist such as "one who expresses a lack of belief in gods" would be linguistically and functionally viable? I'm sure there are at least some folk who consider gods' existence a 50/50 proposition - who most folk would ordinarily consider agnostic - who nevertheless identify themselves as atheists. In fact for my first year or so on the forum I myself joined the atheist usergroup as a 'weak atheist,' though even then I doubt I would have considered gods' existence to be below 30 or 40% probability. Even if only a relatively small number, that at least establishes a beach-head, so to speak, of self-identification among that group. Granted, there's still plenty of neutral agnostics who might not like being considered atheists - though at that point perhaps it really is a matter of mere semantics - and theistic agnostics who don't "believe" in god for whom the atheist designation would be obviously inappropriate. But at least such a definition would avoid the gross conflation of lacking belief with lacking any concept - the glossing over of understanding and intention - along with any strange assumptions about the unknowable mental stance of infants.

[Tcg]

Obviously it is not a poster's explanation of what it means for them to be an atheist...

Then you will need to provide evidence that they meant it any other way. I'll eagerly await that evidence.


Tcg