To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

God either exists or does not exist and one can either hold a belief in either of these or not.

Therefore the following four propositions can be defined (and these are the only four propositions that can be defined given the binary nature of the terms).

I do hold the belief that God exists.
I do NOT hold the belief that God exists.
I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist.
I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist.

These can only be paired as follows (eliminating contradictory pairings)

1. I do hold the belief that God exists AND I do not hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Theist)
2. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Uncommitted)
3. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Atheist)

The "modern" atheist can only (that is, these are the only logical options) adopt 2. or 3. as their position, these are the only two (non-contradictory) positions that include "I do not hold the belief that God exists".

If they adopt 2. then their position is identical to "I do not know if God exists" and warrants no special term or bastardization of the existing term "atheist", saying "I don't know" or "I am uncommitted" is all that's needed, no fancy word play or Emperor's new clothes or other mumbo jumbo.

This position - uncommitted - is no more at odds with the theist than it is the atheist, it no more aligned with either of these two other positions, both the atheist and the theist are obliged to provide a rational argument for the beliefs they hold any beliefs they do not hold are completely irrelevant.

If they adopt 3. then their position is identical to the established meaning of "atheism" and they do assert "I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist" in which case they need to provide a rational argument for that belief.

This is the hard reality of this, this is where clumsily "redefining" atheism in this vacuous way is illogical and absurd yet the likes of Dawkins, Krauss et-al are simply not competent to understand this.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm curious why the slang "atheism" is used to describe a person who "does not hold a belief that God exists" when the equally relevant "does not hold a belief that God does not exist" is quietly avoided, never mentioned in polite discourse.

Now you're the arbitor of "polite discourse"?

What about "does not hold a belief that God exists" do you find so impolite?

How many atheists here agree with one or both of these?

Count me in on the first'n.

The second'n's for the god believers.

I'd like a straight answer please, this is a very reasonable question.

Implies atheists'dctry to skirt around the question.

This is why the bastardized definition of "atheism" popular with some people today is vacuous.

Says the guy with the vacuous argument.

If I assert "I do not hold the belief that X is true" and at the same time assert "I do not hold the belief that X is false" then I have no position, it is intellectually a zero, vacuous, the correct term for this position is "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" not atheism.

Only according to you.

I don't believe a god exists.

I'm an atheist.

No matter how impolite, no matter how vacuous you consider that to be.


I sense you're wrapping your god belief in a blanket of warm, soothing attempts to disregard how so many atheists don't believe in goofy, unsupported religious inanity.

[benchwarmer]

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

Notice that the two bolded sections directly contradict each other. To "disbelieve" is by definition "to withhold or reject belief," so to reject belief in gods is to disbelieve in gods, yet American Atheists affirms the former while denying the latter.

I think you might need to read that definition a bit more carefully.

A "rejection of the assertion" is not the same as a rejection of any god whatsoever.

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Transponder already covered this, but you are free to see it that way if you wish. To me there is a difference. One is about the assertions made by other people. The other is about the object in question.

If I reject all assertions because they lack verifiable evidence, that does not mean I automatically also reject the object being asserted. As I've already stated, there might in fact be a god or god like being (however one wants to define that), but so far I reject all positive assertions that claim a given god exists because they all fail to make me believe. So I don't reject the idea of a god being a possibility, but I do currently reject all claims I've seen put forward.

It's like dark matter and dark energy. These are place holders for 'something' that we've observed effects of. So far any claims to have directly observed either of these will be rejected until verifiable evidence can be provided (peer reviewed). This does not preclude these 'things' from actually existing.

If someone said they "simply reject the assertion that vaccines are effective" wouldn't we understand that to mean they disbelieve in the efficacy of vaccines? Or if they "simply reject the assertion that the earth is round" that they disbelieve the earth is a sphere?

Not necessarily though I can see why some may jump to that conclusion without further questioning. Sally's assertion that vaccines are effective would be rejected by me if Sally cannot back that assertion up with evidence. Joe's assertion of the same thing would also be rejected with no evidence. Along comes Doctor Fred, he brings double blind studies with statistics and all original data along with methodology to reproduce for peer review. Doctor Sam reproduces Doctor Fred's results. I would not reject the assertions of Doctor Fred and Doctor Sam, but would continue to give no weight (reject) the empty claims of Sally and Joe even thought they might coincidentally line up with verified data after the fact.

It doesn't make sense -- to me anyway -- for someone to say they somehow just reject the assertion itself but do not reject the idea that the assertion is affirming. In normal, every-day language, to reject the former is to reject the latter. To reject the proposition that there are gods is to disbelieve in gods.

Nope, not for me. I reject all current assertions of a god existing (as they are unconvincing to me and carry no verifiable evidence I can verify). However, I don't reject the idea of a god possibly existing. My beliefs on the matter are just that, I make no positive assertions about any god existing or not existing.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Where in this thread is Sherlock (or someone else?) telling you what you believe?

I identify as an atheist. Sherlock is busy trying to tell us what atheist (atheism) REALLY means.

What I see is a critique of how the word 'atheism' has been redefined in recent decades.

And complaining that it still really means the same thing as the 'original' definition. Thus I can't really be an 'atheist' given my current position. Surely you can see the issue? Maybe not. I've been pretty clear though.

All of the threads in recent memory have been started by THEISTS.

It might be helpful if you linked to the actual threads you have in mind here.

Seriously? Open the Christianity and Apologetics subforum and scroll a little. One of them is even YOURS! LOL! Okay, sorry, couldn't help that.

However, never let it be said I won't provide evidence when asked for it:

Is atheism lacking?
by historia » Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:14 pm
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38806

Is Atheism Simply a Lack of Belief?
by Realworldjack » Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:32 am
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38928

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
by Sherlock Holmes » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:00 am
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38974

That's three threads in last 62 days alone!

[benchwarmer]

God either exists or does not exist and one can either hold a belief in either of these or not.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on here. You seem to be slipping from gods to God (Christian god). Though you seem to have made that slip earlier as well thinking I'm an atheist because I reject the Christian god. You never replied (or I missed it) how you aren't an atheist as well if you reject Vishnu, Brahma, etc. So?

Therefore the following four propositions can be defined (and these are the only four propositions that can be defined given the binary nature of the terms).

I do hold the belief that God exists.
I do NOT hold the belief that God exists.
I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist.
I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist.

These can only be paired as follows (eliminating contradictory pairings)

1. I do hold the belief that God exists AND I do not hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Theist)
2. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Uncommitted)
3. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Atheist)

Well, you covered the Christian god, but that doesn't really define theist or atheist. So that was kind of a fail.

Here's what I believe (get it? I'm here all week):

1. I lack belief in gods. I also claim (assert knowledge) that no gods exist. Gnostic Atheist
2. I lack belief in gods. I make no claims about whether a god may or may not exist. Agnostic Atheist
3. I have a belief in a god(s). I make no claims about the god(s) I believe in existing. Agnostic Theist
4. I have a belief in a god(s). I also claim (assert knowledge) that a god(s) exists. Gnostic Theist

It's my observation, that many atheists fall into (2). It's also my observation that many theists fall into (4) - at least the ones pushing apologetics trying to support their claim that their favorite god(s) actually exist. However, any given person might supply a more refined (or completely different) label for themselves and that's fine. The trick is really understanding what the other person is thinking.

The "modern" atheist can only (that is, these are the only logical options) adopt 2. or 3. as their position, these are the only two (non-contradictory) positions that include "I do not hold the belief that God exists".

I reject your categories and have supplied my own. I choose my (2). You are free to label yourself as you see fit from any list that conforms to your position. I won't claim you "have to" fit into any category that I've provided. I may hold a belief on that, but your label on yourself is yours to actually define and use.

If they adopt 2. then their position is identical to "I do not know if God exists" and warrants no special term or bastardization of the existing term "atheist", saying "I don't know" or "I am uncommitted" is all that's needed, no fancy word play or Emperor's new clothes or other mumbo jumbo.

This position - uncommitted - is no more at odds with the theist than it is the atheist, it no more aligned with either of these two other positions, both the atheist and the theist are obliged to provide a rational argument for the beliefs they hold any beliefs they do not hold are completely irrelevant.

If they adopt 3. then their position is identical to the established meaning of "atheism" and they do assert "I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist" in which case they need to provide a rational argument for that belief.

This is the hard reality of this, this is where clumsily "redefining" atheism in this vacuous way is illogical and absurd yet the likes of Dawkins, Krauss et-al are simply not competent to understand this.

The only vacuous thing seems to be your attempt to redefine peoples actual positions. Feel free to use whatever labels you like, but don't be surprised when others tell you they don't accept your pigeon holing.

[Sherlock Holmes]

God either exists or does not exist and one can either hold a belief in either of these or not.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on here. You seem to be slipping from gods to God (Christian god). Though you seem to have made that slip earlier as well thinking I'm an atheist because I reject the Christian god. You never replied (or I missed it) how you aren't an atheist as well if you reject Vishnu, Brahma, etc. So?

The definition of atheism that some have presented so far in this thread is embodied in the title of this thread, namely:

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

The "god" in that defintion is not qualified as "christian" or anything else.

As to whether it is plural or not that is immaterial because there are different variants of the definition as you'll see for yourself if you care to look.

Therefore the following four propositions can be defined (and these are the only four propositions that can be defined given the binary nature of the terms).

I do hold the belief that God exists.
I do NOT hold the belief that God exists.
I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist.
I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist.

These can only be paired as follows (eliminating contradictory pairings)

1. I do hold the belief that God exists AND I do not hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Theist)
2. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Uncommitted)
3. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Atheist)

Well, you covered the Christian god, but that doesn't really define theist or atheist. So that was kind of a fail.

I made no mention of "Christian"

Here's what I believe (get it? I'm here all week):

1. I lack belief in gods. I also claim (assert knowledge) that no gods exist. Gnostic Atheist
2. I lack belief in gods. I make no claims about whether a god may or may not exist. Agnostic Atheist
3. I have a belief in a god(s). I make no claims about the god(s) I believe in existing. Agnostic Theist
4. I have a belief in a god(s). I also claim (assert knowledge) that a god(s) exists. Gnostic Theist

Look at what you wrote for 3: "I have a belief in a god(s). I make no claims about the god(s) I believe in existing". That is a contradiction unless you believe "in" things that do not exist, I removed contradictory positions but if you wish to adopt one be my guest.

The phrase "I believe in X" is logically equivalent to "I believe X exists" - this is what the atheists mean when they use "believe in" or "hold a belief", it is an existential claim.

It's my observation, that many atheists fall into (2).

That metric may or may not be true, but 2. Is not atheism, not as the term has been used and is still used in philosophical literature and by many atheists today.

Additionally those who I have challenegd here do not define "Agnostic Atheist" or "Gnostic Atheist" THEY are defining simply "Atheist" and it is that to which I am objecting.

It's also my observation that many theists fall into (4) - at least the ones pushing apologetics trying to support their claim that their favorite god(s) actually exist. However, any given person might supply a more refined (or completely different) label for themselves and that's fine. The trick is really understanding what the other person is thinking.

I agree many do fall into 4. and if by "pushing apologetics" and "trying to support their claim" you mean rationally justifying their position then of course, one should always strive to rationally justify one's beliefs.

The "modern" atheist can only (that is, these are the only logical options) adopt 2. or 3. as their position, these are the only two (non-contradictory) positions that include "I do not hold the belief that God exists".

I reject your categories and have supplied my own. I choose my (2). You are free to label yourself as you see fit from any list that conforms to your position. I won't claim you "have to" fit into any category that I've provided. I may hold a belief on that, but your label on yourself is yours to actually define and use.

My categories are logical consequence of the predicates arising from the various options, and your option 3. is an oxymoron, it express a belief in gods yet does not believe they exist.

If they adopt 2. then their position is identical to "I do not know if God exists" and warrants no special term or bastardization of the existing term "atheist", saying "I don't know" or "I am uncommitted" is all that's needed, no fancy word play or Emperor's new clothes or other mumbo jumbo.

This position - uncommitted - is no more at odds with the theist than it is the atheist, it no more aligned with either of these two other positions, both the atheist and the theist are obliged to provide a rational argument for the beliefs they hold any beliefs they do not hold are completely irrelevant.

If they adopt 3. then their position is identical to the established meaning of "atheism" and they do assert "I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist" in which case they need to provide a rational argument for that belief.

This is the hard reality of this, this is where clumsily "redefining" atheism in this vacuous way is illogical and absurd yet the likes of Dawkins, Krauss et-al are simply not competent to understand this.

The only vacuous thing seems to be your attempt to redefine peoples actual positions. Feel free to use whatever labels you like, but don't be surprised when others tell you they don't accept your pigeon holing.

My argument has been - all along - with the proferred defintion of "atheism", atheists themselves have repeatedly defined it as in the title of this post, they have not qualified it with "gnostic" or "agnostic" so perhaps some of your concerns should be deirected at these atheists!

[JoeyKnothead]

Stuff.

I don't mean to imply anything here, but I got me an extra wheelbarrow if ya need it to tote that big brain around. Heck, there's a Georgia Buggy in the shed should the wheelbarrow not be up to the task.

The folks with the biggest problem on defining atheism, are them that ain't.

[brunumb]

Do you understand? you are not the spokesman or representative for all atheists, it is not for you or Dawkins or Hitchens et-al, to tell other atheists what the term "really" means when they are quite content with the already established meaning.

Thank you. It's very comforting to have a theist ready to tell us atheists exactly what we are and what we think.

[brunumb]

God either exists or does not exist and one can either hold a belief in either of these or not.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on here. You seem to be slipping from gods to God (Christian god). Though you seem to have made that slip earlier as well thinking I'm an atheist because I reject the Christian god. You never replied (or I missed it) how you aren't an atheist as well if you reject Vishnu, Brahma, etc. So?

That reminded me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism):

Early Christians were widely reviled as atheists because they did not believe in the existence of the Roman gods. During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the pagan deities in general and the Imperial cult of ancient Rome in particular.

[historia]

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

Notice that the two bolded sections directly contradict each other. To "disbelieve" is by definition "to withhold or reject belief," so to reject belief in gods is to disbelieve in gods, yet American Atheists affirms the former while denying the latter.

A "rejection of the assertion" is not the same as a rejection of any god whatsoever.

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Transponder already covered this, but you are free to see it that way if you wish.

Let's see what TRANSPONDER said:

rejecting belief in the claim (efficacy of vaccines or the earth being round) simply rejects the claim that they are effective or round, respectively. It does NOT, by that presentation imply that the possibility of the vaccines being effective or the world being round is rejected or denied, only that the evidence for those claims is not considered persuasive.

Sure, to disbelieve a proposition does not entail the assertion that that proposition is impossible.

For example, I reject the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. I therefore disbelieve that the election was stolen from Donal Trump.

That in no way means I think it was somehow impossible for political operatives to have stolen the election from Trump (lots of things are merely possible), or that I couldn't change my mind in the future if new evidence emerges.

So I don't reject the idea of a god being a possibility

Right, again, to disbelieve means you have rejected (or at least withheld accession to) a proposition. It is not the assertion that the proposition is somehow impossible.

It's like dark matter and dark energy. These are place holders for 'something' that we've observed effects of. So far any claims to have directly observed either of these will be rejected until verifiable evidence can be provided (peer reviewed). This does not preclude these 'things' from actually existing.

Okay, but in this example the claim being made is that 'someone has directly observed dark matter.' If I reject that claim, I am not making an assertion about dark matter itself. I just disbelieve that someone has directly observed it.

However, if I say that 'I reject the assertion that there is dark matter,' then that clearly is an assertion about dark matter itself. I'm saying I disbelieve in dark matter.

If someone said they "simply reject the assertion that vaccines are effective" wouldn't we understand that to mean they disbelieve in the efficacy of vaccines? Or if they "simply reject the assertion that the earth is round" that they disbelieve the earth is a sphere?

Not necessarily though I can see why some may jump to that conclusion without further questioning. Sally's assertion that vaccines are effective would be rejected by me if Sally cannot back that assertion up with evidence. Joe's assertion of the same thing would also be rejected with no evidence. Along comes Doctor Fred, he brings double blind studies with statistics and all original data along with methodology to reproduce for peer review. Doctor Sam reproduces Doctor Fred's results. I would not reject the assertions of Doctor Fred and Doctor Sam, but would continue to give no weight (reject) the empty claims of Sally and Joe even thought they might coincidentally line up with verified data after the fact.

But this is really just saying that you reject the arguments that Sally and Joe made. After all is said and done here, you could not say that you still reject the claim -- that is, the proposition -- that vaccines are effective.

It seems to me that you and TRANSPONDER are conflating those two things.

[historia]

I'm not sure I follow you here. Where in this thread is Sherlock (or someone else?) telling you what you believe?

I identify as an atheist. Sherlock is busy trying to tell us what atheist (atheism) REALLY means.

What I see is a critique of how the word 'atheism' has been redefined in recent decades.

And complaining that it still really means the same thing as the 'original' definition. Thus I can't really be an 'atheist' given my current position. Surely you can see the issue?

Yes, the issue is he thinks you've mislabeled yourself.

That's not an assertion about what you believe.

Just like, if someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was crucified, but calls themselves a 'Muslim', you might challenge why they call themselves a Muslim, but that is not, in turn, telling them what they believe.

It might be helpful if you linked to the actual threads you have in mind here.

Seriously? Open the Christianity and Apologetics subforum and scroll a little. One of them is even YOURS!

That's precisely why I asked. I wasn't sure if you had my thread in mind.

But, since you do, let me address that example, since I can speak authoritatively to it.

You said above:

I usually get this from Christians though. Things like: "You're just mad at God!", "You actually believe God is real deep down, but just want to sin", "You claim their is no God", to the current kerfuffle "You actually have beliefs in gods contrary to what you say".

All of the threads in recent memory have been started by THEISTS.

Where in the Is atheism lacking? thread do I say any of these things?

At the end of the day, while no one seems to be admitting it, it really feels like those starting these types of threads are trying to "gotcha moment" atheists into having them try to support a claim that they've never made, but somehow has been burdened upon them by accepting the label atheist.

Where in the Is atheism lacking? thread did I do that?