madmax2976

Theodore Drange argues here http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...efinition.html that atheism should not be used as a reference to a "lack of belief" in the existence of God.

A synopsis of the arguments he makes:

1. It goes against the usage found in "ordinary" language, or the most common usage is that of the denial of the existence of God.
2. It would be "perverse" to label infants as atheists.
3. Etymologically, atheism could mean the view that there is "no god" if "a" means "no" rather than "without".
4. Most dictionaries refer to atheists as those who deny the existence of God
5. It is desirable for terms to be mutually exclusive

I see problems with all these arguments.

- Drange doesn't offer any support for #1, he just asserts it. My experience has been that the "lack of belief" definition is quite common.
- While agreeably strange, I don't see that #2 would be "perverse".
- If theism means "belief in the existence of God" then even if "a" means "no" it seems it would refer to "no belief in the existence of God", not "no god" as Drange describes it.
- Most dictionaries seem to include two definitions for atheism: disbelief or denial in the existence of God, so Drange appears to be incorrect here.
- It's unclear why mutual exclusivity between atheism and agnosticism is "desirable".

What does everyone else think?

AZSuperman

I agree with your views, but I want to expand on the problems with this statement.

Although I'm not sure why anyone would label an infant based on their religious beliefs, I would consider it equally "perverse" to label infants as theists.

Some religions practice infant baptism; however, it's foolish to believe the child has any knowledge of, or belief in, an invisible man in the sky.

I guess innfants should be considered agnostic?

Alf

Your analysis appear correct.

However, about the atheism with a meaning "no" or "without" and "ism" a form of world view or set of beliefs it is largely a question of whether you mean a(theism) or (athe)ism

if a(theism) then it is "no belief" while the (athe)ism would be the ism that there is no theos, i.e. the belief or world view that there si no god.

I guess this is also why it is sort of correct of the dictionaries to list both possibilities since language do not have parenthesis and priority of operators etc in the way you find in math and in computer science.

However, the natural way should probably be a(theism) i.e. "not a theist" and thus the "no belief" rather than the "no god". This also divides the world into two mutually exclusive groups that together includes the whole population.

Alf

trendkill

Disbelief and denial are essentially the same thing. If a dictionary says "disbelief in or denial of" in the same sentence, or in a single entry, that implies that they are not meant as two separate definitions. Other than that, I agree with all your points.

Everyone who is not a theist (or terminally confused on the issue) believes there are no gods, either implicitly or explicitly. Either way, they're all atheists. So Drange's conclusion is essentially correct, even though most of his arguments (as you have presented them) are poor.

madmax2976

Except that the dictionaries treat them as being distinct.

It seems to me that the "or" clause does imply two different meanings - either "this" or "that". If they were essentially the same, there would be no point in having the "or" clause there at all.

But if the question on the table is "what does atheism mean", then this appears to beg the question rather than actually showing alternative usages to be incorrect.

PoodleLovinPessimist

On the one hand, it's always useful to have precise and unambiguous terminology. As is commonly used (at least here on Infidels), "atheist" is indeed ambiguous on both the actual position and the epistemological basis for the position: It can refer to both actual denial, lack of cognitive belief, or simple apathy, and it can refer to the epistemological basis of unfalsifiability, not yet evidenced, or having evidence of falsity.

On the other hand, "atheist" is as much a social/political label as it is a philosophical label. Politically, it is often desirable to intentionally introduce ambiguity and broadness to a label, with the concommitant vagueness and equivocation, in order to promote social cohesiveness for people who hold various subsets or "flavors" of the label's definition.

On the whole, I think that the social/political usage is better for the bare term to promote social cohesiveness of people who hold various flavors of atheism; the varying philosophical nuances can be indicated with modifiers, such as weak, strong, noncognitive, agnostic, apathetic, etc.

NearNihil Experience

The terms "denial" and "disbelief" have a nuance that invokes the idea that belief is something you choose. Beliefs are brought about by the impositional nature of the world. You can't choose to, rationally, believe something against what information or lack of information has been imposed on you.
This is what i would call most strong atheists. They have heard all the evidence (ahem...so called) and develop a denial of the being, idea, and concept of God.

"No belief" seems to fit more with agnostic. and as PLP said above, there are nuances in both atheists and agnostics.

For example, I am a non-cognitivist type agnostic. The question of wherether God exists or not is a silly question to me. Doesn't make sense because there are components of the question that don't make sense or seem fabricated (God the being and the concept). But I don't "deny" or "disbelieve" in the idea or being of God. I just think people are making shit up when they talk about this God guy and the stuff he does and the questions that he fills in the gaps.
I don't think God exists or doesn't exist any more than a hoodlewinkersplind; with their cute little doe eyes and fuzzy little ears and sixteen poisonous barbed tails...do I deny they exist, no I don't need to, but do I confirm their existence, no I don't need to. Whether they exist or not makes no difference.

God is the same way, He's either going to exist or not exist and what I think about the matter is going to have diddly squat to do with the answer. I don't deny it, I have no need to as I have never been presented with anything to deny...other than non-sense statements uttered by gasbags and hatemongers. Nor am I in any position to confirm such an existence for I have never been confronted with anything to confirm that remotely makes sense....except maybe Spinoza, but thats a whole different story.

Saying someone is "denying" your "truth" about Gods existence is begging the question and hedging.

My two little cents.

mikem

So, the concept of God is meaningless, but he may exist anyway?

NearNihil Experience

In general, yes. An idealist would say that if we can imagine it, then it can exist. A realist would say that there are things out there beyond our imagination. I say, that they are both chasing their tails.

Just because a concept is incoherent, doesn't mean that it can't exist as a thing or being. Just our ability to comprehend what can and can not exist is limited to things like our language and experiences.

Square circle. Logical contradiction. Can't exist.

Why? Well, because not only is the idea incoherent, but also contradiction.

God. Incoherent concept. Still possibly exists.

Why? The concept of God is not necessarily a logical contradiction. (barring idiots defning Him as such.) Incoherent, but not contradictory.


And I don't want to get into the logical possibility of cantradictory existants because its an invitation to a philosophical circle walking.

But anyway, there you go.

steamer

I think infants ought to be labeled "apathetic agnostics". Not only do they not know, they don't care that they don't know.