fast

Although there a few variations of the definition of term "atheist", I am going to use this one: One who lacks belief in God.

There has been some confusion over the term. I want to first make clear my perspective to show where my head is at with the issue.

If Ann says, "I believe there is no God", immediately I recognize that this statement is not what makes her an atheist. It's implicit but it's not explicit.

I'll explain:

1) I believe there is a God
2) I believe there is no God
3) I lack belief that there is a God
4) I lack belief that there is no God.

Hopefully, the categorical distinctions are in line with the common rules of classification (i.e. mutual exclusitivity and collective exhaustiveness).

Now, look at number 3. Clearly, one who would make such a statement and is truthful in their claim would in fact be an atheist, for the claim is in line with the definition of the term "atheist".

So, what comments can I make about number 2? Well, it certainly sounds like something an atheist may say, but it's not the belief that there's no God that makes them an atheist. It's the lack of belief that there is one.

Illustration: An atheist lacks belief there is a God and thus the traditional atheist makes no claims of fact one way or the other. Some atheists who lack belief in a God decide to take it upon themselves to commit to some claims, such as there is no God. The distinction then is that we can have atheists that make no claims and atheists that make claims.

This of course should clear up some confusion that theists have with atheism and why traditional atheists need not support their position. If you are an atheist that lacks belief but ALSO makes claims that there is no God, it is then that you would have to support your position seeing as you are then making a claim.

All of the above is just an introduction and really has no bearing on the topic at hand which I am about to get to.

I have a few questions that have been lingering that I simply haven't gotten around to asking. I was once told that the opposite of true is not false. I was told that the opposite of true is "not true" which doesn't necessarily mean false. Q1) Can anyone explain why that is the case?

I bring that up because it relates to numbers 2 and 3 above. They seem to be opposites like true and false seem to be opposites. Q2)Is there a way to distinguish the concepts so it's clear why one is or is not and the other is or is not an opposite.

Next, I have a comment about the notion of "I lack belief". There seems to be something peculiar about this that I can't quite get a handle on. How in the world is it that I have actually come to NOT formulate some belief one way or another. It seems disingenuous to partake in discussions (on my part that is) and not say that "I believe" one way or the other.

I for one believe there is no God. If I didn't, then I'd have to say that I believe there is a God. I suppose I could use an agnostic approach, but that of course deals with knowledge, and the issue before you at this moment isn't about knowledge -- it's about BELIEF and whether I have it one way or the other OR if I lack it. Q3) Is it truly possible to be so familiar with an issue and NOT actually hold a belief?

Splarnst

Have you never heard of the terms strong atheism and weak atheism?

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Plus all the other add ons to atheists, implicit, explicit[ well these two I guess mean strong and weak], positive, negative, agnostic, atheist left, atheist right, American atheist

I like the good old days of just being called atheist, it's gotten to damned confusing keeping up with all of it, and you gotta watch what you do or say, lest you piss someone off! I have a hard enough time tip-toeing thru the eggshells with all the different flavors or theism as it is

rationalOne

Thanks for posting this - I've been mulling over this for quite some time now, and I also don't quite follow it.

Theist = (I believe god exists)
Weak atheist = not(I believe god exists)

People keep saying, "lack of belief is not a belief", but I don't quite buy it. I think it is a belief, in the same sense that zero is a number.

Also, what's the big deal? People seem to get very militant and emotional over this issue. The "atheism is not a belief, and you're an idiot if you think so" attitude is off-putting, and not particularly helpful.

David B

As far as I understand it, a weak atheist is someone who strongly disbelieves in any god , but concedes that (s)he can't prove it, given a strong sense of the word 'prove'.

A strong atheist also strongly disbelieves in in any god, and thinks that that is provable.

David B (is a militant weak atheist, in those terms)

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I used to believe I was atheist, but now I no longer believe atheism exists.

fast

Yes, but I don't think they fit nice and snug into the categories mentioned.

It would be nice to say that there are two atheists:

1) one that lacks belief that a god or gods exist

2) one that lacks belief that a god or gods exist
AND
has a belief that a god or gods does not exist.

It would be nice to label #1 a weak atheist and #2 a strong atheist, but I do not think that is how the labels are intended to be used.

Not to mention the lack of consensus.

You're welcome.

I'm not convinced yet, however, that it's not appropriate -- it's just that it makes me wonder.

I mean -- I don't have belief that there IS a god. So, by that alone, I am an atheist. And technically, I'm not making a claim regarding God--I'm making a claim regarding me.

Also, just because "I lack belief in God" doesn't necessarily mean that I do not believe that "no God exists". {a new thought by the way} After all, I can have a belief about one thing and no belief in regards to another. It gets tricky -- I know. And again, I've made no claims in regards to God.

I could make claims though; like, God does not exist.

Stating beliefs shouldn't need supporting. Claims though, except an announcement of our beliefs, should need support.

So, when a theist says, "I believe in God", I can say "I believe in pink elephants"

But, if a theist says, "there is a God", then I can demand documentation or proof of some sorts.

If an atheist says, "I believe there is no God", then a theist can say "that's nice"

But, if an atheist say, "there is no God", then the theist can expect proof as well.

A theist has the bigger of problems because they are the ones going around believing, which in itself is just mental problems, but the bigger problems is when they start saying there is a God--that's the bs unsupported claims that has to stop.

An atheist is just recognizing that "hey, I once believed and struggled, but there's no proof -- the burden of proof is on who makes the claims. Atheists are generally immune from having to have evidence because most don't make claims. However, there are some atheists that do make claims and they ought to be held to the same level of needing proof.

Could be the case -- I have no idea. If the phrases aren’t in the dictionary, I usually don’t bother with ‘em. It seems a whole lot safer to deal with the concepts than the terms that can be abused. But then again, some buzz phrases could be useful if it wasn’t for all the controversy about what they really mean.

Philosophy can do that to people. Be careful.

Splarnst

No, that's exactly how they are intended to be used.

Alonzo Fyfe

I am sorry to say that the definition of "atheist" as one who "lacks a belief that a god or gods exist" strikes me as a particularly useless definition.

On that definition, my cat is an atheist. At least, I have no particular reason to believe that he has a belief that a god or gods exist. The name applies even to the rock sitting in my garden.

Technically, it is not an illegitimate definition. There is a category of things that lack a belief that a god or gods exist, and it is permissible to give them a name.

However, that which puts me in the same category as my cat and the rock in my garden simply does not strike me as being particularly useful. It is not a term that I would ever care to use very often. And, where I see that term written or hear it spoken, it is not often (if ever) that I assume the writer or speaker to have this definition in mind.

Honestly, I do not understand why one would want to distinguish philosophies in this way. I cannot think of any other case or sense where people hold that "not having a belief that X" for any X is in any way significant.

As I see it, a simpler taxonomy is quite sufficient.

For X = "a god or gods exist":

(1) The person who believes that X is true or almost certainly true is a theist.

(2) The person who believes that X is false or almost certainly false is an atheist.

(3) The person who believes that X is something that he cannot almost certainly say is true or false is an agnostic.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Don't worry. I've looked both ways, and especially behind me I know bs when I see bullshit. [ not what your saying, mind you.]

I'm going to take the "sages" advice, wait for the Blue Meanies to kill each other, what evers left let the "good" guys pick 'em off and then I'll wipe them out, you can't win the fight with words :thumbs:

It's lonely at rock bottom, but the only way is up!