…and this is a 
Once again, I have proven my ability to drive people into a frothing rage against me. Only this time it isn't a mob of religious fanatics and anti-choicers who have called me pond scum who will go to hell, an insect souled vile man, a black-souled amoral monster, pure evil, morally depraved, with a depraved mind, descend[ing] down the various stages into madness, and so forth…but I have this time managed to antagonize a bunch of atheists. Feel my pain.
All right, to be honest, it really doesn't sting that much.
The godless raged at me on youtube and twitter, thanks to the recent broadcast of my talk in Montreal. I have a tangent in that talk where I deplore Dictionary Atheists, going so far as to say I hate those guys, because they're so superficial. Apparently some people identify with shallow atheism, because they took it personally and got rather upset.
I had to think about this. Should I back down and apologize, and maybe revise my opinion of this subset of the atheist community? Have I gone too far?
Nah. Obviously what this calls for is an escalation. I think I need to summarize all the things about atheism that bug me, and that I wish people would stop doing. There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now. So let's get to it and piss everyone off! It'll be fun! Here's a list.
Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses.
If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, "Because I am a person who does not believe in god." And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn't just makes you dogmatic and blind.
In that Montreal talk, I explained that there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause.
Now I don't claim that my values are part of the definition of atheism — I just told you I hate those dictionary quoters — nor do I consider them universal to atheism. I've met plenty of atheists who are in our camp over issues of social justice — they see god-belief as a source of social evils, and that's why they reject it. That is valid and reasonable. There are atheists who consider human well-being as the metric to use, and we call them humanists; no problem. There are also atheists who are joining the game because their cool friends (or Daniel Radcliff) are atheists; that's a stupid reason, but they are atheists.
My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.
Oh, on a related note, I also get a lot of comments that atheism is a privative attribute which strictly speaking, lacks any specific positive qualities. This is true of the dictionary definition. It is not true of atheism in its actual usage: it carries a lot of accreted baggage, as this little cartoon illustrates.
Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion. Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.
Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all.
There are a fair number of adults who ought to know better who insist on the dictionary definition, too. They've been brought up without god-belief, and some of them may not have even considered religion much at all. Unless they are real lightweights, genuine feathers adrift in the wind, they also carry a set of values that incline them towards godlessness…otherwise you'd expect them to fall on their knees and turn Christian the instant they first hear about Jesus. They don't, and why? Probably because they learned some critical thinking skills from their parents. They carry positive values that make them resistant to the cheap promises of faith.
The "I believe in no gods/I lack belief in gods" debate. I have heard this so often, the hair-splitting grammatical distinctions some atheists think so seriously important in defining themselves. All you're doing is defining yourselves as anal retentive freaks, people! Get over it. Either way, you're an atheist — and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they're agnostics, not atheists, because they aren't 100% positive there aren't any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive. Atheism is such a general club, and it's so easy to fall into the definition, that it's silly to sit around arguing about how close to the fence you're sitting.
I don't care. Tell me what virtues you bring, what experiences brought you here, why your values matter to society. The fine-grained shuffling about to define yourself so precisely is simply narcissistic masturbation.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!
I would say, though, that religion does make one more susceptible to bad ideas. After all, if you've spent your whole life learning to dampen your critical faculties and avoid questioning the Holy Trinity and the Magic Mother of God, it's not so hard to accept that the people in the IRS building are plotting to put a mind-control chip in your head. I oppose religion because we can see its effects on even otherwise brilliant people: it short-circuits skepticism and leaves them open to dangerous and erroneous ideas. It's just that usually we can trust in the cooperative social nature of human beings, and the kind of dangerous idea usually plopped into their brains is that it is good to bring sugar cookies made with a pound of pure butter to the church social.
"I just believe in one less god than you do". OK, I don't hate this one. There is actually a germ of a valid point in there: disbelief in itself is good and normal social practice, and even the most zealous theist actively disbelieves in many things. That's a good point to make in a world where people cite blind faith as a virtue.
But that's the only point that can be made from it, and it has its own perils. It implies many things that are not true. The theist you're arguing with did not go through a process where he analyzed his beliefs logically, and excluded 99% of all gods by reason and their lack of evidence; in fact, he probably never in his life seriously considered any of those other faiths (he is 99% Dictionary Atheist, in other words). He came to his personal faith by way of a series of personal, positive (to him!) predispositions, not by progressive exclusion of other ideas, and he's simply not going to see the relevance of your argument. Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution?
Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable. I certainly didn't. Instead, you come to the table with an implicit set of criteria, like evidence and plausibility and experimental support, and also a mistrust of unfounded authority or claims that are too good to be true, and they incline you to accept naturalism, for instance, as a better explanation of the world. Turning it into a quantitative debate about how many gods we accept, instead of a substantial debate about the actual philosophical underpinnings of our ideas, is kind of lame, I think.
I could probably come up with a few more peeves — I am genuinely a world-class expert in finding fault — but let's stop there. My main point is that one general flaw in many atheists is a lack of appreciation for why they find themselves comfortable with that label, and it always lies in a set of sometimes unexamined working metrics for how the world works. You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity.
Comments
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
February 1, 2011 5:23 PM
What does the Sinfest comic have to do with anything here?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 5:27 PM
*Checks calendar* Shouldn't this be a Sunday Sacrilege topic?
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
February 1, 2011 5:28 PM
Hm, never seen nice PZ before (unless that's sarcasm, I'm not known to pick up sarcasm well).Now, if only the talking head on the other side of the spectrum is willing to be just as accomodating to atheists, then we could probably work together to figure out how to make the world a better place.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 5:32 PM
Bravo! Well said, PZ. It took me quite a long time, actually, to fully arrive at atheism, mostly because of the deep immersion and brainwashing of catholicism when I was young.
No dictionary definition for me, my whole process was pretty involved.
Posted by: fmartinez
|
February 1, 2011 5:33 PM
Some crazy accomodationist cracked PZ's blog! We are soo doomed!!11!
Posted by: UXO
|
February 1, 2011 5:36 PM
Nuh uh. No way. Sure, there have been atheist monsters who kill other people, but it takes religion to turn a human brain into a self-guided missile. (Well, special circumstances notwithstanding - I'm sure there are atheists, myself among them, who can come up with circumstances under which one would lay down one's own life.) But there you're falling into a pretty similar trap to that of your over-philosophized fussbudget agnostics - the vast majority of suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Don't try to pretend otherwise or whitewash it! "... for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
February 1, 2011 5:36 PM
Yeah, I don't know, mostly I found myself not believing after a period of preferring to believe. So I'm actually far more inclined to go for the usual meaning of "atheist," which is basically the dictionary version.
I don't quite get where the word is supposed to change in meaning because someone's dissatisfied with the generally negative definition. I like the general lack of "positive" attributes, as I have no intention of "joining" anything over the triteness of the non-existence of some fictional "entity."
For sure, my rage has not yet frothed, nor does it exist, in fact. I'm just not buying into it.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 5:37 PM
I find it amusing that you are so scorned by the religious. You seem, by all accounts, a pleasant and relatively satisfied family man who genuinely cares for himself and other people.
It's the sick freaks who infest this blog (and occasionally get awarded Mollies, whereby 'occasionally' I mean 'in July/August of 2007'*) who their gods should warn them against. You're just the strange attractor.
*Yes, I do mean Zeno.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 5:37 PM
There's nothing accommodating in my views. Theists are sometimes stupid, but not always. They are always wrong, and their presumptions have led them astray. Where you defeat them is by going for their heart rather than mincing up their grammar.
Posted by: MetaEd
|
February 1, 2011 5:39 PM
What's the atheist equivalent of "you're going to hell for posting this"? :-)
Oh, right. There isn't one. Carry on ...
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
February 1, 2011 5:39 PM
At the risk of attracting your ire... I have to say, the "dictionary atheists" are right, but some of them may be being a bit awkward.
I think what might be getting missed here is that many of us fall back on that flat, basic dictionary definition because we're so damned used to dealing with the apologists who try the old "atheism is just another religion/faith" line on us. It's simply the easiest way to slap that particular fatuity down: whack 'em with the dictionary.
Of course, when we do that we aren't saying that atheists are about nothing else; that atheists haven't usually reasoned themselves into their atheism; that atheists don't frequently share readily-identifiable values. Of course we do - hell, what are we doing all over the internet, in the bookstores and up on buses and billboards if that weren't the case?
Thing is, these values, these additional opinions, attitudes and aims we often share? They are not atheism. I'm sorry, they're really not. They are other things that often - maybe usually - go with atheism. But they are not atheism.
I don't think many of the "dictionary atheists" would deny that we share these values. But they're correct in pointing out that none of them are part of atheism; of what it means to be an atheist. It's the other way around: atheism is often part of what it means to have those values. It occurs because we have those values.
Asking why someone is an atheist is not the same as asking what an atheist is, just as surely as asking someone why they're a biologist is not the same as asking what a biologist is.
In conclusion: the argument seems a bit unnecessary because you and the dictionary atheists are looking at different things.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 1, 2011 5:40 PM
I grew up in an atheist household where I was told a variety of reasons why religion wasn't an answer including: the harm caused by religion, the lack of evidence, that it is unnecessary in order to be good to other people, that most religions are contradictory - both with themselves and with others, that here and now was important because that is where I am, etc. I could go on, but the truth is I never had a moment where I doubted atheism, I never sat down and said why not believe, I never had to convince myself of its validity, because I was raised with all of these ideas floating around my head.
If you want to know why I am an atheist right now, it's because I was an atheist then and it is comfortable, a role I have played all my life. If you want a description of why I think it is a good idea, well, that changes from day to day. Some days I think that the evils of religion are most important, other days the mess that is theology, still others it's an adherence to evidence and science. I'm human and I am an atheist. I don't have a single, uncomplicated motivation for who I am.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 5:41 PM
The vast majority of suicide bombers are religiously motivated. But the vast majority of religious people are not suicide bombers.
Huh. Imagine that.
Maybe you should think about what that means.
Brownian, are you trying to claim to be athier than me? Because I am the alpha male around here, and I can thump my chest louder than you can. So there.
Posted by: billygutter01
|
February 1, 2011 5:42 PM
I'm an atheist just so I can wear a "What Would Bertrand Russel Do?" t-shirt.
Posted by: areyoulistening
|
February 1, 2011 5:42 PM
I am going to link this article and quote this bit every time I see someone criticizing atheists as 'attacking religion'. "Your reasons are stupid" =/= "You are stupid".
A lot of the time when I'm carrying out my endless debates, I wish I could say this. Unfortunately, I'd get bitched at and called stupid for attempting to be pragmatic rather than bowing to sophisticated philosophy.Posted by: Phodopus
|
February 1, 2011 5:43 PM
Very good, PZ, I can agree to all of those points. Richard Dawkins was using similar arguments in his earlier talks, and I have always found them a little weak.
As far as distinction from "dictionary atheism" is concerned, I propose we simply are Atheists with Benefits :)
Posted by: webriggs
|
February 1, 2011 5:44 PM
I became an atheist as a fairly young child in my pre-teens. I just figured it was a load of bullshit. When I got older I decided that it was demeaning bullshit that imposed some perverse psychological pall over humanity. In more recent years I think it's dangerous bullshit that could get us all killed if these wankers bring on their armageddon. Never spent any time trying to parse the definitions too finely.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 5:44 PM
Warp engines being offline and the ship needing to escape the range of the Genesis Device being one set, to be sure.
Posted by: Donald
|
February 1, 2011 5:46 PM
In all honesty I have to whip out the old TLDR. As soon as you started trying to attach baggage to atheism I was done with this post. That doesn't mean I hate you P.Z. I don't hate many people who are shortsighted. There are plenty of atheists who I disagree with when it comes to philosophy. I know that's hard for you, since you seem to believe there's a common denominator amongst atheists that requires you to go beyond the dictionary explanation. Here's the deal, it's not atheism that carries the baggage IT'S THE PERSON.
Posted by: heironymous
|
February 1, 2011 5:48 PM
Why am I an atheist?
Because there's no such thing as God, dumbass!
They were _all_ made up. Why? To explain shit they didn't know the answers to. To try and keep the populace in line. As a con-game to make others do more than their share of the work.
Why did I abandon the Roman Catholic teachings of the church and seriously hurt my mother in the process?
I studied enough history to see some of the truly awful things the Christianity has done. The Albigensian Crusade pushed me over the top.
What are my values as an atheist?
Well, they're a lot like the values I was taught in my northeast liberal church without all the religious gobbledy-gook. The golden rule. Freedom for all. Justice. Peace.
I do feel I need to do more to help the community and I miss the church as a focal point for community service, but that's it.
Posted by: hideki.adam
|
February 1, 2011 5:48 PM
Well, that was quite the bollocking!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 5:48 PM
Not athier at all; just much more disturbed than you are.
Of course, that's just the impression that I get.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 5:50 PM
Phodopus:
For me, it's more a matter of being an atheist with a brain, because learning to think critically (after years of being taught not to think at all) was a revelation to me. All of a sudden, so many avenues were open to me, my view of the world radically changed. That's when I truly started learning.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 5:50 PM
Donald, your concern is noted. Now, fuck off before we ignore your idiocy...
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
February 1, 2011 5:50 PM
I'm not big on fussing over definitions, as if there were One True Meaning which we must all adopt. However, some random musings:
I once answered the question "Why did you become an atheist?" (note: not quite the same question as the headline asks) with: "Ran out of reasons to be anything else", which is sort of the Dictionary Definition -- except that it implicitly alludes to the requirement for evidence, reason etc.
I still prefer the minimalist definition though, and invoking terms like "skepticism", "humanism" etc. for the rest. Especially "skeptical rationalist" -- which implies a stance to the world, one result of which happens to be atheism. At the same time, Gnu Atheism as a movement has in effect created a larger, social definition of "atheist" which takes in those other values.
But I always hated "Babies are all born atheists", which I used to see a lot on a.a. Even as a slogan, it's lame and simplistic -- basically, it looks like a cheap way to score debating points.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 5:53 PM
The TL;DR comment is telling. Learn to read -- we don't need more stupid atheists. Also, I'm not attaching baggage to the term, WE ALL ARE. Every one of us. We all have our unique combinations of motives that inspire our beliefs, even you, and it doesn't help to deny them.
Also, if you'd read a tiny little bit further, you'd realize I'm not saying there is one common element beyond a disbelief in gods; I have my baggage, and you probably have different baggage. But we're all carrying it, and it's significant.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 5:53 PM
Donald:
Your idiocy is showing, Cupcake. Perhaps if you could bring yourself to actually read what you're commenting on, you wouldn't come across as such a pretentious gasbag.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
February 1, 2011 5:55 PM
It's kind of an odd thing to think about, because one might ask if in fact atheists are less likely to be brave, to risk death, etc., if somehow there's some tight religious connection to suicide bombers.
But in fact I don't think that atheists are cowardly or likely to be unwilling to die for their folk, society, etc. Russian troops (not wholly atheist, yet considerably secular) fought to the death in numerous instances during WWII, and certainly weren't any sort of cowards.
So why are suicide bombers religious, generally? Probably due to the recruitment capabilities of religious societies, and possibly due in part to religious fanaticism. Promised rewards could be part of it, however I doubt that they're the big thing, since fear of death doesn't really disappear in true believers (most of the attackers of the WTC hadn't actually been told that they were on a suicide mission, according to reports I've read).
Is it impossible that atheist societies could produce suicide bombers? I don't think so, if the right social forces existed. Less likely in secular societies, to be sure (IMO, anyway), but not impossible. If Russians had been pressed harder in WWII, kamikaze-type missions might have occurred, or at least I don't have reason to think that they could not have happened.
Yes, I think that the suicide-bomber aspect of religion could be overplayed. I still think it's probably more likely in strongly religious societies, particularly because of the extreme pressures possible on an individual there.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
February 1, 2011 5:56 PM
@ 13
No you can't, PZ. You'll dislodge all those stents.
Besides, we have established that it is brain-thumping which attracts the alpha females. No?
Posted by: eastsidepropjoe
|
February 1, 2011 5:57 PM
Personally I think most people have an extremely loose grasp on the roots and causes of their beliefs and behaviors. If you ask them "why" they can generally come up with some halfway decent explanation, but it's usually (IMHO) post hoc reasoning that fits some narrative they see themselves in. That doesn't apply to everyone about everything, but in my experience it applies to most people on most things. That's why (heh heh) I generally prefer to avoid "why"s and just go with the flow.
Posted by: nosacredc0w
|
February 1, 2011 5:57 PM
Sorry PZ but I guess I'm a dictionary atheist.
I know plenty of atheists and many of them don't fit the same mold. They have one thing in common. They don't believe in god(s) and despise organized religion. But when I go to meetups there are captialists and socialists and dems and republicans (and pagans just looking for somebody to hang with.)
Atheism is just one facet of who I am it is not the sum total. So it may be one of your peeves and I can appreciate that.
My pet peeve is idiots who fall for pseudo-medical bs claims and the assholes that make the claims. Oh and greedy bastards.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 5:58 PM
It should be noted that the majority of people in Donald's life suffer from histrionic personality disorder.
Posted by: mark d
|
February 1, 2011 5:59 PM
> "Babies are all atheists..."
That one really drives me up the wall! What PZ said is true, of course ['Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all'] -- but it really doesn't go far enough.
Someone even dribbled 'Everyone is born an atheist!' at me on facebook the other day... Yet -- as every Kleinian knows! -- everyone is actually born *a psychotic, semi-conscious (at best), irrationalist fantasist*: the experience of the infant is in every respect the origin and the model of religious belief and religious thinking.
The only significant differences between the fantasies that occupy the baby mind and the fantasies that preoccupy the religious adult are that the latter are attached to words and involve more real estate...
For someone to pretend that the infant mind is just like the adult mind 'except that it hasn't heard of Jehovah yet' is quite possibly the most stupid mistake that remains for any atheist to make.
M.D.
Posted by: Legion
|
February 1, 2011 6:00 PM
The problem with the word "atheist" is that it is extremely limited in its ability to capture the width and breadth of the non-theist world view.
"Atheist" only addresses what I don't believe, and not even all of that. I personally don't care for the word, specifically for that reason.
But I also don't care for some of the other descriptors like "Brights." Ugh! [shudder]
One thing "atheist" has going for it is that despite its weaknesses, it still has the power to shock -- like "black" in the sixties and "queer" in the seventies.
"Say it loud, I'm atheist and I'm proud!"
"We're atheists, we're here. Get used to it!"
Posted by: miller
|
February 1, 2011 6:01 PM
Back when I was in an atheist student group, I learned to never bring up definitions of atheism or agnosticism. I found that whenever the subject came up, dictionary atheism would surface with flurry of cliches to herald its appearance. At this point, I don't even care if atheism can be accurately compared to baldness, I just want the cliches to stop.
Posted by: DN King
|
February 1, 2011 6:01 PM
I'm in agreement with PZ, and pointed this out on Dawkins's website:
I've taken heat, too. People seem to think I am demanding all scientists renounce their religion because of this. Or that I'm saying science is forbidden from considering the possibility of a god. I'm starting to get what the religious say when they call atheism a religion. We do have some dogmatic and irrational "textbook thumpers" in our midst. My reply? "Hey asp wholes! Make your own damned argument and stop straw manning mine."
Posted by: Donald
|
February 1, 2011 6:03 PM
Oh P.Z come off it. You think you're the only person in the world who's sat down and thought of this? Is anyone that came to a different answer than you stupid? Stop acting like a child.
As for the person telling me to fuck off, I'm pretty sure that helps your point. Really, that wasn't adolescent.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlCl4PgqndZiobImiACOSoouNrcwh0fWng
|
February 1, 2011 6:04 PM
I think people are mixing up the post for meaning "what is an atheist" for "why are you an atheist?". As soon as you said definition you lost a few people it seems.
Posted by: thephilosophicalprimate
|
February 1, 2011 6:05 PM
I have a bazillion good reasons for being an atheist, all rooted in my commitment to fallibilism -- in essence, the position (realization) that I could be wrong about anything, so the only way to have any confidence whatsoever that I might be right about any given belief is to look for the best available evidence and reasons for it, and never stop looking. In my estimation, commitment to this fundamental critical thinking principle is the most common (although by no means universal) shared value amongst atheists.
But if I didn't have all those reasons, I would still have one reason to be an atheist: Because PZ is full of win! It never pays to be on the opposite side of an argument from Professor Myers. The price is to be thoroughly and publicly pwned. Humiliations galore!
It's just not worth it, people. Quit while you're way, way behind.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
February 1, 2011 6:05 PM
Hm. The term "anal-retentive" should be hyphenated.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkGTItDa5q2cbStaX_oLThrLZyDKiomUtw
|
February 1, 2011 6:06 PM
There may be movements of atheists, but that doesn't mean all atheists belong to one of them. And referring to "[i]the[/i] movement" and calling it "an organization with positive goals and values" is just incorrect. You appear to be thinking of American Atheists, or something similar. You know, an actual organization, rather than a set of people who have one attitude in common.
I'm not sure why you're seeing things so badly in this post, PZ.
Posted by: David B
|
February 1, 2011 6:06 PM
Great post, PZ.
My suspicion, based upon that led me into my period of cultism in the TM movement, and on some conversations online with thinking theists, is that many of the religious (and some atheists) think that a logical consequence of atheism is nihilism, including a moral nihilism.
That is not the case, I find on mature reflection, aided by the works of messrs Dennett and Hofstadter among others, but I do think that lots of theists have a faith based on a syllogism to this effect.
Without God there is no grounds for morality.
Morality exists, obviously
Therefore God.
Wrong, wrong wrong!
Morality, to my mind, is better viewed as an emergents and still emerging quality, best done from the realistic position that there is no God.
Further, belief in a god is actually damaging to morality when one really thinks about it. Hitch is pretty good on this point.
Another thing that can lead people to faith is the sort of experience elicited through something like an initiation into TM, or the Toronto Blessing.
To deny religious experience, for want of better words, is to be pretty damn dumb, IMV, but to understand it as I came to in the end as something often elicited through suggestion, wishful thinking and positive reinforcement rather actually getting in touch with some deep reality is the realistic way to go.
Derren Brown effectively showed that religious experiences can be so elicited, in a clip now sadly removed from youtube. Damn copyright.
Atheism is not only much more in touch with reality, but a better way to live, to my mind.
Which is why I spend a lot of time helping administer a secular discussion board, and posting on blogs like this one and The Treethinker, and commenting at the BBC and the Guardian and occasionally other places.
Bottom line - atheism is indeed a positive thing.
Posted by: Sioux Laris
|
February 1, 2011 6:10 PM
So, if I get this right, atheism is a conclusion rather than a premise.
That would describe my own atheism, which evolved from a weird sort of Americanized animism, or maybe gnosticism, to agnosticism to atheism.
In a culture so flooded by religion, where the most obvious religious nonsense (e.g. the Pope talking about sex or the internet) is treated with unthinking respect by everyone from those in power to members of your own family, it literally cannot be a premise, must less a belief.
As for religion being a subversion of evolved traits: that's also a theory with much evidence to back it.
I doubt that Trekkies or Beatles fanatics, etc. will ever organize themselves and kill those they consider "dissidents".
However, if you can believe in the literal truth of the Bible or the Koran you are very likely gullible enough to allow anything, even killing in its name, since your own self-worth (and vanity) are seen to be tied to that belief above all others.
Atheism cannot do that on its own - it needs either a political/social/nationalistic rationale that essentially imitates "old-time religion" or mental illness to match what religions manage as a matter of course.
As a game, or a hobby, or even occasionally as a psychological exercise, certain religious practices can be enjoyable and provide insight and meaning. It's the belief that these are more meaningful that cooking a good meal, reading to a child, or listening (LISTENING!) to a symphony (or Bugs Bunny soundtrack) that is never to be more than tolerated.
Posted by: Andyo
|
February 1, 2011 6:11 PM
I'm pretty sure I've raised this discussion before here, but doesn't it depend on perspective and culture though? I see your points in the part of American culture you live in, with atheism having to be a counterattack to religious bombarding from all sides.
But for example, most of my own discussions haven't been with religious people, but with annoying wishy washy self-proclaimed agnostics, of the 50/50 variety. I think they're attacking a straw man when they attach what they think an atheist is to my own beliefs, so it's a quick way to shoot them down when you point out that an atheist is the same as being an inastrologist, and so on.
Also, the quote about we all being atheists, only "I believe in one fewer god", is usually followed by "when you understand why you don't believe in the other gods, you'll see why I don't believe in yours". I think that last statement qualifies the argument. It makes the other person take your perspective. Sure, it won't work on fundamentalists, but again, depending on culture, some or many people will see what you mean.
Posted by: hkdharmon
|
February 1, 2011 6:11 PM
Why am I an atheist?
All the cool minorities were taken.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 6:11 PM
Donald:
How would you know what PZ thought, as you said you didn't read what he wrote? It becomes more apparent, each time you post, that you don't think very well.
Unless you can manage to come up with more than supercilious sniffery, go sugar a decaying porcupine with joy-bliss and hymn-dance it up your anus. Sideways.
Posted by: kzielinski
|
February 1, 2011 6:12 PM
Actually I sort of did. Admittedly I didn't examine every possible religion, but I did investigate about half a dozen and considered weather it was something I could believe in.
The argument that all religions are the same and can be dismissed in the same way does not sit well with me. I sort of accept it when it comes to the various forms of Monotheism, but that's only because they share a common origin.
To me polytheism and pantheism are sufficiently different that they had to examined separately.
Ditto when rejecting an eternal afterlife vs rejecting Reincarnation. They may both be unbelievable, but for different reasons.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 6:12 PM
Why is it that when I say there are many different, valid reasons to be an atheist, so many people turn around and complain that I'm trying to impose one set of goals on the movement?
Posted by: Rawnaeris
|
February 1, 2011 6:13 PM
Me? I'm an atheist because I've experienced firsthand some of those Jesus Camps that pop up in the news occasionally. Brainwashing is fucking hard to kick. I still find myself automatically praying under high-stress situations. For me the moment that I realized it was all bullshit was when I stumbled across the Wiki article about how to brainwash someone and realize that was exactly what happened to me. When you see something like that spelled out and can map it to a specific week it your life, it is pretty fundamentally rocking to ones worldview.
Posted by: SC OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:13 PM
Sing it, PZ!
No:
Robert A. Pape, "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Aug., 2003).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 6:13 PM
I'll echo UberFubarious
Posted by: thephilosophicalprimate
|
February 1, 2011 6:14 PM
And speaking of win... Owlmirror k-log W wins the thread @ comment 40. (Yeah, it's an old joke - but it's just SOOOOO perfect on this thread!)
Posted by: tielserrath
|
February 1, 2011 6:16 PM
Legion:
However, this is one of the big discrepancies between US atheists and those in Europe and Australasia. The statement 'I'm an atheist' wouldn't make anyone bat an eyelid amongst my friends/colleagues anywhere I've lived and worked.
It has no shock power at all.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
February 1, 2011 6:18 PM
I think Donald shouldn't get to post anything else until he can correctly summarize the post, thereby indicating he's read it.
Posted by: raven
|
February 1, 2011 6:18 PM
Hard to believe in those deeper reasons.
1. The number 1 reason most people are a particular religion is...they were born into it. How many Moslems or Xians are there in families of the different religion. Not zero but close enough. A few convert in adulthood but xians (or Moslems) never wonder if the religion they were born into was the wrong one.
2. Apathy. How many xians are just box checkers? IIRC, only 25-35% bother to belong to a church.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:18 PM
Ooh, Donald posted again. Fuckwitted idjit. End of story.
Posted by: UXO
|
February 1, 2011 6:19 PM
... For the same reason we see weeping and wailing at religious funerals, despite the "fact" that their loved one is now presumably safe in the bosom of their preferred imaginary friend? To wit: that, in addition to being wrong, most of them (thankfully!) don't have the strength of conviction to carry their nominal beliefs to their logical conclusions?
Posted by: phillychief
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
The dictionary atheists are correct in that there's nothing to atheism. It's a position in relation to a claim, but WHY? Why hold that position. It's similar to Dillahunty's "tell me what you believe and why" line to theist callers. Buddhists are atheists. Raellians are atheists. Are we the same? No.
I've' never liked the "I just believe in one less god than you do" for exactly the reason you spell out. It's not the destination, but how you got there. Religion isn't the problem, muddle headed thinking and faith based beliefs are. Religion is a symptom, not the illness.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
If there were an entire culture of people who were atheists--who took atheism utterly for granted and for whom the question of God were as much a nullity as the shape of the Earth--then "atheism" would basically be a dictionary distinction anyhoo.
However, in this culture in this world, we've all had to make affirmative choices to be atheist. We've taken a specific stance with respect to society as a whole, and that means that atheism absolutely does come with its own set of values and stances. Or maybe "sets," since there are certainly many reasons to become atheists, but that self-identification really does place oneself at a certain position with respect to culture as a whole.
I think these "dictionary atheists," like #11 said, just do it to insulate themselves from the "You're just like a religion" accusation by theists. Which is an absurd and weak way to do it. I do suspect that some of our core assumptions about the world are not dissimilar from religious beliefs, but I don't think those can be avoided by "dictionary atheism." It ends up being a sort of intellectual cowardice.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
@Caine, Fleur du mal
So atheism is not only a consequence as PZ says, but at the same time a cause. It's an example for positive feedback I suppose, a self sustaining and amplifying intellectual high - which explains why many people report feeling that once they were "in", there was no going back.
I almost feel envious for kind of experience, because for me it was more of a gradual thing (always being more or less atheist, but becoming more clear-thinking and sophisticated about it over time). But then, the state you describe being in before is something I can't fathom nor would I wish it on anyone.
Posted by: Kurt1
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
Perhaps their characters were written by Stephanie Meyer and they like being one-dimensional.But awesome work there, I couldn´t agree more, and it takes atheism one step further away from being shallow. Oh and I add the "God is dead" quote from Nietzsche to the list of annoyances.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
Hahaaaaaaaaaaa @ Owlmirror!
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
February 1, 2011 6:22 PM
Shit, I'm bamboozled that Sinfest is still around.
(I think this shocks me about once a year, every time it comes up.)
Posted by: Horace
|
February 1, 2011 6:23 PM
I think that it is a bit much to complain about "dictionary atheists". Once you decide that you don't believe in god it means that you are responsible for your own moral decisions. You can take that anyway you want, for good or for evil, you can decide that you want to want to base your morality around the good of humanity, your race, your country, your family or yourself. Atheism is a starting point, not a set of opinions.
One of the reasons that I find many on this list so close minded is that they associate atheism with opposition to right wing/republican/christianity. This has more to do with your local circumstances than anything inherent in atheism.
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
February 1, 2011 6:24 PM
SCHIIIIIIIIISSMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!! w00t!
Posted by: Punxatawny Phil
|
February 1, 2011 6:24 PM
"I just believe in one less god than you do".
Damn straight. I mean Athena, goddess of wisdom AND war? PSHAWWW
Choosing atheism was actually a pretty quick decision for me, the greater consideration was the implications of that decision on my perception. After 20+ years of sometimes devout catholicism, that is no small task. When choices are no longer influenced by fuzzily defined notions of what the hairy thunderer wants to slightly less fuzzily defined notions of what the world around me needs (not to mention what I want to do on it before my time is up), a lot of base assumptions demand review.
It helps to talk to people who have made the same choice: a conversation that dictionary atheism kills by implying that it adds up to nothing more than flicking a switch.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:24 PM
I was seventeen when I realized that I was an atheist. For a while, I was a sort of democratic socialist fundamental christian. (I was a rather odd child. She gave birth to a rather odd adult.) It was so long ago that I can barely relate to who I was. Part of the reason why I left my church was because I could not feel God within me, this despite all of the talk about how one can feel God.
An other reason was because the concept of God did not make sense within even the general level sciences and history that I knew in high school. (Why did God let millions die in eastern Europe in the thirties and forties? Who was being punished and what was supposed to be learned by the survivor.)
But my biggest reason for being an atheist (Or what I now give the biggest reason after a gap of twenty five years.) is my ethics. The more I read the stories of the Bible, the more that God looked like a petty tyrant. The calls for extermination. The blood sacrifices. The call for devotion with no proof. After a while, the story of Abraham and Isaac horrified me. Why would a father willingly murder his son just because some voice told him.
I became an atheist because I could no longer see the religion that I believed in truly being a humane institution. There was just too much that made no sense. I did not want to deal with the idea that in the shift from the Old to the New Testament that God changed his mind about who could serve him. (So much for being eternal. But one could say the same for the Flood.) That one no longer had to be concerned about the God of blood and iron, except for when people would pull out the old God in order to teach us a lesson.
Also, I could not understand why an eternal and "perfect" being felt the need to create this world and fill it with people who were to praise him? Why was this needed?
It can be argued that atheism is just the lack of a belief in deities. If so, it can also be argued that worms are atheists. But my reason for being an atheist is different from the reason why a worm is an atheist. A worm does not know better. My ethics led me to reject such a cruel tyrant. And science shows that a deity is not needed to run anything.
Posted by: Juno Walker
|
February 1, 2011 6:28 PM
"I explained that there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world."
That's pretty much me, even though I'm not a professional scientist - I'm a dog trainer.
Julian Baggini explains it well in his book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.
My atheism is a result of the overwhelming evidence of naturalism.
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
February 1, 2011 6:29 PM
Hey, this thing automatically corrected my spelling of "w00t"...
But seriously, I agree with this post. Atheism is a philosophical position, not just a state of not-having-thought-about-it. And definitely not a religion.
Posted by: Nick
|
February 1, 2011 6:29 PM
My two cents: Questions like "what should atheism mean to the community?" are moronic and embarrassing. Atheism isn't a thing. And if you think it is, you're confused. I fully associate myself with the view expressed by Sam Harris at AAI 2007.
I think agree with PZ on pretty much every other point in this post, however.
Posted by: coldhope
|
February 1, 2011 6:30 PM
I'm an atheist because I never had any reason to be anything else. Because it is the only rational and sensible approach to life.
Unlike most people who come to atheism after suffering a childhood full of other people's beliefs I grew up in a house where I honestly did not understand that people really did believe in gods until I got old enough to work out that an awful lot of people seemed to be doing really stupid things for no apparent reason. It's still very, very difficult for me to accept that anyone with an ounce of sense, logic, or awareness can possibly elect to embrace such a complete load of old rubbish. I did come to a conclusion that, in fact, religion is not only useless, it is dangerous; and therefore I wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. But I never decided "I am an atheist because X, Y, and Z" in so many words.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 6:31 PM
Silly thing to say; it presumes a distinction that doesn't exist.
What you deny is part of what you believe (if you believed differently, you'd not deny!).
Posted by: hockeybobs
|
February 1, 2011 6:31 PM
Among other reasons, the main reason I'm an atheist is the asshat priest who presided over my Dad's funeral; this was at the cemetery... he wanted to be cremated, and have half his ashes scattered at his favorite hunting spot, and the other half put into a mausoleum in the cemetery near our house. When the priest learned of this, he went ballistic, saying that you can't do that!!! How will jesus be able to reunite his body with his soul, for his ascension into heaven?!? He was utterly beside himself, and, since I was already pretty sick of the whole chain of events by then, I went off on him - I said, almost verbatim, "Look - when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, thousands of people were killed, and their remains were scattered throughout landfills up and down the Eastern Seaboard - are you telling me that those people will be denied getting into heaven, simply because they were murdered by a bunch of religious nutcases, and blown to bits??? Part of the catholic dogma is that everyone is reunited with god, no matter what state they were in when they died - if jesus can do *that*, you would THINK he'd be able to reassemble ashes from just two locations, especially since he knows where they are, right?"
He must have realized I was ready to argue with him for a long time, because he then said, and I quote, "I'll let it slide this time." Yeah, great, because I'm having so much fun burying my Dad once, I'll be repeating the event multiple times... thanks a lot, you fucking idiot.
(This was St. Bernard's church in St. Paul, MN, by the way. It should not come as a surprise to the reader to learn that both their grade school, and now high school, are both closed permanently; There's not much demand for catholic education in the inner city anymore - not that there ever was a demand in the first place.)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/GwS8llkCm8gEVtG598HBdy0u8Ziw#2712b
|
February 1, 2011 6:31 PM
Sorry PZ, but you are wrong about babies and people who never had a belief in god not being atheistic. Belief is a binary question at its basest, there is belief, and everything that is not belief. The Default assumption in a situation where one has not made a decision on the matter is a simple lack of belief of the concept. People, by default, are atheists, in the same way that a beaver is atheistic. To say otherwise either implies a god belief without reason or splits hairs in the pool of options that are not belief.
Posted by: Whatsit
|
February 1, 2011 6:32 PM
A person might behave the way they behave because they are a Christian, but I don't behave the way I behave because I am an atheist. Atheism doesn't inform any of my choices in life; my motivations lie elsewhere.
That's the point, right? We're not atheists (just) because we reject religion. We're atheists because we chose something else.
Posted by: jheartney
|
February 1, 2011 6:32 PM
This discussion is pretty much tempest in a teapot, but, I think PZ's got it wrong. You don't get to add attributes ("baggage") to dictionary atheism and claim that the term "atheism" necessarily contains those attributes. I'm sure actual atheists have lots of interesting motivations and positive goals, but none of those things are integral to their being atheists.
Likewise the fact that popular conceptions of the term "atheist" include associated notions (good or bad) is neither here nor there. Insisting we use muddled popular definitions of a term seems like a strange thing for a scientist to do.
Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀)
|
February 1, 2011 6:32 PM
The Courier @#63: Sinfest is stronger than ever. Faithful daily reader here :)
Tatsuya went through a brief creativity crisis (or at least it seems that way, seeing as he is very silent towards his fans) and came out the other side with a lot of fresh ideas.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k
|
February 1, 2011 6:32 PM
PZ: "Atheism is a rational rejection of gods based on the virtues of science"
Christian: "I know someone who doesn't believe in gods but believes in ghosts, homoeopathy etc. How is that rational?"
PZ: "But that isn't my kind of atheism"
I'm a dictionary atheist because PZ is trying to take a general term and load it with all sorts of baggage that may follow the trend he would like to see but excludes far too many possibilities that would really have no other word for.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
February 1, 2011 6:36 PM
"Belief is a binary question at its basest, there is belief, and everything that is not belief."
I disagree. Disbelief means actively rejecting something.
There are a billion things in the world I simply have never considered. Just now, I tried to decide if I believe that there is an Andromedan planet that has developed self-awareness. I had never considered this possibility, positive or negative, before this moment.
It's sort of silly to say that I "didn't believe in it," isn't it? It wasn't until I thought about it and took a considered position (to wit, probably not) before I could have a belief status about it.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:36 PM
Googlemess, you are arguing with a straw PZ.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
February 1, 2011 6:37 PM
Donald:
When did PZ say that? Like many of the belligerent simpletons we get around here, you seem to be taking offence at comments that were never even made.
Not in the least. It's the people who respond to posts they haven't even read with incoherent diatribes who are stupid. (Cringe-inducingly inept attempts at condescension don't help either.)
Self awareness really isn't your strong point is it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:39 PM
Why is it that those who can't get their sign-in right, are the stoopidist...Posted by: hyperdeath
|
February 1, 2011 6:40 PM
BTW PZ, can we have a sockpuppet IP check between "Donald" and "GayHedBri". They're probably not linked, but their styles of aggrieved whining seem very similar.
Posted by: Protoplasmoid
|
February 1, 2011 6:40 PM
I tend to disagree with PZ on this one. I mean, yeah no gods is technically the dictionary definition. But I disagree that we should use the term. Like "homosexual" became "gay", I think the community that disagrees with the moronic ideas of religion could stand to find a better name. I just think it needs a better marketing campaign than "come out". ugh.. I think thats so incredibly tacky. However, i hate the dictionary people just as much as anyone else.
Also, on my personal beliefs, I finally started participating in the online community rather recently. However, I have almost always felt that some of the main claims of religion were bunk. I didn't come from a fundie household, but went to a few baptisms, and had to participate in a few forced prayers, and that was pretty much enough to make me feel insanely awkward.
And finally, with regards to Christians, is anyone more pissed off at Liberal sects and (agnostics) who acknowledge scientific fact, but refuse to admit or believe the bible is bunk?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 6:42 PM
This is a useful thread. I tell people that there really are stupid atheists, and now all I have to do is send them here to make my case.
I am NOT adding my specific baggage to atheism and insisting that you all must carry it. I am not rewriting the dictionary definition. I am not saying that if you're a non-scientist who became an atheist because of your outrage at the action of the Catholic church, you are not a True Atheist™.
I am saying that a dictionary entry is not sufficient to explain our goals and purposes, especially an entry that is so broad that it verges on meaninglessness.
None of the people who claim to be dictionary atheists actually are dictionary atheists. They have reasons for not believing in gods. They're just not talking about them.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/kPK3n1B3mfteyMkjlQrqD1kYif.z2gI-#9ca48
|
February 1, 2011 6:42 PM
I'm going to take a risk and actually post here (oh no! a theist - Christian, moreover - posting! ack!) I see a lot of you broadly generalizing all religious institutions as the same, showing a stark and frightening ignorance of nuance. I mean, you all have to admit that there are different brands of atheism, and different paths atheists follow? I mean, not a great many of you I would assume are the sort of atheists who would become a Stalin or a Mao Zedong and lay claim to untold thousands of deaths regardless of the religious or atheistic facet of the philosophies that drove these world leaders to do what they did. It follows that atheism itself cannot be held responsible for causing mass murder: those imperfect human beings who used atheism as a tool to carry out their own preexisting agendas are to blame. Why is it so hard to believe the same is true with regards to the crusades and the inquisition? For one thing, I don't think I can recall a single instance of these mass genocidal accounts attributable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or to modern Christian Universalism, for that matter, both of which are substantially different from the two distinct brands of Catholicism which were responsible for the crusades and the Inquisition. I mean, it's fine for you all to use these things in your argument, but please pay respect to your opponent and do your part in researching the truth of the matter beforehand.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
February 1, 2011 6:42 PM
That is until another nihilist decides to crap on a thread.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
February 1, 2011 6:44 PM
@Yahoomess #74
If I understand him correctly, I think you are actually arguing in favor of PZ's point - namely that this kind of "dictionary atheism" in which newborns would be included by default, is not a very useful concept, precisely because of what you said.
Posted by: Mr Z
|
February 1, 2011 6:48 PM
I see a small problem here. I did go through a whole list of religions, and the reason I ticked them off the list was: "...evidence and plausibility and experimental support, and also a mistrust of unfounded authority or claims that are too good to be true..."
I also believe that "Turning it into a quantitative debate about how many gods we accept, instead of a substantial debate about the actual philosophical underpinnings of our ideas, is kind of lame, I think." is true, but can you tell me how to get a believer to admit their beliefs are nothing more than self accepted non-truths about the world so as to make more like-to-like comparisons in the conversation?
Posted by: Ariamezzo
|
February 1, 2011 6:48 PM
A great post, PZ. So few people that I know really know why they're atheists. I was raised by parents who told me flat out that there are thousands of religions in the world and that if anyone tells me that one religion is truer than another, they're lying. I grew up really not caring. My best friend was a Christian and loved Jesus, and I knew that I wasn't a Christian and that I didn't care about Jesus. I never had any divine experience to bring me to think about Jesus and I thought he sounded kinda stupid when he talked about it, but I never brought it up. Again, I just didn't care.
When I was 13, a girl in my math class asked me, "Do you believe in God?" I said no, and her response is what really made me know that I am an atheist. She said, "You mean you don't believe in love?" and it was from that moment on that I could not believe that religion does humanity any good and I turned into a budding little anti-theist. Since then, I have of course incorporated reason, logic, and scientific methods of thinking into why I'm an atheist and why I don't fall for faith.
Posted by: HenryTheHamster
|
February 1, 2011 6:50 PM
I agree with most of what PZ has said - especially that answering 'Because I don't believe in God' to 'Why are you an atheist' is pointless and lazy.
But if I'm not saying there is one common element beyond a disbelief in gods then isn't that one common element the definition of the label atheist. NOTE I am not saying there isn't a whole lot of interesting stories about how different people come to that position, or what other values and views that position inspires - just read the stories on this and other posts - and none of that can be dissected from a good discussion about atheism, and I don't think PZ is trying to attach baggage to anyone - he has pointed out the many flavours of atheists.
But if I tell someone I am an atheist, surely all they can take from that is that I don't believe in a god, and nothing more, until I tell them more about myself?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 6:51 PM
Yahoomess:
First: you are not, by far, the first theist to post here. Two regular posters here, who happen to be OMs are christians.
Second: there's a difference between religion and theist.
Third: the majority of regulars here came out of a religious background a/o belief. Most of us are well educated and understand a great deal about religious belief, including nuance and sophisticated theology. We debate these things every fucking day.
Fourth: waltzing in here painting with a broad brush in order to accuse others of painting with a broad brush, well...not overly smart.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 6:53 PM
Sorry about that. Which are the branches of Christianity that don't believe in the existence of a god based on evidence which amounts to little more than ancient hearsay?
Posted by: HenryTheHamster
|
February 1, 2011 6:53 PM
And in that time, PZ posts another comment that clears things up just fine :)
Posted by: DanishDynamite
|
February 1, 2011 6:54 PM
Get a grip, PZ. An atheist is just what that term means according to any unbiased dictionary. You may wish that it meant more, may have hypothesis regarding what might have brought about this mindset in someone, or what the consequence of having achieved this mindset should entail, which is fine, but unless you have a published peer reviewed paper showing that this is more than your wishful thinking, that is all it is.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
February 1, 2011 6:54 PM
I gotta say I'm depressed at how many people turned atheist because of negative encounters with religion. That might explain a lot of the general vitriol.
I grew up in an extremely liberal town, where religious virtues (where they were held) were basically positive, inclusive, and uplifting. I came to atheism, not because there was something fundamentally wrong with religion, but simply because I had no particular reason to believe it; no religious explanation made more sense than the materialistic explanation.
(There was a brief phase where I fell into the First Cause argument plus a God of the Gaps argument and hypothesized the existence of a Creator who made the universe as an art project, gave us all free will, and left us to our own devices. It was in many respects a scientific argument, though a flawed one. At any rate, it had precious little to do with any of the religions of my youth. Just an aside.)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k
|
February 1, 2011 6:54 PM
When I said I'm a dictionary atheist I meant, I use the broad meaning when I describe someone as an atheist (as opposed to a more specific word like a sceptic), not that my atheism has no positive reasoning behind it.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 6:56 PM
Yahoomess ID=kPK3n1B3mfteyMkjlQrqD1kYif.z2gI-#9ca48:
If they're all religious, then they share a general attribute which can be generalised. Wherefore your inferred ignorance of nuance?
Well, yes. But, just like all religions are religious, all atheists are atheistic.
You're generalising about atheism in the same way you claim atheists generalise about religion.
Perforce, by your own reasoning, you are showing a stark and frightening ignorance of nuance.
PZ: Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!
It seems you both agree on this.
So, here you agree with the alpha male around here. :)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2011 6:57 PM
I'm going to take a risk and actually post here (oh no! a theist - Christian, moreover - posting! ack!)
Theists of all sorts comment here all of the time. Some are even respected. It is what happens when just about anyone can comment, you stupid piece of shit.
(Just so you know, I called you a stupid piece of shit not because you are a theist. It is because of that bullshit line you started with.)
Oh, nice how you fucking ignored what PZ said about the quip; Science flies you to the Moon, religion flies you into buildings. You have a whine about how atheist do not respect you and you want us to know.
Granted. I do not respect you. Congratulations! You earned it.
Posted by: hippiehunter
|
February 1, 2011 6:57 PM
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
Or up the butt of preteen altar boys.
I am an atheist because I don’t have a faith gland! I am genuinely befuddled as to why an adult would believe anything without evidence. I just cannot fathom why otherwise intelligent people believe in power balance bands, homeopathy or an invisible father figure in the sky. As a child I believed in jesus, santa and spiderman equally and I realised they were all fantasies about the same time, I don't recall why.
Why are you anti-religion is a more interesting question for me and I think Christopher Hitchens addressed it beautifully in "God is not great".
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 6:57 PM
Yahoomess @ #86
This is one of the problems with religion, and the reason why I think the "religion flies people into buildings" line is valid, albeit poorly worded.
As you have quite rightly pointed out (and props to you for doing so... lots of Christians don't), there is nothing in atheism that can justify the atrocities of Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot. You also quite rightly point out that some Christian sects are completely innocent of the kinds of atrocities inflicted by the Catholic Church.
The problem is this. Regardless of which flavour of Christianity you find most palatable, you are all still working off the same holy book. The Catholics of the Inquisition were working off the same book as your Universalists - each group would have had very strong scriptural support for their contradictory positions.
An interesting thought experiment... If you personally went back in time and tried to argue against the Inquisitors, armed only with your copy of the King James, do you think you could convince them they were wrong?
Posted by: AJKamper
|
February 1, 2011 6:57 PM
Oh, almost forgot: A friend asked me, "Why would you believe a religion like that, if it doesn't give you any comfort?" I replied, "What's comfort got to do with it? I want to believe what's true."
And THAT, my friends, is why I'm an atheist.
Posted by: tytalus
|
February 1, 2011 6:58 PM
While I really dislike the dictionary wars, I reserve the right to say "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." and that the rest of my baggage is mine. I have to do this because of all the smug believers who want to define atheism into a belief, belief system, and/or religion and go ha-ha, we're equal.
Because we're not.
I'll check in later to see if disagreeing with PZ results in my utter destruction.
Posted by: jheartney
|
February 1, 2011 6:59 PM
Now who's arguing with strawmen? When did we say that it was?
If what you're trying to do is take a term ("atheism") signifying a fairly empty concept (dictionary atheism) and appropriate it as the title for your particular brand of unbelief, don't be surprised if you run into some resistance.
If you're creating a subclass, don't give it the same name as the parent class.
Posted by: Rikitiki
|
February 1, 2011 6:59 PM
If I have good reasons, can I get a T-shirt like the one in the comic?
Me loves the "WWBRD" T-shirt, yep.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
February 1, 2011 7:00 PM
Hi YahooChristian #86.
You are flattering us! After this opener, how could anyone here object to your conclusions...
1) You seem to argue that atheism makes bad dictators. Well big deal, all dictators are bad, and some of the atheistic ones turned out to be monsters. Here's the catch: Atheism may not make good dictators, but the society who accepted Stalin as a God-like leader figure did so because of lack of skepticism and lack of an educated atheism which would have made them immune from claims or superiority by such figures. They were brainwashed by the Tsars and by their Religion for centuries into accepting leader figures without questioning them.
2) You imply that the way Mao or Stalin used atheism is comparable to the way religion was used for example by the inquisition. This does not hold water. I would argue they used atheism in order to remove the theistic god figure as a competitor. Religion was used for cruelty in a different way: A dictator who has religion in store can command acts and claim that they are the will of a divine being, and therefore not to be questioned - simple as that. That's quite a qualitative difference.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 1, 2011 7:00 PM
That was very educational to read and had a few arguments in it that I have not heard before.
One reason I don't like the distinction between strong and weak atheism is because weak atheists do have reasons, hopefully well founded reasons, for not believing that gods are real.
The sight of a 900-foot tall, lightning-bolt shooting Thor isn't going to make weak atheists dismiss all their previous knowledge. Thor will probably be treated by weak atheists as a natural phenomenon just like everything else, open to the scrutiny of science no matter how powerful, fear inducing, or awe inspiring.
The belief—actually the knowledge—that gods are not real could only be overturned if the reasons for not believing in gods were overturned, and that would be damn near impossible as far as Gnu Atheists are concerned.
Posted by: Jacob
|
February 1, 2011 7:00 PM
I appreciated the different perspective PZ. When I first heard you say that in the talk I went "uh... did he just call me an asshole?" And you did, but I got what you were getting at.
I DO think there is an argument in properly defining perspectives/views and atheism is one of those words that a lot of people simply get wrong. I am not just an atheist as you point out, I am a loaded atheist. I think Steven Novella (and others) and have made good points that atheism doesn't imply skepticism. It would be great if it did, and maybe it definitely should, but it doesn't seem to be. Maybe we should start calling ourselves loaded atheists. It has a nice ring to it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 1, 2011 7:00 PM
I'm an atheist because of this, this and this, among a few other things.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 7:01 PM
DanishDynamite:
Oh me! Oh my! Someone had an opinion! Where's your published peer reviewed paper showing that your
wishful thinkingopinion is the correct one?Posted by: Dorkman
|
February 1, 2011 7:01 PM
I tell you "I am an atheist."
What do you know about me? Exactly one thing: that I do not believe in gods. That is what it means to be an atheist, and the only thing that you know any atheist believes (or rather doesn't).
If you ask me how my atheism affects other aspects of my philosophical outlook, then I can tell you I'm a secularist, a humanist, an anti-theist. Then you know about who I am and what I stand for. But I'm not an atheist because I'm those things. I'm those things because I'm an atheist. And I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods.
I'm also a liberal and a homosexual and someone who enjoys playing Rock Band. But I'm not an atheist because I'm those things, and I'm not any of those things because I'm an atheist. I could be a Christian and be those things, too, and I wouldn't be a Christian because I was those things. I'd be a Christian because I believed in Christianity.
This seems to be what you're saying, PZ, but you're getting it confused and insisting that I must say I'm an atheist because, for example, I'm a humanist. Otherwise my atheism is vacuous and superficial. But that's not why. That's confusing cause and effect. You want atheism to mean more than it does. You can't just declare it by fiat.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn-WVoH8OunYmZq7TIfuqNq_tK9-cEW7XY
|
February 1, 2011 7:04 PM
Do people also need positive values to not believe in the tooth fairy?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 1, 2011 7:05 PM
Dumbest comment of the day contestant
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
February 1, 2011 7:07 PM
But...that's what happens in Chick tracts. I'm so confused!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 7:08 PM
Yawn, I am an atheist because there is no conclusive evidence that a stupornatural idjit exists that we should worship. *looks around for any evidence mentioned above, and finds zippo* End of story...
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
February 1, 2011 7:08 PM
How about:
"You've got a discussion going, talking about being gay, or what being gay should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that 'Homosexuality means you're attracted to the same sex as yourself. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.'"
Or:
"You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're a scientist, or what science should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that 'Scientist simply means you practice science. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.'"
Maybe a subject of similar denseness as yourselves (bowling balls, in this case) will make the issue clear:
"You've got a discussion going, talking about why you bowl, or how a bowling league can be part of the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that 'A bowler means you bowl. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.'"
Posted by: Protoplasmoid
|
February 1, 2011 7:08 PM
good point. My answer would be insufficient data.Also the term does not encompass homeopaths or astrologers.
There is no one who is ahomeopath or aastrologer. Why can't we just find a different term so as to quit this infighting for good?
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 7:08 PM
Dorkman @ #111
and
I may have misunderstood you, but I'm not sure those two statements tie up.
Posted by: CJO
|
February 1, 2011 7:09 PM
An interesting thought experiment... If you personally went back in time and tried to argue against the Inquisitors, armed only with your copy of the King James, do you think you could convince them they were wrong?
Especially not armed with a Satan-inspired heretical anti-Catholic translation into a vulgar language like the *sputter* King James!
Anyway, if you let Dostoyevsky run your thought experiment (and you could do worse), Jesus himself couldn't convince them they were wrong.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
February 1, 2011 7:10 PM
Disbelief in the tooth fairy is pretty much accepted in society. Disbelief in God is not.
Look, all PZ's saying is that everyone has a reason that they chose atheism... not that any one reason is right! Every person's atheism is loaded, even if it's loaded differently. We don't choose atheism as a default, not in the here and now. Therefore, every person's atheism is value-loaded, and we should recognize that.
At least, that's what I think he's saying.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 7:11 PM
Googlemess:
Is belief in the tooth fairy pervasive to the point that it intrudes into education and government?
Are there churches of the tooth fairy on every corner in every town in the U.S.?
Are there private schools dedicated to belief in the tooth fairy?
Are there 38,000 different sects of tooth fairyism?
Are people reviled and shunned when they reveal they are Atooth-fairyist? Would people be willing to vote for an Atooth-fairyist president?
And so on...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 7:12 PM
Hell, yes.
There sure are a lot of people with unexamined philosophical foundations wandering around, aren't there?
Posted by: DanishDynamite
|
February 1, 2011 7:13 PM
#110 said:
Oh me! Oh my! Someone had an opinion! Where's your published peer reviewed paper showing that your wishful thinking opinion is the correct one?
Are you asking for a published peer reviewed paper which shows that the dictionary definition of "atheist" means just what the dictionary says?
Posted by: raven
|
February 1, 2011 7:13 PM
A better question is why am I an ex-xian?
A religion that can produce millions of fundies, a group hard to tell apart from violent and antisocial mentally ill morons*, called the whole belief system into question.
*I only steal from the best. A recent poster used that description and he/she can claim authorship if they want to.
Posted by: Slossius
|
February 1, 2011 7:13 PM
I think your position has two strengths:
Firstly, I think there are good political (as Dawkins often puts it) reasons why your approach is a valid one. If atheists get together it seems completely pointless unless there are positive beliefs held in common.
Secondly, when I say "I am an atheist", I don't wish to simply show my absence of religion, but would rather stress that I have considered every argument for theism there is and thrown them out. In short, I want people to know how I approach these questions.
However, I do think that the 'dictionary atheists' are technically correct.
I'm not upset or in a rage - I just like challenging arguments politely in the hope that I might learn something. Here's why I disagree:
1) We might use a negative definition without looking in a dictionary. I agree that using dictionaries to define words is unhelpful and very boring. I will henceforth assume that the definition given by 'dictionary atheists' does not literally come from the dictionary.
2) By using a negative definition, it does not follow that those who the definition applies to cannot have positive reasons for adopting that position. You said that such a definition is
'as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing.'
But this is not what I would claim; rather the truth-value of the predicate 'is an atheist' is true whenever the subject does not have the property of being a theist. This is quite compatible with other such beliefs as secular humanism, scientism, Marxism or whatever.
3) If I say "I have positive reasons why I am an atheist", intuitively I say something intelligible, and different from simply "I am an atheist". However, if the predicate "is an atheist" implies that the subject has positive reasons for being an atheist, it seems that the first sentence is merely a tautology and, contrary to our intuitions, expresses exactly the same meaning as the second sentence.
4) It seems you agree that atheists can have bad reasons for being an atheist. Given that this is the case, it seems that if we take the set of all atheists, we might only find one thing in common - their lack of theistic belief. It therefore seems reasonable to use this as our definition.
5) I concede that under my definition, babies, rocks and electrons are all 'atheist'. However we might also attribute the property 'asexual' to rocks or 'anemic' to electrons, which sounds equally absurd. We don't often conjoin these terms because of the questionable relevance of doing so (cf. Grice's 'Rules of Conversation').
Finally, a note about politics. Defining atheism in some positive way might be a good way of bringing people together, but so might using another positive term such as 'humanists' or 'rationalists'. The negative definition allows us to dispense with sweeping generalisations such as 'atheists are annoying', 'atheists want to ban prayer in schools', 'atheists are immoral' etc.
I hope I have justified my use of the negative definition. There might be a case for using 'atheist' to express one's positive qualities and values, but I suspect the only case that can be made for it is a political one.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 7:13 PM
PZ:
Yes.
Thinking. It's a good thing.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 1, 2011 7:14 PM
If not a fairy that put the money there and took the tooth, then what? Obviously you have extensive reasons to accept other explanations than that a fairy did it.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 7:14 PM
Oh... and I became an atheist so I could eat babies.
Posted by: Joey
|
February 1, 2011 7:14 PM
I think the reason a lot of atheists push for the "lack of belief" definition is because of how common it is for theists to say "you assert that there are NO gods and I want you to defend your assertion".
Why am I an atheist? Because I don't find any of the claims for gods to be sufficiently supported. I find argument for god's existence to be riddled with fallacies, absurdities, and nonsense. So, I don't believe in gods. It doesn't really need to go any further than that.
Now, do I also identify as an atheist for specific reasons? Of course. I think it's important for other members of society to be aware that not everyone shares their beliefs in gods. I prefer the term over agnostic, which irks me for various reasons,and that it seems to be taken by many people who are non-religious but spiritual and buy into woo of all sorts. Plus, it's seen as a middle ground between theism and atheism, which it isn't.
"As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. "
This almost looks like a strawman. Just because I qualify under what you describe as a "dictionary atheist" doesn't mean I don't use other terms to describe other positions. I am also a secular humanist, a progressive, a social liberal, among other things.
Of course, I may not qualify as what you'd call a dictionary atheist if I don't insist that my atheism is absolutely isolated from every other part the remainder of my belief systems.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
February 1, 2011 7:17 PM
I am torn between finding this thread really deep and interesting, and completely pointless. Pointless because yes, Atheism means lack of belief in gods. No because what makes atheism relevant is its impact on people and society, so it does not exist in a dictionary vacuum.... I'm sorry, please go on....
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
February 1, 2011 7:18 PM
I agree that the dictionary definition of atheism is pretty useless. I can't pinpoint the exact moment or the exact reason that made me an atheist. It was a gradual development from Catholicism to agnosticism to atheism and it was caused by many things. First and foremost was actually giving the whole Catholicism thing more than a passing thought.
My grandmother was very religious. My grandfather was, as far as I know, an atheist. One of the funniest memories I have of him is him continuously swearing in Italian so that I wouldn't understand him. It kind of fired back because the first swear word I learned was Porca Madonna, which made my grandmother furious. After his death, she started taking me to church. My father hates religion. He isn't really an atheist, he'd probably accuse atheists of being a religion and hate them too. My mother wasn't very keen on religion, even now I'm not sure what she believes, but my grandmother was more or less the head of the house so I went to church with her. Anyway, I went to church, to catechism and I guess I just took it all in stride. I didn't question the Bible because I never took it as anything but a metaphor. I remember being convinced that everyone thought of it as a metaphor. I did believe in God, though.
My grandmother died when I was 15. Suddenly, I didn't have the obligation to go to church any more. I still went for a while, prayed and believed, but I also finally started thinking about it. About how ridiculous the whole thing is. Priest would stand on a pedestal and tell us that we should be humble. And who was this man to ask me about my sins?! I was also made aware of the money my family had to pay for me to get christened and confirmed without the priest causing problems because of my father. It just showed how hypocritical church officials were. There were lots of little realizations that made much more sense than organized religion could make on its best day. It was a light bulb moment stretched across a couple of months.
Rejecting God wasn't that easy, so I identified myself as an agnostic. After a while, I realized that when I rejected religion I rejected the idea of God too, I just wasn't aware of it. If that makes sense. I lived as if there was no God. I don't need God to explain things or to mean anything. So here I am, an atheist.
This was a long story about how I became an atheist, but it is also the reason I am an atheist. I lived with the idea and, after realizing its absurdness, I rejected it. That's it.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 7:18 PM
CGO @ #119
Touche. :-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 7:19 PM
Considering that science ignores imaginary deities, what are you really hoping for???Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
February 1, 2011 7:21 PM
Of course religion doesn't always cause people to fly airplanes into buildings. But it does far more often than anything else. Just like science hasn't given us all personal space shuttles (Yet. Here's hoping!), but it has allowed more space exploration than any other field of human endeavor.
So while you're technically right, I think you missed the point a bit. No one ever claimed that all theists are suicide bombers. Just that theism leads to suicide bombing, and nothing else really does.
Science does, in fact, fly people to space, and religion does, in fact, fly people into buildings. Stop over thinking it, broham.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
February 1, 2011 7:21 PM
Well, no. Maybe someone who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, or in God, really is simply close-minded and unwilling to consider the possibility. The mere fact that most of us here have given supernaturalist belief plenty of opportunity to give us cause to accept it doesn't mean that all have, nor that it is somehow necessary to be "atheist" in the way that most people understand that word.
Of course I have positive values, and these are part of why I don't believe in God. But they're also why I don't believe anti-vaxxers and UFO visitation as the source of Egypt's pyramids. More importantly, positive values are not needed to avoid religion, there are atheists who are highly bigoted and close-minded.
Most of all I don't like this notion that veers close to the True Scotsman, that atheists are necessarily there for "good reasons." There are dumbass atheists who don't believe in God for bad reasons, and we lack justification for defining them away. That's my positive value, which includes a refusal to whitewash godlessness.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: viggen
|
February 1, 2011 7:22 PM
I don't wholly disagree with this statement, though I would point out that precise definitions and consistency are in fact qualities of thought that help to make a good scientist. I would argue that a person who struggles for precise definitions like this may simply work at holding themselves to a uniform metric. It may well be that your definition of "excessive" is different from mine.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 7:24 PM
I'll proudly wear the dicktionary atheist title so long as there are those who argue atheism as a base rather than as a conclusion. It's the distinction between 'atheism, therefore ...' and '... Therefore, atheism'. So many theists treat atheism as a worldview, as if atheism is just another doctrine which we all adhere to - and that is false. It's necessarily false, and it stems from that misunderstanding of what atheism is. The dictionary definition is a necessary distinction because there are those taking atheism as a doctrine rather than as a conclusion.
Posted by: DanishDynamite
|
February 1, 2011 7:25 PM
An atheist could be an atheist for many reasons and for no reason. In my case I have been a functional atheist my whole life, but only found out that this term applied to me when I discovered that the concept of religion existed. I think I discovered this, or at least remember this concept arising in my mind firstly, at around the age of 8.
Posted by: nijamunkistich
|
February 1, 2011 7:26 PM
Damnit PZ. Go and criticize my syntactical assitude. :D
I'm always whipping out the "I believe in no gods/I lack belief in gods". I'm a syntactical ass. *GRIN*
Never when talking about why I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist 'cause I like my reality supported by evidence, but.
I use the 'Babies are atheists' to demonstrate that you can't make sweeping claims about 'atheists'; Such as, 'if you can't say it about an infant, it's unlikely you can say it about "atheists".'
There's nothing wrong with slamming it down on people when they whine. For me, slapping down a couple arguments I use on occasion makes me think about them and my use, and by the gods, some times I adjust or stop using them.
Posted by: Dorkman
|
February 1, 2011 7:27 PM
Timaahy @ 118:
Like I said, it's a causal chain.
If I tell you that I am an atheist, the only thing you know is that I don't believe in gods. That is the only information that the term "atheist" imparts, because that's the only thing "atheist" inherently means.
If you want to know anything else about me, we need to talk about other labels -- secularist, humanist, skeptic, anti-theist. And in some of those cases, I became those things after I became an atheist.
I didn't become an atheist because I was those things, I became those things after I was already an atheist.
And I became an atheist because I stopped believing in gods.
PZ is correct in the sense that the term "atheist" is too narrow. Thunderf00t did a video a year or two back on the very subject -- he rejected the label "atheist," not because he'd begun to believe in gods, but because he wanted to be defined by what he did believe, not what he didn't.
But the answer is to use other terms that define your positive traits, not to insist that everyone redefine and use "atheist" to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Posted by: Agent Smith
|
February 1, 2011 7:27 PM
Atheism is like Ajax; there's many different ways to do it.
Why am I an atheist? When I learn something new, one way to verify its truth is to compare it to the existing web of facts I know about the world. The new facts should fit into these with little or no disturbance.
Theistic 'facts' never fit into this web. They exist in their own bubble, and can only be maintained by telekinetically suspending them above the surface of the world by sheer faith-power. Since existing facts never support them, I reject all theistic claims, which makes me an atheist.
The long and winding track of discovery that led me to an atheistic view will have to wait for another time. Though it can be summed up as "Is this bullshit? Yes, it is bullshit."
Posted by: johnsma11berries
|
February 1, 2011 7:27 PM
But how many people actually say that?
The only time I've read or heard people say that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more." is when someone else is trying to generalize about atheists. Like "all atheists are liberals", or "all atheists hate religion", or "all atheists believe [sic] in evolution".
Because none of those things are necessary components of atheism. The only thing that is universally required for atheism - that I know of - is to not believe in gods, regardless of whether you want to frame that as a lack of belief or an active disbelief.
I'm not saying your entire rant is a strawman argument, because I'm sure there are people who do retreat to a dictionary definition rather than having the courage to explain the actual reason why they're atheists. But there is a difference between the definition of an atheist and the reasons why one becomes an atheist, and how one expresses that atheism.
Sounds more like a definition of "skepticism" to me, to be honest. But as you yourself acknowledge, not every atheist is an atheist for those reasons.
I agree with that. But can you point to anything - thoughts, words, actions - that are demonstrably shared by all atheists, whether they arrived at their atheism because they applied their own critical thinking skills to the claims of the religion they were raised with (and then expanded that to all religion), or because they were raised by their parents to believe that religion was rubbish, or because Daniel Radcliffe is an atheist?
Yes, retreating to a dictionary definition of atheism when asked why one is an atheist is stupid and cowardly. But if there are other universal traits shared by all atheists, besides not believing in gods, point them out!
Posted by: geralcorasjo
|
February 1, 2011 7:29 PM
What bugs me the most is people who're claiming their 'agnostic' when they really should be 'atheist. It's a giant argument cop out and a cowardly position.
Posted by: Splog
|
February 1, 2011 7:29 PM
As I see it 'we atheists' view ourselves in a certain way, and to an extent that is how the theists see us (or at least they 'get' that is how we view ourselves). We are rational and base our views on evidence and reason. We don't believe in the supernatural, and so on. And there are already good words for those things like naturalist, empiricist, and so forth. These words generally apply to 'us atheists'; how we think we are and how others like us are. The words already exist, but sadly they don't have the same punch or cultural currency as atheist does.
Unfortunately for us we're not the only camp within atheism. As long as you don't believe in gods you're an atheist, even if you still believe in lay-lines, astrology, reincarnation, homoeopathy, or a whole bunch of other crazy stuff. Granted, I imagine that atheists in general are far less likely to buy into these sorts of things but believing in them doesn't disqualify you from being an atheist, otherwise you'd be.. what? A theist? A deist? Nope.
(Apparently, according to Wikipedia, it is possible to be a transtheist... which is apparently not theist or atheist but does still have gods. Sounds to me like the chap who came up with that doesn't get any sleep because he's too afraid the Morlocks will eat him).
Whether we take over the term (or indeed if we already have/are) atheist and make it a subset of the current dictionary definition of atheist is another matter. But then we'd need to come up with some extra terms, like a label for the crazies that don't believe in gods. This would have the fringe benefit of putting a little more distance between us and the crazies...
Posted by: Dania
|
February 1, 2011 7:30 PM
Well said, Kel.
Posted by: mcb
|
February 1, 2011 7:31 PM
Are you saying you dislike some atheists for insisting on precision in their language and some dislike you back for insisting on what they regard as an over-inclusive use of the term?
Like it or not one of the current definitions of atheism is lack of belief in a deity. Likewise one of several current definitions of agnosticism is lack of knowledge of a deity. But they are (along with anti-clericalism?) negative attributes, a fact you can’t change by fiat. You are welcome to propose revisions to these definitions; the meanings of words evolve over time. Maybe the next generation will like your definition better and the older meanings will slide to the bottom of the entry where they will be described as archaic.
The terms freethinker, methodological naturalist, evidentialist, critical thinker, proponent of the scientific method, determinist, humanist, materialist, skeptic, have a variety of definitions too, and people use and misuse them in a variety of ways, but they are – unlike atheism – positive attributes.
To believers (especially the New Age contingent), and that vast majority who are disinterested bystanders in the culture wars, the average skeptic comes across as a Cliff Claven buzz kill, aka a “smug wanker.” Now that your ox has been gored you’re complaining that other ox drivers' smug wankerosity is getting out of hand.
You are welcome to say there is more to your “atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world.”
It might be simpler and more precise to say that your world view is “based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world…That denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause.”
Sorry you’re being pounded on by people you thought were compatriots.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
February 1, 2011 7:33 PM
I can certainly see why PZ opposes this kind of dictionary atheism, but there is one point here that is worth noting; the only thing that all atheists share is a non-belief in god(s).
There is no such thing as an over arching, unitary atheist dogma, no 'unholy text'. We don't want to unintentionally give ammunition to the 'atheism is a religion too' brigade.
The only attribute you need to possess to call yourself an atheist is a non-belief in god(s), from then on out, atheists are a pretty heterogenous bunch with all kinds of political opinions, social ideologies and philosophies.
Correlation is not causation. This is a fundamental premise of rationality. Having said this, one cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of suicide terrorists are religiously motivated. At the very least, militant religiosity (and non-theistic belief systems with similar structures to militant theism, such as extreme communism, fascism and ethno-centrist nationalism) makes one more vulnerable to the kind of indoctrination and mindset that may lead someone to such a terrorist act.
I cannot think of many skeptical rationalists who engage in terrorism (which I am defining here as acts of violence intended to alter the political status quo by spreading fear through the general populous). The bulk of terrorists are either religious fanatics or adherents of a pseudo-religious political ideology that imbues something else (like the 'workers utopia', the 'father/motherland', or the 'pure blood' of a given ethnicity) with an equivilant freight of supreme 'moral authority' in the minds of the group members to a godhead figure, such that any act - however heinous - is considered justified in its pursuit by the 'true believers'.
True, but stupidity is a major player all the same. If one adds self-delusion and wish-fulfillment fantasies fuelled by a fear of one's own mortality, a desire for the validation of one's personal bigotries and pet-hates by a 'higher power' that always conveniently hates the same things and people you do, and a pinch of the ever reliable self-aggrandising power hunger of the people who propogate the religious meme, then you still don't have a comprehensive set of reasons, but you have an awful lot of the bases covered...
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 7:33 PM
Dorkman @ 140
OK, that's makes more sense... your first post did say "I'm those things because I'm an atheist", that's why I was confused. :-)
Posted by: imokyrok
|
February 1, 2011 7:35 PM
I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the term dictionary atheism. When in discussions with theists on the internet fellow atheists often point out that the only definite thing that all atheists have in common is absence of belief in gods. This point is generally made in reply to an attempt by theists to box us all into their preconceived notion (often negative)of what we are. We are all different. We don't necessarily agree with each other on many many things from politics to cultural issues to which football team to shout for. For example an atheist like Robert M Price who is a economic conservative and anti choice and dissmissive of animal rights is a world away from a social democrat feminist animal lover like myself. Nor do I find I have a great deal in common with PZ other than a fascination with the zaniest aspects of American culture. The one thing I can guarantee we all have in common is that "dictionary atheism" that PZ seems to find so offensive.
Posted by: DanishDynamite
|
February 1, 2011 7:35 PM
PZ: There sure are a lot of people with unexamined philosophical foundations wandering around, aren't there?
Yes there are, and there are even some with examined philosophical foundations who wander off into fairy-land. :-)
Posted by: janirozsa.idealfree
|
February 1, 2011 7:37 PM
"Now I don't claim that my values are part of the definition of atheism — I just told you I hate those dictionary quoters — nor do I consider them universal to atheism."
"My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values."
Now, isn't that a contradiction? If no particular values are part of the definition of atheism, then, isn't the smallest common denominator by which one can define "the movement" simply the lack of a belief in a supernatural god? As well as true moderate religion in many ways can be defined as having a smallest common denominator of belief in a supernatural god. (Honestly, to say anything else is, frankly, ignorant. But, I can see why that may be hard to see from anywhere in the United States though.)
I am an atheist since many years, and have also been a "militant" one, if one can call it that. But I have since relaxed my attitude against religion, or at least moderate religon. Why?
There are so many aspects of moderate religion as well as moderate atheism that are alike. These standpoints of being moderate can be defined as having more of an individualistic point of view, where individuals' values are allowed to be formed by critical thinking.
I just think the question of belief or non-belief in a god is irrelevant, as long as one keeps oneself truly moderate, since we have so much more in common as human beings and can be more productive and progressive together, battling intolerance in society, than when locking ourselves to the question of belief in god or not.
Posted by: NMLevesque
|
February 1, 2011 7:37 PM
I'm not entirely clear on the exact point here. There's nothing wrong with the definition of atheism, but we should state positive beliefs when discussing god or religion? We should homogenize atheism into skeptical agnostic freethinking humanists? I'm all for it; associating atheism with all of that, but there are atheists that are pseudo-skeptical, gnostic, anti-science, communists. Are we to deny that they are atheists, or are we just trying to unify what atheism represents into this simple word describing a simple non belief. Do we at least add a descriptor to distinguish us from other atheists such as gnu/new? I often state I'm a secular humanist, and I think this does as good a job as anything at getting the idea across about morality, albeit it doesn't cover most of my related beliefs.
So what exactly are we to do? I'm supposed to explain that I'm a rationalist, I'm skeptical in that I accept methodological naturalism and require evidence to support my beliefs, I'm not agnostic about every concept of god, and I adhere to secular humanist ethics and morality.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
February 1, 2011 7:38 PM
I think PZ is confusing peoples' reason for being atheist with their reason for calling themselves atheist. The only time I've ever heard an atheist bring up the dictionary definition in a discussion is to explain why they don't call themselves something friendlier, like 'agnostic' or 'humanist'.
Posted by: Dorkman
|
February 1, 2011 7:41 PM
Okay, I think I'm going to backtrack a little because I think I'm understanding what PZ is getting at here.
Saying "I'm an atheist" means I don't believe in gods. What it doesn't explain is what reasons I'd give not to believe in gods.
It could be that I value evidence and I find the evidence lacking. It could be because Bigfoot paid me a visit and told me there are no gods. It could be a purely emotional decision because bad things have happened to me. Telling you I'm an atheist doesn't tell you any of that information,
So when asked "why" I'm an atheist, if all I say is that I don't believe in god, I'm really just saying "I'm an atheist because I'm an atheist." And that is indeed vacuous.
I think ultimately the hairsplitting and confusion is that: the reason I apply the label atheist to myself is because I don't believe in god. The reasons that I don't believe in god are the positive values that PZ is getting at and saying are more interesting.
I think the confusion, for me certainly, came down to "atheist" as a label vs. lack of god-belief as a worldview. I thought PZ was talking about the former when really he's talking about the latter.
Posted by: Dania
|
February 1, 2011 7:45 PM
And also when a believer comes along saying "well, you're an atheist, therefore you are/believe X, Y and Z plus this other strawman here I have just built".
Posted by: mattluc
|
February 1, 2011 7:45 PM
Pardon me if this has already been stated:
I am an atheist because of [reasons].
Being an atheist means that I do not believe in any gods.
Cool? Cool.
Posted by: HenryTheHamster
|
February 1, 2011 7:48 PM
I'll second Dorkman @ 154 - that was the confusion for me - the rest made perfect sense
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 1, 2011 7:53 PM
"I would say, though, that religion does make one more susceptible to bad ideas. After all, if you've spent your whole life learning to dampen your critical faculties and avoid questioning the Holy Trinity and the Magic Mother of God, it's not so hard to accept that the people in the IRS building are plotting to put a mind-control chip in your head. I oppose religion because we can see its effects on even otherwise brilliant people: it short-circuits skepticism and leaves them open to dangerous and erroneous ideas."
But these bad ideas have very real and tangible consequences. Why do we by and large tacitly support unnecessary and extremely expensive wars? Why do many states have no real access to abortion services? Why are states that permit gay marriage few and far between? Why to date have we done virtually nothing about the dangers of global warming? Why is it virtually imposible to be elected to congress if you admit to being an atheist? Religion and its twin sisters credulity and conformity have a lot to do with answering these questions. Perhaps its a stretch but you can lay to the feet of religion many of the collective irrationalities that plague our society. Here's another - I've always wondered why is it OK on TV to machine gun or blast the living shit out of a person or even crowds of people, yet if you utter a cuss word or show a womans breast - our puritanical culture goes into an epileptic fit and demand congressional hearings - it's religion.
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
February 1, 2011 7:54 PM
This discussion reminds me of something a not-vey-close friend said to me: "I was an atheist because I was mad at God."
Me: Head->Desk.
Posted by: cbjones1943
|
February 1, 2011 7:56 PM
Like #131, my (maternal) Grandmother was religious, my (maternal) Grandfather, an atheist. He denounced god and christianity after the death (by childhood diseases) of their first two daughters, one of whom was his favorite child. Like #12, I was raised an atheist but, unlike #12, I have had occasional doubts over my lifetime (I am now 67) and, from time to time, flirted with "belief"--without success. My parents were atheists--probably because they revered my (maternal) Uncle--(arguably) the major theoretician of CP-USA, the only American to have received the Lenin Prize from the (then) Soviet Union, and the first Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Worker, subsequently, The Worker. Today, I have individualized reasons for my atheism; however, I believe that my upbringing has had a significant influence upon the tenacity of my value and attitude systems.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 1, 2011 7:58 PM
Robert Thille,
Well, it's an easy response and not so different from someone who says they don't believe because of religious attrocities in the bible.
Posted by: Nia
|
February 1, 2011 8:03 PM
I may just not have talked to enough atheists, but this strikes me as a bit of a strawman. I've seen the "atheism just means you lack a belief in gods" argument before (in fact I've used it), but not in the context that that means atheists should never talk about what their atheism means for them. Generally, from what I've seen, the people using this argument fall into two camps: 1) they're arguing with a religious person who keeps smugly insisting, "but atheism is a religion too, so that means you're being a hypocrite, nanny nanny boo boo!" - and there the distinction between a belief and a lack of belief becomes important, if only to get the godbot off your back (not that I have... personal experience with this... or anything... TT__TT); and 2) less commonly, they're arguing with another atheist who's trying to set up some kind of Real True Atheism (tm), ie you're not a real atheist unless &c &c. Both of those arguments, I feel, are valid. The use you cited is not, we can agree on that much.
tl;dr I agree that atheism does not exist in a vacuum, it is not separate from society or the rest of our lives, and that it is valid and even vital to talk about what atheism means for us and how we got here. I do think, though, that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting the dictionary definition of atheism so thoroughly - that definition is, after all, completely correct.
Also, I in no way have time to read all the comments rn, so apologies if I've repeated something that's already been said.
Posted by: DanishDynamite
|
February 1, 2011 8:03 PM
"Dictionary Atheists":
All atheists are dictionary atheist.
"Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion."
I suspect the first part of the sentence is true and the second part is certainly true for me.
The "I believe in no gods/I lack belief in gods" debate.
Sounds like an uninteresting debate and also one without relevance to what it means to be an atheist.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
If this generally true it would seem a good reason to be an atheist. But it still has nothing to do with whether you presently are or are not an atheist.
"I just believe in one less god than you do".
A factual statement if an atheist is talking to a mono-theist.
Posted by: areyoulistening
|
February 1, 2011 8:05 PM
Dania #155:
My response to that is the same as my response to people who accuse me of being aggressive/strident/militant/angry/rude: "I was unaware that I believed such things. Can you please explain how you know that I do?"
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 8:06 PM
I've lamented in past discussions with theists that they had no interest in what I believe and why. Instead they just wanted to tell me what I believed because I was an atheist. I can agree with PZ that atheism is not noncognivitism, it stems from positive beliefs. How the world works and that 'weird' beliefs of all kinds exist is what led me to be an atheist. But that does not make atheism another doctrine, and my reasons for atheism are personal conclusions that aren't necessary in order to be one. That's the mistake many make, and why it's necessary to be a dicktionary atheist. Atheism isn't a doctrine, it's not a set of positive beliefs. And while atheists have posiive beliefs and atheism is the result of those positive beliefs is a different issue, it's equivocating between the position and the reasons for it.
Posted by: HappyHead
|
February 1, 2011 8:16 PM
Well, I think I must be the third person posting this, but actually, this is pretty much where the turning point for me becoming (or at least realizing that I was) an atheist. I started out because a Jehovah's Witness cornered me at work (I worked in a very remote parking lot's toll booth at the time - couldn't leave.) and since he was annoying me, I started asking him questions until I'd managed to get him to tell me that the bible was wholly the work of the devil, and sent him stumbling off looking confused and upset. After that I realized that a lot of what he'd said made sense only when you ignored half of it, and everything observable in the real world - and even then, I had to wonder why anyone would involve themselves in their religion even if it was true. (Jehovah's Witnesses believe some pretty crazy and self-hating things. If you believe any of it, and weren't born into it, the only rational choice is to just go back to living your old life, since you're screwed already anyways.) That was when I started examining all of the other religious choices around me, and realized that the old Norse and Greek religions made about the same amount of sense as the various Christian/Muslim/Shinto/you name it religions around today. That amount being none at all - so yes, it pretty much was a list of religions analysed one after another that convinced me I was an atheist.
Honestly, when I broke it all down and scored things out, the Norse got higher marks than the Christians. That kind of disturbed me at the time, what with the Cows licking primordial ice and all that. The behaviour of their Gods was at least rational and self-consistent.
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 1, 2011 8:17 PM
I don't have a particular belief ... which by the way requires a leap of faith from what you know to the unknowable.
Mostly, because I think what is "TRUE" is irrelevant ... but trying to figure out how much we can know ... that's cool ... pursuing knowledge is cool. Trying to know more of what you can't know ... is just fun ...
But when I think of religion, I think of morality, not whether or not God exists or how the universe is or where it came from ... the latter are ideas ... the former, how I choose to live my life. I advocate kindness.
I grew up Catholic and I have fond memories of it. It was safety and acceptance to me and where I formed my values, which I have honed as I moved away from the church and abandoned my belief. In retrospect, I would not have wished to have not had this in my childhood. But I needed a haven.
When I think about religion, I think about the afterlife ... I figure if there's a god giving out virgins to suicide bombers ... send me to hell ... likewise if there is a god that would ask me to deny anyone freedom and the pursuit of happiness as they see it. I don't much worry about hell. It's ok with me if I end up there.
I don't think it takes religion to be asshole ... greed and self above all else is as a much a corruptive force as the staunchest religious zealots
Am I atheist? ... not really .. am I not an atheist? ... not really ...
Pick an issue .. a specific issue .. say teaching "creationism" as science .. that's just plain stupid ... take belief out of schools or at least move it to the philosophy/religion classes
I have string opinions about specific issues .. not about what you call me.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
February 1, 2011 8:20 PM
Dictionary gives the definition of atheism, therefore every atheist is a dictionary atheist. That definition is useless as an answer to the question why one is an atheist. Every person has their own reasons and I don't think one explanation can be universally used for every atheist. I'm not really sure what the dispute here is about, because that seems clear to me.
Posted by: colluvial
|
February 1, 2011 8:22 PM
PZ, this post makes so much sense that, in a few weeks, I'll forget you wrote it and falsely remember it as my own idea.
Posted by: SuperHappyJen
|
February 1, 2011 8:23 PM
The dictionary definition is useful for speaking with theists who seem to think that "Atheist" means you hate God and want to lead a sinful life.
Likewise the "I believe in one less God than you do" isn't meant to convert people, but to find common ground.
But we're talking to the religious here. We need not say these things to fellow atheists. Noone who doesn't know the dictionary definition calls themselves an atheist.
I'm with you on the "Religion flies you into buildings" one. Why do we have to invent platitudes to make us feel superior? Isn't it enough that we have this God thing figured out? Let's alienate people and then wonder why people hate atheists. Duh!
BTW: I laughed at this post, because I've heard these things said over and over on all kinds of atheist message boards and blogs. I've even found myself saying them. It's atheist dogma. LMAO.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 1, 2011 8:23 PM
Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion.
Babies (children and young adults) are to various degrees narcissistic, solipsistic, and prone to irrational fears.
Which of these are characteristic of religion? Hmmm....
Posted by: Mary Lupin
|
February 1, 2011 8:24 PM
The positive values that underlie my atheism start with my inability to accept spectral evidence (s.e.) as a valid criteria for judgment under any circumstances. And thank you PZ for this post. It's one thing to blah, blah, blah about the silliness of systems built on s.e., it's another to have something to say that is built on the other kind of evidence. The risk in defining atheism as only a disbelief in divines is that it forever links you to the shadowside. It would be a bit like defining my self as not-a-man. For me, s.e. and its various superstructures just don't matter as an interpretive rubric. Those systems can't interpret the world in any coherent way any longer. What I am as an atheist is a woman looking at and interpreting the world based on material evidence completely independent of a need to refer in any way to s.e. for either negative or positive validation.
Posted by: Redhill
|
February 1, 2011 8:24 PM
Yes, atheism needs a positive face.
Its usage, not dictionaries, that define words for people.
So there is a point in trying to get a more positive view of atheism in circulation.
I am not sure that inventing new terms of opprobrium for certain classes of atheists is the best way to do that.
"Dictionary Atheist" - As a term of abuse it lacks the punch of say, "Godless Communist" or "foul fiend Flibbertigibbet" and has about as much relevance as both.
Where I come from, most do not follow a religion but few would call themselves atheists, dictionary or otherwise, because atheists are seen as people who are over zealous about other people's beliefs.
They are "apatheists" rather than atheists. Maybe they could be described as atheists with unexamined philosophical foundations.
This kind of discussion would bemuse and bore them, interesting as it may be to me and to the others who have commented
Sometimes we atheists get lost up our own fundamentals.
Posted by: bunny "le meurtrier"
|
February 1, 2011 8:24 PM
I think I must be a variation on a dictionary atheist. I don't believe because I simply *can not* believe, as much as I might want to.
It's related to all the other stuff - having a rationalist, humanist worldview; needing narrative to make sense; wanting to see the world without veils, or rose-coloured glasses, or whatever distorting lenses - but it's both simpler and larger than all of these.
I don't think it was any one thing, but more a whole Russian doll of changes. The ability to believe in a fairy tale simply because it makes me happy just eventually got eaten by bigger and better things, and belief became a quaint custom my family kept.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
February 1, 2011 8:25 PM
Well, I don't know about you, but I think "rocks and trees are atheists too" would make a great slogan, and I'm going to put it on T-shirts!
Posted by: tytalus
|
February 1, 2011 8:26 PM
re: beatrice, #168
Some of us get caught up in semantic arguments over what atheism is and whether or not it is logically justified in comparison to theism. That's the dispute that I see, often enough. If you haven't, that's ok. You probably keep more interesting company than I do. :)
If by this PZ is suggesting that we should stop debating these disingenuous theistic point-scorers and speak to the rest of organized religion about why we're atheists, I see merit in that! I find the semantic debates tiresome.
Posted by: echidna
|
February 1, 2011 8:28 PM
What Agent Smith said, in the style of ninjamunkistich, works for me:
I'm an atheist 'cause I like my reality contradiction free, but.
(The dangling "but" takes me back to my teenage years, and how!)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
February 1, 2011 8:28 PM
Unless I am much mistaken, I was part of the Twitter clusterfuck that prompted the present post. More than anything, I am reminded of how much I dislike trying to express a nuanced position within the character limit of Twitter (and I *really* hate textspeak abbreviations).
I am a fan of the privative definition, but rather than this being a sticking point between PZ's view and mine, I think we are in almost total agreement. "Atheist", as per the dictionary definition, is almost trivially insignificant; any description of what a given atheist does believe is far more interesting. Who we are is not limited to the dictionary definition, by such a margin that the dictionary definition pales. It is necessary, but not sufficient, to describe any of us.
It is precisely *because* the privative, none-of-the-above definition accurately describes that minimally defined "atheism" that the other, positive beliefs (whether rationalism, humanism, or likely hundreds or thousands of possibilities) are important. They are who we *are*, not who we are not. We are not believers in gods. This is true, and nearly meaningless on its own.
In a previous post, some time ago, there was talk of "atheist AND"; atheist and humanist; atheist and rationalist; atheist and bad poet; atheist and whatever. Cos if you are a "dictionary atheist" and insist that a lack of belief in gods is all there is to it, then you must admit that describing yourself as "an atheist" is a nearly useless act.
Posted by: Elizabeth S
|
February 1, 2011 8:30 PM
Toddlers are most definitely NOT atheists. HTH.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 8:31 PM
Jebus, the comments from the blogs PZ referenced makes for some interesting reading.
One person called PZ a jackwagon. A jackwagon!! Is there no decency in this world anymore?
Posted by: Timaahy
|
February 1, 2011 8:34 PM
Cuttlefish @ #178
You take that back! No one speaks about Cuttlefish that way!
Posted by: =8)-DX
|
February 1, 2011 8:36 PM
Oooooh PZ at his best and most obnoxious - and brilliant! People need to be insulted, criticised and demeaned: offended in other words from time to time - it will make them think.
Btw - I've made the dictionary argument many times in online discussion - but the point is not to say "as an atheist I'm only someone who doesn't beleive in gods", but it's to define a group and set the starting conditions for a discussion. So many times if I mention I am an atheist I NEED to make it clear that this doesn't make me also a liberal, nihilist, communist, trotskyist, solipsist, asshole. I may be all those, but I'd prefer people don't assume all that - I'd prefer they assume only I'm someone who doesn't trust a load of magical BS or holy books and ASK me about my opinions on politics, philosophy, life the universe and everything..
Posted by: KP
|
February 1, 2011 8:38 PM
"I just believe in one less god than you do". ... Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution?
Hmmmmmm. Good point. Under "religious views" on my Facebook page, for a long time, I've been using the quip from the inside cover of "The God Delusion": "We're all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I hadn't thought of it this way and that's absolutely right. I think I'll be changing it now.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
February 1, 2011 8:39 PM
@ tytalus
I guess I sometimes miss nuances others see in their endless debates about semantics. I think I understand what PZ meant, I just see some people here arguing the same things he finds annoying and mostly proving his point.
I would like to hear people explain why they are atheists and is that intertwined with general skepticism or not, how it can influence others. Not some Atheist Agenda TM, just individual experiences. It would be way more interesting than discussing why its definition defines atheism that is defined by its definition. That sounded circular enough ;) ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 8:40 PM
The Cuttlefish calling itself a bad poet???? SWOON.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 1, 2011 8:42 PM
Satanists?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 8:42 PM
A couple of anecdotes.
I remember reading an interview Michael Shermer did where he was asked "what are the major and minor tenets of atheism?"
There was a show on ABC TV in Australia back in 2009 called The Atheists, where the host asked a similar question, about what beliefs do all atheists share, and implying that perhaps science is what holds atheism together.
Until misunderstandings like that are sorted out, the necessity for being a dicktionary atheist won't go away.
Posted by: quantheory
|
February 1, 2011 8:43 PM
I like most of this, but...
Trees and rocks?!? This is what I think of your trees and rocks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&t=5m2s
Posted by: tytalus
|
February 1, 2011 8:47 PM
Dictionary atheist: And what god do they believe in? /smug
"Mother."
Crowd: D'aww!
Dictionary atheist: But that's not, technically speaking, correct --
Crowd: D'AWW!!!
(Dictionary atheist, stricken deaf, is driven from the scene, exit stage left)
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
February 1, 2011 8:52 PM
Trees and rocks, PZ? Really? Are trees and rocks unmarried? Atheism is something humans ascribe to, we don't need to define things so that rocks don't fit in.
It seems like semantics though. They're saying "We lack belief in gods." And you're saying "You lack belief in gods because you expect evidence for claims." That's the same thing, the only issue is if they think you are trying to ascribe group atheists together more than that.
But really? Trees and rocks?
Posted by: cdey20
|
February 1, 2011 8:56 PM
Ah, the first denominations of Atheism. The Catholic Atheists who take the word of the dictionary literally and the Protestant Atheists who believe there's more to Atheism than what's written down in a book.
Joking aside, I agree with PZ but whenever a person of faith tells me that Atheism is a religion, I'm not sure I can help myself from saying the dictionary definition.
To paraphrase what he said on Twitter; voting for Obama doesn't make you a democrat. It's the other baggage you carry that defines your political persuasion.
Posted by: Elizabeth S
|
February 1, 2011 9:03 PM
"I just believe in one less god than you do". ... Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution?
Hmmmmmm. Good point. Under "religious views" on my Facebook page, for a long time, I've been using the quip from the inside cover of "The God Delusion": "We're all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I hadn't thought of it this way and that's absolutely right. I think I'll be changing it now.
How is that absolutely right? It doesn't make any sense to me. It assumes that the relationship between "astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and...evolution" analogous to the relationship between Christianity, for example, and Hinduism.
I don't see it.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 1, 2011 9:05 PM
I agree 100%!
I'm struggling with that one... I can't quite put my finger on but I sense a flaw in the underlying logic. It seems to me that it should not be necessary one way or another to care one whit about social injustice in order to conclude that gods do not exist. It just doesn't pass the smell test for qualifying as a valid or reasonable argument for atheism, however much it might make one a decent and agreeable social being.
Yes, problem, same as above. Humanism and atheism while certainly compatible can in no way be considered one and the same. I consider myself to be both but I am not an atheist because I am a humanist.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all because I can't accept someone's claim to be an atheist without their having gone through some serious soul searching. Goes back to that denial of god thing being a consequence, not a cause. Peer pressure and level of coolness definitely do not a 'True' atheist make. Tomorrow such a person will claim to be a Buddhist because it's the latest fad amongst their friends.
Umm, I guess at least in my case, I never got the memo that as an atheist I was supposed to be a member of a movement or an organization. Important disclaimer: I'm actually a member of a local atheist organization and I enjoy spending time with the other members because we do happen to share certain values, and we like drinking beer...very, very important!
I sense that perhaps we are comming up against a difficulty similar to that encountered by the proverbial herders of cats!
Posted by: echidna
|
February 1, 2011 9:05 PM
In the case Cuttlefish described here, religionists would actually have a case for the claim that atheists "hate God" or are anti-Christian - in other words, have taken an anti-theist stance for no good reason.
It's this view of the atheist that leads to the charge of being closed-minded, I think. After all, we atheists wouldn't accept evidence for God if it bit us on the nose. Can't we see God in the sunset? /sarcasm
I suspect that for the scientific atheistic mind-set there is even a stronger driver than lack of evidence for god: the axiom that reality is contradiction-free. If there is a contradiction, it means that either something that we took to be true is actually false, or our understanding is incomplete. (Yay - research question!)
We expect to find things that we have had no evidence for before (like previously undiscovered species), but the axiom of reality being contradiction-free allows us to confidently assert that a perpetual-motion machine cannot exist.
I think of gods as imaginary perpetual-motion machines.
As a previous post of PZ pointed out, there exists no description of a god that is non-contradictory, unless you could not detect its existence.
Posted by: echidna
|
February 1, 2011 9:09 PM
Oh - I didn't understand Cuttlefishes comment that way. It seems a contradiction in terms!
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
February 1, 2011 9:10 PM
RBDC
Evil, that's for damn sure.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 1, 2011 9:11 PM
Whenever I have doubts about my atheism I
(a) read the Bible
(b) talk to believers about what and why they believe
(c) go online and read from prominent believers and ask the question "exactly what do you believe and why do you believe that?"
I have found that (a) and (c) work for insomnia as well; with (b) it would be impolite though a yawn is OK.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 1, 2011 9:13 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp
I was so expecting tasty.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 1, 2011 9:15 PM
It feels good to get this off my chest - I was lurking on the twitter feed, be damned if it made any sense.
I am one of those who was born without the ability to believe stuff. Ya know, one of those obnoxious kids always asking why, and generally pissing off adults. My dad was cool with it: While I was waiting with him in the car as the women folk were getting ready for church, I asked him,
"Hey Dad, why do people believe in God?" I was about ten, but only asking the question that late because I had previously been preoccupied with bugs and such.
His answer is the same as I usually have today - silence.
I think my Dad was silent to let me know that he had no idea, and it was probably best left at that, at least to maintain peace in the family.
Now, I feel a bit ackward, as I have never been comfortable being defined by a word. My lack of belief is something I was born with, and I accept that as status quo.
On one key point I have changed from my father's position; I am most interested in what happens to people to give them faith. That is an important question. What happens to peoples brains when they get infected with an ism? How was I resistant? Is it because I am good at math?
I reckon i agree with PZ on this. To me, a lack of faith, or whatever it is, is not a thing that we have. I am not defined by my not-blackness or my not-femaleness or my lack of wings making me not-a-bird.
So I am not dictionary atheist, though if you insist, yeah, I definitely am, but I think less of you if you must categorise me to feel you have some understand of that which is me.
Posted by: rossnixon
|
February 1, 2011 9:18 PM
Atheism defined - I'm interested in an honest appraisal. Has he got it correct?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
February 1, 2011 9:18 PM
Could you unpack that a bit? I'm not seeing it.I'm just saying that if one cites the definition, and has nothing more to add, it's not the fault of the listener for not understanding them. It's technically true, but practically useless. But it is not a stance taken "for no good reason"; rather, as no reason is being offered, it is "for unknown reason" if anything.
Posted by: motobass
|
February 1, 2011 9:20 PM
It bugs me that we are represented by the word 'atheism' because is forever tethered to 'theism.' Right now we don't have a choice about that. What PZ is asking for could be helpfully thought of as a counter claim. If theism is a positive claim about the existence of some silly nonexistent thing with reasons bad and somewhat less bad, then what is your positive claim for the way things are and how they should be? In an imaginary world without religions there would be no use for the term 'atheism' (obviously) and still people would be making positive claims about what is true and what is moral. These would probably come with labels that entailed some stand about reality/morality. 'Atheism' does not entail anything more than the definition of it but saying you are atheist because of (and then repeating the definition) didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. PZ's positive claim is supported by a particular set of values - no inherent respect for authority, etc - and which is a version of what it means to be a scientist. The word 'scientist' does entail some positive content. So happens that this line of reasoning led him to be an atheist too. It does not lead all scientists to that conclusion. I think that his position is possibly the only worthy position to defend, so much so that when we evolve to hopefully less gullible creatures it will be the norm. But more than that, I think it must be somehow morally superior, too.
Have to stop to do the dishes. Rock on.
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
February 1, 2011 9:22 PM
Okay I admit that I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. The clue is in the name. Dictionary, meh, people like me *write the dictionaries*. Just so we can say what I just said.
All the rest is other stuff that I happen to agree or disagree with, and some of it is affected by the fact that I don't believe in God, or perhaps not because I used to have pretty much the same outlook even before I realised I was an atheist.
And for fuck's sake, PZ, are you running out of actual loons to stir up with the occasional gently lobbed hand grenade of truth?
Posted by: Oxbowisamstie
|
February 1, 2011 9:25 PM
I am still confused. It is now time to ask again, the very first question posted as a comment:
Just curious, i fail to see any connection past the cosmetic, and maybe that is all there is to it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 1, 2011 9:25 PM
The point that I'm an atheist is simple, it just means I don't believe in gods. How I became an atheist and why I remain an atheist is long and involved. I've take various philosophical, sociological and political stances because of my atheism. Being an atheist has affected me socially and possibly professionally. I've become estranged from my brother because of atheism (and his reaction to the Pharyngula commentariat). But my reasons for being an atheist haven't changed and I do not see any way I could become a theist.
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
February 1, 2011 9:27 PM
By the way I seldom bother to try to log in any more because the login process is fucked and depends on me accepting cookies belonging other sites. Which is fucked, did I already say that? Anyway I successfully logged in using one or other of the umpteen different broken methods your login routine provides, and it worked this time. Which I guess means I forgot to check "Accept cookies only from the sites I visit". Damn you.
And anyway, hi.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
February 1, 2011 9:29 PM
I get tired of reading that "atheists simply lack belief in God". That's trivially true but not very realistic. Speaking for myself, I don't simply lack anything. I *gave up* belief in God. I didn't revert to an innocent state of not-believing; I have plenty of beliefs about religion. I believe that Gods are myths. I believe that all the rationalizations for religion that I've ever heard are b.s. I believe that faith predisposes people to accept lies. Among other things.
Why am I an atheist? Because the only reason I ever *did* believe was because other people did.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 1, 2011 9:32 PM
You can tell your brother, if you want, I found him a supercilious snob. Anybody not able to defend to "sophisticated theology", but pretend there is something cogent there, has his nose so far in the air it hits the stratosphere, where it inhales isopropenyl mercaptan*.*Eau de Skunk*
Posted by: Olav
|
February 1, 2011 9:33 PM
Cuttlefish:
Yes, that is exactly what it is, and it is allright. Also, atheism is exactly what the dictionary says it is and nothing more.
That's why I almost never describe myself as "an atheist". When asked specifically I would certainly describe my opinion of religious concepts as atheistic though. But atheism does not define me or my thinking.
I really believe this debate is only happening in such hypersensitive manner because most people on this blog were raised either religiously themselves or in a culture where religion is all pervasive. They had to have positive reasons for disbelieving deities. Some of us really were not burdened in that way.
Anyway, the point has been made by a few other posters before. I also especially liked Dorkman's explanation.
Posted by: ephymeris
|
February 1, 2011 9:39 PM
@Johnsma in post 142: I agree with your points! I was thinking similiar thoughts while reading PZ's post. Thanks for summing them up so nicely.
I like that being an atheist is only one facet of me. I'm also a skeptic, humanist, medical professional, animal lover, gamer, outdoors type...blah blah blah, you get the point. I am free to find my own path and being an atheist doesn't automatically make me a skeptic. I know several friends who do not believe in gods but believe in homeopathy and the like.
For me, it was a long journey to atheism. I left fundamentalist christianity and "tried on" several other religions afterwards but after knowing the christian god was a lie, I could never convince myself other gods were any different especially since they were all so damn ineffective :P
I think many people have had their own long road to atheism which involved much introspection and study, maybe that's why we (myself included) have the tendency to be narcissistic masturbators.
My husband claims the label "agnostic" even though he has no god belief. I think he's just not ready for all the negative baggage/stigmatization of owning up to his atheism. I don't feel comfortable berating someone for choosing their label. Freethinking is a value I hold dear for myself and others.
Posted by: ShaunPhilly
|
February 1, 2011 9:46 PM
I am an atheist because I am not convinced that any gods exist...because that's what the word means. In other words, I am an atheist because I saw what I didn't believe in and saw that that word described it. You may call me a definition NAZI or whatever you like, but anything else that I value has very little, or nothing, to do with that specific lack of belief. The fact that I call myself a 'Gnu atheist' does, in fact, mean I have other positive beliefs. But THAT is different.
Posted by: great.american.satan
|
February 1, 2011 9:48 PM
I disagree about excluding babies and other animals from atheism. Also about atheism universally being reflective of a positive set of values, etc, etc. My partner always says, "Atheists shouldn't have to be smart," to which I add, "or wise or good or thoughtful or pro-social or healthy or reasonable."
I like having an umbrella so big it includes almost every creature with more than two brain cells to rub together. It just points to the absurdity of the monkeys walking around believing the vastness of the Universe is just for their infinitesimal asses.
I would like it if everyone on my side was a reasonable empirically minded person that shared my progressive and humanist values, but they ain't and oh well whatever. An empty-headed glue-sniffing punk in a third-world slum that kills animals for fun might be an atheist, and I don't see why we should deny him that label if he doesn't believe in god. That really is the only qualification from where I stand.
Though I do agree quibbling over semantics is tedious. Somebody once hit me with hyper-specific definitions of agnostic and atheist that allowed you to be one or the other or both in respect to this or that or I can't be bothered to remember.
-
Posted by: Dennis
|
February 1, 2011 9:49 PM
When I was 13 I read the bible, when I was 15 I read the bible, I didn't believe it. When I was 19 in the army, I saw my evangelical roomate read the bible. He used a guidebook, picking and choosing passages. I told him if Deep Thoat was a novel all I had to do was go to the dialog where Linda Lovelace yeals O-God and it is scripture - he didn't undersand. I have been an athiest ever since.
Posted by: casey.e.miller
|
February 1, 2011 9:53 PM
I've been reading for years, but never felt compelled to comment. I agree with some posts, and sometimes disagree with others, but never honestly thought I would agree with Dr. Myers 100% on something like this. Huh, interesting.
Sorry to interrupt. Carry on!
Posted by: SC OM
|
February 1, 2011 9:56 PM
Wow, I'm sorry to hear that.
Posted by: Dianne
|
February 1, 2011 9:57 PM
Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable.
Actually, I kind of did. At least at first. Later, I generalized.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 9:59 PM
Obviously what this calls for is an escalation.
:)
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 1, 2011 10:02 PM
Ross @200,
'Atheism defined - I'm interested in an honest appraisal. Has he got it correct?'
IMO, There is a lot to mull over there, you go ahead a figure it out for yourself. This discussion thread could be about looking for definitions of self in a word, or perhaps allow that self expression is so much more than being an is or an ism. I favor the latter.
Or to simplify, go ahead and express yourself, you should feel welcome to do that here. I duz.
Posted by: Doomrot
|
February 1, 2011 10:04 PM
Dear PZ,
You're so used to being the victim, now that you have a massive group supporting you, you are self destructing without even realizing it.
Be thankful for the success of your movement. This is a time to celebrate, and not a time to piss off all of your supporters. Deal with your success or check out like Kurt Cobain.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-47rv8A5g661wy_D_1pdxmfBj7cSuTf0
|
February 1, 2011 10:07 PM
What I think you mean here, PZ, is that there's more aspects to a person than just 'I'm an atheist'. No argument there.
That being said, being an atheist just means you lack belief in any gods. How you got there, whether it was a by-product of a larger overriding skepticism, or as a stand alone process in and of itself, does not invalidate the dictionary definition. Atheism doesn't hold one to anything else except that single lack of belief, nor does it preclude anything else except theism.
To say that you're not an atheist unless you've gone through a process like yours smacks of 'no true Scotsman'. Sorry, but it's true.
There is a difference between the default passive agnostic atheism, which is what babies are, and in fact all people are, until they go on some sort of process of coming to a determination one way or the other (but not rocks and trees - they can't have a default position on anything because they don't have brains that enable them to contemplate further. One also needs to be able to have a concept of God to come to a determination about it, and therefore have a default position on it, which is what makes this apply to babies but not rocks and trees), and active atheism/agnostic atheism, which is the end point of an active process.
But they're both forms of atheism.
The babies thing might seem a little counterintuitive on the surface, but, being a scientist, you're no doubt aware that counterintuitive explanations are often the ones that best explain the facts.
When you ask 'Why are you an atheist', the correct answer is the dictionary definition. When you ask 'How did you become an atheist', then you go into the process you took, if indeed you took one. You seemed to indicate that you think these questions are one and the same, but they're not. 'Why are you an atheist' and why don't you believe in God' aren't even the same question.
Finally, there is a legitimate difference between the claim 'I don't believe there are any gods' and the claim 'I believe there are no gods'. And it's not a quibbling linguistic distinction as you seem to think. It's a logical distinction. If "I believe in a god" is Claim A, then the claim "I don't believe there are any gods" is Claim Not A and the claim "I believe there are no gods" is Claim B. Very separate claims.
There are a couple of implications of the distinction. First, you can infer what one believes directly from Claim B. You cannot infer what one believes from Claim Not A.
The corollary of that implication is that those making Claim Not A do not have a burden of proof for their claim, because they aren't making a positive claim.
The person with the burden of proof in a situation where Not A is a response to A is the person claiming A.
Only those who are making Claim B have a burden of proof for their claim, because they are actually making a positive claim.
Both the person making the claim A and the person responding B have burdens of proof for their claim.
The response Not A vs. B is the difference between an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist. That, and the distinction between a passive agnostic atheist and an active agnostic or gnostic atheist, are the only ways it seems atheism can correctly be split up.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 1, 2011 10:15 PM
Ooh a troll...
Hey Doomrot, are you still there, and want to get into it, or was it just a drive by?
(PLease still be there, please still be there...)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
February 1, 2011 10:15 PM
Technically I will say that I am not an atheist I am atheistic so that it's a descriptor of one facet not a label.
If anyone can define what New Atheism is at all I may accept that label.
I still want to push for Evidentists over capital A atheism. Or Skeptic once we purge the theist splitters out of the movement they're tainting with their intellectual myopia.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 1, 2011 10:16 PM
Here’s my longer more thoughtful post as a night capper. Atheism isn’t just lack of belief in a god, just as theism isn’t just belief in a god.
Theists believe in a god, but many point out that that specific beliefs about specific gods –e.g. Jesus in Christianity have specific effects – namely salvation of the soul. I could in theory be a theist not just a deist who believes there is a creator even an active creator who intervenes in the world who yet doesn’t affirm that belief in the creator has any specific effects on my personal life or will provide merits to me based upon my belief.
But usually theists (traditional, conservative, fundamentalist) believe that specific beliefs are important –because these specific beliefs impute specific effects – salvation or special benefits (blessings) based upon the fidelity/degree of the belief.
So atheism seems to entail not just a lack of belief in a god (theist or deist) but that specific beliefs have no effects since there is no evidence for such a god. In a way atheism is compatable with deism if you deem for example the initial conditions/ingredients of the big bang/multiverse if such things exist as the “creator” since all subsequent events such as the evolution of the cosmos are entailed by these initial events – in essence this isn’t distinct from deism; you can believe in this “creator” but it won’t do a damn thing for your life or your situation except to serve as a poetic appreciation for creation. You could also go the way of Spinoza and declare that nature itself and all the laws are God no matter how superfluous this might be, and in that sense you “believe in God.”
An atheist can believe in god in the sense that the memeplex “god” implanted in human brains have tangible effects so in that sense “god,” exists.
But what an atheist is really saying it seems to me is that there are no real tangible effects – salvation, specific personal blessings,etc. from belief in a god, other than the collective, social effects of being part of a group with a set of beliefs (or possible personal psychological affects). If you live in Calvin’s Geneva, you fall down and break your leg, there will be a tangible effect in the possibility of getting well if your are a believer as apposed to say Michael Servetus.
In other words we say, you can believe these things if you want, but apart from these effects, no miracles occur, no special abodes in heaven are set aside because you believe these things or harms apart from social ones from not believing these things.
There are positive tangible beliefs though – things to believe in which are empirical testable and under certain conditions to lead to specific benefits - for example electromagnetism leading to electricity from turbine generators – help leading to the industrial revolution with the byproducts of pollution and global warming as well.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 10:17 PM
Hey. I'll decide who's a victim.
And if not now, when?
Posted by: Doug
|
February 1, 2011 10:21 PM
I use the 'one less god' reason quite often, usually with people that I don't really want to discuss my beliefs with, but who can't seem to let it go. I find that if I ask them why they don't believe in all those other gods, the inevitable pause in the conversation while they try to think provides me with a window of opportunity in which to escape. Either that or I give them a stick of gum.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 1, 2011 10:21 PM
SC OM #215
I see it as his loss. He should have known that announcing in his first post that he was a Catholic and that he wouldn't discuss the reasons for his Catholicism would not be quietly accepted at an atheist blog. I tried to warn him but he didn't want to listen.
My other brother and I admit my twin brother is the smartest of us three. However, like a lot of very intelligent people, he tends to look down on everyone else. You'll play the game his way or he won't play. That sort of attitude is not going to go down well at Pharyngula. We're used to dealing with incredibly smart people like DMFM and Sastra who display their intelligence easily and do not have an attitude. Plus all the regulars here are intelligent and well educated.* We don't suffer fools gladly and my brother acted as a fool.
Don't worry about it. The way I see it is I haven't changed and if my brother doesn't want to accept me or the people I call friends, that's his problem, not mine.
*Most of us are well educated formally, the rest are well educated informally. Aquaria and Jadehawk may not be college graduates but nobody doubts their intelligence or knowledge.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 10:21 PM
Some positive atheism.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 1, 2011 10:24 PM
@Doomrot
What? Do you need a net-nanny or a web-guardian or something to keep you from coming here and reading his terrible, earth-shattering words? Here, I'll help you: "Close the browser, Doomrot, and back away from the computer... slowly... slowly..."
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
February 1, 2011 10:24 PM
Dear Divided Atheists,
As a Christian my main beef with atheists is that you're no fun when it comes to sex.
Christians have repressions, guilt complexes, sublimated desires, innate masochism, a habitual posture of subordination to 'God the Divine Sadist', and a voyeuristic obsession with crucifixion, piercing, flogging and like forms of torture porn. All of which means that when the dams of illicit desire burst even your meekest, mildest Sunday School Teacher is likely to go off with a screaming, creaming, nail gouging bang! In brief, Christians are better fucks. And when the post-coital guilt kicks in they're already being primed for another sinful bender.
And atheists? No moral compass means anything goes, but where's the frisson of stimulating guilt? "A threesome with you, Floyd Rubber and a camel? Certainly Smoggles dear (yawn), as long as it doesn't take too long, I've got nude tennis this afternoon."
Sex needs religion! and that's why I love Jesus.
Yours in hopes of raising the tone (troll) of this debate,
Smoggy
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 10:26 PM
The babies/rocks/trees example just highlights the need for more awareness of noncognitivism.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 10:33 PM
P Z Myers, you are to be commended for giving critical analysis of the problems within the atheist community.
I think it was a tragic mistake for New Atheists to start claiming recently that atheism merely means "lacking belief in God", because that was not true when I was growing up and it is unethical to give people that impression now. That's why I call myself a NONtheist agnostic now instead. Nontheism means "lacking belief in God" and includes atheism and agnosticism as subsets within it. Agnosticism is someone who does not claim to know there is or is not a God, while an atheist is someone who asserts as a dogma there is no God. Thus, I am a follower of both Thomas Huxley (who coined the term agnostic to distinguish his position from atheism) and Carl Sagan (who affirmed agnosticism and denied being an atheist). The kind of manic denials I saw from some atheists when I pointed out these obvious points just amazed me and made me wonder if the New Atheists were succuming to the same intellectual dishonesty and ignorance that made fundamentalist Christians look so ridiculous. I reject and condemn ANYONE who acts so stupid in public, no matter what his outlook on religion!
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/misdefining-terms-for-purposes-of-propaganda/
Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic
Posted by: dartigen
|
February 1, 2011 10:34 PM
It might seem odd to others, but I prefer to say 'atheist and humanist', because they're not the same thing to me. Atheism and humanism are similar and often go hand-in-hand, but they aren't the same.
(Best analody I've got is that it's like how Percherons and Thoroughbreds are horses, but they aren't the same breed of horse.)
It's a definitions thing. Unless they're synonyms I don't want to lump them together. Maybe it's just an idiosyncracy of mine, but it seems silly to mix words with different definitions, even if they are extremely similar definitions.
But then again, I am one of the atheists who perfers to stick to the dictionary definition - because there's so much diversity among atheists anyway that the dictionary definition is the only one that applies to all atheists. There are both Republican and Democrat atheists. There are both liberal and conservative atheists. There is so much diversity that any narrower a definition would surely exclude at least one part of the atheist community.
(I just say I'm an atheist because I have no idea what umbrella my personal philosophy falls under, and every name I tried to come up with has already been taken. So until I can find an umbrella it fits under I'm not going to try to define it.)
I also consider myself an atheist by default because I've never believed in any gods - and I find it difficult to comprehend doing so. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I just cnanot fathom how someone can think that an invisible, intangible, omniescent being was even capable of hearing them, much less caring about them.
And I can't fathom such a being existing - what does it subsist on? All things need to eat something, as they need to get energy from somewhere. And if it is concious and capable of emotion and thought, where is its brain? (Alright, I know I'm making a dangerous assumption here (brain is prerequisite for thought) but it wouldn't make sense for something without a brain to be able to think, to me at least.) And if it is capable of physical action here on Earth, then what are the mechanic of that? If it is invisible and intangible, then it can't be using phyiscal force. And it'd still have to obey the rules of physics and thermodynamics and various other rigid laws of reality.
Basically what I am saying is gods make no sense to me. And if it doesn't make sense then I can't believe in it. That's why I like science. Science follows logical rules that make sense, in a logical way.
(Then again, I can't make head or tail of racism, sexism or nationalism - or even politics for that matter at times. None of them seem to follow logical rules, so it seems I can't make any sense of them. Maybe I have a borked brain, or maybe I'm just not capable of illogical thinking - but I like being that way.)
Posted by: mothra
|
February 1, 2011 10:35 PM
Hope this does not repeat too much. I describe myself as a non-theist (eveno on my facebook page). Agnosticism, not theism, is the default position. A baby is agnostic (without knowledge). Atheism (or non-theism as I prefer) is a position one arrives at. There may well be a hard-wired need to believe (or susceptibility to belief) in something greater than ones' self, but that belief is not in a supernatural god as these concepts would be yet unlearned.
My arrival at non-theism (from agnosticism) can be attributed to Billy Gram in one of his crusades where he spake: "Who of you is getting into the kingdom of heaven? Riches, won't get you in. Working hard all your life won't get you in. Being good, it is not enough. Good deeds, they don't matter. The only way into the kingdom of heaven is accesptence of Jesus Christ as your personal savior. All of you who hear my voice and accept. . ." Reasoning 101 took over and I realized that those who did not hear the voice of Billy Gram were going to hell simply because they had not heard. Happenstance was a greater arbiter for eternal life than gods holy word!
I propose a few other universals among non-theists, in order of decreasing likely hood.
2) The acceptance of responsibility for ones' own actions (god did not make me do it or, I did not do it for god). Any excuse in the form of 'x made me do Y' is now a personal failure in rationality which now has a natural cause.
3) Belief in rationality itself.
4) Belief that reality does not contain innate contradictions (mentioned earlier in thread).
5) Belief that we can learn about reality through rationality (scientific method).
All of these universals impose a certain world view with respect to other things such as politics, but can still be manifested in various ways in different individuals.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
February 1, 2011 10:36 PM
Doomrot:
Well, it's nice to see how well you keep up with current events.
Posted by: tomforsyth1000
|
February 1, 2011 10:37 PM
Was that meant to be ironic? Because you of all people know that sort of crazy-talk is far more dangerous in terms of total deaths per year than hijacking a couple of airliners. And, more's the pity, you can't solve heart disease with F22s.OK, kinda kidding, but kinda only a bit. I wonder how many extra deaths there are in traffic accidents due to people driving to church on Sundays. Nearer my God to Thee...
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 1, 2011 10:40 PM
Hey Doomrot,
I am not of the caliber of PZ. I also lack the caliber of Mr Cobain.
How could one celebrate not success without a second amendment solution?
Posted by: BoxNDox
|
February 1, 2011 10:43 PM
My path to atheism was a little unusual - it happened as a result of a rather stupid argument with my father.
This was back when I was in high school. I enjoyed building electronic gadgets and I had been working with these neat little things called operational amplifiers - the LM741 to be specific. But then along came a nifty new one: RCA's CA3130, the first to combine a bipolar transistor output stage with a MOSFET input stage. The result: Exceptionally high input impedance and very low leakage without sacrificing gain or output power.
My father, a cardiologist as well as the person I undoubtedly admired most in the entire world, happened to ask me what I was reading. I explained about the CA3130, and then, as one does, made an offhanded remark about the possibility of medical applications for the device given its high impedance.
My father became very upset at this. "You mean the device would allow some current to enter the test subject? That's absolutely unacceptable - there can be absolutely no leakage current at all."
I tried to explain that everything electrical leaks; it's not a question of if, but how much. I even pointed out that the original
silver wire galvanometer EKG almost certainly, by virtue of the inertial drag on the wire, would cause a small current flow back into the patient it was connected to.
Needless to say, my argument did not go over well at all. And I was very upset, not because of the argument per se, but because I had come to the very painful realization that anyone, even a very smart and capable person who I admired greatly, could be wrong about things that lie outside their expertise.
Thinking about it further, I came to realize just how little trust I could really place in the statements of others no matter who they were, and how important it was to be able to think about things critically and rationally. Although I would not have known to use the term at the time, I had just become a skeptic.
Now, up until this point I had given religion almost no consideration in my life - I was, I suppose, a "dictionary" atheist, but only by virtue of never having gone to the effort of believing in anything. I was raised as a sort of half-assed Methodist and was attending Groton, an Episcopalian high school, at the time, but when I thought about religion at all - which was rarely - I thought it all sounded pretty silly.
Various classes I took around that time combined with my new-found skepticism. At one point I actually sat down and read the Bible from cover to cover - and found it appalling and thoroughly repellent. And what emerged was a full-blown atheist, although at the time I would never have acknowledged it to anyone.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 1, 2011 10:44 PM
circleh #231
As usual Dale "I proclaim as dogma that atheists are dogmatic" Husband has it wrong:
I'm an atheist and I do NOT assert as dogma there is no god. I assert there's no evidence for god(s) and therefore no reason to believe in them.
I really hate it when assholes like Dale "da honorababble agnostick" Husband make sweeping generalizations about other folks. It's especially annoying when assholes like Dale "I don't know enough to know enough to talk about atheism but that won't stop me because I'm an asshole" Husband are wrong.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 10:45 PM
circleh:
Vacuous.
Atheism is nontheism, and vice-versa.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 10:46 PM
I doubt that you've actually read the reasoning of the Tamil Tigers and determined that they are not being skeptical or rational in their response to circumstances.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2011 10:51 PM
'Tis, I went after your brother because he announced that he was your brother. I hated how he, in his first post, insulted all of us. I hated how he claimed that he understood Aquinas but would not explain just how Aquinas proved the existence of god. And I hated how he traded jokes and recipes with people that he declared were beneath him. I also hated how he ignored me when I asked him about all of this.
I am sorry that we played a part in your estrangement from him. I am sorry for me part in this. But I also do not really know you that well nor do I know your brother at all. I am sure that there were problems between you two before I was born, let alone the first time your brother posted on this blog.
I do hope that there can be a reconciliation between you two. But given the tone your brother has shown, it would seem that he needs to get off his high horse.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 10:51 PM
Then you are a nontheist. Calling yourself an atheist for the sake of shock value, and insulting people like me that reject that tactic, is just lame.Sorry, but to me that is as illogical as saying "Christianity is Protestantism and vice-versa". The implication being that you are not a "true" nontheist unless you call yourself an atheism. Do you really want to give that impression? I wouldn't.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 10:53 PM
(Not that all the LTTE are atheists, but some are.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
February 1, 2011 10:54 PM
Most of the terms/descriptions PZ is highlighting here are used primarily as responses by atheists to straw-criticism from theists, i.e. 'You don't believe in anything'; or 'Your parents are Christians, so you're a Christian'; or 'atheists claim that they know God doesn't exist, but they can't prove it so they're logically wrong' and drivel like that.
So I would (and have) used most of these, here and elsewhere, in the past, because in order to try and keep a discussion on a narrow focus it's sometimes practical to use them.
I also think of myself as an atheist by default because at no point do I remember making a conscious decision to reject theism; I was exposed to it, but it was kind of limply thrown at me by my mother, and when it didn't stick after a few years of trying, she stopped bothering.
Now, of course, I have given it a lot of thought, and have a pretty good understanding why I reject religion - a mixture of lack of evidence and assorted other issues, mostly to due with the mismatch between reality and the claims of the religious.
I also recognise that, while atheism itself (as a concept) might be as simple as that, actually being an atheist isn't, and requires context and a depth and breadth of understanding for those who claim it.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 1, 2011 10:55 PM
Please. Show me where I say anyone who meets the dictionary definition is not an atheist. You aren't reading very carefully. I gave an example of someone who declares themselves an atheist because Daniel Radcliff is one: still an atheist.
I'm saying that just claiming you're an atheist because you meet that minimalist definition is not sufficient to explain who you are, and that everyone who says they are an atheist actually has other issues beneath that claim that are more important in establishing their position.
Posted by: zstansfi
|
February 1, 2011 10:55 PM
Personally I thought Dictionary Atheists were just people who couldn't be bothered:
"Why are you an atheist?"
"Because 'God' just isn't that interesting. He totally puts me to sleep."
Perhaps this is too simplistic, but I don't really agree that atheism implies some sort of specific world view, one which is rational and scientific. Now that's not to say that we ought to love irrational atheists, just that I don't really see the concept in such a negative light as to unreservedly express my hatred for such a group of individuals.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 10:56 PM
What makes the statement 'there is no God' a dogma? Iit makes as much sense to call that a dogma than to say 'Rome is in Italy' is a dogma. How is it noth a poisoning the well argument?
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 11:00 PM
No.
The implication is that 'atheist' is the negation of 'theist'.
Perhaps an analogic parallel form will help you grok:
Artist means "someone who does art" and includes painters and sculptors as subsets within it.
--
As far as agnosticism goes, those who claim it instead of atheism are taking a wussy copout; the claim that since you can't know for sure, you cannot form a belief either way.
Bah.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 11:01 PM
OK, please show me that "There is no God" is indeed a fact (confirmed observation), as much as "Rome is in Italy", rather than a tentative conclusion based on how you view the (lack of) evidence.
Posted by: martha
|
February 1, 2011 11:02 PM
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings
Blind devotion flies you into buildings. Maybe devotion to your country, or to your emperor, like the Japanese kamikaze.
I am not a scientist, though I am educated and value critical thinking. I am a liberal and a humanist. I slowly slide into atheism because supernatural answers didn't make any damn sense and religious writing were filed with outrageous behaviour by God.
I know an atheist who is a libertarian who believes abortion should be illegal, health care reform is a horrible idea, and the markets should sort it out. The only similarity we have philosophically is the dictionary definition of atheism. I am less interested in why he is an atheist than why he "believes in" the market as if it were a god.
Maybe fundamentalist Christians think that they are an oppressed minority because "dictionary Christians" don't really count.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
February 1, 2011 11:03 PM
Doomrot, PZ Myers runs a rather popular blog. But it is not anywhere near as influential in the popular culture as Nirvana was. Remember, it started a different form of popular rock (grunge) and ended an other (hair metal). Also, Cobain had mental issues before he ever became famous and had a number of immediate family member commit suicide.
PZ seems to be rather stable and well adjusted.
Go rot in the doom of your own mind, you fucking stupid pissant. Also, go find your own shotgun. And fuck yourself up the ass. I will leave it up to you about if it is loaded or not.
Posted by: larryboy1
|
February 1, 2011 11:03 PM
I'm an atheist because I was never taught that such a thing exists, I didn't reach this conclusion from any great logical deduction any more than for why I don't believe in ghosts or fairies. I have never believed in a god, I was an atheist as a baby, as a teenager and as a man.
If I believed in homeopathy, astrology, psychics or any other shit like that but still lacked a belief in a god I would still be an atheist.
If you want a word that means more than "without a belief in a god", just make up a new one, 'atheist' is taken. Perhaps "True Atheist TM" would be more appropriate?
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 11:06 PM
Why am I an atheist? / Because I don't believe in gods.
Why am I an evolutionist? / Because I believe in evolution.
Why am I a vegetarian? / Because I don't eat animals.
Why are you a prescriptivist? / Because you believe in prescriptivism.
Posted by: sirdarkstar
|
February 1, 2011 11:06 PM
Please also remember that Agnosticism (noun) and agnostic (adjective) are not the same thing.
For me, Thomas Huxley's Agnosticism explicitly entails a Positive belief in evidence and reason (he DEFINED IT to be so), combined with a very conservative epistemological approach to knowledge (which he only spoke about indirectly). So I identify myself as Huxley-Agnostic simply because this seems to be the best fit with my understanding of my own beliefs.
But like Bertrand Russell, I often simplify that to atheist around most people.
And I do not 'cop out' of arguments.
It's not a question of certainty for me, it is a question of epistemology. It really has nothing to do with questions about the ill-defined term god for me at all. I also don't like being defined solely in opposition to something I don't believe in. I DO have positive beliefs.
Feynman on the Uncertainty of Knowledge: http://youtu.be/QkhBcLk_8f0
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
February 1, 2011 11:07 PM
Dogmatic Dale Husband, Atheism vs. theism doesn't have anything to do with knowledge; the terms relate entirely to belief.
All atheists are agnostic, just like all theists are agnostic; 'agnostic' is a pointless term since there isn't anyone - that I've heard of at least - who claims to 'know' that any god exists, at least in any meangingful sense, i.e. in the same way that I know PZ exists.
So stop being such a whiny pissant and try thinking of something useful to add.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 11:08 PM
Right, just like an Achristian is the negation of Christian, and Amuslim is the negation of Muslim, right? No, that is why we have NON-Christian and NON-Muslim, as terms of negation.You can lack belief in God but not deny outright his existence, and you can go one step further and deny Theism completely. Assuming they must be identical is a false impression.
So you may call me a wuss. I couldn't care less.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 1, 2011 11:09 PM
Ah, shit 'Tis, I kinda liked your brother, even if he did come off pretty poorly in arguments, he was still fun in the Thread. Hope you guys can find some common ground again.
It is most definitely his loss.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 11:11 PM
martha, you're overlooking contrary evidence. Perhaps you are blindly devoted to this proposition.
lol
Posted by: thomas.r.sharp
|
February 1, 2011 11:16 PM
PZ Says:
"atheism is a privative attribute which strictly speaking, lacks any specific positive qualities. This is true of the dictionary definition. It is not true of atheism in its actual usage: it carries a lot of accreted baggage"
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! This statement is nuts. I had to check the date to make sure that it wasn't April 1st. Did you have a stroke or something because this doesn't sound like the PZ Myers that I am subscribed to? Atheism doesn't have ANY baggage in its use. All the baggage you are referring to is in its slandered image. If you were told that a person called Subject A was an atheist you couldn't make any positive assumptions about him. You could, however, make many positive assumptions about Subject B who is a Christian. This distinction is VERY useful. This distinction makes it possible for atheists to choose whatever positive attributes they like; anything as rational as naturalism or as nutty as Raëlism. This frees Atheism from being responsible for any of the actions of any individual atheist. Christianity by contrast bears some responsibility for the actions of followers. This is especially useful in debate. You know this PZ, so what's your beef?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 1, 2011 11:17 PM
@circleh and the problem of the black swan and the rabbit in the Precambrian
Where is this black swan hiding? Who will dig up the Precambrian rabbit fossil? What supernatural continent of wonders awaits our discovery? Will you reject all that you know when faced with the black swan or the fossilized rabbit? Has everything you learned and observed been a lie? When will the silliness end?
Step out of your box of compartmentalized worldviews and think a little bit. As sure as Rome is a city in Italy, there are no gods.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 11:18 PM
That is bullshit! I have dealt with people who do claim to "know" there is a God and some (like P Z Myers himself) who assert as if it's a fact that there is no God, so your claim is without credibility.
I am just as skeptical of atheist claims as I am of religious ones, so I don't discriminate. If you do, you are not truly skeptical. Yet you call ME dogmatic? LOL!
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 1, 2011 11:18 PM
The 'babies are atheists' always bugged me.I don't even see why you'd want to claim those who haven't even mastered object permanence as intellectual allies. Anyway, as mentioned, using this logic tables, chairs and rocks are technically atheists.
_ _ _
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
When you actually listen to theists talk about other religions they can sometimes be rational. I've seen Christians dismiss other religions because they lacked evidence to their claims and contradicted science. The problem is they don't show that same sort of critical thinking when it comes to their own. If you can get them to see that atheists are simply doing the same thing that they are doing with other religions maybe they'll understand atheism better.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
February 1, 2011 11:19 PM
Most of the terms/descriptions PZ is highlighting here are used primarily as responses by atheists to straw-criticism from theists...
That's probably why I got tired of those responses - because I was tired of the dumb arguments that prompted them!
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 11:19 PM
Such as?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 1, 2011 11:20 PM
Circleh, what makes the statement a dogma at all? It's a conclusion rather than an authoritative statement. All swans are white is not a dogma, regardless of whether it's accurate or has been falsified. My quibble is with what makes something a dogma, using that word is nothing more than poisoning the well.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 11:23 PM
circleh:
You're so hung up on the lexical accidents of English you ignore the semantics.
PS English prefixes.
Whether you care or not is irrelevant, the fact remains.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 1, 2011 11:26 PM
Wowbagger @255
'there isn't anyone - that I've heard of at least - who claims to 'know' that any god exists,'...
Dude, I wanna go where you are. In my world, there be lots of people who really really do claim that they know God exists. They pray and stuff.
Are you saying that you don't believe in thems?
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 11:28 PM
You expect me to take your word for that? Rome is a physical object with a definite location. God(s), not so much.
I'm not saying atheism is wrong. Just the rhetorical tactics of some atheists. I see more evidence of their insecurity right here. If you actually read my blog entry that I linked to, you would see a clear historical basis for the way I define terms like atheism, nontheism, and agnosticism. And to me, that trumps today's popular trends, that come and go and mean little difference in the long run.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
February 1, 2011 11:30 PM
Dogmatic Dale Husband wrote:
Which is exactly my point, fool. What people claim to know and what they actually do know are two different things. These people look at pretty rocks and then conclude that God exists - but that isn't 'knowing' in any meaningful sense of the word.
Citation? And remember, God (specific) doesn't mean god (general); his backing up that God (the Christian one) doesn't exist ≠ claiming that it's impossible for all non-God gods to exist.
Your insistence that you are the arbiter of what is and isn't atheism is nothing but dogma; it is, then, an apt description.
But you're also an inane whiny pissant, and that captures your character (or lack thereof) far more accurately than simply pointing out your limited capacity for thought.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 11:32 PM
circleh:
My emphasis.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 1, 2011 11:37 PM
I will go out on a limb and claim that any conversation about the existence of a deity is nonsensical and that therefore they don't exist. This isn't a question of what I can prove, but a question of when it is appropriate to postulate the existence of new phenomena. It is inappropriate to do so without evidence and anything that has been conjectured in the absence of evidence isn't even wrong.
It wouldn't matter if we subsequently find evidence for something that resembles a deity, the ship has already sailed on that term and it sailed empty. Anything that we find in the future needs to be dealt with from the ground up as a new experience, the deity experience is false.
Posted by: circleh
|
February 1, 2011 11:40 PM
I looked at that reference, and agree that atheism CAN mean "lacking belief in God". As can non-theism. But that still does not account for why so many, including atheists or nontheists themselves, affirmed in the past that atheism did mean "denial of the existence of God", which is not the same as lacking belief in God. So now we need a new term for the other sense, don't we? Want to coin one?
Wowbagger, since you are behaving in such an arrogant and insulting matter, I have nothing further to say to you. After the experience I had in Panda's Thumb with a loon named Kris this past couple of months, I know better than to get into the gutter with you.
Posted by: PaulK
|
February 1, 2011 11:45 PM
This was left behind way up thread, but as a couple of others have pointed out, religion is not the primary motivation or cause of most suicide terrorism, at least according to the largest study of such incidents ever made.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 11:45 PM
Who are the global terrorists?
+++
Did you realize those "historical" meanings were also trends that come and go? If you're using "historical" meanings, and they're different than how the words are being used in the wider world today, then your trends have already been trumped.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 1, 2011 11:47 PM
@circleh
Not my word, your knowledge—human knowledge. There is no place for gods in what little we already know. Most people won't challenge the fact that Rome is in Italy, but one could go through the whole theist dance in that regard if one wanted and end up at the door of the kin of the Omphalos Hypothesis, Your Lying Eyes, or something just as fabulous. Shall you become agnostic about Rome's existence, then?
Don't you see the problem with this sentence? How could a god not be physical and still exist? Wait, are you trying to sneak in something similar to "God is Love"?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
February 1, 2011 11:49 PM
Tim, not my real name, wrote:
I blame the problem on the non-specific meaning of the term 'know'; in this context I'm using it to mean 'with absolute certainty; an indisputable fact', something about which being wrong isn't actually possible.
So, what I should have written is something along the lines of 'coming to the conclusion that God exists based on whatever fucked up reasoning process they used ≠ 'knowing' in the sense I am using it'.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 11:49 PM
Dale "I gotta whine" Husband:
Hmm. So, you're going on and on and on and on for what comes down to you saying that your definitions are the ones that matter; they're the ones which are right. What you seem to be missing is that your "definitions" are simply your opinion and you can't seem to be able to cope with someone else's opinion.
What a surprise, that you think your opinion trumps anything and everything else. You do know, don't you, that this rather screams "I'm going to stultify my ability to think right now, because I'm right in this, and that's never, ever going to change! I don't want to actually have to think about things, no!"
This isn't a matter of a popular trend, Dale. It's an ongoing process of atheists and atheism and that we are now at a point where we are out of the closet and a voice to be heard.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 1, 2011 11:49 PM
circleh:
No need, it's not I who is confused.
FWIW, such terms (though they are compound) already exist: gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism.
Gnu atheists such as I tend to be the latter.
Posted by: No One
|
February 1, 2011 11:50 PM
I see no evidence of the supernatural. Atheism in my mind, is just a consequence.
A sense of destiny. That's part of my "baggage". I felt it when we went to the moon.
And that's what I'm pissed off about (the angry atheist). Where the fuck are we going? It's difficult enough without having to slog through the woo.
Our potential is constantly throttled by fuzzy, irrational, superstitious, self-centered, bullshit.
It's a crime against humanity.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 1, 2011 11:52 PM
Can we all agree that babies are born Dictionary Atheists?
I tend to use the Dictionary Atheist stance as something of a filter by declining to argue atheism vs. theism with anyone who can't adequately produce a Dictionary definition first.
If their definition includes "doesn't believe in God," I know I'm dealing with one type of opposition, almost always Christian. If it includes "believes there is no God," (or slightly better, "believes there are no gods") I'd better get ready for the "just another religion" assertion.
*VERY* rarely I get "has no belief in any gods," and that tells me I'm talking to someone who's at least put some thought or research into it and might be willing to listen.
Besides, according to the Bible, rocks (and probably trees) are theists.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 1, 2011 11:53 PM
Aratina Cage:
Well, we are all supposedly made in god's image and all, but there are these quantum thingamums...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
February 1, 2011 11:53 PM
Dale 'whiny pissant' Husband wrote:
Did it ever cross your tiny, addled, misfiring brain that if I felt you had anything worth reading, I wouldn't have insulted you in the first place? It's what I do with those who aren't capable of providing anything of substance.
Dumbass.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
February 1, 2011 11:53 PM
Couldn't we change the dictionary definition of atheist? Sounds slightly mad but wouldn't it be far better to change the definition from the passive "a lack of belief in gods" to something more active like "a rejection of the claim of the existance of gods or the supernatural". The former implies that you don't have to do anything whereas the latter implies that you've examined the proposition and actively rejected it as false.
With the more active definition, it also removes the "unreasoning object x are atheists" argument because it requires the mental capacity to analyse the proposition prior to rejection so it can't apply to things incapable of rational thought like babies, rocks or ken ham.
The added bonus of the active definition adding "or the supernatural" means it can apply to astrology and most other "there's something more powerful than me" woo. I can't, however, think of how to include things like homeopathy without just adding "or obvious bullshit".
Posted by: NateHevens
|
February 1, 2011 11:55 PM
I know I usually play the role of the ignored post most people miss, but I'll post my (likely already presented) thoughts, anyways...
I'm actually a big fan of denotations. It's why I contend that "agnosticism" is not a middle ground between "atheism" and "theism"; because atheism deals with belief, and agnosticism deals with knowledge, and belief and knowledge are two different things.
I am an atheist only because I lack ("a") a belief in a higher power or powers ("theism").
Now, there are reasons I'm an atheist. The main reason is because gods were invented by man in the first place to explain things we didn't have science to explain. Science has come in and given natural explanations to so many things that were once explained by gods. Yes, there are things science doesn't know yet, but that doesn't mean science will never gain that knowledge.
Science has effectively shown that a creative force would have no purpose. "Existence" itself likely has a natural explanation. There is any need for any creative force. Therefore I do not believe in a creative force, and I am thus an atheist.
I do not however, claim that I know for a fact that are absolutely no gods, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
I'm also a humanist, a science-nerd (though purely an amateur), and a skeptic.
So I am a "dictionary atheist", but there are reasons that I'm an atheist.
In other words, I'm engaging in pure pedantry just to piss you off, PZ... :P :D ;)
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 1, 2011 11:59 PM
Cogito, ergo sum.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:04 AM
We can! The "lack of belief" definition is relatively new in many dictionaries, and you can get your definition in there too if you convince enough people to start using "atheism" as you suggest.
And I like your definition.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 2, 2011 12:04 AM
Alisalpha, we can change the dictionary definition of atheist the same way we change the definition of any other word--by using it differently and getting that usage into common acceptance.
Most people won't challenge the fact that Rome is in Italy
I would challenge that. It's actually a city in New York, USA. And Texas.
And it's not the Christian God, it's actually some sort of abstract god concept which exists completely apart from Christianity even though it has all of the aspects of the Christian God. Also, Intelligent Design.
Theists are always changing the subject under discussion that way.
Posted by: angieantitheist
|
February 2, 2011 12:04 AM
I prefer the term "non theist" for children too young to have thought about it for themselves (aka, my kid.) While he technically lacks belief in gods, he also hasn't had these beliefs presented to him yet. I don't know how he'll react to his first encounter with evangelism, so before that happens, I try to teach him how to be a good thinker, how to question authority, how to consider the source, look beyond the claims, and investigate. If he has that start in life (which I sooooo lacked) I think theism will have less appeal and seem less credible to him.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 12:06 AM
Bit late to this, but I completely disagree with PZ, this is one confused post. Let's go back to what he said :
First, if you want to speak about yourself here fine, these might be your personal reasons why you are an atheist, but we're not all the same. People's social and cultural backgrounds differ, I for example have never believed in any gods, it's a complete non-issue for me, and didn't require any active process at all. I also do not buy into homeopathy or dowsing, but I might, and I could still be an atheist, these things have nothing to do with each other. I absolutely hate it when people are trying to attribute to a-theism more than the actual meaning of the word. If you have arrived at this position by judging available facts and evidence, fine, but not everyone else has, or should have to. Is and ought, man, people's atheistm should, ideally, be based on a scientific wordview and it should, ideally, value reason and truth, but these things are separate, and just do not come in a package deal.
Oh, and another thing.
Again, I am happy to share a lack of something with a flatworm or rock, be it atheism or throat cancer, and I can't quite see what the problem with it is.
The dictionary atheist definition enables a wide swath of different people, who just happen to lack belief in gods, to be able to use a label for themself.
So, all a-theists lack beliefs in gods. But the reasons for why they are atheists differ.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
February 2, 2011 12:07 AM
Wowbagger, I think I get your point.
a. there is no god
b. grandma prays to god, 'knows' that he is listening
c. we love granma anyways
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
February 2, 2011 12:08 AM
I typically only use the "Dictionary Atheist" response as the opening shot of a strawman destroying sustained barrage, while the "One fewer god" is usually followed by "now why don't you believe in (Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Anubis, whatever)." It's a good litmus test- if they can't form a rational response they're obviously not worth talking to.
I've never really liked the "Science flies" (among other things, those little lab coats are so creepy looking), and I agree that "Babies are atheists" is just stupid. Mostly agree on the "don't believe god exists/ believe god doesn't exist." Sometimes bring it up if someone's trying to pull an "atheists have beliefs just like Christians," but not often.
Hi Dale, did Panda's Thumb finally get tired of your anti-atheist trolling or something?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 12:10 AM
Sorry, in the last paragraph of my @289, it should read, "be it gods or throat cancer".
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
February 2, 2011 12:12 AM
On the subject of children and religion:
I agree with Richard Dawkins when he says that we consider it silly to label children by their parents political parties, why don't we consider it silly to label them by their parents religion (given that a young child has an equally strong understanding of both).
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 2, 2011 12:13 AM
As to the question posed in the title, I am an atheist because I first questioned and then rejected the specific teachings about the Christian god I had been taught in Catholic school (including CCD classes) and then generalized those to realize that no other proffered deity made sense to me either.
The main reason I identify as an atheist these days is that it pisses people off who quite thoroughly deserve it.
I don't hide my non-belief from my Christian friends but I only pull out the full argument mode with people who are being obnoxious about it or trying to use religious beliefs to justify what I consider bad public policy.
Posted by: Kichae
|
February 2, 2011 12:16 AM
I kind of feel that I've missed something, but then I'm not feeling well today, and it's probably very likely that I have. However, the question posed in the title is "Why are you an atheist?" In light of this, am I misreading what PZ is trying to say with regards to the "dictionary" atheists? Because I read it as "'Because an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods' is not a meaningful or reasonable response to 'Why are you an atheist?'"
Why are you an atheist?
Because I don't believe in gods.
Why are you bald?
Because I don't have any hair.
Why are you obese?
Because my BMI is over 30.
Why are you a Christian?
Because I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God (and/or is also/is God).
Why is the sky blue?
Because it has a color temperature of around 10,000 kelvin.
There's nothing enlightening there. It doesn't answer the question as asked. The exchange fundamentally boils down to:
Why are you an atheist?
Because I'm an atheist.
Now, granted, I've hit the cold and flu medication pretty hard today, so maybe I'm the one completely misinterpreting things, but this is basically how a good chunk of this discussion is reading right now.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:16 AM
But when you were presented with theistic claims, there are reasons why you rejected them, and those are the reasons you're an atheist now instead of a theist.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 2, 2011 12:17 AM
@Caine
You had to remind me, LOL. That kind of talk grates on my nerves.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 12:18 AM
Rorschach:
Absolutely. I don't think PZ was saying different, at least I didn't take that away from this post. What I got is that we are all more than the simple dictionary definition, whether we came up religious or not. There are definite thought processes, experiences, etc., which shaped the way we think and view the world.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:20 AM
I read it that way too.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 12:22 AM
Aratina Cage:
I am sorry. It has the same effect on me. Although, we see this more and more often, as god gets chased farther out...there's always quantum! Or maybe god is the string in string theory!
Sorry.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 12:24 AM
I don't, both due to its redundancy and over-generality; "the supernatural" already includes gods, and one can believe in the supernatural without believing in deities.
Posted by: Bawdybill
|
February 2, 2011 12:27 AM
Only thing I can add is my thanks. All this is thought provoking and conscience raising and has helped me to define my own place.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 12:34 AM
Still waiting on being shown just what's dogmatic about explicit rejection of the notion of God. What about it is dogmatic? This is a different question as to the reasons for such a belief, but I really fail to see how it's dogmatic. What is dogmatic about it? It's a very confusing allegation...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 12:36 AM
Sure. But again, that's the mixing up that's been going on in here, the distinction between what the term a-theism means and the reasons why individuals are atheists.
Posted by: zachsmind
|
February 2, 2011 12:39 AM
These other things PZMyers claims are atheism actually have other labels already. Secular humanism for example, or skepticism, rationalism, Free Thought, the list goes on. PZed wants to tack on some of these ideals to what atheism means, when not all atheists share his loftier goals & virtues. OR he suggests, atheism ALREADY means these other "positive values" and the rest of us should just accept that idea without question. He calls those of us who disagree with him "Dictionary Atheists" because we refuse to allow secular humanists and the like to add their baggage to the term atheism. He does make some valid points. I just happen to disagree with most of them.
I'm an absurdist. I'm a SubGenius. I'm a skeptic. I'm an apostate (I think). I like bananas and use mass transit. I'm a host of other things too. I'm a number of expletives, for example. These many qualities about me may or may not also stem from my atheism, but they aren't a part of my atheism. I find my absurdism & my atheism seem to be intermingled nowadays, although I was an absurdist long before I realized I was an atheist. I may or may not agree with some or all of the "positive values" that PZMyers wants to tack on to atheism. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that not all atheists will abide by these "positive values" nor should they. These other values are not atheism.
All atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more nor less nor should it be.
Anyone trying to subtly manipulate or blatantly coerce all atheists to agree to ideals outside and beyond the dictionary definition of the term atheism have I wager a well-intentioned agenda. Either that or they're just flat trying to sell me a bill of goods that I ain't buyin'. With all due respect to a world renowned biologist who has exercised his noggin far more than I have, and after reading your side of the argument, I'm still not convinced you're right and I'm wrong. This is a line I gotta draw in the sand. If you're right, sir, and atheism means more than just lacking a belief in gods, it means I can't be an atheist. And I'm not sure what that WOULD make me.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 12:39 AM
Kel,
Indeed.
Once again, the implicit assumption is that atheism is a premise rather than a conclusion.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 2, 2011 12:39 AM
@Randomfactor
Yes—I mean no; it is in Georgia, USA.
That is a great example of the kind of simple reasoning one could use to deny that Rome exists in Italy. I think it was Steve LaBonne who once called it "motorized goalposts on wheels". Good luck (*cough*) to agnostics chasing after one of those goalposts. I'm done playing the game myself.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:40 AM
Some people make claims that their god is natural and not supernatural. Whether or not those claims are coherent, this definition addresses those claims.
One can. But there's already some ambiguity between the "strong" and "weak" definitions of atheism. I can handle more.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 12:40 AM
Rorschach:
I think the mixing up is being done by those who insist there's nothing more to being an atheist than the dictionary definition.
I think Brownian put it best in #116.
Posted by: Nicole Schrand
|
February 2, 2011 12:45 AM
My reasoning for atheism:
1. A god is a omnipotent being that both deserves and requires worship.
2. No there is no reason an omnipotent being would require worship, unless it simply had some kind of stupidly large ego that needed stroking, in which case it would not deserve my worship, because it would be a dick.
3. If an omnipotent being existed, it would clearly have to be either uncaring or outright malevolent, based on the amount of undeserved suffering in the world.
4. Furthermore, any omnipotent being that would require faith in absence of proof on punishment of eternal hell would have to be an utter dick, and thus would not deserve my worship.
5. There is no proof of any being that satisfies these requirements of godhood, thus, there is not god for me to worship.
6. Beyond this, I have yet to see any phenomenon that can be better explained by "God did it" than by science, even if science occasionally gives the answer "I don't know yet."
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:46 AM
Where is PZ mixing these up? The title is "Why are you an atheist" and this bit you quoted:
He doesn't say that the word doesn't mean what you think it means. He says the definition of the word itself is insufficient "if I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist".
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 12:46 AM
I note that Salty Current has a rather relevant post.
Posted by: Williwaw
|
February 2, 2011 12:47 AM
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. Or I don't believe in gods, lack belief in god(s), etc.
As to why I'm an atheist, I've never seen any good evidence supporting the idea that god exists. As I got older I got more skeptical.
I could complicate it more and dress it up to try and make it look purty, but...
nah.
Posted by: levitooker
|
February 2, 2011 12:48 AM
The mother in that second cartoon put waaaay too much salt on whatever it is she's cooking.
Posted by: echidna
|
February 2, 2011 12:53 AM
I was thinking out loud a bit, so sorry if I was unclear. I don't think the case has a leg to stand on, it's just always been a puzzle to me why atheists are often described as "hating god", when there is really nothing to support that view, in either the definition, or whatever I have seen atheists say. It's absurd to hate something you don't believe in.
But if people who believe in a god (or gods) consider atheism to be merely a position that is opposite to them, and no more, I can see how they might take that to mean as simply the opposite of them: they love god, therefore atheists must hate god, and so forth. Flimsy logic, but conceivable. That's all I meant.
To break through this view, these people would need to understand that atheism is not [just] an opposite stance to theism, but a whole other world view informed by ideas that are non-theistic: scientific principles, rational thought, humanism, social justice, or whatever you bring to the table. And it's those principles with which atheists can influence society, with a lot more potential to do good than the brand of "we are religious, therefore our notions are informed by a deity and therefore right by definition" which as we know causes so much damage.
Just think of right-to-lifers, YEC's and the Catholic Church. Just for starters.
Even atheists who got that way by default, so to speak, don't believe that they, or anyone else, are divinely inspired. Society could use a little less respect for the opinions of popes.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 2, 2011 12:53 AM
Dogmatic rejection of the notion of god(s) would be the assertion that no gods exist simply because that's the way it is. And only a theist would describe it that way, when claiming that atheism is simply a dogmatic religion.
But the atheist position (to me) is more like "I have seen absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of something you could meaningfully describe as a god (as opposed to such things as "god is love") and the characteristics of specifically suggested models of gods lack internal consistency let alone objective evidence." Which is quite a lot to say...
To me, the essential difference between theism and atheism isn't the existence or non-existence of gods--it's the acceptance or rejection that such beings require or desire human beings to worship them. I can easily conceive of a being who has great powers (but not omnipotence); great knowledge (but not omniscience) and great moral behavior (but not omnibenevolence.) What I can't believe is that such a being would care about whether or not I revered her.
Posted by: Pluto Animus
|
February 2, 2011 12:55 AM
I used to like the "I just believe in one less God than you" argument, until I realized the likely response:
"Yes, but those other gods are false gods. The god I believe in is the One True God."
Kind of a conversation-stopper.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 12:57 AM
I don't believe in Jar Jar Binks, but I still hate him.
Posted by: all4kindness2all
|
February 2, 2011 12:57 AM
Why is it so important to define yourself to the existence of god or lack of it or in any way related to this?
Why use a label which is tied to what you don't believe?
Why do you define yourself by what you believe to be true?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 1:00 AM
Thanks Caine, I get the point Brownian is making, I'm just not sure that I agree with it.
Oh, I just saw this :
This might be a good example to illustrate my point. How does one come to believe in the tooth fairy ? Well, obviously your parents one day lie to you and tell you that it exists. Before that, you didn't know about such a being, and hence didn't believe one existed. No positive values needed up to this point.(see the "babies are atheists" issue, same thing) So at that point, you have to make a leap of faith, so to speak, an active effort, if you are going to believe in such an entity. Now one could argue that at this point, if you do not buy into what your parents tell you, that would be a sign for application of some positive value, call it rationalism, or common sense, or whatnot. But this is 4 or 5 year olds we're talking about here, they don't consciously make a decision based on evaluation of evidence. Maybe they just have a good bullshit detector hardwired into their brain, or some intrinsic mechanism to realise when someone is telling them a fib, I don't know.
My point is, this can also apply to religious beliefs, and atheism, no positive values are necessary to not believe in gods.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:03 AM
Consider the term "anticapitalist". It has utility in this society because capitalism is so dominant that its acceptance is generally assumed. The term's utility is in expressing a rejection of the assumed.
This is a good idea too. It's useful to do both.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 1:08 AM
Why is it so important for theists to define themselves by the existence of a god, to the point that they attempt to determine policy and law according to their belief?
Why not? Atheist, non-theist, non-religious...as it stands, at least in the U.S., where it is hardly uncommon to be asked "what religion are you?" or "what church do you attend?", labels are necessary.
Because that's what humans do? Theists believe their god is real, is true, which is one of the reasons they try so hard to shove it down everyone else's throat.
I'd like to see the truth matter, I'd like to see evidence matter. I'd like to see knowledge and education matter. I'd like separation between church and state. I'd like to see autonomy when it comes to women and reproductive rights. You know, the little things.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 1:11 AM
SGBM:
As I said, redundant.
Incoherent claims need not be addressed, and it's incoherent to claim God is not a deity.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 1:12 AM
Rorshach:
Deep Rifts, man, Deep Rifts! ;D
Posted by: Pluto Animus
|
February 2, 2011 1:13 AM
Some atheists are even worse than Dictionary Atheists. Such atheists believe there is no God because they believe there is no God.
They are the Tautological Atheists.
(Although maybe we should call them Taughtological Atheists, as they hold their flawed beliefs because of the teacher in school who taught them logic.)
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:17 AM
Plenty of people who stop believing in gods later in life don't consciously make a decision either, they just notice that they don't believe anymore.
This realization may be related to other things, like scientific understanding which closes gaps.
If the 5 year old has a disposition toward distrusting certain claims, that same person a few decades later is likely to identify this disposition as skepticism.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:19 AM
Redundancy can be useful when there's not much time to talk and you want to short-circuit potential misunderstandings.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 1:24 AM
True. But I'm saying that at the same time, being an a-theist a priori is also possible.
I've been thinking about your earlier point wrt rejecting theists claims. I agreed with you, but I'm thinking that maybe this only applies to the subset of atheists who were theists first, and then rejected the claims of religions for some reason or other. Myself, for example, I don't think I ever actually considered anything written in the Bible as remotely likely to be true, like, even ballpark possible, it's hard to describe it. It's like you don't consider Harry Potter to be real, because you know it's fiction. That was my take on the Bible and similar texts. So in that sense, I didn't really ever reject any of their claims, I never considered them as valid in the first place.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:30 AM
I didn't word it quite right anyway... should have been:
But when you were presented with theistic claims, there are reasons why you did not accept them, and those are the reasons you're an atheist now instead of a theist.
So, whatever your reasons for not considering them valid, like it just sounded like fiction, those are the reasons why you're not a theist now. You were exposed to theist claims at some point, had you accepted them you'd be a theist, but there are reasons you didn't.
They don't have to have been fully-articulated reasons, but they are reasons, or causes if you prefer.
Posted by: andrewspriggs
|
February 2, 2011 1:31 AM
I guess I'll just expose myself as one of those "dumb atheists" or whatever (especially since, by comment 100 or so, I stopped reading comments).
Nevertheless, I find there are a few things I find curious about PZ's point (and I was one of the people who engaged on twitter to inspire this post, so...yeah).
1) I find it curious that PZ would call these people "dictionary atheists." I often have to find myself expanding away from a "dictionary" atheism because many people will point to definitions that say, "Atheism is the doctrine that there is no god" (ignoring alternative definitions). They will point out, if they are really savvy, that the whole "weak/strong" or "positive/negative" dichotomy has little traction philosophically or practically, and therefore, the common understanding of an "atheist" as opposed to an "agnostic" is very different than is discussed in atheist circles on the internet.
2) Anyway, getting into the meat of my post...I actually agree with PZ for the most part...but that's why I come to a drastically different position.
PZ says, "If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing".
Right!
Atheism is a term that says nothing. For that matter, theism is a term that says about as much of nothing.
I agree with PZ that there will always be positive values behind the atheism. There will always be a "why" to point to the "what". But, as PZ notes correctly, these things are not universal to atheism and do not become the definition of atheism.
That's why I stick to the "dictionary" definition.
Because, even though I KNOW that someone might be an atheist because they are a naturalist, or they might be an atheist because they are empiricist, these latter parts are not universal, not necessary, and not implied by atheism.
Similarly, even though I KNOW that someone might be a theist because they accept the Book of Mormon, or they might be a theist because they accept the Quran, these latter parts are not universal, not necessary, and not implied by theism.
The thing is, most people don't say, "I'm a theist." Being a "theist" is not a political term or a political grouping, because people recognize that it says very little. People say, "I'm a Mormon" or "I'm a Muslim" (and might even go further -- Sunni? Shia? Etc.,)
If you want to have a group for scientists (who are atheist as a result of scientifically-minded thinking), or if you want to have a group for naturalists, or humanists, or absurdists, or any of these other groups, you can. But then say "This is a group for empiricists" or "This is a group for secular humanists" -- because it's NOT a group for "atheists".
On the other hand, if you want to have a group for atheists in "general," then all of a sudden you can't get too specific, because atheism is NOT specific.
To kinda summarize, I think it's absolutely true I have positive values and beliefs, and because of many of these things, I am an atheist. But it's not true that because I am an atheist, I have positive values and beliefs. I can say, "I'm an atheist because I followed the evidence where it went." But I can't say, "I followed the evidence where it went because I'm an atheist."
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:40 AM
And those causes, plus others you've picked up along the way, have in part motivated your practice of atheism, that is, your participation in atheist communities.
So if someone were to ask "what is Rorschach's atheism, and why?" these things are part of the complete answer.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 1:52 AM
For the record, I hate Yahweh and I want to live a life involving activities which, due to my upbringing, I will always on some level identify as sinful.
Posted by: mistermuz
|
February 2, 2011 1:57 AM
I'm interested in a couple of things here.
I'm fairly hip to the irritation with people being over definitive. I see that as just where philosophy students collide with everybody else. It's what they do. And atheism is in battle with the bulk of western philosophy, which rests on a god assumption or at least sees the god question something that must necessarily be addressed. So this was bound to happen. It's in the marrow of atheism as an intellectual tradition.
I get annoyed enough as it is by people who think normal internet argument and discussion is debate club (the ad hominem cringe ought to be some sort of reverse victory: it's so over used now that anyone who attempts to claim the moral or philosophical high ground with it automatically loses, even if the fallacy is accurately called).
So how do folks think The Atheist Experience fits into all this? I'm sure PZ isn't talking about them. But the show neccesarily deals in that sort of definitve-ness, as a way of breaking up the arguments into manageable pieces as well as unhooking the concept of atheism from whatever baggage religious callers bring when they hear the word. The show may have spread 'dictionary atheism' somewhat. Don't know though. Thoughts?
Secondly, the notion of babies not being atheists but being non-cognitives or something: Fair enough in the case of babies, technically speaking. But the example of babies is usually given as one of a pre-indoctrinated state. It's to point out that such a thing can exist, that religion is taught etc.
I've met a one or two people recently who have grown up with no religion, no concept of a higher intangible power, no real spirituality to speak of (that I could discern in a brief chat). The god question is not addressed in their world view. It didn't exist in their world view. Such people would seem be on the increase in the world, I'd say. Atheist seems like the best way to describe them to me. But if we're arguing (and I may have this terribly wrong) that atheism is a philosophical position, then what do we call them?
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
February 2, 2011 1:59 AM
I'm an ex-theist; I no longer believe in any gods. ;-)
I no longer believe in all sorts of other things that I believed in as a child, like fairies.
Deciding to stop believing in something because (a) there is no evidence of its existence, and (b) the definition of that something means that there can never be any evidence, may be very different than never believing in something because you haven't heard of it; however, the end result is the same. The dictionary definition of atheism works for me precisely because it says nothing about how the non-belief was arrived at.
I'm with all those who say that we need to use other labels beside atheism to describe ourselves rather than re-define atheism.
So, I can no longer persuade myself to believe in gods.
I can believe in intangibles like 'truth', 'beauty', 'justice' etc. without empirical evidence.
I can't believe the "all swans are white" meme is still going when, surely, everyone knows by now that Australian swans are black.
Posted by: James the Frank
|
February 2, 2011 2:02 AM
I'm pretty annoyed with PZ and his misguided definitions taken from the Theist's mouth. 'Atheist' only means "a lack of belief in gods" because it is a stance on a SINGLE POSITION. The term itself has nothing to do with how or why a person doesn't believe in any deity.
Similarly, many people mistakenly pick up the term Agnosticism the describe hard-line fencesitting when in fact the term was created to describe skepticism-based non-belief in deities. A person who stubbornly refuses to admit they don't believe in something until they do isn't an Agnostic, they're an idiot.
There are more ways to come to the Atheist position than simply skepticism and trying to lump method and conclusion under a single term only continues to lead us down the path of inaccurate language which has resulted in Theists not understanding nonbelief claims.
Don't believe because it needs proof to be considered any more than we consider the existence of fairies? You're an Agnostic Atheist.
Don't believe because the whole deity idea isn't coherent or can't describe reality? You're an Ignostic Atheist.
There are also several other ways of arriving at Atheism, some based purely on emotion or, in the case of certain nontheist ideologies, dogma. A soviet communist who arrived at his or her Atheism position mostly due to group identity fervor has very little to do with an Atheist that got there by rationally considering the truth value of deity claims.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
February 2, 2011 2:09 AM
I think you've really gone overboard with this rant, PZ. The dictionary definition, as long as it's the correct one and doesn't call atheism a belief when it's actually the lack of one, is a useful starting point for a discussion.
*Of course* that's not all it is, and I always include the positive implications of being free of magical thinking, which actually succeeds in getting people to understand the complete picture. They might not accept it all at once but at least they've listened and understood it.
Posted by: satan augustine
|
February 2, 2011 2:16 AM
I'm a "dictionary freethinker" because I think it covers a broad spectrum of what the criteria for the things I believe as well as disbelieve and these fit into your expanded definition of atheist, PZ. So here's the definition of freethought:
freethought- a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.
What I like about this word is that it covers more than just religion. It covers all sorts of woo as well as the nonsense coming from the anti-vaxers, alt-med proponents, tea partiers, anti-choice nuts, etc.
That said, I still generally refer to myself as an atheist as religion is the most dominant, and thus most harmful, of all non-evidence based beliefs. The problem with telling someone I'm a freethinker is that most people don't know what it means (or they mistakenly assume it means "anything goes"). The problem with telling someone I'm an atheist - aside from the negative connotations of the word in the minds of many - is that it can be construed as referring to only disbelief in any deity. There are after all many atheists who still believe in some crazy bullshit.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 2:16 AM
Well, if somebody becomes an atheist because Daniel Radcliff is an atheist, then some instances of atheism are not based in philosophy. Your acquaintances could be called atheists too, but it'd probably be courteous to ask them if they'd mind. :)
My understanding of PZ's position is that there's more to your atheism than a definition, there's at the very least a personal history of some kind too, and probably some values.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
February 2, 2011 2:19 AM
@PZ #0
I tried out the link you provided here: http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/01/i-look-at-paul-z-myers-writing-and-see-evil/
They seem a bit overly critical so I added some comments of my own along the lines of: I have great respect for the work that PZ does. To me it is horrible and scary stuff for which I do not have the stomach but I do realise the importance of this work. (My comments have disappeared so I cannot repost verbatum).
Perhaps other Phyrangistas would like to make some comments there in defence. I think I might have blown it by calling mother teresa an "egowhore" and an atheist (which she was if one listens to Hitchens). I would have thought they would like the atheist = bad part....
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 2:19 AM
I always suspected you were pre-modern, hznfrst.
Posted by: echidna
|
February 2, 2011 2:27 AM
"All swans are white" was the classic example of inductive reasoning; a statement that was "obviously" true by generalising from examples, but a single counter example would refute it. For a long time there were no counter examples. It was never dogma, because it was always falsifiable, even though it was held to be true for thousands of years (outside of Australia, of course). Like all conclusions based on generalising on examples, (as much of science is) evidence of counter examples can change everything. This happened very specifically in the case of "All swans are white", but you can look at the difference between Newton and Einstein for another example.If an atheist asserts there is no god, this is a reasonable inductive conclusion given the evidence. It's not dogma; it can be falsified at any time. However, there is no counter-example. There isn't even a coherent concept of a god, or any reason to think there might be.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
February 2, 2011 2:39 AM
echidna #341:
Yes. Inside Australia, for tens of thousands of years, I suppose the inductive reasoning was "All swans are black". :-D
Thank you for your explanation; I knew that the atheistic position wasn't dogma, but couldn't quite figure out why it wasn't; or, rather, how to explain why it wasn't.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 2:41 AM
Most terrorism has nothing to do with religion: video, text
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
February 2, 2011 2:45 AM
Exactly.PZ mentions it on his hated-dictionary list, but he (and a few others here) completely missed the point of that statement: that a belief is imposed on a child. It's just another valid argument against belief. It is a statement to tickle to think about where one's belief comes from. You can cry that it is based on the dictionary definition of atheism, but that's where you start. The why is something people must learn for themselves.
Jebus. If atheists can't figure their own thinking exercises out, how do we expect religious folks to do that?
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 2:49 AM
Platypus, the same content is communicated with "babies don't believe in gods either, and beliefs are imposed upon them."
So it isn't actually necessary to use the "babies are atheists" construction, and using the latter can be misleading.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 3:01 AM
It's a classic example of inductive reasoning, and because it has been falsified it served as a good example. If one believes that all swans are white, they would be wrong. But holding that false belief doesn't make it a dogma, unless all false beliefs are going to be a dogma. Likewise, if there weren't any non-white swans discovered, all swans are white would still not be a dogma.Posted by: mattkosta
|
February 2, 2011 3:04 AM
Awesome post. You got me to re-evaluate my own atheism more than anytime since I first identified myself as an atheist. I don't agree with everything you said, but I like the outcome. You got a bunch of atheists riled up. We need more riled up atheists. Stand loud and proud!
Posted by: echidna
|
February 2, 2011 3:06 AM
No worries. All atheists like to be helpful. ;) *ducks for cover*.Posted by: toth
|
February 2, 2011 3:06 AM
Sorry, Peez, but you're simply wrong. You're a Dictionary Atheist, as is every other atheist. The other stuff is added onto your atheism. And I'd like to point out that people don't always arrive at atheism as a result of critical, scientific thinking. There are stupid, irrational atheists who don't cite any sound logical basis for their atheism. I've met an atheist who (somehow) believed in an afterlife of some sort.
Posted by: dj357
|
February 2, 2011 3:09 AM
After reading the first paragraph of the "Dictionary Atheists" section I was preparing to be pissed off, but honestly you haven't said anything worth getting annoyed over. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist because of what I would say are similar reasons to yours PZ. I was raised as a Protestant at my father's insistence and went through an ultra-fervent phase in my early teens due to social factors and then once I started becoming more exposed to science and the beauty of the universe a deep scepticism arose that began questioning everything and demanding evidence and reason.
The only criticism I would have of what you've said is that these kind of things, where there are not just plain incorrect and unhelpful (in the case atheist babies), are not any less relevant and applicable despite their lack of utility in most discussions around the topic. If I was asked "why are you an atheist" I would start with the Dictionary Atheist position, which is not an invalid point to make and, and the crucial point is here, then I would go further than that detailing as much of the additional points that you've made here that readily came to mind. I call myself an atheist because I am a Dictionary Atheist, but the reasons why I am an atheist are far more complex and, as you imply in your piece, far more interesting.
In the end, as is usual with your work, I can only applaud your message and echo it's sentiments.
Peace,
dj357
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 3:13 AM
When I went for a walk around the local lake on Sunday, I saw 3 black swans.
Posted by: briclondon
|
February 2, 2011 3:21 AM
All dictionary definitions are mutable. Gay in 1890 did not mean the same as gay in 1990; and if you only know someone is gay you know almost nothing about him or her. Same with 'atheist': usage here and now determines it's meaning(s) and that's us, all of us.
And etymological definitions are historically interesting, sometimes amusing, but irrelevant. A 'professor' ORIGINALLY meant someone (a man, obviously) who professed his belief in a religion in order to demonstrate his suitability to teach the young: so what?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 2, 2011 3:29 AM
QFT
I don't like calling infants atheists for the same reasons Dawkins mentions not liking to call children Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
Anyway, it's important to also consider the difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism:
I think Pharnygulites are generally explicit atheists, in more than one sense :p.
That's bad for the 'all swans are white' hypothesis, but did you see any green apples? Or basically anything anything non-black non-raven? Because that would support the 'all ravens are black' hypothesis.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 3:36 AM
Feynmaniac,
That lowing noise in the background is incidental.
</gnu>
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 3:42 AM
Well, that's just a nonsensical distinction. If I read a Harry Potter novel, I don't have to consciously reject that Dumbledore exists, because it's clear from the start that I'm dealing with fiction. And that's how I've always seen the bible.
Posted by: richardtheskeptic
|
February 2, 2011 3:44 AM
I drew the second cartoon. Thank you PZ for helping me to see where creeping "Dictionary Atheist-ism" has reduced the richness of my experience in this amazing field of human thought. Like you, I often say that my atheism is just an outcome of affirmative values such as my skepticism, which is a very positive discipline in my life that has helped me in many ways. For instance, it has de-compartmentalized my mind, so that there are no hidden corners where contradictory ideas can hide from each other.
BUT I also have been using that simplistic Dictionary Atheism approach too often, and it inadvertently dismisses the positive and affirmative values which are the roots. Thanks again for the wake-up. -Richard Wade
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k
|
February 2, 2011 3:49 AM
There is also lack of belief through personal incredulity.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 3:55 AM
The only ravens I saw were black.Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 3:55 AM
They have a website!
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 2, 2011 3:56 AM
I don't see why. There are atheists who have never heard of God or don't believe in God, but never seriously considered it. Then there are atheists who have thought about it and explicitly rejected it.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkswsI-z02cyQq9uaJcGZB-ApN5bt_8dLE
|
February 2, 2011 3:56 AM
One of the main problems I encounter is that when I say I don't believe, is that believers attribute different meanings to words.
To many believers the words, faith, fact, truth and belief mean dang near the same thing or are somehow associated very strongly. The words have become so muddied by use in everyday speech that the meanings are lost.
It seems that their thinking goes like this:
non-belief = belief system = faith = religion or belief in science = belief system = faith = religion.
Given their understanding of the word belief and the fact many seem to think it is interchangeable in meaning with faith and that all of their faith is truth and truth is fact therefor faith = fact.
I know that this is not true with all believers, but I do see this with a majority of the ones I encounter. Which is why I hear statements like "dis-belief is irrational" or "only belief in a higher power is rational". They simply don't understand what the words actually mean or they've twisted the meaning to suit their needs.
Posted by: briclondon
|
February 2, 2011 3:57 AM
This discussion does rather remind me of this
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 3:59 AM
Sorry, you're correct, I wasn't being precise. The quibble I have is with the notion of this "implicit atheism", not the distinction between that and "explicit".
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkswsI-z02cyQq9uaJcGZB-ApN5bt_8dLE
|
February 2, 2011 4:02 AM
One of the main problems I encounter when I say I don't believe, is that believers attribute different meanings to words.
To many believers the words, faith, fact, truth and belief mean pretty near the same thing or are somehow associated very strongly. The words have become so muddied by use in everyday speech that the meanings are lost.
It seems that their thinking goes like this:
nonbelief = belief system = faith = religion or belief in science = belief system = faith = religion.
It also seems that given their understanding of the word belief and the fact many seem to think it is interchangeable in meaning with faith and that all of their faith is truth and truth is fact, the seem to conclude that faith = fact.
Of course this can also be attributed to the "damage" done by their indoctrination, but this faulty logic makes meaningful discussions with many of them impossible.
I know that this is not true with all believers, but I do see this with a majority of the ones I encounter. Even people very close to me simply can't wrap their minds around the simplest of concepts because it contradicts what they "know" to be "true".
Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes
|
February 2, 2011 4:07 AM
I disagree with your thoughts about "all babies are atheists".
I'm one of those "homegrown atheists". And although you're right that my parents taught me a lot of other things and values, love for knowledge and stuff, none of those would have been incompatible with the more moderate flavours of christianity and probably a lot of other religions.
My atheism is primarily due to never have been taught about god when I was young and (more) gullible. I considered god when I was about 8 years old but it just didn't make sense. I suppose it would have made sense if it had been taught to me from the very beginning.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton
|
February 2, 2011 4:11 AM
I think what you are missing with the "dictionary atheist" is the general point to it is that denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause is precisely how I and others like me view atheism itself.
So when we say "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" or that "babies are atheists" it is to some extent to highlight how atheism itself isn't all that earth shattering. The important bit is how you arrive at it.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 4:12 AM
Three cheers for PZ - for this excellent piece of armchair philosophy ...
I know, I know, alot of folks on this sight like to sneer at the discipline, but really, in doing so they behave exactly like the dictionary atheists that PZ so aptly dismisses. I am fond of arguing that science is a methodological checking of our mental 'maps' against the actual world, and philosophy is a methodological checking of our mental maps against themselves - to see if they function as maps. This is exactly what PZ is doing in the post above. And how!
To argue that atheism is a consequence of positive action - of a systematic testing of various beliefs - is to engage in philosophy. To argue that there is some platonic essence of 'atheism' that stands 'a priori' to any experience of it, is bullshit. It is bad philosophy in the same way that ID is bad science, that is to say, it is a refusal to do philosophy by pretending to have done it.
One of my favorite thinkers is Chauncey Wright (a 'rock star' of 19th century thought, he died young (ish), his promise unfulfilled, but left a serious legacy...) argued that such thinking is classically barbarian - to act as if your semiotic set is absolute (and hence has some kind of real power in the world, re: platonism) is his definition of 'uncivilized' - it also precisely defines dictionary atheism.
I am pleased to see that PZ is no barbarian (cue reference to the lamentation of women), but I recognize from my own experience (both in 'real' life teaching phl of sci, and also from commenting on this site) that he is likely to be accused of apostasy for making such comments. As such, I offer a heaping pile of Kudos to PZ.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 4:17 AM
phlgradstudent:
Sight, eh?
Your discipline is evident.
Posted by: Numad
|
February 2, 2011 4:22 AM
Well, the original post certainly was insulting, as advertised. I just can't find a point to it.
Who said something about "narcissistic masturbation?"
"As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses."
I'm not familiar with the content of the mind of these people, but it seems to me as though PZ must be getting this whole thing backward.
If an atheist defines their atheism in a more minimalistic fashion than PZ does, and/or as less central to their identity, how the fuck would that mean that they define themselves as "nothing?"
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 4:24 AM
Completely ignoring the arguments that have been made, that belief is in fact acquired. And also, asserted, not argued, I note. Is that what they teach you in philosophy class ? Aristotle had it figured out 2400 years ago, how to construct an argument.
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
February 2, 2011 4:24 AM
strange gods before me:
Yes, I know - but do we have to spoon-feed everything we say? I think an important aspect of promoting atheism is getting there by provoking thought, not by chewing on everything and then spitting it out for 'them' to digest.In any case, I've never said "babies are atheists", but rather that I was born atheist. And to believers I add, "just like you". I'm just not going to prefix such statements with "in the strict sense of the word", it only serves to add noise to a quick and snappy thought experiment.
The stric definition is what is in the dictionary. Most dictionaries, in fact. Heck, there is always a reason why people are atheist, just like there is always a reason people end up as believers. There is no point in trying to add that to the dictionary definition. We're better off making up a new word for the meaning that PZ wishes to convey.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 4:26 AM
Ah john, I should have proofread my comment; kudos to you for your snark. Thanks for once again showing your quality...
But yes, the original post consists of PZ engaging in philosophy, and doing an excellent job of it. To bad so sad if you cannot appreciate the fact.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 4:29 AM
phlgradstudent:
You've given me something to sneer at - you're a grad student and haven't figured out it's a lot (two words, not one) and site?
You might want to do more groundwork on the basics before you revolutionize minds with your amazing philosophy.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
February 2, 2011 4:35 AM
This is a site that prizes arguing substance. Do we really want to focus on typos?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 2, 2011 4:38 AM
phlgradstudent:
Too. Properly, it should be Too bad, so sad...
It helps, when trying to be superior, to go that extra second and actually proofread. Of course, you could go for getting it right the first time.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 4:46 AM
Re: 370. I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but I was extending a kudos to PZ, not arguing some point you, or others, may have made somewhere in the comments... get over yourself already. And yes, I made an assertion that agrees with his argument. Feel free to abuse me for doing so. If it makes you feel superior...
And I agree that belief is acquired. But this has nothing to do with what I wrote. Your comment on Aristotle reminds me of W's frequent use of argument by absurd truism.
A: everyone wants to be free
B: the US should invade Iraq
See how that works? The conclusion and the premise are unrelated, the first is unarguable (on many levels) and the second unrelated to the first.
Sure, Aristotle 'had it figured out 2400 years ago', but that doesn't mean that he had all of philosophy figured out, such that we no longer need to do it. Or would you argue that he had all of science 'figured out'? or even that his method of doing science works as modern science? Such a notion is absurd, and unrelated to the fact that I made a little comment in agreement with PZ's original post.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 4:50 AM
Thank you Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Superhero, for living up to your nom de plume.
Oh, and I didn't capitalize the J in John in an earlier post... Shall I submit myself for a ritual flogging?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 4:53 AM
Listen mate, are you stupid or something ? I pointed out to you that you made an assertion, rather than providing arguments for your claim about the "platonic essence of atheism", whatever that's supposed to mean. The Greeks knew how to argue a claim, but you just come here and assert shit. Wake me up when you are prepared to argue your claim.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
February 2, 2011 4:54 AM
This whole post seeks to define atheism as normative rather than descriptive. That holds two dangers:
First, it's rhetorically deficient because it allows believers to point to Stalin and other murderers as being motivated by atheism. You just don't get to call atheism normative and then exclude the normative claims of bad atheists because you don't like what they did. At least not until you come up with some method for determining what makes something good or bad within atheism. Good luck.
Second, it simply isn't true. Tell me one belief that follows as a result of atheism? All I've ever seen, and all PZ has offered, are beliefs which are compatible with atheism.
Posted by: Numad
|
February 2, 2011 5:00 AM
And is it just me or is PZ's peeve with the "I just believe in one less god than you do" argument just missing the point of most people who use it or a variation on that theme?
Often I've seen it used and the implied meaning of that was "so why don't you believe in those other gods, then?" When you point out the "common ground," you point out the arbitrariness of the theist's position on the rest of the question of gods.
This is just quibbling on form when the substance isn't necessarily any different.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
February 2, 2011 5:02 AM
Like the man said, if we didn't have theists we wouldn't need atheists.
I don't believe in god(s) because it just seems silly to me - and I don't need it.
However, try that on a theist and you will get a stream of bullshit - e.g. "it takes more faith to be an atheist...." to which the simplest response is the dictionary definition.
And the same with the rest of the bullshit. Compare any of the BS creationist arguments with the facts. How persistent is the "I can't believe it all happened by chance" BS? The pithy response is "It didn't". Good luck with that, when you are trying to convince the masses. And better luck with the actual science. They don't have better scientific arguments, but they do have better sound-bite arguments.
Should we care? Well if we don't we will end up with the position that theism is just as valid as atheism - and therefore correct. And that means that whoever can shout the loudest gets to decide who can have an abortion, whether gay people deserve to be treated with respect and what gets taught in schools.
And don't try and tell me about good Christian folk, because they will always find it difficult not to rollover for the next bigot bible-toting asshole who manipulates them with their own truths. That doesn't make them bad - just sheep, which, ironically, they are happy to be.
I'm not saying PZ is wrong - but these stereotypes are a natural consequence of the game. It's like complaining that there are black pieces in chess.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 5:09 AM
Why have so many people read PZ's words, in which he explains that dictionary atheism is not an explanation for why somebody is an atheist, and imagined that they read some completely different words, in which PZ claimed that dictionary atheism isn't atheism?
Reading comprehension, people.
@353: have you considered that observations of non-black non-ravens support the hypothesis that ravens do not exist? After all, the proposition "There are no ravens" means "P is not a raven, for all P" and is thus supported by observations of non-ravens, of any colour. Thus observing a non-black non-raven is evidence that ravens are black and nonexistent :)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 5:12 AM
The rejection of divine command theory?Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k
|
February 2, 2011 5:18 AM
@Stephen Wells
I think a lot of the confusion is from PZ's talk here: http://www.atheistmedia.com/2011/01/pz-myers-on-science-and-atheism-natural.html
Where he complains about dictionary atheists correcting his use of the word atheism which he loads additional content into.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 5:23 AM
[meta]
Feynmaniac,
Were I to do that, I'd be posting incessantly. ;)
BTW, 'sight' for 'site' is a malapropic homophonism, not a typographical error.
phlgradstudent:
You're welcome.
PS What is the missing thought that the ellipsis indicates?
Posted by: Terry Gibbs
|
February 2, 2011 5:24 AM
I was raised in the church of the month club. From when I was about 9 to 14 my mom switched churches frequently. Not just churches, we went to EST, eastern gurus, Russian mind training, and biofeedback. A lot of them were only visited once and scorned on the ride home.
Combine this with the Question Authority meme that was pounded into my head - I was not allowed to call the PE teacher a coach because he wasn't a coach, and I ended up quite skeptical.
I got involved in a 12 step fellowship in my mid 20s. The 12 step groups are designed to teach people with living problems how to live better lives, and introduce them to god.
Now I have to admit as a result of working the steps I met god. Actually a few times over the years. In 1992, then 1999 and again in 2009.
About a year ago I asked god who he is. He told me when I define god I am really only defining myself. My wants, my needs, my lacks.
My problem is having met god, I soon get to explaining him away as an imaginary friend or figment of my subconscious.
The last time I "walked with god" I wrote it all down.
What do I see when I read it today?
I see me living my life and struggling with problems. Obsessing on areas in my life and having "wakeful dreams" where god instructs me to do things I wanted to do anyway.
I see me reaching out for advice, and bringing new people into my life to get alternative viewpoints. I see myself stepping through my irrational fears.
I see me changing my life because I was tired of living the way I was.
I see me.
Does this mean I am god?
I do know that my xian friends who tell me I consort with satan's minions are full of shit.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 5:24 AM
Wow, Rorschach, I must apologize for presuming that you could add.
I did make several assertions, in agreement with an argument. This is not a big deal, it fits neatly with the original post. It seems to me that PZ argued against a 'dictionary definition' - that is, a neat sum of notions capable of being neatly catalogued and shortly defined - capable of standing apart from ( and actually defining) experience itself (in this case, the experience of being an atheist). I assert that his approach is more functional than that which he is decrying. Want arguments on it? Go to the top of this thread and read. PZ presented an argument for re-defining atheism. I agree with his argument, and recognize that what he did in his post opens up a can of worms - especially where some folks are concerned. This is not pretending that there is such a thing as a 'platonic essence of atheism' (itself a snarky comment), it is rejecting the notion.
PZ also described his experience of being ridiculed by atheists for his arguments. He did not 'argue' the point, he asserted it from his experience. I am doing the same. That's all. But fine, call me stupid and imply that philosophy is 'done' all in the same breath. Prove me right, and be done with it.
Oh, and have fun doing it.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 5:30 AM
Michael:
The belief that Islam¹ is a crock of shit, if you want only one.
--
¹ The religion, not the culture.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 5:31 AM
Nah mate, I'm off to watch the Cricket. You are obviously too confused to make a proper argument.
You didn't even understand PZ's argument, then.
Cricket it is.
Posted by: Wholly Cymbal
|
February 2, 2011 5:36 AM
Wow. I couldn't disagree more. I prefer for my words to have precise meaning, and I like that when I say "I'm an atheist" there is nothing more people can justifiably assume about me other than just that: I don't believe in theism.
Oh that is a steaming pile of bullshit. I have never, even for a fraction of a second, believed any supernatural claim even once in my life. What was I, then, PZ? To claim atheism is somehow a consistent body of values flies in the face of much of what you've said before, too. What ever happened to atheists consisting of a frothing torrent of internal disagreement? No, PZ, my atheism had nothing to do with the presence of scientific explanations for natural phenomena, what drove it was the doubt inherent to my character. I was rather ignorant of science for an embarrassingly long time.No! Wrong again! My mother tried to bring me up Christian and I never once had any interest. I remember feeling as a child completely out of place at the bible camp I was sent to, and it took me a while to realize that this was because the people around me actually believed the stuff in that book to be true! That was a jarring realization, because I didn't even realize that when I was presented with the bible stories that anyone actually considered that an option. This was my null state! I got critical thinking skills from my parents? Bull-fucking-shit! Try explaining the importance of falsifiability to the validity of an idea to my dad if you think them so rational.
This is madness. This really does smack of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which I know you think you've already addressed in the comments, but you haven't, and here's why: I really did start out as an atheist, and I do think of it as an epistemological position and definitely not a movement. There are movements to advocate reason, and science, and atheism, but I don't necessarily have to consider myself a part of these movements to call myself an atheist. Or do I? That really seems to be what you're implying, that the word belongs to "the movement" and I can't have it so nyah nyah nyah. This is truly absurd. My reason is that I was never convinced. The possibility of the truth of religious claims was never something my brain approached considering because it simply didn't seem to be relevant. It was my null state.@78
Yes.
@38
Yes. It doesn't come across as a post asking why we are atheist, but a post telling us we are not atheist unless A, B, C.
Anyway, I get that what underlies this post is the general message that you're tired of the sort of atheism espoused by that cunt on the man show or whatever it's called, wherein some atheists claim it's just another way of looking at things and they just don't believe they guess. That's different from stating that I, personally, was born without any apparent tendency for faith. It was something that never occurred to me as an option. I didn't need to "become" an atheist, I really was born that way whether you like it or not.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 2, 2011 5:39 AM
I'd just like to add that this place is such an echo chamber ;)
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 2, 2011 5:44 AM
Brother !!!
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
February 2, 2011 6:00 AM
@383 (Kel) and @388 (John),
I should have been more specific: tell me one normative belief that flows as a result of atheism.
Posted by: Mus
|
February 2, 2011 6:17 AM
Of course isn`t correct to limit the definition of what is someone atheist by some kind dictionary definition.
People try that with me: "you don`t believe in God?! Are you a atheist? You silly!" because people think that atheist are some oponents too God.
Well, we cannot be oponents to someone that doesn`t exist; we are oponents to the dangerous, unfair, stupid ideas that religion creates and defends, and we try other people to see this.
The, strange, idea that all babies are atheists, its simply stupid: a baby doesnt have any idea yet about religion or freedom of thought, about the importance of proofs or in blind faith.
But i like to use that idea - all babies are atheists - to show the ridicule of some proposition and to try to convince people to not give a religious education to children, and let them decide when older what they want to do regarding that subject.
Sometimes works!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
February 2, 2011 6:23 AM
For over 2000 years the concept of a god has haunted humanity.
The meme preys on ignorance and naivety.
It offers a false and delusional view of a boasted afterlife and provides a false and emotionally charged subjective 'morality' that only the fear soaked and grossly uneducated can propose in their cowardice of reality.
It always reflects their hatreds, bigotries and stereotypical attitudes in relation to those, in their paranoia, it deems as some sort of vague unstipulated or imagined threat to their life, freedom or liberty.
Whether it is specifically mentioned in their preferred compendium of fairy stories or not it is forced into the text in some spurious form or other but more importantly it highlights and promotes their own dislikes.
All of that is fine and dandy, it is a right, apparently, to believe utter twaddle.
It is also a right to twist and distort their own life manual to whatever form they deem comfortable.
They have a privileged status in the perception they endlessly promote throughout society that Christian=good...other=bad.
And society is forced to give them a pass on any insanity the religios demand as their right.
But in over 2000 years there is not one documented unambiguous demonstration of the validity of any claim the acolytes have made and continue to make on behalf of their deity.
They cannot provide a scrap of evidence in 2000 years that god exists in any form or structure apart from their own fetid perverse imaginations.
And patently that one fact alone affects and haunts every religion a man can dream up.
There is no evidence for a god or a saint or a fairy or a ghost or a heaven or a hell or a angel or a devil.
'Supernatural' is an imagination with serious reality problems.
That is my reasons for rejecting completely and confidently the whole claim of god or gods or other.
Not even the 99% claimed by the thoughtful on the subject.
The full 100%, maybe because I am not thoughtful enough ;-)...or maybe because I am.
I consider the meme utter garbage.
Pascal does not even register a slight concern.
Reality is firmly in the camp, and will remain in the camp of, 'it is balderdash'
Well that and a deep reading of the history books to get the flavour of what xianity really is, and by default any other gods and goddesses of the main opposition in irrationality.
I read the bible, several times in fact, it offers but one interpretation, a hodge podge of styles, and attitudes, it is a wish list, it is contradictory, it is an illusion.
A social commentary and a vague exhortation to be civilized or barbaric depending on to whom....
It certainly does not affect the overall conclusion that it is fantasy on any level.
A rather warped fantasy at that.
But that has more to do with bronze age attitudes then anything else.
I have a simple morality, if I can look at myself in the mirror every morning without flinching or avoiding my own eyes, I have up held my standard.
Whether any one else agrees is of course in the 'lap of the gods' as they say.
No serious complaints as yet in over 50 odd years.
And no court appearances to suggest other.
Atheist and proud of it, certainly.
But more then that, life has informed me that no gods are required.
I am happy with that besides I don't do obsequiousness very well!
There has been nothing offered to suggest I should be either.
.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 6:24 AM
Michael,
Just one?
Sure: Petitionary prayer to deities is otiose.
Posted by: Wholly Cymbal
|
February 2, 2011 6:25 AM
Rorschach
...?
Oh! Yeah, brother indeed!
That's exactly it! I heard these stories and had no reason to suspect that they were anything other than stories. We were born in medias res among a crowd of chanting believers and as children we had neither a reason to think this odd nor a reason to think it meaningful. I guess some kids get that it's meant to be taken seriously from the context? I guess I just didn't assume people don't do silly things just for the sake of doing silly things? I don't know, but this alone undermines the idea that one "has to apply positive values" or any such nonsense to be an atheist.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton
|
February 2, 2011 6:29 AM
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | February 2, 2011 6:00 AM
Okay:
My moral structure is founded on the following:
There is no evidence for a God and what evidence I have seen has led me to the conclusion that dismissing such a being is a reasonably safe bet.
If there was a God and it was likely to sentence me to hell for such a dismissal, then frankly I would want nothing to do with it anyway.
Therefore if I want to do anything about the situation I find myself in, having eliminated a God as a causitive effect or possible remedy, I am going to have to consider alternative solutions.
This means, for example, if I am unfit prayer isn't going to make me a marathon runner. I have to train to get fit.
This also works on moral systems - having dismissed the very existance of a supreme authority I have to consider alternative justifications for how I base my morality.
Posted by: The_Metatron
|
February 2, 2011 6:48 AM
Hello from Belgium, PZ.
I particularly liked the idea that babies aren't born atheists, in the same manner that rocks aren't atheists. I have to say, indeed, a baby is born believing nothing of the kind, it's little mind as yet incapable of building a belief system one way or the other. This perspective makes me re-evaluate the utility of that little snippet, and I have to find it wanting now.
As for me, I finally, finally, came to the realization that the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) indoctrination, did not withstand the scrutiny of rationalism. Morally, eithically, historically, scientifically, it just doesn't hold water. It became a belief system unworthy of maintaining, not only because it is simply incorrect, but preferred no benefit to maintain.
This is where I get to my boys. They get to see the bankruptcy of religious belief systems from the beginning, instead of first being indoctrinated into one. We read about such things. The Greek Pantheon, the Norse mythos (which we agree is a way cooler story that any of the others), the Abrahamic god, etc. I enjoy seeing the judgment my sons make about the plain silliness of such belief and disdmiss it accordingly.
But I do think, as a working definition, that atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god, and there are indeed many other "isms" that describe how we interact with the world around us. Rational, secular, humanist, skeptick, etc. These are all useful terms to flesh out how we identify ourselves. "Atheist" merely describes one aspect of my existence.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 6:49 AM
Re:389 and quote mining.
You left out the second half of the sentence, which is the point of the first half of the sentence, and what I think of the value of what PZ was arguing. - and you use this to establish that I failed to comprehend the original post. Assert much?
Look, PZ argues that atheism is a positive 'belief' system in the sense that it is a coherent basis for action in the world.
"My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values."
In this, Atheism is not defined by what it isn't, or by what it rejects: it is a consequence of other thoughts, not a 'stand alone' thought. And its value lies in the consequences of having conceived it. This is, in my opinion, the upshot of PZ's original post.
I 'believe' that 'god talk' is absurd. It has no meaning. I positively value the lack of such absurdities. I 'believe', that is, I act as if it is true, that there is no such 'thing' as 'god', however defined. (If we believe something, we act as if it is true. Yes, many people lie about their beliefs, but the definition of belief as a propensity to action functions better than any other definition I've encountered. And yes, I am making a bare assertion, and not taking the time to defend it, but this is a comments thread, not a dissertation, deal with it)
However, when a 'dictionary' atheist argues that the negative belief in god is the sum of atheism, he is making an 'essential' claim - defined in its negativism. Moreover, it a claim that stands before the fact of the experience of atheism. 'Apples are red, if it is not red, it is not an apple' kind of thing. But this negative assertion of an arbitrary definition does not define the experience of basing one's actions (including thoughts) on natural events, rather than (presumed, unverifiable, and most certainly unreal) supernatural events.
From my experience: I live in the 'most atheistic nation' in Europe, I teach philosophy. The overwhelming majority of my students are 'atheists' - who believe in astrology or homeopathy or alchemy, or some other inanity. I am confronted on a daily basis with people who fervently argue the 'dictionary definition' of atheism - and simultaneously defend some equally blatant bit of woo. Dictionary atheism does no great service in the pursuit of critical thinking. It strikes me that we are well served by rethinking what we mean by 'atheist'.
Again, I offer my kudos to PZ for an excellent piece of armchair philosophy - and I mean no snark. He defines terms, presents arguments, and leaves his reader with a clearer sense of what that symbol 'atheist' can imply. Offering this tip of my hat is the first half of what I wanted to contribute to this thread. The second half is to comment that such 'philosophizing' is seldom appreciated. Argue against this all you want, but quote mining and other such petty behavior only displays the accuracy of this remark.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 6:59 AM
@400: re belief as a propensity to action, I was thinking of the Russell/Wittgenstein/Rhino-in-the-room story ("I looked under all the desks, but Wittgenstein remained unconvinced"). I'd argue that Wittgenstein was clearly lying, inasmuch as he didn't act like a man who seriously thought there might be a huge aggressive pachyderm in the room with him. Is this the sort of thing you mean?
Posted by: Ray Garton
|
February 2, 2011 7:10 AM
I'm a huge fan of your blog, PZ, and read it daily. As much as I enjoy it, I don't think I've ever gotten as much out of it as I got from this piece. It's beautifully written and thought out, and you've moved me to change the way I think about something.
I am at times a Dictionary Atheist, I must confess. But it's only when I'm told, "Atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity, it's just as much a belief as any religion!" That always sends me into the dictionary definition of atheism as I refute the believer's ridiculous claim that I'm just another believer. But the dictionary definition of the word "atheist" does not define ME. The fact that I don't believe in god is not too high on the list of things that define me, and I go through that list every time some believer (usually the same one who says atheism is just another religious belief) says, "You're an atheist, so you don't believe in ANYTHING!" I believe in PLENTY of things. It's just that god isn't one of them.
The point you made in this article that hit me the hardest, though, was your response to the idea that "babies are all atheists." I've often said that everyone is born an atheist. In doing this, I have been guilty of dictionary atheism, because according to the dictionary definition, yes, everyone IS born an atheist because babies aren't born believing in god. But you've changed my mind about that, and I'm a little embarrassed that you HAD to change my mind -- I should have figured it out for myself. Atheism is far more than that simple lack of belief -- it is the result of much more thought and consideration than any infant could engage in. You're right. Up until now, I've been wrong. I shall adjust my thinking accordingly. Thank you.
Posted by: chairman bill
|
February 2, 2011 7:10 AM
Dictionary definitions are important. Humpty Dumpty might not like that they give words specific meanings, but I think it important.
'Atheist' defines my absence of belief in god(s). And, er, that's it. I have no belief in god(s), so I'm an atheist. Simple. I am also a rational skeptic, which says something positive about me, but doesn't define me as an atheist (a deist might be equally rational & skeptical). I have no time for any sort of supernaturalist, mumbo-jumbo bollocks, but being an atheist doesn't require that I hold this view; an atheist could very well believe in ghosts, PSI, homeopathy, or a million and one nonsensical concepts.
I get what PZ is saying, but 'atheist' still means an absence of belief in deity, and nothing more.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
February 2, 2011 7:13 AM
@396 (John),
That prayer is ineffective is a descriptive claim. That it is a waste of time and therefore not a morally good thing to do is a normative claim that is not based upon atheism. But it is compatible with atheism.
@398 (Bruce),
You've just given a bunch of descriptive facts: if atheism is true, then arguments which require an intervening deity to be true are necessarily false. Great, I agree. But that does not lead to any particular normative claims. That you base your moral structure upon facts of the world does not mean that only your moral structure could be true. You do not get to mix objective claims ("There are not gods") with subjective ones and claim you have therefore made the subjective claims somehow objective. (Furthermore, I have granted your argument more leeway than it deserves because you actually just gave me a hypothetical imperative as an example ('If I want to be fit, I must train'), rather than a normative claim ('It is good to be fit').
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
February 2, 2011 7:21 AM
"That you base your moral structure upon facts of the world does not mean that only your moral structure could be true."
I intended for that to undergo significant revision. What I meant to say was:
"That you base your moral structure upon facts of the world does not mean that you have derived as much from atheism. A deist can come to the same moral structure as you, but that doesn't make his basis deism."
Posted by: EnglishAtheist
|
February 2, 2011 7:39 AM
Well, here's why I'm an atheist:
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-im-atheist-in-answer-to-pz-part-1.html
And here's where I disagree with PZ a little.
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-answer-to-pz-part-2-in-which-i.html
Essentially, I'd like more people to be atheists without really considering religion. I'd like them to explain, if pressed, that they don't believe in god etc as the notion sounded like utter nonsense, like ghosts etc.
Posted by: barbfleming119
|
February 2, 2011 7:43 AM
It has become important to me to try to express that all belief is a form of "ism" that is the first step to one more dogmatic approach to how others should live like me, assuming that I have the correct view and the most discerning, carefully reasearched position. Therefore, I claim I am human. I live on planet earth. I am in the process of understanding how I can become more helpful than harmful without becoming a believer in my own "righteousness." The only nagging belief I have is that all this has been said and done before. Why bother? That's a good question. I'm still willing to pursue an answer I personally find helpful. In the meantime, I hope to help when asked, be available to those who feel they need something I have to give, and to use less in the process. End of mini rant! Thanks for listening. Be well, whether you want to be or not. (JOKE)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk9MWfcHeNy5ExbrzhzhR056o0Klf5QbyI
|
February 2, 2011 7:56 AM
On this one I think PZM has lost the plot!
In his article he explicitly includes scientific attitudes, reliance on reason and evidence, positive values and critical thinking. These are all good things to be sure, and often go along with atheism. But they are aspects of rationalism, not atheism. (Buddhism is an atheist religion, but is not rational in the critical thinking sense). Rocks are atheist (notice the subtle use of the adjective form here) just as much as they are legless. And it's about as useless to point out each of those facts. But having a useless application does not make the definition useless.
Dictionary definitions are used to make sure we are talking about the same thing when we use a word. In this case, in his dogmatic aversion to dictionary definitions, PZM has built his argument against the wrong word, rather than against the wrong meaning.
Pick up a dictionary PZM, choose a more suitable word to describe who and what you are, and leave the definition to the dictionary. :-)
Posted by: zachsmind
|
February 2, 2011 8:12 AM
Let's say you were to ask a firefighter why he's a firefighter, and he said because his father was a firefighter and his grandfather. It's tradition.
Then you turn to his friend who is also a firefighter. "Why are you a firefighter?" you ask. He hems and haws a bit but essentially the answer you get from him is that it's a great way to pick up women.
Then you ask a third firefighter. She talks about the importance of firemen in communities, about how a First Responder is there for you at the lowest ebb of your life and she's there to pick you up when you're down. It's a noble calling.
A fourth guy might tell you he's an adrenaline junkie. A fifth might talk about how she likes both the low tech and the high tech equipment (maybe she refers to them as toys). A sixth may describe the challenge to better yourself every day and be a better person. A seventh may talk of the camaraderie in the fire house & how it's like having an extended family; they like to feel they belong somewhere, and how that somewhere is important and does good things.
Some of these ladies and gentlemen, after hearing their fellow firefighters describe their reasons, may even agree. They're firefighters because of that too. Others may think that's a good reason, but it's not why they're a firefighter. Still others may disagree on some ideas while agreeing with others.
All these people are firefighters, but why they're firefighters are not the same. The reasons they became firefighters can be described outside the word firefighter. Adrenaline junkie. Self-improvement. Community service. Hero. Are ALL firefighters adrenaline junkies? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Are all firefighters heroes? We like to think so, but is that accurate to say? Are all firefighters brave? Can we assume that?
Atheism shouldn't perhaps be compared to such a high standard of excellence as firefighting, and I understand doing so is perhaps a disservice to some brave men & women; but I hope my point has been made.
Posted by: EnglishAtheist
|
February 2, 2011 8:22 AM
@408
"Dictionary definitions are used to make sure we are talking about the same thing when we use a word"
Yes, and I think PZ's not disagreeing with that. It seems to me that he wants people to say *why* they fit that definition in the dictionary.
Posted by: John W. Loftus
|
February 2, 2011 8:34 AM
Damn, PZ, I thought I was the only one who could piss some atheists off. Looks like I have my work cut out for me if I'm going to keep up with you. ;-)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 2, 2011 8:34 AM
If atheism is a product of critical thinking, so is science...scientific thinking is newer than a rational rejection of the almighty, FFS. The point of view that atheism precedes from scientific thinking is in conflict with previous arguments that PZ has made regarding lack of an empirical basis for rejecting the whole hot mess. So is "scientific thinking" here stripped of empiricism?
Meh. Guess I'll have to watch the talk, but most of this post seemed like nonsense.
Apologize for the drive-by, but I have been busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
Posted by: brianbrown
|
February 2, 2011 8:38 AM
I think about this a lot. I do a comic about religion specifically from an Atheist POV. After doing this for about a year now, I've come to the conclusion that most people come to a conclusion about God (theist OR atheist) and then don't think about it much anymore after that.
Thankfully, we live in a time where you don't get KILLED for being an Atheist. Like in this comic:
http://www.everythingdiescomic.com/?s=46
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
February 2, 2011 8:41 AM
Re: 401, Basically yes, that's a great story that catches the gist of it. I'd agree that Wittgenstein was (at best) being facetious in his claim. While I think that there is often a point to W's side of things, in that situation I clearly side with R.
The definition of belief as the propensity to action originated back in the 18th century with Thomas Reid. Nicholas Green placed it center stage at the metaphysical club of Cambridge Mass. James used it as a way of reconciling the reality of Darwin with the persistence of religion. Peirce used it to great effect to argue against Descartes 'method of [presumed] doubt', and subsequently to D's entire 'two world' system. It also lies behind "How to make our ideas clear", where P underscores the notion that a pretense of doubt when none actually exists can serve neither science nor philosophy.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
February 2, 2011 8:52 AM
Waaaaaay late to the game here; but I have to chime in.
The only required attribute of an atheist is lack of belief in any god. (or maybe Lack-Of-Belief-In-Any-God™ ?) (I have hard time seeing how anyone can disagree with that statement.) It is not an explanation of why one has that attribute.
I do trot out the dictionary definition of atheism regularly -- to apologists who claim atheism is a religion. It's a useful tool in deflecting that attack. It's of no use in explaining my reasons for being an atheist.
I am frequently asked to account for my disbelief; and then I respond with the same reasons PZ lists above: Review of the evidence (right at the top of the list), etc.
Atheists come in many flavors (thank Hank!).
Posted by: Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
|
February 2, 2011 9:00 AM
I tend to use the dictionary definition, too, without a lot of talk about my reasons for being an atheist. If I'm pressed, I'll give reasons such as those PZ mentioned.
The difference here may be that some of us are "active" atheists while others of us don't spend a lot of time on the issue. In my case, I get accused of being an atheist maybe 20 times for every time I bring up the subject myself.
~~ Paul
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnMcwpqTT5HT8RFFhDgFGDrHcuYPH-0B50
|
February 2, 2011 9:05 AM
Sorry, PZ, you are wrong here. Your post draws an explicit connection with how and why people are atheist with atheism itself. This is simply incorrect. If I had become atheist because I believed that alien lizard-people from the planet Zlithyx had used their telepathic powers to tell me that they had explored the whole of existance and could verify that there were no god or gods of any kind, I would be an atheist. An insane atheist, but an atheist nonetheless. The 'Dictionary Atheists' are right - atheism means the lack of belief in any god or gods, nothing more. Where they are wrong is in claiming that topics such as why people are atheists and what this means for society are topics not worth discussing. They are. You, quite correctly, point out that atheism cannot exist in some perfectly pure, theoretical state with no connection to society or the world, so these topics are a good area for discussion. Where you are wrong is in thinking these discussions or topics have any influence whatsoever in whether someone fits the definition of 'atheist' or not.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
February 2, 2011 9:07 AM
Although saying "babies are atheists" is ridiculous, saying, "we are all born atheists and have to learn theism from culture," is not.
And I stand by the notion that no action is required by a non-believer for them to be rightfully considered an atheist. If they haven't chosen to believe in gods, they are atheist. (They may not be consciously or actively atheist.) It really is the default condition. The fact that human cultures easily and rapidly spin up religions does not invalidate this. Of course it's much better to have good reasons for rejecting all gods.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
February 2, 2011 9:13 AM
I looked at my cute little atheist baby
(With wonderful new-baby smell!)
And thought that it might be more accurate, maybe
To use more descriptors as well
The privative “atheist”, so I’ve been told
Is a measure of what she is not;
It’s clearly the case, if I might be so bold,
There are more words describing the tot:
My baby is flightless; my babe is unwed;
She’s not blonde, for there isn’t a hair on her head;
She’s scale-less, of course, for as much as I’d wish
She has no hint of Mermaid, or tidbit of fish;
She’s hatless, for now, till I give her a hat,
And cloudless as well, though I’m glad about that;
She’s treeless, which helps her to fit in her cot,
And windowless—windows, again, she has not.
She has plenty of cute—I shall not call her cuteless—
And she’s sweeter than Mom’s Apple Pie;
But listing her negatives clearly is fruitless
When privatives do not apply.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2011/02/dictionary-atheist-baby.html
Posted by: AtheistLiving
|
February 2, 2011 9:15 AM
I don't understand the section about "Dictionary Atheists." There seem to be two scenarios squeezed into one definition:
1. During a discussion about the philosophies attached to atheism, a Dictionary Atheist comes along and says that atheism simply means not believing in gods, and that atheism does not have it's own set of beliefs or philosophies.
2. When asked why he's an atheist, a Dictionary Atheist only gives the definition of the word "atheist" without sharing his personal reasons for not believing in gods.
In the first scenario I would qualify as a Dictionary Atheist. I'm all for atheists getting together to discuss their philosophies and find common bonds, but those philosophies are subsets of atheism, not atheism itself.
I think it would be more accurate for atheists to define their beliefs/philosophies by calling themselves Humanists, Objectivists, Secularists, etc. Atheism includes any philosophies (even conflicting ones) that also have a lack of belief in supernatural gods. Attaching philosophies to atheism itself is limiting and can exclude others with different views.
The second scenario is a bit different. I would not answer the question "Why are you an atheist?" by simply defining the word atheism. Depending on the situation, I could give a brief explanation or a more in-depth recounting of my journey to atheism. But my personal reasons for being an atheist do not necessarily apply to all atheists.
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
February 2, 2011 9:17 AM
I'm with DanishDynamite. I'm an atheist because I was raised without religion, and even once I discovered what religion was I never saw any reason to adopt it. Even at the age of five or so, it seemed pretty silly or useless and I still have trouble believing that there are adults who really actually take religion both seriously and literally. Like hippiehunter, I feel that I'm an atheist because I'm wired that way; apparently there's some sort of subjective experience that religious people have (even if it's something they're fooling themselves into having) that I've never had, because my mental map just doesn't include any of those ill-defined concepts they talk about. I don't think I've ever had anything that could be defined as a "spiritual experience" in my life.
So to me, atheism is less about philosophy than process, I guess. I know a lot of theists who will outright state that they have no objective evidence for a deity, but maintain that they have subjective evidence. I don't have either, and I'm not even sure I'm capable of feeling whatever it is that they're feeling that they identify as "god." I also don't really find comfort or utility in ritual and don't like communities of random individuals (or the idea of hanging out with dozens of people on a regular basis), so I don't need religion from that angle either.
I also don't think those are exactly what PZ is defining as "positive reasons"; to make up a sort of bullshit metaphor, it's more like the part of my brain which creates the conditions that drive people to religion doesn't work -- I think I'm areligious in the way that people who have certain types of brain damage are aphasic.
Posted by: brstilson
|
February 2, 2011 9:19 AM
While atheism is defined only by its rejection of theism, that doesn't mean that all reasons for rejecting belief are sound and logically valid.
My reasons for being an atheist are:
Secular morals are superior to religious morals. They are the objective standard to which all morals are ultimately judged. They also change with the times, so you never have an instance where thousands of gay teenagers suffer and contemplate suicide because 3,000 years ago a tribe of desert nomads on the other side of the world needed to keep their birth rates up. If there was a true religion, this would not be the case. I realize this only disproves the theist, interventionist God, but the theist, interventionist God is what 99% of all believers believe in.
I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. It's important because the more true things and the fewer false things you believe, the better the decisions you'll make in life.
The burden of proof is on the believer. I'm not saying that anything exists or doesn't exist. It's up to the believer to prove to me what he's saying is true.
I strive to apply a consistent standard of evidence to all extraordinary claims. No extraordinary, supernatural claim deserves more consideration than any others without more supporting evidence for it. Popularity and influence is not evidence.
Finally, I'm unconvinced by the evidence I've been presented for a god so far.
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
February 2, 2011 9:20 AM
Cuttlefish @419: Bravo. Again. Though your brilliance is consistent, your verses always bring fresh delight! (BTW, I found Pharyngula via Cuttlefish, who I found via Grrl Scientist, who I found because I love birds.)
JBlilie @#418:
"Default condition" - I like that.
And the word which immediately sprang to mind, in response:
"Unsullied"
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnMcwpqTT5HT8RFFhDgFGDrHcuYPH-0B50
|
February 2, 2011 9:22 AM
Oh, and PZ, not sure if anyone's pointed this out, but, to meet your challenge in post #245:
From your original post:
Sorry, babies are atheists. The reasons why they are atheists may be different than that of most adult human atheists, but that does not mean they are not atheists. Because YOU expect a 'token amount of thought' given to the subject does not mean that someone or something who does not give that thought to the subject, even if it's because they're incapable of that thought, does not mean they are not atheist.
Posted by: Jennifer T
|
February 2, 2011 9:28 AM
Of course I have reasons for being an atheist - gods are a mythological concept unsupported by reality. But I'm still a dictionary atheist because beyond the basic definition of not being theist, atheism is irrelevant. Sure, you can say the definition alone is not very helpful and the underlying values are more important, and I agree, but then you're not talking about atheism anymore.
However, what really angers me is this:
NO. NO. NO. We may, individually, have positive goals and values, but you do NOT get to lump people together into a "movement" or "organisation", and you do NOT get to assume my or anyone's support for ANYTHING based on a shared lack of belief in the blatantly untrue.
Posted by: brstilson
|
February 2, 2011 9:34 AM
That said, it really grates on me when American Atheists or Richard Dawkins make statements to the effect of "Atheists are kind people who believe in treating their neighbors well and being responsible community members" or "Atheists believe in helping their fellow man instead of just praying." No, those are humanists. They are also atheists, but the statement implies that they are trying to include ALL atheists in that umbrella. And hell, they're probably right for the most part. But the tying of atheism to a coherent moral philosophy to me is just giving in to the "well, atheism is just another religion" crowd. Atheism is not a religion or a moral philosophy. There is no dogma, there are no tenets, no popes, no priests, no deacons, no presidents, and no bosses. You can't be kicked out of atheism for being a douchebag.
What bugs the fuck out of me are the atheist douchebags who actually talk like we ARE a religion with a rigid set of beliefs and ideals (I'm nodding in YOUR direction, Michael Newdow), starting atheist CHURCHES of all things. It's like if an organization formed to promote racial diversity and understanding started calling themselves the New American Nazi Party, and then got confused over why so many people think they're racists.
Posted by: brstilson
|
February 2, 2011 9:37 AM
So PZ, if you find someone who isn't an atheist for a reason you like, how are you going to go about kicking them out of atheism?
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 9:52 AM
It's amazing that people can read a post of, and I quote, "...the things about atheism that bug me, and that I wish people would stop doing", and then imagine that they're reading a list of No True Atheists. And that "I wish you'd stop doing that" means "Burn, heretic".
And @424, you forgot to complete your quote with "If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is." So, PZ agrees with you that babies are dictionary atheists.
Actually, come to think of it, how do we know that babies are atheists? They may be irreligious, sure, but how do we know that some babies aren't instinctive theists?
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 9:58 AM
Wow, reading all those comments was difficult.
I agree that 'atheist' is not a particularly useful term when describing your belief system/values. For this reason I would prefer 'humanist' or 'sceptic'. I do however (like many other on this thread), use the dictionary definition in rebuttal against theist arguments generalising about atheists and calling atheism a religion.
I also think that babies are atheists, as I understand the word to include those who have never encountered or considered the notion of gods. Of course, a baby would not self identify as an atheist.
I have never encountered anyone bringing up the strict definition in 'a discussion ...talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society' and I can see it might be frustrating for those who hold (or want) the term to have broader implications. I do think boiling it down to its base element is sometimes useful, though.
Like a couple of others on this thread, I do not consider myself to have 'become' an atheist...I just realised that I was one, one day. Someone wrote that they only realised they were an atheist when they realised that religion existed. Same with me - one of my earliest memories is telling the carers at preschool that I didn't have to say 'Amen' before nap time. I had no idea at the time why this was, however. It was only much later that I realised there were such things as believers and that I was not one.
I did not use reasoning to come to the position of being an atheist. When asked why I am an atheist, I would simply answer 'because I was never taught otherwise (the positive claim about religion)'. I can however, use reason quite compellingly (or so I think) to argue why my atheism is a logical and correct position, given hindsight.
Did I 'become' an atheist because of an absence of values? I think I was always an atheist because of an absence of belief. All the rest is semantics. ;)
Posted by: thomasjbarrett
|
February 2, 2011 10:01 AM
I am an atheist because I love this life.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
February 2, 2011 10:03 AM
Hmm....one reason to become an atheist: My own imaginary friend is much stronger than Yaweh (I suppose somone else has already written that, but WTF).
Posted by: madbull
|
February 2, 2011 10:07 AM
Isn't the absurdity of a belief in God given the total lack of evidence enough reason to be an atheist ? You would call such an atheist a dictionary atheist.
I think that reason is better than seeing God belief as a cause of social evil. That doesn't test the truth of the claim does it ?
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:09 AM
C’mon people! Why do so many of you just not get it? Are you morans? ;-)
PZ isn’t saying the dictionary definition of "atheist” is wrong! (Although it is the case that dictionary definitions differ… so which is the “right” one? I was surprised to find that NOAD defines “atheism” as “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” I’d always taken it to include the “weaker” “lack of belief”. And be inclusive of gods in general, not of “God” in particular. Nor am I clear on precisely where deism, pantheism and panentheism lie… given, eg, that deism was just “theologically correct” atheism. But I digress: Accept that, like many words, “atheism” is imprecise, with a range of meanings that shade into one another. Kind of like a species.)
PZ isn’t asking for “atheist” to be re-defined according to his reasons for being an atheist!
So, PZ isn’t attacking “dictionary atheists” for citing such a definition — and this can, indeed, be useful for rebutting stupid assertions by fundie trolls.
His point is that “I am an atheist” is just synonymous with “I believe in no gods”: They are equivalent statements, so saying “I am an atheist because I believe in no gods” is just inane.
Anyone who says that and believes there is no more fundamental reason isn’t displaying much self-awareness or clear thinking.
Joey #129 provides an excellent example of people’s confusion, I think:
But, Joey, you’ve already gone further than that! You circled back to being a dictionary atheist, when you’d already provided sound reasons for your atheism. And both statements are, I think, pretty sound reasons. You’ve already shown the kind of positive values that PZ was looking for: A desire for claims to be supported by evidence and for arguments to be logically sound.
Even those few who claim to have “always been” atheists, you still have reasons for that position: Why are you still an atheist?
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 10:12 AM
I just thought of something - Perhaps the more pertinent question for we 'Atheists by default' is 'Why are you still an atheist?'.
Posted by: legistech
|
February 2, 2011 10:14 AM
A) I really don't care what PZ thinks of me.
B) I am an atheist because I see no evidence for any deity, and;
C) I find the concept of a deity inherently fairly ludicrous
D) I hate it when people imply that one needs the theory of evolution in some manner in order to be an atheist, or an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist. Evolution could be completely disproven tomorrow and it wouldn't change my position on deities in the slightest.
E) I'll sometimes use the dictionary definition of atheism to point out not only that atheists could believe in all sorts of supernatural things such as ghosts, fairies, souls and the like without actually believing in a deity, but also that looked at objectively any of those things are *more* likely than a deity, given that they're not unlimited in power. If you've rejected vampires, then you really don't have any reasonable call to go accepting gods. As for myself, I've rejected the hypothesis that vaccines have any significant role in autism, and that hypothesis has far, far more logic and reason behind it than any deity.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:14 AM
madbull #432: You’re another Joey. You think you’re a dictionary atheist, but you’re not: “the absurdity of a belief in God given the total lack of evidence” is a reason that goes beyond the dictionary definition!
Posted by: Blattafrax
|
February 2, 2011 10:15 AM
So, I'm a dictionary atheist then. While I think I agree with the general gist of the post I'm still an atheist because I don't believe in gods. But atheism makes no difference to 99.99% of my life - it only comes up when discussing gods and even then rationalism and skepticism are far more influential.
So, carry on PZ. Feel free to diss 0.01% of my life and then I can move on to the important stuff (which might have been the gist of your post anyway). As a professional atheist you obviously have to say this stuff, but it isn't really that relevant to anyone's life is it?
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 10:16 AM
Oh wow. That was a coincidence. I promise I did not steal your IP, Ant.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:19 AM
Poggy #434: There’s an echo in here! :-D
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 10:24 AM
People still aren't understanding it.
The reason the label "atheist" applies is because you don't believe in gods. Yes, fine, we got it, us too, moving on.
Now, why do you not believe in gods? That's the interesting and personal part, the part which varies from person to person, and that's what the question "why are you an atheist?" means.
Posted by: legistech
|
February 2, 2011 10:25 AM
I'm an atheist because I am a rock.
;p
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 10:30 AM
On the internet nobody knows you're a tree! :)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnMcwpqTT5HT8RFFhDgFGDrHcuYPH-0B50
|
February 2, 2011 10:31 AM
Stephen Wells #428:
In the part I quoted, he explicitly says that babies are not atheists. So, combine the two together and he's saying that babies are No True Atheists, based on the idea that he finds that the fact the term 'atheist' can also be accurately applied to trees and rocks 'ridiculously useless'.
No, he doesn't. When it comes to atheism, as far as I'm concerned, if you do not believe in any god or gods, you are an atheist, and if you do believe in some kind of god or gods, you are not an atheist. What PZ seems to be saying is that you could belong to a third group, where you do not believe in any god or gods, but aren't REALLY an atheist. I say this third group don't exist - they are atheists, simply by the very definition of the word 'atheist', regardless of why they are atheist, or anything else.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle
|
February 2, 2011 10:39 AM
"Atheist" means only one thing to me: no god. It does NOT describe my politics (Syndicalism). It does NOT describe my philosophy (something akin to Epicureanism). And it does NOT describe my world-view (Rationalism). Atheism is a consequence of what I do believe. That is all.
There is no there there.
And, honestly, I find your view rather pathetic in that it relies upon a false belief to define itself. I will not let Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Banjo the fucking Clown delineate me.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:44 AM
googlemess #443: “they are atheists, simply by the very definition of the word 'atheist'”
That depends on which dictionary definition you use! Following NOAD, which I wouldn’t ordinarily do, “atheism” is “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” And clearly babies are incapable of espousing such a theory or belief.
And that’s what PZ is getting at. It is specious to apply the dictionary definition, even if “logically true”, to an entity that isn’t capable of articulating a worldview.
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 10:44 AM
Ant, mind you, the answer to 'why are you still an atheist' could simply be that you just haven't considered the topic in your adult life (akin to the reason that some people baptised, but never practising, still call themselves Christian).
This is a position I am sure some atheists must hold, although to me this seems very alien, as I cannot imagine not considering things like this on a daily basis, but then again, people have commented to me that I do seem to think about religion and atheism a *lot*.
I think my atheism might give me grey hairs, one day.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 10:48 AM
@443: we are atheists in the sense that we have an opinion on the subject, and that opinion is atheistic. Theists have a different opinion on the subject. Babies, trees and rocks don't have opinions on the subject, which makes the application of either "theist" or "atheist" otiose. There's your three groups for you.
You might as well say that everybody is either Employed or Unemployed. There are, in fact, other categories of people not in employment - children, for example - for which the term Unemployed is no more appropriate than the term Employed.
Beware of the false dilemma.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkTMHfLPZEDf0U9xt9G_sEWzqndV3j4oJA
|
February 2, 2011 10:49 AM
Saying that Atheism is just "not believing in deities" is about as accurate as saying that Christianity is just "The worship of Jesus Christ." Technically, this is true. But in practice, it says so very little of meaning as to be, well..meaningless.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:49 AM
Poggy. Even that is a reason (if not a particularly positive one): Apatheism. ;-)
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 10:54 AM
Stephen #447: “otiose” +5 for vocab! ;-)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3m7DJ5IDuekRrDecB7fQFVvUILuLjxgy#f34f3
|
February 2, 2011 10:56 AM
There’s a bit of a bait and switch going on there, surely?
If people are discussing atheism and its social context and someone comes along and interject that atheism just means no god belief, that’s all – then yes that would be annoying and rude and a bit pointless of them.
But where people are actively approached and asked “why are you an atheist?”, then I think giving the dictionary atheist response is perfectly fine. Ok, maybe it’s not particularly helpful or polite, but I’m not clear as to why anyone should automatically owe anyone else a more detailed response.
There are doubtless deeply planted roots of whys and wherefores to most every thought in my head, my atheism, my choice of wardrobe or preference for certain flowers; that doesn’t mean I’m obliged pull them up and examine them in public for any nosey-parker who happens to ask me.
Aj
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 11:01 AM
#445 (Ant), but at what point do we develop a world view? At what point would you say I 'became' an atheist, for instance? I certainly do not remember any specific revelation, just a gradual realisation that others did not hold my understanding.
This is why I prefer the combined definition (belief in no god/no belief in god), and if you use this definition, calling a baby an atheist is not specious at all.
If we are not all using the same definitions though, discussing whether or not babies are atheists seems moot.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
February 2, 2011 11:01 AM
@451: because saying "I don't believe in gods because I don't believe in gods" says no more than "I don't believe in gods", so it's not really responsive. "I see no reason to believe in gods" is responsive; I currently favour "Gods are fictional", which should be short enough for anybody.
Posted by:
|
February 2, 2011 11:03 AM
I don't understand the objection to the dictionary definition of "atheist". It means "A person who lacks a belief in god". So what?
That's what the word means. Calling someone a "dumbass" for pointing out obvious truth doesn't make sense to me.
And the definition also throws out the "If babies are atheists, then rocks and trees are, too" argument. Rocks and trees aren't "A person", so the definition doesn't apply to them.
None of this means that the definition of "atheist" is meaningless. Why would you say so, #448?
Of course atheists believe in lots of things. That doesn't undermine the definition. I guess I miss the point. Or maybe I don't--because to me, the point is merely to be a smartass and to stir up ridiculous arguments.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 2, 2011 11:10 AM
An atheist is someone who tells you she is an atheist--unless she's lying.
Posted by: Poggy
|
February 2, 2011 11:11 AM
#448, well, if it's 'meaning' you are after, I guess that is the reason that we have encyclopaedias as well as dictionaries.
Posted by: legistech
|
February 2, 2011 11:14 AM
But what about Banjulhu?!
Posted by: sirdarkstar
|
February 2, 2011 11:19 AM
I haven't seen this brought up yet... the current OED goes a step further and defines:
atheism: disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
But the main question this leaves in my mind is, does the god have to be a Real god or just an Imagined god?
If an imagined god suffices then everyone is an atheist -- if a real god is required then... perhaps nobody is an atheist?
Of course, this is actually how the term was traditionally used. The Romans called the Christians atheists because they denied the clearly real Roman Gods.
Damn those philosophical terms that just won't stand still for a nice crisp definition.
However, I cannot see any good coming from trying to pin other specific beliefs (like big bang, QM, relativity, abiogenesis, evolution) on atheism. For one, all those theories are known to be incomplete. They are all good grounds for arguing a naturalistic viewpoint but that's about it.
The important difference between Atheism and religion is that Atheism doesn't command you to cut off part of a child's genitals because the big bang happened. I argue that we should keep it that way.
Posted by: geeb.myopenid.com
|
February 2, 2011 11:20 AM
Wow! Atheism sounds awesome. How do you join?
You're only required to believe things for which there is good evidence, and even then you can still be skeptical about it and not believe it, up to the point where not believing it make you look like you are irrationally denying something that is actually true!
This sounds totally, well, reasonable! Why do more people not become atheists?
Maybe some people over simplify their view on the world so that ideas that on deeper inspection are flawed, appeal to them, because their powers of reasoning are not developed enough. Or they haven't fully examined all the available evidence.
Also, some people may be uncomfortable because of the previous amount of time and effort they have spend pursuing goals that are based on ideas that they begin to suspect are actually flawed.
Perhaps, rather than have to do an intellectual U turn, they gather together with others who can restore their feeling of comfort by reinforcing the acceptance of these flawed ideas.
Anyway, I for one certainly do enjoy thinking with my brane!
Posted by: neko
|
February 2, 2011 11:23 AM
pz-
I'm a professional linguist and I wanted to offer you a little extra on the dictionary issue.
From a scientific perspective, "languages" are not accurately described by dictionaries. Dictionaries are cultural objects that typically codify somebody's idea of how some language "should" work.
How a language "does" work, including the meaning of words, has to be gotten elsewhere.
If you take language to be the thing in a speaker's head, then you get at language by asking the speaker questions about their language, or more generally, by doing experiments on a speaker. Most linguists are in this camp.
Some take language to be something shared by a bunch of speakers. If so, you would get at it by studying what bunches of speakers do.
All of this is to say that the science says dictionaries are pretty irrelevant to the meaning of a word.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
February 2, 2011 11:27 AM
Let's be fair here: atheism itself DOES just mean what the dictionary says: a (without) + theos (God(s)).
Agnosticism is also a question of knowledge, not faith. I am (and I think you are as well) an agnostic atheist, in that you have no God belief but do not know that there never was, is not, and never will be in any spacetime, or outside of same, any god or Gods. Strong atheism as a generality is unjustified; even the Catlick Encyclopedia gets that one right.
That said, you're right that when someone says "I'm an atheist" they are usually telling you other things about themselves. Because atheism tout court IS just its dictionary definition, most atheists also have a moral/political dimension (some form of secular humanism), an intellectual dimension (scientific method, requiring evidence), and a social dimension (geek, philosopher, shellshocked veteran, what have you).
Is it anal? Yes, it is, but the distinctions are important, especially because it's a tactic of the fundie fringe to pack everything from worldview to morals into the word "atheism."
If anything I think you should be encouraging people to separate these things out for this exact reason. People need to know that atheism isn't a religion, since it doesn't come with any enforced dogma.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
February 2, 2011 11:29 AM
This discussion among atheists, of what atheism means, is evidence of a movement. The existence of thousands of atheist websites, presenting arguments for why other people should also be atheists, is stronger evidence for a movement. The rapid demographic rise of people self-identifying as atheists is also evidence for a movement.
Not all movements have "leaders" (though it would be naive to think this one doesn't). Not all movements have broadly agreed-upon goals. But atheism today is a movement, and our participation on websites like Pharyngula is a form of organization.
Not "an organization" in the sense that atheists.org are an organization, but we are organized.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 11:35 AM
neko #460: And that devalues what PZ is saying, how? Call “dictionary atheists” “meaning atheists” then! (Or “mean atheists”?)
Anyone who says, “I am a [word] because [meaning of word]” is just not thinking things through.
Posted by: starfia
|
February 2, 2011 11:41 AM
You can try to add meaning to the term if you want to –– if anyone can actually succeed in that, then you can, PZ. If everything changes and everyone comes to think of the term "atheist" as you do, then we'll all have become Dictionary Atheists again. Or, um…New Dictionary Atheists. Gnu Dictionary Atheists.
I wouldn't originally have decided to describe myself as an atheist without the current dictionary definition. Being stringent about the definitions of words is one of the positive values that also helps people think clearly, sort out logical fallacies and equivocations, et cetera. Words are only useful to the extent that people mean the same things by them.
Posted by: holyspiritdenier
|
February 2, 2011 11:47 AM
Myers's criticism of Dictionary Atheism has historical support. The Enlightenment-era atheist Denis Diderot, the hero of Philipp Blom's book A Wicked Company, defines atheism in his Encylopedie as "c'est l'opinion de ceux qui nient l'existence d'un Dieu auteur du monde. Ainsi la simple ignorance de Dieu ne feroit pas l'athéisme. Pour être chargé du titre odieux d'athéisme, il faut avoir la notion de Dieu, & la rejetter."
Which means something along the lines of, "is the opinion of those which deny the existence of a God as author of the world. Thus the simple ignorance of God is not atheism. To be charged with the odious title of atheism, it is necessary to have the concept of God, and to reject it."
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 11:52 AM
Poggy #452: I’m afraid I disagree with you there; I’m with Stephen “otiose” Wells.
Posted by: Jude
|
February 2, 2011 11:53 AM
Who on earth cares what people believe as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone else's throat. This obsession the US has with god is pretty incomprehensible to us here in the UK, and probably most of Europe as well.
The fact that none of your politicians dares say they don't believe in god shows just how childish you all are!
People's beliefs are their own affair. Belief in deities does not mean one is good, or kind, or caring, or intelligent, or capable. Time the US grew up.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 2, 2011 12:15 PM
The UK has an official state church and seats in parliament reserved for clergy. So, what the hell are you talking about?
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 12:17 PM
holyspiritdenier #465: So Diderot wouldn’t have said that babies were atheists either!
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
February 2, 2011 12:18 PM
John Morales
I see your point, but in my case "agnosticism" was actually a stage of deconversion. I had lost the notion that I had any particular reason to believe in gods at that point, but I still treating the god hypothesis as something worth considering, and thus being agnostic to. I hadn't come to the realization that I had a cultural reason for considering the god hypothesis, rather than an epistemic one. This led me to give the question undue weight. I had also accepted rhetoric about "atheists being as dogmatic as theists" and "fundamentalist atheists" etc. at face value. Reading the God Delusion set me straight about all of this overnight, but I digress.
My point is that I think some subset of agnostics are merely confused, and not necessarily wussy.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
February 2, 2011 12:19 PM
Here’s an idea for pharynguloids to consider. I got it from reading a new idea from Matt Taibbi.
Matt Taibbi has just named his supreme court of Assholdom in which a group of nine judges determines who in our society are the biggest assholes. Read the post and previous ones for more info.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-supreme-court-named-20110131
Wonder what PZ and the pharynguloids would think of something like yearly Pharangula awards nominated by pharynguloids.
They could be called for example the Pharygula awards – modeled after the Academy Awards, where the Academy (us) votes on nominees & this is winnowed down to 5 nominees which are then voted on the end of the year.
There could be Pharyngula awards for positive things such as:
Athiest of the Year
Skeptic of the Year
Blogger of the Year
Best Athiest Book of the Year
Etc.
And also negative things –
Accomodationist of the Year
Most Deserving of Templeton
Pseudoscientific politician of the year
Anti-science law of the year
Creationist of the year
Religious Asshole of the year
There could be a lot better names of course & different categories which a more creative person or collection of people could come up with. You get the point.
Just an idea – if it wasn’t too much work could be a lot of fun. Gotta go.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 2, 2011 12:27 PM
Also, I don't believe in babies.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 12:28 PM
Antiochus #468: We have a queen, too, but are still a democracy. Aren’t these historical hangovers quaint?
To see how obsessed with God the UK really is (ie, not at all), take a look at “Laws’ Law”.
Posted by: Yon
|
February 2, 2011 12:40 PM
My friend, who doesn't state he's an atheist, was brought up in a society where deities of any kind are not believed nor discussed. As far as I know the question whether to believe or not to believe never crossed his mind. Is he an atheist, or would calling him an atheist be akin to calling a rock an atheist?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
February 2, 2011 12:41 PM
Ant: Wow.
Crazy is an international phenomenon.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SP7SdHEnp4D96kIS9dl7vNx5ekJsLzL05_BGGw--#80d8b
|
February 2, 2011 12:47 PM
Just wondering, but what do you have against butter? Normally I agree with you, but I vehemently disagree with you that butter is bad...it's actually better for you than margarine. I eat butter straight from the stick, and I know I'm gonna sound like an evangelist on this, but eating fat is good for eating smaller portions because you don't feel deprived, plus it's great for the skin because you need fat under the skin to maintain a youthful appearance. I'm 34 and I'm frequently mistaken for 22 ( though of course I could be full of shit since none of you can see me). That said, I'm very disappointed that you would disparage butter like that. ;)
So that's it. I have nothing witty to add, no real disagreements with what you had to say. So boring.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
February 2, 2011 12:51 PM
Fortunately, I've never seen an atheist do that.
I've brought up the dictionary definition in a few discussions myself, but only as a counter to religious types who were trying to push their own false definitions.
And I've only ever presented it as a minimum definition, and gone on to describe the more nuanced and involved forms.
Personaly, I think only lacking a belief in god is too wishy-washy and non-commital to be a worthwhile position to hold. (Not much different from "I dont believe in any particular god, but I don't want to be so arrogant as to declare there is no god, so I'm an agnostic" - a position I used to hold myself, until I jumped straight to "FFS, God doesn't exist!" on reading one too many fundy screeds that were using "Because God says" as a justification for things that were factually wrong and/or moraly repugnant).
Posted by: Ann Minor
|
February 2, 2011 1:19 PM
BUTTER??? I will have you know that there is NOTHING wrong with butter. It is freaking awesome. The sugar & flour on the other hand, well, that'll kill ya.
Posted by: Ant
|
February 2, 2011 1:31 PM
Oh, for those looking for a “better” term than “atheist”, how about this?
nullifidian |ˌnʌlɪˈfɪdɪən| rare
noun
a person having no faith or religious belief.
adjective
having no faith or religious belief.
Posted by: patsoredneb
|
February 2, 2011 1:43 PM
I think, you're missing one point. You assume that people think, that their decision is whether to be theist or atheist is based on at least some basic considerations. And you take for granted, that it even is a positive decision. And i suppose, that it's very untrue - most people just don't give a shit. In countries dominated by religion (like Poland, where I live) most people are religious just because their parents and almost everybody else are also. They don't usually even consider changing it - they are happy with it and that's it. In non-religious countries like Czech Republic most people are atheist because of the same purposes - it's common. That's why i think, that you may be an atheist without any deeper purpose - you just don't care.
Also I'm sorry for any possible mistakes as English is not my native language.
Posted by: george.wiman
|
February 2, 2011 2:02 PM
Was Long, Did Read. Damn good post.
Philosophically I think people are like walking word-clouds. For instance, I am an atheist which (to me) only means I don't believe there's a god. But I'm also a humanist which means I support positive, constructive human values.
There are religious humanists. I was already a humanist before I became an atheist. When the dust settled I found that I had become an atheist humanist. Which made me an environmentalist which also made me a bit of a socialist. Or something.
So in answer to the post question: how did I get to atheism? Naturalistic world view undermined supernaturalism so there really couldn't (sans evidence) be any god. Hence atheist.
BUT - being disgusted with religious evil certainly got me examining that foundation so it's part of the story too. Had I not been a naturalist, who knows how it would have ended up? Is it even possible to put them in precise op order?
To me atheism doesn't carry the philosophical weight of humanism, environmentalism, etc. I'm careful to make that distinction because of all the supposed bad ethical conclusions that Christians think must derive from atheism. Which must make sense to them, having been told (and apparently not examined) that all morality comes from their god.
If PZ wants to say atheism makes him a naturalist, it's the opposite for how it worked for me, but it's his story, not mine. In any case I dont' hide behind some euphemism; Atheist is the right word and we should use it right up front. Atheist!
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
February 2, 2011 2:10 PM
And I am an atheist because I am an island.
Posted by: puzzleddragon
|
February 2, 2011 2:16 PM
PZ you are fleshing out a term with a simple definition. However I admire how you flesh it out.
The term atheist doesn't seem to go far enough with out your embroidery. In your definition, your redefinition, it does... I do know people who do not believe in gods or religion but who are not naturalists and who have no relation to science whatsoever. Perhaps that's (gasp) HERESY. (haha)
I have struggled with what to call myself. Freethinker for rejecting dogma, humanist, naturalist, rationalist, nontheist, naturalistic pantheist. I've tried on these handles and wished for one that encompassed them all. Perhaps I can go back to just atheist. Loved the second cartoon...
Posted by: heyjudi
|
February 2, 2011 2:22 PM
GREAT article and very serendipitous as it relates to something I wrote on my own blog yesterday. Even if you don't feel like reading the blog you ought to watch the video clip included. It gives a very good (and entertaining) view of humanism. I particularly like the part where he (the creator of the clip) says there is no empathy in heaven, and then explains why.
http://beinglumina.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-human-race.html
Posted by: lost.monkey
|
February 2, 2011 2:25 PM
I grew up in a smallish village and my family attended an Anglican Church. At the heart of this Church were an older priest and a younger priest. Both of them were very good men who always had time or even just a smile for any one of their parishioners. The younger priest oversaw youth programs and far from being an indoctrinating ogre, encouraged questioning and open conversation. It was this man who indirectly led me to atheism and it speaks to my memories of him that I don't think he would be disappointed as long as I turned out to be a good and kind person. I loathe religion, the things it is capable of and the things it has been responsible for. I believe the two men I've spoken of were misguided. I also believe they were better men than many atheists I know. An intellectual high horse can offer as skewed a view of the world as that which you are crapping on. Never stop trying to better yourself or you may be guilty of the rigidity you curse the religious zealot for.
Posted by: davej
|
February 2, 2011 2:48 PM
"My main point is that one general flaw in many atheists is a lack of appreciation for why they find themselves comfortable with that label..."
Hmmm, well I don't find myself comfortable with that label. Every few years we should just invent a new term. Keep moving the target.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
February 2, 2011 2:50 PM
before I started to read this blog I was put off by "atheism", I had seldom talked with anyone in those those terms I guess that was from my early life with others and my own early religious training.
I was at the same time convinced by science of the nature of the world and how it got that this way.
My own path to "unbelief" was through the east with some study of basic Hindu cosmology through Zen and Taoism all through the eye of reason was this true besides I liked the images that they used. Realizing that they were all talking about the world as it was and not trying to use fairy tales to convince me the "hoop snakes" were real and some guy "in heaven" was real. So I have had difficulty with answering the questions about belief because I don't believe but I do not want to alienate people. The discussions I have had with people who said they were "atheists" always seemed to be more anti some church as anything else so I never really considered myself an atheist. I try to not get trapped by the symbols we are forced to use to try to communicate with. For me what ever matches up with what we find as real must be real realizing that our and my own perception is limited and I am prone be wrong all to often, optical illusions are real so are rational illusions especially with limited or incorrect data.
I feel lucky I found this blog and have engaged these thoughts now if I would have found this earlier I might have been more easily paranoid about the dangers of the fanatical and superstitious religions working so hard to control the world.
belief was just not a positive question for me it is more of the illusions I learned as a child that still have emotional connections of guilt and fear that I try to over come.
If there is anything I could say that I believe in it is reality and reality is the only thing that is real. As we hurtle human beings headlong toward the unknown future with many potential problems in our way exploding population, increased ecological exploitation, global climate change political unrest and economic instability it seems more important to understand reality. belief or ideology wont help by itself unless it is in agreement with reality that includes all types of belief whether they are political, economic and religious.
thanks for this blog
uncle frogy
Posted by: P. Coyle
|
February 2, 2011 3:28 PM
A number of people here have made the same point I am about to make in slightly different ways, but let me provide my own take on things. Like PZ, I hate the people he calls "Dictionary Atheists" -- but the reason I hate them is because they aren't dictionary atheists. They are people who want to use the word "atheist" in what was, at least until rather recently, a highly unusual way, one that was not (and, I would argue, still is not) part of ordinary English discourse and therefore was and still is not likely to be found in ordinary descriptive English dictionaries.
As PZ puts it, this unusual definition is encompassed by the claim that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods." Does it? Some would go even farther and say that "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods." However, as PZ rightly points out, that could mean that trees and rocks are atheists, because they are, after all, entities that lack a belief in gods. Perhaps clarification is offered to saying that an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods. But then, as PZ says, all babies are atheists. What surprises me at this point is that so many people who call themselves atheists are perfectly happy to acknowledge newborns, or trees and rocks, as fellow atheists.
When I looked in my dictionary at home, I discovered that it said that an atheist was "One who professes the non-existence of God or gods." I'm not entirely happy with the notion that an atheist must be someone who "professes" such a belief, because it rules out the possibility of there being any such thing as a "closet atheist," but I do not object to the notion that the term "atheist" in ordinary English usage means something like "a person who believes that gods do not exist." This is not the same thing as "a person who does not believe that gods exist," since such a person could also be a "person who does not believe that gods do not exist." Such a person could be someone who has never thought about the existence of gods. Perhaps this is because he or she is an infant who has never thought about anything at all. Or perhaps because he or she has no beliefs either way about the existence of gods. In the latter case, I would call such an individual "undecided," not "an atheist."
I submit that including, under the definition of the term "atheist," "a person who has no beliefs either way about the existence of gods," is not particularly useful. Yes, I am aware of the attempt to say that such people are "weak atheists," but why weak atheists? Why not "weak theists"? After all, such people are like theists in that they do not believe in the non-existence of gods.
I have no objection to extending the meaning of words a bit when it seems to serve some good purpose. In this particular case, I don't see that it does. Rather, I think it simply leads to confusion.
Bottom line: If a person who "lacks a belief in the existence of gods" is a "Dictionary Atheist," I have to ask -- what dictionary are you using?
Posted by: Kapitano
|
February 2, 2011 3:32 PM
So you're an atheist because you're rational.
Some people are atheists for nonrational reasons - like, they weren't raised in a religion. Some people are mostly rational but are not atheists - they just prefer to keep a little corner of their lives fuzzy and god-inhabited.
You're using 'atheist' to mean 'evidence based', which is like using 'christian' to mean 'deluded'.
Posted by: calilasseia
|
February 2, 2011 3:32 PM
I've just read your blog post, PZ, and I felt moved to respond. I'll ask the rest of the posters here to be indulgent for a moment, because I haven't read any of their comments, and as a corollary, may well find myself repeating something that has already been posted. As I'm coming to this post in the middle of a head cold, I hope everyone will forgive my lack of diligence on this occasion.
First of all, PZ, as a scientist, you will appreciate the utility value of precise definitions. One of those areas where science scores spectacularly, and supernaturalism, more often than not, is found wanting on a grand scale. This was only one motivation for my own excursion into this territory: another motivation was the need to counter duplicitous apologetic fabrications from assorted ideological warriors for doctrine, who never pass up a chance to misrepresent those of us whose world view is founded upon reality, as opposed to bizarre and unsupported mythological assertions. Consequently, I've been expounding the following definition of atheism for some time:
Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported blind supernaturalist assertions.
A shorter form better suited to a soundbite would be that atheism consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions".
Why do I commend this to you, PZ? Simple. Because whilst a refusal to accept any assertion uncritically might be a 'negative' foundation from the standpoint of the pure semantics, I contend that this is a positive trait in the world of discourse. Proper discourse involves subjecting all assertions to critical test, and the diligent expending of effort in this vein is to be commended. Indeed, I would go further, and contend that the above definition encapsulates the idea that being an atheist means that you refuse to be gullible. I think you'll agree with me that this is worthy of celebration.
As for why I am an atheist, well, I usually cite the following as substantive reasons for this:
[1] The complete failure of any supernaturalist, in 5,000 years of human history, to provide genuine evidence for any of the multifarious asserted entities littering our mythologies;
[2] The fact that 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for vast classes of real world observational phenomena, and as a corollary thereof, supernatural entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
The first might be considered a 'negative' reason, again from the standpoint of the pure semantics, but since evidence is the anvil upon which all assertions are hammered within the world of proper discourse, again, I don't consider pointing out that supernaturalists have nothing but blind assertions and apologetic fabrications to offer as being 'negative', I regard it as an essential demonstration that supernaturalism has yet to achieve the level of competence required to be worthy of being listened to. The second, on the other hand, is one of the best positive reasons one can have for concentrating upon reality instead of fabricated, imaginary entities.
Oh, and PZ, I'd like to take you to task with your statement above, namely "take pride in what you do believe". Since I regard belief, certainly as deployed by supernaturalists, as nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind assertions, I strive to eliminate this from my thinking. I strive where possible to base my thinking upon evidentially supported postulates, which is one of the reasons my hackles rise when someone asks that perennially inane question, "do you believe in evolution?" - when one has evidence to support a paradigm., belief, like supernatural entities, is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Posted by: suitti
|
February 2, 2011 3:40 PM
It's not anal-retentive, it's anal-compulsive.
Oh, i see that someone used a joke along those lines already.
Being anal-compulsive doesn't make me atheist or not. It does appear to have some relation to being a computer programmer, but which way the causality goes isn't well understood, as far as i know.
I've met many christians who've haven't thought about it too much. Call them shallow. Or maybe they just have a life to get on about. It's true for athiests, too. Most people haven't thought about most things. For example, i'm pretty shallow at dental hygiene. It's worked for me. Why not dental hygiene? Well, i'm into astronomy, which covers just about everything else.
Can you be an athiest and still believe in Santa Clause?
I'm currently reading a book titled "Descartes Bones". The author gives reasonable evidence that Rene's "Cogito" led to significant violence. It's not a main point of the book, just a side line. Just because it seems silly that one can be a fundamentalist free thinker doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the real world. From "The Life of Brian": Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd (in unison): We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
Crowd (in unison): We're all different!
One person from crowd: I'm not!
Posted by: Leon
|
February 2, 2011 4:32 PM
Re.:
I agree, PZ; that argument is overwrought and problematic. I prefer to paraphrase what Phil Plait said about pseudoscience:
Science makes progress; religion makes excuses.
Posted by: Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
|
February 2, 2011 4:46 PM
I think the trouble is the lack of rigour in the question. The "dictionary atheists" are answering your question correctly because you've used the English word atheist.
Why not ask, "Why do you believe there are no gods?" if that's what you want to hear the answer to?
Literaly, I'm an atheist because my parents didn't indoctrinate me. I've never thought there was a god or gods, and my entertaining of the idea through my life has been at the same level of consideration I've given to believing in Superman or any other piece of fiction. But that's why I don't believe in the various gods. ie; that's why I'm an atheist.
If you ask why I believe there are no gods, you'll get a completely different answer. That's a positive position, and I've arrived at it through thought, research, and logic. I won't detail that here because it'd take quite a bit of space, and realistically isn't to do with the point I'm trying to make.
In short, especially where people mean different things by a word, make sure everyone's on the same page when you ask a question.
end rant. :D
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 2, 2011 4:49 PM
Hurin @470,
Good point.
Posted by: Spockel
|
February 2, 2011 5:28 PM
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
I guess a suicidal Atheist pilot who's girlfriend just broke up with him will also do the trick...I can only hope you'll never be in that plane.
The sad reality is that people are killing all the time sometimes by accident but most of the time on purpose for one or a combination of different reasons: defending their home, defending their loved ones, for money, for land, for food, for water, for oil, for their pride, for feeling humiliated and/or ignored or just because they can. In ones mind his/her Religion can be a reason to.
That being said I acknowdledge that Religion can be used to make people do bad things, but in my opinion it is an "excuse" out of many.
Seeing all the other (not Religion related) reasons mankind has found to kill his fellowman I have a hard time believing that, once everybody is an Atheist, there will be no more attempts to park an airplane head-first in a building.
Off-topic:
WARNING: People afraid of flying should not, I repeat, should not follow following link. Trust me: YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. All other dare-devils please proceed.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm shows among cold statistical numbers also a list describing what made the plane crash.
Posted by: Spockel
|
February 2, 2011 5:31 PM
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
I guess a suicidal Atheist pilot who's girlfriend just broke up with him will also do the trick...I can only hope you'll never be in that plane.
The sad reality is that people are killing all the time sometimes by accident but most of the time on purpose for one or a combination of different reasons: defending their home, defending their loved ones, for money, for land, for food, for water, for oil, for their pride, for feeling humiliated and/or ignored or just because they can. In ones mind his/her Religion can be a reason to.
That being said I acknowdledge that Religion can be used to make people do bad things, but in my opinion it is an "excuse" out of many.
Seeing all the other (not Religion related) reasons mankind has found to kill his fellowman I have a hard time believing that, once everybody is an Atheist, there will be no more attempts to park an airplane head-first in a building.
Off-topic:
WARNING: People afraid of flying should not, I repeat, should not follow following link. Trust me: YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. All other dare-devils please proceed.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm shows among cold statistical numbers also a list describing what made the plane crash.
Posted by: Spockel
|
February 2, 2011 5:35 PM
Sorry for the double post, was not my intention to get more attention. Mea Culpa. :-(
Posted by: Trance Gemini
|
February 2, 2011 6:28 PM
Why am I an atheist?
I'm an atheist because I wasn't indoctrinated into religious belief, so I lack a belief in gods.
I'm a skeptic because my dad was a mechanical engineer and taught me to be a critical thinker.
I'm freethinker because I believe that dogmatic beliefs of any kind whether they're political or religious are dangerous and wrong and should be opposed.
I'm an antitheist because after 9/11 occurred I woke up to the fact that religious extremism is doing a lot of harm in this world.
While I agree that many religious hold the same values as me, it does take religion or other dogmatic belief systems for good people to do bad things.
If I wasn't an atheist, I'd probably still be a skeptic, freethinker and antitheist. I'd just be a Deist one.
And that's why we have to differentiate.
In the end the differentiation only matters when in the atheist / theist debate.
However, since that debate is in the public realm right now, the establishment of a consistent semantic helps reduce the confusion in that debate.
Although there probably isn't anything that could completely eliminate the confusion in the theist mind since that appears to be the default state.
We could, however, try.
And no, I'm not frothing at the mouth :-D
Hey, I'm a PZ fan but everybody's got to be wrong sometimes on something. Haha.
Posted by: Trance Gemini
|
February 2, 2011 6:31 PM
Why am I an atheist?
I'm an atheist because I wasn't indoctrinated into religious belief, so I lack a belief in gods.
I'm a skeptic because my dad was a mechanical engineer and taught me to be a critical thinker.
I'm freethinker because I believe that dogmatic beliefs of any kind whether they're political or religious are dangerous and wrong and should be opposed.
I'm an antitheist because after 9/11 occurred I woke up to the fact that religious extremism is doing a lot of harm in this world.
While I agree that many religious hold the same values as me, it does take religion or other dogmatic belief systems for good people to do bad things.
If I wasn't an atheist, I'd probably still be a skeptic, freethinker and antitheist. I'd just be a Deist one.
And that's why we have to differentiate.
In the end the differentiation only matters when in the atheist / theist debate.
However, since that debate is in the public realm right now, the establishment of a consistent semantic helps reduce the confusion in that debate.
Although there probably isn't anything that could completely eliminate the confusion in the theist mind since that appears to be the default state.
We could, however, try.
And no, I'm not frothing at the mouth :-D
Hey, I'm a PZ fan but everybody's got to be wrong sometimes on something. Haha.
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
February 2, 2011 7:52 PM
Atheism is an abstract concept. There are concrete forms of atheism, but you cannot apply the attributes of the various forms of atheism to the abstract concept.
Posted by: ebarbour
|
February 2, 2011 7:52 PM
PZ:
Would it please you if people continued to bring up the definition of "atheist" in discussion, but that we first change the definition?
Posted by: Randy
|
February 2, 2011 9:16 PM
Kichae @295
Have I been misinformed? Please explain this to me. I was taught that the sky is blue because of the scattering effect the molecules of air have on the different wavelengths of visible light.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
Posted by: holyspiritdenier
|
February 2, 2011 9:28 PM
You don't find the books about atheism in the blank journals section of the chain bookstore, even though the Moleskines still in their wrappers lack written or printed assertions of belief in the existence of gods.
No, the atheism books contain arguments against, and criticisms of, theistic belief; and they often propose alternatives to theistic formulations, for example in ethical matters. Atheism in practice does have something positive to say about the contents of reality and how we should live in it.
So as a corollary to, say, Diderot's definition of atheism, you could also define it as "the critical rejection of theistic beliefs about reality and human conduct."
And you could define atheists operationally as people who say explicitly that reality doesn't work in the way theists claim.
Posted by: TotalRetard
|
February 2, 2011 10:11 PM
It's ironic that you should have asked that question since I recently started a blog (InfrequentAtheist.Blogspot.com) specifically to answer the question in your title to get to a starting point before talking to anyone who is ready to help me see the error of my way. It's as though God is now warning these people before they bring up the subject. All that work, and I haven't been able to use it.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
February 2, 2011 11:06 PM
Most believers are so because they were indoctrinated when young so it's hard to re-examine their beliefs. Others have an emotional need for some certainty to believe in. It took decades for me to get rid of the childhood indoctrination. Just when I was deciding it was silly, out came stories of near-death experiences and seeing Hell or Heaven. But I recognized that the excuses for God were just rationalizations -- taking credit when things by chance went well and making excuses when by chance they didn't. Another was a scientific attitude wanting evidence: I realized that a lot of eye-witness testimony about flying saucers, ghosts, prophetic dreams, and aliens was just false or self-deluding. One thing that helped was FINALLY hearing someone on the good old CBC state clearly that there is no independent proof of Jesus' existence outside the bible. The emotional impetus was the harm that religions do, their hoarded riches, their political interference, their historic crimes such as witchcraft persecution and the Inquisition, and their present-day opposition to women's rights and bodily freedom.
Religion isn't the only cause that people will die for. They'll spend their lives for a cause that they passionately believe in. A lot of the "atheists are awful" trope is because certain causes, such as Communism, attracted that kind of devotion and became de facto religions. (The State of the World Atlas, in their religion maps, actually listed the various types of communism as being the dominant religions in their countries.) But I digress.
Then learning about the Albigensian Heresy and the people wiped out by the church for daring to question its hierarchy, the conviction of being right that lets people do horrible things to each other, and finally the blatant hypocrisy of the Catholic church in protecting child-molesters and enabling them to continue in their crimes. Religion is also a force for inhumanity. A religion that denies and stymies people's impulses to human kindness, because the other person has the wrong religion, the wrong sex, the wrong sexual orientation, or the wrong practices is evil.
It was the community and discussions here and online resources about atheism and religion that gave me the courage and conviction to move from wishy-washy accommodationist to outright atheist.
Finally, I've realized what an evil tool religion is for controlling and subjugating people. First there's the Gypsy Curse Scam, that only the Church can remove the curse on you (if you pay up forever and let them run your life). Then there's the horror that they extend their mind-control beyond death itself. It is often said that a free man can be killed, but not enslaved, and thus need not bow to tyranny. When people have had enough, even if enslaved in body, they will and can choose to die. But a person who believes that rebellion will lead to eternal torment after death is denied that final moment of self-respect. Religion really does poison everything.
Posted by: michelleroseville
|
February 2, 2011 11:11 PM
Stop bastardizing language. Grow some balls and define yourself by your values instead of clinging childishly to the protective comfort of the cult of "atheism". "A scientific attitude that values evidence" says nothing about your values, nada, nothing, zilch. One can have all the knowledge in the universe but that says nothing of your values. You're a philosophical vacuum riding on the coattails of an bastardized word. Put a name on your values, otherwise you're a mouse with a megaphone.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
February 2, 2011 11:25 PM
Even an answer like "because I'm not superstitious" implies quite a bit about the speaker's worldview, e.g. scientific and rational.
Posted by: llewelly
|
February 2, 2011 11:34 PM
"cult of atheism", forsooth! I am a Pastafarian.
Posted by: Nakarti
|
February 3, 2011 12:57 AM
Of course a biologist would figure out the source of all religion. Mommy is God.
Not God of the Bible certainly, but it explains people's obsession with finding something bigger, older, better, and more powerful than themselves which provides everything for them. They want Mommy back, because when they were born, she was all that!
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
February 3, 2011 1:04 AM
@Randy #502 (in reply to @Kichae #295)
This reminds me of an old song about why the sky is so blue. It's called "Tell Me Why":
Tell me why the stars do shine,
tell me why the ivy twines,
tell me why the skies so blue,
Then I shall tell you just why I love you....
Because God made the stars to shine,Because God made the ivy twine,
Because God made the sky so blue,
Because God made you, that's why I love you.
Nuclear fusion makes the stars to shine,
heliotropism makes the ivy twine,
atmospheric refraction makes the sky so blue,
testicular hormones is why I love you....
There you go ... far more romantic.
Posted by: rwmcrae
|
February 3, 2011 1:19 AM
Normally I am a die-hard fan, but not so much of this article. Not that I disagree with the points made, but it seems so... dogmatic.
There are an infinite number of ways a person can gain enlightenment and become an atheist. Just because those methods aren't what brought YOU to atheism doesn't mean they should be ridiculed.
When I was going through the hard process of leaving Christianity and accepting what I knew to be truth some of the things that seem to irritate you so badly were the things that helped me through. The fact that no kid is born a Christian was a very valid point that helped me quite a bit. The "one less god than you" went a long way toward giving me a justifiable thought processes needed in questioning current mythologies. The same for many of the other things you've mentioned could be said.
You're an intelligent, firm, no-doubt-in-your-mind, 110% atheist. Good for you - it's what I love about your site. But that shouldn't make you judgmental of every other type of atheist out there that doesn't fall in line with how you think an atheist should behave.
Posted by: kai.extern
|
February 3, 2011 3:00 AM
PZ, when I define myself, I don't care a fuck about what would convince you, or the pope, or J. Random Bystander - it's not about convincing anyone. Thats a different debate.
As for movements, I'm one of those Germans who, because of our history, are deeply distrustful of any movement. I have yet to see a good reason to consider myself of a movement - any movement.
Personally, I think making the fight be about atheism is a mistake in the first place, though it's a mistake that's probably really easy to make for an American, given how bad religion is over there - reading American blogs is often like seeing a train wreck in progress. I'm glad I don't live there.
I think the main thing should not be atheism, but rationality, of which atheism is just one consequence - and there are too many atheists around who are not rationalists. Just look at the atheists religionists usually try to throw into our face - as far as they're correct about their atheism (i.e., not Hitler), I don't think there's even a single rationalist in the bunch. At the very least, they all had ideologies just as poisonous as, say, Christianity.
So - why am I an atheist? Why the hell wouldn't I be? As far as I can tell, religion never once came up with a convincing argument. OK, it helps that I didn't get indoctrinated at an early age; when religion tried to start with me, it was probably already too late. I do remember thinking that the bible read pretty much exactly as all those other myths and sagas - so that's the kind of thing I always expected it to be. I don't believe in Siegfried as a real historical person (let alone as someone to worship), so why would I believe in Jesus? Especially as those philosophies of his as seem to at least be interesting certainly don't seem all that popular with Christians.
I think about religion pretty much as I think about psi - if there was anything about it, we should have been able to find it by now, because if it's really about stuff too small to reliably measure, then that stuff could not have created the belief in question in the first place! So there must be a different explanation - one that pretty much by definition can't convince me to that belief.
I think the first religious concepts where the very first attempts as what today is done by science - explaining a (at the time) completely unexplained universe, by (bad) analogy to the one thing people understood: people. Of course, it's since been hijacked by priests, but I'm pretty certain that's not how it was invented. Not that it matters much today - it's a dangerous drag on any society either way. Still, wanting the universe explained is a drive just as strong today in most of us, and for too many people religion or other woo still fills a far too large piece of that hole. We really should know better by now, but given that too many people think that "western values" like human rights or democracy are products of Christianity (as opposed to hard won against the best efforts of Christianity, which by itself would be rather similar to, say, today's non-western versions of Islam) - fuck.
Posted by: armstrongdelusion.com
|
February 3, 2011 6:40 AM
I'm an atheist because I've learned from experience to be suspicious of mass movements. Being raised in a cult will do that to a person. Of course, there are other reasons, too, but I'm trying to make a point here.
Posted by: tracy
|
February 3, 2011 9:09 AM
On the value of dictionaries
My appreciation of dictionaries has gone through three phases. In my youth, I was an avid dictionary reader, consulter, lover. My family played lots of scrabble so multiple dictionaries were always on hand.I experienced my first twitches with dictionaries when my bilingualism became complete. I found that knowledge of exactly which words were French and which words were English created a disadvantage in scramble since dictionaries often take radically different approaches to words borrowed from other languages. My second dictionary twitch came after trying to play scrabble after my first biology degree, all these wonderful words I knew were not in the dictionary, and each dictionary seemed arbitrarily inclusive/non of scientific terminology. Scrabble became so frustrating, I simply gave up.
Dictionaries have a limited usefulness. They usually only indicate the rudimentaries of meaning, and they are particularly faulty at describing words from areas of specialisation. They give us but a glimpse of meaning, at any given moment in time.
Posted by: tylerdurden1200
|
February 3, 2011 12:33 PM
"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, 'Come again'?"
Posted by: Richard S. Russell
|
February 3, 2011 4:06 PM
I am a dictionary atheist. I'm sorry you hate me, PZ. I kinda like you.
I often make the point that there are a dozen main reasons WHY people are atheists — never exposed to religion in the 1st place (think China), abused by clergy as children and thus ticked off at religion in general, fell in love with an atheist and gave up god to get the girl, would rather sleep in on Sunday morning, too mentally unsophisticated to comprehend a concept as abstract as gods (not just children but also slow learners), and so on.
THEY ARE ALL ATHEISTS! THEY ARE OUR COMRADES!
Just because they didn't follow YOUR particular path to atheism doesn't mean they're NOT atheists. Why would you want to push them away like this?
Do you, I, and all of the above also have values IN ADDITION to our atheism? Of course. We're human beings, values come as part of the package. But those values don't RESULT from atheism; they are at best co-evolved from a common ancestor, such as a naturalistic worldview.
Posted by: lainagier
|
February 3, 2011 7:26 PM
Gosh. I would have thought that atheism without an intellectual struggle - a simple non-belief in something, for no better reason than that it's a silly thing to believe - was the most natural and desirable kind. I have no justification or prepared argument for my non-obeisance to a Magic Ghost Dad; I've never traced its intellectual development. Am I lazy? Perhaps. I'm yet to expend much effort on rationalizing my persistent failure to push bees up my nose, too.
Posted by: MsBear
|
February 4, 2011 2:53 AM
I agree with most of what was written. However I just cannot understand why atheists insist on persecuting agnostics.
What I think and feel is not something that can be defined by a dictionary definition, but I guess is more reasonably aligned to agnostic than atheist. I have been to any number of non-theistic group meetings and found most atheists quite agressive and judgmental. That makes them very uncomfortable and unwelcoming places for me.
What makes me stand up for my difference in 'faith' is the discomfort of being lumped in with groups of people that I find smug and self-serving, who seem to take great pleasure in denying me a right to call myself whatever I wish and believe whatever I like - if I want to call myself agnostic no supposedly broadminded atheist should feel any inclination to sneer and put me down with terms like "over-philosophized fussbudget agnostics" or "atheist-lite". Just because I have similar thoughts and ideas about things does NOT mean I am just like you. I consider such narrow-minded and petty, juvenile clique-like thought processes and their resulting actions so very beneath the "positive goals and values" atheist claim to own.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 4, 2011 3:56 AM
MsBear:
To what persecution do you refer?
Care to explain how your right is being denied, since you just exercised it?
(I note you're here dissing atheists and telling us we should not feel an inclination to sneer at you.)
Um, you think we atheists are persecuting you because we think you're just like us?
I begin to get an inkling of why you're not an atheist.
I'm an atheist, and I make no ownership of such, never mind a claim to such.
Your sneering at us is duly noted, O non-aggressive and non-judgemental one. :)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
February 4, 2011 4:39 AM
MsBear:
Persecution? Who is it that's persecuting you? You seem to have a very poor grasp on what persecution actually is and means. A lot of theists seem to have that problem too.
I'm sorry you've had bad experiences, but how is coming here, complaining and acting aggressively in your assumptions helping anything? Have you tried the Unitarians? Might be more your cup of tea.
Well, I don't have a "faith" and most of the people here would say the same. We deal with people everyday who show up here and insist that atheism is a religion, it's a dogma, that science is a religion, it's a dogma, that evolution is a religion, it's a dogma, ad nauseum. So I'm sure you can see that talking about agnosticism a/o atheism as a sort of "faith" might not go over so well in some circles.
Exactly who is doing the lumping in? Seems that the only people who could lump you in with any particular group are those who know you, and I imagine you could correct any misconceptions on that point. I don't quite see how anyone could deny you the right to call yourself anything you like. Personally, I don't care what you call yourself nor do I care what you believe, as long as you aren't trying to undermine education, attempting to further erode the separation of church and state, limit other's rights or cause harm to others.
I've said a lot of things, but I have never once in my life said or typed "over-philosophized fussbudget agnostics" or "atheist-lite". It would appear that you're holding a grudge against a specific person or group - why bring it up here, why not bring it up to the person or people you're upset with? (Sorry if this did happen here, I don't manage to read every word.)
I'm one of those militant gnu atheists, and I don't give a shit if you call yourself Purple Pilsborough Kandinsky the Third.
How would you know? I don't know who you are, I don't recognize your nym (have you, by any chance, been here under a different name?) I don't know what you think and I have no idea how similar your thoughts might be to mine or those of others here. You're certainly doing one hell of a lot of complaining, so we're not alike in that department.
Goodness. Well, whatever your "faith", you're certainly sour. You do realize, don't you, that atheists are individuals, we aren't some giant hive-mind from Nigel 7. If you'd bothered to read this thread, you would have seen many different viewpoints being argued, from many angles.
Now, if you have been here before and have posited ideas which haven't held up or attempted to argue with a bad argument, yeah, you'd be in for it, to be sure. Getting shredded for having a bad argument isn't the same as a personal attack, however, and most of the people who have shown up here to argue that agnosticism is superior haven't argued particularly well and tend to get upset when confronted by multiple counter arguments.
As for you wishing to call yourself an agnostic, have at it. Shout it from the rooftops, MsBear, I simply don't care.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
February 4, 2011 4:53 AM
MsBear #518:
To avoid this part being quoted in Comic Sans, please explain where atheists have been systematically mistreating agnostics. I, as with many other regulars here, am unaware of such systematic mistreatment and would like to see evidence of it given the frequency with which atheists are accused of it.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
February 4, 2011 7:25 AM
I am an atheist because I'm a skeptic and rationalist. I am not a skeptic and rationalist because I'm an atheist.
Even as a young girl in Catholic school, I was one of those troublesome kids who would actually think about what I was being taught in religion class, ask questions, then say, "But...but..." Because so much of what I was being taught didn't make logical sense to me. And did the adults have evidence that any of it was true? They never had satisfactory answers to my questions. I began to suspect that the adults were just making stuff up.
My inability to accept what I was being taught wasn't helped by the fact that I was well read, especially for a child growing up in the circumstances I did. I just couldn't mesh what I knew was reality with what the church was claiming.
And, so many Catholic beliefs and practices assailed my innate sense of fairness, justice, and compassion.
For a long time I tried, really really tried, to believe, but I just couldn't make the leap of faith. That time in my life was very depressing and stressful.
Finally, when I was 18, in a single stunning blast of insight, I realized that religion was just rules and rituals made up by fallible men to try to control what other people did, and that there was no evidence that God, who allegedly beamed these rules down from wherever, even existed. So I simply stopped trying to believe the unbelievable. That's was it. I've never looked back or felt more at peace.
After the day I stopped trying to believe, I described myself to people as a non-believer, or simply said I didn't belong to a church. I didn't realize I was an atheist until I started reading Pharyngula.
Posted by: P. Coyle
|
February 4, 2011 9:33 AM
MsBear:
You write,
and then go on to write,
It's perfectly fine for you to call yourself an agnostic if that is what you are. If what you are is not covered by the dictionary definition of an agnostic, then I suggest that you should not call yourself an agnostic. Of course it is possible that the word "agnostic" is so vague and poorly defined that no one can say what it really means. If that is the case, I suggest that you not call yourself an agnostic because then it would be unclear what you are trying to say about yourself, and that's probably not what you want.
As for myself, I understand an "agnostic" to be someone who holds that we cannot know whether God exists or doesn't exist. Not included in this definition is whether the individual in question believes that there is a high probability that God exists, or a low probability that God exists.
Those who proudly call themselves "agnostics" and think they are saying something terribly profound about themselves are trying to imply, I think, that there is a (reasonably) high probability that God exists. This is the kind of agnostic that the New Atheist sneers at and puts down. A New Atheist such as Richard Dawkins would say that he is an "agnostic" in a different and completely trivial sense: he doesn't "know" that God doesn't exist in the same way that he doesn't "know" that there are not fairies at the bottom of his garden. But he regards the probability of either God's existence or the existence of fairies at the bottom of his garden to be so vanishingly small, so highly improbable, as to be utterly unworthy of serious consideration.
Bertrand Russell wrote:
Russell might have said that there is some trivial sense in which he would have to agree that he doesn't "know" that there is no Celestial Teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars, but he would surely also have said that to stake out an elaborate dogmatic position based on this supposed lack of "knowledge" would be a case of "talking nonsense."
It seems to me that at the root of the New Atheist position (and at the root of the position of many "old" atheists as well) is the proposition that those who hold that God exists are not simply wrong, they are delusional. And that is why they (and I) sneer at and put down those who call themselves "agnostics" and mean by that that the probability of God's existence is significantly higher than the probability of a Celestial Teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars, or the probability of fairies at the bottom of Richard Dawkins' garden.
Posted by: Andy the Thinker
|
February 4, 2011 12:23 PM
Atheism just means that you don't believe in gods. I don't believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster either, and we have pictures of them.
From http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10150097872145377
I am an atheist because there is no good reason to believe in any god, and because I REALLY don't wanna be ascosiated with people creating this kind of groupes:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6329654236
No kidding, it _is_ "Evolution, The inspiration of Adolf Hitler & modern day school shootings"
And of course the people here. Hey, we got PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins AND Bill Maher!
Posted by: wolle212
|
February 4, 2011 2:47 PM
Atheism, if we look at the word itself, really just means "not being a theist". Nothing more, nothing less.
Pertaining your rock- and baby-example: While I agree that stones could be atheists in a broad sense, I would qualify that in order to label someone or something an atheist, that that someone or something must have the attribute of being able to be a theist in the first place.
Who is capable of being a theist? Rocks? No! Babies? No! A human child who a sufficient enough developed a mind? Yes. Is a human child a theist? Does it believe in a god? Well, not necessarily.
So if it doesn't, what is it then? Exactly: Not a theist. A nontheist. Also called: atheist. No thought process whatsoever necessary.
And just as I realized I was always boy when growing up, I also realized that I always was an atheist as I simply never was a theist. My atheism was later supported by my research of religions, yet my research didn't cause my atheism.
You are simply overloading the term atheism.
Just like the theists overloaded the term so that it often means "denying the obvious existing God", or "hating God" for them (which is where the "accreted baggage" you speak of comes from) you are trying to include a bunch of other traits that aren't necessary to it, but are shared by a large group of today's atheists.
You are free to use that definition of yours, just don't expect me to subscribe to it. When I call myself an atheist, I just mean the part about lacking belief in the existence of a divine being.
And I don't subscribe to your overloaded definition of atheism, as an atheist isn't a science-loving rational skeptic secular evolutionary humanist by default.
Many science-loving rational skeptic secular evolutionary humanists happen to be atheists. Some, like me, always were atheists as long as they can remember, others became atheists as they dived into critical thought.
Yet it's quite possible for an atheist to believe that aliens landed here, that 9/11 was an inside job, that homeopathy works, and that we never were on the moon, as atheism doesn't say anything about those views or how to approach such views.
Atheism is just a qualifier of what a human is not.
We have so many labels for what you are trying to refer to, I used them quite intensively, and I beg you to use them instead. Don't force them into atheism.
They are not necessarily part of it.
What you call "narcissistic masturbation" is what I value as scientific scrutiny. Most problem we have are due to the use of our language.
I therefore find it important to try to reduce the amount of ambiguity in words.
Posted by: Skeptigirl
|
February 4, 2011 5:20 PM
Using search I found only 5 replies here out of 525 that mentioned "myth" in some form. The best reason to reject the existence of real gods is that there is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings humans invented. And, there is no contradictory evidence that any god isn't a mythical being.
I don't mind dictionary atheists and agnostics until they assert their position is the only correct position. If atheism is merely the absence of a belief in a god, which term applies to me since I do believe there are no real gods? I don't merely lack a belief.
The agnostics who assert atheism is bad science are particularly annoying. They cite the principle in the scientific process that one cannot 'prove' there are no gods therefore agnosticism is the only correct position. Can they 'prove' Zeus does not exist? Maybe he just moved out of the solar system. Are they agnostic about the existence of Zeus?
Proving gods don't exist is not a useful approach to the god question. Why ignore the overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings? The rationale is cited that one can't prove the negative hypothesis because one can't test all god claims. But I'm not trying to prove no gods exist. There is no need to. I'm applying the scientific process to look at the evidence for gods and I have no trouble concluding there's a clear pattern there, gods are mythical beings.
Would these same critical thinkers say they can't conclude all dogs are dogs because they haven't tested all possible dogs and ruled out the possibility one was not a dog? Or would they say we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion we aren't going to find one dog is really a space alien spy?
Claiming one cannot 'prove' gods don't exist therefore one can only conclude gods probably don't exist applies a double standard of scientific principles. It's a given that any scientific fact today may be overridden by new evidence in the future. We still operate on the premise some things are facts and don't go around asserting, we can't be sure, about any and every conclusion we draw.
A good example to illustrate this point is that of the Earth's crust. It was a scientific fact for all intents and purposes in the 1800s that the Earth's crust was one stationary solid structure. Now it is a scientific fact the Earth's crust is made of slowing moving plates. Would you say you were unable to draw a conclusion about the certainty of plate tectonics? Would you say plate tectonics was only a theory and make a point every time you mentioned it that it wasn't 'proven'?
Many people, including otherwise skilled critical thinkers, are unable to perceive the double standard they are applying to the certainty of their conclusions about the existence of real gods vs the certainty of their conclusion they apply to the scientific fact the Earth's crust is moving.
At the same time, many otherwise skilled critical thinkers do not fully understand the uncertainly language used in science. They know by reflex the problem with saying, "only a theory". But they don't spend an equal effort understanding the terminology used with scientific facts. In science, 'proof' is always relative. There is an unspoken principle that new evidence can challenge any scientific fact, even the fact the Earth is not flat. Yet we can still consider some things reach the level of certainty one calls a fact. There's no need to run around declaring the limitations of the term, 'fact', regarding every certain scientific conclusion we draw.
To sum it up, there is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings humans invented. I'm convinced it reaches the level of 'fact' on the scientific certainty continuum, that no gods exist. Dictionary atheists and agnostics are welcome to their own conclusions, but don't assert my conclusions are inconsistent with scientific principles and critical thinking skills.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-47rv8A5g661wy_D_1pdxmfBj7cSuTf0
|
February 4, 2011 10:34 PM
Ms Bear, if you think you can only either be agnostic or atheist, you're misunderstanding both concepts. One can be both. I am both. I would argue that every atheist is an agnostic atheist, whether they identify themselves that way or not. I would also argue that every theist is an agnostic theist, whether they identify themselves that way or not, and despite protesting that they 'know their god exists'.
Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, atheism is a claim about belief.
Posted by: Skeptigirl
|
February 5, 2011 12:34 AM
Well you would be wrong!I just spelled out in great detail why this same nonsense is false and you go and follow my carefully explained position with a totally unsupported assertion.
Good one.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
February 5, 2011 12:41 AM
Skeptigirl,
I get it, really. It's such a common assertion though, atheists can't be gnostic because there is no test for deities. What such people miss is that the test has been done and failed: fiction isn't science. I see someone at least once a week convinced that one can't be an atheist and gnostic and once a month someone who insists atheists don't exist at all.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 5, 2011 12:55 AM
Skeptigirl,
If you believe there are no gods, then you necessarily have absence of a belief in (the existence) of a god.
Makes you an atheist. :)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
February 5, 2011 1:24 AM
How does the necessity of a test preclude the position of gnosticism? Firstly, that's assuming that deities are subject to empirical scrutiny. Secondly, it's assuming that one can't reasonably hold a position is the same as not holding it. And thirdly, surely the position of gnostic atheism can be justified under the line of inquiry much in the same as all bachelors are unmarried can be justified without needing any test.Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn5OY2NkLJiwuPz6sm6lHQQT1o_iJh12DA
|
February 5, 2011 3:03 PM
I'm afraid I haven't read all the comments so far, so I apologise if I'm repeating points people have already made or refuted.
I want to discuss what I think is going on in the section where PZ mentions his hatred of dictionary atheists. He doesn't explicitly say what he means by this, but he mentions a characteristic behaviour. In fact it seems to be this kind of behaviour, rather than any particular belief or quality, which he objects to in the next few paragraphs. In my view, his phrasing his criticism as directed at a group of people rather than at a way of behaving is a rhetorical strategy, relying on the fact that our brains naturally think in terms of us (who are good) and them (who are bad). I'll comment as if he had directly criticised the behaviour in question, which I'll call DA behaviour.
What is DA behaviour? It is pointing out a definition of atheism and reproving someone else (whom I will call Shirley) for suggesting that atheism means something more (in the example PZ gives, this is done in a smug way, but since smugness is clearly bad in any case, I doubt that it is the smugness to which PZ is principally objecting). I don't think it is always bad, though I agree that it is bad in some circumstances.
PZ mentions some reasons why people might engage in DA behaviour (they might believe that atheists have minds which only contain atheism or that atheism itself can only be instantiated as a platonic ideal). Since these are not in practice typical reasons for engaging in DA behaviour, the fact that they are laughable is irrelevant.
A key issue in determining whether an instance of DA behaviour is bad is whether Shirley has in fact suggested that atheism means anything more than the dictionary definition. If Shirley hasn't made any such suggestion, then the DA behaviour is inappropriate. PZ alludes to a few cases where this might sometimes happen. Shirley may have explained her reasons for being an atheist, or how her atheism practically affects her behaviour, or the values underpinning her atheism (without suggesting that the reasons, behaviour or values themselves formed part of the atheism).
Even if Shirley has made the mistake of suggesting that atheism means more than it does, there could still be some problems with DA behaviour. For example, it might (to someone not listening carefully) give the misleading impression that the extra bits Shirley was trying to incorporate into the definition of atheism are not typically found in association with atheism at all. PZ focuses on the case where Shirley has suggested that the values behind her atheism are part of that atheism. In this case, the misleading impression which might result from DA behaviour is that atheists don't typically have positive values underlying their beliefs. In response, PZ claims that atheists always have positive values underlying their beliefs, which is simply false. However, it is true that atheism is very often underpinned by positive values, and so it would be bad to give the impression that it wasn't. But this is easily enough avoided by making the point clearly, and all the more clearly if you reckon that those listening to you are not listening carefully.
A few other points...
PZ's challenge to the idea that some people might be atheists by default is weak. He suggests that anyone of whom that properly held would have to be an intellectual and moral lightweight. Even if he were right, that fact wouldn't remove the existence of such `feather in the wind' counterexamples. In fact, he is wrong: some people, by no means lightweights, are put off religion not by positive values but by a feeling that religion is odd or alien.
Like PZ, I'm annoyed by the existence of the conflict over the meaning of the word `atheist', but I think PZ's dismissive claim that everyone should just agree with him (and me) in using the word in the weak sense is a bit silly. Whilst there is the conflict, it will sometimes (though by no means always) be necessary to point out the distinction between these meanings. PZ's colourful language suggests he hasn't realised that sometimes a little fussbudgetry can come in handy.
PZ sums up by saying that atheists should be aware of and value the positive values behind their atheism. He gives the impression that it is easy to understand your own belief-formation in this way, and that doing so will strengthen your belief-posture. I think he's wrong about both these things; I reckon it is hard for us to know ourselves well enough to answer these questions, and that the answers are as often depressing (our cobbled-together brains form beliefs in a rather slapdash way) as affirming.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
February 5, 2011 10:01 PM
Indeed, there's some research showing that we make up our minds first, without conscious thought, and then rationalize the decision. I wouldn't mind that being true of which dessert to have, but I don't like to think of its being true in the Great Questions of Life.
Posted by: JIMocracy
|
February 6, 2011 3:41 AM
Really, PZ? Come on, man. You seem like such a rational person and then you go and spout off this nonsense. Look... I hate to be the one to tell you this but "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." It is not a platonic ideal and it is not tied to anything else.
If you feel strongly about rationalism, materialism, skepticism, science, or anything else, then you should try to convince others the merits of those things without the baggage of atheism. You don't get to redefine atheism to be exactly what you are.
Don't get me wrong. It's you're blog and you can say whatever you want but don't expect people to respect you for it. This post just makes you look petty, spiteful, and (dare I say) ignorant about atheism. I don't expect you to change your mind or your position about what you said but I would hope that you realize that not every atheist is like you (myself included) and that's the beauty of our world; diversity.
Well, you wrote a lot of things that I could take point by point but that would take far too much time. Ironically, it is the fact that we both lack a belief in god(s) that drew me to your blog in the first place so maybe it's better that we focus on the things we have in common instead of claiming to "hate" each other because we apply our atheism differently.
In the end, I harbor no grudges and thank you for a great blog and for the opportunity to respond to your post. I didn't feel that you were personally attacking me (even though I do see atheism merely as the lack of belief in a god or gods). I just felt that you were fundamentally wrong in stating that atheism should be more than it is. I suppose this might well have been a waste of time but I felt the need to get this off my chest. I wish you well and bid you good night (or good morning, or whatever).
Posted by: jdlarios
|
February 6, 2011 4:38 AM
Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable.
Actually, umm... I remember checking out a US Army Chaplain's Handbook from the library in high school and doing pretty much that.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-47rv8A5g661wy_D_1pdxmfBj7cSuTf0
|
February 6, 2011 5:03 AM
"There's no test for deities". Baloney. Every god that is posited as the cause for some natural phenomenon can be tested. That's how the old world gods were dismissed.
We should be doing the same with modern gods, but for some reason we don't. Never understood why, but there it is. The Abrahamic god should already have gone the way of the Norse and Greek gods et al.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-47rv8A5g661wy_D_1pdxmfBj7cSuTf0
|
February 6, 2011 5:12 AM
Unbunch those panties, Skeptigirl. There's nothing in my comment that contradicts anything in yours.
Posted by: "Roger"
|
February 6, 2011 11:34 AM
PZ is going to love this...Ray Comfort is talking about him. Naturally he's taking advantage of this situation:
When you read what he says you'll see how much he has to stretch things out to try to score points. I read once, the man used to be on drugs. It bloody shows.
Nice thing about his blog though; people like Steven J et al continually shoot Ray down.
Posted by: ububorges
|
February 6, 2011 6:46 PM
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own." -The Prisoner
If you are a thinking individual, you are beyond labels. This whole argument of what atheism is smacks of petty, clique-like behavior: "Oh, you're not a REAL atheist." "You need to more clearly define yourself as _insert group label here_". "This is how you should explain your world view correctly."
Move on, already! There are more pressing issues out there to discuss.
Posted by: vargonian
|
February 6, 2011 11:57 PM
I would add The Problem of Evil as another bad argument for atheism. It's bad because the non-falsifiable "God Works In Mysterious Ways / There Is A Greater Purprose" counter-argument can always be made. It makes assumptions about God. To the extent that it contradicts a specific, fairly well-defined god concept, it's fine. But it in no way discounts all god concepts.
Posted by: mrpeach
|
February 7, 2011 2:18 AM
Well, as a matter of fact that's precisely how it was for me. I initially rejected the notion that all these god-botherers were wrong - there had to be some truth out there, or so I thought.
After years of learning about all the religions I could find info on, I had to conclude that there wasn't anything there to find.
Then I found the various atheist groups on the internet and found my discoveries validated.
Posted by: John Morales
|
February 7, 2011 3:04 AM
ububorges:
Ahem. "a thinking individual" is a label.
Posted by: per.piotrr.edman
|
February 7, 2011 12:17 PM
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. If that's not entertaining enough for you, I could be an atheist because I just don't care, or because I can't be bothered, or because the idea that I need a god for something is offensive to me. But anal retentive or not, it's a simple matter of definition. If you want the word atheist to be more than that, you need to add more words.
I've got lots of things in common with you, PZ, but not having any gods is a lack of a very very big thing to have in common, not the other way around.
Posted by: fester60613
|
February 7, 2011 1:28 PM
There are many interesting thoughts here, but I'm going to add mine anyway.
I'm an atheist because I refuse to acknowledge or to worship or to believe in any god whose adherents us their belief to inflict suffering on others.
I'm an atheist because I was a victim of false christianity - one that pounded into my head for many years that god loves everyone, and then started to make exceptions.
I'm an atheist because I will not worship a god who not only condones, but commands annihilation of entire populations including women and children.
I'm an atheist because the christian god of the old testament is nothing more than an evil son of a bitch who suffers from Munchhausen's by Proxy.
I'm an atheist because I'm a humanist. Humanity is all we truly know, all we have to work with to try to make life a little better for everyone - not just the chosen nor the elite.
There are other reasons, but the phone keeps ringing and I think it's my boss...
Posted by: kmar06
|
February 9, 2011 11:42 PM
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/briefHistoryCT.cfm
Alot of sociocentrism going on here.
Posted by: Spaceman Spliff, I
|
February 9, 2011 11:44 PM
Sorry PZ, you deserve the award. The Dictionary is important. Words have meanings and it's important for us to all agree on their meanings.
I hope you take your audience seriously and reevaluate your position.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 9, 2011 11:51 PM
The Dictionary is important.
PZ's response:
somehow I think you missed his point entirely, but you wouldn't be alone if that's any consolation.
I hope you take your audience seriously and reevaluate your position.
I hope you try and reevaluate your understanding of what his point actually was, instead of pretending to be a thinking member of the "audience"
frankly, the peanut gallery is way too full these days.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
February 9, 2011 11:59 PM
You don't get to redefine atheism to be exactly what you are.
amazing how many people said PZ did this, and yet, he actually DIDN'T say anything of the kind.
fucking morons, the world is full of them, atheist and theist alike.
Posted by: Free Chocolate
|
February 11, 2011 11:47 AM
I'm so bored with atheism.
Weak atheism, sitting back on scientific rationalism and casuist dictionary concepts avoids any ideological engagement.
Strong atheism, admitting its belief and value sets and systems, still fails to take responsibility for the consequences of its own ideological positions. Yawn, it is worse than theism, that at least knows its weaknesses.
So is atheism's best benefit in its value as an antithesis to theism?
Like I said, Yawn...
Posted by: jabber
|
February 17, 2011 7:12 AM
atheism, on its own, as a word, has little to say about morality or even human beings - it's simply a condition of having no belief in gods (not even, specifically, a non-belief in the supernatural - just gods. For instance, you could, i su...ppose, be an atheist, yet still believe in the power of crystals, or ghosts etc).
It has come to be a word to describe a group of people, because atheists have been so beleaguered historically as a group, that they have come to be seen (and regard themselves) as a social/political minority, subject and prone to discrimination. When you victimize people for something they hold in common with others, those people will always group together. If enough of them group together they become a 'force', and tend to determine to change things to end their victimization - suddenly a noun acquirers a capital initial; hence Atheist or New Atheists.
It's a shorthand term that isn't very accurate- but is memorable, because the word sets itself up as the polar opposite of the accepted norm - it becomes the flag or banner behind which 'self-identified' non believers stand. It becomes more than simply 'an absence of belief' - it becomes a political alliance that has 'an intention', goal, agenda and trajectory (however vocally they deny this, or minimize it). Atheism incorporates all forms of social/political views that share an absence of Faith/magical thinking.
In the same way that:
Being 'gay' is more than the 'absence of sexual attraction to the opposite sex' - that is a very passive position. Being gay is about being actively attracted to the opposite sex, being discriminated against because of it, and taking action or aligning oneself with those who actively oppose such discrimination - and 'gay' includes all sexualities that do not conform to the norm. There are those who say "I am not gay - I am homosexual", and who reject all forms of normative identities and group expectations; but they are often more than happy to enjoy such gains that have been won, whilst declining to contribute to them. "I just happen to be a normal guy who just happens to sleep with other men" (as if everyone else isn't 'normal' - another form of self-loathing bigotry, in a way. - aping heterosexual behaviors, and expecting to be regarded as not merely 'equivalent', but culturally identical. The Jew who dies his hair blond and goes to Church, whilst at the same time claiming any Semitic privileges he is due - difference is only expressed contingently)
Being 'black' is not merely a question of 'not being white' - and being 'black' incorporates anyone who does not have the appearance of the dominant white norm. There are 'black' people who will will say that they have nothing in common with 'Blacks' - who take great pains to 'assimilate' and normalize themselves in order to take advantage of gains to which they have failed/have refused to participate in - they are know as 'Oreos'.
There are 'atheists' who resist defining themselves as Atheists - yet continue to 'dine with' them, repeat and endorse the arguments, will happily enjoy any advances - yet will withdraw from any kind of conflict, "Atheism is God what baldness is to hair" ; Atheism is to God what On is to Off." - not really, not now it isnt, where so much has been said, so much has been done and so many have been harmed by making their protest heard.
Atheists have drawn attention to themselves - it is not possible to withdraw the gauntlet.
Atheists have, and should be proud, of their shared principles - but should also be very careful of falling into the traps of dogmatism and discrimination; such things are seductive. Atheists need to be rigorous in ensuring they don't punish others for not sharing their values, in the way that others have punished atheists.
I am an Atheists, both in fact and in temperament. I cannot make myself believe in what i simply do not believe without having a reason/evidence to change my belief. I ma simply not capable of distorting and mangling myself to that degree. I'm OUT and PROUD!
Now I'll get off my dais and go and have a lie-down.
Posted by: Xray
|
May 15, 2011 12:25 PM
PZ Myers wrote:
"Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses." (end quote)
A person who states "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods" and then adds "quit trying to add meaning to the term" makes a nonsensical statement because the lack of belief in gods IS the meaning of the term "atheism".
Maybe what this person was trying to say was: "I don't want my non-belief to be instrumentalized for any political/social agenda." (?)
Keep in mind that your "shoulds" and moral ideals in that field (PZ: "what atheism should mean to the community") may not match the "shoulds" and moral ideals of the other person.
Imo "Dictionary Atheism", as you call it, is acually a pretty smart position to choose in a debate since it makes it impossible to push the atheist into an epistemological corner.
For suppose the atheist made the mistake of claiming to KNOW there is no god, it is possible to challenge him by countering "No, you cannot know this."
Whereas the dictionary atheist remains epistemologically unassailable.
Being a dictionary atheist does not mean that one is incapable of explaining why one has reached this position.
If I were an atheist (I'm an agnostic leaning, belief-wise, more to the atheist side of the fence) I would use Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda since necessitate.
If the idea of a god is not needed to explain the world, it can be discarded.
Posted by: psusac
|
August 7, 2011 6:03 PM
I think I have a simple working definition for every atheist that I know. It goes like this:
"I am an atheist. My atheism is not a choice. Rather, my atheism is a consequence of my decision to use evidence as the standard by which I decide what is true."
I asked a room full of 15 atheists if they agreed with this statement and 100% agreed. I'm sure that there are some who disagree, but I also think that THIS is the fundamental defining idea of our movement.
This decision is an ethical decision - I consider this to be my ethical responsibility to base my worldview on the best information available, for the simple reason that I have observed that it is morally hazardous to go running around believing things for which there is insufficient evidence. Therefore, the above statement is an epistemological position that arises out of an ethical principal.
That's it. Simple, pithy, To the point. Widely accepted among atheist, and devastating to theists because it reveals the ethical bankruptsy of their position.
What I really like about this statement is the word "consequence." It basically moves the emphasis OFF of belief in God and ON to the process of deciding what is true.
THAT is what our movement is about - using evidence based reasoning as a better processes then faith for deciding what is true. It is better because it is both more effective and more ethical than faith as a technique for approaching the world.
Posted by: johnthebaptistlol
|
August 26, 2011 6:34 PM
just my view but hey we all have one, i dont understand why people of all religions waste their life in worship of something that doesnt exist,humans are a result of evolution , we started out as bits of carbon(simplistic) yeah i know lol, but when we pop our clogs we go back to being elements we dont get judged by the big guy in the sky or the devil arghhhhh grow up people.....enjoy your time witout getting dragged in .......