The meaning of 'atheist'

[Chesterton]

To me, it means "Although he could exist, I don't have evidence that Santa Claus exists, so I do not believe he exists."

Which is different than saying "I believe there is enough evidence to say that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If I remove the explanatory stuff, your first statement ends with "...so I do not believe he exists". I agree, that's what it means to me too. It can also be accurately re-worded as "I believe he does not exist". Six one way, half a dozen the other.

Not until you address the question you deliberately ignored.

Sorry, I thought that was just a bit of rhetorical snark. The answer is "both" since they're both saying the same thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I remove the explanatory stuff, your first statement ends with "...so I do not believe he exists". I agree, that's what it means to me too. It can also be accurately re-worded as "I believe he does not exist". Six one way, half a dozen the other.

Where does that leave agnosticism, which is the former, but not the latter?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If I remove the explanatory stuff, your first statement ends with "...so I do not believe he exists". I agree, that's what it means to me too. It can also be accurately re-worded as "I believe he does not exist". Six one way, half a dozen the other.

They aren't the same statements at all.

If I say "I don't believe that anyone on Earth has been abducted by aliens." I'm not saying that I believe that no one actually has been abducted by aliens. I'm saying that no evidence has convinced me that anyone has. It's a neutral position.

If I say "I believe no one has been abducted by aliens.", it's saying that I believe the evidence shows that no one actually has been abducted. It's a non neutral statement.

See the difference now?

 

[Chesterton]

Where does that leave agnosticism, which is the former, but not the latter?

Agnosticism isn't the former. The way I've always understood it, agnosticism is when you neither believe nor disbelieve. Like my personal opinion about space aliens; I don't have a stance on whether or not they exist.

They aren't the same statements at all.

If I say "I don't believe that anyone on Earth has been abducted by aliens." I'm not saying that I believe that no one actually has been abducted by aliens. I'm saying that no evidence has convinced me that anyone has. It's a neutral position.

If I say "I believe no one has been abducted by aliens.", it's saying that I believe the evidence shows that no one actually has been abducted. It's a non neutral statement.

See the difference now?

There's no difference. Both statements say that you believe no one has been abducted. Reasons for the disbelief are superfluous for purposes of this discussion.

Think of it in simple Native American or Tarzan grammar. Jane tells Tarzan a lie, so Tarzan might say:

Tarzan believe not Jane.
or
Tarzan not believe Jane.

Same difference.

 

[quatona]

Agnosticism isn't the former. The way I've always understood it, agnosticism is when you neither believe nor disbelieve. Like my personal opinion about space aliens; I don't have a stance on whether or not they exist.


There's no difference. Both statements say that you believe no one has been abducted. Reasons for the disbelief are superfluous for purposes of this discussion.

Think of it in simple Native American or Tarzan grammar. Jane tells Tarzan a lie, so Tarzan might say:

Tarzan believe not Jane.
or
Tarzan not believe Jane.

Same difference.

Maybe you could write your entire post in Tarzan language when you think this is the more accurate way of expressing thoughts?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Agnosticism isn't the former. The way I've always understood it, agnosticism is when you neither believe nor disbelieve.

[

Exactly. "I don't believe there is a God" = the former.

But "I don't believe there is no God," ergo, =/= the latter.

There's no difference. Both statements say that you believe no one has been abducted. Reasons for the disbelief are superfluous for purposes of this discussion.

Think of it in simple Native American or Tarzan grammar. Jane tells Tarzan a lie, so Tarzan might say:

Tarzan believe not Jane.
or
Tarzan not believe Jane.

Same difference.

Actually no. the former, "Tarzan believe not Jane" can indicate that Tarzan believes someone else who is not Jane, as opposed to Jane herself -- A sentiment which is not expressed in the latter, "Tarzan not believe Jane."

It would seem that you missed a subtlety that Tarzan was trying to express.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There has been much conversation in this forum about the meaning of atheism. I've argued that defining atheism as a mere lack of belief is insufficient (see here, here, and here). I've been told that atheists get to decide what atheism means and that I should just keep quiet. But atheists don't get to decide what any word means, for common usage determines the meaning of words.

I don't get what all the fuss is about, concerning a mere label.

So let's see what the dictionaries say:

• Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist. (The New Oxford American Dictionary)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English)
  
• Atheist: one who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being. (The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)
• Atheist: someone who denies the existence of god. (WordNet 3.0)
  
• Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. (Merriam-Webster)
• Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)
• Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (The Free Dictionary)
• Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)
• Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Online Dictionary)

All these definitions have one thing in common...
They are all describing the position of answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?"

So I would think it's rather obvious what the basic concept behind the word "atheism" is all about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's see:

• Disbelieve: be unable to believe (someone or something). (Google Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe ; to withhold or reject belief (Merriam-Webster)
  
• Disbelieve: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in. (Dictionary.com)
• Disbelieve: to not believe someone or something. (Cambridge Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: To refuse to believe or accept; reject. (The Free Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: to refuse to believe; reject as untrue. (Collins English Dictionary)

If you look at the examples the various dictionaries give, you will see that "to not believe" or "to have no belief" are meant actively as believing the thing is false.

Then the dictionaries are wrong.

Not believing X is NOT the logical equivalent of believing the opposite of x or believing x to be false.


I also note that, actually, only the last definition in your list hints at what you are saying, by mentioning "reject as untrue".

All the others do not and restrict it merely to disbelief of the thing being disbelieve, with no further implications.

 

[zippy2006]

Then the dictionaries are wrong.

Not believing X is NOT the logical equivalent of believing the opposite of x or believing x to be false.

1. I don't believe in X -> I believe ~X.
2. I don't believe in X -> I lack the belief X.

I hold (1), you hold (2). That is our difference. Of course we are talking about colloquial conversation, not some sort of partitioned-off logical analysis. I gave an argument in the form of common phrases in favor of my position, and you gave no argument for your own. To be clear:

• I don't believe in unicorns -> I believe unicorns do not exist.
• I don't believe in second chances -> I believe second chances do not exist.
• I don't believe it will rain tomorrow -> I believe it will not rain tomorrow.
• I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl -> I believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl.

I admit that your case is not implausible at a first glace, but once the matter is analyzed more deeply it becomes clear that your argument is based on a misuse of language and an incapacity to acknowledge the actual meaning of words and phrases in English. You desire language to work like (2) because this would be convenient for the type of "atheism" you wish to propose. But language isn't determined by convenience. In order to know what a word or phrase means we must look at usage and follow the evidence where it leads. We must accept the truth passively rather than actively imposing our personal will. In the colloquial and dictionary world, (1) is true and (2) is false. Therefore even the small percentage of definitions to which your argument applies do not favor your position.

 

[Chesterton]

Exactly. "I don't believe there is a God" = the former.

But "I don't believe there is no God," ergo, =/= the latter.

You're saying that "I don't believe there is a God" is a statement of agnosticism?

Actually no. the former, "Tarzan believe not Jane" can indicate that Tarzan believes someone else who is not Jane, as opposed to Jane herself -- A sentiment which is not expressed in the latter, "Tarzan not believe Jane."

It would seem that you missed a subtlety that Tarzan was trying to express.

No, neither statement indicates anything further than what they say. It's true that neither statement excludes anything else, but they don't indicate anything else.

Maybe you could write your entire post in Tarzan language when you think this is the more accurate way of expressing thoughts?

Quatona make fun. Chesterton not like.

(To translate for the atheists here, saying I don't like it should be taken to mean that I actually don't have any feelings about it. I didn't say I disliked it, which would be an actual claim or assertion about my feelings, of which I have none on the matter. Saying that I lack the feeling of "like" is merely me expressing that I "lack a feeling". And the emoticon is there just because it seems to me people who think this way often tend to be angry people, so it seems appropriate. )

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't say I disliked it, which would be an actual claim or assertion about my feelings, of which I have none on the matter.

Let's anticipate the atheist rebuttal:

Except "dislike" means "do not like," just as "disbelieve" means "do not believe." And both are completely neutral, having nothing to do with liking or believing the opposite. So even if you said you disliked it, you still wouldn't have any feelings on the matter.

...I wish I could describe this by saying that I disagree with you, but unfortunately disagreement is just lack of agreement, and says nothing about an actual difference of opinion. So it's not that I disagree with you, or do not agree with you, but rather that I happen to believe that the position you hold with respect to "dislike" is false, and this is very different from disagreeing. ​

...Heaven help us!

 

[zippy2006]

On a more serious note, it's quite interesting to see these sophistical arguments in an age that is increasingly skeptical and relativistic, for these are attempts to recast language in favor of skepticism and relativism.

Phrases that have historically meant difference of opinion are apparently now only taken to mean that one is skeptical. "I don't believe in the existence of X" no longer means, "I believe X does not exist," but merely, "I am skeptical of the existence of X." All of this skepticism inevitably leads towards a denial of objective truth and an affirmation of relativism, of being unable to penetrate the subjective bubble. The venture of actually contradicting an objective claim is too high and ambitious for the lowly skeptical relativist.

Of course in the real world, "I don't believe in the existence of X" does mean, "I believe X does not exist." Nevertheless, the sophistical trend is curious.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There's no difference. Both statements say that you believe no one has been abducted. Reasons for the disbelief are superfluous for purposes of this discussion.

No, they aren't the same at all. The first statement in no way implies that I believe no one has been abducted. It means I don't believe either position - "At least some people have been abducted" vs. "No people have been abducted." The first statement is the neutral position, it's not taking a position.

Do you see the difference yet?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Of course in the real world, "I don't believe in the existence of X" does mean, "I believe X does not exist." Nevertheless, the sophistical trend is curious.

Since everyone who disagrees with you lives in the real world, you're demonstrably wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

Since everyone who disagrees with you lives in the real world, you're demonstrably wrong.

You're on the level of a conspiracy theorist at this point, and your theory is just as unfalsifiable. What would even potentially convince you that you're wrong?

Here's an idea: call a friend who is uninterested in this question. Read him two statements:

1. I don't believe in Santa Claus.
2. I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Ask him if those two statements are saying the same thing, or different things. Ask him if (1) implies (2). Do it without prepping him in any way. Begin by saying, "I'm conducting a survey and I need to ask you a question. The first sentence is ... The second sentence is ... Do you think they are saying the same thing or different things?"

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're on the level of a conspiracy theorist at this point, and your theory is just as unfalsifiable. What would even potentially convince you that you're wrong?

Here's an idea: call a friend who is uninterested in this question. Read him two statements:

1. I don't believe in Santa Claus.
2. I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Ask him if those two statements are saying the same thing, or different things. Ask him if (1) implies (2). Do it without prepping him in any way. Begin by saying, "I'm conducting a survey and I need to ask you a question. The first sentence is ... The second sentence is ... Do you think they are saying the same thing or different things?"

Talked to three coworkers. They all said they two sentences say different things. In exactly the same way as I've described.

I do have highly intelligent coworkers though...

Oh, and they live "in the real world" as well...

 

[zippy2006]

Talked to three coworkers.

I don't believe you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't believe you.

I could not care less.

You don't believe it because you can't accept that your point of view isn't everyone's point of view. Look, you already have other people here on this site that agree with me.

Do you think they don't exist?

 

[zippy2006]

Do you think they don't exist?

Like all sophists, I think they will contradict themselves in their daily living. John Doe will be having a beer with his friend Bob and he will say:

Bob: Do you really believe that Global Warming is a sham?
John: No, I don't believe it.
Bob: Me neither!
​

Both know that John just proclaimed his belief that Global Warming is not a sham. It's so obvious it doesn't even need to be spoken. Once the agenda is no longer at stake, the sophistic approach to common language is dropped and a return to the real world ensues.

​

 

[quatona]

Talked to three coworkers. They all said they two sentences say different things. In exactly the same way as I've described.

I do have highly intelligent coworkers though...

Oh, and they live "in the real world" as well...

Yeah, but when it comes to subtle differences in the English language, you should ask Tarzan rather than intelligent, English speaking people.