Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Now I know what spies for China can expect to be paid
Look who was lounging about in my bedroom
It's going to be a long semester
Dishing out ALL the dirt
China: a major polluter of the scientific literature
A whole lot of chompin' and sexin' going on
Free seminars! On what?
Brazilian creationism under the wing of fascists
Shocking demands!
yaque on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Artor on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Susan Montgomery on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
xmp999 on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
weylguy on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
jrkrideau on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
jrkrideau on Now I know what spies for China can expect to be paid
davidnangle on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
HATE ADS? Subscribe to FTB Ad Free.
Please donate to our legal defense fund!
Discuss: Political Madness All the Time
The Pharyngula Wiki
Social Justice and Economics
Social Justice Llink Roundup
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• Nature Network
• Mastodon
• CuriousCat
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Follow @pzmyers
View pzmyers's observations »
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
kestrel on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Snarki, child of Loki on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Akira MacKenzie on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
Matt G on When did you first suspect you were being trolled by fake news?
JoeBuddha on Now I know what spies for China can expect to be paid
Canadian Atheist
Daylight Atheism
Ex-Muslims of North America
Minnesota Atheists
Rosa Rubicondior
The Morning Heresy
Alas! A blog
Amanda Marcotte
Joe. My. God.
Secular Woman
We Hunted the Mammoth
Coyot.es Network
Discover blogs
Genotopia
Judge Starling (Dan Graur)
NCSE
SciAm blogs
Scicurious
Science after Sunclipse
Scientopia
Skulls in the Stars
Telliamed Revisited
The Well-Timed Period
What's in John's Freezer?
Scienceblogs Diaspora
A few things ill-considered
Class M
Confessions of a Science Librarian
Discovering Biology in a Digital World
Dynamics of Cats
Greg Laden
Page 3.14
Starts with a Bang
The Pump Handle
Uncertain Principles
Apparently, fathers do matter » « (((How to make a racist cry)))
Dictionary atheists are boring atheists
Since we've got one of those keep your social justice outta my atheism types babbling in the comments here, I thought I'd point out that Deacon Duncan has a good response to those kinds of conservatives.
We atheists are supposed to stay focused, stay on message , but the only message they'll tolerate is that god doesn't exist and religion is bad, with no thought about why or the implications. It makes for a rather boring and repetitive message, and lacking in introspection.
Atheism and Skepticism
chigau (違う) says
The message is about sleeping in on Sunday morning.
rq says
Tell that to the heathen birds outside my window at 3AM. The sun is rising, and so should the world, according to them. And I'm pretty sure they're not religious.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says
Re @1:
that's what all the theists think. They believe [dropping the use of the "thinking" word] that atheism is just a form of rebellion against authority structure. That Atheists actually believe in the same god, just want to worship outside of the church structure.
I say this from personal experience. That was a phase I passes through on my way to "Actual" Atheism.
It is also easy to characterize "dictionary atheists" as simply being "anal" [freudian]. That they are struggling to accept their realization of the absence of god's existence, so they focus on that aspect alone. And keep trying to sweep the concept of god out of their lives by repetition of the basic definition of the word.
or so my armchair psychology tells me.
porlob says
What the fuck is the point of a movement that is ONLY about a a drive for a secular society if there is no vision of what that society should look like? I mean, beyond the goal of not having quite so many "Got Jesus?" billboards.
Sure, we would have done a great job of defining what we don't value, but I'm having a hard time envisioning how this society that is free from religion but we're not allowed to talk about injustice is appreciably different from what we have now.
Bart B. Van Bockstaele says
7 June 2016 at 10:02 am
[…] with no thought about why […]
I don't think I have ever met someone like that, but if I did, I'd be totally puzzled. For me, atheism has always been a conclusion, not an a priori, and I see no important difference between someone like that and a religionist. The same is, to some extent, true for the implications, but I think there is the danger of sending the wrong message if great care is not taken to prevent mixing up reasons for atheism and implications of atheism (and, of course, god(s) and religion(s).
I do have a problem with the term "dictionary atheism" however. The reason I do, is that dictionaries have conflicting definitions. I just typed "atheist" in Onelook and I got a quick definition from Macmillan:
someone who believes that God does not exist
That is not me, and I dare hope most people would think that. On the other hand, I clicked on the more link and then got this:
someone who does not believe that God exists
And yes, I *can* identify with that. Now, whether I can or cannot identify with a definition is unimportant, what is important is what is 'true' or 'correct'. Also, dictionaries typically give us what they think is 'common usage', not necessarily 'correct' usage. As such, I think atheists owe it to themselves to define what they mean when they say they are atheists.
As a tentative conclusion, I would say that a dictionary atheist is someone who quite literally does not know what he/she is talking about.
specialffrog says
@porlob: Clearly our society would only be racist and sexist for rational, scientific reasons rather than for religious reasons.
Seems I missed an end tag. Sorry, Macmillan!
Athywren - not the moon you're looking for says
@chigau, 1
What is this… Sunday morning of which you speak? I know the part of Saturday night when the birds start singing and the horizon begins to glow faintly, and I know that Sunday has an afternoon, but… morning? I don't think I've encountered such a concept.
@Bart B Van Bockstaele, 5
That is not me, and I dare hope most people would think that.
Personally, I'm quite happy to say I believe that God does not exist. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe gods in general don't exist, but the Abrahamic god? Yeah, I'm almost* certain that's a complete fiction.
And yes, I *can* identify with that.
I agree that this is a better definition, although I'd adjust it by replacing "God exists" with "gods exist" – atheism isn't just a stance on Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, after all.
*This is literally just a hedgy nod to agnosticism. It is probably impossible to know for certain – the bible could simply be a terrible, inconsistent and misleading representation of a real being – but the god of Abraham, as represented in the Abrahamic texts? Nah. No such being.
schini says
"Atheist" is a word. Words tend to have meaning. The meaning of words tends to change over time, sometimes drastically, sometimes only in nuance.
Some people activly try to change the meaning of words to achive a certain goal. Sometimes I agree with the goal, sometimes I don't.
Many people wan't to change the communities they are participating in to the better. By figthing latent racism, speaking out against misogony, … the like.
What word should one use to describe the aspect of ones mind, that says "there are no gods or other supernatural beings."?
If "atheist" changes to mean more than just that, what word should replace ist ("dictionary atheist"?)?
@schini, 9
I don't think anybody's saying we need to redefine atheism to include opposition to racism, misogyny, etc. The problem is people refusing to accept opposition to racism, misogyny, etc. because it's not in the definition.
@Athywren, #10
I don't think anybody's saying we need to redefine atheism to include opposition to racism, misogyny …
I got the impression that some people actually are afraid of exactly that (whether that fear is justified is another matter).
And afraid not because opposition to racism, misogyny would be a bad idea (well maybe for some, but these are the idiots), but because it would be a precedent for an additional requirement ("you can only be an atheist if you also …"). What if someday down the line, something is pushed, that I do not support?
These fears might be irrational/ unrealistic to some extend, but I think they are part of the issue.
Grumpy Santa says
Well, call me boring then. I've been called worse. Fighting social injustices and being an atheist are two completely different things. There's nothing wrong with being in both sets, but trying to claim both sets are one is a mistake.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says
Dictionary atheists forget decisions have consequences, which lead to further questions and decisions. Atheism doesn't exist in a void.
Since god doesn't exist, what are the consequences personally and to society? That is what makes atheism not boring, going into the ramifications of the decision to reject phantasms. Dictionary atheists are boring. They have nothing to discuss.
@Grumpy Santa, schini: It's not so much claiming that being an atheist requires you to fight social injustices but rather that if you are an atheist it logically follows that you must not accept any claim whose source ultimately traces back to "because God says so".
If you care about holding views that are logically consistent you will then work to figure out what views you hold solely because they are the prevalent views of society and which of these views trace back to "because God says so".
And if you are a skeptic you will be the most suspicious of the claims you would like to be true.
Of course you can be an atheist without caring about logical consistency but this doesn't change the fact that atheism has logical consequences.
F.O. says
Is atheism even relevant to social justice now?
Once I could tell to myself that religion is bad because it foster bad thinking practices, but if this is the problem, atheism is not the solution.
Don't get me wrong, I still dislike religion with a passion, but my arguments against it have become weaker and weaker.
Onamission5 says
The problem is also dictionary atheists who use atrocities committed in the name of religion as a cudgel against the religious, and then in the same breath complain about "SJW's" ruining atheism or seeing something in atheism which isn't there. Can't have it both ways, folks. Either you don't give two shits about anything other than not believing in deities, or you're participating in social justice in the name of atheism, albeit shittily. But it's okay to care about women (et al) if religion is being mean to them. It's just not okay for women to speak for and represent themselves within atheism, apparently.
You (general you) came by your atheism by reading a word in a dictionary and going, "Hey, that's me!" so that's all it means to you. More power to you. I, however, came by my atheism using much the same process by which I came by my social justice bent, for many of the same reasons, and as such they are intrinsically tied together, inseparable. The fact that your atheism is shallow and virtually devoid of meaning doesn't give you veto rights over mine.
Hell, some people a while back even tried to create a separate-from-mainstream-atheism movement to work on SJ issues– you know, they way we SJ types keep being told to do– and some other people completely lost their shit just because that movement had the word atheism attached. Somebody got chocolate in their peanut butter and now religionists might actually start to think that atheism is about something other than using SJ issues against religious people, the horror.
@ Nerd
Dictionary atheists are boring. They have nothing to discuss.
Why is that? Can not a "dictionary atheist" also be an advocate of equal rights or other causes? Can we not wear more than one hat?
@ specialffrog
but rather that if you are an atheist it logically follows that you must not accept any claim whose source ultimately traces back to "because God says so".
While I mostly agree, I think the wording here needs to be a little more nuanced. While, for example, you may have a group of people treating another group unfairly because "God says so" you could also have a different group treating them unfairly simply because they're dicks. Either way, you don't need to be an atheist to call them out for being dicks, whether their motives are religious or not.
Nathair says
Bob: I don't believe in god.
Mary: I don't believe in god either.
Bob: That's great!
Mary: What now?
Bob: Dammit Mary, you ruined it! Why can't you stay on message?
Vivec says
I don't want to be part of any atheist movement/group/community that is willing to rub elbows with anti-sj people just because they agree on the topic of atheism.
As the one I always go back to – I joined a christian LGBT group rather than a big-name Atheism group, because the latter was full of people shit-talking transgender people but agreed with me on atheism, and the former was full of nice people that disagreed with me about religion.
So sure, you're allowed to have your dictionary atheist groups where a shithead like thunderf00t is just as welcome as someone decent like PZ because they're both atheists, but I want less than nothing to do with them.
Regardless, in terms of what I care about, pure religion-versus-atheism struggles are something I couldn't give less than a shit about.
Sorry, but when your life is a mess of "will that cop kill me for being non-white" or "will I get assaulted in that bathroom", I have a hard time giving a shit about "In god we trust" on money. This, of course, leads me to oppose religious bigots, but because they're bigots, not because they're religious.
So yeah, I'm a coincidentally-atheist SJ advocate, and will only give a shit about atheism groups/movements as long as they address SJ issues. If they go anti-sj, I'm more than willing to hang out with religious people instead.
@Grumpy Santa: I'm not sure how your statement disagrees with what I said or what point you are trying to make. Are you saying atheism doesn't have logical consequences relating to social justice because non-atheists can believe in social justice and not all social justice issues trace back to religion?
7 June 2016 at 12:09 pm
Can we not wear more than one hat?
No, not if you are a dictionary atheist. Once you say deities don't exist, you have nothing more to say on the subject.
Once you really question the tribalism and bigotry of religion, you and your atheism have something to say.
Brian Pansky says
The problem is people refusing to accept opposition to racism, misogyny, etc. because it's not in the definition.
Is it now? Do you have an example? Does anyone ever point to facts in these conversations?
@schini, #9
Some people activly try to change the meaning of words to achive a certain goal.
Do they now? Got any facts? I also notice you never explicitly say anyone is doing this with the word "atheist", but it seems you are implying they do.
@Grumpy Santa, #12
trying to claim both sets are one is a mistake.
Got any examples of anyone doing that?
"these people are doing this, those other people are doing that" unfortunately it's rare to find any evidence or quotes in these accusations. Just characterization full of interpretation. Prevents the conversation from bumping into reality. Causes it to fly off into confusion and speculation, as people endlessly talk past each other.
Anyone else ever notice that? It's annoying.
An atheist can wear more than one hat, and an atheist can also be an advocate of equal rights or other causes. But the term "dictionary atheist" is defined as someone who does not. (I think, anyways)
@Brian Pansky, 23
It is now. One example is actually linked to in the original post, right up there in the first sentence – it's the text that looks different from the rest; red text, has a subtle underline. Other examples are littered through this history of this blog over the last five years for sure (possibly longer – I'm not exactly sure if it was already a common occurrence before the thing that happened five years ago and turned the atheism movement (at least overtly) into a pointless mass of railing against social justice). I could comb through it, but I haven't witnessed them all, and, frankly, I'm much too lazy to spend hours finding a few dozen examples of people whining about how promoting social justice is diluting the message of atheism, and that we should just stay on message.
@Brian Pansky
I'm am willing to accept that there's also a sub-problem of people who are, for ridiculous reasons, worried about our imaginary plan to change the definition of atheism to include opposition of sexism and racism, and the consumption of porridge with salt.
@Athywren
Yes, the link would have been good to at least point to initially.
It starts mid conversation, it's a chore, but you seem correct.
@ Brian
But the term "dictionary atheist" is defined as someone who does not. (I think, anyways)
If that's true then I'm a victim of not understanding the definition. I thought a "dictionary atheist" is simply someone that doesn't believe in a god.
Yeah, this (although the wording leaves a lot to be desired) closely sims it up. Although I wouldn't say "worried" so much as I simply don't like the idea of it. I've also never had porridge. The idea of not being a "good enough" atheist because I don't have all the same checkboxes checked off of a social justice checklist doesn't seem right. We're too varied as a group for "atheists are this or that" to ever be valid… unless "this or that" is not believing in a god.
Is salt on porridge good or bad?
Although I wouldn't say "worried" so much as I simply don't like the idea of it.
Then you're welcome to have your gross "no SJ stuff allowed" atheism groups, just as much as we're allowed to criticize and mock them.
@Grump Santa
Salt on porridge is probably fine. I only ever eat mine with sugar… sometimes maple syrup. You should try it. Not because it's a requirement of being an atheist, but because porridge is lovely, especially in winter. It's a reference to the fallacy that attempting to redefine atheism would be – No True Scotsman.
scildfreja says
@Grumpy Santa,
I thought a "dictionary atheist" is simply someone that doesn't believe in a god.
A Dictionary Atheist (Dicttheist?) is less about the "Atheist" part, really. It's more about the idea that any consequences of Atheism are either not to be associated with Atheism (at best) or do not exist (at worst). It's usually selectively applied – like, it's okay for a Dicttheist to associate Atheism with education reform or secular government, but it's not okay to associate it with LGBT rights or feminism.
There's a magic circle of things that are connected to Atheism directly, usually lining up with whatever protects the feelings of the person making the claim. All concepts that are consequences of atheism, but are outside of the circle? SJW corruption.
Atheism, like any world view, has implications on behaviour. Justice-inclined Atheists want to acknowledge those implications and push the magic circle out.
(nngh, oatmeal is my weakness. Mine is pretty fancy, though. Steel-cut oats and cracked wheat and barley and blueberries and maple sugar crystals and thin-sliced strawberry and apple. Not gloopy, not slimy, just enough firmness in the grains. glorious.)
Matrim says
@28, grumpy santa
In general it's used to refer to an atheist who gets irritated when someone tries to move from the lack of belief in gods to the logical consequences of that belief.
Right. It also means you are ignoring the consequences of your decision.
Religion is great about tribal behavior like othering outsiders, maintaining internal conformity, criminalizing people for the color of their skin, sexual orientation, etc., all in the name of their god. You end up with things like "separate but equal". Oh, you can pretend all is equal, but it isn't.
Egalitarians try to pretend society is equal despite repeated evidence there is institutional discrimination in place. If you are afraid you might lose your privileges, you stop before the important question. Who do you other? By doing nothing, you are still othering those who are on the receiving end of that institutional discrimination. De facto bigot.
Are women human beings. Yes. Are people of color human beings? Yes. Are LGBT people human beings? Yes. If you said no to any of the questions, where is your conclusive evidence? We haven't seen any conclusive evidence here. And once you say yes to all the questions, then you agree everybody should be equal, have the same rights and privileges as anybody else. You are for social justice. All because of the consequences of your decision to become an atheist.
If you don't want to lose your privileges, go over in the corner of atheism with the rest of the bigots. I won't deny you are an atheist or human being, but I won't listen to your irrational dictionary bullshit. You can do better if you choose to do so.
@33, Matrim
I've generally found that those same dictionary atheists aren't quite so bent out of shape as long as you think the logical consequences of atheism are full-on libertarianism, laissez-faire capitalism, a burning concern over men's rights and ethics in gaming journalism.
Decision? To be an atheist? That was no more of a decision than being born a human being. I've been an atheist my entire life, how can there be "consequences" to something not of my choosing? Maybe this is where you're losing me.
Yeah, tis a silly thing. Mind-boggling in many ways.
Are women human beings. Yes. Are people of color human beings? Yes. Are LGBT people human beings? Yes.
Well no kidding. So are straight white guys too. We're all in this together.
And once you say yes to all the questions, then you agree everybody should be equal, have the same rights and privileges as anybody else. You are for social justice.
Of course. But what's that have to do with atheism?
All because of the consequences of your decision to become an atheist.
I never decided to be an atheist. It's who I am and who I've always been. It's my natural default state. You still haven't made the connection between favoring social justices and being an atheist however even if it were possible to choose to be an atheist.
And now you've oddly drifted off dangerously towards the brink of ad hominem for some bizarre reason. I'm an atheist by default, I agree with the need for social justices, but somehow I'm a bigot for what… not linking the two together?
I would like to, if you'd be willing, see your argument again if you look at it from the perspective of atheism not being a choice and simply being who someone is.
So are straight white guys too.
-Rolls eyes into the stratosphere-
Caine says
PZ:
It makes for a rather boring and repetitive message, and lacking in introspection.
Just like the preachers at the Reason Rally. Something in common, then.
Grumpy Santa:
Oh fuckin' A. No, straight white guys aren't in this with every one else. Straight white guys are busy trying to preserve their privilege, and right to be sexist, phobic assholes who aren't obligated beyond dictionary definitions.
Yeah, I know, #notallstraightwhiteguys, but you straight white guys have a big fucking problem, and it would be more helpful if you directed your preaching towards your fellow straight white guys.
I just posted about a couple of straight, white guys today. I don't suppose you'd want to stand with them. The trick here is to turn that laser focus on the straight white guys who claim to be 'in this thing' with you. Bet they aren't.
I never decided to be an atheist. It's who I am and who I've always been.
Wrong, it is a decision. You don't understand the argument, just don't like being told to sit down over there and quit bothering atheists trying to make the world a better place, unlike you.
@ Caine
Perhaps it would have been better worded if I said "from my perspective" or "the way I see it", something along those lines. Yep, you're absolutely right, there are some complete jerks and assholes out there that need a good ass-kicking back to reality.
Ok, the entire premise of your argument is wrong. That's not to say that there aren't good points within the argument, but you are simply wrong, at least for me. Being an atheist is not a choice. I simply cannot decide to believe in mythologies or supernatural beings. It is simply my nature to be an atheist. I think you may need to consider rethinking your argument a bit. If it depends on a fallacy it's not going to fly well.
I'd be curious to see a poll here… whose "chose" to be an atheist, who has always been an atheist and who was a former believer that stopped believing based on the evidence and wound up an atheist.
For me being an atheist is no more a choice than a woman being a woman, an LGBT person being LGBT or a person of color being who they are.
@ Vivec
I mentioned straight white guys because that's the only group he left off as being human beings.
Travis says
The concepts of reason and secularism have been associated with atheism, and promoted by atheists for so long that many seem to think they go hand in hand. When they retreat to a bare bones definition of atheism they don't get to bring these along. An atheist can think a theocracy is a great thing, something good for society. Personally rejecting belief in god does not mean has to think religion is bad. Valuing reason, and promoting secularism are consequences drawn from considering the implications atheism in the same way people see social justice issues stemming from their atheistic viewpoint. Atheism alone is boring and useless until you start attaching concepts due to the implications of that belief.
Yes, and there's a reason why said group was left out.
Consider which group is A. The most privileged of those groups and B. Almost always the direct cause of said social inequality.
To wit, "Straight white guys are people too!" is the same kind of bullshit as "Blue lives matter".
I am not sure what an organization founded, and limited to dictionary atheist principals would do until they brought in some ideas beyond the definition and looked at the implications of it.
I don't disagree with that at all. But dammit… I'm still human!
Blue lives? I seem to be missing the reference…
"Blue lives matter" is the counter to "Black lives matter" racists like to say, as if there's some overarching system of oppression that routinely targets cops qua cops.
Your humanity has literally never been under debate, unless there's some period of history where straight white men have been categorically denied rights I'm forgetting? Adding "straight white men are people too!" after a list of actually oppressed groups is more than a little skeevy sounding.
Yeah, ok, you do have a point there. I was a bit out of sorts and apologize for the poor wording.
If I may ask… what are your personal thought on whether or not atheism is a decision as Nerd puts it to be? I know with a high degree of certainty it's not a decision I made for one. Being effectively called a liar for being who and what I am… it doesn't sit well.
Knabb says
The term "Blue lives" is referring to cops. The broader context of it is as a response to "Black lives matter", which was started precisely because of routine murders of black people by cops. "Black lives matter" isn't just a statement that black lives matter, it's a statement that black lives matter despite a society overly hostile towards that message. Society isn't overtly hostile towards cops mattering, as demonstrated by the near complete lack of punishment they recieved for those aforementioned murders, along with the numerous other instances of violence that didn't quite reach the murder threshold.
It's the same deal here. "[Some group of people] are people" is a statement of defiance in the face of social inequality against those people. Straight white guys as a group aren't on the receiving end of social inequality. There are straight white guys who are, but not because they're straight, white, or guys. Your humanity isn't in question. Emphasizing it when faced with people for whom it is in question is bullshit.
8. Athywren – not the moon you're looking for:
> Personally, I'm quite happy to say I believe that God does not exist. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe gods in general don't exist, but the Abrahamic god? Yeah, I'm almost* certain that's a complete fiction.
I completely agree with that. Actually, I am absolutely certain that the Abrahamic God only stands a chance of existing if one accepts that the Bible is chock-full of errors.
I agree, and I tend to say exactly that, even though at least one of my blogs still uses the other formula. When I have time, I will change that.
It is probably impossible to know for certain – the bible could simply be a terrible, inconsistent and misleading representation of a real being – but the god of Abraham, as represented in the Abrahamic texts? Nah. No such being.
We agree, I think. In fact, that is why I call William Lane Craig a charlatan/whore. His sorry excuse for a university makes him agree with the statement that the Bible contains no error of any kind, but only someone who is illiterate could possibly agree with such a ridiculous claim.
If I may ask… what are your personal thought on whether or not atheism is a decision as Nerd puts it to be?
Personally, I think it's an ambiguous question.
I don't think "lack of belief in a god" is a choice, because I don't think people consciously choose to believe in things.
However, I do think that "identifying as an atheist", "taking part in atheist communities", and "choosing to act on that disbelief" are all conscious choices, and how/why you do those things can be the target of criticism.
That being said, I'm not of the opinion that atheism necessarily implies interest in social justice.
My argument is moreso that I think any movement/group/organization that neglects social justice is at best worthy of scorn and mockery and at worst a bigoted hate group.
10. Athywren – not the moon you're looking for
Maybe not, but I have the impression that when people express their opinion against including such opposition in the definition, it is sometimes interpreted as opposition against opposition to racism, LGBT rights and what have you. I think it is important for atheists to really think hard about what atheism is, even if only to make sure religionists won't trap them into "admitting" (according to the religionists) that their standpoint is "just another religion" because they "can't prove atheism".
Nicely put. There's something I can agree with.
While I'm at it, the whole matter over "dictionary atheists" has nothing to do with who does or doesn't qualify as an atheist. That regressive asshole atheists are atheists isn't really in question. It's about what atheist institutions should be doing, and that's an entirely different subject. Just being an atheist doesn't even mean support for the sort of things that are nominally protected by the argument – you can be an atheist and think that religious indoctrination of children in schools is just fine, or that religious tests for office are fine, or any number of other things that atheist organizations can oppose without being whined at extensively for "mission drift" or similar. Any actual goal is beyond the bare requirements of being an organization for atheists.
Yet the complaints only seem to crop up when atheist institutions fight for disadvantaged people somehow.
16. Onamission5
The problem is also dictionary atheists who use atrocities committed in the name of religion as a cudgel against the religious, and then in the same breath complain about "SJW's" ruining atheism or seeing something in atheism which isn't there. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Which is why I always (try to) make it clear that there is a big difference between atrocities committed "in the name of religion" and atrocities committed "because of religion".
36. Grumpy Santa
You are the first person I have ever heard make this claim the way you do. I have no quarrel with that, but I do have a question: in what sense is your atheism not akin to a godless religion?
I don't think I have ever been genuinely religious myself, even though I have certainly tried when I was a lot younger, but I couldn't. However, the environment in which I was brought up has certainly led me to think about being an atheist or a believer for almost as long as I can remember.
Atheism alone is boring and useless until you start attaching concepts due to the implications of that belief.
Perhpaps, but how is atheism a belief? I don't believe there are no gods, I merely don't believe there are gods. How is not believing a belief?
Blue lives matter
He seems to be referring to these people: https://www.blueman.com
Okay. About perspective, and I'm starting to feel bad for linking back to myself again, I will stop after this, but sometimes you have to think past your perspective, to the roots of it. Why you have that perspective. I've been posting a series done by Alysa Landry at Indian Country Today Media Network, on all the past presidents of the U.S., with a specific perspective on their attitudes and policies towards various Indian Nations. Today was Benjamin Harrison. Marcus Ranum had a very interesting insight on perspective, maybe it will help, or at least provide some food for thought.
They*, and that is a bit of a bad taste joke given that it's on the topic of a string of anti-black murders.
Fine, but that changes nothing in the rest of the post. So yes, I concede I should have worded it differently, as I actually agree, it is a lack of belief and I was lazy when writing that.
For me, it's more of a concern about diluting focus and stepping on other groups' programs. For example, while I would hope that atheists would support criminal justice reform and anti-racist efforts, at some point you have to ask why they're trying to do this through an atheist group as opposed to simply joining Black Lives Matter or another group focused specifically on these issues.
I think atheist organizations should support efforts that lie at the intersection of atheism/secularism and social justice, with individual atheists of course being more than welcome to put on more than one hat and participate in multiple groups focused on different issues.
61. Travis
Thanks for your explanation!
mforkheim says
Maybe I'm just being too semantic, but whenever I hear someone complain about "dictionary atheists" I always think of someone trying to redefine a phylum by cutting and pasting the definition of a family.
If someone says they are a Christian, all you know about them is that they believe that Jesus is their Lord and saviour and that believing in him will deliver them unto heaven. You know absolutely nothing else about them until you find out whether they are Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Ana-Baptist, and the list goes on.
If someone says they are an atheist all you know about them is that they don't believe in a god. You can't know much more about them until you learn if they are humanist, libertarian, nihilist, Raelian, Scientologist etc.
Hey PZ, you're a scientist, lets go design some rockets. Oh, you're not that kind of scientist, you're a biologist. Well then lets go to the Amazon and discover new and medicinal plants. Oh, you're not that type of biologist …
springa73 says
It doesn't make sense to me to mix advocacy for social justice issues with atheism as if the two are inseparable. They aren't really so – it's entirely possible to be an atheist and a conservative or libertarian, just like it's entirely possible to be religious and be a leftist social activist. There's nothing about the lack of belief in deities that necessarily leads to a particular political position on most issues. That's why it seems pretty silly for any group to accuse another group of ruining atheism by advocating for a particular political viewpoint. Atheism is not, and cannot be, a unified movement, any more than theism is.
I think you are rather missing the problem here. No one (or next to no one, at least) is attempting to claim that if one is an atheist they must necessarily also believe in Social Justice, we're reacting to a specific demographic of people that insist that "atheism" and "social justice" are hostile worlds that must never overlap.
As I said, it's fine if these people want to have "pure-atheism" groups that only discuss matters directly related to lack of belief in gods, but I and many others have zero interest in groups like this and may find groups like that out-and-out contemptible for their willingness to rub elbows with conservatives and anti-social-justice types in the name of atheism.
At least for me, the problem with pure-atheism groups isn't because they're "not going far enough as atheists", it's that the standard you walk by is the standard you accept and a group that sees bigotry and does nothing is morally contemptible.
That's why it seems pretty silly for any group to accuse another group of ruining atheism by advocating for a particular political viewpoint. Atheism is not, and cannot be, a unified movement, any more than theism is.
They might not be "ruining atheism" in the sense that they're tarnishing the idea of atheism, but they are "ruining atheism" by alienating and harming groups that would otherwise be willing to help with the push towards secularism.
A really belligerent, assholish sports fan doesn't ruin the sport in the sense that he harms the sport directly, but he will make people think twice about viewing/playing/attending that sport if they're going to have to deal with that asshole.
Case in point: me. I'm not willing to be a part of atheist groups that tacitly support/condone bigots just because they happen to be right on the matter of atheism. They're allowed to have those groups, sure, just as we're allowed to mock and criticize them for being conclaves of assholes.
John Morales says
It's clear some people don't realise PZ's use of the term "dictionary atheist" is jargon*, not literal; best as I can tell, it originated here some years ago (link to archive as the original doesn't come up): Why are you an atheist?
Pullquote:
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.
* Typical example: Bart @5: "I do have a problem with the term "dictionary atheism" however. The reason I do, is that dictionaries have conflicting definitions. I just typed "atheist" in Onelook and I got a quick definition from Macmillan: […]"
is there a distinctive name for the "atheist" [intentional scare quotes] that "believes God does NOT exist" versus the other kind of atheist who "does NOT believe God exists".
like "contrarian" vs "denier"?
did that come off as "tonal"?
yes it did.
all that was just an example of getting lost, trying to use Dictionary as some kind of tool for one's argument.
Sorry, I should have looked into the links in PZ's blog post, instead of jumping into into the comment section ignorantly!
@slithey tove, 69
If we are to believe William Lane Craig, there's a pronunciation difference: An atheist who believes gods don't exist is an eh-theist, while an atheist who doesn't believe gods exist is an aaaaaaaaaaahh-theist.
Personally, I prefer to think of those who believe gods don't exist as bees, and those who don't believe they do exist as weasels. I am both, depending on your definitions, making me a beesweasel.
No problem. At least, I'm not holding any grudges – obviously the gods of skepticism take a dim view on such things and will be summoning you to the pain room. Sorry I was a bit shitty – I was in a mood for unrelated reasons and was needlessly tetchy.
erik333 says
@56 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
It might be connected to interpretations of the wording "decide to be" as if the belief was the result of an act of (free) will. I, similarly to Grumpy Santa, am an atheist because I haven't yet been convinced a god exists. I've never (as far as I can remember) believed a god existed, and probably never will believe one exists. If I change my mind, I will probably not have a choice in the matter – as far as I can tell I have no free will with respect to beliefs, they are forced upon my perceived self.
@69 slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))
The ones I've heard used most is "strong" vs "weak" atheism.
@74 me
Though thats with regard to lower case god, as in any god – not just the Christian god specifically.
@ Bart B
Really? I have to admit that surprises me.
I don't see the connection nor the resemblance to a godless religion to be honest. What would a godless religion be like? Would it cause a rift in the space/time continuum? I really can't answer that question properly having no frame of reference to go by.
@66 Vivec
I've never said their hostile words that shouldn't overlap. I believe I was at least trying to say something more opposite… they're two distinct sets of people that can and do overlap. You can be in the set labeled "atheist" and the set labeled "feminist" for example. Or you can be in either set but not the other. Or, you could be in neither. I strongly dislike the idea of seemingly defining an atheist by what other sets they also happen to occupy (not saying you did, just in general).
Referencing the Pullquote:
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."
But what if that's all the answer there is. I'm an atheist simply because I am. I don't and never have harbored beliefs in gods. There really is nothing more to the answer than that.
Heh. Way to miss the point.
(Also, way to contradict yourself!)
I've never said their hostile words that shouldn't overlap.
I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, but there is demonstrably a demographic of people that think so.
And, for the record, I'm pretty cool with defining atheists by what other subgroups they belong to. A bigoted conservative atheist is no friend or ally of mine, even if they happen to agree with me on Atheism. They can take their "common goal" of secularization and shove it.
It's clear some people don't realise PZ's use of the term "dictionary atheist" is jargon*, not literal
I definitely have the impression that it is literal.
Bart, you now stand corrected. Whether or not you accept that is entirely up to you.
73. erik333:
[…] It might be connected to interpretations of the wording "decide to be" as […]
I am not sure. I also don't think I ever was a god-believer, or at least, I can't remember this ever being the case. However, I have certainly thought about it, a lot, for many years, and atheism is for me a tentative conclusion: just as I find no reasonable evidence that thylacines still exist, I find no reasonable evidence that gods exist. Therefore, I do not believe thylacines exist, nor do I believe gods exist. I can be persuaded, however, that this conclusion is wrong.
Not quite. I have now a reason to look into it further and see if I can find something where Prof. Myers defines dictionary atheists in a more definitive way that overturns what he says in this blog post:
We atheists are supposed to stay focused, stay on message, but the only message they'll tolerate is that god doesn't exist and religion is bad, with no thought about why or the implications. It makes for a rather boring and repetitive message, and lacking in introspection.
This post sounds like he means it quite literally.
I don't think I can personally get on board with that. When you call someone a "bigoted conservative atheist" you're tying "bigoted conservative" to the unrelated "atheist" label which can imply that there's a relationship between the two when there isn't. Right now when I hear "bigoted conservative" I automatically think "Christian" even though not all "Christians" are bigoted conservatives (even though there does tend to be a bit of causation between those two groups).
If you define atheists by their subgroups people will start identifying atheists by their subgroups as well even though there's no actual validity in doing so. It creates stereotypes.
bassmike says
I can't help thinking that being Atheist is always a choice. Even if you've been Atheist all your life you must have been exposed to some religion at some time. At which point you have made a conscious decision to remain Atheist. It's not like being a POC or LGBT where it is an intrinsic part of you.
@ 77 John Morales
It's not missing the point. The point isn't valid. Look at the full thing again:
This is complete, unadulterated bullshit. I'm an atheist simply because I am. To then declare that I'm being dogmatic and blind because I don't accept someone else's opinion that there's more to it than that… well, that's being dogmatic and blind to the fact that the world doesn't conform to someone else's opinion. There is no "practice of atheism". There may be other things an atheist practices, and that will vary from person to person. This quote is nothing more than a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, right down to the assertion that the quoter is pressing that "I'm right and you're wrong".
@84 Bassmike
How is it a choice? Do you choose to not believe in religious mumbo-jumbo or do you simply not believe it? I actually vaguely remember doing that first communion thing as a kid. Even then it didn't make sense. I just never bought into it. There was/is no conscious effort to being an atheist, it simply is how I'm wired. It's as intrinsic a part of me as any other aspect of who and what I am.
How much effort do you put into not believing in the existence of supernatural beings? Do you choose not to believe in the Legendary Flying Spaghetti Monster? At some point in your life, where there a conscious effort made to continue to not believe in the LFSM? Or perhaps you simply don't believe in it.
rietpluim says
I happily call myself a dictionary atheist (thanks for the compliment, PZ) yet I support social justice. Here is a message to my fellow dictionary atheists who do not: you are right that "social justice" is not in "unbelief" and you are completely missing the point. You're just stuck in your teens when you first discovered the power of reason, and now you refuse to accept its implications, because logic. You know what? Most people on this blog have long time passed that point. Grow the fuck up.
I don't think I can personally get on board with that.
I…don't care?
I'm no friend/ally of any conservative bigots. I'm not going to buddy up with atheist ones just because they happen to be atheists.
Sorry, I'm really not interested in sharing a community with bigots, even bigots that are correct on the matter of belief in gods. As I posted upthread, I could really take or leave atheism as a thing – my interest is primarily in social justice. I'd rather hang out and work with social justice-minded christians than bigoted atheists.
@ 88 Vivec
I'm not convinced you read my whole post. Either that or I failed to express myself properly… a definite possibility.
I think we're both close to saying the same thing. You'd rather hang around with social justice-minded people than bigots. Whether or not they're atheists is irrelevant. Correct? This is why I don't like defining atheists by subgroups… they're irrelevant to the fact that they're atheists. Referring to someone as a "bigoted conservative atheist" adds unnecessary baggage to the atheist label when you're simply talking about a bigoted conservative, which is as complete of a set as you need to express the people you don't want to hang around with. (You probably can simply increase that overall set to simply "bigots" to encompass the actual scope I think you mean, for there are conservatives that aren't bigots. I think…) I have no desire to hang around with bigots, regardless of their political or religious affiliations.
Grumpy Santa @85:
It's not missing the point. The point isn't valid. Look at the full thing again: [pullquote]
Leaving aside that it's not the full thing (it's a pullquote, not the thesis), the point you keep missing is (and I reiterate it verbatim) that PZ's use of the term "dictionary atheist" is jargon, not literal. Had you perused the linked article, you'd have seen that PZ also wrote "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'm an atheist simply because I am.
You exemplify those to whom he refers in the previous paragraph to the one I quoted @68, wherein he defines his usage: "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.""
So, you've never considered whether your atheism is warranted by, for example, examining the evidence for your belief, right?
Saad says
Grumpy Santa,
You're using a lot of words to say Not All Atheists.
Atheist communities (whether they're loosely organized online forums or actual real-world groups) have a serious bigotry issue. Therefore it makes sense for us to use the term "bigoted atheists". If you took all the bigots in the world and randomly dumped them into a bag, then yes, it wouldn't be right to call that bag "bigoted atheists" because there'd be a lot of religious people in there too. But the people we're calling bigoted atheists congregate together (physically and ideologically).
This is why I don't like defining atheists by subgroups… they're irrelevant to the fact that they're atheists.
Right, but as I've mentioned like twice above, I am specifically talking about atheist organizations/communities that are willing to rub elbows with bigots because said bigots also happen to be atheists.
So yes, in this case, the fact that they are atheist bigots is actually extremely relevant, because I'm specifically explaining why I have no interest (and actively dislike) non-sj atheist groups.
Well, no. It's the lack of evidence for any of the supernatural stuff that leaves me an atheist by default. No one has ever presented evidence to convince me otherwise.
It doesn't matter if PZ or anyone else doesn't like the fact that an atheist is simply someone that doesn't have any beliefs in gods. It is what it is. Yes, there are subgroups of atheists that are also bigots, social-justice minded people, completely uninvolved, whatever. You don't get to redefine "atheist" because of the subgroups when the only those particular subgroups have in common is the coincidence that some members are also atheists.
@ 91 Saad
But the people we're calling bigoted atheists congregate together (physically and ideologically).
I think you're the first I've seen to specify specific groups in this fashion. In this case, if it were a group that came together because they were both bigots as well as atheists, then yes, that's definitely a group I wouldn't be able to support. But I think that's a bit of an aside from "dictionary atheists" and being told that there are consequences for my "choice" to become an atheist. That's more what I'm railing against.
Lofty says
Grumpy Santa
Sounds like a big waaah to me.
As a SJW atheist I want bigoted atheists clearly labelled so I can keep the fuck away from them. They do not represent me in anything other than a very trivial godless way.
In this case, if it were a group that came together because they were both bigots as well as atheists, then yes, that's definitely a group I wouldn't be able to support.
What about groups that aren't formed explicitly to welcome bigoted atheists, but nonetheless allow them to take part due to having no stance on SJ issues? Because I find those almost just as abhorrent as ones that explicitly welcome bigoted atheists.
Here's a close metric for me: If your group would let in Thunderf00t or TheAmazingMisogynist without criticism, I think your group is bad.
You don't get to redefine "atheist" because of the subgroups when the only those particular subgroups have in common is the coincidence that some members are also atheists.
Wahhhhh. You want to be an atheist and be a bigot without consequences. It is your decision to be a bigot. Go stand with the other bigots we will ignore, And stop whining like a sore loser.
Well, popular usage does get to redefine terms, and as of yet it's not looking pretty for us.
You do get that a large swathe of the internet now uses "atheist" with connotations of being gross bigots/misogynists because of the prominent asshole atheists that we tolerate rather than condemn, right?
So, congrats, your policy of "don't call a spade a spade" is really not helping atheism, because people see us tolerating assholes like Thunderf00t or Sargon and think "oh, if these are atheist leaders, I want nothing to do with atheism."
@Grumpy Santa #93
You don't get to redefine "atheist"
Some people say exact the same thing about marriage.
At least going from my experiences on tumblr, by and large "atheist" and "weird egalitarian anti-sj MRAtheist" are used interchangeably by a huge part of the sj-minded community, because whoa we've allowed a huge cancerous tumor of shitty anti-sj atheists to grow.
Grumpy Santa, #93
It doesn't matter if PZ … doesn't like the fact that an atheist is simply someone that doesn't have any beliefs in gods.
Can you please drop this strawman already?
The argument is against those atheists who oppose social justice and propagate bigotry in spite of being told clearly why that's wrong and inconsistent with a large portion of the atheist criticism of religion.
If religion is bad in large part because of misogyny, homophobia, classism, then misogyny, homophobia and classism are bad on their own too. An atheist criticizing religion for those things but then contributing to those things themselves makes no sense.
If a group of bigots proudly calls themselves atheists and says and does bigoted things while congregating as atheists, while speaking about atheism, and while speaking against other atheists, then I will call them "bigoted atheists".
It makes perfect sense.
If the members of a book club use racial slurs while congregating at their book meetings, while discussing books on internet forums, and abuse and harass other avid readers for opposing racism, then they are "bigoted readers".
Nepos says
Ironically, a common anti-atheist argument demonstrates PZ's point nicely. Anti-atheists like to say that atheists must be immoral, because they have no religion from which to derive their morality. There is a kernel of truth to this–atheists don't have a preset morality to turn to, no holy books to tell us what to do. Instead, each atheist must define their own morality (and this is the part that the anti-atheists fail to grasp, that it IS possible for someone to live a moral life based on self-derived principles).
So, while the dictionary definition of atheist may simply be that one does not believe in gods, any thoughtful atheist must go beyond that lack of belief and define for themselves what they believe to be good (or right, or ethical, or whatever). An atheist who doesn't do that IS immoral–or, more likely, is just falling back on the default morality of their society, which is almost certainly based on religion. This, I suspect, is part of the failing of the anti-SJW atheists.
Ultimately, a godless society might provide its own preset morality, but we're a long way from that–I can't think of a country in the world where the common morality isn't defined, ultimately, by one religion or another.
@ 96 Nerd
Wow, what orifice did you pull that assumption out of? How could you possibly make the leap to "bigot" because I won't accept an assertion that being an atheist is a choice with consequences? Being an atheist isn't a choice. How can that be so difficult for you to grasp? Being a bigot can, does and should have consequences, no doubt. But consequences just for simply being an atheist? So far you've completely failed to tie being an atheist with being a choice with consequences. I'd like to think that by now you've learned that ad hominem attacks really don't qualify as evidence.
@ 100 Saad
The argument started with the phrase "dictionary atheists" being boring, and if you scroll up a ways it's clear even the definition of that hasn't been made clear. It began to descend into chaos with the assertion that somehow being an atheist is a choice and there are consequences for that choice. To that I call bollocks, I can't choose to be or not be an atheist any more than I can choose to be or not be a male human. So I say no, there are no consequences to simply being an atheist. There are, however, consequences to how we act, whether or not we're atheists. Atheists who are also bigots, I've no use for them or any other bigots for example. If I oppose social justice and propagate bigotry I should be called out on it.
If as Vivec says:
is indeed true, then no, it shouldn't be tolerated. It should be made known and clear that being a bigot/misogynist/etc has nothing to do with the fact that the person is also an atheist and that that behavior shouldn't be tolerated by anyone nor used to define atheism.
80. John Morales:
Some googling turned up these two:
Dictionary atheists are a movement who insist that no one should think of any positive connotations for the word "atheist".
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Dictionary_atheists
I would agree, on this basis, that "dictionary atheist" is used as jargon, not literally. It also leaves unmentioned the reasons for clinching this definition. Why are "negative connotations" not part of the definition, for example?
And PZ Myers gives more explanation here (which seems to be the source your quote comes from): http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/01/why-are-you-an-atheist
My impression is that the meaning of "connotation" was not entirely clear (or ignored) when Prof. Myers coined the term. Which is fine. That's why we have discussions, ask questions, and don't just hold monologues. An error or an unintended meaning should not destroy someone's credibility for all eternity. I claim the right to make mistakes, even if I profoundly hate them, and I will not (attempt to) deny that right to anyone else.
Anyway, I think my conclusion must tentatively be that "dictionary atheism" is jargon, even if it may not be entirely precise.
Maybe I should reformulate that:
Anyway, I think my conclusion must tentatively be that "dictionary atheism" is intended to be jargon, even if it may not be entirely precise.
Grumpy Santa, #103
I agree with you about atheism not being a choice and atheism alone not having consequences.
But let's look at things in their real-world context now and away from what the dictionary says. Atheism, as it exists in large parts of the world (and certainly in what we call the western world), does so in response to organized religion. All these atheists don't just say religion is wrong because there is no god, but also wrong because it mistreats marginalized people. Therefore, these atheists should also care about non-religious mistreatment of marginalized people.
The term "dictionary atheists", as I see it and as I use it, means those atheists who when the topic of religion comes up are for the equality of women and gay people and minorities but back right off as soon as time comes to opposing those bigotries outside of religion. The reason I like the term "dictionary atheists" for those people is because they say "I'm an atheist. Look it up in the dictionary. It says nothing about sexual harassment being bad. It's value-neutral."
And to address the previous point about the term "bigoted atheists", exactly what is wrong about using that label for thuderf00t and his followers, Dawkins and his followers, atheists who defend and/or are Gamergaters, atheists who oppose sexual harassment rules, atheists who were up in arms about the "oppression" of Tim Hunt and the atheists who moaned about criticizing Matt Taylor's shirt and so on? What problem is that causing? They are bigoted atheists.
@Grumpy Santa, 83
When you call someone a "bigoted conservative atheist" you're tying "bigoted conservative" to the unrelated "atheist" label which can imply that there's a relationship between the two when there isn't.
…no? If I tell you about my bigoted conservative uncle, that doesn't imply a relationship between being an uncle and being a bigoted conservative. Why would telling you about my bigoted conservative atheist uncle imply a relationship between atheism and bigoted conservatism? Or atheism and uncles? (Although, I have to admit, I am both an uncle and an atheist, so maybe there is a relationship there? Oooh….)
Atheism is not a belief. It is an absence of belief. Just as athylacinism is not a belief, but the absence of belief because there are currently no reasons to believe thylacines (living ones, anyway) exist.
People who disagree often claim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". They are wrong. Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence. It is just not proof of absence. Which is why I do not claim that I am certain there is/are no god(s), only that I have no reasons to believe/conclude that there are.
vaiyt says
Atheism also does not imply secularism, science or even the defense of rights for nonbelievers, either, and I don't see anyone screaming that those are off mission.
If that's the actual definition of the phrase (it's a new phrase to be and unclear on it's own) then I'd have to say that those types of people are indeed intellectually lazy and dishonest. To stop fighting for equality simply because the inequality isn't coming from a religious perspective… that simply doesn't make sense. Inequality is inequality regardless of the source. The phrase "dictionary atheist" implies something different than the definition you offered, it could very well be the lack of a clear definition that is at the heart of the dispute. It's a lousy phrase if it doesn't simply mean "someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods".
And to address the previous point about the term "bigoted atheists", exactly what is wrong about using that label
If it's clear that it's directly targeting a specific set only… "these atheists are bigoted"… that's fine. Clarity matters. Saying "dictionary atheists are bigots" I disagree with because of the lack of clarity. Without knowing the definition, I'd consider myself a "dictionary atheist" simply based on the words "dictionary" and "atheist".
Yeah, I do have to add that even I'm finding this "atheism as a choice" thing cringey. We don't choose our beliefs in any non-colloquial sense (which is generally more akin to "choosing to act like we believe a thing").
96. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Given your use of language, it can be concluded that you are the bigot, not the person you are misrepresenting here.
Saying "dictionary atheists are bigots" I disagree with because of the lack of clarity. Without knowing the definition, I'd consider myself a "dictionary atheist" simply based on the words "dictionary" and "atheist".
This strikes me as a bad argument. Knowing what a word means is always required to know what a word means, for any word.
"If I didn't know the definition, I wouldn't know the definition" is about as analytic a statement you can get.
@Grumpy Santa, 93 & 103
Nobody is redefining atheism. Other words are being used on either side of atheist in various situations. Surely that alone suggests that the word itself remains the same, and is simply having modifiers applied to it? If I decide to have a glass of iced tea, I am not redefining tea, I am simply having it cold and using a modifier to point that fact out.
But consequences just for simply being an atheist? So far you've completely failed to tie being an atheist with being a choice with consequences.
If the atheist view is true, then most religions are false. Religions have ideological components. If a religion is false, then its ideological components, if not necessarily false, must be in question. Therefore, if the atheist view is true, then the ideological components of most religions must be in question.
Given your excessive pedantry, one can conclude you are a supercilious snob.
Saying "dictionary atheists are bigots" I disagree with because of the lack of clarity.
In sticking to the dictionary defintion, and eschewing the idea of social justice, your position is crystal clear.
Those who support the dictionary definition.
Philosophical pedants.
MRAs
Liberturds,
"Egalitarians" despite conclusive evidence institutional discrimination exists.
The first can be excused. The rest show their colors.
Your claim. As usual, not a shred of evidence is provided.
And you, of course, do not support the dictionary definition?
@ 113 Vivec
All I'm trying to say is that I know what a dictionary is and I know what the definition of atheism is in the dictionary. If someone coined the phrase "dictionary atheism" to be something other that what's in the dictionary as the definition of atheism then anyone that isn't aware of that new phrase will likely find it confusing.
@ 114 Athywren
Nobody is redefining atheism.
Let's call it confusion over the phrase "dictionary atheism" then which gives the impression of trying to redefine the word of the phrase actually means something other than what's defined in the dictionary. It's the first time I've seen that phrase. Can you see how it can confuse things?
@ 116 Nerd
Right, that an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in gods yada yada and is not a reflection of the person with regards to other important issues, such as social justices.
"Egalitarians"
Aside from the first which I assume is talking about the meaning of words, what do any of these have to do with atheism?
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
Anybody remember the slogan "good without god"?
I'd never have thought I'd see people argue about the "good" part…
Seriously "I'm not a good person, stop demanding I be a good person, you can't make me be a good person" is the hill people want to die on?
I gave a very good reason for the term:
The reason I like the term "dictionary atheists" for those people is because they say "I'm an atheist. Look it up in the dictionary. It says nothing about sexual harassment being bad. It's value-neutral."
Stop pretending to be stupid. Putting two words next to each other doesn't mean the definition of the combined term is strictly what those two terms mean individually. A dog whistle isn't a dog that whistles, you asshat.
The phrase "dictionary atheist" implies something different than the definition you offered
It doesn't. We all just told you it doesn't.
My coworker swears up and down he saw a butterfly outside.
But I know what butter is. And I know what fly is.
Dude's totally seeing things!
I'd be curious to know what you all think of this guy…
Yes, I do remember the slogan. I have no problems with it, just as I have no problems with "good with god". I did have a problem with the claim " […] and that's why I am good without god", for the same reasons I have problems with "I am an expert." and other claims of that type.
@121 Saad
Cute. Except, of course, for the fact that "butterfly" is a separate single word of it's own and a word of common usage.
Now you're just being a dick. I explained how it looks to someone that has never seen that phrase before nor heard how it's seemingly being defined. If someone came to earth for the first time and you explained what "butter" was and what a "fly" was then told him "butterflies" are boring, what's he to think?
Grumpy Santa @ 118, it isn't that hard. You are focusing waaay too much on the literals here.
Atheists, as a group of people that exist and act in the world, are of course associated with pedants, MRAs, Libertarians, "Egalitarians". They're also associated with progressives, environmentalists, feminists and moderates. Because they exist in the world, and humans can hold more than one classifier at the same time. You know that. Don't ask what the association is – the association is the shared membership between "atheist" and those other labels. You know that.
"Dictionary Atheist" is another label, referring to a subset of atheists who believe that atheism has no ideological consequences outside of not believing in gods. The list that Nerd provided you is a group of subsets within Dictionary Atheism.
From reading your comments, you seem to mostly be hung up on the literals here. Sure, there's no logical component within Atheism that directly results in, say, Feminism. True. It's an indirect result, coming out of the fact that you have to reconsider social roles and behaviours that have been influenced by religious ideas. Just because it's indirect doesn't imply that it's not real.
This has been explained to you a number of times in a number of ways now.
I explained how it looks to someone that has never seen that phrase before nor heard how it's seemingly being defined.
And now you have.
You're either a troll or a bigoted atheist who is sea-lioning (not what you think, I promise). Either case, I don't give a shit. Plenty of you come through here all the time.
@Grumpy Santa, 118
It's the first time I've seen that phrase. Can you see how it can confuse things?
Honestly? No. If this thread is the first time you've ever seen the phrase "dictionary atheism," I would've thought that this would be an ideal time to get a decent understanding of what it communicates. It seems quite clear to me –
one of those keep your social justice outta my atheism types babbling in the comments
We atheists are supposed to stay focused, stay on message , but the only message they'll tolerate is that god doesn't exist and religion is bad, with no thought about why or the implications.
That's not simply saying that they don't think atheism necessarily entails support of social justice causes – it's saying that they won't tolerate atheists discussing social justice causes. (You are aware that there are atheists who're actively hostile to the concept of social justice, and take offence to the idea that some of us consider social justice causes to be not only compatible with, but logical consequences of not believing that gods exist or that the religions that contained, and the social norms that grew around them are valid, right?) I honestly don't see how it's confusing. I will grant you that I have the benefit of knowing what it means, so maybe I'm just missing something subtle, but I think it's clear.
What I find confusing is why you felt the need to identify with the label when it was the first time you'd seen it. If the words around it don't describe you, why would you assume it's describing you?
@Giliell, 119
I kind of think some people just have a thing for hills where, if they find themselves atop one, they're incapable of walking down it. I'm glad I don't suffer from that (at least, not on a persistent basis) because I live in a very hilly area, and like to take walks.
I held out for 8m03s and stopped. He is just babbling around a few random – apparently largely unfounded – claims.
A dictionary atheist is someone who keeps directing the conversation towards the dictionary definition of atheism in order to derail conversation about social justice and indirectly acting as an obstacle (and in effect, as a shield for the bigoted atheists).
Hmmm. Scrolls up…
As the links I posted indicate, that's not it. That is fine. However, calling someone a troll or a bigot for not knowing a definition you have in your head and did not share, is not.
It hurts less to believe everyone else is wrong, compared to admitting that they've been a callous, thoughtless bulldozer of a human being. Unconscious self defense mechanisms do the rest of the work. Sadly, the atheist focus on attacking ideas with rational argument makes those defenses very sharp, and well-suited to tearing apart anything that might threaten their pride.
I'm as flabbergasted as you, though. My pride isn't worth as much as someone else's happiness.
There's already a term for what Grumpy Santa thinks "dictionary atheism" means. That term is "atheism". Unless you go to a "dictionary restaurant" to buy a "dictionary sandwich" so you can have "dictionary lunch", this should be easy to grasp.
Bart B., #130
When atheists who care about social justice use it to describe bigoted atheists, that's what it means. Deal with it.
That is fine. However, calling someone a troll or a bigot for not knowing a definition you have in your head and did not share, is not.
I didn't call him a troll or bigot for "not knowing" the meaning. You skipped way too many posts upthread if that's what you think.
Bart @ 130, Saad @ 129,
As the links I posted indicate, that's not it.
So you are arguing the definition of "Dictionary Atheist", and claiming that Saad is wrong because their definition doesn't match? Does that make you a Dictionary Dictionary Atheist? A Metadictionary Atheist? We have to go deeper.
( sorry, just being ridiculous :D )
Words are gloriously messy. This is part of the mess. Saad's definition isn't wrong, it just includes implications of the basic definition – which is, itself, gloriously messy.
Complaining about including implications with words is like complaining about the wetness of the ocean. Words are nothing but implications. Lose the implications and you lose the 'wordiness' of a word.
Really, it's as if "connotations" were a radical new fad in linguistics nobody ever heard of outside of a few conferences….
@ 125 skildfreja
"Dictionary Atheist" is another label, referring to a subset of atheists who believe that atheism has no ideological consequences outside of not believing in gods.
OK, stopping right here, this is me. However I also support social justices and equality and don't (I believe) belong to any of those subsets Nerd posted about. I don't see a personal connection between the atheist in me and the social justices that need defending.
Yeah, I can't help it. Literals matter. It's how I'm wired I suppose. But let me ask you an honest question: You said " It's an indirect result, coming out of the fact that you have to reconsider social roles and behaviors that have been influenced by religious ideas.". I ask you this… why do I need to reconsider positions I never held? OK, you're saying social roles and behaviors, not personal. Other people's roles and behaviors I assume? OK, well, an initial consideration of those roles and behaviors has lead me to conclude that they're wrong and detrimental to society, but is that conclusion even indirectly tied to my atheism? While I don't think so, I can't say for certain.
You are aware that there are (1) atheists who're actively hostile to the concept of social justice, (2) and take offence to the idea that some of us consider social justice causes to be not only compatible with, but logical consequences of not believing that gods exist or that the (3) religions that contained, and the social norms that grew around them are valid, right?
OK, let me digest this a moment.
1. Yes, that doesn't surprise me. People are different after all. I don't agree with them but I know they exist.
2. Ugh… how to word this. I see that there are some that would find it offensive for some reason, yes. I know that there are some that consider it a consequence of not having god beliefs, yes.
3. If I understand this correctly, you're placing a significant portion of the blame (for want of a better word) directly on religions and the negative social effects they've had, correct? If so, I agree with that as well.
Maybe freja's right and I'm just too literal. I don't see it as a consequence of atheism. There are too many variations of people for me to see it as a logical consequence, like there's an additional factor we're missing. Upbringing, intelligence and education, a side effect of realizing there's no afterlife so this one life we have is precious, perhaps a biological wiring of empathy or altruism that varies… it feels like something's missing.
I honestly don't see how it's confusing. I will grant you that I have the benefit of knowing what it means, so maybe I'm just missing something subtle, but I think it's clear.
I understand now what people say it means, mostly. The definition still seems a little fluid depending on the definer, but the central concept seems mostly consistent. Let's just say that the phrase "dictionary atheist", to me, sucks at giving an initial impression of what it's trying to define. It points to the literal definition when that's not what it means. Something like "pocket atheist" that doesn't see outside of his pocket of atheism at the bigger picture, that would have been less puzzling at an original glance.
I think I recognise him. I haven't watched the whole video yet, but I disagree with his views on government as he has expressed them so far.
I am… "not an anarchist, but…" and can conceive of a world without any government without too much concern. That said, "small government" is not something that is good simply because it is good – I can also conceive of a world without any government with a great deal of concern. Government serves a purpose.
Because of the government, it is possible to get redress for crimes committed against me. True, it would be possible for that to be the case in a world without government – volunteer police is a thing… but so is mob justice. Even if we assume a good, decent, and fair volunteer police force, what redress do you have if their members are the ones who have hurt you?
Because of government, marriage equality is a thing. Yes, you can easily and accurately say that government has delayed marriage equality, that it continues to do so throughout the world, and that is true. Many of the northern states of America would likely have had equal marriage years ago if not for the government, and likewise in the UK, and probably many other places around the world. However, there are also places where any consenting adult can many any other consenting adult now, which would not allow it without government. Maybe that seems like a bad thing, but I assure you that it is an incredible good for those who want it, and does absolutely no harm to those who oppose it.
Government is not perfect, and it should not be infinitely large, just for reasons of space if nothing else, but the idea that government should be small, regardless of the needs of the society it governs, does not stand up to scrutiny.
Yes, yes, yes, government is coercion and violence, etc. If you do not pay your taxes, They Will Come For YOU! Try buying a car without paying for it. You think they won't try to coerce you to pay? They won't take you to court (assuming courts continue to exist) for payment? They won't get violent if you drive away in your brand new car and don't pay a penny for it? The government does not give us cars, but it does give us infrastructure. Infrastructure is basically how society continues to exist. Could it be provided in a cheaper, more effective and efficient way? Probably. Could it be provided without government? Maybe. Is it being provided by the government at the moment? Yep. Does it need to be paid for by the people using it? Yep. Are you using it? Yep. Are you forced to continue using it? Nope. Does this mean I'm saying "if you don't like it, leave"? Kinda, yeah. Is that terribly, terribly unfair and irrational? Nope. If you don't want a government, and everyone else around you does, it really isn't reasonable to demand that everybody else does things your way with you. Feel free to go do things you way on your own, maybe with a few like minded fellows
I would like to see a better world, governed by a better and maybe smaller system – but a fair (not fairer, but actually fair) system – but libertarians whining about how they have to pay taxes at the barrel of a gun is not particularly convincing.
consciousness razor says
Suppose I said something about "dictionary X." It would be reasonable to conclude that this sort of phrase has a different meaning than the word "X" by itself, because the word "dictionary" is functioning as a modifier of X. You're not redefining a word when you modify it.
If you were redefining a word, you'd simply use that word according to the new or unconventional meaning you think it has. Or, perhaps you'd be more helpful by telling others your new definition first, so that you can proceed to use that word (and only that word) which can now be understood to have that meaning in that context.
You might suspect that it's similar to the way people sometimes talk about "textbook X." If someone had said "that's a textbook example of bad driving" about a certain specific instance of bad driving, it would be inappropriate to retort with some of your own inane counterexamples that do not conform to that specific style or manner of bad driving. You shouldn't go looking for types of bad driving that are unlike that one. You also shouldn't go looking for types of driving that are not bad, because we're also not redefining the word "driving" with the word "bad." And even if somebody were doing so, whether it's a definition or a re-definition, it would not mean that any kind of claim of logical necessity is therefore being made about the subject, so you should also not go on a hunt for ways to refute it on that front. Your first task is just to attempt to understand what is being said, which you don't seem very willing to do.
@ 137 razor
Pretty much everything you said there makes sense. However, in my opinion, using the modifier "dictionary" to imply a definition not in the dictionary… not very well thought out.
There are too many variations of people for me to see it as a logical consequence, like there's an additional factor we're missing. Upbringing, intelligence and education, a side effect of realizing there's no afterlife so this one life we have is precious, perhaps a biological wiring of empathy or altruism that varies… it feels like something's missing.
Yeah, it's not a direct this, therefore that consequence. It's not, "atheism -> therefore feminism." It's, "atheism -> therefore no god -> therefore religious rules don't hold up -> therefore, the idea that woman is man's help meet doesn't hold up -> therefore woman's subservience to man doesn't hold up -> therefore a woman, all other relevant things being equal, should be considered as capable and worthy as a man -> therefore feminism." Atheism isn't necessary for the conclusion, and it's not a necessary part of atheism to think about it, but rejection of gods sets this and many, many other chains of logical dominoes up before us.
John-Henry Beck says
Grumpy Santa @138
That the term 'dictionary atheist' isn't well thought out is part of the point. In that it's based on their near-universal defining trait of referring to the dictionary definition of atheism in their efforts to divorce atheism and social justice.
It's basically a self descriptor.
You said " It's an indirect result, coming out of the fact that you have to reconsider social roles and behaviors that have been influenced by religious ideas.". I ask you this… why do I need to reconsider positions I never held? OK, you're saying social roles and behaviors, not personal. Other people's roles and behaviors I assume? OK, well, an initial consideration of those roles and behaviors has lead me to conclude that they're wrong and detrimental to society, but is that conclusion even indirectly tied to my atheism? While I don't think so, I can't say for certain.
How about you start by just saying explicitly what the fuck you're talking about. What specific religiously-influenced social roles and behaviors are you talking about? Which ones are others talking about? Have you been led to reject all of them? Should you have rejected all such things, or are some not wrong or detrimental? How would you know such things? What sort of facts may have lead you to attempt to obtain knowledge of such things, and how do you know that? Ask yourself things like this. Don't say them to make us happy or to score a point in the conversation. Ask them.
If atheism is true, gods don't exist. If gods don't exist, then any things which are predicated on the existence of gods are false or invalid or in some other way without a factual or rational foundation.
There are no god-given purposes in life, for instance. Women were not in fact created in order to benefit men, to give an even more specific example, because in fact gods don't exist. Likewise, black people were not created to be the slaves of white people. Gay people don't exist in order to make babies (neither do women, for that matter). Facts like those must be true if gods don't exist. Is that "indirect" or "direct," and does it matter? Personal creator gods, the types that have a goal in mind for you or me or everybody or everything, which are the only things that could make statements like that true if they existed, are among the types of gods atheists don't believe exist.
Perhaps you think you know another reason why those are true (ones specifically about the facts of whether or not there is teleology of that sort, not other reasons for behaving in a nice way to various groups or otherwise behaving as if those were facts). But whether you do or not, having any other sorts of reasons is still not relevant to this point.
Grumpy Santa @ 135,
You said " It's an indirect result, coming out of the fact that you have to reconsider social roles and behaviors that have been influenced by religious ideas.". I ask you this… why do I need to reconsider positions I never held?
YES. You need to do this. Perhaps specifically because you didn't come to your atheism by way of deconversion, but because you have always felt that way.
You hold a belief that gods do not exist. Great! However, you're also, human, and are chock-full of contradictory beliefs. That's how brains work.
You have spent the past however-long-you-have-been-alive swimming in an ocean of beliefs and behaviours that were informed by religion. You are fooling yourself if you think they haven't stuck to you just because you don't happen to believe in gods.
That's the difference. A "Dictionary atheist" thinks "I'm an atheist! No gods!" and leaves it there. Religion is a thing that they think doesn't affect them because they've made that statement. A "Non-Dictionary atheist" thinks "I'm an atheist! No gods! … Oh, gods, this religious stuff touches everything." They realize that they aren't immune to religious thought by way of saying the magic words "I'm an atheist."
Have I said it clearly?
Yes, I agree with it, and so does PZ Myers, he has made that quite clear. The problem lies not here, it lies with a bunch of people who claim that dictionary atheists are *bigots* and that's just not the case. In the words of PZ Myers, they are *boring*, and yes, a good argument can be made for that. I would tentatively argue that someone who claims that dictionary atheists are bigots, is someone who just feels the need to bully someone.
However, in my opinion, using the modifier "dictionary" to imply a definition not in the dictionary… not very well thought out.
For the last time (from me, anyway), the modifier "dictionary" is used to imply what THOSE bigots say about social justice: that the definition of atheism doesn't imply I have to care about social justice, which is a strawman since that's not what our side is saying to them.
I would tentatively argue that someone who claims that dictionary atheists are bigots, is someone who just feels the need to bully someone.
Well, once you're prepared to actually argue it, then maybe it will warrant a response. But while you're just idly thinking out loud on a public forum and saying it but not really saying it, then it probably doesn't.
If atheism is true, gods don't exist.
That a point religionists make, and when the atheist is inattentive to fall in the trap, they then go on to claim that atheism is "just another religion".
Bart, #143
The definition of dictionary atheists in the social justice conversation includes bigotry as a trait. Therefore, they're bigots.
@142 scildfreya
I apologize in advance for picking nits, but I don't hold a belief that gods exist, not the other way around. Just a pet peeve, sorry. :)
OK, I agree that I've spent the past (cough) 50ish years swimming in an ocean of other people's beliefs and behaviors that were informed by religion. In the U.S. that's clearly factual and sadly unavoidable. Also yes on the human and brains thing. (Not in a zombie sense.) I'm not sure what you mean by stuck to me. I've rejected those that aren't palatable with who I am and how I'm wired. I also recognize that religious beliefs that I do agree with didn't come from the religion but happen to coincide with the humans that wrote the religious text, so I don't credit religion for any of them. So is it that the good religious stuff "stuck" to me or is it that it happens to coincide with who I already am? However… yes, the religious stuff does indeed tend to touch everything, or at least far too many things, such as people trying to alter the laws of society to coincide with some of the more heinous writings people put in those early religious texts. That can't be denied either. It's weird. I want to call myself a dictionary atheist because it feels like I should, but by the definitions being offered here I don't think that's correct. Yeah, hung up on a phrase and definition. How about that. :P
Not immune to religious thoughts because of being an atheist. For some reason I find that particularly interesting. If religions are the constructs of men (which they are, of course), then is there really religious thought or is it more of a collective group-think with religion being no more than a tool for like-minded thinkers to cohere around? In that case, if you're not wired to think like they do, are you in a sense immune to religious thought? Sorry, wandering here, but it's interesting…
What the fuck are you saying? I don't know what "point religionists make" that you're paranoid about, and I don't care.
Is there a fact of the matter about whether or not gods exist? Yes or no?
Is atheism the sort of thing that pertains to facts about the real world, which are either the case or not the case? Yes or no?
Is atheism true, if the fact is that no gods exist? Yes or no?
Do you like yes or no questions? Yes or no?
I have no idea what would make this "just another religion," unless you think something genuinely qualifies as a religion by virtue of making statements of fact about the real world. If that's what you think religions are, then (1) that's really bizarre and (2) you've come to the wrong corner of the internet, because we talk about different stuff here. If that's not what makes something a religion according to you, then I can't imagine what your problem is supposed to be.
Be honest here with me for a moment. If you used that modifier in a conversation with someone that never heard "dictionary" used as a modifier with the meaning you're attributing to it, what do you think they would think it means?
If that is your definition, and you state that properly *before* you use the word in a discussion, I have no problems with it. However, you should also be aware that this is not Prof. Myers' definition, and that this is his blog. Therefore, his definition is/should be the default position.
Of course I would never do that without explaining what I mean. Just like with any obscure coined/jargony term. We define it first. Then we have the conversation.
All I'll have to do is define it (which is a very simple definition and very easy to follow) and then the conversation will go smoothly with them (unless they're you). If I am to believe you're arguing earnestly, you're literally getting thrown off over and over by the word "dictionary" despite being told how it's being used. But you type and use English just fine. That's really weird.
Now you be honest with me here for a moment: Do you actually really think PZ and dozens of commenters here are adding the term "dictionary" to the beginning of "atheism" to mean precisely what "atheism" already means? Or do you think we have a specific meaning in mind (that we have tried to explain already several times)?
If that is your definition, and you state that properly *before* you use the word in a discussion, I have no problems with it.
In short, you have no problems with it.
To be perfectly honest, when I saw "Dictionary atheists are boring atheists" that's exactly what I thought. That was also my introduction to the phrase. My first post in this thread is #12. It should be clear that there was no connection being made between atheism and social justices where if the redefinition (of dictionary) were clear initially it would have been different.
Thought B. Hypothetical. What is someone outright rejects the attempt to use a word in a new way that muddies the original definition of the word. Personally I haven't seen it used outside this thread in such a way. If it never catches on, if it's never accepted generally, then was it ever truly redefined?
Santa @ 148,
So is it that the good religious stuff "stuck" to me or is it that it happens to coincide with who I already am?
The former, I think. We are made of our experiences. There is very little "you" outside of that.
I want to call myself a dictionary atheist because it feels like I should, but by the definitions being offered here I don't think that's correct. Yeah, hung up on a phrase and definition. How about that.
It's great to discuss semantics and terms and get into the mud with words and their wordiness, but it's really, really important to remember that arguing about their meanings can often bulldoze over real people voicing real problems. That's where Saad's expanded definition comes from in 129. No word is perfect, no definition complete. Arguing about the word instead of the idea is exactly how the "Dictionary Atheists" avoid confronting the link between addressing Atheism seriously and awareness of social justice concerns. That's how they're "boring". They dive past the meaning of the message and complain about the font choice.
Bart @ 151,
Yup, our first Metadictionary Atheist.
PZ's definition includes the concept of bigotry exactly as Saad presented. The words aren't literally there, no, but the context is very clear in PZ's use of the term. For expansion, see above.
Then there is nothing to discuss.
Rob Grigjanis says
cr @149:
If that's what you think religions are…
You seem to be confusing what Bart says religionists claim, with what Bart thinks.
What is someone outright rejects the attempt to use a word in a new way that muddies the original definition of the word.
What do you mean? If you don't want to use a word, then don't use it. That's basically all that would happen. Nobody is coming to your house with pitchforks and forcing you to use it. I'm pretty sure about that.
I don't know what it would mean to reject the attempt of others to use a particular word (or phrase, in this case) in a particular way. You're just not going to converse with them about it? You're going to make having the conversation as unpleasant or unproductive as you can? Or what do you think your options are?
Personally I haven't seen it used outside this thread in such a way.
So you didn't look at the link John Morales posted in #68? Bits were also quoted from it here, so you couldn't have followed the discussion very well without recognizing that. Anyway, it's been in use in numerous threads here for at least five years. Not that there's any need for you to be informed about assorted pharyngula threads in the past, but you could easily see it used outside this one if you want to.
I don't see this at all. I see the claim that dictionary atheists are boring and, in combination with the definitions/descriptions given in the links I provided, I wholeheartedly agree.
In fact, this is what he said in An excess of optimism
Why do you think I called it "dictionary atheism"? If you're using the simplest, most threadbare, least philosophical definition possible, then yes, I agree that you don't have to be a feminist or a humanist or whatever to be an atheist. That's not something I ever disagree with.
Please explain how this includes the idea that "dictionary atheists" are bigots?
I'm not concerned with what religionists claim. If Bart's going to have a good reason to reject the argument, it has to be what he thinks is actually the case. If he didn't agree with the religionists' claims in the first place, then his comment was pointless. Perhaps it was.
Well… shit. Dictionary or not, some things need to be stopped.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36479386
While technically true, there's definite… encouragement… on this forum to use it in a way that I'm still not exactly in favor of.
I thought I was conversing about this, and I certainly don't believe I've been unpleasant about it. I can't say it's been productive to everyone either. But I certainly haven't been insulting that I'm aware of, not even when being directly called a bigot.
I did address #68 a ways back as well. I disagree heavily with the assertions in that quote.
161. Grumpy Santa
Absolutely. I have always defended freedom of religion, but that freedom must stop where people are being hurt, i.e. there should not be such a thing as religious exemptions. Murdering someone is wrong. Period.
I'm going to try to get a more specific and clear meaning for the term "dictionary atheist".
I'll do that by looking at the example PZ linked to.
Here are some quotes:
What the heck do liberal views or SJ issues have to do with the promotion of atheism? Let those stand or fall on their own merits, but not piggyback on those of us who have been hurt by religion, and need and want to see our society be secular. I snowbird, and was seriously considering going by Washington, D.C., but the focus off of atheism and on to SJ issues turned me right off.
Stay focused, stay on message, and let other issues for those whose passions are there. If there are atheists who feel strongly about some SJ issues, great…. go volunteer there. But leave our thing alone.
One can be a good person, which I fully endorse, not be bigoted or misogynist, and not feel one needs to parade and promote the various SJ issues that abound. I'm conservative by nature, fiscally certainly, and on some social issues, but what does that have to do with atheism?
Atheism and the promotion of a secular society. Period. The latter which virtually every other atheist, and many of faith, will support. Why dilute it with other issues? Concentrate on the separation of religion and state. Don't jump on whatever the next 'cool' issue is. You and those that do are getting sidetracked by that, and do the atheism movement no favors.
I think the definition of "dictionary atheist" is (or should be): someone who says stuff like that example I just quoted.
Anyways, if you want to get analytical (I know I do!), one could propose some criteria (which would hopefully be gloriously non-messy):
a "dictionary atheist" is someone who:
1) is an atheist (obviously)
2) says something in atheist organizations should stop or change
3) argues for this by saying that the thing is unrelated to atheism (or some core set of atheist concerns)
Is there anyone who thinks that any of these criteria is incorrect? Or that we need to add any more criteria? Maybe:
4) doesn't like that thing anyways, considers it a bad idea in general
5) the thing they don't like is (in actual fact) a very good and moral thing, thus it is immoral to oppose it
6) the thing they don't like actually is related to the fight against religion in some way
Thoughts? What should the criteria be?
I'm not concerned with what religionists claim.
Well then. Thank you for your honesty. Schluss damit.
Sorry, do you really think that's worth quotemining? Have fun with it.
If religionists claimed atheism is false, then atheism is false. That makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, we're supposed to believe everything they claim is correct.
No wait, that's not right. Maybe you should start over and explain how you think this is supposed to work.
If you have some genuine problem with the statement "if atheism is true, gods don't exist," then I think we should hear it, before you continue to tell us all about your views on the meaning of atheism. Because that's definitely something I have no problem with whatsoever.
Someone attempting to use dictionary definitions and semantics to free themselves of any duty towards humanism or feminism sounds pretty bigoted to me.
Ugh. Now I remember why I don't engage with atheists on social justice issues anymore. What's the internet rule about a feminist article being proven by the comments? Seems to apply here too.
Sounds a lot like an excuse.
167. Vivec:
Atheists like to claim they are rational and religionists aren't. If that claim is true, atheists don't care much about what something "sounds" like, but rather about what the evidence shows something "is". We can't claim that religionists are irrational because they are not evidence-based, and then turn around and think the exact same way. If atheism is to have any actual value, it must be honest. That is the one true weapon against religion.
Grumpy Santa, are women, POC, LGBT, etc, fully human with the same rights and privileges as you, and can be expected to show the results in society without institutional bigotry?
Or do you see some as your inferiors?
@Bart 170, "sounds like" is a common and informal way to say "I evaluate it to be so." It's not an appeal to emotion.
I imagine that Vivec does not supply the reasoning behind that evaluation because the reasoning has been expounded ad nauseam across the length of the thread.
Atheists like to claim they are rational and religionists aren't.
Said atheists are being silly. Religionists are being irrational on that specific topic. There are plenty of irrational atheists (see: bigoted atheists) and plenty of otherwise rational religionists.
Also, what freja said.
Someone who uses an excuse like that in order shirk the moral obligation to promote social wellbeing is almost bigoted by definition. They see that there is oppression going on and rather than fight it, try to find some exemption to it. That is, at the very least, tolerating bigotry, if not defending the bigoted status quo.
@Vivec, 173
The thing is, it's not even as if we're particularly expecting much of them. It's not like the options are 1) turn up at your local (for example) soup kitchen each Sunday morning, and donate 8 hours of your time to supporting the (for example) homeless or 2) lecture us about how (for example) helping homeless people isn't in the definition of atheism. What they're essentially saying, whenever they feel the need to give us these lectures, is that expecting lip service to supporting social justice causes, and acceptance of the idea of making sure our groups are actually egalitarian is a bridge too far.
I could understand the complaints and lectures if we were roaming the countryside, demanding that people devote their time to promoting social justice… but we're not. So, if they're not actually opposed to the promotion of social wellbeing, what can they possibly be reacting to?
@166 consciousness razor
If you have some genuine problem with the statement "if atheism is true, gods don't exist," then I think we should hear it, before you continue to tell us all about your views on the meaning of atheism.
I would absolutely argue that "if atheism is true, gods don't exist" is incoherent. Atheism isn't a truth claim about a fact of the universe, it the lack of a belief in the existence of any gods. "Atheism is false" would only make some semblance of sense if you mean that atheists secretly do believe, but lie about it.
I mean, I do personally consider it a moral expectation to promote social justice in some form, but not necessarily to the extent of volunteering or giving lectures. Just not personally doing bigoted things is rolled up with that.
172. scildfreja:
"sounds like" is a common and informal way to say "I evaluate it to be so." It's not an appeal to emotion.
Thank you scildfreja. No informed person would deny that there are unsavoury characters who claim to be – and probably are – atheists, and it certainly does make sense that these individuals would want to remove SJ issues from anything atheist. However, when people are not able to see the distinction between not wanting to include SJ issues in the "common usage" of the term atheist, it becomes difficult because clarity is important, I think. Also, I have always thought that the term "humanism" was the term that collectively described atheism and SJ issues. It is possible that this has changed, but if it has, I am not aware of it.
I mean, I do personally consider it a moral expectation to promote social justice in some form … Just not personally doing bigoted things is rolled up with that.
Well yeah, but that's not exactly a lot to put on someone. I mean, I have a few filters running in my head, for the avoidance of doing or saying bigoted things, and sometimes, very rarely, that shoves a brief pause in when I'm thinking of what to say and I'm straying into shitty territory where I don't have a huge number of alternates to switch to, but otherwise it's just a low level awareness that doesn't actually make a difference. It's not really a burden – at least, no more than simply trying to maintain a consistent level of rationality is. Obviously it's not possible to be perfect and always get either of those things right, and there are always (or for a long time to come, anyway) going to be things we do that are bigoted that we don't yet see, but it really isn't the weird Orwellian contortionism that some people like to accuse it of being.
@Bart, 177
However, when people are not able to see the distinction between not wanting to include SJ issues in the "common usage" of the term atheist, it becomes difficult because clarity is important,
Nobody here is trying to redefine or change the common usage of the term atheist. There is no reason for people to be railing against the attempt to redefine or change the common usage of the term atheist, because the definition and common usage of atheist are not being changed. Railing against a thing that is not happening is not rational.
You're describing secular humanism. There have been religious humanists for about as long as there's been religions.
@Bart again
Also, I have always thought that the term "humanism" was the term that collectively described atheism and SJ issues. It is possible that this has changed, but if it has, I am not aware of it.
That's true, although the same people who waste everyone's time by lecturing us about how the dictionary doesn't require atheists to not be racist were apparently not informed of this – have you heard of the complaints about "humanism+"?
Hrrgh, yeah, missed that the secular part wasn't there. I think I should probably stop responding and get some of that sleep thing all the cool kids have been talking about.
I can live with that assertion. I remember enough religionists who fit that description.
I can live with that as well. All I really want is that definitions are as clear as possible and as unambiguous as possible. Atheism, for me, does not include SJ, but I can certainly accept that atheist organisations do not avoid – or perhaps even seek out – SJ issues. It would, for example, be somewhat strange to me if an explicitly atheist organisation would not at the very least show concern when people are being tortured and killed for no other reason than not believing in some leader's imaginary friend, or that, as is the case in the US not getting jobs for the same reason.
179 Vivec:
You are correct. My bad. I have to add though that humanism was definitely defined as non-religious, not to say anti-religious, at the catholic schools I went to. I was frowned upon, in addition to the frequent claim that it was "some meagre excuse" for hiding the true agenda of avoiding God and being a child of Satan.
180. Athyren
I didn't even the know the term. I knew of atheism+ and interpreted that as secular humanism.
Atheism, for me, does not include SJ,
We get that pedant. I don't care if you like our ways or not, but stop trying to convince us you are right. You have had your say. And a lot of folks here disagree with you now and will in the future.
You are new here, so you may not have noticed one thing. There is a distinct lack of bigots, misogynists homophobes, and transphobes buzzing around polluting the blog. They are not welcome. PZ takes care of the problems, making this a safe blog for those who are often discriminated against in very blatant ways.
This blog is for social justice, feminism, LGBT issues, etc, and most of us came to those from our atheism, by realizing the consequences of our decision to be atheists.
Please show us respect.
@Bart
Yeah, I think atheism+ and secular humanism are more or less synonymous. Humanism+ is what the people who turn to lecture us about how social justice and atheism aren't compatible call (or, at least, called for a while) humanism that's been corrupted by the addition of absolutely nothing. Things like that seem, to me, to be evidence that they're less concerned with what's actually compatible, and more concerned with opposing the concept of social justice at every turn.
Anyway, bed calls, and I've had too many horribly late nights over the last few days to ignore it. Good night.
178. Athywren
Maybe not, but I wouldn't have brought it up, if I didn't have reasons to interpret the behaviour of certain individuals as exactly such an attempt.
186 Athywren:
Thank you for that. I certainly agree that claiming that social justice and atheism aren't compatible makes no sense at all. That's somewhat like claiming that biology and physics aren't compatible.
Since I have to get up at 4 a.m. I won't be long either. A lovely night to you.
OK, busy afternoon. Yardwork, big batch of deviled eggs… where were we.
@ 171 Bart
Grumpy Santa, (1) are women, POC, LGBT, etc, fully human (2) with the same rights and privileges as you, and can be expected to show the results in society without institutional bigotry?
(3) Or do you see some as your inferiors?
1. Yes, clearly.
2. Not yet, sadly. Progress is being made, but it's painfully slow.
3. I have to admit I do see some as inferiors, but in the "etc." group, not because of race, sex or identification. It's the deliberate, blatant anti-intellectuals that ruffle my feathers the wrong way. The anti-science no matter the evidence crowd. The creationists, the climate deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-GMO crowd, the fake medicine types; all those that ignore the science and evidence to push unverified and often already handily debunked claims. I'm not proud of it, but I do tend to look a bit down on them. Not at a Boa Hancock level, but a bit.
I don't know how anyone could argue with that. Athywren notes that that's not a lot to put on someone, but imagine if everyone started there?
I don't know how anyone could argue with that.
By either disagreeing that said bigotry exists, or by shoving any mention of it away as off-mission and distracting from the main point. Hence, for example, my experience with extremely transphobic atheists at a local meetup group.
skeptic says
Yeah, that would be me.
Do let's take a look at what your buddy Duncan has to say:
So you see, liberals oppose racism because it makes them feel good about themselves. By implication, conservatives take the opposing position in support of racism, even though it makes them feel ashamed of themselves, because they believe racism is what's best for society. Logic. See?
Really? By you referencing him, we must assume you agree with this statement. Now, why are we presupposing that someone who is conservative is automatically racist? Isn't that profiling and stereotyping? I thought liberals were against that type of thing.
Please, answer this before I go on.
@"Skeptic"
Are you deliberating quotemining, or did the snark genuinely not come through for you?
Humanism+ is what the people who turn to lecture us about how social justice and atheism aren't compatible call (or, at least, called for a while) humanism that's been corrupted by the addition of absolutely nothing.
Thank you for mentioning this. I had a look. and I agree. These people talking about humanism+ seem quite an unsavoury bunch.
FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says
Oh look, skeptic; The Special Snowflake ™ has returned! Huzzah! And this time with extra-special personal demands of our host. Ah well, that's one way to avoid addressing the myriad critical responses to their drivel.
and most of us came to those from our atheism, by realizing the consequences of our decision to be atheists.
I have to admit, I'm still curious as to how you "decided" to become an atheist. I know people can be lifelong atheists, which simply isn't a decision, and people can be former religious types having lost their beliefs to due the evidence after taking an honest look at things, but I've never heard of someone suddenly "deciding" to become an atheist. You speak of the consequences of "deciding" to be atheists, yet fail to offer evidence that it's even a decision.
Bart @108:
Atheism is not a belief. It is an absence of belief.
You've expressed a very confused belief.
A belief is cognitive content considered true; you've certainly been exposed to the proposition that deities exist, and you believe that proposition to be false.
(Or, to put it slightly differently, your absence of belief relates to the truth-value of the proposition, not to the existence of the proposition)
I know people can be lifelong atheists, which simply isn't a decision, and people can be former religious types having lost their beliefs to due the evidence after taking an honest look at things, but I've never heard of someone suddenly "deciding" to become an atheist.
The moment you were exposed to the proposition that deities exist and rejected it, you effectively decided to be an atheist.
@John Morales, 197
To be fair, while that's kind of true, semantically, it's not like that's what people really mean when they say they decided to do something.
Athywren, the reference was about being, not about doing.
As for usage, let's check with Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22I%27ve+decided+that+I+don%27t+believe+*%22
(Hardly an uncommon locution, judging by the number of hits)
@ 197 John
That's ridiculous. You don't "decide" to not take on beliefs you never had. I'd even go as far as to say that believers don't "decide" to believe, they just get convinced enough that they do. It happens or it doesn't, it's not by a conscious choice. I never, for example, "chose" to stop believing in Santa as a kid. At some point reason kicked in and I simply didn't believe in it. Do you decide to not believe in Bigfoot, or do you not believe simply because there's no evidence that Bigfoot exists?
That's ridiculous. You don't "decide" to not take on beliefs you never had.
So you haven't decided that I'm wrong about my contention, then. ;)
More of an observation than a decision.
Really, O Grumpy Santa?
You've already expressed that you consider it ridiculous, but simultaneously dispute that you've come to a decision about whether to accept that belief.
(Heh, it's pretty clear to me you see where this is going)
I have to admit, I'm still curious as to how you "decided" to become an atheist. I know people can be lifelong atheists, which simply isn't a decision,
Becoming an atheist is a decision. The decision may be you never were indoctrinated into a religion by family, and decided never to explore religion for various reasons. I will agree with if you show me the paper that describes the atheist gene. Otherwise, it is social upbringing, etc., which involve making decisions at some point
Like a majority of atheists, I grew up religiously indoctrinated came to atheism through reading the bible in toto and finding it a piece of trash. My scientific training and skepticism made me question religion. I formulated the evidence that would indicate a deity really existed, namely physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush. Such evidence doesn't exist, so I concluded deities don't exist, and changed my null hypothesis on deities to non-existence, becoming an atheist in the process.
Since I questioned deities, morality based on those deities was examined. Social justice came out of that questioning, and atheism directly impacted that decision.
This is not necessarily true. In fact, believing that position to be false is actually an unjustified stance as well.
It's like the dice in a jar analogy they do on the atheist experiment. If I hold you a jar of dice and ask you if there's an even or an odd number of dice, and you can't possibly count all the non-visible dice, you can't be rationally justified in taking either position.
Not accepting the claim "some gods exist" is not accepting the claim "no gods exist", it's accepting the claim "there is not sufficient evidence to believe gods exist"
Becoming an atheist is a decision.
Except it literally isn't, assuming you just mean "not believing in any gods"
You don't choose your beliefs. That is not a thing that is actually possible.
Now, why are we presupposing that someone who is conservative is automatically racist?
We aren't, it's an observable correlation.
Also, seeing as you're literally a transphobe, this all rings a little hollow.
Here's a post about belief not being a choice
Good morning to you too. :)
You're correct in that I was never indoctrinated into any religion. So at this point you should be able to realize that, by default, I've always been an atheist and no decisionary process was required. Seeing later the assorted religious stuff out there and rejecting it as silly isn't a decision either. It's simply not being convinced that deities exist. It's not a decision to be convinced of something. You either are or you aren't.
You even contradict yourself here and don't seem to realize it. You reached a conclusion that deities don't exist which resulted in you becoming an atheist. You didn't decide to become an atheist, you were convinced (in this case by the lack of evidence). As a result of you giving up the proverbial holy ghost, you were able to question other aspects of religious teachings (especially the bigotry and hatred of others), recognize they were ultimately harmful to others and to society and then commendably decide to something about it.
assuming you just mean "not believing in any gods"
Well, I concluded that there were no gods based on lack of evidence. Like any scientific decision, it can be reexamined upon the finding of new evidence.
Atheism in that case isn't a statement of belief, which generally means one holds a view without evidence to back it up.
[possible tangent]
re "strong vs weak atheism"
kinda like strong vs weak agnosticism.
weak agnosticism = 'I don't know if god exists or not'
strong agnosticism = 'it is impossible to know whether god exists or not'
weak__ is just a case of indecision, while strong__ has fully decided that the determination can not be ever definitive.
at least how I understand it …
Seeing later the assorted religious stuff out there and rejecting it as silly isn't a decision either. I
Yes it is. But you lose your absolutism if you acknowledge that it was a decision.
weak agnosticism = I haven't decided to believe or not
or other indecision phraseology
I mean, if you would like to defend the doxastic voluntarist position, go ahead, but I find there is little reason to believe such.
In this particular case, neither your conclusion nor your re-examination are conscious actions, according to the involuntarist position. You saw no evidence to justify belief, so you don't believe. If you later see evidence sufficient to justify belief, your mind will accept the proposition. Making the effort to seek out/produce said evidence is a choice, but the shift in belief that happens afterwards is involuntary.
You should go through the link Vivec provided. It explains things better than I could. But in a nutshell, no, it wasn't and isn't a decision to reject religious silliness. Not being convinced happens at the subconscious level even if the processing of information and rejecting it occurs at the conscious level. I reject the god hypothesis because there's no evidence to support it. I don't choose to do so, it simply happens.
Also, "concluding there are no gods" because of a lack of evidence is a really, really bad conclusion. The existence of gods is not contingent on them having evidence of their existence.
Disbelief in gods is a rationally justified position, belief in no gods is one with a burden of proof that has not, to my knowledge, been met.
I was about 16 years old when I decided I was an atheist.
The existence of gods is not contingent on them having evidence of their existence.
Then they don't exist. Conclusion. Look at it as pure philosophy versus science. The former is totally thought, the latter is evidence based.
For example, my conclusion is that Bigfoot doesn't exist due to lack of evidence. That conclusion can change with evidence of a captured animal, carcass, skeleton, even hair and skat that can be tested for DNA. Belief isn't needed.
Why must it be belief (a word used by religion), and not conclusion?
It is also a way to avoid the trap the one only go as far as agnosticism. Many thesists use that trite bullshit to pretend atheism is the same a religion, a belief system. They get terribly upset at conclusions based on evidence.
Then they don't exist. Conclusion.
While that's most likely true, the fact remains that if there were gods and they decided to hide any and all evidence from us for whatever reasons we'd have no idea. When you turn the statement into a positive assertion then you assume the burden of proof. Can you prove that no gods exist? We'll, now you're trying to positively prove a negative statement, and that's where you run into issues. I forget who said this, but "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Absence of evidence is a great reason to not harbor a belief that something exists and it's nice to believe that a logical mind won't believe in something without evidence of it existing, but it's never definitive proof that you're correct.
Your claim that "they don't exist" is evidence based is exactly the opposite, it's a conclusion reached due to the absence of evidence. It's not scientific even though it's most likely the correct conclusion. On the flip side, it would (or should) require "science" to convince you otherwise in the form of evidence for these gods existing that withstands scientific scrutiny.
Why must it be belief
It isn't. It's a lack of a belief because there's no evidence for you to build a belief on.
@Vivec, #205
That's because either option is equally likely to be true given the evidence and everything else we know. Personally I don't think "at least one god exists" and "no gods exist" are equally likely to be true, given the evidence and everything I know.
Depends on which god. Here's Richard Carrier's discussion of the "Atheist or Agnostic" debate, in it he gives examples of two extremely different possible gods, for one your statement is necessarily true, for the other it is necessarily false (well, except maybe for your second sentence, which seems to be an odd thing for you to add, maybe you worded it badly).
Richard Carrier does a pretty good job in his various writings and talks.
Absurdly irrational conclusion. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
The rest of your post is so divorced from epistemology that I'm having a hard tome parsimg it in the context of this conversation.
Belief – accepting a claim as true or most likely true – is a subconscious mental calculus performed and updated as evidence and claims are presented.
There is a distinction between belief and claiming to believe something. Assuming theists are working with a roughly similar market of evidence as we are, under this definition they do not actually believe in a god because there doesn't yet exist suffucient evidence to rationally justify belief. They can claim to believe in a god, but that doesn't mean that they actually do. This is assuming a normally functioning mind, though, so perhaps some could actually believe, but they'd still be irrational.
In your example of bigfoot, disbelief in him due to lack of evidence is both rationally justified and the default position. Believing bigfoot doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is the black swan fallacy. If you actually do believe bigfoot doesn't exist, it's not because of the simple lack of evidence, and if you do re-evaluate that claim, it's not out of a conscious choice to do so. Your mind will do such reflexively when presented with more evidence for that claim.
Depends on which god.
Indeed, there are certain conceptions of a god that I don't believe exist. However, the belief that "literally no god exists of any sort" is not rationally justified by not observing any evidence. There could be a god somewhere in Betelgeuse who only manifests to his Betelgeusian followers. You wouldn't be rationally justified in believing in him, but the fact that you don't see any evidence of him doesn't prove that he must absolutely not exist.
Can you prove that no gods exist?
Don't need to. One cannot prove a negative, which is the trap that must be avoided. That is where the null hypothesis comes in. You must make the null hypothesis gods, like all imaginary things, don't exist. Not based on belief, but rather upon a lack of evidence them in the first place. Then the burden of evidence (not proof, which is for alcohol or mathematics) is upon those claiming gods exist. It also means you are open to examining real physical evidence to see if it fits your criteria. Works for gods, bigfoot, pixies, etc. Classic skeptic methodology, changing the argument from purely philosophical to empirical evidence.
I reject the god hypothesis because there's no evidence to support it.
A DECISION.
Classic skeptic methodology, changing the argument from purely philosophical to empirical evidence.
And in the process, apparently adopt ludicrously irrational statements as true.
No, a subconscious determination made by one's mind due to a lack of evidence on the matter, unaffected by personal choice.
Part of the problem with these discussions is the misuse of the term belief. To me, one must believe if there is no evidence to support the belief, be it bigfoot, pixies, or deities. It is accepted upon presupposition and faith.
Unfortunately, the term belief gets thrown into things like science. I don't believe in evolution, I conclude it happened based upon the scientific evidence. But others, especially creationists/IDiots, like to say I believe in evolution as it becomes a rhetorical device to make it sound like evolution is a religion too. Which is why I object pretending conclusions are beliefs, if those conclusions are evidence based.
Compared to :
How? The mind made a decision.
Belief in the epistemology usage, means "accepting a claim as true or most likely true". It's a term of art for a specific kind of philosophical discussion. It's no more a disuse then using "field" in physics to refer to "a region in which each point is affected by a force" rather than "an area of open land."
In epistemological terms, you do believe in evolution, because you accept it as true or most likely true due to the evidence in favor of it.
The brain accepting or rejecting claims is a deterministic process, not a choice-based one. You take rationally functioning brain, add in claim and the evidence (or lack thereof), you get conclusion.
And yes, given my doxastic involuntarist stance, I suppose the more correct version of the former quote would be "Apparently leads you to claim you accept ludicrously irrational statements as true"
Part of the problem with these discussions is the misuse of the term belief. To me, one must believe if there is no evidence to support the belief, be it bigfoot, pixies, or deities.
So when did you choose to start believing that Bob the Technician isn't on Mars following the rovers around in order to keep their solar panels clean? Perhaps instead you simply never held that belief? Almost instantly your subconsciousness recognizes the ridiculousness of this idea and rejects it before you even give it a conscious thought.
To me, one must believe if there is no evidence to support the belief
I think the word you're looking for there is "faith" or something akin to it. Anti-faith perhaps? You seem to be going on the idea that belief is somehow an active process that one can flip on and off.
Regardless, I have to study for finals, so I'm going to withdraw from this. I think my point has already been made on the issue, and it seems like we're kind of talking past each other.
Vivec @229:
using "field" in physics to refer to "a region in which each point is affected by a force"
Britannica should correct that. It's an entity which has a value at each point in spacetime, or in a region of spacetime.
re 216-232:
reminiscent of the line from Sherlock Holmes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
so I guess if one decides something [you know] doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, could be classified as "apathist"(sp).
That is when asked about ones belief, the response is simply, "no evidence for either one. {full stop}"
anyway, that's what I resort to for such a question…
usually leads to counterexamples of "whatabout your miraculous recovery from that 'incident'???" etc.
unexplainable events are not evidence of miracles though we call them that, is my 2nd response. leading deeper into the rat hole…
re "belief" [scare quotes intentional]
seems we're stuck in a semantics loop. Words are quite fluid constructs we use to communicate concepts that are hard to put into verbal terms. Like the "field" example. words often have multiple meanings that can only be fully conveyed by context. Belief is one such word that has many, somewhat contradictory meanings. Believing a statement true can be both stating the recognition of the truth of a statement, not necessarily the "faith" aspect of believing something out of hope of its existence.
speaking of "hope", I'm writing this out of hope that this will interrupt any argument I'm afraid I'm detecting. I see various people writing their differing uses of the words "decide" and " belief", etc, while not actually disagreeing, just expressing slightly different nuances of the use of the words. So while I'm losing myself in more semantics. I'll just leave by saying I agree with just about everything said above about different uses of those words. *sigh*
Is indeed something people like to say, and – in my experience – religionists are particularly fond of claiming that. However, as I have claimed much higher up, it is wrong.
Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence, it is just not *proof* of absence. I always like to use the thylacine example, because these things did indeed exist until less than a century ago. However, there is no credible evidence that they still exist (living ones, anyway) and therefore, we act as if they are extinct, while leaving wide open the possibility for evidence to be found that they do indeed still exist. I think it would be wonderful if that were the case, especially in light of the fact that humanity almost certainly played a major role in their extinction.
In my view, that is the exact same thing as atheist position with respect to god(s) and unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.
Of course, one only needs to read the Bible to know that the Bible is nonsense or that its god does not exist.
@236 Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if you would expect there to be evidence you could detect and understand. As far as I can tell, a god existing does not necessarily limit hypothesis space in any way – there is no way to tell what evidence would be expected, or even that *any* evidence would be expected. Until such time as weird evidence appears the question of a god's existence can safely be ignored as a waste of time (because it can't be resolved) and irrelevant (because no implication are known).
So when did you choose to start believing that Bob the Technician isn't on Mars
When you first said your idiotic statement and brought the possibility to my attention. A DECISION, based the the evidence that no human has flown to Mars yet.
You keep making decisions to stay atheist. You just won't admit the fact, since it negates your specious argument.
Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence, it is just not *proof* of absence.
Philosophically true, but it causes problems.
Making the null hypothesis being something doesn't exist because of evidence to date, allows one to avoid the "proving" of a negative, and makes the claimant for the positive to have the burden of evidence. It doesn't claim something doesn't exist. Just clarifies where the burden of evidence lies, which allows for a changing of conclusions based on new evidence.
Classical skeptic methodology, and also mirrors science. Which ignores phantasms as there is no evidence for them.
I have no qualms saying that I believe gods don't exist. Quite a few things point in that direction, as far as I can tell, so I think it's extremely likely to be true.
I'm sure others have different views. But if we're going to describe atheism in general, not just your take on the subject or what you're comfortable with personally, then I can't think of any good reason why I shouldn't count as an atheist. Some have been claiming it's only a "lack of belief" or something to that effect, but that would exclude people like me (and others not much like me) who do have some definite position they can articulate, which is that there aren't any gods.
Grumpy Santa, #219:
What does that mean? There's a lack of a thing in the sense that there's a hole in your brain where a belief would've gone, if only evidence had built it up for you? How else am I supposed to interpret that?
Is there any way to describe your current state in positive terms, what it actually is instead of what it isn't? If not, why not? Is it really like having zero dollars in your pocket, or is it more like there is something after all (maybe not a dollar) and you've rather unhelpfully chosen not to describe that thing for us? What would it be like if someone were going to describe it?
Suppose I said your brain is made of matter, in some state or another, and we're going to try to describe some of the features that it has. That's the kind of description I'm after — a fairly objective one that leaves aside a lot of the rhetoric and the metaphors and the ideology that people tend to import without realizing it (or without realizing it's a problem). I simply want to know what's literally going on, how that happens, and how best to describe it, no matter what consequences that may have or what you might be worried about if the results were interpreted unreasonably or uncharitably.
Why isn't it a belief whenever someone doesn't have evidence to build upon? You're apparently saying that something called "evidence" causes you to form beliefs. (Or is it more like logical entailment? It's not clear how you're using the word "because.")
Could any beliefs be formed through some other sort of process? For instance, a person says "I believe Jesus rose from the dead" — they could be any person saying it sincerely and trying to behave accordingly, and I'll accept it as a fair self-description. How exactly they found themselves in that state isn't my concern for now, because for now I'm simply trying to say what it is. Must they have some kind of "evidence" for Jesus' resurrection, simply to count as a person who believes it happened? Or is it that you think they should have obtained evidence, that they would have better reasons to believe it than they currently (since they currently do believe it despite having little or no evidence) if they had gotten sufficient evidence? Some people have been saying (also incorrectly) that you could only "believe" when there isn't evidence. So am I supposed to conclude that all beliefs are impossible? Or which specific things are supposed to be impossible and which aren't? What is any of this crap supposed to buy us?
If lacking evidence doesn't cause or entail a lack of belief, then it doesn't look like you're explaining or describing your idea clearly. Or your idea is just confused and needs a little work. Presumably, a clear description in natural language of what's actually going on, whatever that is, shouldn't sound like a fucking riddle and it shouldn't look like a game of three card Monte.
@ 240 C Razor
Well, to go with your metaphor, there isn't even the space for a hole to exist. There isn't a lack of a thing… a belief isn't a "thing" in the physical sense. Take a hard drive, imagine it's a brain. You have all your files on there from a lifetime of experience. Now imagine a program you don't have. Is there a hole in the hard drive where that program would have gone or do you simply have a hard drive without that program on it?
Is there any way to describe your current state in positive terms, what it actually is instead of what it isn't? If not, why not?
Not really. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't believe in six-legged unicorns. Tell me, do you have an active belief that six-legged unicorns don't exist or did you simply never have a belief that they do?
Why isn't it a belief whenever someone doesn't have evidence to build upon?
A belief without evidence is called faith. Not having a belief due to a lack of evidence is the opposite of faith.
You're apparently saying that something called "evidence" causes you to form beliefs.
Could any beliefs be formed through some other sort of process? For instance, a person says "I believe Jesus rose from the dead" — they could be any person saying it sincerely and trying to behave accordingly, and I'll accept it as a fair self-description.
Again, that's the very core of faith. Belief without evidence. This is the opposite not having a belief due to the lack of evidence.
If lacking evidence doesn't cause or entail a lack of belief, then it doesn't look like you're explaining or describing your idea clearly.
Think of it this way… how could a lack of evidence cause a lack of belief when that belief never existed in the first place?
I had never considered the exact question of whether or not I believe six-legged unicorns exist. Now that you've raised it, assuming I understand what you mean by terms like "six-legged" and "unicorn," I believe six-legged unicorns don't exist. That does seem to have a slightly different meaning than merely saying I don't believe they exist. Compared to someone who had never considered it, never floated the idea in their mind at all in any way whatsoever, I'm certainly in a different state. Instead, I've positively rejected it, which wasn't difficult here because I had previously rejected all unicorns. (I had heard of them and understood six-leggedness, before you came along to rock my world, and suffice it to say that making them six-legged didn't help their case at all.)
I suppose you want to know something about me. You want to know if you can accurately say I "don't believe" something, which isn't equally applicable to an infant or an electron or a solar system. After all, in a trivial sense those things "don't believe" six-legged unicorns exist. They do fail to have that property. But I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not interested in knowing stupid things like that. So, you're presumably looking for the kind of answer that really does say something substantive about what I actually think, after having given it some actual thought, because unlike infants and electrons and solar systems, that's the type of thing that I am. And my answer is that I believe they don't exist.
Do you believe it's a fact that they exist or that they don't exist? I'm not asking you about what your methods are like for coming up with an answer, or your general attitudes about thinking or whatever. Those two options are mutually exclusive, and collectively they exhaust the logical possibilities about the way reality can be: either they're real or they're not real. I'm asking about how you think reality is, and you can appropriately answer by telling me (you think, by doing whatever it is you do to make such conclusions) it is one way or the other. Some other kind of answer about some other subject wouldn't do the job.
You're saying gods are like six-legged unicorns? Had you never heard of a god until this very thread appeared on your internet browser? I believe that's false. I think you have heard of gods before, and you've come to some kind of (possibly tentative, possibly qualified in all sorts of ways) conclusion about whether or not gods exist. There is a fact about whether or not they exist, and I don't think there's any fundamental problem with you telling me what you think that fact is. There's just some stubbornness or confusion or who knows what on your part. I'll be able to handle it, if perhaps you're wrong or your methodology was bullshit. The first step, before we can begin to evaluate any such issues or consider what to do about them, is that we'd need to know what you're claiming about the world. What exactly would that be?
I think I know what it is (you think gods aren't real), but due to some silly talking points that are all too common in atheist/skeptic culture, you've been conditioned to talk about it in a convoluted way that seems designed to make it more difficult for people to understand what your claim is.
A belief without evidence is called faith.
So, faith is a specific kind of belief, according to you: one that isn't supported by evidence.
Not having a belief due to a lack of evidence is the opposite of faith.
But it's not the case that you don't have a belief, if you don't have what you're calling "faith." It means you have some other specific kind of belief, one which is supported by evidence. That would be an opposing type of belief, although they're still both types of belief. But you had said that you don't have any kind of belief.
I'm asking about how you think reality is, and you can appropriately answer by telling me (you think, by doing whatever it is you do to make such conclusions) it is one way or the other.
Just like with the aforementioned dice in a jar example, you can't be rationally justified in accepting either claim.
There are indeed two mutually exclusive claims – either there is an odd number of dice or an even number of dice.
But if you can't see or count the exact number of dice, you can't be justified in accepting either claim, because you lack sufficient evidence of the eveneness or the oddness of the number of dice.
In the case of six-legged unicorns or gods as a category, it's the same deal. The simple fact that you do not see evidence for their existence is not sufficient to justify accepting either claim. That is logically comparable to saying "I haven't seen a black swan, so I believe they don't exist."
There isn't just the simple fact that I don't see evidence for a god or gods. There's a lot of evidence against it. With that, we do have reason to believe it's almost certainly true that there are none.
I assume your dice example is constructed such that we don't have any analogous evidence that the number is even or odd, which is what you mean by saying there's no justification for thinking it's one or the other. (Of course, you do in any case have to accept that it is one or the other, whatever your justifications may be like, because you can deduce that the claims "it's both even and odd" and "it's neither even nor odd" must be false.)
Anyway, I am rationally justified in believing what's almost certainly true, given evidence that I do actually have, and that's what the situation with gods is like. There's some evidence that increases (and some that decreases) the likelihood, and we can determine what the balance looks like after considering as much of it as we can. Like I said to Grumpy Santa, of course we could still be wrong, but "knowing" something or "accepting" a claim or being "rationally justified" in believing it just doesn't mean you couldn't possibly be wrong.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples, of things you know and accept and have reasons to believe, that you could be wrong about. The existence of an external world, for an extreme example — that is, maybe I'm just a figment of your imagination, so is this blog, so is everything except you. As bizarre as it may sound, you could be wrong about all or any of that. That doesn't (and shouldn't) stop you from saying you know such things, or at the very least that you have adequate reasons for believing them and acting accordingly. Of course we can't logically rule out possibilities like that, but playing that kind of solipsist/radical skeptic game is pointless.
Nah, I'm done trying to convince people of entry level epistemology. Feel free to do what you want, but when a theist laughs at your claim that lack of evidence justifies the belief that no gods exist, I'll probably snicker along with them.
your claim that lack of evidence justifies the belief that no gods exist
Apparently you didn't bother to read anything of what I said.
Vivec:
Nah, I'm done trying to convince people of entry level epistemology.
You know the saying about a little knowledge?
Feel free to do what you want, but when a theist laughs at your claim that lack of evidence justifies the belief that no gods exist, I'll probably snicker along with them.
Most theistic deities (you do distinguish between theism and deism, right?) supposedly want people to believe in them — the Christian and Islamic deities are certainly claimed to do so; for that kind of deity, it's odd they lack the ability to provide convincing evidence, no?
I had never considered the exact question of whether or not I believe six-legged unicorns exist. Now that you've raised it, assuming I understand what you mean by terms like "six-legged" and "unicorn," I believe six-legged unicorns don't exist. That does seem to have a slightly different meaning than merely saying I don't believe they exist. Compared to someone who had never considered it, never floated the idea in their mind at all in any way whatsoever, I'm certainly in a different state. Instead, I've positively rejected it,..
But… did you? At any point in time were you actively engaged in the process of trying to determine if they exist or perhaps did your subconscious mind instantly reject the idea then float it to your conscious self? Did you actually have the choice with regards to initially rejecting the idea of six legged unicorns?
I've never believed that they do, so in that sense I don't believe it. But it's not an active process, I didn't choose to not believe in them nor did it require any effort. The idea was instantly rejected in my brain even as I was coming up with it. "Not believing" is not an active, conscious process. If you start in a null state it doesn't require effort to stay there.
You're saying gods are like six-legged unicorns? Had you never heard of a god until this very thread appeared on your internet browser? I believe that's false.
Your false belief is true, I've heard of gods before this thread. Like the unicorns of this thread now, I didn't have any beliefs in the gods then and never moved out of that state. I think this is an important part of what I"m getting at. Like your instant rejection of hexopodicorns now, anything you've never believed in never took any effort or conscious thought to not believe in. Non-belief is a passive process. It's a default state for our minds. Being moved out of that default state is what requires effort.
I agree with this statement, yes. Once you have evidence, faith is not needed.
No, I don't have a belief because there's no evidence to build one around as opposed to having a belief supported by evidence. There's no evidence gods don't exist, so there's no basis to build a belief on.
@ 248 John Morales
That actually is quite interesting when you think about it. We know you're talking about faith – belief without evidence. What's happened, though, is that they've convinced their own minds that things that aren't actual evidence, such as bible quotes and puppies, ARE evidence. So that false evidence sits in the part of the brain that the subconscious looks at when determining whether to accept or reject something. Now that I think of it, calling faith "belief without evidence" is probably less accurate than "a belief built on false evidence"..
Now that I think of it, calling faith "belief without evidence" is probably less accurate than "a belief built on false evidence"..
I understand that the Bible is such a one-dimensional and large boring book that most Christians have only read the odd part of it, but it does make for relatively good entertainment while riding a subway, or while patiently standing in some line, and I think atheists (in the West) are not doing themselves a favour if they don't read it. If they did, they would know about statements such as this one (John 20:29):
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
It is clear that Jesus does not actually *condemn* skepticism, but he just as clearly favours those who believe, *without* evidence.
Once you have evidence, faith is not needed.
Indeed. This is (or at least used to be) actually a common argument among religionists: belief/faith *requires* the absence of evidence. If there would be evidence, their religion would not be a faith/belief.
Wasn't referring to you, since you weren't making that claim.
I do question your ability to have almost certain evidence that no gods of any sort exist, given that some god concepts are fundamentally unfalsifiable. Even stepping out of the realm of deistic hands-off gods, what about my example of the betelgeusian god that only talks to his followers at betelgeuse but otherwise is responsible for the universe? You couldn't be rationally justified in believing in him, nor could the lack of evidence of his existence justify believing he doesn't exist.
Accepting the claim (and the burden of proof attached to that claim) that the existence of an entire category of beings is false when certain beings in that category are inherently unfalsifiable is silly.
It is however rationally justified to reject the claim that gods, as a category, exist , because there is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of even a single one (assuming we're excluding trivial "this stick is my god" ones).
I guess moreso what I'm getting at is that accepting the claim "no gods exist" is a positive claim with a burden of proof, unlike merely rejecting the claim that "at least one god exists". What evidence do you have that satisfies that burden of proof, especially given that some of the beings included in the "god" category are either unfalsifiable or would not necessarily produce physical evidence?
This thread went weird. I really don't understand anyone's trying to hammer on the issue of whether belief or disbelief is a decision*, because the implications of atheism are implied by atheism no matter whether it's a decision or not – if the atheistic view on gods is correct, then there are no gods, and that's what everything else flows from, regardless of your will to believe it.
*I can only assume a non-conscious choice is being counted as a decision there, instead of just conscious choices? Otherwise it's just false no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. But then you're using "decision" in a way that people normally don't – or, at least, don't seem to as far as I've ever been able to tell – and it's essentially just an argument over semantics. That's fine, it's just that it doesn't advance the question of what's implied by atheism in the least, and it seems a bit weird to get caught up in it.
I guess moreso what I'm getting at is that accepting the claim "no gods exist" is a positive claim with a burden of proof, unlike merely rejecting the claim that "at least one god exists".
'Rejecting' or 'not accepting'? To me, the rejection of claim A is identical to acceptance of claim not-A. I think that non-acceptance is the reasonable stance. Unfortunately, many christians don't seem to understand the difference, and they are in bad company, since Bible-Jesus does not understand the difference either.
Hold on… try to avoid more semantics… if, as is implied by the atheistic stance, theism is false, then there are no gods, and everything else flows from that. Still not perfectly formed, but whatever.
To me, the rejection of claim A is identical to acceptance of claim not-A. I think that non-acceptance is the reasonable stance.
Indeed, that is more what I meant.
Also, I do apologize to everyone for my earlier aggression, I was frustrated from outside reasons (professor changed the requirements for a take home final a day and a half after I turned it in without allowing re-submissions) and I'm awful at finding outlets for my frustration. No one has to forgive me, but that's the reason behind it.
This thread went weird. I really don't understand anyone's trying to hammer on the issue of whether belief or disbelief is a decision*
I think it is an interesting point, just not one that is relevant to atheism (which you seem to think as well):
because the implications of atheism are implied by atheism no matter whether it's a decision or not
if the atheistic view on gods is correct, then there are no gods, and that's what everything else flows from, regardless of your will to believe it.
I'm not sure. If atheism is defined as a non-belief in gods, does it really flow from this that there are no gods? I don't think so. I live my life as if there are no gods, but I would change that attitude in a indivisible moment of time if credible evidence was provided for their existence.
As an example: I have avoided Apple for most of my life, but I was almost convinced to buy an Apple II less than 38 years ago, and I did buy an iPod Shuffle earlier this year. People who know me are convinced I hate Apple, and they are right. However, my hatred of Apple is not a good reason to reject using its stuff when it is – in my opinion – the rational thing to do. I prefer acting on evidence and that is my stance towards god(s), i.e. "convince me", and for that to happen, I need evidence, but I do not outright reject the god-exists claim.
The quibble isn't so much around the fact that it's non-conscious as much as it's deterministic and unaffected by any kind of direct agency. It's an equation of "rational brain" + a claim + any available evidence that spits out a determination on whether to accept or withhold acceptance from that claim.
That being said, it is irrelevant to the thread at large, and I think that as is usual for the arguments I engage in, I don't substantially disagree with the people here (by and large anyways). It's just that a lot of you are talking in ways that are either outside the realm of normal epistemic dialog or at the very least are talking in a way that's very hard to parse when I'm trying to talk from an epistemic standpoint.
No one has to forgive me, but that's the reason behind it.
You are absolved ^_^
I think it might be best for my mental health that I do actually pull out of this conversation at the moment, however. While I won't necessarily concede my points, I will definitely take Nerd et al's point under consideration.
'Rejecting' or 'not accepting'? To me, the rejection of claim A is identical to acceptance of claim not-A.
It is possible to accept neither A nor non-A whilst simultaneously rejecting neither; sometimes, it is the only reasonable choice — for example, where is insufficient information to make a determination.
(Existence claims are are binary*, but not all claims are)
* Given an ontological category; clearly, Superman does exist in the abstract, but not in the concrete.
But that's precisely my problem: the atheistic stance as I understand it, i.e. non-belief in god(s), does not imply that theism is false, nor that are no gods. At most, it implies that theism is not likely to be true, and that there are no good reasons to think that god(s) exist(s). To me, "not likely" is not the same as "not".
I'm just not personally convinced anything at all flows from atheism, and perhaps it is a matter of where I tend to be a bit too literal. I think many atheists wind up humanists (not all) and that's where things like social justice flow from, but it's not necessarily a product of atheism, there are after all theistic humanists I'm told, but more a product of how individuals are wired for empathy and altruism. The problem is that religiousness creates beliefs that I think override how we're wired, especially when those beliefs are constantly reinforced by a collective group-think. I'm not a product of deconversion, but it makes sense to be that when those beliefs are finally shed it allows someone to naturally act as their wired, so someone wired for empathy and altruism, when becoming an atheist, also is allowed to act humanistically and will engage in social justice issues and the like. As I see it, engaging in social justice isn't a result of being an atheist, but more a result of being allowed to act on your natural impulses when you became an atheist.
Now the part where I may get in trouble, but I think it's worth asking just as a thought exercise and I apologize if the asking of the question offends anyone, that's not the intent. But here it is… for anyone that used to be religious, especially in a sect that was very anti-social and restrictive of the rights of others, how heavily engaged do you find yourself in fighting for social justice and if highly engaged is perhaps a part of the reason trying to make up for known injustices you may have supported in your religious past? (I admit this is a question of "guilt" and I want to make clear I don't think for an instant anyone fights injustices due to guilt alone. I do think it's simply how someone is wired and that the thought of doing things against your real nature because of religious influence in the past could have a "making up for lost time" effect now.)
It is possible to accept neither A nor non-A whilst simultaneously rejecting neither
That's the point I am trying to make. This is what I put on my (exquisitly inactive) blog:
Atheists do not believe there is no God, they simply do not believe there is a God.
clearly, Superman does exist in the abstract, but not in the concrete.
Of course. I have no problem with that. I'm only becoming nervous when someone explains that Superman would have done this or that if only the situation had been like this or like that. That's like claiming to know someone's mind, whether or not that mind exists, and there is no evidence that this is possible.
Shit, I know going down this rabbit hole may not be the best idea, but here we go anyway… Bart, were you Christian (or other) in the past and have since become an atheist? I ask because it could explain a lot. If you were used to having faith, a belief built upon false evidences, is it possible that you've replaced those false evidences for gods with false evidences against gods and built something akin to an atheistic faith? I wonder if there's a part of the subconscious that isn't comfortable being "empty" after being "filled" for so long so it simply fills in what's missing. To me it looks like you're taking an absence of evidence and turning that into an evidence.
Please take this as a thought experiment and not a personal attack or insult. I mean no offense, just trying to understand how we're reaching a similar result (atheism) so differently.
267. Grumpy Santa:
You ask a good question. No, as far as I can remember, I have never been a believer. I was certainly raised in the "Catholic system", but my father (a failed Trappist monk) called me the Antichrist, and the Jesuits agreed with him. My youth wasn't a happy one. I have certainly tried to be a Catholic, but never succeeded. I've read the Bible over and over, I've listened to the arguments, but it all struck me as outlandish and silly, and nothing has ever struck me as 'credible evidence'.
is it possible that you've replaced those false evidences for gods with false evidences against gods and built something akin to an atheistic faith?
Nope. That's the point I always try to make: the only evidence against god(s) I can find is the absence of evidence for god(s), which is why I always use the thylacine example. I seem to be failing in my effort, since you are talking about 'false evidence against god(s). I'm interested in learning why you think so. Maybe, what I say has unintended meanings I do not know about.
I mean no offense, just trying to understand how we're reaching a similar result (atheism) so differently.
Thank you for your sensitivity, but there is no danger of that.
It's why I gave the Apple example. I treat god(s)/religion(s) the same way as anything else. I may sometimes make the wrong decision, based on wrong/incomplete evidence (here is an example of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQPv9WGx__A (Sony lied by omission, about PDFs, and that led me to buy a Sony e-reader)).
Would I, given the right evidence, suddenly "believe" in some god(s)? Perhaps, but I am not sure that "believe" is the right word. I would simply act on the basis of the evidence, and "belief" is neither here nor there.
@257 Athywren – not the moon you're looking for
AFAICT a more accurate description is that the atheist position (by lowest common denominator) is that belief in gods is unjustified, rather than the stronger position (held by some atheist) that it is false.
If a god existed, what kind of evidence would you expect?
atheist position (by lowest common denominator) is that belief in gods is unjustified, rather than the stronger position (held by some atheist) that it is false.
I wonder if there really are such atheists. I can certainly understand the "The god of the Bible does not exist" claim, and I think any sane person would do so, unless they are prepared to accept that the Bible is a work of fiction, which of course, it is, but it would then no longer make sense to believe in the god described by it. It would make more sense to believe in Captain Kirk. However, going from there to 'god(s) does/do not exist' is a bridge too far, in my opinion.
The ability to stop the earth from rotating at Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square while it continued rotating at the Eaton Centre, and all this with everything going smoothly, nothing being interrupted and no one being hurt, would be a meaningful gesture.
Well, my thoughts are along this line (and it doesn't seem to apply to you)…
We know people of faith believe, and they believe something by convincing themselves (or being convinced) that something (such as bible quotes) are evidence when we recognize they aren't. But because their brains have accepted these as evidences it's extremely difficult to convince them otherwise. When they're told something, they automatically (we all do) go to that part of the brain that processes things quickly and that's where these "evidences" are stored, so saying "bible quotes aren't evidence" is instantly rejected as soon as they hear it.
Sorry for the verbose setup. :)
This is what I'm comparing the "evidence against gods" to. In my own mind (which obviously has its own biases) I don't think there can be any evidences against supernatural beings; I see the idea as a fallacy. Evidences exist in the natural world, supernatural beings don't. So for a belief to be formed on the idea that the lack of evidence is evidence against, it seems similar to the forming of a faith, but in the subtly different way that instead of it being a belief without evidence it's a belief based on a lack of evidence (which is considered evidence in the brain). Damn, I hope that made sense.
Basically, I can comprehend:
1. Faith – a belief without evidence
2. Believing something because of the evidence.
But you've added an unfamiliar third –
3. Believing because there's no known evidence
Although I tie it to "faith" in my head because of the lack of evidence, it seems to be an amalgam of 1 and 2. To be honest, it confuses me a bit.
Same here, but it would have to be some convincing evidence. My skeptical side would question for quite some time what was going on really, but if the evidence held it would be "well how about that. Gods." Not a belief but eventual accepting of the evidence.
Completely different youth on my part. I had a Roman Catholic father and mostly secular mother that divorced when I was quite young. I vaguely remember doing the Sunday school and first communion thing and that none of it made sense even then. Then following the divorce I never had any religious indoctrination at all of any type, not even a bible in the house (still don't). I simply have no memories of ever believing any of it whatsoever, so I consider myself a lifelong atheist out of the gate.
@ 269 erik
Unjustified. Hmm… that's as good of a word as any from my perspective. If there's no evidence, I can't justify believing in it.
@270, erik333
Not directed at me, but personally I think we'd expect some moral action, and communication. Why wouldn't a god behave the way a good parent of friend behaves? That would easily be expected on a very minimal theism. Thus a lack of such things is very strong evidence against theism.
It wouldn't be a stretch to expect an entirely different universe, one set up to be comfortably livable, rather than hostile.
Remember, the writers of the Bible had to invent a story in Genesis 3 specifically to explain away that expectation! They had to add the ad hoc idea that we are being punished, and that's why we have to struggle to survive, and even why we have to die. And why childbirth is painful. Since this excuse has no evidence to support it (plus the excuse itself is silly enough to count as an example of the "voodoo shark" trope), it doesn't change the fact that such facts of life are evidence against theism. Plus the excuse is hugely discredited because of everything we know about the history of the Bible and its stories, it's surely fiction.
More generally than being an atheist, I'm a naturalist, meaning I think there aren't any supernatural things, which are minds or mental things/events/processes/etc. that do not reduce to physical stuff. Gods are just one type of supernatural thing.
To use myself as an example, I have mental properties (thoughts, experiences, sensations, perceptions, memories, beliefs, desires, etc.), and those are because I have a brain, making me a natural thing and not a supernatural one. In other words, I don't have an immaterial soul. If I were a soul or had a soul, that would make me supernatural.
You can conclude that if some nonphysical thing like a soul were controlling my behavior (by moving my particles in my brain around, let's say, if it could do that), then that would violate conservation of energy, since that imples there would be more energy than is accounted for physically by my brain and its environment. We don't observe that brains are a source of energy that can't be explained by physics. They're just natural objects, and nothing supernatural is going on whenever they do what they do.
Compared to a brain like mine or yours or an elephant's, some other type of natural thing like a sentient AI computer or an extraterrestrial organism might have a very different body in terms of the materials constituting it or how those are structured. (I simply don't know what kind of physical constraints there might be, and since we haven't built AIs or seen aliens we don't have much of anything to work with about that.) But the claim is basically that anything which can think/feel/etc. has a body that does the thinking/feeling/etc. It's necessary that there is some matter doing it (not sufficient, that amounts to panpsychism). That matter moves around in space, like physical things do, so it shouldn't be hard to understand why processes like "seeing" or "hearing" require that, and the claim is that any mental process reduces to physical processes.
So there aren't any gods, souls, ghosts, angels, demons, witches, wizards, magical or psychic people/places/things/abilities, and the list could go on for a while.
You could put your "god" (more like its effects or influences) somewhere in the neighborhood of Betelgeuse if you like. But I'm not just saying I can observe that there is no Helios, who's supposed to be the god (one of them) of our particular star, because we should've seen him somewhere in our neighborhood if he exists.
Your god's influences could be anywhere or everywhere (or nowhere), and the argument doesn't depend on observing that particular thing in that spot (or not observing it, as the case may be) to determine what I should think about whether or not there exists a god who did it. It's a much more general fact about the whole universe and a variety of other phenomena besides those are supposed to be due to god. And it's not like I only think naturalism is true in this specific part of the world. It wouldn't make much sense at all, if it were only true here and not elsewhere — this is probably not how you'd think about physical laws, and I'm guessing you don't go around telling physicists they're not rationally justified in having beliefs and formulating theories about distant stars or other galaxies. Of course there's no one single experiment that will "demonstrate" things like that for all time and everywhere, but there doesn't need to be an experiment like that for the process to work and the reasoning about it to be coherent.
Finally, as something that's non-spatial, which a god is supposed to be as an immaterial thing, I have trouble understanding why any such thing would have some special relationship to a specific location. You seem to be suggesting it is just another physical thing with some location (like a person with a body, who happens to live in the neighborhood of Betelgeuse), and certainly I'm not claiming physical things don't exist.
Bart @266
Leaving aside that some do (I endorse what consciousness razor wrote above), that claim can be rephrased as that they believe that they do not believe there is a God.
Which is to say, it's still a belief in respect to the existence of a God.
(Note that by capitalising 'god' one makes it a proper noun, though that is a digression)
277. John:
It is of course always possible to add a level of complexity, but I prefer the principle of parsimony. It is not guaranteed to always lead to the correct results, but if it doesn't one can always backtrack (which reminds me of PROLOG, but that's unimportant).
Indeed. I sometimes do that without realising it, probably because that's the way I was taught. When I think about it/notice it, I tend to change it to lowercase, but the uppercase version is the one I have on my blog. I thought I had replaced it a long time ago, but I evidently haven't.
And I agree, using a capital changes the meaning. I like to interpret that as a name, as in 'John, PZ and God went to have a few beers together.
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/dictionary-atheists-are-boring-atheists/#ixzz4BF2nVqWs
when a theist laughs at your claim that lack of evidence justifies the belief that no gods exist, I'll probably snicker along with them.
That is exactly how I see it. "Not-believing A" is not the same as "believing not-A". The New-Testament Jesus does not understand that distinction. Neither did George W. Bush.
273 Grumpy:
Just take into account that is is apologist drivel. I have always wondered if there are actually people who think this way. To me, it is just not-so clever excuse.
Why wouldn't a god behave the way a good parent of friend behaves?
Because there is no reason to. There is nothing I know that prevents a god to be as cruel as can be.
@281, Bart
Maybe, but if a god can be anything, then evidence against one of those things (which I presented) is evidence in favor of the proposition "no god exists" (which I thus accomplished). Now we'll make it evidence against two of those things: we see no cruel behavior from any god either. In fact, we see exactly what we would see if there were no god at all. This is all evidence against the proposition "a god exists", because it is 100% predicted by the hypothesis "no gods exists" and less than 100% predicted on the hypothesis "at least one god exists".
Anyways, I usually only care about talking about the god concepts that need to be talked about: ones that people actually believe in, or ones that may be a useful hypothesis for explaining facts of the world. The rest can be used for thought experiments, I guess.
Brian Pansky @282:
Maybe, but if a god can be anything, then evidence against one of those things (which I presented) is evidence in favor of the proposition "no god exists" (which I thus accomplished).
If you have evidence that green swans don't exist, is that evidence in favour of the proposition "no swans exist"?
we see exactly what we would see if there were no god at all.
How do you know that?
Learn Bayesian Reasoning. Also, be careful with vague poorly defined thought experiments. No useful results can come from them, just confusion.
How do I know what the "no god" hypothesis predicts? Or how do I know that the predictions of the "no god" hypothesis are evident?
The "no god" hypothesis necessarily predicts that we won't find anything that requires a god to explain. I think you'd agree that we don't see anything that requires a god to explain.
Brian Pansky @284: I understand Bayesian probability, and what I've seen of Carrier's use of it looks as dodgy as his misuse of physics. By the way, do you understand it? You already admitted you don't know much about physics, yet you're still happy to peddle his nonsense here. How does that work?
The "no god" hypothesis necessarily predicts that we won't find anything that requires a god to explain.
And so far, so good. But again, how do you know that "we see exactly what we would see if there were no god at all"? What would we see if there were a god?
Oh, it's you again. It might be a waste of time for me to try to reason with you, lol.
But, I do have time to waste!
By the way, do you understand it? You already admitted you don't know much about physics, yet you're still happy to peddle his nonsense here. How does that work?
Um, I'm not "peddling" physics here, so how does your logic work?
And, yes, I do have a pretty good understanding of Bayesian Reasoning and why it's correct. Even though I don't have a deep understanding of many things in advanced physics. (I suppose, from your bizarre perspective, this must come as a total shock)
And so far, so good. But again, how do you know that "we see exactly what we would see if there were no god at all"?
I literally just told you. What didn't you understand about it? Or what did I get wrong?
What would we see if there were a god?
Technically that would depend on which god. I can concede that.
@286 Brian Pansky
Therein lies a problem. You can only begin to figure out what might constitute evidence *after* making some completely unfounded assumptions about what a god must necessarily (or even are likely to be) like, and/or what a gods motivations are likely to be in creating universes. Usually people seem to guess out of hand that obviously any god that exists would be primarily be interested in humans on earth, which clearly are the best thing ever – especially since they automatically project human emotions and motivations unto whatever god.
Um, 'here' as in this blog. Should I dig up a quote?
how do you know that "we see exactly what we would see if there were no god at all"?
I literally just told you.
That you think so is amazing. The "no X" hypothesis (whatever X is) necessarily predicts that we won't find anything that requires X to explain. OK. But this is very different from "we see exactly what we would see if there were no X". X could be something we simply haven't seen and don't need in current theories. But it could be something without which the universe would look very different; strings, magnetic monopoles, etc. The specific examples aren't important. They just illustrate the logic fail.
@erik333
Therein lies a problem. You can only begin to figure out what might constitute evidence *after* making some completely unfounded assumptions about what a god must necessarily (or even are likely to be) like
It's not unfounded to say that we might see some sort of god activity if a god existed. Nor can you say it is certain that a god wouldn't do such a thing (you'd be the one inserting unfounded assumptions). So the evidence counts.
Should I dig up a quote?
I'm ok with everyone witnessing that past conversation with me, and your brief conversation with Carrier.
The "no X" hypothesis (whatever X is) necessarily predicts that we won't find anything that requires X to explain. OK. But this is very different from "we see exactly what we would see if there were no X". X could be something we simply haven't seen and don't need in current theories. But it could be something without which the universe would look very different; strings, magnetic monopoles, etc. The specific examples aren't important. They just illustrate the logic fail.
Right, my statement sounds a bit too much like we know everything in exact detail already.
The fact that it's something we "don't need in current theories" is basically what I'm getting at anyways. And you agree with that. These theories that have no god predict what we see very very well. Maybe I could have said something like that instead.
It's not unfounded to say that we might see some sort of god activity if a god existed.
It's also not unfounded to say we might not. It is not unfounded to say that we might see some sort of magnetic monopole activity if magnetic monopoles existed. It's also not unfounded to say we might not.
Nor can you say it is certain that a god wouldn't do such a thing (you'd be the one inserting unfounded assumptions). So the evidence counts.
No, you can't say anything for certain. Who did? You're just making shit up and calling it evidence.
The fact that it's something we "don't need in current theories" is basically what I'm getting at anyways.
No, you were doing much more than that. Why all the "evidence of the non-existence of gods" arglebargle if all you need to say is "we have no need of that hypothesis"?
I could be wrong and again I don't find it very important to talk about gods no one believes in (etc.) but maybe one more reply:
It's also not unfounded to say we might not.
Indeed. But that doesn't matter. Since it could have been either way if god existed, but could not have been either way if no god existed (barring some weird natural coincidence that fools us), the evidence would seem to lend some support to the latter. Not 100% proof, just evidence.
Not sure what you're trying to say, but you seem mixed up. Hopefully this clarifies:
1) I specifically said "you'd be" ("you would be", not "you are") which can be translated into "you haven't said this, but if you did say this, you'd be".
2) I was outlining the situation. In particular, those two sentences I wrote (about each being unfounded) established what our epistemic probability space would look like before we look at the evidence.
3) Then notice what changes would need to be made to it after looking at the evidence. The "god exists" bit would be diminished, because some of the possibilities now look less likely (while the rest of the possibilities haven't been given any evidence to raise their likelihood compared to the "no god" bit). So overall, it's a net loss for the "god exists" hypothesis. That means the evidence we looked at weighs against the "god exists" hypothesis.
Maybe the things I said were not identical, maybe I even made some mistake somewhere. But "we have no need of that hypothesis" isn't all I had to say if people didn't see what that meant: which hypothesis better predicted that result, thus which hypothesis was favored by the evidence.
Brian @291: Oh, I understand your argument. It's just a really, really crappy argument.
It amounts to:
1) If god exists, we might see evidence of it.
2) If god doesn't exist, we wouldn't see evidence of it.
3) Let's start by assigning 0.5 probability to each of 'exist' and 'doesn't exist'.
4) Let's further assign 0.5 probability to each of the 'see evidence' and 'don't see evidence' options within the 'exists' hypothesis, so 0.25 each overall.
5) Because we don't see evidence, this fact covers all of the 'doesn't exist' probability space, but only half of the 'exists' space.
6) Therefore, it's twice as likely that god doesn't exist than does exist.
Apart from my specific assignments of 0.5, this is the essence of your argument, right?
If so, here's the problem: Your probability space is absurdly ill-defined, and you have no idea how to assign the probabilities anyway. That's the 'making shit up' part. Any numbers you (or I, above) put in are nonsense which doesn't even come close to the level of 'educated guess'. Garbage in, garbage out. Incredibly naive, or incredibly dishonest.
Close (but in a universe with no gods, it isn't 50 50 that we would still see evidence that convinces us that gods exist, not sure why you wrote otherwise).
Perhaps I have used too much speculation, but you haven't really said why I should believe that's true. I'll think it over when I have time.
Anyways, I really came back here to clarify something that I thought might help:
I never said we have evidence that "gods which are undetectable in principle don't exist". The evidence can't show that. But if we're testing a more general set of hypotheses, like "god exists" VS "god does not exist", then I think the evidence works.
in a universe with no gods, it isn't 50 50 that we would still see evidence that convinces us that gods exist
Now the problem seems to be reading comprehension. The 50-50 that we would see evidence (in my example) only applied within the 'god exists' hypothesis, not within the 'no gods' hypothesis. With the 'no gods', it's 100% no evidence. See my (2), and read (4) more carefully, with particular attention to the "options within the 'exists' hypothesis" part.
Anyway, I'm done here. The frustration of supporting England in the Euro 2016 football is more than enough.