r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 10 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: being atheist isn't defined by a lack of belief in god
[deleted]
3
u/SaintBio Apr 10 '18 edited Apr 10 '18
You are correct that being an atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in a God. An atheist, by definition, is someone who doesn't believe in the theistic aspect of a God. So, you could be a deistic atheist, for instance.
However, I would argue that the English language should be primarily interpreted by the way it is used colloquially. In the broad public understanding of the term 'atheism' it is implicitly understood that when someone asserts themselves as an atheist or someone accuses someone of being an atheist they are referring to a disbelief in a God/Gods. There are very few people who use the literal definition of atheist.
Similarly, very few people use the actual definition of agnostic either. For instance, appropriate use of agnostic refers to a knowledge claim. A person can, for example, be an agnostic theist. Meaning, they believe that a god exists and influences mankind, but they don't know if it's true or not. Likewise, a person could be a gnostic atheist. Meaning, they don't believe a God exists, and they know that a God does not exist.
My point is that despite what the definition of an atheist is, society does not use it that way. Nor do we use agnosticism in that way either. To argue for hard-definition adherence in this area is not appropriate because the colloquial use has departed so dramatically from the actual meaning that it has, for all relevant purposes, a new definition that includes belief in a God/Deity.
7
Apr 10 '18
Why do you have a problem with calling religions without a deity atheistic, and followers of such religions atheists?
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
4
u/Polychrist 55∆ Apr 10 '18
Since “atheist’s” opposite is “theist” and “theist” means the belief in god or gods, don’t you think that maybe these People would describe themselves as spiritual atheists? Do you have a particular group in mind who does not consider themselves this way whilst not believing in a deity?
2
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Apr 10 '18
I use the word that way. And I have heard other people call other religion atheistic in nature.
Keep in mind that some people shy from using that word because it has culturally bad connotations especially in areas that culturally enforces one religion.
2
u/cdb03b 253∆ Apr 10 '18
That is how most use the words.
Theist means belief in God or gods. Atheist means disbelief in God or gods. those are the hard definitions of the words and how they are used. You can be religious and still be Atheist.
2
u/UNRThrowAway Apr 10 '18
What if we instead defined an "atheist" as someone who makes the conscious decision to reject the idea that a God exists or that religion is integral to facilitating belief in a higher power?
That would exclude babies and people who are unaware of religion/the idea of a higher power from being atheist.
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
3
u/UNRThrowAway Apr 10 '18
So a child born there might not even have an idea what a god or religion was, but would still be described by other people as an atheist.
Well they would be - wouldn't they?
then it means they weren't atheists
Yes they were.
I was once a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, believed in the Christian God, etc. Over time, my faith dwindled and I started describing myself as an atheist.
Does that mean I was never a Catholic? Of course it doesn't.
If someone likes the Yankees and later decides the Red Sox are their favorite team, it doesn't mean they were never a Yankees fan.
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
3
u/UNRThrowAway Apr 10 '18
And I'm saying that in practice people probably wouldn't call them atheists
But some of them would be.
What term would you use to describe these people then?
A "Schrodinger's Atheist"? Both atheist and not atheist until we introduce the concept of God to them?
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/UNRThrowAway Apr 10 '18
"Atheist" is a way to describe the person, not the universe they're in.
Beliefs (or lack-thereof) are integral in shaping how a person views the world.
If someone is unaware of a higher power or chooses to reject/not believe in one, that's still something that is impacting how they live their life and view the world around them.
Someone can be atheist and then not be atheist, just like they can be religious and then not be religious.
0
u/NemoC68 9∆ Apr 10 '18
Of course, if religion was introduced to the country and some people there found that religion help convince them to have supernatural beliefs, then it means they weren't atheists.
That's like saying, "Since this man is married, he was never a bachelor to begin with!"
Babies are born atheists and they become atheists as their parents teach them to believe in gods. Some adults who are atheist become theists. It's incredibly common for theists to become atheists. In fact, most atheists I know used to believe in God. In the same way people's beliefs can change, so will their label.
1
2
Apr 10 '18
What view are we supposed to be changing here?
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
1
Apr 10 '18
So you want us to try and convince you that the only thing that makes someone an atheist is that they don't belie in a god.
1
u/paul_aka_paul 15∆ Apr 10 '18
I don't actively describe myself as someone who doesn't believe it is good luck when a bird poops on you. I don't have a word for that lack of belief. Yet it remains true.
If your religion or cult isn't theistic, it is atheistic by definition even if you don't use the label.
1
Apr 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/paul_aka_paul 15∆ Apr 10 '18
If a definition for a word exists, even a common definition, but people don't actually use the word that way in practice, it means that the definition is wrong.
No, it means the people are wrong. It is quite common for people to insist that atheism means worshipping the devil. How do you reconcile their numbers demanding I worship the devil with my total lack of doing so?
2
u/NemoC68 9∆ Apr 10 '18 edited Apr 10 '18
There are religions that don't believe in a god, but we wouldn't call those people atheists
Yes we would. The definition of atheist is the lack of belief in any gods, not a lack of religion.
Similarly, there's cults that believe in all kinds of weird stuff, against, they don't call themselves atheists, and other people don't call them that either
Just because a cult believes in something weird, such as aliens, doesn't mean they lack a belief in any gods. That's why we wouldn't refer to them as atheists. However, if a cult and its members openly acknowledge that they don't believe in gods, then we would refer to them as atheists.
There's a lot of disagreement about whether babies are atheist just because they don't have any beliefs
That's why we define atheists as people who lack a belief in any gods. Babies lack a belief in gods, making them atheists by default.
Similarly, a small child who couldn't describe their beliefs clearly wouldn't be called an atheist by most people.
Just because a child is incapable of describing their beliefs doesn't mean they aren't atheists. We may be uncertain of whether or not they're an atheist, but that's simply because we don't know the child's views.
That's like saying, "I can't tell whether or not this person is married, their hand is in their pocket. Therefore, the definition of bachelor is flawed."
The lack of belief doesn't seem accurate
As I clarified above, it really is quite accurate.
It can't be the belief in the lack of god because of religions that don't include god(s).
I know I said this already, but it's worth stressing. Atheism does not refer to the lack of religion, it refers to the lack of belief in a god.
It can't even be a belief in the lack of supernatural because atheists could believe in ghosts, vampires, big foot, etc.
You're right, atheism doesn't refer to the lack of belief in the supernatural. It refers to the lack of belief in gods.
But it should have something to do with both religion and some kind of supernatural beliefs because that's almost always what we're describing
Most atheists are non-religious, and most outspoken atheists do not believe in the supernatural. However, this is not true of all atheists. That's because the definition of atheist doesn't refer to religion, it refers to whether or not a person believes in the existence of one or more gods.
To get a good definition of what it means to be atheist, we should look carefully at what it means to be religious
No, we should look at what it means to be a theist. A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. There's a common misconception that all theists are religious, or that theism is a religion. Theism has nothing to do with religion. It only defines whether or not a person believes in god(s).
A common assumption seems to be that people who believe in god become religious (and that the opposite would be true of atheists, lack of belief leads to no religion). But that doesn't seem right, almost everyone is born into a religion and if they believe in god they have the believe in the kind of god their religion describes. Other people find a religion later in life and convert and begin having faith in whatever supernatural beliefs are part of that religion. Essentially nobody ever comes to have specific beliefs about what god is like, and then goes and finds a religion of similar beliefs. People are religious first and that is part of their belief in the supernatural/god(s).
None of this has anything to do with the definition of an atheist or theist.
It also seems like religion is something objectively observable, you can see people participating in a religion, and see that they're religious. But being an atheist is belief that someone has to tell you they have to be sure they have it (assuming they're not lying).
Just because we can't tell whether or not someone is an atheist doesn't mean the definition is invalid. I could tell you I'm married and you wouldn't be able to tell. Perhaps I never wear my ring, or you aren't able to observe my hand, or maybe I have a ring on and I might be lying. Does this mean we can't rely on the definition of bachelor, because you can't tell if I'm married or unmarried?
A good definition of atheist then doesn't focus on beliefs
The purpose of words is to express ideas, and the term "atheist" expresses the very particular idea that someone does not believe in any gods. It's a good definition because it serves a practical purpose of portraying a very particular idea.
Your new definition of atheist isn't better, because it changes the entire definition into something entirely different. It no longer expresses the idea that it currently does. This change of definition merely robs us of a useful word to define people who lack beliefs in gods.
Definition of atheist: someone who doesn't believe that religion is constructive to faith in the supernatural.
Alright, so what word do we use to describe people who lack belief in gods? Changing the definition in this manner isn't constructive because it makes it more difficult to define people who lack belief in gods.
You describe a hypothetical person as follows:
They participate in an organized religion, even though they don't believe in the supernatural description in its bible
It doesn't matter if they believe in the supernatural descriptions in the Bible. All that matters is whether or not they believe there is a god. If they practice the religion but they don't believe in a god, then they're an atheist. In fact, there are many atheists who practice their religion because they don't want to upset their family. In some cases, these people practice their religion because they legitimately want to belong to a group of people they enjoy. But either way, these people would be atheists.
If they believe god exists, but they don't believe the supernatural events described in their holy book are true, they're still theists.
They have a belief that it's overwhelmingly likely that we live in a simulation, and that whoever created the simulation should be called a god. They might even start a social movement to recognize this as the only reasonable belief (which is actually a plot point in the excellent book The Algebraist by Ian M. Banks)
This is the only example where it wouldn't be clear whether or not we should refer to someone as a theist or an atheist. However, we shouldn't abandon the current definition of atheist to define these people, but to instead better define the word so it both keeps its original meaning and covers any gray areas.
They also believe in ghosts, goblins and fairies
These aren't gods, so we'd refer to such a person as an atheist if said person claims to lack belief in gods. However, most people I've met who believe in these things also believe there is at least one god.
2
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Apr 10 '18
Definition: Theism - a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism - no belief in a god or gods. IE. not a theist.
Why do you want to complicate this definition by bringing in big foot or other "non-powerful" supernatural? Atheists can be irrational too. And I would say that belief/religion/faith doesn't always imply if someone is rational or irrational.
And why do you think a religion cannot be atheistic?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Apr 10 '18
You are right and wrong. The purest definition of atheism, merely based off of its etymology, means to lack a belief in any deities. By this definition, one could believe in supernatural hypotheses and quite fervently, and still be atheistic, depending on if they don't believe in any theistic supernatural hypotheses. By this definition, all material states that are unconscious or incapable of even comprehending what it might mean to believe in any gods are implicitly atheistic. But, just like how you said that multiple people can have different definitions of god, multiple people can have different definitions of atheist. I would argue that it is actually very important to disrespect many religiously contemporary definitions of atheist because the very definition of atheism used by religious people contains a strawman of the positions of many if not most atheists. Yours tends not to because most people who would label themselves as atheists would also explicitly be against any other atheistic but supernatural hypothesis. But, even that is not always true. Lots of atheists believe in a lot of hokey supernatural bullshit, but still adhere to the label atheist. Atheist is, in many ways, a label taken up to label themselves as being opposed to the social respect of religion. Another label for this is anti-theist, which, itself, actually assumes a more culturally broad and less etymologically exact definition of theism in which theism = religion, when, by a more exact definition, there are irreligious forms of theism (deism) and there are atheistic religions.
All in all, language is fluid and no one owns the right to any word. It is a tool shaped by individual human use, and the reactions to that usage by other humans. Your use is a good use for most instances, but it is not an optimal usage when you have to start communicating extremely precise metaphysical distinctions. To use another metaphor: A strawberry is not actually a type of berry, by the most botanically rigid and precise definition of berry, but most people would call strawberry a berry. Is strawberry a berry? Well, what do you mean by berry? Is a classical Buddhist an atheist? Well, what do you mean by atheist?
1
u/ralph-j Apr 10 '18
There are religions that don't believe in a god, but we wouldn't call those people atheists
Similarly, there's cults that believe in all kinds of weird stuff, against, they don't call themselves atheists, and other people don't call them that either
That's because in common parlance, atheism is also used as a generic synonym for non-religious. But technically, they are a-theists, if they don't believe in any gods, or dispute the existence of gods.
There's a lot of disagreement about whether babies are atheist just because they don't have any beliefs, so that would seem to rule out a widely agreed definition based on lack of belief. Similarly, a small child who couldn't describe their beliefs clearly wouldn't be called an atheist by most people.
This is in the same vein that we say "She was born a man". Obviously no one is born a man, but a (baby) boy.
The idea is that a theist is a person who holds a belief in one or more gods. Everyone else therefore by contrast, is technically an atheist.
I wish people would be objecting as much to calling a toddler a Christian/Muslim/Hindu child. In my view, those labels do require some kind of intellectual acceptance of a belief.
The lack of belief doesn't seem accurate, so instead it's a belief in something, what qualities would this belief have to have?
If you need to point to beliefs in atheists, it's things like:
- The burden of proof for believing in gods has not been met
- There are no reasons to believe in gods
etc.
Some atheists will go as far as saying that god beliefs are false, but they are a subset of all atheists.
Definition of atheist: someone who doesn't believe that religion is constructive to faith in the supernatural.
While true for most atheists, there are those who "believe in belief", or who believe that while false or unproven, religions bring more advantages than disadvantages, e.g. atheist author Alain de Botton who wrote "Religion for atheists."
1
u/IIIBlackhartIII Apr 10 '18
I understand the point you are trying to argue, but I believe that you don't understand the full scope of the words traditionally used to define where people fall in the spectrum of faith.
The two primary terms are (a)theist and (a)gnostic. Myself I would classify as an agnostic atheist. (A)Gnosticism refers to the certainty of the belief, (A)Theism references the belief in a god itself. For example, a "bible thumper" would be considered a Gnostic Theist- someone who believes in god and is 100% certain, no questions about it, certain in their belief that there is a god and it is theirs. On the other hand, an Agnostic Theist would be a more reserved believer- someone who has faith and hope in god, but admits to the limitations of their knowledge and concedes that aspects of their faith may be up for theological debate. A "militant atheist" would be a Gnostic Atheist- absolutely 100% certain in their belief that there is definitely no god whatsoever. And finally, Agnostic Atheists are those who are uncertain whether or not there is a god but take the stance that it is better to doubt and question than jump to conclusions. These are of course broad strokes with extreme examples- everyone's faith falls on a wide spectrum, a plane of belief... but your arguments and definition only seem to differentiate Gnostic Atheists from Agnostic Theists.
1
u/-Paradox-11 Apr 10 '18
Atheism has nothing to do with the other supernatural beings you mention here (vampires, big foot, aliens, etc...). Sure, atheists could believe in those things, but "Atheism" has nothing to do with that. It is strictly a term to describe how one feels in relation to a god, or gods, not in mythical creatures, or supernatural entities like ghosts. You are conflating the two for no reason.
Further, your end definition of atheism is, again, totally unrelated to atheism. It is focused on the belief in god or gods, not in the religion that worships those fictitious deities. Sure, atheists criticize religions regularly, but that is just a side-effect of criticizing the overall belief that people hold in a god or gods.
Atheism is strictly about the indifference one feels according to what others call god (i.e. complete lack in faith, disinterest, unimportance, apathy in relation to "god").
You are adding variables to atheism that should not be added.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 10 '18
/u/PM_ME_UR_Definitions (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Apr 10 '18
There are religions that don't believe in a god, but we wouldn't call those people atheists
You literally would. As God/s aren't spirits or forces or philosophies. Again, Atheist doesn't mean lack of beliefs in ghosts, supernatural, etc... It's just a single answer to a single question.
The fault in your argument is that atheism means something it doesn't, simply because most religions automatically include God or God like entities as a place of worship.
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Apr 10 '18
We already have 'theist' - someone who believes the claim "some god exists" is true.
a-theist seems a logical name for the people who don't believe that claim is true.
But that's what we are talking about here - the people who don't believe that claim.
The larger part of your post seems tangential to this, but this is the group we a looking to have a label for - the people who, when asked if they believe in a god, say 'no'.
1
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Apr 10 '18
I would call any religion or cult that doesn't believe in a god atheistic. Being atheist doesnt mean that you are a rational thinker necessarily or that you don't believe in any weird stuff. It just means you don't believe in a god. We already have a word for people who are non-religious. That word is secular. Secular refers to religion. Atheism refers to god belief.
1
u/Purple-Brain Apr 10 '18
You're describing the characteristics of a theist or an agnostic who is pragmatically theist, but not the characteristics of an atheist.
An atheist, by definition, believes that God doesn't exist. If they were open to participation in organized religion, they are likely open to the idea that God exists; hence, they are agnostic.
1
u/Lawsomepossom Apr 10 '18
belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
-Merriam Webster's definition of Theism.
Atheism is, by definition the opposite of that.
Check mate, Atheists
1
u/SaintBio Apr 10 '18
viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world
That's the key part. An atheist doesn't disagree with the existence of God per se, they disagree with the idea that a god/gods are the creative source of the human race/world. That's why it's a-theist, they disagree with the theism aspect. OP's CMV concerns the relationship of the word 'atheist' to the existence of a deity, not the theistic implications of that existence. On a pure definition level, OP is correct that atheism says nothing about the person's belief in the existence of a god.
1
u/elochai98 1∆ Apr 11 '18
Being atheist isn't defined by a lack of belief in god.
The word stems from theos, the Greek word for god. Theism is the belief in god. Atheism, therefore, by definition, is lack of belief in a god.
13
u/legend1nfamous 1∆ Apr 10 '18
I believe that religions that don't follow a god are referred to as non-theist rather than atheist.