Question for 'lack of belief' atheists

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)? It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist. Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.

Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?
#2
Lit
Lit's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 58
0
1
4
Lit's avatar
Lit
0
1
4
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Good question. The idea of Gods have to be wrestled out of an individual's conscience, rather than wrestled in, and so the natural state of atheism would be believing that Gods don't exist. This would turn theism around too then, naturally, to mean that theists don't really believe God exists, but rather more of an affirmation of the idea. Theists don't just stick to believing that God exists and that's it - God existing usually entails a life conduct in some manner.
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Question for 'lack of belief' atheists  Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)?
I didn't know what either term meant, so I looked up Anthony Flew.

STANFORD ENCYLOPEDIA of PHILOSOPHY:

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.) Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist.
Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.  Why is this?
STANFORD again:
Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense.

Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics?
  • Because most people online are not academics, even reject the assumptions of academia.  Take CRT, for example.  Nobody who understands what CRT means in an academic sense would endorse censoring those conversations from academia.  FOX News positively rejects the academic sense of Critical Race Theory because they need to use that word as a dog whistle substitute for black discontent, which FOX News consistently portrays as a threat to White power and content.
  • Because words often have more than one meaning and words with academic senses often have non-academic senses.  Take EXISTENTIAL, for example.  There is a wide semantic gap between Sartre's philosophical use, "humans define their own existence" and the evening news' use "life-threatening."
  • Stanford suggests at least one political reason:  recognizing all definitions of Atheism as valid increases the numerical strength of Atheists and encourages solidarity and recognition as a single larger popular movement.
Especially those here, on a website designed for debating?
You won't find much academic rigor on this website and none, as far as I can tell, under the RELIGION forum. 

Why not use the definitions used in academia?
Well, semantic shifts are a classic debate technique.  You complain as if you have no responsibility in the matter.  Each debater is obligated to define terms up front, as conditional to the discussion.  If the instigator fails to define terms, the contenders should do so immediately and seize semantic control of the debate.  When you are debating ATHEISM, all you have to do is define ATHEISM academically (a perfectly legit approach), and let all argument proceed from there.  That way, if the proles start offering their street definitions and common understandings, you have grounds to toss those arguments away.


#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Academics are as Academics do.

They have a tendency to make stuff up and then over-egg it.  


Is this also just an exercise in academic waffle, or is there an underlying reason for your perplexity?
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?
Because language is not dictatorial.

Dictionaries document common usage.

Dictionaries do not create immutable concepts.
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Each debater is obligated to define terms up front, as conditional to the discussion.
Well stated.
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lit
Theists don't just stick to believing that God exists and that's it - God existing usually entails a life conduct in some manner.
Great point.

An APATHEIST doesn't really care if god(s) exist or not.
#8
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
Each debater is obligated to define terms up front, as conditional to the discussion.  If the instigator fails to define terms, the contenders should do so immediately and seize semantic control of the debate.  
Thank you for that. It is a good lesson to remember, prompting me to do so in my first debate challenge, as I figured to delay definitions until my first round argument. You've convinced me that doing so within the challenge has merit to allow a potential contender sufficient information to decide whether to engage the debate or not, rather than to be satisfied engaging a debate with no definitions, expecting that a contender might agree with my definitions ad hoc. That's expecting too much, I now see. Thanks! 

btw, might you be interested? I see you top the list in debate performance, and I would not shy away from such a challenge. Always engage a contest with someone better if you can, I say. Even losing can be very educational. There's merit in that.
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
btw, might you be interested? I see you top the list in debate performance, and I would not shy away from such a challenge
my next few debates are reserved and I have been procrastinating on initiating those for a long time.
#10
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The problem with the term atheist is that I know plenty of people that are involved in spirituality in witchcraft that will tell you their atheist. This tells me or they will say to you I don't believe in gods or I don't work with gods. That is a completely different scenario than the atheist that post here at this site. They believe in nothing spiritual. They do not believe in a soul, they do not believe in spiritual practices like meditation, they do not believe in the practices involved in witchcraft. There needs to be something that describes a full on atheist that believes in nothing other than themselves and the atheist that also has a spiritual practice because they are in no way shape or form the same animal.
#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
they do not believe in spiritual practices like meditation
I believe in meditation, I just don't understand what you mean by 'spiritual practice.' 
#12
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I believe in meditation, I just don't understand what you mean by 'spiritual practice.'

Spiritual is simply a term we use to define that which extends beyond the physical boundaries, meditation for example, is a tool that can be used to pull your attention in that direction. So it's considered a spiritual practice, but then again it might be limited by your ideas of the world. 
#13
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Any practice that allows you to focus in on exercising what you believe on a spiritual level. Meditation, reiki, spell work, ritual work, prayer, certain types of craftsmanship like blacksmithing and spending and weaving done as a way of honoring other your ancestors or certain gods or goddesses. Things of that nature. This might also include practices that you engage in to help yourself and others in the form of tarot, healing, mediumship, or psychic practices.
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Polytheist-Witch
Ok, so I don't know why meditation is considered any of that. When I meditate it's not to get beyond physical pboundaries, whatever that means in real life, and I don't know what "spiritual level" means vis a vis meditation, sorry. I do it because it's a way to enjoy the quiet, focus my thoughts. 
#15
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, so I don't know why meditation is considered any of that.

I know you don't know why, that's partly because of your own beliefs. You do know that meditation has been practiced by spiritual minded people for thousands of years right? ever heard of Buddhists or Hindus lol?

When I meditate it's not to get beyond physical pboundaries,

Well unbeknownst to you, you are. Because your conscious soul exists independent of the physical body, when you pull your attention beyond your immediate physical body to your inner being or soul, or conscious self you are reaching to that part of you that exists beyond physical boundaries. But because of the below, your practice will always be limited and shaded by your own beliefs. 

whatever that means in real life, and I don't know what "spiritual level" means vis a vis meditation, sorry. I do it because it's a way to enjoy the quiet, focus my thoughts. 


"but then again it might be limited by your ideas of the world."

#16
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Do you mean Quackademics?
#17
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


.
!!! ETRNLVW !!!

Just a "heads up" where unfortunately for you, and because of your Bible stupidity, Jesus and I had to make you the continued Bible fool RUNAWAY again within this forum when you had the audacity to enter my thread shown below and complain about it like the little pseudo-christian wussy boy that you are!

Yes, once again, instead of discussing said topic, you called me many foul names that goes directly against Jesus' words within the scriptures as I had shown!

Therefore, not to be totally embarrassed ONCE AGAIN as shown in the link below, stay out of my threads because your Bible ineptness does not warrant you being in them in the first place, understood Bible stupid fool?

You are excused once again in total embarrassment until the next time you step out of line.


NEXT?

#18
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,240
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)? It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist. Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.

Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?
Because they don't want to define atheism as a belief.

I find it is also common for online atheists to be Christ mythicists, even though the mythicist position is rejected by most academics in the field. Nothing says atheists must be in step with all things academia.

42 days later

#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I would wager it is because it is the only issue upon which people are asked to justify their disbelief of a proposition for which no sufficient evidence exists. If I say I believe there are no alien abductions or sasquatch no one asks me if I am sure of that to the nth degree and then treats my admission that no I don't have positive proof of the negative existence of sasquatch as evidence that I have closed my heart to bigfoot. Perhaps it is not atheists but theists who demand that definition or else accuse atheists of being intellectually dishonest. 
#20
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Castin
@TheMorningsStar
@oromagi

Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)? It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist. Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.

Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?
1) Most Atheists don't know that the lack of belief atheism is rejected by academia as a definition.
2) It is useful to have a term that describes lack of belief atheism. How else would you call those who don't believe in theism ? Personally see myself as an agnostic atheist. So I disbelieve theism, but with low certainty.
3) Some debating theists are unreasonable. They often want to shove the burden of proof on atheism when that is unjustified and defining atheists as a claim-making belief or even a religion helps. Atheists in general have no burden of proof because
   A) As Lit pointed out, there are no rules of conduct or a way of life associated with atheism. Praying 5 times a day towards Mekka is irrational unless it is done with good reason. Abstaining from eating from sunrise to sundown without good reason is irrational. Atheists on the other have nothing to justify that is specific for atheism. Whether one is certain there is no god or doesn't know whether there is a god makes little to no difference.
   B) Disbelief is often reasonable without evidence. That is usually because the positive claim is extraordinary. It is for example reasonable to believe there is no teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter even if one has no evidence for that.

Oromagi 3 quoting STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA of PHILOSOPHY to TheMonringStar
[ . . . ] His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms.  Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
Why wouldn't strong atheism fall under the umbrella of 'lack of belief' atheism ? Strong atheists also lack belief in a any god.

Polytheist-Witch 10 to TheMorningStar
The problem with the term atheist is that I know plenty of people that are involved in spirituality in witchcraft that will tell you their atheist. This tells me or they will say to you I don't believe in gods or I don't work with gods. That is a completely different scenario than the atheist that post here at this site. They believe in nothing spiritual. They do not believe in a soul, they do not believe in spiritual practices like meditation, they do not believe in the practices involved in witchcraft. There needs to be something that describes a full on atheist that believes in nothing other than themselves and the atheist that also has a spiritual practice because they are in no way shape or form the same animal.
The one who doesn't believe in anything supernatural would be the naturalist. However, the problem is that that term also implies a disbelief in anything supernatural rather than a lack of belief.

Castin to OP .
Because they don't want to define atheism as a belief.

I find it is also common for online atheists to be Christ mythicists, even though the mythicist position is rejected by most academics in the field. Nothing says atheists must be in step with all things academia.
What is a mythicist ?




#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Amoranemix
What is mythicist?
Just another data label we apply to a variable database.



So neurons fire and conditioned data is readily retrieved and applied.

And yet we are still no closer to an answer.



And so....Most religious hypotheses are largely embellished with nonsense.

Therefore I am awarded a badge.
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore I am awarded a badge.
🎖
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Why do you use this definition of atheist
Atheism defined as belief that there are no gods is a useless and inaccurate definition mainly for two reasons;

First is that god is one of the most Ill defined words in the English language. You ask 20 different people what they mean when they say they believe in a god and you’ll get 20 different answers.

Since the only requirement to being a theist is to believe in a god, any god, theism clearly isn’t tied to any specific definition of it. Therefore neither is atheism. So that requires atheism as you’re defining it to be the rejection of every god concept that has ever been conceptualized, an absurd position since there is no way that any one person could ever conceive of every god concept let alone give enough thought to each one in order to reject them all. 

The second reason is because defining atheism the way you are has no practical usage. Imagine 3 roommates; one believes there is a god, one believes there are no gods, and one has no belief either way. One of these is not like the other.

Only one of these individuals will pray at night, only one will go to church on Sunday, only one will potentially allow their belief in the divine to influence how they vote, what they believe about morality, or take seriously a 2,000 year old book.

The other two are functionally the same in every way. Both live their lives *as if* there were no gods because unless you actively hold a belief in one, there is no reason for any decision you make to be influenced by it. We live our lives according to what we believe to be real, not what we believe to be possible.

So looking at these three individuals, there is no reason to conjure up a definition that separates the last two. It serves no purpose. Im convinced that the only reason so many try is because theists cannot uphold their burden of proof so this is all nothing more than an attempt to invoke a false equivalence.