I have written much on the meaning of the term “Atheism” and yes, even such a seemingly simple issue is hotly debated: see first two sections here sections and Atheism’s Sects and History of Atheism.
As for the “lack of belief” pop-neo-definition, I previously noted that the Atheist author of the evilbible site has refers to a “few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for defining Atheism as such.
The Atheist author of the now apparently dead and gone site The Philosopher’s Groan was slightly more eloquent in noting that “the word ‘atheist’ has changed several times in history” and that “a ‘lack of belief’ in gods…definition is confused, and should be retired…we ought to reserve the word ‘atheist’ for active disbelief in the existence of gods…atheism is the end result of rejecting – but not necessarily denying.”
He also comments on the claim that “a ‘lack of belief’ isn’t a belief” which “seems to be a confusion between the folk concept of ‘belief’” with the folksy view being “something like ‘an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof’. The philosophical definition is something like ‘a mental state that represents a state of affairs which is accepted as true by the believer’.”
It is noted that “a belief…just tells me that you think the world is a certain way. It shouldn’t conjure up the spectre of ‘acceptance without evidence’, which is confusing it with ‘faith’.” Yet, here I will noted that, at least as far as the Bible is concerned, “faith” is based on prior knowledge: it is tantamount to reaching a conclusion—see What is “faith”?
Furthermore, “the rejection of a claim doesn’t mean accepting the opposite” since “While it is true that ‘believing X’ and ‘believing not-X’ aren’t the only options, I disagree that the middling position of ‘not believing X’ is a useful definition of atheism.” Thus, “If a mere ‘lack of belief in god’ is sufficient to be an atheist, then babies are atheists. You might say ‘yes, they are, or at least were before religion got its mitts on them!’ But on this definition chimps are also atheists. As are dolphins, dogs, and doors. They all lack belief in a god…the etymology of the word ‘atheism’ breaks down to ‘a-‘ meaning ‘without’ and ‘-theos’ meaning ‘gods’…it is a great example of what I call the ‘fetishisation of etymology’.”
Of course, it is being assumed that, as per any definition, chimps, dolphins and dogs are also Atheists. Indeed, this just goes to show how the definition of “Atheism” is important. I have previously noted that if Atheists want to argue, as they often do, that all human babies are Atheists then well, if they want to admit that Atheism is based on the level of intellectualism of which an infant is capable then—have at it.
As I read this philosopher I thought about something that he actually ended up noting which is “In the first few centuries CE [an anti-Christian way to say “AD], the word ‘atheist’ was used by polytheistic pagans to describe Christians, who they were ridiculing.”
Lastly, he noted, “It is possible to prove a negative by demonstrating a logical contradiction: there are no married bachelors, or square circles…If the concept of god is incoherent, then the thing it points to can’t exist. And that’s the end of the story.” Also, “it’s possible to argue for a negative with an ‘absence of evidence’ argument. If X exists, I should expect to find evidence Z. If evidence Z isn’t found, X is not likely to exist. While not irrefutable, we don’t need it to be to say with a high probability that X doesn’t exist.”
This brings us to this next issue about which another philosopher named Eve Keneinan also wrote in You Can’t Prove a Negative, “that ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a kind of urban legend of logic that floats around the internet. It isn’t true, however…‘you can’t prove a negative’ is itself a negative claim, so if it were true, it could not be proven to be true, according to itself…This silly ‘you can’t prove a negative’ claim needs to die” and “‘you can’t prove a negative!’ is code for ‘you can’t prove I’m wrong, so I’ll continue to think I’m right!”
Another philosopher named Steven D. Hales refers to the claim under consideration as being “folk logic.” He points out that “Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.”
He also notes that “‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh…any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P…Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation, you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative.”
In fact, “it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give” since “The only way to prove…is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum.” And “one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.”
This is because “Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists.”
He also notes that “The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises.” Thus, to claim that “the sun will rise tomorrow…we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives.”
Also, an Atheist wrote, The Burden of Proof is on the Atheist Redux and assured us that “atheism is the reasonable conclusion to draw, and that anyone who hasn’t yet, should…I think that anyone who doesn’t draw the atheist conclusion has probably gone off the tracks somewhere.”
With that being said, “There simply are no universal standards of reasonableness whereby it would make any sense to say that anyone who doesn’t accept atheism is unreasonable or irrational…It is naïve to think that the Cartesian model applies to human reasoning whereby we start with nothing and then build up a network of justified beliefs one at a time. That’s neither an accurate picture of how we come by our beliefs, nor is it a plausible goal.”
To the above point about properly basic beliefs—“Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front”—it is noted “it’s the epistemic context that frames out the starting position for everyone as to what’s prima facie reasonable.” In litigious contexts prima facie refers to something that can be taken as is, for granted, properly basic, etc.
Moreover, “The atheist who scoffs that anyone who believes in God is stupid, foolish, unreflective, or in the grip of a psychiatric disorder simply hasn’t been paying attention and has been shirking their own epistemological responsibilities. This atheist is little better than the sulking and immature teenager who pouts that ‘Everyone is soooo stupid. They are such conformist sheep. I hate them.’”
This reminds me of Wired Magazine’s Gary Wolf who self-identifies as a lax agnostic, noncommittal nonbeliever and vague deist and noted:
“At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. ‘Who here is an atheist?’ I ask. Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, ‘I am!’ “But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: ‘You would be.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because you enjoy [irritating] people ….’ ‘Well, that’s true.’
“This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious.”
Also, Vox Day defined terms thusly, “Agnostic: I don’t believe there is a God. Because I haven’t seen the evidence. Atheist: There is no God. Because I’m an [***]hole.”
In any case, the Atheist Redux article goes on to note and admit, “atheists and atheism as a movement has got to grow up. (Unfortunately, I think some of Richard Dawkins evangelical, anti-theist vitriol may represent some backsliding. Nevertheless, I sure enjoy it.).”
It is also noted, “So atheists need to get out of the habit of dismissing all believers as ‘having no evidence at all.’ The believers don’t see themselves that way, and you just come off as dogmatic and irrational for saying it about them.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.