I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves. Few theists are prepared to carry this burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to atheists.
Read Article: Myth: Defining Atheism as a 'Lack of Belief in God' is a Cop Out
>if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it’s not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.
I don’t go out of my way to argue with theists. But I can say that the few debates I’ve engaged in have almost all included a segment where the theist, unable to present compelling proof for his/her claim, finally chimes in with: “Well, you can’t prove there is no god!”
My response is ALWAYS: “Please show me where I made the claim there is no god during our dialogue. I believe you’ll find I never said that. All I’ve done is present my responses to why I view your reasons for believing a god exists are invalid.”
This is closely followed with accusations that I’m not an atheist. Although, if they were intellectually honest, they would have to admit that at the outset, they would have agreed that “An atheist is a person who doesn’t believe a god exists.” I honestly don’t think they ever take issue with this definition–UNTIL they find themselves in the hole of being unable to defend their claims.
If a theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, then obviously an atheist is simply one who does not.
Anyone who looks for the word “theist” will see that it doesn’t describe someone who “knows” there is a god, it is always described in the terms of “belief in a god.”
Theists believe in the existence of a god, atheists don’t.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist
Great article. I have never understood why “believers” work so hard in convincing me that their beliefs are equivalent with truth. I don’t try to convince them NOT to believe in their god(s), because I really don’t care what a person believes in. Perhaps at some level, even the most devout believer subconsciously realizes that their faith is make-believe and they are actually trying to convince themselves.
“It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously.” -Galen Strawson http://www.bartleby.com/66/45/56645.html
Perhaps i just read this too fast and didn’t get your point but isn’t atheism a conviction that their is no God? If its a conviction then its presumed you might have some reasoning for that belief, even if that reason is lack of sufficient evidence; at which point I thought you would fall in the “agnostic” camp. Maybe you have written something on that already – I’m new here so I don’t know. To define it as a lack of belief indicates that you hold its probable that a god exists (even if unknowable) in which case it seems you fall in the “agnostic” camp. So to claim atheism as your conviction is to make a positive claim and thus one which requires proof. Mind you, I also think theists have this responsibility.
Hi Austin, good day to you. Why is the reason that you all emphasize more on christianity rather the most dreadful treat to whole humanity which is the rise of fundamental islam in the west?
I’m happy that found your blog, should come back soon to your atheism encyclopedia again.
I appreciate your point about the rhetorical strategy of theists who try to narrow the definition of “atheism” to the positive denial of the existence of any god, but I am not sure how much your own preferred definition of it as lack of belief in the existence of any god achieves.
I grant that there are plenty of people who have no opinion at all about the truth of either of the propositions “Some god exists” and “No god exists.” I grant that there are historical grounds for interpreting the term “atheist” to include these people, rather than merely those who deny the first proposition (”Some god exists”) and affirm the second (”No god exists”). But it is my impression that the great majority of people who identify themselves as atheists are of the latter description: they are not without opinion on the question whether God, or some god, exists, but are of the opinion that none does. Granted, they do not necessarily claim to know this to be the case; but they consider it to be the only reasonable conclusion from the available evidence. So, whatever the definition of the term “atheism” may be, is it not the case that most self-described atheists hold the very belief that theists impute to them, namely that there is no god?
It achieves accuracy, because it is the standard definition in unabridged dictionaries and it is the definition used by atheist going back through the 18th century.
Whether that is the case or not depends entirely upon how “god” is defined. When it is undefined, the former description is more common. That’s because a smart person knows that they can’t have much of an opinion on the existence of some alleged entity that has not been defined. Undefined, what would you be denying?
No.
Hi Austin, good day to you. Why is the reason that you all emphasize more on christianity rather the most dreadful treat to whole humanity which is the rise of fundamental islam in the west?
I’m happy that found your blog, should come back soon to your atheism encyclopedia again.
Because there are far more fundamentalist and theocratic Christians in the West and there are far more of a threat to life, liberty, and happiness. It’s not Muslims who are actively and successfully getting the government to promote their religion in America, it’s Christians. It’s not Muslim neighbors which atheists must fear if they dare challenge majority practices, it’s Christian neighbors.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/a/BeginnersBasics.htm
No, it’s the absence of belief in gods.
Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge of gods; it’s compatible with both atheism and theism because knowledge is a separate issue from belief.
No. A lack of belief in the truth of some proposition connotes absolutely no opinion on the probability of the truth of that proposition. A person can lack the belief that a proposition is true and still think it likely, think it unlikely, or not have any opinion on it.
No, because agnosticism carries no opinion on the probability of the truth of the proposition “at least one god of some sort exists.” Some agnostics may think it likely and other may think it unlikely.
I recommend this for you: Atheism for Beginners.
Almost all religious types have trouble making or giving honest definitions.
Try telling a christian that you define him/her as, “Someone who believes in and follows jeezus”, and you will still meet with resistance, despite how innocuous and uninsulting that definition is. Most christians don’t like it because it doesn’t allow them to separate and disparage christians that they don’t like (e.g. it prevents baptists claiming “catholics aren’t christians”).
As for the definition of atheist, I refuse to acceded to any definitions that includes the word “god” singular; it has to say “gods” plural, and speak of them all as non-existent, not as disbelief. To speak of “god” in singular or disbelief is to give ground to monotheists; all “gods” are equally false, the abrahamic “god” as false as Zeus, Kanaloa or Quetzalcoatl.
.
Quoting Austin Cline, comment 8:
I don’t know which unabridged dictionaries you have in mind, but the Oxford English Dictionary furnishes illustrations of the use the words “atheism” and “atheist” dating back to the 16th century, and neither the illustrations nor the definitions decide the contest between the definition that you favor and the one that theists favor. From the entry for “atheist”:
The entry for “atheism” says, to similar effect:
In both cases, the definition includes denial of the existence of God as part of the meaning (”denial or disbelief”); in the first entry, some of the illustrations (those from Golding, Rowlands, and Gladstone) favor this element over the alternative; in the second entry, they neither favor it nor disfavor it. So the most authoritative historical dictionary of the English language does not support your position. It seems to me that the issue is a rhetorical contest and not a lexicographical question.
Okay, I did not appreciate this point before. Your point is that atheists, including those who so identify themselves, if presented with the proposition “Some god exists,” are not obliged either to affirm it or to deny it, as the meaning of the crucial term “god” is subject to so much variation.
But what happens when the theist gives content to the term “god” (or “God”), e.g., by saying “I mean the God of the Bible (Jewish or Christian),” “I mean the God of Christian (Jewish, Muslim, Abrahamic) tradition,” “I mean an intelligent creator and ruler of the universe,” or something along those lines? Will atheists still say to each of these questions that they have no opinion about the existence of a being of that description? It seems to me that most self-described atheists have a decided opinion that there is no such being.
Hi Austin,
Thanks for your links. I’ll check them out soon.
I was interested in your response (#9) about the threat of Christianity. Could you provide some reason to why you feel this way? I mean, just how does Christianity threaten liberty and peace and life and happiness. Sure Christian’s might be surrounding you and annoying you with their point of view. But we’re hardly cutting your head off for dissenting.
Recently I saw a post that indicates that not all secularists share your perspective and that in fact they (at least this one) believes that Judeo-Christian values are actually what allows you to have a blog of this nature in the first place. Interesting read at the least – http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/secularisms_ongoing_debt_to_ch.html
Just search the site for “church/state separation” and “dominionism.”
I already addressed that: “It’s not Muslims who are actively and successfully getting the government to promote their religion in America, it’s Christians. It’s not Muslim neighbors which atheists must fear if they dare challenge majority practices, it’s Christian neighbors.”
Neither are Muslims.
Why do you think John D. Steinrucken is a secularist? Just because he says he doesn’t mean he is. I’m not sure he even comprehends the difference between secularism and atheism — something that is common among evangelical Christians but highly unusual among secular atheists.
Do you have any reason to think he is right? Any reason why any of his claims should be given any consideration?
I can think of many reasons to dismiss his article with barely a second thought:
Streinrucken is 100% wrong here. The least religious nations in the industrialized west are the safest, healthiest, and happiest; the most religious are the least safe, least healthy, and least happy. That’s a fact and it’s indisputable. People may debate on what exactly the reasons are, but one thing is clear: it unambiguously disproves the idea that religion is needed to stop crime or provide a moral compass.
What’s more, claiming that religion is necessary to provide a “moral compass to the great majority” is an insult against religious theists far greater than anything written by atheists like Richard Dawkins. Atheists like Dawkins merely argue that religion encourages too much evil; Steinrucken is saying that people like you can’t be trusted to not be evil without religion whereas superior people like him can manage just fine.
Prove it, Steinrucken
The 10 Commandments aren’t even in the running, never mind at the top of any list.
This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Steinrucken isn’t a secularist. A secularist would know that secularism isn’t any sort of full worldview or philosophy that would be expected to provide morality. Secularism is at the most a narrow political philosophy about the role of religion in politics; at its narrowest it’s about the role of religion in an individual’s life. No more.
If the best argument you can offer is a series of unsubstantiated assertions from an anonymous person who is clearly lying about themselves, then you’ve effectively admitted that you have no case to make. What’s especially disturbing about this, though, is the fact that you don’t seem to have exercised any critical judgement or skepticism when reading the essay. Did you simply post a link because it told you things you wanted to hear and already believe? Do you ever read anything critically or skeptically?
I’ve cited dozens, going back to the 19th century. Including the OED — which does indeed decide the matter:
Did you look up disbelieve?
And, just in case there is any doubt on the matter, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary offers this:
As I’ve already written:
Both the active and passive senses of “disbelief” are clearly distinct from “deny.”
On the contrary, that’s precisely what it does: it lists first the broad definition of atheism as simply not believing in any gods and second the narrow definition of denying the existence of gods.
How does that help? The first two provide little substantive information simply by the fact that there is so much variation in what Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe. The most we can tell is that they are talking about a single deity; beyond that, who knows? The third isn’t any better. There’s absolutely no information to allow for responding with an serious affirmation or denial.
First, Hellkid, I’d like to ask you to put something other than the URL between / and /. Not doing so plays havoc with reading this site from a limited-width device (like my phone).The title of the piece linked to or just a simple “here” would suffice.
Second, I did a quick search for the author of that piece (John D. Steinrucken), and I found nothing. His article was widely quoted and linked to from dozens of sites, but I found absolutely nothing from him before that article. If he is an author, commentator, or anyone with an online presence, then he should have come up with at least a facebook page. Given the lack of such, I’m inclined to believe that it’s a first-time pseudonym. This reeks of a poorly-done and poorly-reasoned apologist article.
Austin, it appears that you stopped refuting his points partway through the article. One of the more telling apologist/theist talking points comes up later, that of equivocating atheism and communism.
Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion. From the time of the philosophes with their certainties in 1789, the rationally thought-through utopias of those who think themselves the elite of the world, when actually put to the test, have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings.
The 1789 comment has me confused, and the best I can come up with is the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man”. However, the “utopias” that “caused huge sufferings” is clearly a reference to the USSR and Chinese “workers’ paradise”. Such topics have already been discussed and refuted in depth elsewhere on this site.
He seems to be also playing on the anti-intellectualism that is so strong in some communities, further reducing the value of his own “well-thought out” arguments.
In fact, this man is possibly the one that theists refer to when they talk about atheists that “aren’t really atheists”. His document reads like the essay that theists are so desperate to hear from atheists, but never get. He also seems to be under-educated on the basic arguments for and against theism, so I am inclined to disbelieve his assertion of atheism myself. He instead seems to be at best a self-hating theist, playing at atheism to make his claims seem more acceptable to any actual atheists reading the article.
The definition of atheism is irrelevant. If an atheist makes a claim, then the atheist has a burden of proof. If atheists make claims and then use the “absence of belief” definition to shield themselves from a burden of proof, then the atheists are being dishonest. And that is precisely what theists are objecting to.
Is that why theists keep misdefining atheism?
Of course. Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
Can you point to anyone who has done this?
Not if no one is doing it.
Have atheists stopped sexually abusing women? If we’re going to use irrelevant loaded questions, we might as well make them fun, eh?
It is sometimes necessary to state the obvious.
Nearly every atheist who has uttered, “There is no evidence.”
“No one” is ambiguous. To whom does it refer?
Since it is a fact that it is common for theists to misdefine atheism, the question is not “loaded” — it’s relevant and legitimate.
Sometimes. Feel free to demonstrate why it was necessary this time.
That’s too vague to take seriously. Please, point to a specific and clear case of an atheist using “absence of belief” to shield themselves from a burden or proof.
I am referring to atheists. Specifically, I am saying that theists are not raising a legitimate or substantive objection by saying “lack of belief is a cop out” if there aren’t any atheists who are using “absence of belief” to shield themselves from a burden of proof. A complaint about something that isn’t occurring isn’t a legitimate complaint; it is instead a mask for something else.
After all, when challenged to point out such atheists, you not only fail but you don’t even try. Saying “nearly every atheist who has uttered ‘there is on evidence’ is worthless because if I point to one who isn’t using that to shield themselves, you can always say “well, that’s just one of the exceptions.” You’re trying to support a claim with “evidence” that is designed to be immune from serious evaluation or critique, which means that you’re delicately evading your own burden of proof while complaining about alleged atheists who are allegedly not shouldering their own burden of proof.
You’ve made a specific allegation and you’ve obligated yourself to support it. If you don’t, you actually bolster the argument I’m making in the article I link to above and further demonstrate that complaints about the standard definition of atheism are nothing more than theists whining about their own inability to support their claims and desperately trying to shift the burden of proof because they don’t know what else to do.
It may or may not be a legitimate question, but it is irrelevant to my argument.
It was necessary to preempt counters about atheists having no burden of proof.
Done.
How about we stick to the arguments rather than the person, um k?
Since the primary topic here is theists misrepresenting and misdefining atheism, the question is automatically relevant.
Now, what is your argument supposed to be such that a relevant question becomes irrelevant?
This assumes you were going to hear such “counters.” Any reason to think you were?
And where do you see there anyone using ‘absence of evidence” to shield themselves from a burden of proof? All I see is someone explaining that the skeptical position of not accepting some proposition as true doesn’t have any burden of proof because they aren’t making any positive assertions. This is correct. If you make a claim and I decline to believe it, you have a burden of proof which I do not. Not until I use “there is no evidence” as a reason to think your claim is false do I assume any serious obligation to prove anything.
That would be a reasonable request if you weren’t proving to be the sort of person who makes claims they can’t support and who asserts standards for others they wouldn’t accept for themselves. In such circumstances, the credibility of the person in question is a highly relevant and appropriate matter to bring up.
Granted, even the complete absence of credibility on the part of person doesn’t necessarily invalidate an argument they make and their argument must be addressed independently. However, you haven’t actually offered a clear, coherent argument yet. You’ve alluded to having one, but you’ve yet to present it. You’ve asserted that “theists are objecting” to some behavior on the part of atheists, but you haven’t established that is occurring. You’ve asserted that “nearly every atheists who has uttered ‘there is no evidence’” is actually just using ‘absence of evidence” to shield themselves from a burden of proof, but after being challenged to support this you can only come up with one example and even that doesn’t appear to contain the behavior you allege.
So in the absence of a clear argument with premises, inferences, and evidence, your credibility is all that’s left — and there isn’t much of that.
My posts deal with the misrepresentation of the theist claim found within the original post. Thus, the question is not relevant to my post(s).
Experience.
From the article:
Again, done.
Funny, but you haven’t pointed to any actual misrepresentations of anything which anyone has said. To do so, you would have to quote my words then explain how they do not fairly or accurately express what theists really say.
So long as the underlying question is how atheism is defined, my question is necessarily relevant. What’s more, I think it is very directly relevant to your position because everything you write makes more sense if one assumes an incorrect definition of atheism.
Here?
I don’t think you read very closely.
In this article, the “presumption of atheism” is a specific application of a “presumption of skepticism,” which the author defines as “holding off believing in the claim until it can be demonstrated to be true.” Thus the “presumption of atheism” is simply “holding off believing that some alleged god exists until said existence can be demonstrated to be true.”
This is clearly not a claim which comes with any burden of proof. A person who doesn’t accept some claim as true does not need to prove anything. They are justified in not accepting a claim as true when there is an absence of sound evidence for that claim. Unless and until the claim is supported, the most sensible option is to hold off accepting the claim until matters change.
That’s all atheism is: simply not accepting the belief in any gods. It’s only if one misdefines atheism as something more narrow, like “denial of gods,” that it would understandable if you read “presumption of atheism” as supporting your assertion. Thus we return to the original question of misdefining atheism.
It’s not a “personal attack” to point out when a person is hypocritical, lacks credibility, or fails to support their claims. A personal attack would be something like “you’re stupid” or “you’re deluded.” In contrast, saying “your failure to adhere to your own standards undermines your credibility” speaks directly to how seriously your arguments can or should be treated.
Of course not. When challenged to prove that “Nearly every atheist who has uttered, ‘There is no evidence’” is using “absence of belief” to shield themselves from a burden or proof, the best you can manage is a single link to a single article where the author unambiguously asserts something radically different from what you attribute to them.
Far from making a positive assertion then trying to hide from the burden of proof which comes with that assertion, they are simply pointing out that so long as a person merely refrains from accepting a claim as true, the burden of proof lies with the one offering the claim in the first place.
Even worse, when it’s pointed out that your continued failure to support your claim and reject the standards you insist for others carries negative implications for your credibility, you whine about “personal attacks” — as if it were somehow illegitimate to make reference to a person’s reasoning skills, honesty, or credibility.
On the contrary, since one’s credibility in a context like this is founded upon their ability to adhere to basic standards of ethics and reasoning, it is something that is absolutely critical to whether or not one can be taken seriously and is something that one should zealously protect. No one should carelessly and needlessly throw it away as you have done.
If I were guilty of so much, I’d want to escape the “dicussion” as quickly as possible too.
I can’t distinguish between a belief in an unseen yet all seeing entity “G”od above and beyond all mere local individual contingencies, and belief in an unseen yet all seeing entity “S”ociety above and beyond all mere local individual contingencies.
Especially after reading Durkheim.
For example…
It’s become popular for religious conservatives to use the label ‘godless’ as an attack, but there’s nothing inherently negative about it. On the contrary, secularism and godlessness can be positive and important attributes not just for one’s personal life, but for society,
“Godlessness” does not imply ‘free from religions beliefs in unseen yet all seeing entitities’ if that Godlessness yet includes a belief in “S”ociety as an animate entity above and beyond all mere local individual contingencies…
Mystic Spirit in the sky religion is religion. “S”ociety is God, and the state is its proper church” is still a theocracy, not a secular state.
America is a theocracy. The 1st Amendment was long agi pierced. Social Scientology dressed up its boogeyman religion and called itself a science.
That didn’t work for ‘Christian Scientists’, or ‘Scientologists’, but it worked for the Social Scientologists, who learned the lesson of the vampire religion: if you want to over-run a secular nation, then you dare not speak the name of your religion in the light of day.
Do rational, godless, secular athiests yet cling to their belief in “S”ociety?
If some do, on what basis do they leglift their True Believerism over other Magic Unseen Spirit based religions?
Dictionaries, are by and large written by a class of people called descriptivists. They record how language is (ab)used. They don’t care what a word means, they care about how it’s used, no matter how wrong it is. Which is why impact has an entry that says “effect” when that’s just plain wrong. They think they do this as a kindness and they excuse it under the guise of “langwidjiz evolve LOLOLOOOLO!”. What they don’t know is that they are codifying ignorance and making communication harder. They are crippling people who recieve substandard education. Dooming the young and underprivileged to appear stupid.
You didn’t define irrelevant, so I define nothing, whatsoever that I can ‘testify’ to being happy to count on Any ‘Famous’ Church, on the other hand, if Buddha has to exist, with MY pleasure, This Perfect One is still & just A Symbol & A Repetition to me of my good attitude, the one that I always hang onto, so that I can of course become & believe in & as much as possible about, what The Perxxdious don’t mean by me that I can call mine own & most self relevant decision, anyway, totally individual choices, as far, as I’M concerned!
I have to say that the proof of the non-existence of gods is much sipler than folks think!
It has to do with belief, the basis of god, the reason this is simple is that belief is bogus, it has no way of providing proof of any kind and is based on childrens fantasies, like tyhe child that believs his teddy bear is alive because he talks th his buddy the teddy bear, does the act of talking to the teddy bear and the belief that the teddy bear listens make the teddy bear alive and an individual?
The answer is no!
The ONLY proof that theists have is their faith in thier belief, and since belief is nothing more than pretending that pretending is something more than pretending, it has no basis as any form of reality!
the other fact is that Judaism is based on the idea that your belief makes god exist, this is an area that christians get VERY confused about, and Jews seem to believe this concept is accepted in general, and this is the proof folks! it is that simple, the inventers of mono-theism hold it as fact that if they stop believing in god he will cease to exist, THIS is the basis of the Abrahamic traditions, and by their own beliefs it is just make belive, some thing that was considered an act of magic by the Romans at the supposed time of christ!
To put it very simple, the people that invented these religions were morons and those that originaly followed these religions were even stupider!
The main problem here is that you expect inteligence from the retarded, that will never happen because its physicaly impossible!
As far as the Bible Thumpers go, if they were geniuses, they’d call them geniuses!
Of course. Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
If atheists make claims and then use the “absence of belief” definition to shield themselves from a burden of proof, then the atheists are being dishonest.
Can you point to anyone who has done this?
I use the above as a quote to answer it. YES.. if it makes theists happy, then I freely admit to more than an “abscence of belief”. I don’t have an “absensce of belief”, I have a STRONG belief that there are no deities, divine creators, prophets etc.
To me, this is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak (which wrongly implies a perjorative) is the abscence of belief, and most weak atheists aren’t usually overly vocal in stating their beliefs, or abscence thereof, one way or another.
I (and many others) defined as “strong atheists” do speak openly about the belief that god is nothing more than a fairytale. You can call me a militant atheist if you like; I daresay it will make theists happy!
Now, it is inevitable that the burden of proof shifts to me at this point, to “prove” that something doesn’t exist. I can point to all the same science as Dawkins, Hitchens; I can philosophise all day long. I prefer to use the same argument that religious people fall back on; I just “know” there are no gods.. I “feel” the lack of divine intervention, in the suffering I see around me. I “know” god isn’t talking to me, and if he ever does, I will seek medical help.
So I am a case in point. My belief isn’t absent. It’s strong and present. It just doesn’t tally with the belief of theists.
Christians “know” god exists, and that Jesus is “lord”… I “know” he doesn’t, and isn’t resectively.
As far as imperical evidence goes, neither “side” is EVER going to “win the debate” so to speak, short of a massive scientific discovery (which wouldn’t be enough for theists), or a massive face in the sky proclaiming his name to be god, in which case I daresay most atheists will happy concede the point (unlike their religious counterparts).
I do believe, however, that there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to suggest that there are no deities. Evolution can be debated, but it isn’t going to alter the evidence available any more than debating gravity. They are both “theories”, and both factual, although creationists will deny the former vehemently. I believe in the physical, chemical, biological & mathematical evidence which says divine intervention is implausible, if not impossible.
MKR (comment 12), if it’s 18th century quotes on atheism you’re looking for, how about this one:
“All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.” (Baron d’Paul Henry Thiry Holbach, Good Sense, 1772)