The Myth of Religious Neutrality

[physicsdude30]

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

Something to consider, words can mean different things to different people. Many linguists say a word is meaningful only to the extent that a group of people agree on a definition, so different groups may have different definitions.

However, it is quite common to use the term "agnostic atheism" for someone who doesn't have a belief in any gods but do not claim to have the knowledge or evidence that it's true there are no gods. This is different than "gnostic atheist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist"

Atheism has two parts to the word "theism" and "a". Theism means belief in a god and the "a" before means lack of. Then gnostic means claiming to have knowledge and the "a" before means lacking the claim of knowledge.

There's also "agnostic theism", instead of "gnostic theist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist"

 

[physicsdude30]

Again, atheism is not a religion. What they are doing, is not atheism. Atheism makes no claims about going around praising the moon cycle (or any of the other various nonsense rituals they state).



No, it's really not. It's a cite that talks about atheism mixed in with a load of horse manure.

Concerning that discussion you were having, you're correct that atheism is not a religion. All it is a lack of belief in a God/gods.

Although atheism isn't a religion and most always atheists don't have a religion, there are some religions who are atheist.

I find it interesting that there is "christian atheism", where they practice Christianity minus the "God" part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism"

Then also others, such as some denominations of Buddhism.

 

[brainstorm]

I find it interesting that there is "christian atheism", where they practice Christianity minus the "God" part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism"

Then also others, such as some denominations of Buddhism.

I've never thought of any form of Buddhism as being theist. And this also raises the point of whether atheists reject only belief in God or all forms of spiritual philosophy. This again raises my point that atheists are obsessed with God in rejecting theology. If theologies were simply treated as philosophies that philosophize about spirituality, life, and metaphysics by incorporating the idea of deity as a literary device, why would someone reject theology over other types of philosophy? Wouldn't that be like rejecting the philosophy of social power portrayed in Lord of the Rings because Hobbits and Elves don't really exist?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Something to consider, words can mean different things to different people.

Only a pedant would say that an atheist is an agnostic. The etymology might be on your side, but the meaning of the word abandons you. I have never heard anyone say "I don't believe in G-d" except to mean "I believe no G-d exists". It's like "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny". Who ever says "I believe the Easter Bunny doesn't exist"?

 

[Evo]

I've never thought of any form of Buddhism as being theist. And this also raises the point of whether atheists reject only belief in God or all forms of spiritual philosophy.

Pratical atheists would reject spirituality. They see no reason for it. There are people that say they feel spiritual without recognizing a deity, but I don't get it. Perhaps someone that sees themselves described could explain it?

This again raises my point that atheists are obsessed with God in rejecting theology.

It has been explained to you so many times that it's no longer up for dispute.

If theologies were simply treated as philosophies that philosophize about spirituality, life, and metaphysics by incorporating the idea of deity as a literary device, why would someone reject theology over other types of philosophy?

Many people do reject philosophy as a waste of brain function.

 

[Danger]

By sheer coincidence, I just looked up Alan Alda's Wikipedia entry because I'm watching (for the second time tonight) his "The Human Spark" series on KSPS. About half-way down the page, there is a section on "Personal beliefs and other views" wherein he deals with this very subject. His comments are interesting.

 

[disregardthat]

Many people do reject philosophy as a waste of brain function.

Do you really believe that? It strikes me as very odd that bright people like yourself can utter things like that. Such statements say more about who's talking than what's being talked about. A dismissive attitude towards philosophy in general is unhealthy for a discussion which is philosophical in nature.

I must say though that I agree with Hurkyl pointing out the unnatural way atheism is equated with lack of belief. Atheism is more often used in the context of actively rejecting supernatural belief.

The attitude that religious supposedly walks into a logical trap by believing in things that "probably" don't exist is ridiculous. It must be clear that any religious belief is actively believing in a supernatural being transcending the material world. You can't attack the degree of verification this belief is given, that is off point, you must rather attack the very notion of believing such things which are unfalsifiable and unverifiable and scientifically meaningless in nature. I myself have no problem with such kind of belief, it is obvious that it does not (in general) stem from rational analysis or empirical investigation, so it should not be attacked as merely flawed applications of reason and empirical judgment. It is rather an expression of the spiritual part of people. Religion is the way of talking about that which cannot be rationally talked about. So it seems nonsense to those who believe it tries to do so.

 

[Gokul43201]

I must say though that I agree with Hurkyl pointing out the unnatural way atheism is equated with lack of belief.

Unnatural? Is that the same argument as that of homosexuality being 'unnatural', because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners?

Atheism is more often used in the context of actively rejecting supernatural belief.

Argumentum ad populum.

But in any case, do you see a difference between rejecting belief in a supernatural being and denying the existence of a supernatural being?

 

[brainstorm]

Unnatural? Is that the same argument as that of homosexuality being 'unnatural', because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners?

You don't have to agree with the reasoning of a particular view to understand the logic of it. The reason people who regard heterosexual sex as more "natural" is that they view sex primarily in terms of its function as a means of insemination. People who regard sex primarily in terms of pleasure and "love making" between partners see any form of sex that increases love and joy in a relationship as natural.

But in any case, do you see a difference between rejecting belief in a supernatural being and denying the existence of a supernatural being?

You've been talking about this for several posts and the only difference I can see lies in whether you regard existence as transcending subjective belief. Basically, you're playing on the argument that if something exists physically, it doesn't matter if people believe in it or not. The other argument would be that without subjective perception/belief, the objective existence of anything doesn't matter because it is imperceptible to the perceiver. This is the empirical position, i.e. that things have to be in some way observable to matter.

I think that you could also say that someone who doesn't believe in something is making a claim about something they could possibly know, while someone who claims that something doesn't exist is extending their knowledge to implications that they don't have direct access to knowing. In other words, claims of non-existence require somewhat more faith than claims of disbelief.

 

[Evo]

In other words, claims of non-existence require somewhat more faith than claims of disbelief.

No, see, you can't get away from the need that *you* have for faith, so since you personally seem to need that, you think everyone needs that, and it's not true.

I've been asking you to stop making these blanket assumptions and trying to impose your beliefs on others. People that lack belief are not trying to say that others have to be the same, so why are you trying to impose your need on others?

 

[Gokul43201]

You've been talking about this for several posts and the only difference I can see lies in whether you regard existence as transcending subjective belief.

I'm not sure I follow why this is the only or even important difference. But that might be a result of my not quite understanding what you are saying. But in any case, what I have been talking about is virtually a reproduction of definitions that I have quoted and cited from other sources.

Basically, you're playing on the argument that if something exists physically, it doesn't matter if people believe in it or not.

Whether or not I am playing on this argument, I agree with this statement (subject to what you mean by "doesn't matter"). It does not matter that a majority of people disbelieve in evolution - it still describes pretty well how life changes. It doesn't matter now, when a lot of people understand it very well, and it did not matter in the 1800s, when virtually nobody did. You can say the same about virtually every new phenomenon that has been explained by science, from germs to volcanoes.

It also didn't matter that most people in the middle ages believed in witches, in the sense that this did not affect the truth about whether or not someone was a witch. The only way that it did matter is in that some people were then burnt at stakes.

The other argument would be that without subjective perception/belief, the objective existence of anything doesn't matter because it is imperceptible to the perceiver.

You do not have to believe in germs to catch the flu.

This is the empirical position, i.e. that things have to be in some way observable to matter.

That is not the same statement as the one that precedes it. You should recognize that there is a very big difference between a scientific observable/measurement, a subjective perception, and a belief independent of evidence. How can you clump these together as though indistinguishable?

There's a saying popular within the experimental physics community, that goes along the lines of "If you didn't measure it, it didn't happen." That's a very different thing than saying "If you don't believe in it, it didn't happen."

I think that you could also say that someone who doesn't believe in something is making a claim about something they could possibly know, while someone who claims that something doesn't exist is extending their knowledge to implications that they don't have direct access to knowing. In other words, claims of non-existence require somewhat more faith than claims of disbelief.

This is confusing. Did you say "could", when you meant "couldn't"? But I still think I might be missing your point. An atheist, as I've repeated several times, is not required to make any claims of non-existence.

 

[brainstorm]

No, see, you can't get away from the need that *you* have for faith, so since you personally seem to need that, you think everyone needs that, and it's not true.

I've been asking you to stop making these blanket assumptions and trying to impose your beliefs on others. People that lack belief are not trying to say that others have to be the same, so why are you trying to impose your need on others?

The reason why you assume I am "imposing blanket assumptions" is because you understand faith as meaning something distinct from everyday belief in the most basic realities. In other words, you only consider as "faith" faith in things whose validity is questionable. To me, faith at the most basic level just describes the fundamental relationship between epistemology and ontology (i.e. between thinking about something and experiencing it as real). You may claim that you don't have to have faith to believe that your thumb exists, but my question becomes what psychological mechanism allows you to experience it as real then? I certainly agree that your thumb can exist without anyone believing in it or even perceiving it, but at the subjective level, it is possible to perceive it with varying degrees of faith. To use a tired old example, the movie "the Matrix" explores an example of withdrawing faith from the reality of everyday life through construction of an alternative explanation that renders apparent reality a mere simulation of something that once may have existed. The point of this film is not to confound existence but to demonstrate how the subjective side of ontology affects one's orientation to reality. In short, reality appears quite different when you don't believe in it faithfully.

There are many people who either can't or won't step far away from their subjectivity long enough to observe it as a real process affecting their perceptions. Usually they are too afraid that they will go mad or otherwise lose their clarity regarding the objective universe outside them. This nevertheless biases them against recognizing the role their own subjectivity plays in how and what they exercise "faith" to believe in.

I'm not sure I follow why this is the only or even important difference. But that might be a result of my not quite understanding what you are saying. But in any case, what I have been talking about is virtually a reproduction of definitions that I have quoted and cited from other sources.

Ok, I was just trying to make sense of the difference between not believing in something and saying it doesn't exist. The only thing I could come up with was a distinction between subjective and objective ontology. Beyond that, I was trying to figure out how you thought about that distinction to address your repeated claims that this distinction is important in terms of (dis)belief in deities or the supernatural generally.

Whether or not I am playing on this argument, I agree with this statement (subject to what you mean by "doesn't matter"). It does not matter that a majority of people disbelieve in evolution - it still describes pretty well how life changes. It doesn't matter now, when a lot of people understand it very well, and it did not matter in the 1800s, when virtually nobody did. You can say the same about virtually every new phenomenon that has been explained by science, from germs to volcanoes.

Maybe, but in terms of subjectivity it doesn't matter what a "majority," many, or some people believe. It ultimately comes down to the subjective experience of the believer. Someone can receive a preponderance of evidence and theoretical support for evolution and still fail to experience it as true. The mechanics of evolution might even be directly influencing their lives and bodies. Yet at the subjective level they might still just not be able to feel convinced that it is true. Call it being thick-headed or whatever you want but you can't get around the fact of subjectivity in whether or not someone believes in a particular explanation or ideology in either direction.

It also didn't matter that most people in the middle ages believed in witches, in the sense that this did not affect the truth about whether or not someone was a witch. The only way that it did matter is in that some people were then burnt at stakes.

It also mattered for the people who may have felt doubt and guilt about burning innocent people as witches. As long as they maintained faithful belief in the reality of witchcraft, they could possibly accept that witch-burning was more than senseless slaughter of innocent people. I think the same could be said about many modern forms of killing and relative deprivation, such as war, capital punishment, poverty, servitude, etc.

You do not have to believe in germs to catch the flu.

And you don't have to believe in God to experience creative power or morality. The point is not whether reality can operate in the absence of subjective belief, which it can. The point is why some people get fixated on denying the existence of subjectivity completely just because they like the fact that objectivity can circumvent it. A more interesting question, to me, is how the psychology of fetishizing transcendent objectivity works.

That is not the same statement as the one that precedes it. You should recognize that there is a very big difference between a scientific observable/measurement, a subjective perception, and a belief independent of evidence. How can you clump these together as though indistinguishable?

I don't. I say that to understand them, including your own subjective ability to distinguish between them, you have to understand human subjectivity.

There's a saying popular within the experimental physics community, that goes along the lines of "If you didn't measure it, it didn't happen." That's a very different thing than saying "If you don't believe in it, it didn't happen."

Those two things actually mean the same thing in practice. They are both a denial of objective reality outside of human attention to it. Your physicists are saying, "if a tree falls in the forest and you don't measure it in some way, it didn't fall." Measurement is qualitatively very different from belief, but both come down to a fundamental belief in reality to transcend human existence.

This is confusing. Did you say "could", when you meant "couldn't"? But I still think I might be missing your point. An atheist, as I've repeated several times, is not required to make any claims of non-existence.

You're right, that sentence was poorly written. I was saying that you have to have faith to believe that something doesn't exist. Specifically you have to have faith in your ability to extrapolate what potentially exists from your knowledge of things you believe to exist. Saying, "I see clouds therefore I believe in clouds" requires less faith than saying, "clouds exist everywhere in the atmosphere" because the second statement makes a claim about something you haven't and cannot sufficiently observe without generalizing from particular observations.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is not whether reality can operate in the absence of subjective belief, which it can. The point is why some people get fixated on denying the existence of subjectivity completely just because they like the fact that objectivity can circumvent it. A more interesting question, to me, is how the psychology of fetishizing transcendent objectivity works.

This is now a far cry from atheism requires a leap of faith in just the same way that theism does.

 

[disregardthat]

Unnatural? Is that the same argument as that of homosexuality being 'unnatural', because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners?

No. I am talking about words in language, this is not analogous to sexuality. Words draw their meaning from usage, so it is "unnatural" to pedantically insist on a word meaning something else than how it is being used, as if general and common usage is somehow wrong. It is not; it is by definition correct. This is not argumentum ad populum, it's how language works. Replace "unnatural" by "wrong" if you like.

Even though the term originated from a wider sense of "without gods", or equivalently "lack of belief", it is "unnatural", or "wrong" to insist on that being the true meaning.

But in any case, do you see a difference between rejecting belief in a supernatural being and denying the existence of a supernatural being?

No, I am contrasting lack of belief to rejection of belief, I am not contrasting denial to rejection of belief. I see a difference between actively rejecting a belief, and passively not taking a stance. We don't commonly call small children atheists for example. And we don't commonly call various groups of people with a non-religious tradition and culture atheist. Some do, but these are the same people who insist on equating atheism with "lack of belief".

Lack of belief is just that, lack of belief. Atheism means something more.

 

[brainstorm]

This is now a far cry from atheism requires a leap of faith in just the same way that theism does.

You're strawmanning by talking about a "leap of faith." I just posted that faith includes an everyday sense of belief in things that are empirically regarded as "real." This is not "leaping" faith, it is just basic faith in the existence of reality. Psychologically, they are the same mechanism, imo. Also, it is not such a "far cry" from other things I've said, because atheism does require faith in the belief that materialism is all there is. If you can't see beyond the universe, how can you assume nothing exists beyond it except through faith about the non-existence of what you cannot observe?

Now, if you want to discuss the relationship between plausibility-estimates and faith, that might be a more interesting discussion.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I lived 13 years in communism(until its fall in 1989) in a Eastern European country where atheism was the predominat doctrine about why anything exists. For good or bad, the number of atheists around these parts is probably higher than anywhere else and the atheist attitude is generally taken for granted among people who don't know each other. Yet, the most number of militant atheists I've seen so far are from the relatively religeous US. Is militant atheism(sometimes militant to the point of absurdity) a knee-jerk reaction to people having been coerced into a religion they didn't want in their early lives? I mean, if something terrible didn't happen, what motivates a person to become and react so irritated every time they hear the word god?

 

[Cyrus]

I lived 13 years in communism(until its fall in 1989) in a Eastern European country where atheism was the predominat doctrine about why anything exists. For good or bad, the number of atheists around these parts is probably higher than anywhere else and the atheist attitude is generally taken for granted among people who don't know each other. Yet, the most number of militant atheists I've seen so far are from the relatively religeous US. Is militant atheism(sometimes militant to the point of absurdity) a knee-jerk reaction to people having been coerced into a religion they didn't want in their early lives? I mean, if something terrible didn't happen, what motivates a person to become and react so irritated every time they hear the word god?

Because my fellow AMERUIKANS just LOVE to proselytize. And try to rewrite science, and government policy.

 

[brainstorm]

Because my fellow AMERUIKANS just LOVE to proselytize.

This is what came up when I googled the word, proselytize:

pros·e·lyt·ize/ˈpräsələˌtīz/Verb
1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: "the program had a tremendous effect, proselytizing many"; "proselytizing for converts".
2. Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

Do you think that religion is the only thing people proselytize with?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Freedom of incorrect thought is protected from govt interference over here and so runs rampant. This provides a great deal of irritation to those of us who entertain correct thoughts. Fortunately, private umbrage against other peoples' exercise of their freedom is also protected. Thus we all fed up to the eyeballs with each other at the tops of our tongues. Freedom is noisy.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not; it is by definition correct. This is not argumentum ad populum, it's how language works.

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion. I would hope that definitions of terms within math, science and philosophy not be subject to the vagaries of pop-culture. If we decided to go by the popular interpretation of the word 'theory' in a philosophical discussion we would be making the same mistake.

Even though the term originated from a wider sense of "without gods", or equivalently "lack of belief", it is "unnatural", or "wrong" to insist on that being the true meaning.

I'm not arguing on the basis of origin or etymology. My point is simply that this is how the word is defined, and here are my citations to support that claim.

This is like conflating the LDS with the FLDS.

No, I am contrasting lack of belief to rejection of belief, I am not contrasting denial to rejection of belief. I see a difference between actively rejecting a belief, and passively not taking a stance.

Then I suspect we are talking about two different things. One can actively take a stance against belief in a deity without actively denying existence of said deity.

We don't commonly call small children atheists for example. And we don't commonly call various groups of people with a non-religious tradition and culture atheist. Some do, but these are the same people who insist on equating atheism with "lack of belief".

Lack of belief is just that, lack of belief. Atheism means something more.

If you say so. I have nothing more to add here.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're strawmanning by talking about a "leap of faith." I just posted that faith includes an everyday sense of belief in things that are empirically regarded as "real."

I was using the term "taking a leap of faith" synonymously with "having faith". There was no intended attempt at strawmanning. But I suspect my use of the word 'faith', as in something based not on empirical evidence but on dogma, is different from yours. Even within your definition, you must recognize that there is a difference in the degree to which one relies on faith in the context of science versus that of religion.

 

[Danger]

This is like conflating the LDS with the FLDS.

Who is inflating Mormons with fluid?

Freedom of incorrect thought is protected from govt interference over here and so runs rampant. This provides a great deal of irritation to those of us who entertain correct thoughts.

This presupposes, however, that there are such things as "correct" or "incorrect" thoughts. Such concepts are purely subjective.

 

[Gokul43201]

Such concepts are purely subjective.

Tut tut. Now you're just setting yourself up for the obvious take-down.

 

[Danger]

Now you're just setting yourself up for the obvious take-down.

Yeah, I know. I'm a sucker for punishment...

 

[Cyrus]

Do you think that religion is the only thing people proselytize with?

This question is irrelevant to my comment, and therefore deserves no answer.

 

[Cyrus]

You're strawmanning by talking about a "leap of faith." I just posted that faith includes an everyday sense of belief in things that are empirically regarded as "real." This is not "leaping" faith, it is just basic faith in the existence of reality. Psychologically, they are the same mechanism, imo. Also, it is not such a "far cry" from other things I've said, because atheism does require faith in the belief that materialism is all there is. If you can't see beyond the universe, how can you assume nothing exists beyond it except through faith about the non-existence of what you cannot observe?

If I can't see beyond the universe...hrmmmm...o-kayyyyyy.

 

[Danger]

If I can't see beyond the universe...hrmmmm...o-kayyyyyy.

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

 

[disregardthat]

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion.

In which case you must provide some evidence for that atheism commonly means "lack of belief" in a philosophical context.

I will allow myself to quote the following from encyclopedia britannica's article on atheism:

"in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."

from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

I'm not arguing on the basis of origin or etymology. My point is simply that this is how the word is defined, and here are my citations to support that claim.

I can't see any citations?

Then I suspect we are talking about two different things. One can actively take a stance against belief in a deity without actively denying existence of said deity.

Well, "lack of belief" certainly doesn't necessarily include denial, so I don't see your point.

I can of course accept that atheism in some cases might mean "lack of belief" if it is understood by all parts in a discussion, but the problem is that some people insist on equating it with "lack of belief", hence dismissing the dominant meaning and even denying it.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

Well, it's a pitiful argument from many perspectives - it assumes there is something 'outside' the universe that we cannot see. First, you must prove that there is 'something' (and exactly what that something is) outside the universe, and then you must further prove that we cannot see it.

But more to the point, anyone can pull any claim they want out of their anus and play the 'you can't disprove it, but I can't prove it' card and pass it off as plausible. In statistics, the default argument is always the null argument. Therefore, if something passes the test, the null argument is rejected, as this is a stronger statement of validity. The fact that these folks would like to bypass this and add shades of gray 'maybes' is worthless.

 

[disregardthat]

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

Universe more commonly means the material world, or everything that physically exist. Something "outside" the universe could be something spiritual. Of course, by insisting on your definition of universe you could say that everything spiritual is in the universe by definition, but that doesn't mean that other interpretations of the word universe can apply.

If you reject the possibility of spiritual existence the meanings are interchangeable, but if you merely reject the actuality then it makes sense to distinguish between the two. In any case, the issue is shallowly semantical. They could easily re-state their opinion to that there can be something beyond that which physically exists.

 

[Cyrus]

Universe more commonly means the material world, or everything that physically exist. Something "outside" the universe could be something spiritual.

What an empty statement: 'something' (who knows what) "outside" (who knows where), "Could" (who knows for sure), be something "spiritual" (whatever that is).

 

[disregardthat]

What an empty statement: 'something' (who knows what) "outside" (who knows where), "Could" (who knows for sure), be something "spiritual" (whatever that is).

I'm sure they will have a good explanation. Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence, and he had a reasonably sophisticated account of his opinions. It is not an empty statement. False and/or unverifiable perhaps, but not empty.

It has classically been the philosophical consensus that matter was the appearance necessarily caused, by the categories of reason, by something which is not attainable for the senses. Kant proposed Transcendental idealism. The metaphysical world consisting of the "things-in-themselves" causing the appearances we sense is essentially unknowable, so it makes no rational sense to speak of them. He argued however that by reason alone we must infer their existence.

The opinion of e.g. George Berkeley was that materialism in itself was a contradictory perspective, a position which he (some might say successfully) argued for. His solution to the problem was an all-observant god.

I am not arguing for these possible solutions, I am arguing that the notion of something "outside" the material world is not non-sense and certainly not merely empty statements. But it's easy to say that firmly grounded in a materialist view.

 

[Gokul43201]

In which case you must provide some evidence for that atheism commonly means "lack of belief" in a philosophical context.

I will allow myself to quote the following from encyclopedia britannica's article on atheism:



from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism



I can't see any citations?



Well, "lack of belief" certainly doesn't necessarily include denial, so I don't see your point.

I can of course accept that atheism in some cases might mean "lack of belief" if it is understood by all parts in a discussion, but the problem is that some people insist on equating it with "lack of belief", hence dismissing the dominant meaning and even denying it.

Don't have much time now. Some/most of these questions are answered in post #90.

 

[Evo]

Lack of belief is just that, lack of belief. Atheism means something more.

Gokul's citations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

Bolding mine.


See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Bolding mine.

Mine.

Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[52] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

And this isn't the Philosophy forum, so please do not drag it off into philosophical hand waving. There have been many discussions on the subject in Philosophy, this is not one of them.

 

[disregardthat]

Don't have much time now. Some/most of these questions are answered in post #90.

I only had one question, and that was that the citation did not appear. I see evo have provided them now.

I don't see how the subcategory "pragmatic atheism"/"apatheism" in the wikipedia article, or the alternative definition (second to rejection of belief) given by wikipedia, or religioustolerance.com(!) gives the picture that "lack of belief" as opposed to "rejection" is the dominant meaning in philosophical discussions. The article I referred to in #133 from encyclopedia britannica, the first reference in the wikipedia article, explicitly says otherwise.


This text from the wikipedia article discusses this issue.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[33] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[34] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

Bolding mine.