With nonexistence vs existence being a binary proposition, that is, one must be false and the other must be true.
Where does 'lack of belief in existence’ fit in, if not just an inexact rephrasing of 'belief of nonexistence’?
I understand the noncognitivist approach, but noncognitivist philosophers see themselves separate from atheists, much as agnostics do.
Lack of belief can reasonably be attributed to agnostics who claim ignorance, as well as to noncognitivists who claim puzzlement. Yet atheism to the best of my knowledge always been associated with the positive claim of nonexistence.
What has engendered this fairly recent appropriation of 'lack of belief’ on the part of popularizers of atheism?
Posted: January 22nd 2010
George Locke
The OED defines an atheist as “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.” It says that to disbelieve is “not to believe or credit to a statement or (alleged) fact”.
So, an atheist is either a person who denies that god exists (strong atheist) or who does not believe that god exists (weak atheist). A person might quibble as to whether disbelief and lack of belief are the same thing, but it’s really a minor point, and purely semantic in any case.
Posted: February 8th 2010
logicel
Rather being a misappropriation, it instead is a common misconception that atheism must be equivalent with saying there is no god. Bertrand Russell, with his celestial teapot analogy, made that point decades ago way before the so-called new atheists. Because of the Net, atheists can correct this longstanding mistake on the part of theists and others via blogs, articles, and sites like this one.
I have never bothered with god(s), just like I don’t with other extraordinary entities without extraordinary evidence like Bigfoot and the Pink Unicorn. Though I don’t believe in them, I don’t know if they exist or not. All of these entities are highly improbable. I don’t bother thinking about any of them. Unfortunately, I do have to bother about people who have god belief because they exist and can be quite problematic.
Atheism is translated thusly: a=non, theism=belief in a theistic entity. I am an atheist, just like I am an ateapotist, an apinkunicornist, and an atoothfairyist. If an agnostic has no functioning belief in a god, then she is an agnostic atheist (as I am in addition to being an agnostic ateapotist, etc.)
Give me extraordinary evidence for the existence of theistic entities, celestial teapots, and Bigfoot, and I will accept their existence. Doubt I would worship any of them though.
When I was much younger, theists would insist that I was agnostic, because I clearly stated that I had no idea if god(s) existed or not. But I insisted that I was an atheist because I have no active belief in god(s) and won’t have until suitable evidence is brought forth.
Posted: February 7th 2010
SmartLX www
“Strong atheism” is the type associated with the positive claim of nonexistence, and there aren’t many strong atheists altogether.
The rest, the weak and agnostic atheists, in other words most self-proclaimed atheists, do not make positive claims of the nonexistence of deities from a position of certainty. There’s a reason why the first atheist bus campaign said, “There’s probably no god.”
Nonexistence vs existence may be a binary proposition, but even a binary proposition (such as flipping a coin) may be assigned probabilities. Atheists assign a very low probability to existence, but seldom absolutely zero. (Separately, belief and nonbelief may not in fact be a binary proposition as there may be levels of belief.)
That low probability is assigned on the basis of a perceived lack of evidence. As I have argued elsewhere, the apparent lack of evidence for a deity, which is purported to
- have wide-ranging effects on the whole world and
- want people to believe in it,
is indeed supporting evidence for the absence of such a deity.
Posted: February 6th 2010