Dictionary Atheists and PZ Myers

[Inferno]

One of my posts from a different forum, relating to what I said here.
So, my post from Feb 2nd:

I read Why are you an atheist? by PZ Myers yesterday late at night (3am) so I didn't have the strength to reply. However, I will take the time to do so now. I'll quote all the relevant material, but here's a short summary first:
"Dictionary" atheists piss PZ Myers off. That means the sort of people who say "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.", who say that the default position is atheist, split hairs over "lack of belief in gods" and "disbelief in god" and Science flies you to the moon/Religion flies you into buildings.

I normally quite enjoy reading PZ's blog. Sure, there are the occasional bits and pieces I disagree with, but overall he makes a good case. This is the one article though where I completely disagree with almost everything that was said.
Warning: The following requires you to read the roughly 4 pages long article first, after which you'll find yourself confronted with my writing, roughly the same length.
I won't go into how juvenile PZ is in this article, I'll simply focus on the matters at hand.

The godless raged at me on youtube and twitter, thanks to the recent broadcast of my talk in Montreal. I have a tangent in that talk where I deplore Dictionary Atheists, going so far as to say I hate those guys, because they're so superficial. Apparently some people identify with shallow atheism, because they took it personally and got rather upset.

One must first understand what PZ means by a "Dictionary Atheist". Here's his definition: A person who says "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." is a Dictionary Atheist.
So basically by adhering to the definition of what it is to be an Atheist, (or rather because this definition describes your religious views) one immediately becomes "superficial" and "shallow".
Now correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't it show the exact opposite? It means that a person has actually bothered to research what it means to be an Atheist. They know the meaning and can actually counter the religious when they try to re-define what Atheism means. (Like for example "baby-eater" or "Satan's disciple".)
On the other hand, a truly shallow Atheist will not know the actual definition of what Atheism means and can therefore only retort "Nu-uh, you're wrong.", putting him/her on the same basis as the silly creationist.

Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses.

Now I don't really understand how PZ makes the jump from actually saying what is right to somehow degrading the whole meaning. What does he mean by "floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else"? Everything that comes to mind makes no sense, so I'll have to conclude that it's just empty rhetoric, with no deeper meaning behind it.
Again, it seems like it's exactly the other way around: The ones who know about the meaning (aka the Dictionary Atheists) are the ones who are in touch with reality, while the other group (as explained above) are the ones who are detached. Isn't it obvious?

At this point, I'd like to point out that AntiCitizenX has a video about this: "Psychology of Belief, Part 7: Projection". Is it just me or is PZ guilty of exactly this?

If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, "Because I am a person who does not believe in god." And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn't just makes you dogmatic and blind.

Let's focus on the first part. Notice how the original question, one paragraph above this one, was something distinctly different? One where the textbook definition is actually a valid answer? Here, I've highlighted the relevant part: "You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community"
IF the question is "why are you an Atheist?" then I'd agree, that's not an adequate answer.

Now to the second part. So, what exactly IS part of the practice of being an Atheist? Warning: PZ is going to give an answer that is completely wrong!

In that Montreal talk, I explained that there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause.

No sir, what you're referring to here is a Skeptic. The second comic in his post even explains that. So how he could be so wrong is beyond me.
You see PZ, there are many Atheists who also believe in Homeopathy, Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. Atheism does NOT mean that you value reason and evidence. It's also wrong that you reject claims solely because they're based upon authority; Some of your minions are the best example for this.
Now if you changed the sentence to "it SHOULD be that way" then I agree. But it is not that way, so the only thing I can say about this paragraph is that it's not grounded in reality.
My atheism isn't solely a negative claim, either. I've arrived at my Anti-Theism because of (probably) the same reasons that you have.

Now some will say "Wait a minute, how can you disagree and agree with PZ at the same time?"
Again, it's because his idea above is not based on reality.
I've already explained that Atheists don't have to be Skeptics in order to arrive at their Atheism. So is it possible to arrive at ones Atheism by purely denying God, with no "back-up"? Yes, of course, and I fear that it's rather prevalent. I don't know if any of you remember that AuzzieGob? Note: AuzzieGob was the user who prompted me to write this thread. Or that dutch guy, roughly a year ago? They're both perfect examples of this kind of thinking.

Now I don't claim that my values are part of the definition of atheism , I just told you I hate those dictionary quoters , nor do I consider them universal to atheism. I've met plenty of atheists who are in our camp over issues of social justice , they see god-belief as a source of social evils, and that's why they reject it. That is valid and reasonable. There are atheists who consider human well-being as the metric to use, and we call them humanists; no problem. There are also atheists who are joining the game because their cool friends (or Daniel Radcliff) are atheists; that's a stupid reason, but they are atheists.

Exactly. So what is your point?

My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.

Ah, there's the problem then! PZ thinks that there is no difference between "I am an Atheist because I've read the definition in a book" and "I call myself an Atheist because ...".
AronRa put it best: He was an Atheist long before he even knew what the word meant, because he had been conditioned to think that it means "God-hater" or "baby-eater". But when he looked up the definition of what an Atheist is, he started calling himself one.
The sort of person PZ is venting about does not exist, he simply misunderstands a vital difference.
And once again, I agree that ideally, Atheism should promote a positive attitude. But that's simply not a necessity.

I'll try an analogy to put the whole thing into perspective:
Person 1: Why are you a Vegetarian?
Person 2: Because I'm a person who doesn't eat meat.
P1: Well that's not a reason. And anyway, being a vegetarian entails much more than just that. It means taking care of your body, of the environment, of other animals and plants, being friendly, not smoking, etc. etc.

Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion. Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist , it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks , which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.

At this point, I'd like you to watch Qualia Soup's "Disbelief in Gods".

So the PZ, the null hypothesis is tantamount to an intellectual vacuum? Saying that there is no evidence for a belief is an intellectual vacuum? Ridiculous.
PZ then goes off on a tangent about rocks and trees, something that reminds me of the creationist tactic that goes something like this: "So your great-great-grandfather was a rock?"
Some studies and this experiment with Michael Shermer show that there is some area in the brain that triggers Out-of-Body-Experiences and even hearing God. It seems reasonable to suggest that both belief and disbelief require at least a brain. (Rocks = out, Trees = out)

Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all.

A rather far-fetched bit of Info. If it were true, it'd actually be Daddies, not Mommies. (They're the ones Kids more often than not say are right.)
On the other hand, many children cry and cling to their parents when they go away. Doesn't that seem to suggest that "If there's no evidence for your existence, (aka if you're out of sight) then you don't exist"? Hey, that would make them Atheists again!

The "I believe in no gods/I lack belief in gods" debate. I have heard this so often, the hair-splitting grammatical distinctions some atheists think so seriously important in defining themselves. All you're doing is defining yourselves as anal retentive freaks, people! Get over it. Either way, you're an atheist , and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they're agnostics, not atheists, because they aren't 100% positive there aren't any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive. Atheism is such a general club, and it's so easy to fall into the definition, that it's silly to sit around arguing about how close to the fence you're sitting.

Strange. I've always found this to be a rather important distinction. Practically speaking, I agree with PZ. In everyday life, I am 100% positive that there aren't any gods. But scientifically speaking, I can't be. If I have any brain at all, I should acknowledge that there is this tiny chance of there being a God. (Just like there is a possibility of the ToE being wrong. We all know it's not, but scientifically it IS a possibility.)

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!

Why should I stop saying it? It is, after all, true.
I'll give my standard example: My Grandmother is the sweetest Grandma one could wish for. She has a flaw though: She thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. On what basis? Because the Bible says so.
It's of course true, many religious people have the exact same morals as we do and it's certainly not a prerequisite for religious people to fly planes into buildings. And yet, there is no pathway for a good and moral Atheist to fly planes into buildings, while that same pathway is perfectly accessible for a religious person.

"I just believe in one less god than you do". OK, I don't hate this one. There is actually a germ of a valid point in there: disbelief in itself is good and normal social practice, and even the most zealous theist actively disbelieves in many things. That's a good point to make in a world where people cite blind faith as a virtue.

Agreed.

But that's the only point that can be made from it, and it has its own perils. It implies many things that are not true. The theist you're arguing with did not go through a process where he analyzed his beliefs logically, and excluded 99% of all gods by reason and their lack of evidence; in fact, he probably never in his life seriously considered any of those other faiths (he is 99% Dictionary Atheist, in other words). He came to his personal faith by way of a series of personal, positive (to him!) predispositions, not by progressive exclusion of other ideas, and he's simply not going to see the relevance of your argument. Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution?

WOAH!
First of all, a Dictionary Atheist does NOT consider other beliefs? No, that's not necessarily true. Again, take AronRa, who (by PZ's definition) is a Dictionary Atheist, yet he DID consider MANY other beliefs.
The second fail in this paragraph is comparing the "one god further" to "one bogus theory further". The one is connected (One God further: You reject all other Gods, so why not this one?) yet the other one is not. (You reject all of these hypothesis, so why not this one?)
The difference between the two is that the first one is not based on evidence, yet the second one is! PZ is comparing Apples and Rocks here. They're not even closely related.

Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable. I certainly didn't. Instead, you come to the table with an implicit set of criteria, like evidence and plausibility and experimental support, and also a mistrust of unfounded authority or claims that are too good to be true, and they incline you to accept naturalism, for instance, as a better explanation of the world. Turning it into a quantitative debate about how many gods we accept, instead of a substantial debate about the actual philosophical underpinnings of our ideas, is kind of lame, I think.

Maybe, but only because you don't understand the matter at hand.
Why is the "One God further" so widely used? Not because of "how many Gods we accept", certainly not! It's rather to show the believer that he has rejected so many Gods because there is no evidence and yet he does not apply the same criteria to his own God.

PZ knows this, of course, but he'll suspend his knowledge if it makes for a good rant. The problem is that this was a rather bad rant.

I could probably come up with a few more peeves , I am genuinely a world-class expert in finding fault , but let's stop there. My main point is that one general flaw in many atheists is a lack of appreciation for why they find themselves comfortable with that label, and it always lies in a set of sometimes unexamined working metrics for how the world works. You are an atheist , take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity.

NO! That's the whole point! Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in Gods. You can't change what Atheism means so please, make up your own definition of what you are! You'll still be an Atheist, but a sub-group of Atheists. To put it into biological terms: You're in a different clade. We all share a common trait (disbelief in Gods) but there are traits that are common to sub-groups. (Like positive thinking, reasoned thinking, etc.)
Thunderf00t has addressed this issue, he talked about being a PEARList. Richard Dawkins has addressed this issue, he talked about being a Bright.
So make up your own sub-group and call yourself a BEERist or Cephalopod-ist. It matters not. But realize that you are not speaking for all Atheists, because you belong to a sub-group of Atheists.

If there is a need for explanation, I'll be able to answer you tomorrow evening to on Tuesday.

 

[Squawk]

Haven't read the entire post, mainly because I've already read this by PZ and came to pretty much exactly the same conclusion that you stated at the start.

I think PZ equates atheism with a mixture of critical thought and anti-theism. I happen to agree with much of what he says, just not the labels that he attaches. He seems atheism as prescriptive, I see it simply as an emergent property of critical thought applied to the concept of a deity and therefore descriptive. I'll read the rest of your post when I have a bit more time and pick bits apart.

 

[Baranduin]

My thoughts when I first read Myers' post were on the same line. He has a point: if you are asked "why are you atheist" and you answer "because I have no belief about gods", you aren't doing more than someone answering "why are you an industrial worker" with "because I work in factories", and it's kinda tautological. My own answer, though, is that I'm an atheist because I'm an skeptic, and any other question will be answered from skepticism rather than from atheism. I was already secular, liberal and skeptic for the time I flushed the idea of God. So I tend to agree with the criticism.

In some cases, plain atheists can have something in common - aside than their belief in gods -, like being the most despised religious denomination (as it seems to happen in the US) or being strongly associated with convent-burning (as it happens in some Spanish speaking countries); but that's pretty much everything, and it's hard to build anything over that.

However, one thing is how the word is defined, and other, very different, is how it's used. Even we "dictionary atheists" every now and then indulge in using "atheist" as a synonymous of "secular" or forget for a moment that it includes raelians and scientologists as well. It's a common and handy shortcut for "antitheist godless secular humanist open-minded evidence-accepting free- and critical-thinker of many flavors", which I would find rather nasty to remember every time, and a bit tiresome for reading. Just like some catholics don't believe in God or in transubstantiation, or use condoms or abort, so they don't follow the doctrines of the Church, so they don't conform to the definition of a dictionary, but we still call them catholics (and it's likely that they'll call themselves catholics as well). I think we can agree that what Myers (and most of us) have in mind usually is precisely that, and that you can draw a lot of things from all (but one) those qualificatives. My guess is that something of this sort is what PZ has in mind, though he doesn't makes it to make his point across.

So if you can infer that "atheist" is being understood as "our-flavor-of atheist", but you peg to the strict definition, well, you are being kind of an asshole. However there are many occasions where ambiguities can arise, like mislabeling (people is just not aware of all the definitions, and you get people like Berlinsky calling themselves atheists, and pretty atheistic people avoiding by all means the A-word. And you can argue all you want about the strict definition, but people uses colloquial registers every now and then ) or just different concepts of atheism (I tend to consider atheism a necessary consequence of skepticism, while others may advocate for NOMA; so my own usage of 'skeptic' tends to exclude people like Kenneth Miller, for instance). In such cases I will be the first standing out for the "dictionary atheist", and differentiate among "flavors".

So I agree with you and consider myself a dictionary atheist, but there are occasions for strict definitions and occasions for a more relaxed language.

--

On a note aside, I also happen to agree with Hemant Mehta that PZ isn't being consistent (link to Myers' post in the post): if you don't like "dictionary atheists", then you don't like "dictionary anti-interfaithers". And I see little problem with (colloquial as well as strict sense) atheists participating in such events, specially if it's to change their designation for a more heathen-friendly name (it's neutrality so too much to ask?).

 

[kenandkids]

I don't mind dictionary atheists saying this for the most part. I don't even mind atheists from more secular nations saying it. What I don't like is when American atheists declare that they need not band together against being marginilised because they only "lack a belief." We are a category of people, a category widely distrusted and declared by presidents and other politicians as "unAmerican" and untrustworthy. When we are allowed to hold office in EVERY state, when being an atheist is no longer cause to being subject to an illegal litmus test, when there are no more "interfaith" councils and presidentially appointed policy groups... then I'll agree that it is an abstraction of "only lacking a belief."

 

[Aught3]

I think what PZ is saying is that he doesn't care about the discussions over what being an atheist means. And yeah he is inconsistent when he labels non-sceptics as atheists but at the same time wants to wrap-up his scientific approach within the label of atheism. This goes to the point I was making in another thread, atheism is the well-known label so everyone wants to use it to describe their particular stance. Sometimes it's clearer just to find another word

 

[RichardMNixon]

I was kind of wondering when this topic would show up.

I agree with the OP for the most part, I appreciate that "I am an atheist" means so little. It leaves space for me to identify myself as a skeptic, a secularist, and a humanist, all of which better describe my actual values.

I think part of PZ's issue though is people who just constantly go on about the dictionary definition, if people think you can't have an atheist convention because atheists don't necessarily have anything in common. While technically true, pragmatically most people who would go to an atheist convention are also skeptics, humanists, secularists, etc.

 

[Squawk]

My thoughts when I first read Myers' post were on the same line. He has a point: if you are asked "why are you atheist" and you answer "because I have no belief about gods", you aren't doing more than someone answering "why are you an industrial worker" with "because I work in factories", and it's kinda tautological.

That isn't a fair comparison. One can only work in a factory if the concept of factory work exist. Prior to the notion of a factory, nobody considered themself a non-factory worker. You're question relates to asking a theist why they believe in God, not an atheist why they don't believe in God.

 

[Deleted member 619]

PZ is also making a howling category error. The reason one might be an atheist says nothing about what an atheist actually is. I've been meaning to do a dissection of that post for a while, but there have been so many that it hardly seems worth it.

 

[lrkun]

Pz has his own idea of what an atheist ought to be, and finds it difficult to reconcile with is own understanding of what atheism is.

This is the common problem now a days, where a person posits one view and rejects all others. Unless and untill atheism becomes unified and under one banner, dictionary atheists, according to his definition, will continue to exist, and even then, assuming atheism falls under one banner, former dictionary atheists will choose to not belong under such a banner, especially when it no longer suits their own personal preference.

 

[Baranduin]

My thoughts when I first read Myers' post were on the same line. He has a point: if you are asked "why are you atheist" and you answer "because I have no belief about gods", you aren't doing more than someone answering "why are you an industrial worker" with "because I work in factories", and it's kinda tautological.

That isn't a fair comparison. One can only work in a factory if the concept of factory work exist. Prior to the notion of a factory, nobody considered themself a non-factory worker. You're question relates to asking a theist why they believe in God, not an atheist why they don't believe in God.

I fail to see the formal difference between "why are you an atheist? Because I don't believe in gods", and "why are you a theist? Because I believe in God". Or whatever other pair with a question whose answer is the definition of what it's being asked.

The point being that, in normal circumstances, if you are asked "why are you X" and you answer "I just fit the definition", you are taking the asker for a stupid, and you are a jerk. Once you've identified yourself as an atheist, it's clear that you don't believe in any god (except for mislabelings), so your answer doesn't add any new information - contrary to the asker's clear intention.

A broader example. Someone asks "why is Zapatero president of Spain". Three possible answers:
a) "Because Zapatero is the person who currently holds the office of head of state of the government of a country called Spain".
b) "Because Zapatero is the candidate to presidency who attracted more votes from the Spanish electorate during the last elections".
c) "Because Zapatero was opposed by a feeble, uncharismatic and unpopular conservative candidate, and was able to attract the vote of minorities that are usually divided".

'a' is a good answer only if there are reasons to think that the asker doesn't know that Spain is a country, or what a 'president' is (ie. a child, someone with a very rudimentary knowledge of English, etc). 'b' is a good answer if there are reasons to think that the asker doesn't know that Spain is a democracy, or how democracies work. Yes, they are unquestionably right and true, but they are limited to a very narrow context, that is, the ones where a dictionary comes handy. If the other person speaks English with fluency, and knows how democracies usually work, your correct answer is 'c' (or whatever other political opinion you have).

For the record, some correct answer to the question "why are you an atheist?" in contexts where knowledge of the strict definition of atheist can be safely assumed:
a) Because I examined the available evidence and found no reason to believe in God.
b) Because I've compared the different definitions of God among religions, and found not one that was universally accepted.
c) Because I find the idea of someone looking at me at every moment - ie in the bath - disturbing, and causes me anxiety.
d) I never thought much about it, so I probably don't believe.
e) Because I've observed that people who believes in God tends to behave in horrible ways towards pretty much everything.
f) Because the Church supported the Nazis.
g) Because I've found no falsifiable religion, so I fail to see what knowledge could they provide to me.
h) Because God is an engram implanted by a ghost to manipulate and torture us.
i) Uh, God? What's that? Is it edible?
Not that all those answers are correct, and I would argue some are deeply wrong. But that's clearly the kind of answer that someone expects when asking "why are you an atheist".

And again, whenever the context doesn't allow to infer that the other person or persons understand what 'atheist' means (ie atheism is to burn churches, or to be socialist, or to be a muslim, or to promote homosexuality, or the "atheist dogma" gambit, etc), or there might be ambiguity or confusion (formal contexts), I'm the first one supporting strict definitions. But in other environments, language relaxes, and Synechdoche and Holonymy may take over.

The reason one might be an atheist says nothing about what an atheist actually is.

No, but tells you about what that one atheist is. That's why you ask "why are you an atheist" and not "why atheists are atheists". For instance, from the above answers, I could conclude that the person is (besides being an 'atheist'):
a) An skeptic, soft agnostic, likely to know at least the basics about many religions.
b) An ignostic, likely to know at least the basics about many religions.
c) Someone very ashamed of their private activities. Probably deconverted and had to deal with the persecution complex.
d) Someone who doesn't thought much about religion. Perhaps politics?
e) Someone biased against religious people. He likely doesn't know many of them, or perhaps too many.
f) A fool not worth having a discussion with.
g) A popperian reductionist, probably apatheist.
h) A fan of Tom Cruise and Battlefield Earth.
i) Someone who is not from this part of the universe.

That's the reason, after all, for us to make questions. To know about the other, and perhaps find something in common to talk about.

 

[Squawk]

Why don't you believe in fairies? Why are you not a stamp collector?

Both seemingly valid questions, but both with the supposition that one is aware of the concept of fairies and the existence of stamps and the collection thereof.

The problem is treating atheism as a positive position, which it is not. In order to frame the question as you have there is a presupposition that atheism is a positive position.

Consider that atheism is, in logical terms, not theism. Would you consider a question such as "why aren't you a gorilla" to be valid? There are two ways of answering that question (presuming that we grant that you are indeed not a gorilla). The first is to highlight the obvious, because I am not. The other is to say "because I am human". Neither is actually a useful answer to the question, but in context they suffice because the questioner understands the context in which the question is asked.

So apply that to theism. You wish to ask "why are you atheist". Rephrase that question to "why are you not theist", and you see the problem.

I have no positive position to give, no alternative to theism, so the form of answers given for the gorilla and human don't apply. I cannot say "because I am X", because that thing, X, does not exist. The only way to answer the question of non-theism is to iterate the reasons why theistic claims are unconvincing, but then this is a problem because it does not answer the original question. Listing reasons why I am not theist does not answer the question of why am I atheist.

You do not define something or someone by the things that it is not. Imagine asking a lizard "why are you a lizard", and the lizard answering "because I don't have wings". So you press on and ask for reason two. "Because I can't fly". You're not getting answers to the question of the definition of a lizard, you're getting reasons why the lizard isn't a bird, and it tells you nothing.

An atheist can only tell you why he is an atheist by listing the reasons he rejects theism. Atheism cannot be defined without theism, it is a non-position.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I fail to see the formal difference between "why are you an atheist? Because I don't believe in gods", and "why are you a theist? Because I believe in God". Or whatever other pair with a question whose answer is the definition of what it's being asked.

The point being that, in normal circumstances, if you are asked "why are you X" and you answer "I just fit the definition", you are taking the asker for a stupid, and you are a jerk. Once you've identified yourself as an atheist, it's clear that you don't believe in any god (except for mislabelings), so your answer doesn't add any new information - contrary to the asker's intention.

I also think this sort of thing happens because there are people who make the mistake of the definition of atheist, and so there is a desire among a lot of people to clarify that definition up front. PZ is definitely conflating the question of why one is an atheist with what it means to be an atheist... problem is that many people as it is also make the same error in reverse, and presume that when someone is asking, they don't know what an atheist is. How many theists out there presume that the definition of atheism is the firm belief that there definitely is no god? So while answering a clueless theist in that way is taking them to be a fool, it's not exactly a misappropriated assumption. Now in the case of someone like PZ, who is an atheist, asking, one should know better and presume that the question is meant as it is stated. At the same time, it is a question with less content to it than asking "why do you choose to define yourself as an atheist?"

Now if your actual answer to the "why" question is that vacuous as to quote the dictionary definition, then it is fair to say that you didn't put much thought into it or you are not of much value to the atheist community or movement, but contrary to where PZ seems to be leading, that is not the same as saying that you are unfit to call yourself an atheist. Personally, I don't think there are many people genuinely in this group, but rather people who simply mistakenly conflate the questions of why they are atheists and in what sense they are atheists.

I think people also fail to grasp the implied difference between saying "I don't believe in any gods," and saying "I am unconvinced by the claims of religion." The latter gives the implication that you've actually examined what the claims are, whereas the former doesn't really say anything about that. My reasons for atheism are probably weaker than PZ's where he speaks of a dedication to scientific thinking and a valuing of beliefs based on evidence and reason. However, in my case, dedication to scientific and rational thinking are among my reasons for being an antitheist, which indeed I am. So saying that I have shallower reasons for being an atheist doesn't really tell enough about what else I stand for because I simply take more stances than atheism alone. He seems to have a problem with only the reasons for atheism alone, which I definitely don't agree with. If someone is both atheist and anti-theist, then among the positions that person holds, atheism is intrinsically more shallow as a position, so why shouldn't the reasons for it be more shallow?

 

[RichardMNixon]

if you are asked "why are you atheist" and you answer "because I have no belief about gods", you aren't doing more than someone answering "why are you an industrial worker" with "because I work in factories"

Does anyone do that though? "I reject supernatural claims that god exists" isn't my answer to "why are you an atheist," it's my answer to "what does atheist mean?" If you ask my why I reject supernatural claims, I'll explain why.

 

[Baranduin]

@Squawk, I understand the argument and I've defended it many times. Now, that whole argument is answer to the question "What is an atheist?". "Why are you an atheist?" is a far more personal one, specially taking into account that most if not all of us is living and has grown in societies where belief in a God or gods is pretty much omnipresent, when not taken for granted, so it's unlikely that your atheism went undisturbed from childhood, not to mention that our societies tend to indoctrinate us, and we stop being theists rather than being atheists in a utopian sense. At the very least, we both are speaking English, so the assumption that we both are familiar with the vocabulary, and the concepts that vocabulary refers to, including "god", "God", "divinity", etc. and thus "atheism" is a very valid one.

I don't think that you would accept "because I'm an afatist" and "because I don't collect stamps" as normal answers to the questions with which you open your post. You expect things like "because faeries do not exist!" and "because I find stamps boring", for instance. Someone doesn't play soccer not because s/he is a non-football-player, but because s/he hates sports, or because s/he prefers basket, or because s/he doesn't have legs. So while the whole argument is perfectly logical and useful in philosophy, it boils down to a useless tautology when it's about a normal conversation. The asker already knows that green is a color with a wavelength between red and blue, that spring is the time of the year between winter and summer, and that atheism is the absence of believe in any god; there's no need to remind it.

@ShootMyMonkey, Agreed, a lot of people confuses definitions; there are those who think that languages can be put in a box, with strict definitions and prescriptive vocabularies, whilst others use a terribly ambiguous grammar full of linguistic borrowings, weird metaphors and fuzzy vocabulary, using words so removed apart from the normal consensus that they can be considered misdefined. Both extremes are wrong, specially if they insist in acting so in every occasion.
PZ is conflating both concepts, probably unconsciously, and I don't share some of his points, but that's valid and up to him to do. It's called synecdoche, referring to a part by the name of the whole. Yeah, you can say just "atheist" instead of "atheist of my flavor" or "antitheist godless secular humanist open-minded evidence-accepting free- and critical-thinker of many flavors". Otherwise, your prose will be so dense that no one will be able to make sense of it. (No, you are not going to convince me that synecdoching is wrong, or that when someone says "raise your hand to ask a question" you don't understand that includes raising the arm from the shoulder as well, and it's actually to ask permission to ask a question). Of course, make sure that your audience is going to understand that usage; if not, peg to the dictionary and a more elaborated wording. Human languages suck, they rely heavy on context.

I wouldn't take much personally that of being "unfit" etc. He's PZ, he is ranting, and he was probably fed of mails / twits / comments / whatever from the prescriptivist bunch. His intention was clearly to tease them just like he provokes theists and accommodationists. Indeed, he announces escalation at the beginning of the post. So if someone felt offended, fantastic! He achieved his goal. Other day perhaps he will post what he seriously thinks about the whole debate prescriptivism/descriptivism. Or not. (as I pointed above, he might be more prescriptivist than what he wants us to believe).

An atheist can only tell you why he is an atheist by listing the reasons he rejects theism. Atheism cannot be defined without theism, it is a non-position.

And what's the problem with that? Isn't usually that the intention when an atheist asks another atheist about the latter's atheism?

 

[Case]

Ah, PZ, you just lost some of my respect for you. Looks like a No True Scotsman in the making.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because many Atheists like science or find the FSM kind of funny doesn't mean every Atheist does so because it was intrinsic to Atheism.
I've always wondered why there are so many martial arts styles when what they're doing doesn't really differ from what the other groups are doing (there are thousands of Karate styles for instance). I guess the answer is simple: a) petty arguments (this isn't the true meaning of karate!) and b) money (own group of followers). Every group eventually splits up, usually with one being more conservative and the other wanting radical change. It's a little hard to do this with Atheism, I would think, as I'm one of the conservatives here (dictionary Atheist, as PZ would call it), and I consider Atheism to be unfit to be the common denominator for people with a need to form a group based on non-belief. In that sense Nonstampcollector didn't get the analogy right, as he is referring to an *action* he doesn't perform, rather than a belief he doesn't hold. Now, groups based on actions they don't perform are quite valid - vegans, for instance. Non9/11truther might be more appropriate, albeit less funny.

I imagine the litmus test for group validity to go something like this: if you can spend an evening talking about your group's intrinsic feature, your group is fine.
Vegans talking about what they eat instead and discuss what clothing substitutes for animal skins there are... I can imagine that. Atheists talking about how they don't believe in gods... not so much. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Giliell]

As much as I enjoy Pharyngula, I find that whole argument and PZ's point utterly annoying and unnecessary.
Words (in a colloquial sense) do have a meaning and that is commonly established by a consensus and put into dictionaries.
I agree that there's more to each and everybody's atheism than "don't believe in god" but that why is so different for each and everybody that it's of no use.
Of course, there are "groups of reasons" and groups of people who have the same reasons. And there are wonderful precise words to describe those people. Sceptics, secular humanists, Budhists, babies....
So, where's the problem?
Because so smartass takes the kind of incomplete question "Why are you an atheist?" and gives the answer that was clearly not asked for "because I don't believe in gods"?
I mean, really.
PZ himself subscribes to the position of gnu atheism and there he's got a term that's positively filled with meaning. Why does he have to change the meaning of "atheism" in general then? And what about those people who don't fit the new definition anymore? Invent new terms?

If we're talking about changing connotations from "baby eating satanist" to "informed person who knows a lot about science, culture, history and religion", I'm with him.

 

[RichardMNixon]

PZ himself subscribes to the position of gnu atheism and there he's got a term that's positively filled with meaning.

My impression was that he hated the "New Atheist" label (being that the only thing New about it is that their books are selling) and starting using Gnu to denigrate it. That would make his attachment to the significance of "Atheism" with a capital A even stranger.

 

[Nashy19]

Even if we gave every specific set of opinions an ID code and made a way to reference them, they still wouldn't be very useful.

 

[kenandkids]

Even if we gave every specific set of opinions an ID code and made a way to reference them, they still wouldn't be very useful.

The same could be said for every group, philosophy, or whatnot.

 

[Dean]

@Squawk ~~

Bold emph added:

[. . .]I've already read this by PZ and came to pretty much exactly the same conclusion that you stated at the start.

[. . .]I see it simply as an emergent property of critical thought applied to the concept of a deity and therefore descriptive[. . .]

A thought process. Here's something a tad inspiring, to me anyhow:

"Atheism is a state of mind that results from letting the facts guide your thinking." --GreatBigBore

Atheism may as well not be an "ism". It is a "refutational" stance , of theism. That's how I see it. Not as a religion itself, but as a "philosophical" stance in the absence of theism? See? :?: :idea: One could also just as well call it, as you did, a "state of mind", resulting from reason applied to the Supernatural and Metaphysical, hence -- the [non]-existence of deities... etc.
PZ, and Stenger are among the few to affirm what I call the absolute anti-theist position, who deny even the possibility of evidence for 'God' or gods, they have made a case for such ideas in their recent books [Stenger, particularly].

In the future, I might post something here on the "taxonomy of atheism" so to speak,
Already made it. Here: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=114177#p114177

~~L.N.