Why I am not a linguistics major, or, Framing atheism

I like to think I am a stickler for definitions. I don’t claim to be perfect in my use of vocabulary…but if someone notes I’m using a word incorrectly and I find I am wrong, I’ll adjust things. I understand the desire to defend a position, so I’ll do that as well…but convincing evidence is…well…convincing. People have gotten at me for arguing terms and definitions though; they say it’s irrelevant to whatever point is really at hand.

I disagree. I think that the way we use and define terms changes the battlefield. There’s a lot of terms for it in a lot of different fields, but I think framing is a pertinent one. Framing changes the connotations of words we have…it demonstrates the evolutionary properties of language. I’m actually not sure if linguistics uses the same kind of terminology…wouldn’t that be funny if they didn’t…

Anyway…I was going through old blogs I’ve never seen before and probably won’t see again (I have a very sadistic mind, it seems…I know I’m going to come out irritated at something, but I still do it.)

So, I was reading an alleged “Case Against Atheism: Atheist Scientists.“And I was thinking, “oh ho ho, this should be amusing.

…or make me want to hurt people mentally.

Well, I read it…and I thought, “ok, ok, so there are problems with this line of thought, but ok, I’ll go with it.”

And then I got to a particular line…

Do take note that atheism is not even the lack of belief in a god, but the belief of NO god. It is the reinforcement of the negative absolute statement.

Wat? (Yep, this statement doesn’t even deserve the h.) I mean, this is such a confident statement, but it is so wrong.

There are multiple atheist stances…there’re implicit stances and and explicit stances. There’s a weak stance and a strong stance. The weak stance exactly is “lack of belief in a god,” so for someone to say atheism is not this is intriguing.

I read on to the comments, hoping that this would turn hilarious eventually.

At first, it was just theists hi fiving…ok, yes, that’s good.  And then someone named Simen, thankfully, pointed out:

No, that’s wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god.

Good for him. Was it over?

Nope. Then came people trying to use the DICTIONARY in their favor.

Thanks for your note.
Just wondering, is there a difference in degree change the definition of atheism itself? Strong and weak atheism… im not that sure. Isn’t strong atheism juz a person who conform strictly with the atheistic standards? Well, according to dictionary.com

Atheism is
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

While the American Heritage Dictionary state atheism to be:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

So yeah, im not quite sure about your alternate definition… perhaps you might wanna verify the sources?

…Guys, this is framing at its best…as well as some ignorance thrown in. Let me dissect. The ignorance is in the idea of strong and weak atheism. We KNOW what strong and weak atheism are, so this idea that a strong atheist is just someone who “conforms strictly with atheistic standards” (and what are those, I wonder? Atheism does not have a lot of standards other than “lack of belief in god”…) is just silly.

But then I realized there was a deep misunderstanding. See…when I see definition 2 for the first subset and definition 1 for the second, I see this word…”disbelief” and I recognize clearly that this is “a lack of belief.” The other definition, of a BELIEF (see, active belief, no dis- in front of it) THAT THERE ARE NO GODS, represents strong atheism…but disbelief…it is a rejection of belief (which leaves an absence of belief)..it is possible a refusal of belief (which leaves an absence of belief)…it is not a belief in the nonexistence of whatever the countering belief was. Why is this important? Well, all of atheism isn’t strong. Strong atheism actually has different arguments than weak atheism…because when you claim the nonexistence of something, then there are a number of hoops you have to go through (either prove its inconsistency or something like that). Lack of belief…a disbelief…just means you don’t have sufficient convincing evidence.

I can make this even more simple by putting both in the form of belief. A weak atheist believes no gods. A strong atheist believes no gods exist. So, this existence part really changes the ballpark. Alternatively, a weak atheist does not believe in gods. A strong atheist does not believe in the existence of gods. If I say, “I don’t believe you,” or “I don’t believe in you” this is not the same as saying, “I don’t believe you exist!”

But…for these guys, these definitions solidified their frame!

Nice post… it is good to see you properly defined atheism not as merely a lack of belief, but as a disbelief. If anyone doubts it they should check out my last post, which shows this definition is accurate.

Interesting…I wonder what the one-word phrase for lack of belief is?

Friend Simen points out:

Definition of disbelief, dictionary.com:

–verb (used with object)
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

m-w.com:

transitive verb : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief

As you see, no active belief in the opposite.

But then…what next?

y are we so caught up with definitions? haa.. it’s kinda ludicrous.. that we’re playing word games.. haha.. what are words..subjective usage to get across a meaning.. which mite not fully translate wat u really mi aft all. haha..

WAT? So now, definitions don’t matter. They are just word games. Subjective usage to get across a meaning. But of course…only one person’s subjective usage seems to mean anything…this is framing.

Simen, there’s a difference between lack of belief in god(s) and belief in *no* god. If you equate atheism in that way, then you don’t have an enhanced term but 2 quite different terms; with the same word which causes a problem.
No…atheism is an *active* disbelief in any god whatsoever. An atheist is someone who has decided to stop believing in any god whatsoever. And this is crucial because no matter what proof, solid or not, you might show them, they will refuse to believe, just like Jesus said, if they don’t believe the Bible, even if someone came back from the dead they would still not believe.

And it is solidly enshrouded in the minds of people. The irony is that this narrative does not actually reject weak atheism…the lack of belief. This guy tries to chastise Simen for having a word with multiple meanings (which, unlike something like “cleave” or any other autoantonym that has opposing definitions, the two alleged definitions for atheism that these guys reject actually both fit under the idea of atheism…without god. A. theism) but then the guy says, “An atheist is someone who has decided to stop believing in any god whatsoever.”

OK, well, even if I take issue with “stop” and “decided” (after all, you don’t come fresh from your mom with a belief…and it might not be your decision to make)…the real point is…”an atheist does not believe in any god whatsoever.” Check this out: “does not believe.” That sounds like…”disbelieves” or “lack of belief.” And even further, “does not believe” does not sound like “believes no god exists.” a god could exist (which is a question of knowledge, gnosticism vs. agnosticism, but that’s another note), but an atheist does not believe.

Why? Well, this guy gets it wrong. He says that atheists refuse to believe no matter what…in reality, all an atheist wants is credible evidence. Evidence that should not require faith and should fit within logic and reason. Without this evidence, he lacks a belief. Now, a theist will be sure to point out everything they feel is evidence, but I like the theme of this blog entry…one very important piece of evidence is a religious experience…some confirmation…that the theist then backs his faith up. And even a religious experience does not conclude a god exists (another day’s note, maybe.)

I really could go on, because the comments do. But this note is already too long. Actually, the rest of the comments give me some hope. Oh well.