I apologize. Comment 77 was as an ad hominem attack and a result of me staying up past midnight blogging. I have no problem if the mods want to remove it. I do think your points are intelligent and well thought out.

I consider myself a buffet Mormon, and clearly your post on BCC supports those who don’t believe everything but still stay active in their religion. I appreciate that.

I do think that the Mormon lens (my Mormon lens) makes choosing a church based on what accomodates your lifestyle irrational. But since most protestant churches don’t teach they are the one true church, I find moving from church to church very rational for Christians looking for the best fit. Aside from evangelicals and baptists, it is very rare that I meet a protestant who feels the church they attend is the “true” church, or agrees with all of their church’s tenets.

Please accept my apology.

sweet then. I do not feel the discussion was a waste in the slightest. To reiterate, my entire point in saying atheism is not a belief system is to point out that it is as broad as theism. Theism is a huge umbrella…and from this umbrella, you can’t really tell much. You just know that everything in that umbrella has a belief in deity somewhere there. But obviously, though believers in Zeus and Muslims both believe in deities, you can’t really lump them together meaningfully. Atheism is similar…it is a huge umbrella, and from this umbrella you can’t really tell much. You just know that everything in this umbrella does not have a belief in deity. So, though Dawkins and I both do not believe in gods, he does not “represent” me in the way that a Mormon like Thomas S. Monson rightfully represents another Mormon like a member of the church. Thomas Monson shares much in common with another Mormon, because Mormonism is a comprehensive belief system. But Dawkins doesn’t necessarily share much in common with me as an atheist, because atheism is not a comprehensive belief system. Similarly, a Greek pagan, though he is a theist like Thomas S. Monson is a theist, doesn’t share much in common with him as a theist.

I have not equated lack of belief in god to not caring whether there is a belief in god. Rather, the caring or not caring is a different question that has little to do with the belief or nonbelief. In particular, as Jonathan Blake mentioned, this is a position called apatheism. Apatheism cannot be equivalent to lacking a belief in god because it is perfectly possible (and I think, rather common) for someone to be theist and apatheist (I don’t care if there is a god, but I believe there is one.)

However, I do think that apatheism and atheism are often seen together; in other words, they are often comorbid. Personally, my nonbelief and my not caring are linked because of the reasons for my nonbelief…I don’t believe because I am not convinced to believe…I am not convinced to believe because there seems to be no impact on my life whether I believe or not…so I really don’t care about if there is a god or not, because, even if there is, there seems to be no impact on my life. However, as the old apatheist phrase goes, it is important not to mistake hemlock for parsley…because that most certainly will impact my life.

So, I agree with you. You may feel the discussion was a waste of time but I enjoyed it.

One question, did you state that a lack of belief in god is often times equivalent to not caring whether there is a god?

Dexter, then I guess you can leave with that belief…but I think it is unintuitive and unconvincing. Basically, you are left accepting the rather strange claim that lack of belief makes a belief system.

But I’ve caught you.

Believing in god is not enough to be a belief system. And it’s precisely because basic theism tells us as little as basic atheism does. All we know is that the person supposes some kind of god or gods somewhere. However, we do not know what you think OF that deity, how it affects your life, what your moral system you have is, what your worldview is. In fact, we don’t know anything. Because your belief in god, your theism, is just one disparate item. It is not a comprehensive belief system and it is not a comprehensive worldview.

So, what is your belief system? What is your worldview? Your worldview comes into play when you get specific about the specific ways you believe. So, you KNOW intuitively that there are different ways to believe in god…so you should know INTUITIVELY that just saying “I’m theist” is not specific enough. However, when someone says they are monotheistic…that narrows things down some. When someone says they are Christian, that narrows it down EVEN more with prescriptions about a moral code. When someone says they are Mormon, that narrows it down even more. These narrower definitions ARE the worldviews and belief systems, because they are COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGES. Theism is NOT a comprehensive package, and neither is atheism.

Not only that, but we are missing the distinction between theism and atheism. Theism still has the explicit belief in some kind of deity. Atheism does not have any explicit belief (you might say that atheism is an explicit belief that there is no deity, but keep in mind that this ONLY applies to strong/positive atheists and not all of atheism). So, even though I have shown that one belief does not make a belief system (e.g., theism alone does not make a belief system because the only belief necessary for theism is just the broad belief in SOME kind of deity)…really, this is ONE thing more than atheism…because with theism, you do have that ONE belief. With atheism, you don’t even have that. You have nothing. Because the atheism only tells you that someone lacks a belief.

I guess I just disagree with you on my second tenet. If someone has thought about whether god exists, and decided they lack a belief in god, that has meaning. Enough meaning, in my opinion, to be a belief system. If someone lacks a belief in unicorns, that has no meaning, because most haven’t considered it and those who have certainly haven’t considered it with the seriousness that people commonly use to dwell upon god.

If believing in god is enough to be a belief system, despite all the different ways one can believe in god, then not believing in god is enough to be a belief system, despite all the different manners one can believe, in my humble opinion.

I think your basketball game analogy would be better if instead of the people at the arena you used the population of Cleveland to represent people in general. Yes, there were 20,000 people at the arena, and almost every one of them was intensely concerned with the outcome, but there were another 400,000 who weren’t there. And their involvement ranged from equally intense concern to casual interest to not even knowing there was a game that night to, in a few cases, not even knowing who Lebron James is.

I think belief in god is a lot more like that than like what happened in the arena. Some people care a lot about god, some people care a little, some people don’t care, and some people have literally never thought about it. The ratios, I suppose, simply depend on where you live and who’s around you. (Outside Cleveland, after all, far fewer people care about LBJ.)

No, I’m not quite getting what you mean.

AT best, you only establish the social importance of belief or nonbelief in god (in the same way that your example in Cleveland only establishes the social importance of interest in the game). Basically, you do NOT establish that the 3 at the buzzer actually affected every person and that every person should care about that. Rather, you establish that what affected people was the fact that everyone else was wildly reacting to them, and wondering why they weren’t wildly reacting too.

But I do not deny this social phenomenon. However, that helps my point. The person who doesn’t care about the game is going to react to this social phenomenon, but his reaction is going to be to say, “Hmm…I wish people hadn’t been so loud. I simply do not care about this issue.”

Similarly, with the god issue, the only reason people would be caring is not because of intrinsic interest in the issue, but rather because they are wondering why the people around them care about something that seems to be at its own rather unimportant and inconsequential. This produces some of the effects that I was talking about earlier. The reason we SEEM to have people coming to speak for atheism is NOT because atheism is a worldview…but rather because atheists socially may have co-morbid experiences as a result of living in a world of theists. This does not make these experiences or attitudes necessary for atheism — because you can find someone who hasn’t had those experiences, but still fits the necessary definition of atheism.

I have never disagreed with your first tenet, that everyone has sincerely thought about it (although I might suggest young children, etc.,). I think that is meaningless and has no impact on whether or not it is a belief system. I DO disagree with your second tenet — that lacking belief has meaning so long as the issue has been duly considered. You are essentially saying, “Lacking belief is a belief system (this already makes no sense, btw) just because everyone around a nonbeliever has a belief system that the one person has had to think about for a long time…even though he doesn’t adopt this.”

Atheism itself is *not* a belief system. Rather, what I’ve said in comments is that each atheist is going to have some kind of belief system that fits on top of atheism. From atheism, you can tell little to nothing about this belief system…you can only expect that whatever belief system a person employs, it will not have god (but this doesn’t let you determine much at all.) Similarly, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, regardless of how popular or unpopular stamp collecting is. Because you learn nothing about a person, other than that whatever that person does is not collecting stamps. The only difference is that when someone doesn’t collect stamps, the social reaction is that no one bats an eye (because stamp collecting isn’t perceived as an issue of social consciousness — I guess you say, “some people have never even thought about it at all” whereas belief in God is an issue of social consciousness).

My point is not to say “they never once wondered,” so you seem to be hitting a strawman of my argument. Rather, I am saying that someone who doesn’t believe doesn’t care, and you haven’t touched that. Secondly, nonbelief is not a worldview itself, and you haven’t touched that. (The worldview must be something else, that just happens to fit on top of the worldview).

If you want to group atheists as having a common belief, then go on ahead. But I think what you’ll find is that the only thing in common they have is a lack of belief in gods. So, while you can OF COURSE group on this, this is not meaningful to you…because you don’t find out anything about their worldview or belief system. Two atheists do not have to agree on morality or the source or morality (you can just bet they both don’t attribute it to god)…two atheist do not have to agree on metaphysics or the creation of the universe (you can just bet they both don’t attribute it to god)…on the other hand, if you find someone is a Buddhist…or if you find someone is an existentialist, then you can *start* to tell details because these *are* worldviews and belief systems.

To anyone who were to tell me, they have never cared and never given it any thought, I simply would not believe them. I believe that all rational humans, for at least a few moments, do dwell on and do care about whether there is a god. And this common bond, that we all experience at least once, I think, is important enough to fairly group atheists as having a common belief. Even if one doesn’t care whether there is a god for the rest of their lives, all humans capable of deep thought would have at least cared for a moment about whether god exists. The same can’t be said about unicorns or stamp collecting.

Back to Cleveland, the point of the example was that the same way I believe all have cared about the issue of god, for at least a moment, is the same as everyone in the arena, caring for at least the moment of the buzzer beater. Of course there were people present who probably did not want to be there, at least not for the reason of watching the game. I’m sure some were there accompanying someone who did care, when they themselves didn’t care. I’m sure some were there with clients to improve business relations, even if the host didn’t care about sports at all. BUT, when Lebron hit the 3 at the buzzer, even those who didn’t want to be there and who didn’t care about sports were interested in the game, even if only for a few moments, and even if only because of all the wild reactions from fans around them. And if someone said it didn’t affect them at all and they didn’t care, I wouldn’t believe them. Similarly, if someone told me they never once wondered if there was a god, and never cared at all, I would not believe them.

If you disagree, do you disagree with my first tenet, that everyone has sincerely thought about it?
Or do you disagree with my second tenet, that “lacking belief” has meaning so long as the issue has been duly considered?

that actually is a good point, and one that I am trying to raise. When we talk about whether it is ok for one group to be related and identified with another…then what we are doing is determining what should be the intuitive definition of a particular term. So, I made a misstep…I meant to say, “public perception of FLDS as being LDS”…because the intuitive definition of LDS is defined by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who it decides are members, etc., Whereas, as you mention, the intuitive definition of “Mormon” is much looser (some might say it’s only for LDS members, but as you point out, it could be much freer.)

So, the issue is that different groups are using different definitions. Christians use such a definition of Christianity that can exclude Mormons, but I don’t think that we should just say “majority rules.” Rather, I think that when we look at an intuitive definition of Christianity — what *should* the definition of Christianity intuitively cover, then Mormonism should fit the bill. If you ask a nonChristian, for example, who has no vested interest, if Mormons should be Christian, and you point how the church’s doctrine relates to Jesus Christ, the Atonement etc., I think that anyone without a vested interest would intuit that Mormons SHOULD be Christian, regardless of if we have a sizeable population of other creedal Christians in this nation who use less intuitive definitions and assert that Mormons believe in a false Jesus.

Basically, though, my point in distinguishing something as a super important thing on its own and something as being a super important thing because society believes it is important is that these things are essentially different. Yes, of course I recognize this is the audience here and this is the way society works. But that’s all we can figure out — this is the way society works. If society somehow had an immense fixation with pet rocks…and they treated them with the fervor of a belief in god, then all we know about this is that society view pet rocks as important. We do not find out that pet rocks are actually important from the adoration and respect given. Now, it could be that pet rocks are important, but the issue is this cannot be determined simply from looking at how popular in society or within a particular group it is.

I didn’t miss the point in the Cleveland analogy. Rather, I think you have the wrong language. I’m not saying, “Don’t have an opinion about.” Rather, I’m saying, “don’t care about.” And I CERTAINLY think that someone in the arena who doesn’t have a like for sports (this is his opinion about it) can pull off not carrying about a 3 pointer at the buzzer. Similarly, I CERTAINLY think that someone in the world who doesn’t believe in god (this is his opinion about it) can possibly not care about it. As atheist, I’m not saying “I don’t have an opinion about god.” I think really, there are two opinions on the belief question — I believe or I don’t. And I don’t believe.

Similarly, it’s not that people don’t have opinions about stamps or unicorns. Rather, everyone does have an opinion about stamps or unicorns. It’s generally, “I don’t believe and I don’t care.” Same as an atheist with gods, but our society does not have a fixation with stamps or unicorns so we don’t get in a fuss over people who do not believe in unicorns or people who do not collect stamps.

The better argument probably would be the common misunderstanding of LDS as not being Christian – since “Christian” is defined radically differently by various people, and the majority definition in this country probably excludes Mormons.

First, let me say I realize this discussion is a bit over my head. Until recently, I could not even entertain the idea of this world not having a god. Due to my strong belief in the LDS church, I never found these types of debates interesting, since I thought I knew the truth and the plan, etc. But now, I have an immense interest in these issues and so I appreciate that you responded to my post at all since you may have thought I was missing the boat. As it turns out, I may be missing the boat, or, hopefully, slowly catching up to it.

I do think your point is a good one that belief in god is not necessarily some super important thing, but that it has simply been defined as a super important thing by society. But, that is the society we live in, and that is definitely the audience here on this site. People who don’t care whether god exists are probably a very small percentage of people who read this site.

And you missed the point of the Cleveland game. I said I wouldn’t believe someone IN THE ARENA if they said they didn’t care at all about the shot. My point was, anyone in the arena had an opinion about that shot. Thus, anyone in the world, I was trying to argue, has an opinion about god. But millions don’t have an opinion about stamps or unicorns.

so, public perception of FLDS as being Mormons, even though that is incorrect…do you just accept that? Especially when you can point to the historical distinctions and reason why people *shouldn’t* continue using convenient, but improper definitions? I mean, yes, 30+% of American Christians will think you’re a terrible heathen if you say you’re Mormon, but this isn’t *right* just because it is socially popular. In the end, if I become any kind of public individual on the subject, it would be more important to straighten out definitions than to actually try to make anyone atheist or whatever. Isn’t that interesting.

yeah…so the original topic was…when do we stay in religion and when do we not? How flexible can or should we be with respect to disagreements between “official” theology and personal beliefs?

We can argue definitions, but I tend to go with general understanding in a society. Otoh, for controlled conversations like this, we can designate any special definitions we want – and I like some of the more nuanced definitions that have been listed.

What was the original topic again?

I think intuitively, agnosticism should be compatible with atheism and theism. Etymologically, of course they are. I mean, I can think of MANY people who say, “I don’t know for sure if God exists, but I still believe.” THIS IS THE PARADIGM OF FAITH and that is essentially agnostic theism. At the same time, I can think of many people who say, “I don’t know if God exists; I don’t have reason to believe, so I don’t.” Agnostic weak atheism. Or people who say, “I don’t know if God exists, but because I’ve never seen any compelling evidence, I believe he doesn’t.” Agnostic strong atheism. Personally, I don’t take the strong atheist position, because absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. But then I know that strong atheists have different arguments (e.g., they might claim that a certain formulation of god does not exist because that formulation is logically impossible…I don’t take this position because God theoretically could rip logic to shreds if he wanted and blow my mind in the process…but that sure doesn’t give me reason to believe.)

In the end…I just want you to look at…if someone does not believe in god…just think what that means…they do not believe in god. This seems to fit atheism. Agnosticism seems to have nothing to do with it. It seems etymologically and intuitively sound, even if common usage of the terms is different.

I disagree. Whether god exists or not really isn’t an important issue. What is important is that humans have subjectively determined for some reason that belief or nonbelief in god somehow is important, but we shouldn’t confuse the subjective drumming up of this things as important with it *actually* being important. In the past, we have had different things that have subjectively been determined to be important to believe in or not, but these say more about the biases of the societies and civilizations of history than it does about the actual universe. Let’s say, for example, that God actually does not exist and instead, the unicorn queen goddess exists. This really doesn’t matter, and instead, the culturally, socially, and subjectively accepted belief in god will STILL have primacy because that’s where we are in culture.

It’s really hard to discuss this issue because obviously, for theists, God *is* important, so if we live in a culture of mostly theists, then that’s going to be culturally accepted as the norm, and so it’s hard to argue that it isn’t really important and we just think so because of our society and personal biases. Regardless, I mean, I’m thinking many atheists *are* going to view their nonbelief in gods in the same way they view nonbelief in unicorns or lack of interest in stamp collecting. In the end, one of the reasons that Dawkins and others are anti-theist is precisely because they believe their nonbelief shouldn’t be seen as this shocking thing. It should be as normal and ho-hum as a-unicornism. So, really, their anti-theism is a backlash against the way society has this fixation and thinks everyone should too.

It’s akin to being present at the Cleveland Cavs game the other night when Lebron hit a 3 at the buzzer to win it. If you were in the arena, I frankly would not believe you if you said you didn’t see the play didn’t care to see it and that it didn’t interest you at all. That is how I feel about someone on earth who has no opinion whatsoever about god. I just would not believe them. So I think it is fair for John to actually call not believing a belief because it is such a huge issue.

So now, in a society full of sports lovers, not being a sports lover is weird. This actually helps my point immensely. There should be no reason for sports nonlovers to join together (the only thing they necessarily have in common is they don’t care for sports), but SOCIALLY, if they do join together, it wouldn’t be all that surprising, because they live in a society where everyone expects people to love sports and be impressed and interested by it (as you put it, you could not believe someone if they said they didn’t care to see a 3 at the buzzer). This wouldn’t be a necessary part of not liking sports, but rather a co-morbid factor only caused by the fact that most people in society like sports.

Now, I didn’t say “have no opinion about.” Rather, they do not believe in. There is no way to “have no opinion.” Rather, you believe or you do not believe. Perhaps you do not believe because you are not convinced. Perhaps you do not believe because you’ve never heard about it. But for whatever, reason, some people don’t believe. And dude, some people don’t like sports. Believe it. IF ANYTHING, they care MORE about the fact that you won’t believe that they don’t care about sports…like if ANYTHING, I care MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE about the fact that some people will not believe that I don’t care about God. And I think when Dawkins and others do what they do, they do it because they feel it’s absurd that society is like that.

And Andrew, you argued that many people simply lack a belief in god without letting it affect their lives and that, therefore, it is unfair to lump atheists into a group with common beliefs. That may be true, but there would certainly be an equal number of believers who do not really care much and do not really let that belief affect their decisions.

This is a FUN one…In comment 56, Jonathan describes more definition. Pay close attention to the one “apatheist” because I completely agree that there are believers and nonbelievers who both do not let their beliefs affect their lives. Apatheism is something that both atheists and theists can be.

HOWEVER…I think you miss the point. Lack of belief doesn’t affect my life in the same way not liking sports doesn’t affect my life or not believing in unicorns doesn’t affect my life. The only reasons these do affect my life, in the end, is because other people are constantly talking about these things…this doesn’t make them actually important, but socially, their importance is secured.