Atheist "identity"

The whole thing smells a bit funny to me. I guess I'm a bit of a curmudgeon because I "deconverted" before the whole "new" atheism thing blew up. (Get off my lawn! etc.) I also have a problem with conflating the two because I don't see them as necessarily related -- I became an atheist and philosophical naturalist via radical skepticism, so I'm coming from a totally different place there.

I think you only have a problem with conflating the labels, not the concepts I'm talking about. I'll try and lay it out a little straighter, I don't think it's so much conflating incompatible ideas so much as evolving one into the other. (note, this is a lot longer than intended and may get bumped off to the blog or an essay)

Firstly, I find atheism to be a somewhat useless label. It conveys little information except that 90% of the world subscribes to an arbitrary belief system involving supernatural superstitions and 10% of the world goes against that. Without religion, atheism ceases to have a meaning. Just like "not playing Jurblung" doesn't have much meaning unless a lot of people play Jurblung - and they don't, I just made that up there and then. So having a word for "people who don't play Jurblung" is pointless, it conveys no information. Atheism does have meaning, but only because religion exists. The trouble is, this "religion" thing becomes something akin to "I know it when I see it" and so the use of the word "atheism" to convey a lot of meaningful information is somewhat reduced. As I've said elsewhere, even people who say "I believe in God" could be counted as atheists (at least, implicitly) if their concept and image of God and religion don't match the rest of the adult population. To say otherwise would be to say that the statement "I believe in God" automatically makes you religious regardless of what you mean by it.

I basically want to get to the bottom of what I mean when I say "I am an atheist" - and this will be what I mean because I'm clarifying my thoughts, someone else may choose to do the same and come up with a different answer, I would encourage this. There's no sense in a bunch of people using the same label for their ideas if their ideas don't match! (And yes, I've done this point to death) The "I am an atheist" statement otherwise just depends on how you define "atheist", and arguing from definitions is, well, boring and doesn't really prove anything.

So I want to identify a way that conveys my actual belief without requiring the context of religion espoused in above I.e., if I was to leave this universe and re-enter an alternate one where religion just plain and simply didn't exist it would still be meaningful.

Imagine I did it the lazy way around, call it the "traditional" way, and said "well, I define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in any god, including the Abrahamic YHWH(s), Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and every other deity from A to Z (and 0-9, !, ", £, $ or any other character". This is exactly as our article puts it. Well, the problem here is that I'm still "defining" the word atheism rather than communicating what I mean by it, and even worse I'm still doing it in the context of other religions. Now, let's propose something silly for a moment. Suppose someone said "the god I worship is Barack Obama" (told you it would be silly). Well, my definition says that I can't believe in Barack Obama (I don't believe in any god), even though Barack Obama is clearly a real person - he's human shaped, I can see him, hear him, read his words, see him interact with others and potentially interact with him personally. That's absurd, but it's what my "definition", as it stands, demands of me. You could propose that my definition actually means "I don't believe Barack Obama is a god" BUT that's not "lacking a belief in any god A to Z...", it's simply denying that something real can be a god. I'd then have to change my definition to include "the god-like qualities of a real entity" or somthing like that. It's just shifting around categories and fairly ad hoc and is also moving the goalposts somewhat. Mostly, it's very, very messy. It's more caveats, more definitions, and we grow close to "I know it when I see it". I don't think, at a fundamental level, this "Obama is a god" example is any more or less absurd than people discussing whether Buddhists are atheists and how that pertains to an anti-religious stance held by atheists (which is a trope I'm sure we've all seen).

So, let's question why I would deny that Obama is a god, along with denying the existence of supernatural gods too boot. Well, the way I find myself trying to unite these ideas is simply empirical observation: what do I expect from these assertions? If there were supernatural gods, I'd expect prayer to work better than chance, and for miracles to happen, or for booming voices in the sky and evidence of intelligent design like us not biting our own cheeks, being born technically 6 months prematurely and so on. If Obama was a god I'd expect similar supernatural powers - at least lightning bolts from the fingertips but I'd probably settle for less if you persuaded me that they were suitably impressive. Then I'd not so much "believe that Obama was a god" as much "admit that Obama had these powers" - because they matched up with empirical observation. On the other hand, if someone proposed that Obama was a god but displayed only human characteristics then... well, that assertion carries with it no useful information. We may as well say Obama doesn't play Jurblung and call it a remarkable fact.

Here's the real important but difficult to explain bit: I'm not saying that "expectation of empirical observation" is what I mean by "true" (or what one could call "philosophical naturalism"), nor do I suggest that this is my definition of it, or my explanation of it - it's simply that this is what I'm talking about. Of course, "true" "real" "existent" are nice words that I could use, but I can't be sure that everyone agrees that these mean "detectable by observation". So I'm avoiding mental short-cuts like "atheism" and "rationalism" and cutting straight to the chase of what I mean and what I think. I don't mean that this is what "true" means, nor what "real" means, nor what "rational" means, nor what "atheism" means - it is simply an end in itself. Because you may well want to say "real" is something different (and I do pity the sort of people who do pull "but by definition" arguments, as if changing the definition will change my mind), but then we wouldn't be talking about the same thing, would we? So instead of "beliefs should produce empirical expectations" being a definition of some kind, it's a statement that I make that I value as part of my identity of beliefs. I expect my beliefs (simply statements I assert) to produce expectations - end of. If they don't then I don't find a use for them. Not because I define them as not real, but simply because they don't produce expectations. Call it what you like, these are simply the values I wish to endorse.

Now, you might say that this exercise is rather pointless; but is it any less pointless than, say, arguing about the definition of "religion" to prove that "atheism is not a religion"?

All I've done is moved on from using "atheism" as a term. Hopefully this explains the thought process enough to convince you I'm not just conflating incompatible and distinct ideas of "atheism" and "philosophical naturalism" - just that when pushed for what I actually think, I don't need to make such a distinction.

Anyway, it is now stupid o'clock in the morning and between writing that and talking to a brick wall on Facebook I'm pooped.

Or you could split them into two entities and say that you believe in Obama the man, but not Obama the god. (Ain't philosophy grand?)

But why split it up and add extra convolution when it can be far far simpler? I have no reason to *believe* in either: I can simply ask "what are the consequences of your assertion and do we actually observe them?" and see if that's true or not.

"Obama the god" and "Obama the man" require us to define what "god" and "man" are first, which is a distracting issue. Far better to simply inquire as to what someone expects to see of the guy: superpowered finger lightning, for instance? If we don't see it, your assertion is false. End of story.

If someone was to say "Obama is a god" and then follow that with "err... well, nothing really" to the request for real-world expectations then they can say "Obama is a god" all they like, as much as they can say "Obama is a sausage" or "Obama is actually a woman" or "Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in America so isn't eligible to be President". But they've simply said nothing of interest or of value because it conveys no useful information.

There you go. I think you might be expecting too much from single words.

Perhaps I am. So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?

All I really expect, is for people (myself included) to be able to explain themselves without resorting to jargon-filled tropes. I recently read something to the effect of "you can call yourself an agnostic but you're still an atheist". Or even better, I read a free software rant that said "Microsoft's fonts aren't free, they're costless!". And I just thought, wait... what?!?

"So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?" I see that, especially as regards that block of text upscreen. Conversely, conciseness is also a virtue.

Why?

See what I did there? Yeah baby, I'm that good!

It's true by definition.

Cute little phrases are nice, but don't really mean much on their own.

See attention span.

I know, but that's more a practicality than a virtue, right?

Try reading some Ayn Rand if you think I'm wrong.

Touché.

Actually, I could turn that upside down and say that I don't expect too much of a single word. Anyone using a single word probably expects too much of it. If you think "atheism" completely sums up all your beliefs, then... well you know what they say: "if your opinion can fit on a bumper sticker..."

I think you're missing the point of words.

I don't get it. Is the point that you pick a word and then argue over its definition and etymology for hours on end?

No, the point is that it's an intellectual shorthand for a cluster of ideas. If you get rid of this, you'll just be producing hugely redundant and repetitive blocks of text as above. However, these concepts can be "unpacked" if a problem is encountered in the conversation.

Yes. That would be the point if you come across a problem. I recently saw a problem with people arguing over whether someone was agnostic or not - so I just proposed them just saying what their belief was.

See, that's a situation where it's necessary. It's all about context.

I would agree there. Actually, I like the "unpacking" term a little better. Though that would run the risk of "hey, let's define our term". I'm still firmly with Yudkowsky that this isn't the best solution.

??? Defining your term isn't the best solution? Then what is?

The linguist in me is shivering at the "don't define a word, just avoid it" concept. Just define it, then use it as you defined it. It's how every single thing we communicate is done, every day, unless you are talking art or music. If you don't define something, then the symbolic language humans have created ceases to be effective, cause everyone is avoiding so-called "problematic" words.

Now whether or not you are an atheist is a different question. My answer depends on teh context, how deeply people care about distinctions, etc. But isn't that the way with everything?

I agree (but only partially). We're getting back into the concept of rationalist taboo again, and, once again, I have to say it depends on the context. Sometimes there are terms that are so loaded it's easier to just avoid them altogether.

I don't know what we are doing. I'm just avoiding work. Loaded terms are intended to be loaded terms. But that doesn't apply to things like "religion" "god", "atheist" which are all useful terms that can be quickly and fairly precisely defined at the beginning of a conversation.

But mostly I don't care other than reading what sounds like the start of a very long conversation for ADK, dealing with someone who doesn't care what ADK has to say, only what that someone himself wants to think.

Those conversations will not be improved by avoiding or using loaded language; avoiding or using precise language - they will only be improved by avoiding using any language and saying "nertz" or making buzzing noises. ;-)

Here's the context that made me wonder about atheism as a useful term - well, strictly "agnosticism", but there's always that "oh, but atheists should always be agnostic!!" crap going on.

Someone says "I'm agnostic, because I think we'll never know if there's a God"

Everyone applauds such open minded fairness. After all, you have to be soooo deep to be open minded.

Then I say "wait, you say we'll never know?"

They say "yes". Well, they didn't, I cut that step out. I'm a little drunk, this could be fun to explain from now on.

So I add "so, you'll never know if God is real. Therefore there's no way of detecting God."

"Right"

"So there's no way that God can make a meaningful interaction with the world?"

"Erm..."

"So what is the fucking point in believing in God?"

"Derp"

Then someone else like chimes in and says "hey, so you must be an atheist then!!!"

And I'm like "bitches, please. Just shut up."

So basically, yes, "agnosticism" seems to be used as a loaded term. It's a term that says "hey guys, I'm totally open minded about God because I'm cool and open minded and intellectual and look at how open minded I am". When really it's saying "actually, I've just given undue privilege to a hypothesis with fuck all evidence for it. I just want the connotations of being open minded despite having no belief whatsofuckingever in God or gods or any of that crap but am too scared of putting my bollocks on the line to say so."

Though why a girl would be scared of putting her bollocks on the line is beyond me.

I should stop steam-of-conciousnessing... it never ends well.