Revisiting the term “atheist”

The concept of belief is intrinsically gradient. It is not binary in spite of the terms employed to reflect the concept of belief suggesting a binary quality.  

I’ve address this issue previously here and here, but I think it warrants revisiting.

Belief is intrinsically gradient. Consider another concept that is intrinsically gradient. Love is a concept that intrinsically falls on a gradient. 

Let’s imagine someone says the following.

“You either love me or you don’t. Which is it?”

We would consider this person immature and inappropriately forcing you to make love binary when we all know it is not. We are not forced to say “I am a lover” or “I am not a lover”. Love comes in degrees, and to treat it as binary is to unnecessarily default to a very low-resolution, as the tag “love” can be used to cover a multitude of positions along the gradient of love.

Consider another person saying…

“You either like James Brown or you don’t. You have to decide whether you do or you don’t.”

We know “liking”, just as “believing” and “loving”, are gradient concepts. We would consider this person philosophically unsophisticated at best. 

The problem seems to be the misguided notion that, because the linguistic tags are binary (e.g., belief/disbelief, love/hate, like/dislike) that these somehow inform the concept. 

But linguistic tags are not prior to the concepts they are employed to represent. The concept is always ontologically prior to any subjectively derived linguistic tags that might be  recruited to convey that concept. 

So forcing a clearly gradient concept into a binary linguistic mold is misguided and inappropriate. 

I currently give an Einsteinian god a 15% degree of certainty, but this certainty was once closer to 80%, then gradually declined. 

There was nothing magical when that degree of certainty reached 50%. This 50% has no more significance than you reaching your 50th birthday. It is an arbitrary number that may be aesthetically pleasing, but it remains arbitrary. We don’t, if we are rational,  give concepts significance based on arbitrary thresholds. 

Imagine Mr X suggesting that he is “bald” since he has only 49% of his original hair, while calling Mr Y with 51% of his original hair “not-bald”. Imagine Mr X running around suggesting to men who have <50% of their original hair that they must call themselves “bald”. 

Observe the silliness of inverting the proper heirarchy between the concept and its linguistic tag. 

If a concept is intrinsically gradient, you can’t invoke linguistic use or limitations associated with that concept to modify the concept. The concept remains as it is, and linguistics, if they are to facilitate a meaningful and accurate communication of that concept, must reflect with as high a precision as possible that concept. 

If “disbelief” and “belief” are inadequate to reflect the vast range of possible belief positions between 0% and 100% on the epistemic gradient, we should not create an arbitrary threshold of 50% to validate the terms “disbelief” and “belief”, but rather add the modifiers that will best reflect our actual epistemic position. These modifiers can be terms such as “slight(ly)”, “significant(ly) and “extreme(ly)”, or can be an actual percentage as I attempt to do when expressing my Einsteinian god belief. 

In summary, concepts are always logically prior and ontologically foundational to any linguistic tags that we employ to reflect those concepts. Inverting this heirarchy for gradient concepts such as loving, believing and liking is, at best, to pixelate the concept, and in most cases to distort the concept, a result not consistent with the presumed goal of accurate communication.


Robert G. Ingersoll

ingersollThe promotion of reason in opposition to faith is nothing new. Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 – July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism. His arguments have not lost their force. Also a prominent member of the Republican Party, he refused to run for office, and is best known for his speeches for which the public paid as much as $1 to attend. Below is a collection of some of his most salient quotes from books and speeches.

  1. Nothing is greater than to break the chains from the bodies of men — nothing nobler than to destroy the phantom of the soul.
    —Robert Green Ingersoll, quoted from the Address, Ingersoll the Magnificent, delivered by Joseph Lewis on August 11th 1954 dedicating, as a Public Memorial, the house in which Robert G Ingersoll was born, Dresden, Yates County, in the state of New York.

  2. The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men.
    —Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child”

  3. They knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian.
    —Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Limitations of Toleration”

  4. The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive, and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies forever.
    —Robert Green Ingersoll, “Crumbling Creeds”

    Continue reading

Dog Leaving Christianity

Sometimes people ask me what it’s like to leave christianity. This video is the best explanation I could find.

  1. Convince yourself that the god you’re enthusiastically chasing is real.
  2. Deny the fact that others watching you chase this god from the perspective of reality see something a bit ridiculous.
  3. Finally get up to chase this vision of god in the real world.
  4. Run headlong into the wall of logic and reason.
  5. Sheepishly wake up to reality.

Deconversion Stories

The following are deconversion stories of individuals from a variety of backgrounds.

  • Youtube user DasAmericanAtheist

  • Youtube user LovingDoubt

  • Youtube user DrixDZanth. Former Evangelical Christian / Former Well-read Creationist.

Continue reading

Reasons for my Deconversion

typewriter(First distributed among Christian friends in November of 2008.)

I have recently been asked by several individuals to detail the reasons behind my deconversion from Christianity to my current position of agnosticism. As a preface to this, I’d like to state my general disposition towards Christianity.

I spent over 25 years as a Christian, and for most of those years I was quite happy. I forged many significant relationships, and learned much while within a Christian community. I do not feel, as do some non-believers who have never been on the inside, that Christians are, as a whole, evil people intent on forcing their agenda on others. I do, however, believe that most Christians are uninterested in an honest inquiry into what is true due to vested interests of various emotions. I will detail these emotions later.

Continue reading