Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Andy on September 14, 2015, 11:36:51 AM
-
Atheism is a world view...
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.
Wrong.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings.
Those things spring from some other thing which is a wordview - naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism, yadda yadda yadda. Take your pick.
But atheism itself isn't a worldview.
-
Atheism is a world view...
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Whereas OED says:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.
-
Atheism is a world view...
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Whereas OED says:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.
Yes, a best way to start is to agree what it is we're talking about. I'm not fussed over what labels that are attached if we agree on what is meant by them.
So regarding what you've said, atheism as a whole can be covered by the latter, because by definition all strong atheists do what weak atheists do.
-
Atheism is a world view...
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Whereas OED says:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.
I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.
I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.
I am an atheist and it is not correct to say that I believe there is no god.
So, you are wrong from the start.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...
Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
I can see that theism might be, but remember atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. So atheism could be construed as a lack of experience if theism is construed as an experience, but not as an experience per se.
-
I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.
Another thing wrong with it is that to define atheism as a denial of God implies that there's a cogent, shared definition of God that everybody knows, only some affirm it and some deny it. This is news to me.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
I suppose it's possible that theism could be an experience - I don't know that it has to be, but it could be. I'm not sure how atheism could be an experience, though - there are people who claim to have had no personal experience of the divine but who are nevertheless believers.
How would you differentiate atheism as the experience of not-god from the theists who have no experience of god? How do you differentiate between those two lack of experiences?
O.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.
When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.
When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.
Exccept for gods to be more than random key punching it for any non experiencers - talking about it as something understandable needs something to be agreed on as a meningful or logically non contradictory definition
-
Exccept for gods to be more than random key punching it for any non experiencers - talking about it as something understandable needs something to be agreed on as a meningful or logically non contradictory definition
I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.
As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.
As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.
We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).
O.
-
I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.
As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.
As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.
We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).
O.
But speaking as a non experiencer in Rhiannon's terms - god is exactly equivalent to random key punch if that experience expressed by Rhiannon is about something that is logically incoherent or meaningless. How do I as a non experiencer distinguish between god and jjjhhgh? This isn't about complete definitions, it's about definitions that make any form of sense
-
I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.
As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.
As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.
We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).
O.
But speaking as a non experiencer in Rhiannon's terms - god is exactly equivalent to random key punch if that expereince expressed by Rhiannon is about something that is logically incoherent or meaningless. How do I as a non experiencer distinguish between god and jjjhhgh? This isn't about complete definitions, it's about definitions that make any form of sense
Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.
If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.
O.
-
Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.
If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.
O.
No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.
-
Just to say I'm not opting out of the discussion but am on my phone so can't post as I would wish. Will try later if I can prise the iPad off the small boy that I know.
-
Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.
If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.
O.
No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.
See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.
I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.
We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.
O.
-
See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.
I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.
We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.
O.
But then we are back at Green ideas sleeping furiously - that someone can stick some words togther is no guarantee of it having any meaning or sense. I only ask those who state 'god' whether experienced or believed give me some definition that is not either logically contradictory or meaningless to my viewpoint - the fault may be mine but as yet I haven't seen one so currently it makes as much sense as a four sided triangle whivch is definitionally wrong.
-
See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.
I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.
We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.
O.
But then we are back at Green ideas sleeping furiously - that someone can stick some words togther is no guarantee of it having any meaning or sense. I only ask those who state 'god' whether experienced or believed give me some definition that is not either logically contradictory or meaningless to my viewpoint - the fault may be mine but as yet I haven't seen one so currently it makes as much sense as a four sided triangle whivch is definitionally wrong.
Triangles are not intrinsically wrong. Four sided shaped are not intrinsically wrong. Four side triangles are not wrong within a conceptualisation that the temporal start and end constitutes a 'side'.
Nevertheless, you are dismissing all conceptualisation of 'god' because no-one has been able to give you a sufficiently precise definition. "God is that intelligence which caused the universe to be" is sufficiently vague to give us a start point, certainly for the Abrahamic god - can you not work from there in, to develop a dialogue?
O.
-
Atheism is a world view...
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Whereas OED says:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.
Yes, a best way to start is to agree what it is we're talking about. I'm not fussed over what labels that are attached if we agree on what is meant by them.
So regarding what you've said, atheism as a whole can be covered by the latter, because by definition all strong atheists do what weak atheists do.
Agreed.
-
...I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.
I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.
It depends on whether "atheism" is "athe-ism" (belief there are no gods) or "a-theism" (lack of theism, i.e. lack of belief in god(s)). Rather than waste time, let's just use terms that all are agreed on.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
Why?
-
...I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.
I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.
It depends on whether "atheism" is "athe-ism" (belief there are no gods) or "a-theism" (lack of theism, i.e. lack of belief in god(s)). Rather than waste time, let's just use terms that all are agreed on.
For me, and I think many here, it means lack of belief in any gods.
Believing there are no gods gives the burden of proof to that believer.
I have no burden of proof as I lack a belief due to finding the claims for a god, to have not met its burden of proof.
-
I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.
Another thing wrong with it is that to define atheism as a denial of God implies that there's a cogent, shared definition of God that everybody knows, only some affirm it and some deny it. This is news to me.
Surely it is no more or less of a problem than atheism being a lack of belief in god(s). How can "lack of belief in god(s)" make sense if you have no working definition of "god(s)".
As for not actually understanding what is mean by "god", have a look in any English dictionary. We don't need to define "god" to the nth degree to know what people mean by it any more than we need to define "atom" to the nth degree either. What you understand by "atom" may well be somewhat different to what scientists understand, but we are all taking about basically the same thing.
-
Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.
If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.
O.
No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.
That might just be your lack of imagination though.
-
Could the fourth side be in the seventh dimension?
Well it could, as I just made it up.
-
Triangles are not intrinsically wrong. Four sided shaped are not intrinsically wrong. Four side triangles are not wrong within a conceptualisation that the temporal start and end constitutes a 'side'.
Nevertheless, you are dismissing all conceptualisation of 'god' because no-one has been able to give you a sufficiently precise definition. "God is that intelligence which caused the universe to be" is sufficiently vague to give us a start point, certainly for the Abrahamic god - can you not work from there in, to develop a dialogue?
O.
I didn't say that triangles are intrinsically wrong - but we start from the idea that triangles have 3 sides so definitionally a 4 sided triangle is nonsensical. Since the universe or the multiverse and my understanding of it include time then a 'thing' or intelligence oustide of time makes no more sense than a four sided triangle. If it is in time in some sense, that doesn't appear to cover the 'cause of' partin the sense i generally see it used - so nope
-
If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite a world veiw?
Is theism a worldview? Several people here have rejected the idea that it is.
-
If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite a world veiw?
Well there is a question as to whether theism is a world view. There is also a quastion made clear here as to whether atheism is the opposite
ETA - We might argue that being a Marxist is a worldview - but I don't think it makes sense to say that not being a Marxist is a world view.
-
ETA - We might argue that being a Marxist is a worldview - but I don't think it makes sense to say that not being a Marxist is a world view.
A good comparison, and one which suggests that these things run only in one direction (at least sometimes) and that you can't just say that X is a worldview therefore not-X is a worldview too.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.
When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.
Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience. A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it). An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.
-
If theism is a worldview, why isn't it's opposite, a world view?
Looking at the opposite of X tells us nothing about X other than that it is not X. They have to be viewed in isolation.
Using the old cliched example of collecting stamps as a hobby and non-stamp collecting not being a hobby... well it actually depends on what we're doing that is not collecting stamps. For example, if we're not collecting stamps but collecting butterflies, then that's still considered a hobby.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.
When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.
Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience. A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it).
"Gnostic" is a very ambiguous term, particularly if capitalised at the start of a sentence. I'd suggest that is one good reason to avoid it.An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.
One problem we have encountered on these boards is that the ignostic may want the definition to be tighter than necessary to hold a decent conversation.
-
I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.
(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?
I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.
When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.
Perhaps a gnostic is somebody who claims to know there is a god through experience and an agnostic is one who does not know through lack of experience. A theist is one who believes there is a god but does not know and an atheist lacks belief (but can't stop arguing about it).
1. "Gnostic" is a very ambiguous term, particularly if capitalised at the start of a sentence. I'd suggest that is one good reason to avoid it.An ignostic declines to argue about it unless somebody defines their 'god'.
2. One problem we have encountered on these boards is that the ignostic may want the definition to be tighter than necessary to hold a decent conversation.
1. Yes, that it why I didn't capitalise it but you are probably right. However perhaps it made the point about knowing and not knowing.
2. Yes, I am one of those. There are so many gods with varying names and so much vagueness by people who believe and do not know. I think it might be easier to talk about heaven or paradise as a hoped for 'destination' rather than god.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...
Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.
Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?
-
False dichotomy.
-
Surety and doubt, what middle ground can there be! evasion!
-
How many years and how many conversations and yet still this elementary mistake. What is the point? Perhaps it takes a theist who actually understands to explain it to these people for them to actually listen because it seems they're switched off to when atheists explain it themselves.
-
I thought that NS's example of not being a Marxist is very good.
I like the word 'lack'. If you lack a belief in God, that cannot be considered a 'world-view'. For example, an atheist need not be a materialist. I believe that there are some who are dualists, and it is conceivable that an atheist could believe in the soul or the afterlife.
It's interesting that there seem to be a very large number of things, which I lack a belief in, you might even say, an infinite number. However, you would not say that each lack represented a world-view! I lack a belief in Zeus, for example.
What is interesting is why some theists want to argue that atheism is a world-view. I'm not sure really, I suppose they are setting up a straw man, to knock down, but it doesn't work, but of course, they keep trying!
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...
Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.
Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?
Neither of the above.
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
No it isn't
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies Gods exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
Fify - and evidence sufficient to support belief requires a clear definition of 'Gods'.
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
No it isn't
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies Gods exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
Fify
exactly! How ironic
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
No, lacking a belief in something is not a belief. For example, I lack a belief in Marxism, but this is not a belief, and certainly not a world-view.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...
Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.
Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?
Neither of the above.
please explain how your position does not fit into one of the above then, are you omniscient!
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
I don't know how many blades of grass there are on my lawn. Considering you've gone after a position where non-belief isn't an option, it follows that I believe the total number is odd and that the total number is even... oops, contradiction overload!
-
I do not believe there are no gods, I have a lack of belief in any gods.
-
So many theists want to misrepresent others. Why? Is it an elaborate straw man, or some kind of gotcha?
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief,
No it isn't
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies Gods exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
Fify
exactly! How ironic
Not really - see my modified post. My keyboard is acting up for some reason and I'm having to use the on-screen one: I hit 'Post' before I was ready (twice in fact).
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief
No - the absence of one.
By your "logic" an empty milk bottle has some milk in it ::)
I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate to me that fairies exist. But I don't know for sure that they don't. Without omniscience my position can only be one of belief based on the evidence or lack there of.
Therefore you lack a belief in fairies.
-
I thought that NS's example of not being a Marxist is very good.
I like the word 'lack'. If you lack a belief in God, that cannot be considered a 'world-view'. For example, an atheist need not be a materialist. I believe that there are some who are dualists, and it is conceivable that an atheist could believe in the soul or the afterlife.
This is true of at least two philosophers I'm aware of - J. M. E. MacTaggart and C. J. Ducasse.
-
It's the whole world view thing I find perplexing. Why bother with the atheism which is at most a tiny part of my thoughts. My heuristic approach to life is much closer to Gonzo than it is Be Rational and Gonzo's is closer to mine than his is to TW.
I once though I had a world view but it was the co-codamol, whisky and insomnia talking.
-
I do not believe there are no gods, I have a lack of belief in any gods.
So by definition you are open to the possibility and are therefore really an agnostic - thanks for the honesty.
-
So many theists want to misrepresent others. Why? Is it an elaborate straw man, or some kind of gotcha?
I don't know for sure why but I can hazard a couple of educated guesses.
One is that if your procedural method for viewing the world relies on belief as heavily as does theism, the idea that something (like atheism) is simply the absence of a belief (and that belief in particular) simply may not compute.
Another is that it's a sort of tu quoque - if I have a worldview, I'm bloody well going to insist that you have one as well.
-
I do not believe there are no gods, I have a lack of belief in any gods.
So by definition you are open to the possibility and are therefore really an agnostic - thanks for the honesty.
I can't believe we're into Philosophy of Religion 101 again ...
Atheism and agnosticism are different things. They're not incompatible; it's not either/or - quite the opposite.
-
I do not believe there are no gods, I have a lack of belief in any gods.
So by definition you are open to the possibility and are therefore really an agnostic - thanks for the honesty.
No, actually I am not. I am ignostic based on the lack of any logical coherent or meaningful definition of gods but I could either be an ignostic atheist or indeed an agnostic atheist. Agnostic is not a separate category in a continuum between theist and atheist.
-
So many theists want to misrepresent others. Why? Is it an elaborate straw man, or some kind of gotcha?
It's an attempt to put us all on one playing field - a way of them saying their position has as much credit (or none) as ours. You know, we've all got a burden of proof on this issue as you can see Vlad doing all the time. It's just one big game of tu quoque.
-
BS. Weak atheism is still a belief
No - the absence of one.
...
It can be, e.g. the belief that there is insufficient evidence to correctly come to a belief in the existence of god(s).
Not sure where this is getting us all though.
-
It's the whole world view thing I find perplexing. Why bother with the atheism which is at most a tiny part of my thoughts. My heuristic approach to life is much closer to Gonzo than it is Be Rational and Gonzo's is closer to mine than his is to TW.
I once though I had a world view but it was the co-codamol, whisky and insomnia talking.
Yeah, 'world-view' seems nonsensical to me. I don't have a coherent view of reality, oh dear, what a shame. If you want consistency, then Angel Delight is for you!
-
So many theists want to misrepresent others. Why? Is it an elaborate straw man, or some kind of gotcha?
I don't know for sure why but I can hazard a couple of educated guesses.
One is that if your procedural method for viewing the world relies on belief as heavily as does theism, the idea that something (like atheism) is simply the absence of a belief (and that belief in particular) simply may not compute.
Another is that it's a sort of tu quoque - if I have a worldview, I'm bloody well going to insist that you have one as well.
Beat me to it.
-
I do not believe there are no gods, I have a lack of belief in any gods.
So by definition you are open to the possibility and are therefore really an agnostic - thanks for the honesty.
No, actually I am not. I am ignostic based on the lack of any logical coherent or meaningful definition of gods but I could either be an ignostic atheist or indeed an agnostic atheist. Agnostic is not a separate category
More accurately you are "ignostic based on your belief in the lack of any logical, coherent or meaningful definition of gods."
-
So many theists want to misrepresent others. Why? Is it an elaborate straw man, or some kind of gotcha?
It's an attempt to put us all on one playing field - a way of them saying their position has as much credit (or none) as ours. You know, we've all got a burden of proof on this issue as you can see Vlad doing all the time. It's just one big game of tu quoque.
Yes, I think you and Shaker have nailed this. It's kind of 'I have beliefs which are unsubstantiated, but so have you, nah nah nah nah nah'.
-
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...
Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.
Well either you know that there is no sentient being, or you believe that there is no sentient being, which is it?
Neither of the above.
please explain how your position does not fit into one of the above then, are you omniscient!
1. I don't know (as in having knowledge) that there is no 'sentient being' (I'm assuming you mean a 'creator God' as envisged by Christians).
2. So far all the explanations I've encountered of 'God', such as from Christians here, are meaningless to the extent of not being amenable to rational review: therefore, I don't have beliefs about what has no discernible meaning.
3. I may well be omniscient, but I don't know for sure that I am (Mrs G says not) :)
-
2Corrie illustrates another trait of some theists - a kind of Procrustean bed, into which you will be fitted, by stretching you, or by cutting off your arms and legs. Your actual statements about your beliefs or lack of, are hence ignored or misrepresented, in favour of the theist's version of them, which aims to be dishonest.
-
2Corrie illustrates another trait of some theists - a kind of Procrustean bed, into which you will be fitted, by stretching you, or by cutting off your arms and legs. Your actual statements about your beliefs or lack of, are hence ignored or misrepresented, in favour of the theist's version of them, which aims to be dishonest.
Ah yes. Very familiar with that tactic, sorry to say.
And full marks for the adroit use of Procrustean bed, which will no doubt have a few people scurrying off to Google :)
-
Thank you, sir!
-
I think it's safe to say that all atheist contributors to this thread thus far just lack a belief in a god and don't subscribe to the belief that there is no god. If there are those who subscribe to it, then I'm yet to hear it. I expect this to be clear enough now. However, what I don't expect is for any real notice of this fact to be taken.
-
I think it's safe to say that all atheist contributors to this thread thus far just lack a belief in a god and don't subscribe to the belief that there is no god. If there are those who subscribe to it, then I'm yet to hear it. I expect this to be clear enough now. However, what I don't expect is for any real notice of this fact to be taken.
Some theists are dishonest, and don't respect other people's ideas. As to why this is, dunno.
-
I think it's safe to say that all atheist contributors to this thread thus far just lack a belief in a god and don't subscribe to the belief that there is no god. If there are those who subscribe to it, then I'm yet to hear it. I expect this to be clear enough now. However, what I don't expect is for any real notice of this fact to be taken.
Some theists are dishonest, and don't respect other people's ideas. As to why this is, dunno.
We'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't been, but that's by the bye when it's so brazen in a medium where they can be easily exposed. It's not so much the dishonesty, but the continuation of it as if it's something to be proud of. I don't get it.
-
Andy
Yes, you are right. We are all dishonest, intermittently, but this is systematic. I think it's partly a kind of narcissism, that is, a refusal to actually perceive other people, with different views, very ironic on the part of Christians (love your neighbour, and so on). Or, love your neighbour, but ignore his ideas, and try to replace them by your own.
And, as you say, none of this will make the slightest difference.
-
To be fair here, the whole agnostic thing is something that a lot of atheists on here seem to struggle with as well.
-
To be fair here, the whole agnostic thing is something that a lot of atheists on here seem to struggle with as well.
OK, but I don't see Christians doing this as struggling with it. Is 2Corrie struggling? No, she is just telling you what you think. And she will carry on doing this, whether or not you correct her, protest, or whatever. It won't make the slightest difference. But remember, love your neighbour, brother, in other words, erase them.
-
To be fair here, the whole agnostic thing is something that a lot of atheists on here seem to struggle with as well.
NS, you mean that some atheists treat agnosticism as a half-way house more or less exactly in the middle of some scale with theism at one end and atheism at the other? If that's what you meant, I can only say that I've only ever seen this at work in one person who's not a theist; for the most part I've normally only ever seen it from theists. Most atheists seem to be aware that agnosticism and atheism refer to two entirely difference spheres, and are entirely consonant with each other.
I fear we have the evolution of language to blame - the common, everyday meaning of agnostic which is so prevalent now is a million miles away from what Huxley intended when he coined the term. As nice as it would be for us fussy old-guarders to put the genie back in the bottle and have the word used in its original sense (and people using disinterested and uninterested properly as well!), it's almost certainly too late.
-
I've seen posters on here state both I am agnostic not atheist, and I am atheist not agnostic as if they are a continuum
-
I've seen posters on here state both I am agnostic not atheist, and I am atheist not agnostic as if they are a continuum
Yes, exactly.
-
Which surely indicates the same issue as 2Corrie?
-
Andy
Yes, you are right. We are all dishonest, intermittently, but this is systematic. I think it's partly a kind of narcissism, that is, a refusal to actually perceive other people, with different views, very ironic on the part of Christians (love your neighbour, and so on). Or, love your neighbour, but ignore his ideas, and try to replace them by your own.
And, as you say, none of this will make the slightest difference.
I dunno, far be it from me to play amateur psychologist but a catalyst may come from being uneasy with their own position so try to create a parallel with those who are ataraxic with theirs. <shrugs>
-
Bloody hell, first we had Procrustean bed from wiggy, now ataraxic - what's everybody on tonight?
-
Bloody hell, first we had Procrustean bed from wiggy, now ataraxic - what's everybody on tonight?
All Greek to me.
-
*headdesk*
-
Listen, I'm working my way up to the level of your rhubarb joke. Small steps.
-
It's the whole world view thing I find perplexing. Why bother with the atheism which is at most a tiny part of my thoughts. My heuristic approach to life is much closer to Gonzo than it is Be Rational and Gonzo's is closer to mine than his is to TW.
I once though I had a world view but it was the co-codamol, whisky and insomnia talking.
As a pantheist I suppose my beliefs are a world view. But then I would need to see some kind of meaning in that, and I'm not sure I do.
And I agree, as a theist my 'world view' is much closer to yours and Shaker's than it is to most other theists on here.
-
Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.
If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.
O.
No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.
'Outside time and space' is meaningless for me as well. But my definition of 'God' as I experience 'it' is going to be so far off, say, Alien's, that we are talking about different concepts completely. Is there still a discussion to be had?
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
From that statement alone, I deduce that you do not believe in god(s).
-
Andy
Yes, you are right. We are all dishonest, intermittently, but this is systematic. I think it's partly a kind of narcissism, that is, a refusal to actually perceive other people, with different views, very ironic on the part of Christians (love your neighbour, and so on). Or, love your neighbour, but ignore his ideas, and try to replace them by your own.
And, as you say, none of this will make the slightest difference.
I dunno, far be it from me to play amateur psychologist but a catalyst may come from being uneasy with their own position so try to create a parallel with those who are ataraxic with theirs. <shrugs>
I can remember feeling very happy with my beliefs, but very desperate to convince others to feel the same, which then made me unhappy.
Why I was desperate to do that I have no idea.
-
Andy
Yes, you are right. We are all dishonest, intermittently, but this is systematic. I think it's partly a kind of narcissism, that is, a refusal to actually perceive other people, with different views, very ironic on the part of Christians (love your neighbour, and so on). Or, love your neighbour, but ignore his ideas, and try to replace them by your own.
And, as you say, none of this will make the slightest difference.
I dunno, far be it from me to play amateur psychologist but a catalyst may come from being uneasy with their own position so try to create a parallel with those who are ataraxic with theirs. <shrugs>
I can remember feeling very happy with my beliefs, but very desperate to convince others to feel the same, which then made me unhappy.
Why I was desperate to do that I have no idea.
Like I said I'm no psychologist, nor am I aiming this at anyone specific or trying to generalise. Plus, I'm sure there'll be those who say I'm talking bollocks, at least according to their approach, which is fair enough. However, there is baggage with theism, whether viewed positively or negatively, which a void of theism doesn't carry.
-
Any world view is baggage .. but we often need baggage to carry our tools in. Atheism is not a "world view", but atheists do have world views, and have tool sets to help explain and predict how the world behaves. Theists can use the same methods but carry them in a different "world view".
-
NS, you mean that some atheists treat agnosticism as a half-way house more or less exactly in the middle of some scale with theism at one end and atheism at the other? If that's what you meant, I can only say that I've only ever seen this at work in one person who's not a theist;
I would say that it is a fairly common misconception in the World at large, particularly amongst theists. Theists have a problem understanding how people can take a position without being certain that their position is true because they do take a position with absolute certainty (in their own minds).
We can test this out by asking the theists here if they could conceive the possibility that they might be wrong.
-
I would say that it is a fairly common misconception in the World at large, particularly amongst theists. Theists have a problem understanding how people can take a position without being certain that their position is true because they do take a position with absolute certainty (in their own minds).
We can test this out by asking the theists here if they could conceive the possibility that they might be wrong.
A challenge that pops up fairly often, but one which I've never seen accepted honestly head-on. Not ever so long ago (thread now forgotten) Alien raised the same challenge with me; I provided him with a response as to what would change my mind about disbelief in the existence of any gods. I've yet to see any theist do the same.
-
NS, you mean that some atheists treat agnosticism as a half-way house more or less exactly in the middle of some scale with theism at one end and atheism at the other? If that's what you meant, I can only say that I've only ever seen this at work in one person who's not a theist;
I would say that it is a fairly common misconception in the World at large, particularly amongst theists. Theists have a problem understanding how people can take a position without being certain that their position is true because they do take a position with absolute certainty (in their own minds).
We can test this out by asking the theists here if they could conceive the possibility that they might be wrong.
I think I probably am wrong. In fact if my past record is anything to go by I'm certainly wrong.
-
Andy
Yes, you are right. We are all dishonest, intermittently, but this is systematic. I think it's partly a kind of narcissism, that is, a refusal to actually perceive other people, with different views, very ironic on the part of Christians (love your neighbour, and so on). Or, love your neighbour, but ignore his ideas, and try to replace them by your own.
And, as you say, none of this will make the slightest difference.
I dunno, far be it from me to play amateur psychologist but a catalyst may come from being uneasy with their own position so try to create a parallel with those who are ataraxic with theirs. <shrugs>
I can remember feeling very happy with my beliefs, but very desperate to convince others to feel the same, which then made me unhappy.
Why I was desperate to do that I have no idea.
Like I said I'm no psychologist, nor am I aiming this at anyone specific or trying to generalise. Plus, I'm sure there'll be those who say I'm talking bollocks, at least according to their approach, which is fair enough. However, there is baggage with theism, whether viewed positively or negatively, which a void of theism doesn't carry.
Figured it out over coffee - I remembered I'm inclined to rescue people (or I used to be) and religion was a way in which I thought I could 'fix' people.
-
I think I probably am wrong. In fact if my past record is anything to go by I'm certainly wrong.
Mea culpa. In fact the pagans generally seem much happier about the possibility of being wrong than the Abrahamic religionists.
-
I think I probably am wrong. In fact if my past record is anything to go by I'm certainly wrong.
Mea culpa. In fact the pagans generally seem much happier about the possibility of being wrong than the Abrahamic religionists.
From my point of view it's all unknowable. I just go with what works for me but the idea that I have the 'truth' is bonkers.
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore .......
Nope. I have no views about any sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything'
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore .......
Nope. I have no views about any sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything'
Isn't that an awfully thin fence to be sitting on? No views one way or the other? Sounds a bit like trying to imagine 'nothing' .
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore .......
Nope. I have no views about any sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything'
Isn't that an awfully thin fence to be sitting on? No views one way or the other? Sounds a bit like trying to imagine 'nothing' .
It is an honest dont know answer.
-
I'm not sure what you mean, Rose?
-
I'm not sure what you mean, Rose?
Essentially, I think the essence of the point is that for most atheists atheism is just about a position on the possibility of gods. For the remaining few atheists, and for some theists (I'm not sure what sort of proportion) atheism is conflated with, or at least presumed to therefore result in, some combination of science, nihilism, anti-theism and/or 'philosophical naturalism'.
O.
-
Ok, I'm an atheist.
Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.
OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore .......
Nope. I have no views about any sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything'
Isn't that an awfully thin fence to be sitting on? No views one way or the other? Sounds a bit like trying to imagine 'nothing' .
Surprisingly, I don't spend a lot of my time thinking about gods / religion
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
-
If it is also a god what a strange god it is,
It's only you making that suggestion. Big straw thingy.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
The fruits of science are seeded from the nature you believe a god created. Go figure.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
The fruits of science are seeded from the nature you believe a god created. Go figure.
Yup! He certainly made a cock-up of creation. :)
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
If god is the omnis, then that's your god, that is.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
As in believing in science as the only valid way of seeing the world.
What does that mean ? Do you dis-believe in mathematics ?
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
As in believing in science as the only valid way of seeing the world.
That's scientism, and since it seems to me that most here are aware that science can't bridge the is/ought gap, that accusation is another straw man when played.
-
That's scientism, and since it seems to me that most here are aware that science can't bridge the is/ought gap, that accusation is another straw man when played.
I'm not saying it is, only that some people equate atheism with scientism so end up seeing the result as a worldview.
They assume atheists all hold that way of seeing things.
I know.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Take it that not believing in gods is the one we mean until someone says differently.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science
Science is a tool.If it is also a god what a strange god it is, one moment inventing vaccinations, the next 50 Megaton weapons.
If god is the omnis, then that's your god, that is.
Isaiah 45: 6,7
-
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Oops, not Christian.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.
O.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.
O.
But then Christianity IS pretty disparate in its different beliefs. Atheism is about not believing. Everything else is ....... everything else.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Take it that not believing in gods is the one we mean until someone says differently.
Why?
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
Why? Agnostics don't believe in gods. Atheists of all shades don't believe in gods. Why not just use the terms "weak atheism" or "strong atheism"? Those are clear.
-
Why? Agnostics don't believe in gods. Atheists of all shades don't believe in gods. Why not just use the terms "weak atheism" or "strong atheism"? Those are clear.
No, agnostics don't think they can prove or disprove the existence of gods, it has nothing to say on whether they believe or not.
Atheists don't believe. If they are gnostic atheists, they actively believe gods don't exist - they think that's demonstrable. If they are agnostic atheists they don't believe, but don't think there's sufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate that, they simply rest on the provision that the case for gods has not been proven.
O.
-
Atheists don't believe. If they are gnostic atheists, they actively believe gods don't exist - they think that's demonstrable. If they are agnostic atheists they don't believe, but don't think there's sufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate that, they simply rest on the provision that the case for gods has not been proven.
I would add that it's technically possible to hold both positions simultaneously (or sequentially, to be pedantic) depending on precisely which sort of god is posited - for example, some atheists say that the god of the Bible is pretty well conclusively disproven, or indeed any traditional omnimax god (problem of evil, etc.) but not a deist god, say, which is so vague and nebulous and devoid of postive characteristics that it's very difficult to disprove.
-
Why? Agnostics don't believe in gods. Atheists of all shades don't believe in gods. Why not just use the terms "weak atheism" or "strong atheism"? Those are clear.
No, agnostics don't think they can prove or disprove the existence of gods, it has nothing to say on whether they believe or not.
"Agnostic" is used in two* different ways as well. There are those for whom agnositicism means they think it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any gods and there are those who just say, "Dunno." For the latter, they may think that it is possible to discover whether any gods exist, but they've not been able to do it.
* Your definition is slightly different again.
Atheists don't believe. If they are gnostic atheists, they actively believe gods don't exist - they think that's demonstrable. If they are agnostic atheists they don't believe, but don't think there's sufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate that, they simply rest on the provision that the case for gods has not been proven.
O.
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong" due to possible confusion over the term "gnostic/Gnostic" and I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
-
"Agnostic" is used in two* different ways as well. There are those for whom agnositicism means they think it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any gods and there are those who just say, "Dunno." For the latter, they may think that it is possible to discover whether any gods exist, but they've not been able to do it.
People use words in many incorrect ways - when you're using technical terms in a philosophical argument, it's important to use them correctly.
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong" due to possible confusion over the term "gnostic/Gnostic" and I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
I prefer gnostic and agnostic, though, primarily because - as an agnostic atheist - the 'weak' atheist argument is the stronger of the two, not that either position is inherent weak.
You don't get 'strong' and 'weak' believers, you get fundamentalists and moderates - the language we choose is important.
O.
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."
-
...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
Why?
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
Love it. That was going to be similar to my next comment i.e. "am I a weak or strong ---------" insert an infinite number of things I don't believe in
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.
O.
But then Christianity IS pretty disparate in its different beliefs. Atheism is about not believing. Everything else is ....... everything else.
Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.
-
I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.
Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods
Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).
Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods
Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.
O.
But then Christianity IS pretty disparate in its different beliefs. Atheism is about not believing. Everything else is ....... everything else.
Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.
Not at all. I never sleep with philosophical materialists
-
I think it's safe to say that all atheist contributors to this thread thus far just lack a belief in a god and don't subscribe to the belief that there is no god. If there are those who subscribe to it, then I'm yet to hear it. I expect this to be clear enough now. However, what I don't expect is for any real notice of this fact to be taken.
Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.
See. What a shocker at who it is too.
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."
What are you on about? I've answered BHS's questions.
-
...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
Why?
Have a guess. It has to do with the :) at the end of my sentence.
-
...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
Why?
Have a guess. It has to do with the :) at the end of my sentence.
<shrugs>
-
...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
Why?
Have a guess. It has to do with the :) at the end of my sentence.
I'll need more to go on.
Can you be clearer about exactly what you mean, please?
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.
That would be a hypothesis not a theory though
-
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.
But there is no evidence that it is true.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
say it often enough and you'll convince yourself
-
It's true though, isn't it?
-
Alien,
OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...
Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?
Why?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."
What are you on about? I've answered BHS's questions.
You have answered one question, he asked you two.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.
say it often enough and you'll convince yourself
Is Floo wrong then 2 C?
ippy
-
say it often enough and you'll convince yourself
You might think that, but people have been telling me god is real for a long time, and they've yet to convince me. I don't need to convince myself gods don't exist, I haven't seen any reason to think they do.
O.
-
say it often enough and you'll convince yourself
You might think that, but people have been telling me god is real for a long time, and they've yet to convince me. I don't need to convince myself gods don't exist, I haven't seen any reason to think they do.
O.
That's because you haven't been chosen. ;)
-
...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist" :)
Why?
Have a guess. It has to do with the :) at the end of my sentence.
<shrugs>
<shrugs/>
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
-
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
Can you explain the difference?
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language? It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
-
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
Can you explain the difference?
Yes. However, the sites referenced at See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281 do that for you. That's why I referenced them.
-
Nope, still not getting it. I've looked at the thread in question and I still can't see any meaningful distinction between atheism as without theism and atheism as without god-ism.
Strong, weak; negative, positive; none of these terms seem to have any relevance to this particular point if theism and god-ism are synonymous, as I believe them to be as did (IIRC) John Mackinnon Robertson who was the first person in my reading experience to use the term.
-
So you have your own private language?
I think you'll find it is the most commonly accepted meaning of the word amongst atheists, because, for most of them it best describes their views on gods.
Why do you have such a problem with that definition?
It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Wow, that was a close call for my irony meter.
-
I prefer gnostic / agnostic, Alien is a gnostic theist, I like the idea of calling Al a gnostic theist. :)
-
Nope, still not getting it. I've looked at the thread in question and I still can't see any meaningful distinction between atheism as without theism and atheism as without god-ism.
Strong, weak; negative, positive; none of these terms seem to have any relevance to this particular point if theism and god-ism are synonymous, as I believe them to be as did (IIRC) John Mackinnon Robertson who was the first person in my reading experience to use the term.
Then you seem to be stuck. Perhaps it would be best to stick with simpler subjects.
-
So you have your own private language?
I think you'll find it is the most commonly accepted meaning of the word amongst atheists, because, for most of them it best describes their views on gods.
Er, that looks like a rather circular argument to me. You choose your own definition of "atheist" and then say that your definition of "atheist" is the most commonly accepted meaning among those you define as "atheist."
Why do you have such a problem with that definition?
I don't. I tend to specify which type of atheist/atheism I mean when using the word. This all seems pretty pointless to me. You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism) and others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Wow, that was a close call for my irony meter.
Why?
-
I prefer gnostic / agnostic, Alien is a gnostic theist, I like the idea of calling Al a gnostic theist. :)
That's OK with me. You are aware of the meaning of "Gnostic" as opposed to "gnostic", but some others here may not be. That is my only concern, but, hey, go for it.
Who would you put in the category of "agnostic theist"?
-
Nope, still not getting it. I've looked at the thread in question and I still can't see any meaningful distinction between atheism as without theism and atheism as without god-ism.
Strong, weak; negative, positive; none of these terms seem to have any relevance to this particular point if theism and god-ism are synonymous, as I believe them to be as did (IIRC) John Mackinnon Robertson who was the first person in my reading experience to use the term.
Then you seem to be stuck. Perhaps it would be best to stick with simpler subjects.
Atheism doesn't get a lot simpler than "not believing that any gods exist."
-
Nope, still not getting it. I've looked at the thread in question and I still can't see any meaningful distinction between atheism as without theism and atheism as without god-ism.
Strong, weak; negative, positive; none of these terms seem to have any relevance to this particular point if theism and god-ism are synonymous, as I believe them to be as did (IIRC) John Mackinnon Robertson who was the first person in my reading experience to use the term.
Then you seem to be stuck. Perhaps it would be best to stick with simpler subjects.
Atheism doesn't get a lot simpler than "not believing that any gods exist."
Except when, say, a philosophy department at a top university defines it otherwise.
But then you knew that anyway.
-
Does it define atheism as other than "not believing that any gods exist"?
-
Alien,
I'm an atheist (or if you prefer an agnostic atheist) because I've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise, just as you're an a-leprechaunist because you've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise.
That's it really - nothing more, nothing less.
How then would you propose to categories either of us as "strong" or "weak" in our positions?
(Incidentally, if it really came to it I'd call myself an ignostic atheist because those who refer to "god" are unable to come up with a coherent meaning for the term (as are leprechaunists), but that's another matter.)
-
Vlad,
I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton)...
You're overreaching again. To "reduce" something it has to be in an elevated position to start with. Sadly your "anything that pops into my head is thereby factually true for you too" schtick doesn't do that, so all Dawkins and the rest of us do is to treat your claims equally with those of any other superstitionists.
...and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.
(Wearily) "Hillside" does no such thing. What I actually do (as I've explained many times) is to point out that when your argument for a god works just as well for leprechauns (see above), then it's probably a bad argument.
-
Does it define atheism as other than "not believing that any gods exist"?
Yes. You would have known that if you had read any of the four links I gave.
-
Alien,
I'm an atheist (or if you prefer an agnostic atheist) because I've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise, just as you're an a-leprechaunist because you've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise.
That's it really - nothing more, nothing less.
We are not discussing which, if any, position is the correct one to hold. So, yes, I understand your position (and have done for a long time). Please read one or more of the links I gave.
How then would you propose to categories either of us as "strong" or "weak" in our positions?
Please read one or more of the links I gave.
(Incidentally, if it really came to it I'd call myself an ignostic atheist because those who refer to "god" are unable to come up with a coherent meaning for the term (as are leprechaunists), but that's another matter.)
Agreed, that is another matter.
-
Alien,
I'm an atheist (or if you prefer an agnostic atheist) because I've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise, just as you're an a-leprechaunist because you've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise.
That's it really - nothing more, nothing less.
How then would you propose to categories either of us as "strong" or "weak" in our positions?
(Incidentally, if it really came to it I'd call myself an ignostic atheist because those who refer to "god" are unable to come up with a coherent meaning for the term (as are leprechaunists), but that's another matter.)
So far as I can tell 'weak' atheist is a pejorative term for agnostic atheists, whilst 'strong' atheists is a bait for people to adopt gnostic atheism and adopt the burden of proof. That's my take on the origins, but they have become more common in use, and I don't think that it's necessarily the case that anyone using the phrases these days is intending those implications, but they are there in the origins.
O.
-
Alien,
I'm an atheist (or if you prefer an agnostic atheist) because I've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise, just as you're an a-leprechaunist because you've never been given a cogent reason to be otherwise.
That's it really - nothing more, nothing less.
How then would you propose to categories either of us as "strong" or "weak" in our positions?
(Incidentally, if it really came to it I'd call myself an ignostic atheist because those who refer to "god" are unable to come up with a coherent meaning for the term (as are leprechaunists), but that's another matter.)
So far as I can tell 'weak' atheist is a pejorative term for agnostic atheists, whilst 'strong' atheists is a bait for people to adopt gnostic atheism and adopt the burden of proof.
Why do you think that? None of the sites I quoted were Christian and I didn't notice any of them making that claim.That's my take on the origins,
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, eh? but they have become more common in use, and I don't think that it's necessarily the case that anyone using the phrases these days is intending those implications, but they are there in the origins.
O.
And you evidence for this is what?
-
Outy,
So far as I can tell 'weak' atheist is a pejorative term for agnostic atheists, whilst 'strong' atheists is a bait for people to adopt gnostic atheism and adopt the burden of proof. That's my take on the origins, but they have become more common in use, and I don't think that it's necessarily the case that anyone using the phrases these days is intending those implications, but they are there in the origins.
That's my understanding of it too, which is why for example Dawkins describes himself as a "6.9 atheist" where a 7 would be "there definitely are no gods" which runs smack into the burden of proof problem. For Alien's classifications to work you'd need a new word for a level 7 atheist, which would then I suppose be a "strong" atheist. Just now though the implication is that, if a level 7 would be a "strong" atheist then the rest of us must be "weak" atheists, with the wishy-washy implications that entails - which is why it's used as a pejorative I think, however mistakenly.
-
Outy,
So far as I can tell 'weak' atheist is a pejorative term for agnostic atheists, whilst 'strong' atheists is a bait for people to adopt gnostic atheism and adopt the burden of proof. That's my take on the origins, but they have become more common in use, and I don't think that it's necessarily the case that anyone using the phrases these days is intending those implications, but they are there in the origins.
That's my understanding of it too, which is why for example Dawkins describes himself as a "6.9 atheist" where a 7 would be "there definitely are no gods" which runs smack into the burden of proof problem. For Alien's classifications to work you'd need a new word for a level 7 atheist, which would then I suppose be a "strong" atheist. Just now though the implication is that, if a level 7 would be a "strong" atheist then the rest of us must be "weak" atheists, with the wishy-washy implications that entails - which is why it's used as a pejorative I think, however mistakenly.
I don't think it's used a pejorative that often, these days, it's taken to be the 'correct' terminology, especially given the recurrent trouble people seem to have with the concept of gnosticism.
I'm reasonably certain that the origins of it, though, come from the school of thinking that says atheists should have the courage of their convictions and prove their case. I don't know the origins, and I can't find anything on them, but I can't imagine any other reason for such emotive classifications. I've also seen them classified as 'positive' and 'negative' atheism (Anthony Flew?), which are less immediately emotive and slightly more justifiable, but is still open to implications, or 'hard' and 'soft' which is even worse.
O.
-
Outy,
I don't think it's used a pejorative that often, these days, it's taken to be the 'correct' terminology, especially given the recurrent trouble people seem to have with the concept of gnosticism.
Maybe, though "you're a weak atheist" implies to me the meaning, "you're just a weak atheist" as if that somehow diminishes the position.
I'm reasonably certain that the origins of it, though, come from the school of thinking that says atheists should have the courage of their convictions and prove their case.
But provided you stick to what "atheism" actually means - "without gods" - the position is proved inasmuch as the arguments made for gods can be shown to be fallacious. It would be a fallacy too though to reach beyond that to attempt a, "and all arguments for gods there ever could be would be fallacious too" because that's an unknowable.
I don't know the origins, and I can't find anything on them, but I can't imagine any other reason for such emotive classifications. I've also seen them classified as 'positive' and 'negative' atheism (Anthony Flew?), which are less immediately emotive and slightly more justifiable, but is still open to implications, or 'hard' and 'soft' which is even worse.
I agree. I'm a "strong" atheist in that I'm strongly of the view that arguments for gods are hopeless, but that's a different category of argument from a level 7 "definitely no gods" type atheist, for which there doesn't appear to be a word.
-
Outy,
So far as I can tell 'weak' atheist is a pejorative term for agnostic atheists, whilst 'strong' atheists is a bait for people to adopt gnostic atheism and adopt the burden of proof. That's my take on the origins, but they have become more common in use, and I don't think that it's necessarily the case that anyone using the phrases these days is intending those implications, but they are there in the origins.
That's my understanding of it too, which is why for example Dawkins describes himself as a "6.9 atheist" where a 7 would be "there definitely are no gods" which runs smack into the burden of proof problem. For Alien's classifications to work you'd need a new word for a level 7 atheist, which would then I suppose be a "strong" atheist. Just now though the implication is that, if a level 7 would be a "strong" atheist then the rest of us must be "weak" atheists, with the wishy-washy implications that entails - which is why it's used as a pejorative I think, however mistakenly.
I don't think it's used a pejorative that often, these days, it's taken to be the 'correct' terminology, especially given the recurrent trouble people seem to have with the concept of gnosticism.
I'm reasonably certain that the origins of it, though, come from the school of thinking that says atheists should have the courage of their convictions and prove their case. I don't know the origins, and I can't find anything on them, but I can't imagine any other reason for such emotive classifications. I've also seen them classified as 'positive' and 'negative' atheism (Anthony Flew?), which are less immediately emotive and slightly more justifiable, but is still open to implications, or 'hard' and 'soft' which is even worse.
O.
On our "side", we have problems too. In the strict sense all Christians are "creationists" yet people happily use that term to refer solely to "Young Earth Creationists."
-
...
But provided you stick to what "atheism" actually means - "without gods" - ...
That's part of the problem. Some define "atheism" the way you have above, but some philosophy departments, for example, don't define it that way.
-
On our "side", we have problems too. In the strict sense all Christians are "creationists" yet people happily use that term to refer solely to "Young Earth Creationists."
Indeed, which makes it difficult to keep context when you try to point out that nothing in evolutionary theory is irreconcilable with creationism to try to build bridges.
The longer I go, the harder it is to avoid any philosophical discussion devolving into an argument about the specific meaning of words, which is a shame, because I find it the dullest area of philosophy there is.
O.
-
Alien,
That's part of the problem. Some define "atheism" the way you have above, but some philosophy departments, for example, don't define it that way.
Your "side" has a bigger problem than that I think. For the most part theists seem to be "level 7" equivalents - they assert that there definitely is a god/are gods - rather than confine themselves to possibilities, which is when the burden of proof issue smacks then in the chops.
-
That's part of the problem. Some define "atheism" the way you have above, but some philosophy departments, for example, don't define it that way.
How does the OED define it? You normally like to stick with that.
-
That's part of the problem. Some define "atheism" the way you have above, but some philosophy departments, for example, don't define it that way.
How does the OED define it? You normally like to stick with that.
It defines it the way you do. I'm not fussed how it is defined, only that the term is used consistently and it isn't.
-
That's part of the problem. Some define "atheism" the way you have above, but some philosophy departments, for example, don't define it that way.
How does the OED define it? You normally like to stick with that.
It defines it the way you do. I'm not fussed how it is defined, only that the term is used consistently and it isn't.
Well the best we can do here between ourselves is say what we mean by it. I think that's been covered ad nauseam.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language?
Nope
It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Did you read my last sentence ?
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language?
Nope
But you have just written that you are not bothered what other people use a particular word for. That means you are assigning your own meaning to a word, which is not how language works. For language to work, there needs to be at least a rough correspondence in meaning. It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Did you read my last sentence ?
Yes, but it didn't sink in. I thought you were referring to me, rather than yourself. Please would you clarify what you are saying.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language?
Nope
But you have just written that you are not bothered what other people use a particular word for. That means you are assigning your own meaning to a word,
Nope, I'm using a common meaning of the word
which is not how language works. For language to work, there needs to be at least a rough correspondence in meaning. It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Did you read my last sentence ?
Yes, but it didn't sink in. I thought you were referring to me, rather than yourself. Please would you clarify what you are saying.
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
-
Alien,
A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?
I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?
What?
BHS and Shaker,
See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10870.msg555281#msg555281
A-theism or athe-ism? It depend(s/ed) on what the "a" was doing. Is it "without theism" or "without god"-ism? Best to signify which is meant, perhaps.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language?
Nope
But you have just written that you are not bothered what other people use a particular word for. That means you are assigning your own meaning to a word,
Nope, I'm using a common meaning of the word
"Common" does not equate with "correct", though I do accept that if enough people use a word in a certain manner that becomes the new, correct way. which is not how language works. For language to work, there needs to be at least a rough correspondence in meaning. It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Did you read my last sentence ?
Yes, but it didn't sink in. I thought you were referring to me, rather than yourself. Please would you clarify what you are saying.
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
-
I live in something like a normal way, I read, look and listen to the various forms of the media, having done this for some time I have heard about people that believe in goddy things it's unavoidable, other than I find it strange how seriously people take these unsupported ideas as a part of reality, religion, other than here on the forum, has no part in my life whatsoever and I can't think of any good reason why it should.
How can anyone disbelieve in something that' s not there in the first place to either believe in or not?
ippy
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is. Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
-
I live in something like a normal way, I read, look and listen to the various forms of the media, having done this for some time I have heard about people that believe in goddy things it's unavoidable, other than I find it strange how seriously people take these unsupported ideas as a part of reality, religion, other than here on the forum, has no part in my life whatsoever and
I can't think of any good reason why it should.
How can anyone disbelieve in something that' s not there in the first place to either believe in or not?
ippy
It seems to me, Ippy, that some people just need to have a belief of some sort to make their lives feel complete.
Like you, I am baffled to understand it, but just accept it as fact.
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is. Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
There is no confusion, it's just a tactic to divert from real discussion about his delusional beliefs.
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is.
That may well be the case.Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
OK, I take it then that there will be no more stuff about definitions of Christians along the lines of "anyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian" or "Hitler was a Christian".
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
That may say more about you than me though.
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is. Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
There is no confusion, it's just a tactic to divert from real discussion about his delusional beliefs.
Really. If so it is about the worst one I could pick, don't you think. Would you please back up your claim with some evidence. Ta.
-
Means exactly what it says. Many people use atheism to mean not believing in gods. Some don't. I've been clear enough on how I use the word.
Fair enough. I hope it won't lead to confusion since some people use it in a significantly different way to the way you do.
Who here, that label themselves atheist, are using it in a different way?
An interesting question. I hope that any who do will see your post and reply.
A question for you though. Who is to decide how the word "atheist" is used? The "weak/agnostic atheists" on this board?
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is. Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
There is no confusion, it's just a tactic to divert from real discussion about his delusional beliefs.
Really. If so it is about the worst one I could pick, don't you think. Would you please back up your claim with some evidence. Ta.
Easy.
Atheism means not believing in any gods.
Stop obfuscating and accept it.
If you don't, you make my point for me.
-
I would say that all the atheists here are using it in the way splashscuba is.
That may well be the case.
I've currently seen nothing to the contrary.
Threads such as this one seem to have made that clear.
As I said and agreed with you earlier, if we're clear on what we mean by a term, then that's all that matters. I don't see the significance of who gets to decide how terms "should" be used if we agree what we mean by it.
OK, I take it then that there will be no more stuff about definitions of Christians along the lines of "anyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian" or "Hitler was a Christian".
That's not my concern - not really something I get bogged down in caring about either way tbh.
But I really don't see an issue here. It's made clear here and it's made clear by the OED, which you refer back to often. I'm only seeing confusion on your part.
That may say more about you than me though.
You'll have to enlighten me...
-
..
There is no confusion, it's just a tactic to divert from real discussion about his delusional beliefs.
Really. If so it is about the worst one I could pick, don't you think. Would you please back up your claim with some evidence. Ta.
Easy.
Atheism means not believing in any gods.
Stop obfuscating and accept it.
If you don't, you make my point for me.
Blimey, you're grumpy today.
If you had read back earlier in the thread you would have noticed that I posted a link to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/, i.e. Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
-
Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
No atheist can deny the possibility of a god existing, but in the absence of any evidence to support one, we find it more sensible not to believe in any of the gods man has invented.
-
..
There is no confusion, it's just a tactic to divert from real discussion about his delusional beliefs.
Really. If so it is about the worst one I could pick, don't you think. Would you please back up your claim with some evidence. Ta.
Easy.
Atheism means not believing in any gods.
Stop obfuscating and accept it.
If you don't, you make my point for me.
Blimey, you're grumpy today.
If you had read back earlier in the thread you would have noticed that I posted a link to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/, i.e. Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
Denial is a pejorative term and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').
Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
-
Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
No atheist can deny the possibility of a god existing, but in the absence of any evidence to support one, we find it more sensible not to believe in any of the gods man has invented.
Just to note that while ignosticism has been described as 'another matter' here, in relation to the question above, I as an ignostic atheist, would say that the question of the possibility of god existing is not truth apt and isn't something I would take a position on.
-
Just to note that while ignosticism has been described as 'another matter' here, in relation to the question above, I as an ignostic atheist, would say that the question of the possibility of god existing is not truth apt and isn't something I would take a position on.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Yes, I just had a look back at that.
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own sake?
-
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.
In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby
-
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?
Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.
-
Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
This makes no sense at all.
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Alien - is your 'aThorism', the denial of the existence of Thor, or a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.
I suspect you might bristle at the notion that you were denying the existence of Thor and probably see that as a biased and pejorative definition.
So Thorism is a belief in the existence of Thor. AThorism is a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.
Just as theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods and atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
-
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.
In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby
Although there is no evidence for the existence of either a supernatural creator god or an invisible pink unicorn, I think the former is marginally more possible, whilst still being very remote.
-
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).
Given that reality, it would probably be sensible if people presumed agnostic atheism until and unless someone specifically made the positive assertion.
By the same token, it would probably be sensible if people didn't presume Biblical literalism, but there's a tendency towards that as well.
O.
-
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).
No, it's always lack, but not always denial.
It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Yes, I agree that it does still include "not believing in gods", but it claims more than just that. The Stanford dictionary says that atheism say, "There are no gods/God" rather than just not say that there is a God/gods. The Stanford definition is what is called elsewhere, "Strong atheism."
-
Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
No atheist can deny the possibility of a god existing, but in the absence of any evidence to support one, we find it more sensible not to believe in any of the gods man has invented.
That is incorrect. An atheist can do that, but I take it you are saying that they should not do that.
-
...Denial is a pejorative term
Whatever are you on about? Good grief. and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').
Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
I suggest you take it up with Stanford University's Philosophy Department then.
-
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).
No, it's always lack, but not always denial.
It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.
Agreed, which is why I suggested that people should err on the side of agnostic atheism until they're given a reason otherwise.
O.
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists. What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Yes, I just had a look back at that.
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own sake?
As I have said above, I agree with Andy's post, but you don't seem to have understood the Stanford definition.
-
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?
Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.
Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists. What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?
What has the Stanford Uni definition got to do with how we are defining it, and how you have agreed to how we define it? Only you keep bringing Stanford up, which you've just said is how you understand strong atheism to be defined, rather than just atheism.
-
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?
Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.
Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?
Everybody's! If it's conclusive, nobody can deny it.
-
Stanford University's Dictionary of Philosophy which includes, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
This makes no sense at all.
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
As has been said a number of times before, there are two ways of looking at the negation of theism, i.e. "athei-ism" and "a-theism", i.e. the belief that there is no God/gods and a lack of belief that there are is a God/gods respectively, i.e. strong atheism and weak atheism respectively. Different people and different groups use the term "atheism" differently. Hence the need sometimes for clarification.
Alien - is your 'aThorism', the denial of the existence of Thor, or a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.
Both.
I suspect you might bristle at the notion that you were denying the existence of Thor and probably see that as a biased and pejorative definition.
What a very silly statement.
So Thorism is a belief in the existence of Thor. AThorism is a lack of belief in the existence of Thor.
If used as a parallel with atheism, there is both strong and weak athorism.
Just as theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods and atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
Is that meant to follow on as a result of what you wrote above, because it does not. There are two distinct meanings of "atheism" in use in English. I gave links to 4 non-Christian sites which explain the difference meanings.
Why are you lot so het up about it?
-
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Nobody knows that a god doesn't exist. It's as simple as that.
In the absence of a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meeningless, any statement on the existence of such a thing is useless. The question of possibility cannot arise to be considered in the first place. I have no belief in such a thing is a fact but then I have no belief in hutredswanby
Although there is no evidence for the existence of either a supernatural creator god or an invisible pink unicorn, I think the former is marginally more possible, whilst still being very remote.
That's nice for you.
-
...Denial is a pejorative term
Whatever are you on about? Good grief.
Of course it is - the manner in which that 'definition' is framed suggests a default assumption that there is a god and therefore that someone who doesn't belief must therefore be in denial. Someone who is in denial is usefully assumed to be someone who is unable or unwilling to accept the truth, not someone who simply has an alternative and equally valid point of view or belief.
So I ask again - is your position that you deny the existence of Thor, or that you do not believe in the existence of Thor.
and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').
Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
I suggest you take it up with Stanford University's Philosophy Department then.
Well to be honest I wouldn't have thought that a Philosophy department (however highly regarded the university) is the place where definitions of words are best determined. If this is to be done within an academic institution then that place is, of course, a linguistics department and specifically within the discipline of lexicography.
-
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).
Given that reality, it would probably be sensible if people presumed agnostic atheism until and unless someone specifically made the positive assertion.
That seems fair enough on this board, but bear in mind that new people pop in from time to time and may use it as some others do out in the outside world.
By the same token, it would probably be sensible if people didn't presume Biblical literalism, but there's a tendency towards that as well.
O.
Fairy nuff.
How should we use the term "Creationist" on these boards? Someone who believes in creation, which would include me, or someone who believes in a 6-day creation as per a literal understanding of Genesis 1, i.e. as hijacked by certain Christians (aided and abetted by some atheists) over the last few decades.
Are we also to assume the term "Christian" is a true follower of Jesus Christ and that this includes, at least, belief in his deity and a repentance of their sins? If so, would someone please inform jakswan.
-
If theism is a belief in the existence of god or gods then its negation isn't 'denial' but a lack of belief.
Arguably, it could be either. This is why we have classifications of atheism (agnostic/gnostic, strong/weak, positive/negative).
No, it's always lack, but not always denial.
It's simple logic. The opposite of A is not A. Just because B is not A doesn't mean all not A is B.
Agreed, which is why I suggested that people should err on the side of agnostic atheism until they're given a reason otherwise.
O.
Or just bung in "strong/gnostic" or "weak/agnostic" if there is any doubt about what is meant and particularly in thread titles and opening posts?
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists. What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?
What has the Stanford Uni definition got to do with how we are defining it, and how you have agreed to how we define it? Only you keep bringing Stanford up, which you've just said is how you understand strong atheism to be defined, rather than just atheism.
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
-
So why so much hair-splitting from Alan? Nothing better to do but argue over something he's already agreed to? Nit-picking and pedantry for their own ske?
Alan knows perfectly well that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in one.
Conclusive in whose eyes? Yours? Mine? Fred's?
Everybody's! If it's conclusive, nobody can deny it.
Don't be naive, Len.
-
...Denial is a pejorative term
Whatever are you on about? Good grief.
Of course it is - the manner in which that 'definition' is framed suggests a default assumption that there is a god and therefore that someone who doesn't belief must therefore be in denial. Someone who is in denial is usefully assumed to be someone who is unable or unwilling to accept the truth, not someone who simply has an alternative and equally valid point of view or belief.
Did you read the article?
So I ask again - is your position that you deny the existence of Thor, or that you do not believe in the existence of Thor.
Happy to say again what I wrote last time you asked. My position is that I both deny the existence of Thor and I do not believe in the existence of Thor. What was unclear about my position that caused you to ask the same question twice?
and is unnecessary within a definition of atheism (unless you want to make a 'political point').
Atheism requires no denial whatsoever - it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.
I suggest you take it up with Stanford University's Philosophy Department then.
Well to be honest I wouldn't have thought that a Philosophy department (however highly regarded the university) is the place where definitions of words are best determined. If this is to be done within an academic institution then that place is, of course, a linguistics department and specifically within the discipline of lexicography.
I would agree that they are not the only people to have a say if that is what you mean. However, does that mean that scientists have no right to use the word "theory" in their specialised sense as opposed to the popular meaning? "Theory" has at least two distinct, but confusable meanings; ditto "atheism", hence, sometimes, the need to be explicit as to which one is meant?
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
-
Which still means not believing in any gods.
Fuck me, how much simpler can we make it?
Exactly. You can't deny the existence of god/believe god doesn't exist without not believing god exists. This was even agreed back at post #24.
Agreed. All strong atheists are also weak atheists. What has that got to do with the Stanford Uni definition though?
What has the Stanford Uni definition got to do with how we are defining it, and how you have agreed to how we define it? Only you keep bringing Stanford up, which you've just said is how you understand strong atheism to be defined, rather than just atheism.
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Really?!?
Examples please, but restrict yourself to standard dictionaries from highly regarded lexicography sources, e.g. Oxford, Chamber, Collins etc not from sources that aren't primarily involved in lexicography and certainly not from sources that may have a bias against atheism.
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way.
Lets help you out.
Probably the four most respected dictionaries on the planet:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Although we can argue (and do) as to whether atheism is a belief or a lack of belief, one thing is clear from those definitions. None use the term 'denial'. Why - because they are lexicographers, in the business of defining words, not people with an agenda to portray certain groups of people in a pejorative light on the basis of their belief (or lack of belief).
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
Personally, I'd go with the Stanford definition as "agnosticism" seems to cover your description. However, agnosticism itself can mean either "not knowing whether there is a God/gods" and "believing it is not possible to know whether there is a God/gods". Hence my inclination to define things more precisely. Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
Personally, I'd go with the Stanford definition as "agnosticism" seems to cover your description. However, agnosticism itself can mean either "not knowing whether there is a God/gods" and "believing it is not possible to know whether there is a God/gods". Hence my inclination to define things more precisely. Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
You have a scientific education, and you think the most likely explanation about resurrection accounts, is that it actually happened?
Something does not square.
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
Personally, I'd go with the Stanford definition as "agnosticism" seems to cover your description. However, agnosticism itself can mean either "not knowing whether there is a God/gods" and "believing it is not possible to know whether there is a God/gods". Hence my inclination to define things more precisely. Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
I asked how do you want to define atheism, not how you would describe my position.
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way.
Lets help you out.
Probably the four most respected dictionaries on the planet:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Although we can argue (and do) as to whether atheism is a belief or a lack of belief, one thing is clear from those definitions. None use the term 'denial'. Why - because they are lexicographers, in the business of defining words, not people with an agenda to portray certain groups of people in a pejorative light on the basis of their belief (or lack of belief).
Are you a Christian stooge?
The Oxford one includes "Disbelief... in the existence of God or gods". OED defines "disbelief" as "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:" Is that you? Perhaps you are equating "disbelief" with "lack of belief". Maybe the Oxford dictionary is doing that, but if so why put down both "disbelief" and "or lack of belief"?
More tellingly, the Chambers definition, which I have bolded for you above, is in line with the Stanford one, i.e. "The belief that there is no god". Thanks for that.
The two Mirriam Webster definitions are, if "disbelief" is understood to mean "lack of belief", of weak atheism and strong atheism respectively.
Thus you have demonstrated that there are varying and significantly differing definitions. Hence the need sometimes to state whether weak/agnostic or strong/gnostic atheism is being spoken about.
You seem very touchy about this subject. Why the squit about the word "denial" being perorative?
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
Personally, I'd go with the Stanford definition as "agnosticism" seems to cover your description. However, agnosticism itself can mean either "not knowing whether there is a God/gods" and "believing it is not possible to know whether there is a God/gods". Hence my inclination to define things more precisely. Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
I asked how do you want to define atheism, not how you would describe my position.
I've answered. I've put it in bold for you above.
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
(Former employee of the UCL Survey of English Usage; we used to have millions of cards with examples written on, they have now been computerized).
-
Stanford Uni is an example. They are not the only people who use it that way. Are you suggesting that self-defined atheists are the only people who should have a say in how atheism is defined?
Nope, I'm saying that I have defined it as not believing in gods, so you can agree with that and work with it or not. At the most I'm saying that the atheists on this board are defining it that way too.
How do you want to define it?
Personally, I'd go with the Stanford definition as "agnosticism" seems to cover your description. However, agnosticism itself can mean either "not knowing whether there is a God/gods" and "believing it is not possible to know whether there is a God/gods". Hence my inclination to define things more precisely. Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
I asked how do you want to define atheism, not how you would describe my position.
I've answered. I've put it in bold for you above.
Sorry, read it wrong. So since you're ignoring the OED definition, does this mean we don't have to pander to it when you cite it as an "arbiter"?
But anyway, it's clear to you now that when I mention atheism I mean "not believing in gods". I can't think of a single instance where this hasn't been clear, but hey ho.
My take on this is that it's how theism is defined which dictates how atheism is defined. Take the meaning of theism and apply the meaning of the prefix "a" to it. Done.
-
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
I agree and the accepted definitions of words therefore evolve over time.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
This isn't something that will happen in the future - it already has.
Accepted definitions from respected lexicographic sources (e.g. the leading dictionaries I referred to) have moved well beyond the arcane use of denial (or even wicked or ungodly) in relation to atheism. The accepted definition of an atheist is who does not believe in god or gods. The only real lexicographic debate being whether we are dealing with a belief that god doesn't exist or a lack of belief that god does exist.
I would argue for the latter and indeed many dictionary definitions agree. I would also argue that in the evolution of dictionary definitions in the future we will have a settled acceptance of atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief, because that is the clear direction of travel.
-
Ah, the bliss of lexicography! A-gnostic is interesting, as it tends to be used, not to mean a denial of knowledge, but a lack. Thus 'I am agnostic about the merits of Marxism', doesn't mean that I reject it, but just don't know. A-moral doesn't mean immoral, but without morals. This doesn't mean that the prefix a- will always mean a lack, since language is not consistent (hurrah!).
-
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
I agree and the accepted definitions of words therefore evolve over time.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
This isn't something that will happen in the future - it already has.
Accepted definitions from respected lexicographic sources (e.g. the leading dictionaries I referred to) have moved well beyond the arcane use of denial (or even wicked or ungodly) in relation to atheism. The accepted definition of an atheist is who does not believe in god or gods. The only real lexicographic debate being whether we are dealing with a belief that god doesn't exist or a lack of belief that god does exist.
I would argue for the latter and indeed many dictionary definitions agree. I would also argue that in the evolution of dictionary definitions in the future we will have a settled acceptance of atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief, because that is the clear direction of travel.
Agree with all that. It seems obvious that the meaning 'lack' has become dominant, and, as you say, the use of 'atheism' to mean denial or a definite rejection is old-fashioned - of course, it can still be found, and a smart lexicographer would record both, but state that 'lack' is now primary.
-
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
I agree and the accepted definitions of words therefore evolve over time.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
This isn't something that will happen in the future - it already has.
Accepted definitions from respected lexicographic sources (e.g. the leading dictionaries I referred to) have moved well beyond the arcane use of denial (or even wicked or ungodly) in relation to atheism. The accepted definition of an atheist is who does not believe in god or gods. The only real lexicographic debate being whether we are dealing with a belief that god doesn't exist or a lack of belief that god does exist.
I would argue for the latter and indeed many dictionary definitions agree. I would also argue that in the evolution of dictionary definitions in the future we will have a settled acceptance of atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief, because that is the clear direction of travel.
Agree with all that. It seems obvious that the meaning 'lack' has become dominant, and, as you say, the use of 'atheism' to mean denial or a definite rejection is old-fashioned - of course, it can still be found, and a smart lexicographer would record both, but state that 'lack' is now primary.
But the old fashions notions of 'denial' or even wicked, ungodly etc go beyond a rejection, but take us into the word of judgement.
So someone who is in denial in this context denial means:
refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism (OED definition).
The implication being that denial is a refusal to accept something which is true - and that is clearly a pejorative statement - someone in denial cannot accept the truth. That is a negative judgement of that person.
-
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
I agree and the accepted definitions of words therefore evolve over time.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
This isn't something that will happen in the future - it already has.
Accepted definitions from respected lexicographic sources (e.g. the leading dictionaries I referred to) have moved well beyond the arcane use of denial (or even wicked or ungodly) in relation to atheism. The accepted definition of an atheist is who does not believe in god or gods. The only real lexicographic debate being whether we are dealing with a belief that god doesn't exist or a lack of belief that god does exist.
I would argue for the latter and indeed many dictionary definitions agree. I would also argue that in the evolution of dictionary definitions in the future we will have a settled acceptance of atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief, because that is the clear direction of travel.
Agree with all that. It seems obvious that the meaning 'lack' has become dominant, and, as you say, the use of 'atheism' to mean denial or a definite rejection is old-fashioned - of course, it can still be found, and a smart lexicographer would record both, but state that 'lack' is now primary.
But the old fashions notions of 'denial' or even wicked, ungodly etc go beyond a rejection, but take us into the word of judgement.
So someone who is in denial in this context denial means:
refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism (OED definition).
The implication being that denial is a refusal to accept something which is true - and that is clearly a pejorative statement - someone in denial cannot accept the truth. That is a negative judgement of that person.
I think you are getting concerned unnecessarily. Deny means to "say that what is said is not true" or, as the main definition from the OED where you got your bit from, "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of:". It says nothing about the validity or not of that denial. Certainly to be "in denial" does mean something stronger, but to just plain deny something (the associated noun being "denial") just means saying that something which has been asserted is not correct.
AN Other to David Cameron: Did you stick your willy in the mouth of a dead pig back when you were a posh boy?
Cameron: Yes, I deny I did that.
Him denying it says nothing about whether he actually did it or not.
-
And language is defined by use. For example, most modern lexicographers study usage of the terms they want to define.
This is the modern way - whereas traditionally, definitions were prescriptive, today they are descriptive, that is, they record the way people use language, and don't make recommendations.
I agree and the accepted definitions of words therefore evolve over time.
If atheists use 'atheism' to mean a lack rather than a denial, then I suspect that this will eventually become the dominant usage.
This isn't something that will happen in the future - it already has.
Accepted definitions from respected lexicographic sources (e.g. the leading dictionaries I referred to) have moved well beyond the arcane use of denial (or even wicked or ungodly) in relation to atheism. The accepted definition of an atheist is who does not believe in god or gods. The only real lexicographic debate being whether we are dealing with a belief that god doesn't exist or a lack of belief that god does exist.
I would argue for the latter and indeed many dictionary definitions agree. I would also argue that in the evolution of dictionary definitions in the future we will have a settled acceptance of atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief, because that is the clear direction of travel.
Agree with all that. It seems obvious that the meaning 'lack' has become dominant, and, as you say, the use of 'atheism' to mean denial or a definite rejection is old-fashioned - of course, it can still be found, and a smart lexicographer would record both, but state that 'lack' is now primary.
But the old fashions notions of 'denial' or even wicked, ungodly etc go beyond a rejection, but take us into the word of judgement.
So someone who is in denial in this context denial means:
refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism (OED definition).
The implication being that denial is a refusal to accept something which is true - and that is clearly a pejorative statement - someone in denial cannot accept the truth. That is a negative judgement of that person.
I think you are getting concerned unnecessarily. Deny means to "say that what is said is not true" or, as the main definition from the OED where you got your bit from, "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of:". It says nothing about the validity or not of that denial. Certainly to be "in denial" does mean something stronger, but to just plain deny something (the associated noun being "denial") just means saying that something which has been asserted is not correct.
AN Other to David Cameron: Did you stick your willy in the mouth of a dead pig back when you were a posh boy?
Cameron: Yes, I deny I did that.
Him denying it says nothing about whether he actually did it or not.
I disagree - the word denial is commonly used to indicate someone who is unwilling or unable to accept something which is generally acknowledged to be true. It is used in a negative fashion to imply that the person is unable to face (an often uncomfortable) truth.
So glad you are using political example - so some real ones rather than purported ones.
Before the last election the Tories coined the term deficit denial and deficit deniers - effectively as a negative term used to attack politicians that they perceived to be negatively refusing to accept the truth of a deficit.
Just last week Corbyn turned this on its head - coining the term poverty denial and poverty deniers.
In both case the clear implication is that the thing being denied (deficit and poverty) are true and the denier is unable to face up to the truth.
Think also of holocaust denial/deniers.
Denial and denier are pejorative terms.
OED definition of denier demonstrates this admirably:
'a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence'
-
I don't know if this applies, although I don't particularly mind anyone referring to me as an atheist, I don't think of myself as an atheist.
I haven't seen or heard any reasonable rational or logical explanation that would make me even want to find out if there is any truth in any of the religious beliefs, I'm not rejecting religious belief it's not the remotest bit credible that there is anything in it in the first place that's worthy of consideration.
I'm sorry but every time I see or hear anyone going through the religionist general handouts, visual or written whichever one it happens to be all I can see is more of those Hollywood representations of Zeus and his mates looking at a rather misty display of the movements of the supposedly mortals acting out their lives down below and it saddens me to think that there are still people that are so involved with this so obviously man made nonsense and even worse take it seriously.
Those Hollywood representations of the heavens might just as well be exactly similar to the ideas of their various heavens religionists have in their heads, no one knows how it is.
Come to think of it, was Sir Lawrence Olivia in actual fact Zeus?
Back to the point I was trying to make, religion to me is as pointless and as far from reality as how I have described above; other than this forum which I find intriguing, I really can't think of any good reason to seriously consider that it has anything to do with ordinary every day life, for anybody.
I think of myself as a non-religious person like so many these days and non-religious because so much is still written into our world from the old days when religion was king, eventually it'll be "well I'll be blowed that person is religious"? It's going that way, the evidence supports it.
ippy
-
..
OED definition of denier demonstrates this admirably:
'a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence'
OK, I'll leave you to take up with Stanford University if you want.
-
Very nice examples from Prof. Davey there. Certainly, 'in denial' seems to mean today, 'of something which is obviously true', same with 'denialist'. 'Deny' can still be used in a neutral sense, but I think that a definition of atheism as a denial of theism, is, well, tendentious, especially if most atheists prefer 'lack'.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief. I suppose one possible reason for this is that Christians want to give atheists an equivalent burden of proof - if you are really asserting that there is no God, then please give arguments/evidence, and so on. But a lack of belief carries no such burden of proof.
This ties in with the title, that atheism is a world view. As others have pointed out, not having a belief about something is hardly a world view, but some Christians want to claim that atheism is.
(Sorry if somebody has already made this point).
-
One thing I've heard from Christians is 'atheism is a belief system like any other'. In other words, I might not be able to prove my beliefs but neither can they.
-
Another thing is that simply not believing covers it for me and reverting to also believing something doesn't exist is an unnecessary step. So I don't believe. What else do you want?
-
One thing I've heard from Christians is 'atheism is a belief system like any other'. In other words, I might not be able to prove my beliefs but neither can they.
Funny you should say that but that's all the religionists have left, clutching at straws.
lppy
-
Religionism' usually means a zealot. Is that how you use it, Ippy?
-
For any of this to make sense God needs to be defined first. As this can't be done without reference to a particular religion or subjective viewpoint, which has no firm evidence or proof, then the whole thing is moot. Hence, why God doesn't exist or at worst is totally irrelevant.
-
Religionism' usually means a zealot. Is that how you use it, Ippy?
No not really, I see all religionists as mostly harmless eccenctrics, with ludicrous ideas in their heads that have long gone past their sell by date.
The percentage that do harm are no friends of mine, and secularism is the best way to deal with them and be fair to all at the same time.
ippy
P S Perhaps a bit potty imo.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
-
... Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
You have a scientific education, and you think the most likely explanation about resurrection accounts, is that it actually happened?
Something does not square.
I believe I know the solution.
Al studied Chemistry.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief. I suppose one possible reason for this is that Christians want to give atheists an equivalent burden of proof - if you are really asserting that there is no God, then please give arguments/evidence, and so on. But a lack of belief carries no such burden of proof.
This ties in with the title, that atheism is a world view. As others have pointed out, not having a belief about something is hardly a world view, but some Christians want to claim that atheism is.
(Sorry if somebody has already made this point).
Indeed. It's important to point out that everyone has an infinite number of things that they don't believe in. For atheists it's just one more to add.
-
So you have your own private language?
I think you'll find it is the most commonly accepted meaning of the word amongst atheists, because, for most of them it best describes their views on gods.
Er, that looks like a rather circular argument to me. You choose your own definition of "atheist" and then say that your definition of "atheist" is the most commonly accepted meaning among those you define as "atheist."
So?
It's a perfectly valid definition of the word. It's certainly the definition that most of the atheists on this board would apply to themselves.
This all seems pretty pointless to me. You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism)
Why are you obsessing about which definition of atheism everybody wants to use?
others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
Why do we have to? We have had this conversation so many times before, you should be able to remember which definition of “atheist” we all mean when we say “atheist”.
Wow, that was a close call for my irony meter.
Why?
Because if anybody knows how to twist the common English usage of a word for their own purposes, it is a Christian.
-
For any of this to make sense God needs to be defined first. As this can't be done without reference to a particular religion or subjective viewpoint, which has no firm evidence or proof, then the whole thing is moot. Hence, why God doesn't exist or at worst is totally irrelevant.
Bye then.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
I refer the honorable gentleman back to the sources he himself quoted. Are you suggesting that those sources have been infiltrated by theists?
-
... Perhaps that comes from my scientific education.
You have a scientific education, and you think the most likely explanation about resurrection accounts, is that it actually happened?
Something does not square.
I believe I know the solution.
Al studied Chemistry.
That's nice for you.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
I refer the honorable gentleman back to the sources he himself quoted. Are you suggesting that those sources have been infiltrated by theists?
Eh - what are you on about.
I quoted the definitions from what I think are the four most reputable English dictionaries in the world; Oxford English, Chambers, Collins and Mirriam Webster.
None use the words denial, deny or denier in their definitions so I have no idea what you are on about.
Sure theists may chose to redefine atheism for their partisan purposes (indeed just this week Saudi defined atheists as terrorists), but that doesn't mean these 'bespoke definitions for a purpose' are accepted nor credible or unbiased. So there is little doubt that the definition that atheists tend to prefer themselves much better aligns with the accepted lexicographic definition than your partisan non-sense involving denial.
-
You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism) and others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
That is absolute rubbish. The following definition of atheism:
'A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods'
Is equally applicable to what you describe as 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism. And indeed those weak vs strong additions define sub-groups of atheism, if you accept the terms. That is perfectly acceptable to have variants for subgroups, but the basic definition must be broad and robust enough to apply to all atheists, and the only defining feature is that we don't believe in god or gods, hence the definition must reflect this.
Just to show how non-sense your suggestion is, just try to apply it to christianity. There is a basic definition and then ways of defining sub groups - e.g. evangelical christian, fundamental christian, census christian, cultural christian, etc etc. The basic definition must be applicable to all subgroups. If you define christian in a manner which is only applicable to an evangelical christian then I think there will be plenty of non-evalngelical christians pretty miffed with you.
-
You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism) and others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
That is absolute rubbish. The following definition of atheism:
'A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods'
Is equally applicable to what you describe as 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism. And indeed those weak vs strong additions define sub-groups of atheism, if you accept the terms. That is perfectly acceptable to have variants for subgroups, but the basic definition must be broad and robust enough to apply to all atheists, and the only defining feature is that we don't believe in god or gods, hence the definition must reflect this.
Just to show how non-sense your suggestion is, just try to apply it to christianity. There is a basic definition and then ways of defining sub groups - e.g. evangelical christian, fundamental christian, census christian, cultural christian, etc etc. The basic definition must be applicable to all subgroups. If you define christian in a manner which is only applicable to an evangelical christian then I think there will be plenty of non-evalngelical christians pretty miffed with you.
Surely it depends on how Stanford Uni define it?
-
Heh ;D
-
You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism) and others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
That is absolute rubbish. The following definition of atheism:
'A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods'
Is equally applicable to what you describe as 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism. And indeed those weak vs strong additions define sub-groups of atheism, if you accept the terms. That is perfectly acceptable to have variants for subgroups, but the basic definition must be broad and robust enough to apply to all atheists, and the only defining feature is that we don't believe in god or gods, hence the definition must reflect this.
Just to show how non-sense your suggestion is, just try to apply it to christianity. There is a basic definition and then ways of defining sub groups - e.g. evangelical christian, fundamental christian, census christian, cultural christian, etc etc. The basic definition must be applicable to all subgroups. If you define christian in a manner which is only applicable to an evangelical christian then I think there will be plenty of non-evalngelical christians pretty miffed with you.
Surely it depends on how Stanford Uni define it?
Or specifically the Stanford University Philosophy department's dictionary of philosophy.
Actually I'm not even sure this exists as a dictionary definition even in that context. I certainly can't find it.
Indeed Alien's original post actually refers to an article within something described as 'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy' - not a dictionary at all (which is in the business of defining words) but an Encyclopedia which is an entirely different beast. This appears to be merely an academic article (one of thousands) on the topic. It carries no special weight in terms of definitions, has no lexicographic credibility, merely plucked out of the air presumably to suit the purposes of the author.
-
Ssshh. Don't ruin it with the details. ::)
-
Ssshh. Don't ruin it with the details. ::)
Sorry ;)
-
For any of this to make sense God needs to be defined first. As this can't be done without reference to a particular religion or subjective viewpoint, which has no firm evidence or proof, then the whole thing is moot. Hence, why God doesn't exist or at worst is totally irrelevant.
Bye then.
As you failed to define your God or provide any proof of Its existence the joke is on you. If you did have a cogent argument that held water you wouldn't of ran off from my questions on my threads, which are still unanswered.
And judging by some of your avoidance tricks and underhand tactics the Devil could learn a move or two from you!!! ;D
-
One thing I've heard from Christians is 'atheism is a belief system like any other'. In other words, I might not be able to prove my beliefs but neither can they.
Then we all have an infinite number of belief systems as there's an infinite number of things I don't believe in.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
I refer the honorable gentleman back to the sources he himself quoted. Are you suggesting that those sources have been infiltrated by theists?
Eh - what are you on about.
I quoted the definitions from what I think are the four most reputable English dictionaries in the world; Oxford English, Chambers, Collins and Mirriam Webster.
None use the words denial, deny or denier in their definitions so I have no idea what you are on about.
Maybe we are arguing past each other. Are you saying that use of the word "denial" (of something) implies that the person using the word "denial" believes that the denier is refusing to believe something which is true? If so, then I think you are reading too much into it.
As for those four dictionaries, here are two of their definitions of atheism again:
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The two definitions in bold are that the person who is an atheist (in these terms) believes that there is no god/deity, not just that they have no belief that there is a deity. Thus it is a stronger belief than, say, a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. My point is that different dictionaries define "atheism" in significantly different ways and all we have to do is state clearly which of those two significantly different meanings we are using. That is all. Let's just state our terms clearly.
Sure theists may chose to redefine atheism for their partisan purposes (indeed just this week Saudi defined atheists as terrorists), but that doesn't mean these 'bespoke definitions for a purpose' are accepted nor credible or unbiased. So there is little doubt that the definition that atheists tend to prefer themselves much better aligns with the accepted lexicographic definition than your partisan non-sense involving denial.
It isn't theists who are "redefining atheism" and an attempt at guilt by association with Saudi Arabia is not the right thing to do. Quoting the Chambers definition, the second Mirriam Webster definition and the Stanford University definition is not a "bespoke definition for a purpose".
-
You (and many others) want to use the term "atheism" to mean one thing (weak atheism) and others, e.g. Stanford University, want to use another way (strong atheism). Why not just specify which one you mean?
That is absolute rubbish. The following definition of atheism:
'A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods'
Is equally applicable to what you describe as 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism. And indeed those weak vs strong additions define sub-groups of atheism, if you accept the terms. That is perfectly acceptable to have variants for subgroups, but the basic definition must be broad and robust enough to apply to all atheists, and the only defining feature is that we don't believe in god or gods, hence the definition must reflect this.
Just to show how non-sense your suggestion is, just try to apply it to christianity. There is a basic definition and then ways of defining sub groups - e.g. evangelical christian, fundamental christian, census christian, cultural christian, etc etc. The basic definition must be applicable to all subgroups. If you define christian in a manner which is only applicable to an evangelical christian then I think there will be plenty of non-evalngelical christians pretty miffed with you.
I don't define it in a manner which is only applicable to an evangelical Christian, but there are actual boundaries within which a person needs to lie to be a Christian. Thus, it does not make sense to speak of a Muslim Christian (cue intervention by jakswan?).
You say that the basic definition (of "atheism") must be applicable to all subgroups. Yes, of course, but if there is a correct definition and it is
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
then those who have just a lack of belief in a deity (rather than a belief that there is no deity) would not be atheists by that definition. They would, perhaps, be better defined as agnostics.
However, there are considerable numbers of people who use "atheism" to mean just that a person does not have a belief in a deity (as evidenced by the OED and the other definitions quoted), so let's say that this is a valid definition as well. That leaves us with two significantly different definitions and all we need to do is say which one we are using when we use the term, i.e. say weather we mean weak/agnostic/negative atheism or strong/gnostic/positive atheism.
That is the end of my contribution on this thread. Have a good day.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
I refer the honorable gentleman back to the sources he himself quoted. Are you suggesting that those sources have been infiltrated by theists?
Eh - what are you on about.
I quoted the definitions from what I think are the four most reputable English dictionaries in the world; Oxford English, Chambers, Collins and Mirriam Webster.
None use the words denial, deny or denier in their definitions so I have no idea what you are on about.
Maybe we are arguing past each other. Are you saying that use of the word "denial" (of something) implies that the person using the word "denial" believes that the denier is refusing to believe something which is true? If so, then I think you are reading too much into it.
As for those four dictionaries, here are two of their definitions of atheism again:
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The two definitions in bold are that the person who is an atheist (in these terms) believes that there is no god/deity, not just that they have no belief that there is a deity. Thus it is a stronger belief than, say, a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. My point is that different dictionaries define "atheism" in significantly different ways and all we have to do is state clearly which of those two significantly different meanings we are using. That is all. Let's just state our terms clearly.
Sure theists may chose to redefine atheism for their partisan purposes (indeed just this week Saudi defined atheists as terrorists), but that doesn't mean these 'bespoke definitions for a purpose' are accepted nor credible or unbiased. So there is little doubt that the definition that atheists tend to prefer themselves much better aligns with the accepted lexicographic definition than your partisan non-sense involving denial.
It isn't theists who are "redefining atheism" and an attempt at guilt by association with Saudi Arabia is not the right thing to do. Quoting the Chambers definition, the second Mirriam Webster definition and the Stanford University definition is not a "bespoke definition for a purpose".
My point was that denial has no part in the definition of atheism.
And I have proved my point as you have failed to find a bone fide dictionary definition from a reputable source that uses the word denial, or deny or denier.
Indeed you have ably demonstrated my point by yourself quoting reputable dictionaries (Chambers and Mirriam Webster) where the word denial, or deny or denier are notable by their absence.
-
That is the end of my contribution on this thread. Have a good day.
Why?
Because you have evidently (and demonstrably by your own admission) lost the argument. You implied that atheism was 'the denial of the existence of God'. I countered that view and provided ample evidence of bone fide lexicographic sources none of which have a definition that comes close to that and none use the term denial.
Demonstrably I use accepted dictionary definition for atheism (there is one in particular I prefer). Your definition has no credibility in lexicographic terms - sure you and others can make up your own definitions for your specific purposes (just like the Saudi government have defined atheists as terrorists) - but just making up definitions doesn't accord them any credibility.
Bottom line - your definition lacks any credibility, mine accords with a range of reputable dictionary definitions.
-
Having a scoot round the internet, and it seems that many Christians like to define atheism as a denial of God, whereas many atheists describe it as a lack of belief.
And all the reputable lexicography sources never mention denial but describe it as a lack or belief in god or a belief that god doesn't exist.
So it would appear that rather than it being atheists defining atheism as they wish but against dictionary-accepted definitions (as Alien claims) that it is the christians who wish to redefine atheism against dictionary definitions for their own purposes, which presumably are to infer that atheists cannot accept the truth. Poor show from those theists.
I refer the honorable gentleman back to the sources he himself quoted. Are you suggesting that those sources have been infiltrated by theists?
Eh - what are you on about.
I quoted the definitions from what I think are the four most reputable English dictionaries in the world; Oxford English, Chambers, Collins and Mirriam Webster.
None use the words denial, deny or denier in their definitions so I have no idea what you are on about.
Maybe we are arguing past each other. Are you saying that use of the word "denial" (of something) implies that the person using the word "denial" believes that the denier is refusing to believe something which is true? If so, then I think you are reading too much into it.
As for those four dictionaries, here are two of their definitions of atheism again:
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The two definitions in bold are that the person who is an atheist (in these terms) believes that there is no god/deity, not just that they have no belief that there is a deity. Thus it is a stronger belief than, say, a lack of belief in the existence of a deity. My point is that different dictionaries define "atheism" in significantly different ways and all we have to do is state clearly which of those two significantly different meanings we are using. That is all. Let's just state our terms clearly.
Sure theists may chose to redefine atheism for their partisan purposes (indeed just this week Saudi defined atheists as terrorists), but that doesn't mean these 'bespoke definitions for a purpose' are accepted nor credible or unbiased. So there is little doubt that the definition that atheists tend to prefer themselves much better aligns with the accepted lexicographic definition than your partisan non-sense involving denial.
It isn't theists who are "redefining atheism" and an attempt at guilt by association with Saudi Arabia is not the right thing to do. Quoting the Chambers definition, the second Mirriam Webster definition and the Stanford University definition is not a "bespoke definition for a purpose".
My point was that denial has no part in the definition of atheism.
And I have proved my point as you have failed to find a bone fide dictionary definition from a reputable source that uses the word denial, or deny or denier.
Indeed you have ably demonstrated my point by yourself quoting reputable dictionaries (Chambers and Mirriam Webster) where the word denial, or deny or denier are notable by their absence.
Nope, all you have done is show that you seem to be rather concerned about the words "deny" and "denial", thinking that in ordinary usage they have the negative connotation that "denial" does indeed have in the term "in denial". Why are you so concerned? An atheist, at least a strong atheist, should not have any problem in saying that they deny that God exists. I have no problem with saying I deny that Mohammed was a messenger from God.
-
That is the end of my contribution on this thread. Have a good day.
Why?
Because I thought I had had my say.
Because you have evidently (and demonstrably by your own admission) lost the argument.
Oh, do stop making things up. You implied that atheism was 'the denial of the existence of God'. I countered that view and provided ample evidence of bone fide lexicographic sources none of which have a definition that comes close to that and none use the term denial.
No. Incorrect. I said that different dictionaries defined "atheism" in significantly different ways. Two, that you quoted, have what is generally agreed to be "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism and the other definitions are what is termed "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism. What I have argued for is that people state specifically which version they mean if there is ever any doubt about which they mean. It is that simple.
-
Isn't the problem here that there isn't actually a word for what Alien calls "strong atheism"? That's why he and it seems a few others have to graft on a new meaning - "there definitely are no gods" - on to it, however much it significantly corrupts the usual meaning. It's a bit like "invariably": it has a perfectly useful meaning of "always", but sometimes people will use it to mean "usually" - a fundamentally different meaning rather than just a nuanced change.
So far as I know almost no-one is a "strong atheist" in Alien's sense - that would just give them the burden of proof problem that theists have - but the better solution would be to find a word for the "there are definitely no gods" position, whether or not anyone actually holds it. Otherwise we're just left with Alien endlessly asking, "are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?" and receiving the answer, "the question is meaningless".
Any suggestions for the new word? "Deinialist" maybe?
-
You implied that atheism was 'the denial of the existence of God'. I countered that view and provided ample evidence of bone fide lexicographic sources none of which have a definition that comes close to that and none use the term denial.
No. Incorrect. I said that different dictionaries defined "atheism" in significantly different ways. Two, that you quoted, have what is generally agreed to be "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism and the other definitions are what is termed "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism. What I have argued for is that people state specifically which version they mean if there is ever any doubt about which they mean. It is that simple.
Stop digging a hole for yourself.
Sure different dictionaries use variants of terminology in their definitions. But you have failed to provide a single example of a bone fide lexicographic source (i.e. a respected dictionary) that uses deny, or its derivative denial or denier, as part of a definition of atheism. By contrast I have provided evidence that the most respected dictionaries in the world don't use this term.
So until you can provide a lexicographic source with a reputation comparable with OED, Chambers, Mirriam Webster or Collins that includes deny (or its derivatives) in its definition of atheism then we have to conclude that deny (or its derivatives) is not part of any accepted lexicographic definition of atheism.
-
Isn't the problem here that there isn't actually a word for what Alien calls "strong atheism"? That's why he and it seems a few others have to graft on a new meaning - "there definitely are no gods" - on to it, however much it significantly corrupts the usual meaning. It's a bit like "invariably": it has a perfectly useful meaning of "always", but sometimes people will use it to mean "usually" - a fundamentally different meaning rather than just a nuanced change.
So far as I know almost no-one is a "strong atheist" in Alien's sense - that would just give them the burden of proof problem that theists have - but the better solution would be to find a word for the "there are definitely no gods" position, whether or not anyone actually holds it. Otherwise we're just left with Alien endlessly asking, "are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?" and receiving the answer, "the question is meaningless".
Any suggestions for the new word? "Deinialist" maybe?
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
-
Hi Prof,
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
We need a new term I think because the meaning Alien is trying to graft on to it is fundamentally discordant with its usual meaning. I don't think the analogy works ether - all theists think their god (or gods) exist, but some are more fervent, literalist etc about their beliefs than others. Atheism on the other hand has no such gradations - either you find the arguments for god(s) non-persuasive or you don't. You can't not believe in gods except on Wednesday half-day closing, or not believe in gods except when you want a miracle performed to cure your granddad of his bunions etc.
-
Hi Prof,
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
We need a new term I think because the meaning Alien is trying to graft on to it is fundamentally discordant with its usual meaning. I don't think the analogy works ether - all theists think their god (or gods) exist, but some are more fervent, literalist etc about their beliefs than others. Atheism on the other hand has no such gradations - either you find the arguments for god(s) non-persuasive or you don't. You can't not believe in gods except on Wednesday half-day closing, or not believe in gods except when you want a miracle performed to cure your granddad of his bunions etc.
True, but the way to achieve this isn't to attempt to re-define atheism to something it isn't.
Less so to allow theists to define atheism in a manner which doesn't accord with what atheist themselves recognise and is pejorative and effectively 'political' - i.e. an attempt to define atheism and atheist in some way as extremists. This of course has been the approach of many religious leaders of different religion. A kind of agenda to try to portray atheists as somehow akin to religious extremists. But ultimately I don't think this will work, as the news isn't filled with example of the appalling and murderous actions of people driven fundamentally by their atheism as they are of the equivalent for religious extremists.
-
Prof,
True, but the way to achieve this isn't to attempt to re-define atheism to something it isn't.
I agree - that's what Alien is attempting to do! Rather than re-define it, let's have a different word if we must that we can all agree is an unsupportable position because of the burden of proof problem.
Less so to allow theists to define atheism in a manner which doesn't accord with what atheist themselves recognise and is pejorative and effectively 'political' - i.e. an attempt to define atheism and atheist in some way as extremists. This of course has been the approach of many religious leaders of different religion. A kind of agenda to try to portray atheists as somehow akin to religious extremists. But ultimately I don't think this will work, as the news isn't filled with example of the appalling and murderous actions of people driven fundamentally by their atheism as they are of the equivalent for religious extremists.
Quite - where are the signs at airports saying, "Fast Track Security - Atheists Only" by the way? Alien's schtick looks to me like an attempt to create a "look a those silly atheists and their burden of proof problem" to me (a problem shared is a problem halved eh?), which is why "atheist" doesn't serve for the purpose. If ever someone did turn up who was a "definitely no gods" wallah at least then we'd have a word for him.
-
Isn't the problem here that there isn't actually a word for what Alien calls "strong atheism"? That's why he and it seems a few others have to graft on a new meaning - "there definitely are no gods" - on to it, however much it significantly corrupts the usual meaning. It's a bit like "invariably": it has a perfectly useful meaning of "always", but sometimes people will use it to mean "usually" - a fundamentally different meaning rather than just a nuanced change.
So far as I know almost no-one is a "strong atheist" in Alien's sense - that would just give them the burden of proof problem that theists have - but the better solution would be to find a word for the "there are definitely no gods" position, whether or not anyone actually holds it. Otherwise we're just left with Alien endlessly asking, "are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?" and receiving the answer, "the question is meaningless".
Any suggestions for the new word? "Deinialist" maybe?
Hiya BHS,
Whether or not "strong atheism" is a correct view, with burden of proof and all that, does not affect the fact that there are people who hold that position. Certainly, The Stranger, when he was here held that position and one or two have affirmed that no God exists. Even if there were none here who held that view, it still remains that in English there are two significantly different meanings defined for "atheism". Just Google "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" and you will see plenty of sites which use those terms. They are not "my terms".
As for me asking people whether they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist, that will rarely happen. What does concern me is when people make a statement like "atheism is/is not a belief". Heck, which sort of atheism are they talking about? All they have to do is say "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism is/is not a belief". That's all it takes. Bung in one word to clarify what is being said. This is not my theism causing me to be stroppy or anything. It is just me trying to be clear on stuff.
-
You implied that atheism was 'the denial of the existence of God'. I countered that view and provided ample evidence of bone fide lexicographic sources none of which have a definition that comes close to that and none use the term denial.
No. Incorrect. I said that different dictionaries defined "atheism" in significantly different ways. Two, that you quoted, have what is generally agreed to be "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism and the other definitions are what is termed "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism. What I have argued for is that people state specifically which version they mean if there is ever any doubt about which they mean. It is that simple.
Stop digging a hole for yourself.
Sure different dictionaries use variants of terminology in their definitions. But you have failed to provide a single example of a bone fide lexicographic source (i.e. a respected dictionary) that uses deny, or its derivative denial or denier, as part of a definition of atheism. By contrast I have provided evidence that the most respected dictionaries in the world don't use this term.
So until you can provide a lexicographic source with a reputation comparable with OED, Chambers, Mirriam Webster or Collins that includes deny (or its derivatives) in its definition of atheism then we have to conclude that deny (or its derivatives) is not part of any accepted lexicographic definition of atheism.
Oh, for goodness' sake, this has been explained to you several times. "Strong/gnostic/ositive atheism" is the assertion, rightly or wrongly, that there is no god/God. "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism" is the lack of belief that a god/God exists. "Atheism", unspecified as to which sort, is defined in significantly different ways amongst the dictionaries that you quoted and the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia. Some say it is a lack of belief in any gods; some say it is the belief that there are not gods/the denial that there are any gods. It is not some secret, subliminal method implying that certain atheists are "in denial" about anything. Grow up and get over it.
-
Isn't the problem here that there isn't actually a word for what Alien calls "strong atheism"? That's why he and it seems a few others have to graft on a new meaning - "there definitely are no gods" - on to it, however much it significantly corrupts the usual meaning. It's a bit like "invariably": it has a perfectly useful meaning of "always", but sometimes people will use it to mean "usually" - a fundamentally different meaning rather than just a nuanced change.
So far as I know almost no-one is a "strong atheist" in Alien's sense - that would just give them the burden of proof problem that theists have - but the better solution would be to find a word for the "there are definitely no gods" position, whether or not anyone actually holds it. Otherwise we're just left with Alien endlessly asking, "are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?" and receiving the answer, "the question is meaningless".
Any suggestions for the new word? "Deinialist" maybe?
Hiya BHS,
Whether or not "strong atheism" is a correct view, with burden of proof and all that, does not affect the fact that there are people who hold that position. Certainly, The Stranger, when he was here held that position and one or two have affirmed that no God exists. Even if there were none here who held that view, it still remains that in English there are two significantly different meanings defined for "atheism". Just Google "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" and you will see plenty of sites which use those terms. They are not "my terms".
As for me asking people whether they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist, that will rarely happen. What does concern me is when people make a statement like "atheism is/is not a belief". Heck, which sort of atheism are they talking about? All they have to do is say "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism is/is not a belief". That's all it takes. Bung in one word to clarify what is being said. This is not my theism causing me to be stroppy or anything. It is just me trying to be clear on stuff.
But you cannot advance that argument (even if there is a valid argument there in the first place, which I am not convinced) by redefining the basic term, namely atheism.
Even if we accept that strong and weak atheists exist, the basic term must be broad enough to fit both. As soon as you start to redefine atheism for your own purposes you end up in the impossible position that people who do not believe in the existence of god or gods suddenly cease to be atheists under your new arbitrarily defined term. That will not do.
-
Hi Prof,
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
We need a new term I think because the meaning Alien is trying to graft on to it is fundamentally discordant with its usual meaning. I don't think the analogy works ether - all theists think their god (or gods) exist, but some are more fervent, literalist etc about their beliefs than others. Atheism on the other hand has no such gradations - either you find the arguments for god(s) non-persuasive or you don't. You can't not believe in gods except on Wednesday half-day closing, or not believe in gods except when you want a miracle performed to cure your granddad of his bunions etc.
True, but the way to achieve this isn't to attempt to re-define atheism to something it isn't.
...
There is no need to redefine anything. All you need to do is say which sort of atheism you mean if there is any doubt. Are you able to do that or not?
-
You implied that atheism was 'the denial of the existence of God'. I countered that view and provided ample evidence of bone fide lexicographic sources none of which have a definition that comes close to that and none use the term denial.
No. Incorrect. I said that different dictionaries defined "atheism" in significantly different ways. Two, that you quoted, have what is generally agreed to be "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism and the other definitions are what is termed "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism. What I have argued for is that people state specifically which version they mean if there is ever any doubt about which they mean. It is that simple.
Stop digging a hole for yourself.
Sure different dictionaries use variants of terminology in their definitions. But you have failed to provide a single example of a bone fide lexicographic source (i.e. a respected dictionary) that uses deny, or its derivative denial or denier, as part of a definition of atheism. By contrast I have provided evidence that the most respected dictionaries in the world don't use this term.
So until you can provide a lexicographic source with a reputation comparable with OED, Chambers, Mirriam Webster or Collins that includes deny (or its derivatives) in its definition of atheism then we have to conclude that deny (or its derivatives) is not part of any accepted lexicographic definition of atheism.
Oh, for goodness' sake, this has been explained to you several times. "Strong/gnostic/ositive atheism" is the assertion, rightly or wrongly, that there is no god/God. "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism" is the lack of belief that a god/God exists. "Atheism", unspecified as to which sort, is defined in significantly different ways amongst the dictionaries that you quoted and the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia. Some say it is a lack of belief in any gods; some say it is the belief that there are not gods/the denial that there are any gods. It is not some secret, subliminal method implying that certain atheists are "in denial" about anything. Grow up and get over it.
The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia which you erroneously defined as a dictionary (which it is not), is not a recognised or accepted lexicographic source, unlike the leading dictionaries I quote. They can say what they like, their definition is not an accepted lexicographic definition unlike the reputable dictionaries.
So unless or until you actually come up with evidence that a reputable dictionary actually uses deny (or its derivatives) in a definition of atheism I suggest you accept that you are wrong. Sure there is a range of definitions, but deny it not part of that range.
-
Isn't the problem here that there isn't actually a word for what Alien calls "strong atheism"? That's why he and it seems a few others have to graft on a new meaning - "there definitely are no gods" - on to it, however much it significantly corrupts the usual meaning. It's a bit like "invariably": it has a perfectly useful meaning of "always", but sometimes people will use it to mean "usually" - a fundamentally different meaning rather than just a nuanced change.
So far as I know almost no-one is a "strong atheist" in Alien's sense - that would just give them the burden of proof problem that theists have - but the better solution would be to find a word for the "there are definitely no gods" position, whether or not anyone actually holds it. Otherwise we're just left with Alien endlessly asking, "are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?" and receiving the answer, "the question is meaningless".
Any suggestions for the new word? "Deinialist" maybe?
Hiya BHS,
Whether or not "strong atheism" is a correct view, with burden of proof and all that, does not affect the fact that there are people who hold that position. Certainly, The Stranger, when he was here held that position and one or two have affirmed that no God exists. Even if there were none here who held that view, it still remains that in English there are two significantly different meanings defined for "atheism". Just Google "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" and you will see plenty of sites which use those terms. They are not "my terms".
As for me asking people whether they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist, that will rarely happen. What does concern me is when people make a statement like "atheism is/is not a belief". Heck, which sort of atheism are they talking about? All they have to do is say "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism is/is not a belief". That's all it takes. Bung in one word to clarify what is being said. This is not my theism causing me to be stroppy or anything. It is just me trying to be clear on stuff.
But you cannot advance that argument (even if there is a valid argument there in the first place, which I am not convinced) by redefining the basic term, namely atheism.
Oh, for goodness' sake, I am not redefining anything. I am pointing out that some dictionaries, including two you quoted, and the Stanford wotsit define atheism as a belief that there are no gods.
Even if we accept that strong and weak atheists exist, the basic term must be broad enough to fit both. As soon as you start to redefine atheism for your own purposes you end up in the impossible position that people who do not believe in the existence of god or gods suddenly cease to be atheists under your new arbitrarily defined term. That will not do.
Or accept that sometimes the term needs clarifying, just as the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism" need clarifying sometimes.
-
...
The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia which you erroneously defined as a dictionary (which it is not)
Agreed. is not a recognised or accepted lexicographic source,
Accepted by whom? You? unlike the leading dictionaries I quote. They can say what they like, their definition is not an accepted lexicographic definition unlike the reputable dictionaries.
So unless or until you actually come up with evidence that a reputable dictionary actually uses deny (or its derivatives) in a definition of atheism I suggest you accept that you are wrong. Sure there is a range of definitions, but deny it not part of that range.
Yes, use two of the ones you quoted!
-
Hi Prof,
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
We need a new term I think because the meaning Alien is trying to graft on to it is fundamentally discordant with its usual meaning. I don't think the analogy works ether - all theists think their god (or gods) exist, but some are more fervent, literalist etc about their beliefs than others. Atheism on the other hand has no such gradations - either you find the arguments for god(s) non-persuasive or you don't. You can't not believe in gods except on Wednesday half-day closing, or not believe in gods except when you want a miracle performed to cure your granddad of his bunions etc.
True, but the way to achieve this isn't to attempt to re-define atheism to something it isn't.
...
There is no need to redefine anything. All you need to do is say which sort of atheism you mean if there is any doubt. Are you able to do that or not?
But that is exactly what you have done by attempting to redefine atheism as:
''the denial of the existence of God''
No reputable lexicographic source defines it as such - accept it (or provide evidence that a reputable dictionary defines it as such).
-
...
The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia which you erroneously defined as a dictionary (which it is not)
Agreed.
Thank you
is not a recognised or accepted lexicographic source,
Accepted by whom? You?
Nope by just about anyone around. Firstly because an encyclopaedia is not a dictionary (I trust you understand the difference). And actually Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia is really a collection of articles, not really an encyclopaedia as we really understand them. So it isn't even a non reputable lexicographic source, it isn't a lexicographic source at all.
unlike the leading dictionaries I quote. They can say what they like, their definition is not an accepted lexicographic definition unlike the reputable dictionaries.
So unless or until you actually come up with evidence that a reputable dictionary actually uses deny (or its derivatives) in a definition of atheism I suggest you accept that you are wrong. Sure there is a range of definitions, but deny it not part of that range.
Yes, use two of the ones you quoted!
FFS Alien - where in any of the definitions in (arguably) the four most reputable lexicographic sources in the world is deny, denial or denier contained in the definition of atheism. It isn't. Are you incapable of understanding this.
So pick out deny, denial or denier in:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
It isn't there - or can't you read!!
-
Hi Prof,
But why do we need a single word definition for what Alien describes as 'strong atheism' - why not just add the prefix term, just as we do for evangelical christians, or liberal jews (we don't have single word definitions for those either although they are a sub set of christians and jews for which there are definitions that necessarily need to cover the broad spectrum.
We need a new term I think because the meaning Alien is trying to graft on to it is fundamentally discordant with its usual meaning. I don't think the analogy works ether - all theists think their god (or gods) exist, but some are more fervent, literalist etc about their beliefs than others. Atheism on the other hand has no such gradations - either you find the arguments for god(s) non-persuasive or you don't. You can't not believe in gods except on Wednesday half-day closing, or not believe in gods except when you want a miracle performed to cure your granddad of his bunions etc.
True, but the way to achieve this isn't to attempt to re-define atheism to something it isn't.
...
There is no need to redefine anything. All you need to do is say which sort of atheism you mean if there is any doubt. Are you able to do that or not?
The not believing in gods sort
-
Hi Alien,
Whether or not "strong atheism" is a correct view, with burden of proof and all that, does not affect the fact that there are people who hold that position. Certainly, The Stranger, when he was here held that position and one or two have affirmed that no God exists.
I didn't say that there were no such people, just that they're a rare breed. Vanishingly rare when compared with the certainties of most theists for example.
Even if there were none here who held that view, it still remains that in English there are two significantly different meanings defined for "atheism". Just Google "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" and you will see plenty of sites which use those terms. They are not "my terms".
No it doesn't. Some have it seems tried to graft on a different meaning, but that leads to two meanings in one word fundamentally at odds with each other - ie, the "invariably" problem. And that's only happened because we lack a word for what you call "strong atheism". Worse still, I'm a "weak" atheist in your lexicon because I cannot definitively state that there are no gods (the unknown unknowns problem), but I'm a "strong" atheist too in that I strongly think the arguments for an objectively true god or gods to be flawed.
As for me asking people whether they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist, that will rarely happen. What does concern me is when people make a statement like "atheism is/is not a belief". Heck, which sort of atheism are they talking about? All they have to do is say "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism is/is not a belief". That's all it takes. Bung in one word to clarify what is being said. This is not my theism causing me to be stroppy or anything. It is just me trying to be clear on stuff.
They say "it's not a belief" for good reason - it's not a belief. The closest you'll get to that is that some of us have a belief that reason is a better way to arrive at probable truths than unreason, and atheism (and a-leprechaunism for that matter) is just a natural consequence of that.
-
Alien,
There is no need to redefine anything. All you need to do is say which sort of atheism you mean if there is any doubt. Are you able to do that or not?
Yes there is. See my last post for details.
-
Alien,
Just out of interest, are you a "strong" invariablist or a "weak" invariablist?
Yeah, I know they mean completely different things but - according to you - there's no need to redefine the term for a new meaning grafted on, we can just prefix it with different qualifiers!
-
...FFS Alien - where in any of the definitions in (arguably) the four most reputable lexicographic sources in the world is deny, denial or denier contained in the definition of atheism. It isn't. Are you incapable of understanding this.
So pick out deny, denial or denier in:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
It isn't there - or can't you read!!
I've put them in red and bold for you. The ones in red and bold state that atheism is the actual belief/conviction/whatever that there is no god/gods/God. It is more than a lack of belief that there is a god/gods/God.
I've also put the Oxford one in orange as that too could be taken to mean "strong atheism". The OED definition of "disbelief" is "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". So the orange bit could be understood to mean "Refusal to accept the existence of gods." "Disbelief" is stronger than "lack of belief". "Refusal" is actually stronger than "denial", but let's not go there, eh?
-
Me, I'm still going with "deiniaiist" for what Alien calls a "strong" atheist. All we need now is for a few people to use it in print and for the OED to pick it up, and Robert's your Auntie's husband!
-
Alien,
I've also put the Oxford one in orange as that too could be taken to mean "strong atheism". The OED definition of "disbelief" is "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". So the orange bit could be understood to mean "Refusal to accept the existence of gods." "Disbelief" is stronger than "lack of belief". "Refusal" is actually stronger than "denial", but let's not go there, eh?
That's wrong - I can readily "refuse to accept" that claims about gods are true without overreaching into your meaning of "strong" atheist. As Bertrand Russell replied when asked what he'd say to a God at the pearly gates who asked why he'd never believed in "Him": "Not enough evidence Lord, not enough evidence."
-
...FFS Alien - where in any of the definitions in (arguably) the four most reputable lexicographic sources in the world is deny, denial or denier contained in the definition of atheism. It isn't. Are you incapable of understanding this.
So pick out deny, denial or denier in:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
It isn't there - or can't you read!!
I've put them in red and bold for you.
Err - what?!?
Where in red is the word denial, or deny or denier.
I am beginning to think you actually are unable to read. Just to help I have re-coloured the definitions to colour the word deny in red, denial in orange and denier in blue, just to be absolutely clear:
Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Collins:
rejection of belief in God or gods
Chambers:
the belief that there is no god.
Mirriam Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Of guess what - every word is in black, well what on earth might that suggest about the presence of the words deny, denial or denier. Hmm, penny dropped yet Alien.
-
The OED definition of "disbelief" is "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". So the orange bit could be understood to mean "Refusal to accept the existence of gods."
Ooh - nice selective quoting there Alien.
OED also defines disbelief as 'lack of faith' so the definition of atheism could be expanded to:
Lack of faith or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Sounds fine to me given that belief and faith are typically used interchangeably in the context of religion, so in effect 'Lack of faith in the existence of God or gods' and 'lack of belief in the existence of God or gods' mean exactly the same thing.
-
Hi Alien,
Whether or not "strong atheism" is a correct view, with burden of proof and all that, does not affect the fact that there are people who hold that position. Certainly, The Stranger, when he was here held that position and one or two have affirmed that no God exists.
I didn't say that there were no such people, just that they're a rare breed. Vanishingly rare when compared with the certainties of most theists for example.
That's fine. I'm not here to try to apportion percentages.
Even if there were none here who held that view, it still remains that in English there are two significantly different meanings defined for "atheism". Just Google "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" and you will see plenty of sites which use those terms. They are not "my terms".
No it doesn't. Some have it seems tried to graft on a different meaning,
You seem to be assuming that "strong atheism" was the original meaning for "atheism". What is your evidence for that, please? but that leads to two meanings in one word fundamentally at odds with each other - ie, the "invariably" problem.
Eh? What "invariably" problem? And that's only happened because we lack a word for what you call "strong atheism".
There you go again, assuming that "weak atheism" was the original meaning of "atheism". What if "strong atheism" was the original meaning of "atheism". That would mean "that's only happened because we lack a word for what we call 'weak atheism."
Whichever was the original meaning, it is irrelevant as today there is a range of meanings and just insisting that it means only one of those is a bit silly. It would be like insisting that "gay" does not mean homosexual because that was not its original meaning.
Worse still, I'm a "weak" atheist in your lexicon because I cannot definitively state that there are no gods (the unknown unknowns problem), but I'm a "strong" atheist too in that I strongly think the arguments for an objectively true god or gods to be flawed.
Yes, it's a bit of a bummer that, English words having varying meanings.
As for me asking people whether they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist, that will rarely happen. What does concern me is when people make a statement like "atheism is/is not a belief". Heck, which sort of atheism are they talking about? All they have to do is say "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism is/is not a belief". That's all it takes. Bung in one word to clarify what is being said. This is not my theism causing me to be stroppy or anything. It is just me trying to be clear on stuff.
They say "it's not a belief" for good reason - it's not a belief. The closest you'll get to that is that some of us have a belief that reason is a better way to arrive at probable truths than unreason, and atheism (and a-leprechaunism for that matter) is just a natural consequence of that.
<Weeps quietly>. I am not interested here in whether atheism is a belief or not. All I am doing is pointing out lots of times that different people use the term "atheism" in varying ways as evidenced by the dictionary definitions that the Prof so helpfully quoted.
-
Alien,
Just out of interest, are you a "strong" invariablist or a "weak" invariablist?
Yeah, I know they mean completely different things but - according to you - there's no need to redefine the term for a new meaning grafted on, we can just prefix it with different qualifiers!
Eh? I Googled "invariablist" and got no results. Is this a new word you are introducing to the English language?
-
Me, I'm still going with "deiniaiist" for what Alien calls a "strong" atheist. All we need now is for a few people to use it in print and for the OED to pick it up, and Robert's your Auntie's husband!
Fair enough. Go with "denialist". Some will go with "atheist", e.g. those who use the definition in Chambers dictionary that the Prof quoted. As for me, I'll go with "strong atheist", "gnostic atheist" or "positive atheist."
What would you call someone who denies that the Holocaust happened? A denialist?
-
Alien,
I've also put the Oxford one in orange as that too could be taken to mean "strong atheism". The OED definition of "disbelief" is "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". So the orange bit could be understood to mean "Refusal to accept the existence of gods." "Disbelief" is stronger than "lack of belief". "Refusal" is actually stronger than "denial", but let's not go there, eh?
That's wrong - I can readily "refuse to accept" that claims about gods are true without overreaching into your meaning of "strong" atheist. As Bertrand Russell replied when asked what he'd say to a God at the pearly gates who asked why he'd never believed in "Him": "Not enough evidence Lord, not enough evidence."
Fair enough on the "refuse to accept" bit. It is ambiguous. That's why, where required, I recommend disambiguating the term being used by stating whether a person is referring to "strong atheism" or "weak atheism" or even explaining the position being taken in words of one syllable.
-
...
None of them have the words "deny", "denial" or "denier". I have not claimed they do. Grow up.
OED definition of "deny": "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of." One can refuse to admit the existence of God/gods. Using such a term is (or, at least, can be) neutral in that it says nothing about whether God exists (and the denier is incorrect in their statement) or whether God does not exist (and the denier is correct in their statement). That is all that the Stanford University philosophy article in the encyclopedia is saying, surely. If not, what is the problem as you see it?
Are you arguing that the Stanford article-writer thinks that God does exist and that an atheist is someone who states that they refuse to admit the truth of the existence of God (as the article-writer sees it)?
-
The OED definition of "disbelief" is "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". So the orange bit could be understood to mean "Refusal to accept the existence of gods."
Ooh - nice selective quoting there Alien.
OED also defines disbelief as 'lack of faith' so the definition of atheism could be expanded to:
Lack of faith or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Sounds fine to me given that belief and faith are typically used interchangeably in the context of religion, so in effect 'Lack of faith in the existence of God or gods' and 'lack of belief in the existence of God or gods' mean exactly the same thing.
"Lack of faith or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"? That would be a bit dim, wouldn't it. Why do you think the definition is "Lack of faith or disbelief..."? It seems to me that the writer is making a bit of a contrast between the two terms. Otherwise, why use two terms?
However, I would agree that the definition is broad enough to lead to confusion. Much better, if required to avoid confusion, to define which sort of atheism a person is referring to.
-
None of them have the words "deny", "denial" or "denier". I have not claimed they do. Grow up.
But that is the whole point isn't it - you are changing your tune because the whole point of this discussion was over the terms deny, denial or denier, which you claimed to be part of an accepted definition of atheism and I said weren't. And I think I have been proved right on that one, don't you.
Are you arguing that the Stanford article-writer thinks that God does exist and that an atheist is someone who states that they refuse to admit the truth of the existence of God (as the article-writer sees it)?
I have no idea what the author of that article believes, and of course nor do you. That isn't the point - the point being that he isn't engaged in the business of lexicography, i.e. defining words so his beliefs and how he might define atheism in a non standard and not broadly accepted manner is irrelevant to the discussion.
-
Interestingly there appears to be more consensus on the definition of atheist than atheism:
so:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
So really the only lack of consistency is whether an atheist has a belief or a lack of belief.
-
I think this 'strong' vs 'weak' notion that Alan seems stuck on is a contrived distraction when not having beliefs in Gods is just that: an absence of beliefs pure and simple, and with no scope for variation beyond that - something isn't 'strongly absent' or 'weakly absent'; it is just absent.
I can't that see it matters a great deal whether that position is the result of detailed examinations and rejections of the range of arguments offered by theists or the view that the whole notion of Gods as proposed by theists is too incoherent to be taken seriously, or a mix of the two, since the only point of note is the absence of beliefs in Gods.
-
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
I like this one. Can we all agree on this as a working definition to describe the non believers on this forum?
-
None of them have the words "deny", "denial" or "denier". I have not claimed they do. Grow up.
But that is the whole point isn't it - you are changing your tune because the whole point of this discussion was over the terms deny, denial or denier, which you claimed to be part of an accepted definition of atheism and I said weren't. And I think I have been proved right on that one, don't you.
This is one of the most bizarre discussions I have ever taken part in.
Yes, the actual words "deny", "denial" and "denier" are not in any of the four definitions you quoted from different dictionaries. Are we not discussing the meaning of the words "atheism" and "atheist" though? Let me repeat yet again that, yes, some of the definitions are that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods/God. However, some, e.g. the Chambers definition of "atheist", i.e. "atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')" and the Mirriam Webster one, i.e. "one who believes that there is no deity" are of what would be termed "strong atheism". They go beyond the meaning that most on this board would use both of themselves and of atheists in general.
Please note that I did not write either the Chambers or the Mirriam Webster definitions. I am not trying to redefine anything, as has been claimed, I am just pointing out that there are two significantly different meanings of the term "atheist."
As for the term "deny", yes, it is a bit of a loaded term. As I said in a post above, the OED definition of "deny" is "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of:" Particularly, the term "in denial" implies someone is refusing to acknowledge a statement or belief generally accepted to be correct. However, the definition of "deny" itself is more ambiguous. It does not state whether the person doing the denying is correct to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of" whatever. If the use of the word "deny" is the stumbling block, then let's just go for the definitions as you quoted, including the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones. As I have said several times before, all we need to do is clarify what is meant when we use the term "atheist" or "atheism" if the ambiguity of the term could cause confusion. Thus if the discussion were
Mad theist: "Atheists really believe in God."
Non-mad person: "No, atheists do not believe in God."
No need to disambiguate there. However, if someone writes
Asserter: "Atheism does not entail a belief."
then that is ambiguous. All the asserter needs to do is write
Asserter: "Weak/agnostic/negative atheism does not entail a belief."
It really is that simple, folks.
Are you arguing that the Stanford article-writer thinks that God does exist and that an atheist is someone who states that they refuse to admit the truth of the existence of God (as the article-writer sees it)?
I have no idea what the author of that article believes, and of course nor do you. That isn't the point - the point being that he isn't engaged in the business of lexicography, i.e. defining words so his beliefs and how he might define atheism in a non standard and not broadly accepted manner is irrelevant to the discussion.
See above. I am happy to stick to the dictionary definitions if that will help us conclude this discussion before the next general election.
-
Interestingly there appears to be more consensus on the definition of atheist than atheism:
so:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
So really the only lack of consistency is whether an atheist has a belief or a lack of belief.
Agreed, all atheists lack a belief in God/gods/a deity, while others have come to the conclusion, tentative or not and correctly or not, that there is no God/gods/deity.
-
I think this 'strong' vs 'weak' notion that Alan seems stuck on is a contrived distraction when not having beliefs in Gods is just that: an absence of beliefs pure and simple, and with no scope for variation beyond that - something isn't 'strongly absent' or 'weakly absent'; it is just absent.
I can't that see it matters a great deal whether that position is the result of detailed examinations and rejections of the range of arguments offered by theists or the view that the whole notion of Gods as proposed by theists is too incoherent to be taken seriously, or a mix of the two, since the only point of note is the absence of beliefs in Gods.
The terms "strong" or "weak", "positive" or "negative", "gnostic" or "agnostic" are not mine as anyone Googling them would realise. Have you actually done that, Gordon?
I am not arguing whether the "strong" or "weak" positions are correct in their belief or not; I am not arguing about burdens of proof; I am just pointing out that there are varying definitions of "atheism" and "atheist". The Prof quoted from four dictionaries and those quotes demonstrate that very clearly (to anyone reading those definitions).
It is that simple. Really it is. Whatever my motivations (or not), those are the definitions in the dictionaries he quoted.
-
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
I like this one. Can we all agree on this as a working definition to describe the non believers on this forum?
No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language. I think you have nearly answered the question yourself though. You speak of "non-believers". In other places people have spoken of "non-theists". If people want to be clearer still, they could use the term "non-believers in any gods" or, wait for it, "weak/agnostic/negative atheists".
For myself, if I am going to make a claim about "atheists" I will try to remember to clarify which sort if that is at all important to the understanding of my claim.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
If not it then is too imprecise to be meaningful, in that both the 'strong' and 'weak' descriptors here both just imply the absence of the same single 'something' and with the same force: this 'something' is quite simply 'absent', so that 'strongly absent' or 'weakly absent' are tautologies.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
...
Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?
However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.
-
No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language.
Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.
At least Jeremy was simply suggesting a preference for one broadly accepted definition, that is fond in a highly reputable lexicographic source.
He wasn't redefining the English language at all, unlike you in your earlier post (reply 200).
-
What is theism?
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
...
Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?
However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.
Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.
-
surely since as everyone seems to agree atheism includes weak/agnostic/lilylivered atheism, it is not a world view. Further even if it was strong/gnostic/boiledfortenminutes atheism it does not amount to a world view unless strong/gnostic/tattooed belief in buses is a world view.
-
surely since as everyone seems to agree atheism includes weak/agnostic/lilylivered atheism, it is not a world view. Further even if it was strong/gnostic/boiledfortenminutes atheism it does not amount to a world view unless strong/gnostic/tattooed belief in buses is a world view.
Precisely!
-
No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language.
Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.
No, it isn't. I posted a definition from the Stanford Philosophy Departments encyclopedia which used the word denial. I have said above that that word is ambiguous. It can be taken to mean "refusal to accept reality", in which case it may be overstepping the mark (non-theists would certainly say so), but "deny" can mean just to say that something is wrong, e.g. say that it is wrong to say that God exists.
However, as I explained in #313, in order to continue a rather pointless discussion on the correct meaning of "denial" to use in that article, I am will not push that point any further. I have dropped it. It is an ex-point. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. I am solely arguing now on the basis of the definitions you yourself quoted from those four dictionaries.
At least Jeremy was simply suggesting a preference for one broadly accepted definition, that is fond in a highly reputable lexicographic source.
He wasn't redefining the English language at all, unlike you in your earlier post (reply 200).
If you want to narrow it down to just one of "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism or "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism, why not go with the Chambers or Mirriam Webster definitions? Better, why not respect the fact that different people use the term "atheism" in significantly different ways and just make clear, where necessary, which one you mean? Would you be capable of doing that, do you think?
Edited: Couldn't spell "department".
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Fair enough. Do you believe that they don't exist though?
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
...
Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?
However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.
Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.
Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?
-
surely since as everyone seems to agree atheism includes weak/agnostic/lilylivered atheism, it is not a world view. Further even if it was strong/gnostic/boiledfortenminutes atheism it does not amount to a world view unless strong/gnostic/tattooed belief in buses is a world view.
Agreed.
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
...
Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?
However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.
Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.
Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?
No - I'm saying there is a difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, specifically in relation to knowledge.
I am saying though that 'strong' and 'weak' labels both seem to imply no more than that the same 'something' (belief in Gods) is absent without any explanation as to why there is a difference (such as the role of knowledge as regards gnostic vs agnostic atheism)
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
-
Alan
I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.
...
Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?
However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.
Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.
Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?
No - I'm saying there is a difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, specifically in relation to knowledge.
I am saying though that 'strong' and 'weak' labels both seem to imply no more than that the same 'something' (belief in Gods) is absent without any explanation as to why there is a difference (such as the role of knowledge as regards gnostic vs agnostic atheism)
Why? The explanation in Wikipedia, which seems consistent with other sites, is
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.
It seems clear enough to me.
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.
Why do you ask?
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.
Why do you ask?
The opposite as in:
Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.
Why do you ask?
The opposite as in:
Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X
So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
I just don't believe in them
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.
Why do you ask?
The opposite as in:
Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X
So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.
Correct. A table is not theism. Why aren't you calling tables strong atheism?
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
I just don't believe in them
But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
I just don't believe in them
But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?
No idea. I just don't believe in them.
-
What is theism?
Look it up in a dictionary.
Thanks for that. ::)
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?
Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.
Why do you ask?
The opposite as in:
Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X
So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.
Correct. A table is not theism. Why aren't you calling tables strong atheism?
Because strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist/gods do not exist. Do you have a problem with that? I hope you are not confusing tables with the belief that God/gods do not exist.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
I just don't believe in them
But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?
No idea. I just don't believe in them.
That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.
Happy to if you provide a Leprechaun Topic board. :)
-
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
I like this one. Can we all agree on this as a working definition to describe the non believers on this forum?
No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language.
I haven't redefined the English language, I just picked a definition from the OED and suggested we go with it because it is a definition that applies to all of the atheists here.
I think you have nearly answered the question yourself though. You speak of "non-believers". In other places people have spoken of "non-theists". If people want to be clearer still, they could use the term "non-believers in any gods" or, wait for it, "weak/agnostic/negative atheists".
For myself, if I am going to make a claim about "atheists" I will try to remember to clarify which sort if that is at all important to the understanding of my claim.
I think you are just upset that we won't lie down and acquiesce to your demands about what you think the English language is.
-
Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.
No, it isn't. I posted a definition from the Stanford Philosophy Departments encyclopedia which used the word denial.
Which, as has been explained to you is not a standard reputable lexicographic source.
If you want to narrow it down to just one of "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism or "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism, why not go with the Chambers or Mirriam Webster definitions? Better, why not respect the fact that different people use the term "atheism" in significantly different ways and just make clear, where necessary, which one you mean? Would you be capable of doing that, do you think?
It's been well established through many conversations on here that the only definition of atheism that most of the atheists here would accept to describe themselves is "does not believe in gods", so why do you have such a problem with it — especially as any other kind of atheist necessarily falls into the this class too?
-
Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.
No, it isn't. I posted a definition from the Stanford Philosophy Departments encyclopedia which used the word denial.
Which, as has been explained to you is not a standard reputable lexicographic source.
Let me repeat what I put in the post to which you are replying:
However, as I explained in #313, in order to continue a rather pointless discussion on the correct meaning of "denial" to use in that article, I am (sic) will not push that point any further. I have dropped it. It is an ex-point. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. I am solely arguing now on the basis of the definitions you yourself (the Prof) quoted from those four dictionaries.If you want to narrow it down to just one of "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism or "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism, why not go with the Chambers or Mirriam Webster definitions? Better, why not respect the fact that different people use the term "atheism" in significantly different ways and just make clear, where necessary, which one you mean? Would you be capable of doing that, do you think?
It's been well established through many conversations on here that the only definition of atheism that most of the atheists here would accept to describe themselves is "does not believe in gods", so why do you have such a problem with it — especially as any other kind of atheist necessarily falls into the this class too?
That would be those that define themselves as atheists in the "weak atheist" sense would accept as the definition of "atheist" that we should use here? Really? Do you not see something rather circular there? What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?
The "problem I have with it" is that some "standard reputable lexicographic sources", e.g. Chambers and Mirriam Webster define it in a significantly different manner.
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
Bump
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
Do you have a term for not X?
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
How?Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
-
However, as I explained in #313, in order to continue a rather pointless discussion on the correct meaning of "denial" to use in that article, I am will not push that point any further. I have dropped it. It is an ex-point. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. I am solely arguing now on the basis of the definitions you yourself quoted from those four dictionaries.
Blimey.
After 10 days (that included a trip to China for me) and 127 posts do I detect an extremely grudgingly given acceptance that I was right all along.
Well better late than never I guess.
Just so we are clear 'denial' is a long river in Africa, not part of the definition of atheism or atheists ;)
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.
Happy to if you provide a Leprechaun Topic board. :)
Evasion noted.
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
Nothing my gnostic theist chum. :)
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
How?
Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.
-
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.
Hmm Wikipedia - continuing to use top quality sources for your information I see.
Nonetheless - I remain rather unclear about the distinction. The only way I can rationalise the distinction is about belief (or lack of) and knowledge. So what this seems to be saying is that in your terms weak atheists don't believe in god or gods (but don't claim to know for sure) while strong atheists claim to know they don't exist.
If that's the distinction then I don't think I've ever met a strong atheist and even Dawkins doesn't fit the bill. And actually given the impossibility of proving a negative anyone claiming to know gods don't exist (i.e. a strong atheist) would be pretty limited intellectually.
Just out of interest are there any atheists here who claim to know that gods don't exist. I don't think so.
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.
-
However, as I explained in #313, in order to continue a rather pointless discussion on the correct meaning of "denial" to use in that article, I am will not push that point any further. I have dropped it. It is an ex-point. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. I am solely arguing now on the basis of the definitions you yourself quoted from those four dictionaries.
Blimey.
After 10 days (that included a trip to China for me) and 127 posts do I detect an extremely grudgingly given acceptance that I was right all along.
Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.
Well better late than never I guess.
Just so we are clear 'denial' is a long river in Africa, not part of the definition of atheism or atheists ;)
Hope you had a good time in China. My wife and I were there for 2 weeks in February. It was a fantastic holiday. Our son lived there at that time and we stayed with him and his Chinese wife. Brilliant time, absolutely brilliant. I ate and ate and ate and lost 6 pounds in weight as well!
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.
Happy to if you provide a Leprechaun Topic board. :)
Evasion noted.
Grow up. The discussion is about atheism, not whether leprechauns exist and whether Alien is justified in thinking they don't exist.
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
Nothing my gnostic theist chum. :)
Spiffing, my Welsh, weak atheist, aleprechaunist chum.
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
How?
Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.
What logic?
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
Nothing my gnostic theist chum. :)
Spiffing, my Welsh, weak atheist, aleprechaunist chum.
No I'm a strong atheist, try to keep up!
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
So, when we atheists critique Christianity, what gives you self-defined Christians the right to decide that we don't understand how Christians define Christianity?
There are clearly several understandings/definitions on the go: for example you and Sass have different views of the 'Trinity' notion, so presumably we can choose for ourselves which version of Christianity is best suited to our purposes - say what Sass states, even if this doesn't accord with your own understanding.
This would be a bit like you describing me as a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist since both mean exactly the same thing: that I don't have beliefs in Gods, but they say nothing about why I hold to that view.
-
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.
Hmm Wikipedia - continuing to use top quality sources for your information I see.
Nonetheless - I remain rather unclear about the distinction. The only way I can rationalise the distinction is about belief (or lack of) and knowledge. So what this seems to be saying is that in your terms weak atheists don't believe in god or gods (but don't claim to know for sure) while strong atheists claim to know they don't exist.
Yes, I think that sums it up well.
If that's the distinction then I don't think I've ever met a strong atheist and even Dawkins doesn't fit the bill. And actually given the impossibility of proving a negative anyone claiming to know gods don't exist (i.e. a strong atheist) would be pretty limited intellectually.
Just out of interest are there any atheists here who claim to know that gods don't exist. I don't think so.
When he was here, The Stranger did. I think Sir Bernard Quatermass did too. There were some on the old BBC boards, but I've deleted the records I kept of those posts.
I think there are one or two still here, but I wouldn't want to put any words into people's mouths.
Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, at least some of the time. If you mean it is impossible to prove that no gods exist, I could well agree, but then we might have a long, drawn out discussion on what "prove" means!
-
Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.
The meaning of denial is an interesting but separate matter.
The issue was whether the term 'denial' (or deny, denier etc) was part any accepted definition of atheism (in other words one found in a reputable lexicographic source, a respected dictionary in other words). And the answer is that it isn't.
So given that denial isn't a word found in an accepted definition of atheism, discussing its meaning seems pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.
-
...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.
As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
-
iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.
On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.
I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that.
So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?
So, when we atheists critique Christianity, what gives you self-defined Christians the right to decide that we don't understand how Christians define Christianity?
There are clearly several understandings/definitions on the go: for example you and Sass have different views of the 'Trinity' notion, so presumably we can choose for ourselves which version of Christianity is best suited to our purposes - say what Sass states, even if this doesn't accord with your own understanding.
This would be a bit like you describing me as a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist since both mean exactly the same thing: that I don't have beliefs in Gods, but they say nothing about why I hold to that view.
I'm not overly fussed how we define "Christian". If God exists and he is the Christian God then what he decides is the important thing. As it is, I am not arguing for any old definition of atheism, but rather including the two significantly different meanings in the four definitions the Prof kindly supplied.
What is important is whether someone is saved, not the label attached to them. However, let's keep discussion on that to the two threads already devoted to it, eh?
-
...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.
As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
Why just restrict yourself to those Alien. I have give the definitions from arguable the four most respected dictionaries. Is there something about:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
that you don't like for some reason?
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
How?
Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.
What logic?
Excluded middle. if theism = X, what term do you use for not X?
-
Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.
The meaning of denial is an interesting but separate matter.
The issue was whether the term 'denial' (or deny, denier etc) was part any accepted definition of atheism (in other words one found in a reputable lexicographic source, a respected dictionary in other words). And the answer is that it isn't.
So given that denial isn't a word found in an accepted definition of atheism, discussing its meaning seems pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.
No, not quite. The issue was whether the meaning accorded by the use of the word "denial" was included in the meaning of the term "atheist" or "atheism" in a reputable lexicographic source.
-
...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.
As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
Why just restrict yourself to those Alien. I have give the definitions from arguable the four most respected dictionaries. Is there something about:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
that you don't like for some reason?
I'm more than happy for those to be included. It thus means we have four dictionaries, which, between them, include two significantly different meanings. My suggestion, as I have stated many times before, is that if there is any chance of confusion that the user of the term "atheist" or "atheism" specify which one he/she means.
-
Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.
Me too. You just carried on with my error. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?
See #344.
Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
How?
Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.
What logic?
Excluded middle. if theism = X, what term do you use for not X?
Why would I want to use a term for "not X" here? You are the one putting the argument forward. As for myself, I was having a discussion on the meaning of the term "atheism".
-
Why are you being difficult? Do you have a label for not theism?
-
Why are you being difficult? Do you have a label for not theism?
No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.
Why all the "not theism" stuff?
-
Why are you being difficult? Do you have a label for not theism?
No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.
Why all the "not theism" stuff?
I'm aware of what theism means. I'm also aware that the prefix "a" means not/without, yet according to you, using that prefix in front of theism does not equal not theism.
-
...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.
As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
Why just restrict yourself to those Alien. I have give the definitions from arguable the four most respected dictionaries. Is there something about:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
that you don't like for some reason?
I'm more than happy for those to be included. It thus means we have four dictionaries, which, between them, include two significantly different meanings. My suggestion, as I have stated many times before, is that if there is any chance of confusion that the user of the term "atheist" or "atheism" specify which one he/she means.
I don't think they are significantly different:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
The only difference is as to whether atheism is a belief that something doesn't exist or a lack of belief that something does exist.
-
I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.
Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.
I can.
Is anyone else unsure?
Yes I am not 100% certain.
I do not believe they exist.
Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!
Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist. What about you?
I just don't believe in them
But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?
No idea. I just don't believe in them.
That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
leprechauns don't exist.
-
Let me repeat what I put in the post to which you are replying:
Why? do you think that repeating something often enough automatically makes it true?
What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?
Mainly, the fact that our definition of "atheist" describes us and that definition appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The "problem I have with it" is that some "standard reputable lexicographic sources", e.g. Chambers and Mirriam Webster define it in a significantly different manner.
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
-
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.
-
Why are you being difficult? Do you have a label for not theism?
No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.
Why all the "not theism" stuff?
I'm aware of what theism means. I'm also aware that the prefix "a" means not/without, yet according to you, using that prefix in front of theism does not equal not theism.
As discussed earlier in the thread the problem is which bit we attach the "a" to. Do we attach it thus: "a-theism", meaning, literally, no-theism or do we attach it to thus: "athe-ism", meaning, literally, nogod-ism?
-
...I don't think they are significantly different:
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
The only difference is as to whether atheism is a belief that something doesn't exist or a lack of belief that something does exist.
For some here that is very, very important.
-
...That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
leprechauns don't exist.
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
-
Let me repeat what I put in the post to which you are replying:
Why? do you think that repeating something often enough automatically makes it true?
Nope, but I had explained it. I thought you might have missed it.
What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?
Mainly, the fact that our definition of "atheist" describes us and that definition appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The "problem I have with it" is that some "standard reputable lexicographic sources", e.g. Chambers and Mirriam Webster define it in a significantly different manner.
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect. Here are the Chambers and Mirriam Webster definitions again:
Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')
Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity
Both those dictionaries say that a atheist is someone who believes there is no god rather than just someone who has no belief that there is a god.
-
Do you have a term for not X?
Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.
No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.
"Non-theist".
-
Alien,
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Just out of interest, how do you propose to prove that leprechauns don't exist?
As for your earlier post, "invariablist" was a reference to a post of mine where I gave another example of a word (invariable) that some now use completely differently from its original meaning - "usually" rather than "always" in that case. If we take your "strong" and "weak" thesis, presumably too you would describe yourself as either a strong or a weak invariablist?
See, that's the problem - of course words can change their meanings over time, but having two completely different meanings co-existing for one word doesn't give you stronger and weaker versions of it, it just gives you ambiguity. My atheism is perfectly "strong" in that I've never yet heard an argument for god(s) that I can't rebut, but the burden of proof problem makes what you call "strong atheism" (or for that matter strong a-leprechaunsim) logically impossible.
If you do want to apply gradations of strength you can, but only when you're dealing with one meaning. "How much do you like cheese: A). Not at all; B). Quite a lot; C). Love it..." etc is fine because the sense of "like" is consistently applied. Trying the same thing with different meanings though as if one is somehow a stronger or weaker statement of the other is just incoherent.
Oh, and my suggestion for a neologism that does describe what you call "strong" atheism was "deinialism".
-
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect.
You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.
Bullshit.
-
No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.
"Non-theist".
Or a-theist if you want to use the same language root for both parts.
-
...That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
leprechauns don't exist.
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Excellent. That means I'm also a strong [insert an infinite number of things that don't exist / I don't believe in]
-
Alien,
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Just out of interest, how do you propose to prove that leprechauns don't exist?
I don't.
As for your earlier post, "invariablist" was a reference to a post of mine where I gave another example of a word (invariable) that some now use completely differently from its original meaning - "usually" rather than "always" in that case. If we take your "strong" and "weak" thesis, presumably too you would describe yourself as either a strong or a weak invariablist?
I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.
See, that's the problem - of course words can change their meanings over time, but having two completely different meanings co-existing for one word doesn't give you stronger and weaker versions of it, it just gives you ambiguity. My atheism is perfectly "strong" in that I've never yet heard an argument for god(s) that I can't rebut, but the burden of proof problem makes what you call "strong atheism" (or for that matter strong a-leprechaunsim) logically impossible.
But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist. They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.
If you do want to apply gradations of strength you can, but only when you're dealing with one meaning. "How much do you like cheese: A). Not at all; B). Quite a lot; C). Love it..." etc is fine because the sense of "like" is consistently applied. Trying the same thing with different meanings though as if one is somehow a stronger or weaker statement of the other is just incoherent.
Oh, and my suggestion for a nelogism that does describe what you call "strong" atheism was "deinialism".
You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.
-
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect.
You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.
Bullshit.
Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?
-
No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.
"Non-theist".
Or a-theist if you want to use the same language root for both parts.
But not an "athe-ist"?
-
...That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
leprechauns don't exist.
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Excellent. That means I'm also a strong [insert an infinite number of things that don't exist / I don't believe in]
That's OK by me, brother.
Is there any particular reason that would be a problem (apart from wasting time)?
-
Alien,
I don't.
Whence then your certainty that they don't exist?
I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.
No they're not "generally accepted", and even if they were they'd still be incoherent.
But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist.
Maybe, but it should stop you from falling into the same linguistic error though.
They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.
That's right, they don't - but that's a different matter to the point you ignored: different meanings for the same word are not "strong" and "weak" versions of each other. To be strong and weak you need the same sense to apply.
You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.
Possibly you missed the dei of deinialism?
-
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect.
You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.
Bullshit.
Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?
You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.
-
Alien,
I don't.
Whence then your certainty that they don't exist?
If you want to start a discussion about whether leprechauns exist, please start a new thread. I'm not here to discuss leprechauns at length. Splashscuba might be interested though. Best ask him.
I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.
No they're not "generally accepted", and even if they were they'd still be incoherent.
So why bring it up?
But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist.
Maybe, but it should stop you from falling into the same linguistic error though.
As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.
They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.
That's right, they don't - but that's a different matter to the point you ignored: different meanings for the same word are not "strong" and "weak" versions of each other. To be strong and weak you need the same sense to apply. quote]As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.
You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.
Possibly you missed the dei of deinialism?
Oh, yeah. Cool. Yes, I did miss it. Very clever.
-
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect.
You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.
Bullshit.
Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?
You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.
And you are not telling me the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones wrong?
What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.
Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?
-
No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.
That is incorrect.
You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.
Bullshit.
Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?
You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.
And you are not telling me the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones wrong?
What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.
Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?
Now that really is flat out bullshit. jp has even said that Chambers and MW have stronger definitions.
The only one I've seen here suggesting a definition is wrong is you, when you've twice (once with splashscuba and once with jp) said that they're redefining the English language when saying atheist can mean not believing gods exist. Glass houses and all that, Alan.
-
Alien,
If you want to start a discussion about whether leprechauns exist, please start a new thread. I'm not here to discuss leprechauns at length. Splashscuba might be interested though. Best ask him.
You’ve missed the point. The issue isn’t leprechauns, it’s the negative proof problem – Russell’s teapot and all that. It’s logically impossible to believe categorically that something – your god, leprechauns, an orbiting teapot, whatever – does not exist because of the burden of proof issue. That’s why what you call “strong atheism” is unsupportable (though what I call strong atheism using the single sense of the word is not).
So why bring it up?
Me? I though you were the one asking people whether they were strong weak atheists. I’ve merely explained that the question in the sense you mean it is incoherent.
As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.
And as I have mentioned many times, no they are not and – even if they were – that’s a mistake you now know how to avoid.
You’re welcome.
Oh, yeah. Cool. Yes, I did miss it. Very clever.
Thanks – I’m quite pleased with it. A few published references and it’ll make the OED yet (though the Stamford Encylopedia of Philosophy may take a little longer to catch up ;))
-
Alien,
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Just out of interest, how do you propose to prove that leprechauns don't exist?
Unlike Philosophical Naturalism Hillside, Leprechauns ARE probabilistic being little chaps dressed in the green. Therefore we can say they are highly improbable and since Ireland is a small place they are extremely highly improbable.
In fact they must be more improbable, supposedly being currently resident in Ireland, than a short term resurrection in the whole of history.
Top of the morning to you.
-
...
Now that really is flat out bullshit. jp has even said that Chambers and MW have stronger definitions.
The only one I've seen here suggesting a definition is wrong is you, when you've twice (once with splashscuba and once with jp) said that they're redefining the English language when saying atheist can mean not believing gods exist. Glass houses and all that, Alan.
I've not said atheist can't mean that. Good grief, that is what a weak atheist believes. Note the word "atheist" there. What I have said, time and again, is that some people, like the Chambers and Mirriam Webster folk define it more strongly than that. Because of the ambiguity, let's disambiguate where necessary, i.e. say which type of atheism a person is referring to if it can benefit from that clarity. Thus if someone says, "Atheists believe there is no God", it would be better if they wrote, "Strong/positive/gnostic (take your pick) atheists believe there is no God."
That is all I am saying.
Again and again.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
Unlike Philosophical Naturalism Hillside, Leprechauns ARE probabilistic being little chaps dressed in the green. Therefore we can say they are highly improbable and since Ireland is a small place they are extremely highly improbable.
In fact they must be more improbable, supposedly being currently resident in Ireland, than a short term resurrection in the whole of history.
Top of the morning to you.
Doubtless you'll be sharing with us your method for working out their improbability in due course, but for now you're making my point for me - you can attempt gradations of improbability, but epistemically you can't say "impossible".
-
...
Now that really is flat out bullshit. jp has even said that Chambers and MW have stronger definitions.
The only one I've seen here suggesting a definition is wrong is you, when you've twice (once with splashscuba and once with jp) said that they're redefining the English language when saying atheist can mean not believing gods exist. Glass houses and all that, Alan.
I've not said atheist can't mean that. Good grief, that is what a weak atheist believes. Note the word "atheist" there. What I have said, time and again, is that some people, like the Chambers and Mirriam Webster folk define it more strongly than that. Because of the ambiguity, let's disambiguate where necessary, i.e. say which type of atheism a person is referring to if it can benefit from that clarity. Thus if someone says, "Atheists believe there is no God", it would be better if they wrote, "Strong/positive/gnostic (take your pick) atheists believe there is no God."
That is all I am saying.
Again and again.
I use the word to simply mean that I don't believe in gods. Not bothered what other people use the word for.
So you have your own private language? It might be better to use English words the way other people use them.
Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
I like this one. Can we all agree on this as a working definition to describe the non believers on this forum?
No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language. I think you have nearly answered the question yourself though. You speak of "non-believers". In other places people have spoken of "non-theists". If people want to be clearer still, they could use the term "non-believers in any gods" or, wait for it, "weak/agnostic/negative atheists".
For myself, if I am going to make a claim about "atheists" I will try to remember to clarify which sort if that is at all important to the understanding of my claim.
You're welcome.
As it goes for me personally, as I've stated before, the weak/strong lark is a complete non-issue for me. I don't use it but then I've never had reason to, but if you want to use it, great. However, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and contradicting yourself when you accuse others of redifining what atheism means, when it's clear that they have used a legitimate definition. They haven't redefined anything, have they?
-
What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.
No, I would say the OED one is broader than the Chambers and MW ones.
Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?
I'm not anti them, I just think the OED one reflects better the usage of the term when referring to most of the atheists on this forum.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
Unlike Philosophical Naturalism Hillside, Leprechauns ARE probabilistic being little chaps dressed in the green. Therefore we can say they are highly improbable and since Ireland is a small place they are extremely highly improbable.
In fact they must be more improbable, supposedly being currently resident in Ireland, than a short term resurrection in the whole of history.
Top of the morning to you.
Doubtless you'll be sharing with us your method for working out their improbability in due course, but for now you're making my point for me - you can attempt gradations of improbability, but epistemically you can't say "impossible".
I'm glad we agree that Leprechauns are highly improbable. Where we disagree is on philosophical naturalism being probabilistic.
I look forward to seeing your promised figure of it being probable and your working out but I think you are deluded on this one.
-
...That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.
Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?
leprechauns don't exist.
Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.
Excellent. That means I'm also a strong [insert an infinite number of things that don't exist / I don't believe in]
That's OK by me, brother.
Is there any particular reason that would be a problem (apart from wasting time)?
No problem. Just means that, for me, gods are part of that infinite pantheon of things that do not exist.
-
...
As it goes for me personally, as I've stated before, the weak/strong lark is a complete non-issue for me. I don't use it but then I've never had reason to, but if you want to use it, great. However, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and contradicting yourself when you accuse others of redifining what atheism means, when it's clear that they have used a legitimate definition. They haven't redefined anything, have they?
A lack of belief in a god/God/deities is one definition that some dictionaries use; others, e.g. Mirriam Webster say that atheism is a belief that there is no god/God/deities. If the variation in definitions could cause confusion, all it needs is the person using the word to say which definition they mean or say "strong/positive/gnostic" or "weak/negative/agnostic" atheism. Easy peasy.
-
...
As it goes for me personally, as I've stated before, the weak/strong lark is a complete non-issue for me. I don't use it but then I've never had reason to, but if you want to use it, great. However, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and contradicting yourself when you accuse others of redifining what atheism means, when it's clear that they have used a legitimate definition. They haven't redefined anything, have they?
A lack of belief in a god/God/deities is one definition that some dictionaries use; others, e.g. Mirriam Webster say that atheism is a belief that there is no god/God/deities. If the variation in definitions could cause confusion, all it needs is the person using the word to say which definition they mean or say "strong/positive/gnostic" or "weak/negative/agnostic" atheism. Easy peasy.
Why do you need this distinction, why do you labour the point?
It seems to derail the thread.
Atheism means not believing in a god. That's the term we all mean unless we say differently.
-
Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.
-
A lack of belief in a god/God/deities is one definition that some dictionaries use
And it's the definition that most of the posters who label themselves "atheist" on this forum use. So I don't see why you have a problem with that being the default definition here unless qualified with (for example) "strong".
-
What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.
No, I would say the OED one is broader than the Chambers and MW ones.
Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?
I'm not anti them, I just think the OED one reflects better the usage of the term when referring to most of the atheists on this forum.
I agree, but that is surely not sufficient reason to use it. If we want to use a term to refer to most of the atheists on this forum we should say something like "most of the atheists on this forum"...
-
...
As it goes for me personally, as I've stated before, the weak/strong lark is a complete non-issue for me. I don't use it but then I've never had reason to, but if you want to use it, great. However, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and contradicting yourself when you accuse others of redifining what atheism means, when it's clear that they have used a legitimate definition. They haven't redefined anything, have they?
A lack of belief in a god/God/deities is one definition that some dictionaries use; others, e.g. Mirriam Webster say that atheism is a belief that there is no god/God/deities. If the variation in definitions could cause confusion, all it needs is the person using the word to say which definition they mean or say "strong/positive/gnostic" or "weak/negative/agnostic" atheism. Easy peasy.
Why do you need this distinction, why do you labour the point?
It seems to derail the thread.
It's because there is a significant difference between not believing in any gods and believing there are no gods. That's what you lot keep telling me and I agree with you.
Atheism means not believing in a god. That's the term we all mean unless we say differently.
That's what we are debating. Some dictionaries have significantly different definitions, e.g. Mirriam Webster. Please check the references that have been given several times in the thread.
-
Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.
What do you mean by "unbelief", Floo? Belief that there is no deity or just a lack of belief that there are any.
-
What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.
No, I would say the OED one is broader than the Chambers and MW ones.
Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?
I'm not anti them, I just think the OED one reflects better the usage of the term when referring to most of the atheists on this forum.
I agree, but that is surely not sufficient reason to use it. If we want to use a term to refer to most of the atheists on this forum we should say something like "most of the atheists on this forum"...
Well then I think you need to change your screen name to "Alien (not a life form from a different planet to Earth)". After all, we wouldn't want people to get confused, would we.
-
Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.
What do you mean by "unbelief", Floo? Belief that there is no deity or just a lack of belief that there are any.
Nudge for Floo.
-
Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.
What do you mean by "unbelief", Floo? Belief that there is no deity or just a lack of belief that there are any.
Nudge for Floo.
I am an agnostic therefore believe it is remotely possible a deity could exist in a dimension somewhere, but not in contact with us. However, I am of the opinion the Biblical deity and all other deities are human creations. Does that satisfy you?
-
Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.
What do you mean by "unbelief", Floo? Belief that there is no deity or just a lack of belief that there are any.
Nudge for Floo.
I am an agnostic therefore believe it is remotely possible a deity could exist in a dimension somewhere, but not in contact with us. However, I am of the opinion the Biblical deity and all other deities are human creations. Does that satisfy you?
As in, "Do I understand what you mean?"? Yes, I think so. Thanks.