"Atheism is a world view"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Alien]

...
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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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".

[Andy]

...
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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[splashscuba]

...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.

[Alien]

...

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.

[BeRational]

...

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.

[floo]

Atheism means unbelief in any deity, whereas theism is as long as a piece of string, imo.

[jeremyp]

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".

[Alien]

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"...

[Alien]

...

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.

[Alien]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[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?

[Alien]

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.