"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

...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]

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.

[splashscuba]

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.

[Shaker]

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]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jakswan]

I prefer gnostic / agnostic, Alien is a gnostic theist, I like the idea of calling Al a gnostic theist.

[Alien]

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.

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

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"?

[Shaker]

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."

[Alien]

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.

[Shaker]

Does it define atheism as other than "not believing that any gods exist"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Alien]

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]

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.

[Outrider]

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]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Alien]

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."