"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

...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?

[Andy]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Alien]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

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.

[wigginhall]

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).

[Andy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[wigginhall]

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!). 

[wigginhall]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'

[ippy]

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

[Alien]

..

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.

[wigginhall]

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'. 

[wigginhall]

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). 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Andy]

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?

[ippy]

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

[Rhiannon]

Religionism' usually means a zealot. Is that how you use it, Ippy?