"Atheism is a world view"

[Jack Knave]

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.   

[ippy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[SqueakyVoice]

... 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.

[splashscuba]

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.

[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.

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.

[Alien]

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.

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

... 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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Andy]

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?

[Shaker]

Heh 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Andy]

Ssshh. Don't ruin it with the details.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ssshh. Don't ruin it with the details.

Sorry

[Jack Knave]

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!!! 

[splashscuba]

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.

[Alien]

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".

[Alien]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?