"Atheism is a world view"

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Alien]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Alien]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Alien]

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.

[Alien]

...
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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[ProfessorDavey]

...
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!!

[splashscuba]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!

[Alien]

...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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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."

[ProfessorDavey]

...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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Alien]

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]

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?