"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

Alan

I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.

...

Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?

However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.

Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.

Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?

[Alien]

surely since as everyone seems to agree atheism includes weak/agnostic/lilylivered atheism, it is not a world view. Further even if it was strong/gnostic/boiledfortenminutes atheism it does not amount to a world view unless strong/gnostic/tattooed belief in buses is a world view.

Agreed.

[Gordon]

Alan

I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.

...

Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?

However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.

Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.

Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?

No - I'm saying there is a difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, specifically in relation to knowledge.

I am saying though that 'strong' and 'weak' labels both seem to imply no more than that the same 'something' (belief in Gods) is absent without any explanation as to why there is a difference (such as the role of knowledge as regards gnostic vs agnostic atheism)

[Andy]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

[Alien]

Alan

I think that the gnostic/agnostic qualifier is fine, since it relates to different positions involving having knowledge or not, which is a distinct difference - so if the strong/weak approach is code for gnostic/agnostic then it is redundant.

...

Or the terms "gnostic/agnostic" are redundant. Why not stick to "strong" and "weak"? After all the terms "gnostic" and "Gnostic" mean very different things, so why add to the possible confusion?

However, "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are valid terms. I have no significant objection to them.

Because in this case 'strong' and 'weak', in the absence of a meaningful qualifier such as gnostic/agnostic, seems to be being used in a way that is no more than opinion.

Are you saying there is a significant difference between the meaning of "weak atheism" and "agnostic atheism", between "strong atheism" and "gnostic atheism"?

No - I'm saying there is a difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, specifically in relation to knowledge.

I am saying though that 'strong' and 'weak' labels both seem to imply no more than that the same 'something' (belief in Gods) is absent without any explanation as to why there is a difference (such as the role of knowledge as regards gnostic vs agnostic atheism)

Why? The explanation in Wikipedia, which seems consistent with other sites, is

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

It seems clear enough to me.

[Alien]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.

Why do you ask?

[Andy]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.

Why do you ask?

The opposite as in:

Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X

[splashscuba]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

[Alien]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

[Alien]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.

Why do you ask?

The opposite as in:

Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X

So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.

[splashscuba]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

I just don't believe in them

[Andy]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.

Why do you ask?

The opposite as in:

Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X

So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.

Correct. A table is not theism. Why aren't you calling tables strong atheism?

[Alien]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

I just don't believe in them

But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?

[splashscuba]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

I just don't believe in them

But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?

No idea. I just don't believe in them.

[Alien]

What is theism?

Look it up in a dictionary.

Thanks for that.
Do you think that the opposite of theism is dependent on what theism is?

Yes. It will also depend on what you mean by "opposite" here.

Why do you ask?

The opposite as in:

Theism = X
The opposite of theism = not X

So tables are the opposite of theism? After all tables are not theism.

Correct. A table is not theism. Why aren't you calling tables strong atheism?

Because strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist/gods do not exist. Do you have a problem with that? I hope you are not confusing tables with the belief that God/gods do not exist.

[Alien]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

I just don't believe in them

But you can't bring yourself, for whatever reason, to say you think that leprechauns don't exist?

No idea. I just don't believe in them.

That's interesting. Splashscuba can't bring himself to say that leprechauns do not exist.

Is there anyone else here who has been unable to come to the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist?

[Andy]

Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?

[jakswan]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.

[Alien]

I don't believe in unicorns but struggle to decide whether I'm a strong aunicornist or a weak aunicornist.

Really? You can't bring yourself to say that you believe unicorns don't exist.

I can.

Is anyone else unsure?

Yes I am not 100% certain.

I do not believe they exist.

Yes but strong or weak ? We need to know !!!!!!!!!!!

Me? Strong a-leprechaunist, i.e. I am of the opinion/belief that leprechauns do not exist.  What about you?

Good man, you know have the burden of proof, the floor is yours to disprove leprechauns do not exist.

Happy to if you provide a Leprechaun Topic board.

[jeremyp]

Oxford:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

I like this one. Can we all agree on this as a working definition to describe the non believers on this forum?

No. You and I are not at liberty to redefine the English language.

I haven't redefined the English language, I just picked a definition from the OED and suggested we go with it because it is a definition that applies to all of the atheists here.

I think you have nearly answered the question yourself though. You speak of "non-believers". In other places people have spoken of "non-theists". If people want to be clearer still, they could use the term "non-believers in any gods" or, wait for it, "weak/agnostic/negative atheists".

For myself, if I am going to make a claim about "atheists" I will try to remember to clarify which sort if that is at all important to the understanding of my claim.

I think you are just upset that we won't lie down and acquiesce to your demands about what you think the English language is.

[jeremyp]

Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.

No, it isn't. I posted a definition from the Stanford Philosophy Departments encyclopedia which used the word denial.

Which, as has been explained to you is not a standard reputable lexicographic source.

If you want to narrow it down to just one of "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism or "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism, why not go with the Chambers or Mirriam Webster definitions? Better, why not respect the fact that different people use the term "atheism" in significantly different ways and just make clear, where necessary, which one you mean? Would you be capable of doing that, do you think?

It's been well established through many conversations on here that the only definition of atheism that most of the atheists here would accept to describe themselves is "does not believe in gods", so why do you have such a problem with it — especially as any other kind of atheist necessarily falls into the this class too?

[Alien]

Blimey Alien - isn't that exactly what you did by positing a completely non-accepted definition of atheism including the word denial which you have failed to demonstrate exists in any standard reputable lexicographic source, e.g. a well regarded dictionary.

No, it isn't. I posted a definition from the Stanford Philosophy Departments encyclopedia which used the word denial.

Which, as has been explained to you is not a standard reputable lexicographic source.

Let me repeat what I put in the post to which you are replying:

However, as I explained in #313, in order to continue a rather pointless discussion on the correct meaning of "denial" to use in that article, I am (sic) will not push that point any further. I have dropped it. It is an ex-point. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. I am solely arguing now on the basis of the definitions you yourself (the Prof) quoted from those four dictionaries.

If you want to narrow it down to just one of "weak/agnostic/negative" atheism or "strong/gnostic/positive" atheism, why not go with the Chambers or Mirriam Webster definitions? Better, why not respect the fact that different people use the term "atheism" in significantly different ways and just make clear, where necessary, which one you mean? Would you be capable of doing that, do you think?

It's been well established through many conversations on here that the only definition of atheism that most of the atheists here would accept to describe themselves is "does not believe in gods", so why do you have such a problem with it — especially as any other kind of atheist necessarily falls into the this class too?

That would be those that define themselves as atheists in the "weak atheist" sense would accept as the definition of "atheist" that we should use here? Really? Do you not see something rather circular there? What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?

The "problem I have with it" is that some "standard reputable lexicographic sources", e.g. Chambers and Mirriam Webster define it in a significantly different manner.

[Andy]

Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism. Why aren't you calling tables atheism?

Bump

[Gordon]

iirc didn't Wittgenstein take the view that it was better to understand how words were actually used rather than to be unduly picky about how they were defined.

On that basis it seems clear from all that has said than when atheists who are members of this forum use the term 'atheist' about themselves they mean that they don't hold a belief in Gods.

I can't see that it is, or needs to be, any more complicated that that. 

[Alien]

Apologies, I didn't mean to say strong theism.

Me too. You just carried on with my error.

Why aren't you calling tables atheism?

See #344.