"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

[Andy]

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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.
Do you have a term for not X?

[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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.

How?

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

[ProfessorDavey]

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 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 quoted from those four dictionaries.

Blimey.

After 10 days (that included a trip to China for me) and 127 posts do I detect an extremely grudgingly given acceptance that I was right all along.

Well better late than never I guess.

Just so we are clear 'denial' is a long river in Africa, not part of the definition of atheism or atheists

[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.

Happy to if you provide a Leprechaun Topic board.

Evasion noted.

[jakswan]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

Nothing my gnostic theist chum.

[Andy]

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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.

How?

Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Hmm Wikipedia - continuing to use top quality sources for your information I see.

Nonetheless - I remain rather unclear about the distinction. The only way I can rationalise the distinction is about belief (or lack of) and knowledge. So what this seems to be saying is that in your terms weak atheists don't believe in god or gods (but don't claim to know for sure) while strong atheists claim to know they don't exist.

If that's the distinction then I don't think I've ever met a strong atheist and even Dawkins doesn't fit the bill. And actually given the impossibility of proving a negative anyone claiming to know gods don't exist (i.e. a strong atheist) would be pretty limited intellectually.

Just out of interest are there any atheists here who claim to know that gods don't exist. I don't think so.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.

[Alien]

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 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 quoted from those four dictionaries.

Blimey.

After 10 days (that included a trip to China for me) and 127 posts do I detect an extremely grudgingly given acceptance that I was right all along.

Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.

Well better late than never I guess.

Just so we are clear 'denial' is a long river in Africa, not part of the definition of atheism or atheists

Hope you had a good time in China. My wife and I were there for 2 weeks in February. It was a fantastic holiday. Our son lived there at that time and we stayed with him and his Chinese wife. Brilliant time, absolutely brilliant. I ate and ate and ate and lost 6 pounds in weight as well!

[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.

Evasion noted.

Grow up. The discussion is about atheism, not whether leprechauns exist and whether Alien is justified in thinking they don't exist.

[Alien]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

Nothing my gnostic theist chum.

Spiffing, my Welsh, weak atheist, aleprechaunist chum.

[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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.

How?

Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.

What logic?

[jakswan]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

Nothing my gnostic theist chum.

Spiffing, my Welsh, weak atheist, aleprechaunist chum.

No I'm a strong atheist, try to keep up!

[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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

So, when we atheists critique Christianity, what gives you self-defined Christians the right to decide that we don't understand how Christians define Christianity?

There are clearly several understandings/definitions on the go: for example you and Sass have different views of the 'Trinity' notion, so presumably we can choose for ourselves which version of Christianity is best suited to our purposes - say what Sass states, even if this doesn't accord with your own understanding.

This would be a bit like you describing me as a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist since both mean exactly the same thing: that I don't have beliefs in Gods, but they say nothing about why I hold to that view.     

[Alien]

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.

Hmm Wikipedia - continuing to use top quality sources for your information I see.

Nonetheless - I remain rather unclear about the distinction. The only way I can rationalise the distinction is about belief (or lack of) and knowledge. So what this seems to be saying is that in your terms weak atheists don't believe in god or gods (but don't claim to know for sure) while strong atheists claim to know they don't exist.

Yes, I think that sums it up well.

If that's the distinction then I don't think I've ever met a strong atheist and even Dawkins doesn't fit the bill. And actually given the impossibility of proving a negative anyone claiming to know gods don't exist (i.e. a strong atheist) would be pretty limited intellectually.

Just out of interest are there any atheists here who claim to know that gods don't exist. I don't think so.

When he was here, The Stranger did. I think Sir Bernard Quatermass did too. There were some on the old BBC boards, but I've deleted the records I kept of those posts.

I think there are one or two still here, but I wouldn't want to put any words into people's mouths.

Actually, it is possible to prove a negative, at least some of the time. If you mean it is impossible to prove that no gods exist, I could well agree, but then we might have a long, drawn out discussion on what "prove" means!

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.

The meaning of denial is an interesting but separate matter.

The issue was whether the term 'denial' (or deny, denier etc) was part any accepted definition of atheism (in other words one found in a reputable lexicographic source, a respected dictionary in other words). And the answer is that it isn't.

So given that denial isn't a word found in an accepted definition of atheism, discussing its meaning seems pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.

[Alien]

...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.

As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:

Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

[Alien]

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.

So what gives you self-defined atheists the right to decide how I should use the term "atheist"? Why should I or anyone else not have the right to use the term as defined in those dictionaries?

So, when we atheists critique Christianity, what gives you self-defined Christians the right to decide that we don't understand how Christians define Christianity?

There are clearly several understandings/definitions on the go: for example you and Sass have different views of the 'Trinity' notion, so presumably we can choose for ourselves which version of Christianity is best suited to our purposes - say what Sass states, even if this doesn't accord with your own understanding.

This would be a bit like you describing me as a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist since both mean exactly the same thing: that I don't have beliefs in Gods, but they say nothing about why I hold to that view.   

I'm not overly fussed how we define "Christian". If God exists and he is the Christian God then what he decides is the important thing. As it is, I am not arguing for any old definition of atheism, but rather including the two significantly different meanings in the four definitions the Prof kindly supplied.

What is important is whether someone is saved, not the label attached to them. However, let's keep discussion on that to the two threads already devoted to it, eh?

[ProfessorDavey]

...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.

As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:

Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

Why just restrict yourself to those Alien. I have give the definitions from arguable the four most respected dictionaries. Is there something about:

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

Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods

that you don't like for some reason?

[Andy]

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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.

How?

Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.

What logic?

Excluded middle. if theism = X, what term do you use for not X?

[Alien]

Nope. You seem to have opted for one slant on the meaning of the word denial and it is not worth arguing about.

The meaning of denial is an interesting but separate matter.

The issue was whether the term 'denial' (or deny, denier etc) was part any accepted definition of atheism (in other words one found in a reputable lexicographic source, a respected dictionary in other words). And the answer is that it isn't.

So given that denial isn't a word found in an accepted definition of atheism, discussing its meaning seems pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.

No, not quite. The issue was whether the meaning accorded by the use of the word "denial" was included in the meaning of the term "atheist" or "atheism" in a reputable lexicographic source.

[Alien]

...But you wanted to define it not in terms of dictionary definitions but a definition in some random academic article written by an academic philosopher, not a lexicographer.

As you will remember I have said several times these last couple of days that I am happy to go with the dictionary definitions you yourself gave, including the two below:

Chambers:
atheistic (which then refers to 'the belief that there is no god')

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

Why just restrict yourself to those Alien. I have give the definitions from arguable the four most respected dictionaries. Is there something about:

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

Collins:
a person who does not believe in God or gods

that you don't like for some reason?

I'm more than happy for those to be included. It thus means we have four dictionaries, which, between them, include two significantly different meanings. My suggestion, as I have stated many times before, is that if there is any chance of confusion that the user of the term "atheist" or "atheism" specify which one he/she means.

[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.

Well this is you saying that atheism = Y when theism = X.

How?

Because believing gods don't exist (Y) does not cover all of not X. As we've agreed, a table is not X either, but it is not Y too.

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

This isn't about dictionary definitions, but about trying to get you to engage with the logic.

What logic?

Excluded middle. if theism = X, what term do you use for not X?

Why would I want to use a term for "not X" here? You are the one putting the argument forward. As for myself, I was having a discussion on the meaning of the term "atheism".

[Andy]

Why are you being difficult? Do you have a label for not theism?