"Atheism is a world view"

[Alien]

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

No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.

Why all the "not theism" stuff?

[Andy]

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

No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.

Why all the "not theism" stuff?

I'm aware of what theism means. I'm also aware that the prefix "a" means not/without, yet according to you, using that prefix in front of theism does not equal not theism.

[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?

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.

I don't think they are significantly different:

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

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

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

The only difference is as to whether atheism is a belief that something doesn't exist or a lack of belief that something does 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.

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?

leprechauns don't exist.

[jeremyp]

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

Why?  do you think that repeating something often enough automatically makes it true?

What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?

Mainly, the fact that our definition of "atheist" describes us and that definition appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.

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.

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

[jeremyp]

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.

[Alien]

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

No, but you can look up what it means in a dictionary if unsure what theism means.

Why all the "not theism" stuff?

I'm aware of what theism means. I'm also aware that the prefix "a" means not/without, yet according to you, using that prefix in front of theism does not equal not theism.

As discussed earlier in the thread the problem is which bit we attach the "a" to. Do we attach it thus: "a-theism", meaning, literally, no-theism or do we attach it to thus: "athe-ism", meaning, literally, nogod-ism?

[Alien]

...I don't think they are significantly different:

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

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

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

The only difference is as to whether atheism is a belief that something doesn't exist or a lack of belief that something does exist.

For some here that is very, very important.

[Alien]

...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?

leprechauns don't exist.

Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.

[Alien]

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

Why?  do you think that repeating something often enough automatically makes it true?

Nope, but I had explained it. I thought you might have missed it.

What makes you (plural) think you have the right to decide how the word "atheist" should be used?

Mainly, the fact that our definition of "atheist" describes us and that definition appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.

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.

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect. Here are the Chambers and Mirriam Webster definitions again:

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

Mirriam Webster
one who believes that there is no deity

Both those dictionaries say that a atheist is someone who believes there is no god rather than just someone who has no belief that there is a god.

[Alien]

Do you have a term for not X?

Yes. You will find it in a dictionary.

No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.

"Non-theist".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.

Just out of interest, how do you propose to prove that leprechauns don't exist?

As for your earlier post, "invariablist" was a reference to a post of mine where I gave another example of a word (invariable) that some now use completely differently from its original meaning - "usually" rather than "always" in that case. If we take your "strong" and "weak" thesis, presumably too you would describe yourself as either a strong or a weak invariablist?

See, that's the problem - of course words can change their meanings over time, but having two completely different meanings co-existing for one word doesn't give you stronger and weaker versions of it, it just gives you ambiguity. My atheism is perfectly "strong" in that I've never yet heard an argument for god(s) that I can't rebut, but the burden of proof problem makes what you call "strong atheism" (or for that matter strong a-leprechaunsim) logically impossible.

If you do want to apply gradations of strength you can, but only when you're dealing with one meaning. "How much do you like cheese: A). Not at all; B). Quite a lot; C). Love it..." etc is fine because the sense of "like" is consistently applied. Trying the same thing with different meanings though as if one is somehow a stronger or weaker statement of the other is just incoherent.   

Oh, and my suggestion for a neologism that does describe what you call "strong" atheism was "deinialism". 

[jeremyp]

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect.

You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.

Bullshit.

[jeremyp]

No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.

"Non-theist".

Or a-theist if you want to use the same language root for both parts.

[splashscuba]

...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?

leprechauns don't exist.

Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.

Excellent.  That means I'm also a strong [insert an infinite number of things that don't exist / I don't believe in]

[Alien]

Alien,

Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.

Just out of interest, how do you propose to prove that leprechauns don't exist?

I don't.

As for your earlier post, "invariablist" was a reference to a post of mine where I gave another example of a word (invariable) that some now use completely differently from its original meaning - "usually" rather than "always" in that case. If we take your "strong" and "weak" thesis, presumably too you would describe yourself as either a strong or a weak invariablist?

I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.

See, that's the problem - of course words can change their meanings over time, but having two completely different meanings co-existing for one word doesn't give you stronger and weaker versions of it, it just gives you ambiguity. My atheism is perfectly "strong" in that I've never yet heard an argument for god(s) that I can't rebut, but the burden of proof problem makes what you call "strong atheism" (or for that matter strong a-leprechaunsim) logically impossible.

But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist. They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.

If you do want to apply gradations of strength you can, but only when you're dealing with one meaning. "How much do you like cheese: A). Not at all; B). Quite a lot; C). Love it..." etc is fine because the sense of "like" is consistently applied. Trying the same thing with different meanings though as if one is somehow a stronger or weaker statement of the other is just incoherent.   

Oh, and my suggestion for a nelogism that does describe what you call "strong" atheism was "deinialism".

You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.

[Alien]

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect.

You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.

Bullshit.

Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?

[Alien]

No. You tell us what your term for "not-a-theist" is.

"Non-theist".

Or a-theist if you want to use the same language root for both parts.

But not an "athe-ist"?

[Alien]

...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?

leprechauns don't exist.

Excellent. It is good to be part of the "strong aleprechaunist" community with you. I hope others will join us.

Excellent.  That means I'm also a strong [insert an infinite number of things that don't exist / I don't believe in]

That's OK by me, brother.

Is there any particular reason that would be a problem (apart from wasting time)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

I don't.

Whence then your certainty that they don't exist?

I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.

No they're not "generally accepted", and even if they were they'd still be incoherent.

But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist.

Maybe, but it should stop you from falling into the same linguistic error though.

They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.

That's right, they don't - but that's a different matter to the point you ignored: different meanings for the same word are not "strong" and "weak" versions of each other. To be strong and weak you need the same sense to apply.
 

You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.

Possibly you missed the dei of deinialism?

[jeremyp]

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect.

You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.

Bullshit.

Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?

You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.

[Alien]

Alien,

I don't.

Whence then your certainty that they don't exist?

If you want to start a discussion about whether leprechauns exist, please start a new thread. I'm not here to discuss leprechauns at length. Splashscuba might be interested though. Best ask him.

I've never seen the terms "strong" and/or "weak" used for how the word "invariably" is used, whereas the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms.

No they're not "generally accepted", and even if they were they'd still be incoherent.

So why bring it up?

But that won't stop people from claiming to be a strong atheist, i.e. that they believe God does not exist.

Maybe, but it should stop you from falling into the same linguistic error though.

As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.

They don't have to be correct in their belief to have that belief.

That's right, they don't - but that's a different matter to the point you ignored: different meanings for the same word are not "strong" and "weak" versions of each other. To be strong and weak you need the same sense to apply. quote]As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.
 

You would need a reference to God in there somewhere. People can deny all sorts of things.

Possibly you missed the dei of deinialism?

Oh, yeah. Cool. Yes, I did miss it. Very clever.

[Alien]

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect.

You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.

Bullshit.

Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?

You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.

And you are not telling me the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones wrong?

What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.

Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?

[Andy]

No they don't. They have other alternative "stronger" definitions as well, but that doesn't invalidate the definition that we use or that appears in the OED.

That is incorrect.

You're either an idiot or on a deliberate wind up. You are telling me that the OED definition of "atheist" is wrong.

Bullshit.

Not I. I am quoting from the Chambers and Mirriam Webster dictionaries. Have you not noticed how their definitions are significantly different to the Oxford one?

You are trying to tell me the OED definition is wrong.

And you are not telling me the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones wrong?

What I would say is that the OED one is at odds with Chambers and Mirriam Webster. I suppose you could say that all three are incomplete.

Why are you so "anti" the Chambers and Mirriam Webster ones?

Now that really is flat out bullshit. jp has even said that Chambers and MW have stronger definitions.

The only one I've seen here suggesting a definition is wrong is you, when you've twice (once with splashscuba and once with jp) said that they're redefining the English language when saying atheist can mean not believing gods exist. Glass houses and all that, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

If you want to start a discussion about whether leprechauns exist, please start a new thread. I'm not here to discuss leprechauns at length. Splashscuba might be interested though. Best ask him.

You’ve missed the point. The issue isn’t leprechauns, it’s the negative proof problem – Russell’s teapot and all that. It’s logically impossible to believe categorically that something – your god, leprechauns, an orbiting teapot, whatever – does not exist because of the burden of proof issue. That’s why what you call “strong atheism” is unsupportable (though what I call strong atheism using the single sense of the word is not).

So why bring it up?

Me? I though you were the one asking people whether they were strong weak atheists. I’ve merely explained that the question in the sense you mean it is incoherent.

As I have mentioned many times before, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are generally accepted terms. Get over it.

And as I have mentioned many times, no they are not and – even if they were – that’s a mistake you now know how to avoid.

You’re welcome.

Oh, yeah. Cool. Yes, I did miss it. Very clever.

Thanks – I’m quite pleased with it. A few published references and it’ll make the OED yet (though the Stamford Encylopedia of Philosophy may take a little longer to catch up  )