'...And I'm an Atheist'

[CliveStaples]

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You do however regularly misdefine atheism by adding value-attributes. This has allowed you, on a number of occasions, to make negative generalisations about 'atheists' and 'atheism'. I've never seen you develop a discussion based on an accurate definition of the value system(s) actually in-play, instead always substitute 'athesim' for whatever value(s) make-up the other person's position thus misrepresent it.

What "value-attributes" do I add to atheism?

Here's my definition, by the way (with an explanation of the notation and terms):

DEFINITION 1: A system S is a collection of propositions, along with a system of inference. We'll be using standard logic. If p is a proposition in S, write p ∈ S. If p is a proposition not in S, write p ∉ S.

DEFINITION 2: A system is closed if (p ∈ S and (p ⇒ q ∈ S)) ⇒ q ∈ S.


Example: Suppose that "Jane is in France" ∈ S, and "If Jane is in France, then Jane is in Europe" ∈ S. If S is closed, then "Jane is in Europe" ∈ S.



DEFINITION 3: The closure of a system S, Cl S, is the collection of all p ∈ S together with all propositions entailed by propositions in S.

Proposition 1: By definition of a system, if S is a system then Cl S is itself a system.

Proposition 2: Cl S is clearly closed, by definition of closed.


So here's my definition:

Atheism := {S | S is a system and "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S}



Now, you claim that this definition adds 'value-attributes' to "atheism". I don't see how that's the case. Can you explain?


Regarding making negative generalizations about 'atheists' and 'atheism', I don't think I do that at all. Yes, there are many bad belief systems included in my definition of 'atheism'. But that doesn't mean that I'm somehow drawing the generalization "atheism is bad", or "atheism makes a belief system worse". I certainly don't draw negative generalizations about atheists. That would be mere prejudice.

So your wilful & deliberate midefinitions & misrepresentations have been a defense mechanism? I assume you've heard the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

I don't "misdefine" anything. I gave a particular definition of 'atheism'; that doesn't mean that my definition is the 'right' one (whatever that means). My definitions is probably not what most people have in mind when they use the term "atheism".

But I'm not equivocating. I've always been very specific in stating that my conclusions about 'atheism' are based on the definition of 'atheism' that I used. And I tried to be as consistent as possible in maintaining the definition throughout the argument.

Hardly typical, I've seen many more polite & purposeful discussions than I have impolite & disrupted ones. And to get defensive myself for a moment, I've not seen you put forward any arguments/points which haven't been discussed many times before; given that all it would take is a brief review of the site to understand the common themes and that it's considered good netiquette to familiarise yourself with a site before posting, I don't blame some posters for throwing up their metaphoric arms in disgust and taking their frustrations out on you. I have to say that I don't agree with that approach but I understand it (I sometimes feel that way myself) so I recognise when it happens.

It is good netiquette to offer relevant arguments and counter-arguments on currently-active threads. If my arguments have been off-topic, then you are right to give reproach. But the arguments I've offered, while not necessarily novel, have been relevant. If people don't want to rehash old arguments, then they don't have to respond.

Well, there's your mistake; you've spent too much time thinking about it. Instead, why don't you try listening to how atheists define themselves or if that becomes too confusing, look up the etymologically accurate definitions of the word. Cogitating & inventing your own definition is the surest way for errant value-attributes to pollute the accuracy of the definition.

I think you've misunderstood. I haven't thought about it in a vacuum. I've had lots of discussions with atheists, and I think my definition is very consistent with what most people mean when they say "atheism". For example, in one of the threads in which my definition was being discussed, I proved that D = "X is atheist <=> X lacks the belief 'at least one god exists" is equivalent to my definition, in the sense that X is D-atheist <=> X is CliveStaples-atheist.

With the amount of different & conflicting values I've seen you attribute to 'atheism', you'd likely never recognise it if you ever became atheistic.

What "different and conflicting values" would those be?

Yet here we are again! How many times do you need to be told? Atheism is not a belief system! Atheistic people simply have no theism in their belief/value systems!

That's precisely the notion that my definition captures.

Here's something you should practice doing. Any time you find yourself thinking the term 'an atheist', instead substitute it with the term 'non-theist'. It's only a small mental adjustment but many people have told me that it's helped them avoid assignment of erroneous values/assumptions to people's positions.

This is literally equivalent to my definition.

---

I have now added to the definition of Christian fucking chickens every tuesday.

How can you as a christian commit this vile act every week?

And don't say you don't I know you do because you are a christian and all christians do.

But how do you know that I'm a "Christian" under your definition? Just because I call myself "Christian" doesn't mean I'm using your definition.

In order for my definition of atheism to be similar to your definition of Christian, you would have to prove that someone is "Christian" (in some commonly-accepted meaning--perhaps 'a follower of Christ', or 'an individual who self-identifies as Christian') if and only if they are a "Christian" under your definition.

Since there are many "Christians" (followers of Christ / individuals who self-identify as Christian) who don't fuck chickens every tuesday, your definition cannot be equivalent to either of those definitions of "Christian".