Believers, put yourself in my place.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While a contemporary atheist may prefer one of at least four definitions that does not justify the demand that everyone else conform to that preference.  I am mocking the mostly polite, but often strident, insistence that only one definition applies. Not only does the word have history, most notably the French Revolution, but the dismissive attitude of the prominent New Atheists betrays their tacit acceptance of a “god denial” connotation.

The problem with this complaint of yours is that it is almost always a religionist of one ilk or another who is insisting that all atheists comport to his or her preconceived notion of atheism -- and the overwhelming majority of the time it is hard, D7 atheism -- when the fact is that there is a spectrum of views regarding the beliefs people hold.

If you want to think that the modern atheist writers are making a hard negative assertion about the existence of gods, that's one thing, incorrect though you'd be. But to the extrapolate the opinions of a few writers to the mass of atheists (estimated to be anywhere from 700 million to one billion worldwide) is mentally lazy and ought to be beneath you.

[robvalue]

I will concede that the terms “atheist” and “atheism” from a strictly entomological perspective can cover both godlessness and god denial. Both are legitimate definitions of the word. Other definitions include being abandoned by the god(s) and the pejorative use ungodliness.

While a contemporary atheist may prefer one of at least four definitions that does not justify the demand that everyone else conform to that preference.  I am mocking the mostly polite, but often strident, insistence that only one definition applies. Not only does the word have history, most notably the French Revolution, but the dismissive attitude of the prominent New Atheists betrays their tacit acceptance of a “god denial” connotation.

In an increasingly secular society, I can understand why less strident nonbelievers, like Whateverist and Thump, would gravitate toward the “without god” definition. At the same time, when Robvalue lays claim to that use, when in fact he created a whole host of videos to demonstrate why god belief should be rejected, he is being dishonest. The word has history, a history that includes the anti-clerical purges of French Revolution and activists like Madeline Murphy O’Hair. Own it. Own it the same way you expect Christians to own the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. Own the incredulity that informs your atheism.

Sure I could make all kinds of qualifiers about anti-theists and agnostic atheists, etc. And I could every time try to distinguish between those atheists who are methodogical naturalists versus materialists versus physicalists versus god knows whatever. I’ve actually tried to put that into practice. It’s awkward and time-consuming. It puts a burden on me that most AF members are reluctant to take on in return.

For example, the appellation of Christian covers a wide range of belief – from Roman Catholics to Pentacostals to Swedenborgians. How many times have some of you lumped all Christians in with Evangelicals. Or assumed that God means the special revelation of the Divine in Christianity. I’m okay with that because I can read between the lines. My response, when choosing to participate on such threads, has been to acknowledge this diversity and simply point out when a specific doctrine, like biblical literalism, does not apply to me. Sometimes I offer up the alternative doctrine. It is even right and proper to do so with Christians claiming the name for a narrow set of doctrines.

This is a classic example of “if the shoe fits, wear it”. If the way I am using the word atheist doesn’t apply to you as “denial of god(s)” then say it doesn’t apply to you for x, y, or z. That’s the start of a discussion. Don’t just quibble over semantics. If on the other hand, you insist that only one definition applies, the most benign “without god” one, one that doesn’t accurately reflect your own stance, then you are just avoiding standing up for the type of atheist you truly are.

So no, atheism is not “simply” anything. It’s complicated. Don’t pretend it isn’t just so you can avoid using all the qualifiers and subtle distinctions you demand from believers. And for Pete’s sake don’t play the stupid shell game of atheism is “simply non-belief” to shield yourself from the logical conclusions of the intellectual commitments you personally have made.

Atheists, put yourself in my place.

You failed to cover the fact that you often conflate atheism and naturalism. It's nothing to do with a complex definition. It's to do with you making stuff up and projecting.

My complaints here were both this, and that you said cabbages are atheists. That also has nothing to do with all this complexity. My claim of simplicity was in regard to both these positions of yours, and nothing to do with all the stuff you just wrote. It simply says person, and does not say naturalist. Yet no matter how many times I call you out on this, you continue with it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

While a contemporary atheist may prefer one of at least four definitions that does not justify the demand that everyone else conform to that preference.  I am mocking the mostly polite, but often strident, insistence that only one definition applies. Not only does the word have history, most notably the French Revolution, but the dismissive attitude of the prominent New Atheists betrays their tacit acceptance of a “god denial” connotation.

The problem with this complaint of yours is that it is almost always a religionist of one ilk or another who is insisting that all atheists comport to his or her preconceived notion of atheism -- and the overwhelming majority of the time it is hard, D7 atheism -- when the fact is that there is a spectrum of views regarding the beliefs people hold.

That's kind of my point. There is a spectrum. The "simply disbelief" definition ignores that spectrum. It's a double-standard. Believers on AF have to carefully avoid generalizations about atheism and employ all manner of qualifiers to target specific stances within atheism. If you go with "without god" the category of atheism is so broadly defined as to be a meaningless category. In contrast to this atheists make generalizations about Christian beliefs without specifying exactly which set of doctrines or denominations they find problematic. The occasional True Christian appears, but it is quickly pointed out by atheists and believers alike that he doesn't speak for all Christians.

What you are asking me to do is refrain from using one perfectly legitimate definition, denial of god. That means that if I want to have a general philosophical discussion about the logical consequences of that intellectual commitment which is in one sense what atheism means, then some people expect me to always add dozens of awkward qualifiers just so they aren't offended by inadvertent inclusion. I find that particularly irksome when I know for a fact the offended party has made it otherwise clear that they are included in the "deny god(s)" category of atheism, are ontological naturalists, nominalists, physical monists, etc.

If you want to think that the modern atheist writers are making a hard negative assertion about the existence of gods, that's one thing, incorrect though you'd be. But to the extrapolate the opinions of a few writers to the mass of atheists (estimated to be anywhere from 700 million to one billion worldwide) is mentally lazy and ought to be beneath you.

A few writers do make a difference if their opinions are widely read and referenced. The Papal encyclicals represent a very wide swath of believers. So does William Lane Craig. So does Ken Ham. Grouping them altogether under the heading of Christian is fine with me because I have the maturity recognize the generalization and to parse out the criticisms that apply to the doctrines I favor. I don't get all worked up about defining Christianity. Yet that is what what many (note the qualifier) AF members do with respect to atheism. The insist that atheism must be so broad that a category that nothing meaningful can be said about what does or doesn't apply, generally, to that category. I fail to understand why generalizations are perfectly fine in one direction but not the other.

[robvalue]

Putting myself in your place is easy.

If you mean naturalists, say naturalists.

If you mean strong atheists, say strong atheists, or "those who believe there is no god", or atheists with a positive belief, or anything to indiciate you appreciate the distinction. Or come up with your own shorthand.

If you mean a lack of belief but don't mean atheist (a person), then don't say atheist at all.

Be clear, honest and specific.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Putting myself in your place is easy.

If you mean naturalists, say naturalists.

If you mean strong atheists, say strong atheists, or "those who believe there is no god", or atheists with a positive belief, or anything to indiciate you appreciate the distinction. Or come up with your own shorthand.

If you mean a lack of belief but don't mean atheist (a person), then don't say atheist at all.

Be clear, honest and specific.

Then in turn you should hold yourself to the same standard. From now on, if you are to be consistent, you will carefully distinguish between Presbyterians and Methodists, Lutherans and Calvinists. If you are going to comment on the bible you should also carefully identify your hemenutic for interpreting bibilical texts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem with this complaint of yours is that it is almost always a religionist of one ilk or another who is insisting that all atheists comport to his or her preconceived notion of atheism -- and the overwhelming majority of the time it is hard, D7 atheism -- when the fact is that there is a spectrum of views regarding the beliefs people hold.

That's kind of my point. There is a spectrum. The "simply disbelief" definition ignores that spectrum. It's a double-standard.

And this, in turn, is exactly my point: if you don't like being lumped in with others, why on Earth do you insist on practicing it? I'll take this attitude of yours as being earnest when you exemplify the behavior you ask to receive.

Physician, heal thyself.

As for the point about belief, I think we can all agree that belief is contingent upon consciousness, and that automatically excludes appeals to vegetables rocks etc.

[robvalue]

Edit: forget it.

[robvalue]

Sure, I could be more specific. But I'm very careful not to generalise. I'll say, "Some Christians believe..." which is true and accurate. Chad has a habit of just saying things that apply to all atheists.

And naturalism isn't anything to do with atheism. And that's the most common strawman.

I make these corrections for the benefit of the readers of course. I don't expect Chad will actually alter his tactics.

[Huggy Bear]

Wrong. A cabbage cannot choose to have any beliefs, or lack thereof, because it is not a conscious being.

Just one question for clarification.

According to a certain person "belief" isn't a choice, do you agree or disagree with that position?

[robvalue]

Oh wow. You never answered my question about this before Huggy. Maybe you will now, since you brought it up.

Can you decide, right now, to become an atheist?