Believers, put yourself in my place.

[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.