Definition of Atheism

[MindForgedManacle]

That's what asking for clarification is for. People are going to use different meanings for the same words all the time. Why be all wrapped about words and let theists do the same as well?
Why not just describe what you actually think and then have them respond accordingly?

I thought that was basically what I was saying when I said that changing the definition was meaningless, because then they aren't answering what was asked. But point taken.

Funny how these sorts of posts never share their devastating argument against any sort of God existing. That's all it would take to get us on board: a proof that no concept of God refers to anything real. You can start by taking down the God of deism. I'm aware of no argument against it stronger than 'no good reason to believe it is real'. I've been waiting for this one and eagerly look forward to you taking it down for good.

Did you pay attention to what he said? You're doing exactly what he said would happen, which is that you broaden the concept of a God so far that it becomes pretty much meaningless. If I ask you if you believe, I dunno, ghosts exist or not, and your answer comes down to saying that it's impossible to disprove them, and that even if someone could disprove some type of ghost, but another kind could exist, then you're being so cautious as to defy rationality.

And an argument against a deistic god isn't too hard. One could go against the notion of a being creating a universe in the first place, which when applied to God concepts is usually taken to imply that being is not spatially bound, which I'm not sure is a coherent concept. Or another argument could be a better version of the "no reason to believe argument". Basically, all one needs to do is point out that a Deist's God makes no predictions about the world such that it would corroborate the being's existence, and hence that counts against its existence. After all, there could be a $100 dollar bill in my pocket, but it is simply invisible, intangible and magically suspended there. But that makes no verifiable predictions, so that counts against that notion.

Usage of the word is the entirety of your argument. Your position is that we should adhere to some sort of usage common among theists, taught to many of them by their biased pastors, over the most common usage among ourselves.

The entirety of my argument has been that your usage of the word has problems and really ignores some important questions. And as a former theist, I don't think I ever even heard my pastors use the word atheist, much less teach us what the word means.

For some reason, you can't accept anyone adhering to a different usage than the one you prefer, so you started an entire thread about it. Strong atheists who want to rail that weak atheists shouldn't even call themselves atheists unless they convert to strong atheism are facing an uphill climb, since I've never been in any group of atheists where weak atheists weren't a strong majority.

Really? 1st page, 3rd post:

Dude, you can use whatever definition of a word that you want to. That doesn't make your definition reasonable or coherent. Oh, and this is the first topic I personally have made about it.

When did I say you had to be a strong atheist? Answer: You're full of shit, I didn't. I just don't think the attempt to say that atheism is something else makes sense.

I'm easily refuted by an example of you actually acknowledging anyone has made a good point against any part of your argument. Someone who knows they can't accept errors would actually have enough self awareness to accept their fallibility.

I'm not going to lie and say I think anyone's made a good point against it if I don't think they have. And I'm well aware of my fallibility.

Your argument consists of:
1) the only usage of a word that should be used is what the majority thinks it is
2) the majority is on my side
3) dictionaries are irrelevant in discussing the meanings of words
4) disbelief means what I say it does (not what the dictionary says it does)
5) minorities should have no say in how they're defined or what labels apply to them.

1) Flat out lie, as my quote of myself earlier in this post demonstrates.
2) Again, you are just ignoring what was said. I said most people use the word that way. Do you know why that's relevant? Because then you actually can respond to them accurately by employing words as they're using them. Picking sides has nothing to do with it.
3) Dictionaries aren't irrelevant (they document word usage), but you guys tried (and failed) to use a dictionary as an authority on the decider of the inherent meaning of a word. Then I posted an excerpt from Merriam-Webster which displayed the definition I was employing.
4) Again, I can play the dictionary card here to if you want to go that way:

dis·be·lief
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Full Definition of DISBELIEF

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

5) Seriously? People define other people all the time, regardless of what those people want. And in this case, I don't even see how that's relevant. If a person uses the word 'atheism' as a label for those who believe no gods exist, they can only be referring to those to whom they think the label actually fits. What does being a minority even have to do with this?

Just summarizing your arguments shows you've supported your position terribly. Even if you're right, those are terrible arguments.

When you can manage not to straw man my position or lie about it, maybe I'll care.

I'm sure you'll go on thinking that has nothing to do with your approach.

And what exactly is my approach? I haven't said anyone isn't free to use their definition of atheism, I just think it's silly. It would be like defining a liberal as anyone who is non-conservative.

Some atheists do that. If that was the topic of this thread, I would be on the side of the agnostics. If you don't believe it, check my post history. I can't speak to whether other people disagreeing with you are being inconsistent. I'll just note that as usual, you have not supported that the same people arguing with you about this are the same people who would argue otherwise concerning agnostics. My position is that agnostics come in theist and atheist flavors, and I am an agnostic atheist.

Didn't you just do that, right there? You say agnostics come in theist and atheist flavors, meaning that they are either theists or atheists, and cannot just be agnostics.
And yes, those arguing with me have done so regarding agnostics. For instance:

Do you or don't you? I think it is valid to say in response to such a question "I don't know" or "I don't think it can be known" and thus you can't answer that question as asked, which is what agnostics typically do.

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition or premise to be true. There is no in between, fence sitting position. Either one accepts the premise that a god exists, or they don't.

It is a binary mental state.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-26766-po...#pid696633

Exposure to this more inclusive definition of atheism in the mid-nineties was key to my realization that I am an atheist. Had I remained only aware of the definition I got from my pastor, I would never have accepted the label 'atheist'. There has never been a point in the nineteen years I've identified as an atheist where I've redefined the meaning of it, which I got from the book Atheism:The Case Against God (by American philosopher George Smith, 1974). It's not for the sake of argument. It's my actual position. If you were calling us vile names, it would be much less insulting.

So you had exposure to this more inclusive definition (which is so inclusive as to be absurd), and yet you never accepted a redefining of the word even though you just said you got the new one from a book? ...Right.
It's fine if it's your position. Doesn't mean others can't criticize it (otherwise we'd never engage theists).

---

My brand of atheism: I lack any faith, and I live my life without any god(s) because none have any evidence.

According to MFM, that's not atheism.

According to MFM, that doesn't fit with what MFM means by atheism because it (lacking belief) is a stupid definition.