Definition of Atheism

[GrandizerII]

lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (agnostic atheist? weak atheist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (strong atheist)
has belief + has knowledge + there is no god (gnostic atheist)

lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (apostatic theist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (weak theist; faith based theism)
has belief + has knowledge + there is a god (strong theist; fundamentalist)

???

It suggests to me, because there are two variables, and a proposition that can be stated in the affirmative or the negative, there are a large range of possible positions. I don't think you can determine what the term atheism means by applying a sort of linguistic calculus, because words aquire meaning through convention, not logic. In the case of the word 'atheism', there are competing conventions. Because lexicographers have traditionally been theists, they've tended to frame the definition in ways that are understandable from the perspective of theism. This is somewhat proscriptive, however since atheist's proper are a minority language group, there's some sense to this. Then there's the sociological approach, that those to whom a term applies have the say in how it is defined; this has led to the "lack of belief" definition, possibly because it is the most inclusive. So you have two separate social conventions for the term, neither is necessarily more right than the other.

I think I agree with most of that. However, as I said on the first page, I don't have a problem with people opting to use different definitions of words (meaning is just usage, after all). But the flip-side of that is that there are consequences in terms of relevance and coherence when one starts changing words to mean something different than what people expect. In other words, I don't think rightness comes into this, but reasonableness and pragmatism do, as I think this lacking belief stuff removes the ability for one to actually give a nuanced position when asked to. If you either have to choose asserting theism is true or not asserting it as true (and yet not calling it false) and still call oneself an atheist or theist (and not strictly an agnostic or ignostic), then where can you go from there? You can't strongly lack belief, by the very definition employed they've made it a bivalent choice, free from degrees.

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

[Dystopia]

I think I agree with most of that. However, as I said on the first page, I don't have a problem with people opting to use different definitions of words (meaning is just usage, after all). But the flip-side of that is that there are consequences in terms of relevance and coherence when one starts changing words to mean something different than what people expect. In other words, I don't think rightness comes into this, but reasonableness and pragmatism do, as I think this lacking belief stuff removes the ability for one to actually give a nuanced position when asked to. If you either have to choose asserting theism is true or not asserting it as true (and yet not calling it false) and still call oneself an atheist or theist (and not strictly an agnostic or ignostic), then where can you go from there? You can't strongly lack belief, by the very definition employed they've made it a bivalent choice, free from degrees.

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?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the concepts of strong atheism equal to gnostic atheism and weak atheism equal to agnostic atheism?

[ignoramus]

I believe so.

[GrandizerII]

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?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the concepts of strong atheism equal to gnostic atheism and weak atheism equal to agnostic atheism?

I believe so. But, honestly, at the end of the day, people are going to differ in how they interpret words.

[Mister Agenda]

You're missing the point. Instead of arguing over definitions, you could be defending a proposition. Why not do that instead? It'll force the theists you talk to into a difficult position where they'll have to try to rebut strong arguments. Simply repeating "I lack belief!" at them ad nauseum accomplishes nothing.

If they can't understand someone lacking belief in something, they'll never understand a cogent argument, the first of which is to explain that they need to define what they mean by 'God' in order for the discussion to proceed, and the second of which is to explain that the burden of proof is on them to present an argument for their belief which is not fallacious, rests on reasonable premises, and has evidence to support it.

---

This whole conversation seems ultimately useless, because the "lack belief" crowd is wrong anyway. There are good reasons to belive that the proposition "God does not exist" is true. If you don't believe that, you should.

Predictably, someone will probably come along and say, "but which god? neener neener neener!" The answer is: all of them. For any being which the word "God" in the above proposition can refer to, either there is a strong argument against that being's existence (see: argument from evil, argument from divine hiddenness, etc.), or allowing that thing into the set of things which "God" can refer to broadens the concept into uselessness and makes us all theists by default.

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.

---

Dictionaries don't work that way, that is, they don't settle what the definitive meaning of a word is; they give usages of a word. Come on now.

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.

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.

[vorlon13]

We can note people that 'don't believe' in 500 (if not more) out of 600+ laws in Leviticus, don't follow half (or more) of the Commandments, aren't bearded, wearing sandals and talking peace and love with their 12 same sex friends all day long are about 90% of the way to getting an AF merit badge.

[Mister Agenda]

When did I say I can't accept any error on this topic?

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

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

Whenever I disagree with you guys, I invariably get told - and have been told by you in this post - that I'm telling people hat they think.

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

And ironically and hypocritically, by the very same people who are telling those who only label themselves agnostic what THEY think.

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.

Further, I've given reasons why I think my position is more rational, but your responses are silly redefining of the idelogical spectrum to suit other terms you've redefined, such that you can claim something like "atheism is the starting position!!!11".

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.

---

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.

[vorlon13]

{OT a bit, sorry}

Does AF have an annual end of the year thread to nominate religious folks that have done the most to advance the atheist cause, or is it a given that Pat Robertson would win every year ??

[Whateverist]

You're missing the point. Instead of arguing over definitions, you could be defending a proposition. Why not do that instead? It'll force the theists you talk to into a difficult position where they'll have to try to rebut strong arguments. Simply repeating "I lack belief!" at them ad nauseum accomplishes nothing.

This is the thing about many hard/gnostic/strong atheists which I don't understand. What is the rush to meet the theist in battle? Looks like a variant of Rumsfeld's maxim, 'sometimes you have to go to war with the definitions you have'. Many gnostics, theists and atheists, seem more moved by emotion than reason.

If you have a reason to think atheism is true -as well as reason to think theism false- there is still a third proposition that should be considered. Do you have sufficient reason to wish to see an end to theism? Not looking for an emotional itch to scratch here. What I'm asking is do you understand enough about humanity to be sure theism is more harmful than beneficial. I don't know that, except for the fundamentalist variants of all religions of course.