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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

That's okay. I'm expounding my view, not concerning myself with theirs.

[Dystopia]

According to MFM, that's not atheism.

That's okay. I'm expounding my view, not concerning myself with theirs.

How the hell is that not atheism?

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Yes, of course I did. Great question, though.

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.

The god of deism has specific attributes. It is a conscious being that created the universe, with the power to craft the universe according to its dictates, and doesn't intervene post-creation. It is one of the most common views of God. It not being conveniently absurd doesn't make it meaningless. I can see why you'd want it 'not to count' though, if you want to avoid more difficult challenges than the ridiculous God of Abraham.

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.

It is impossible to disprove the existence of ghosts, unless they are defined in such a way as to be falsifiable. I am not aware of a falsifiable definition for ghosts, are you? And why should I set my caution levels concerning making claims to your standard?

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".

Thanks for quoting me on the best argument against deism, but it is not a strong argument. It's why I don't believe in the God of deism, but I know the difference between strong and weak arguments. There was no good reason for Europeans to believe in Okapis or Gorillas until the evidence started mounting.

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.

Did lack of evidence for Okapis count against their existence, or merely not support it? It isn't easy to measure the strength of an inductive argument, if it doesn't lend itself to accurate estimates of the probability of it being true. I can understand how you could regard it as a strong argument while I regard it as a weak argument. Relatively speaking, though, it is a much weaker argument against the existence of the God of deism than can be mounted against the God of Abraham.

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.

If you define your $100 bill that way, I won't be able to falsify your claim that you have such a thing. I won't believe you have it, because there's not reason to believe it exists or that you would be aware of it if you did, AND no one but you defines a $100 bill that way, so it is pretty obvious that you, personally, invented it. I think you may have shown that the God of deism is more probable than an invisible and intangible $100 bill because many people believe it and we don't know the provenance of that belief, which is slightly more than your invisible money has going for it. It actually is stupid to believe you have invisible money in your pocket, while belief in the God of deism is something to which intelligence does not seem to be a barrier.

The entirety of my argument has been that your usage of the word has problems and really ignores some important questions.

Ah yes, what you tell us people REALLY mean when they ask us questions like 'Are you an atheist?'. Your psychic abilities are truly astonishing.

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.

And of course your personal experience is completely gerneralizable, especially since no one who disagrees with you is also a former theist, eh?

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.

So you claim special immunity from the implications of your claims? I am a weak atheist. You say that is an invalid position. and you won't agree to disagree. But you're not asking me to change how I label my position. You mealy-mouthed little weasel.

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.

I don't think a person who is truly aware of their fallibility would not be phased by learning that their use of the word 'disbelief' is not only at odds with a dictionary defintion, but every definition of the word I can find online. Your argument crumbles if that word doesn't mean what you want it to, so you can't accept that you're mistaken. It's the only explanation, given that I know you're not stupid.

the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

the refusal to believe that something is true :

the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected

refusing to believe

Those aren't cherry-picked. They're the first page of Google for 'definition of disbelief'.

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.

If it's a flat-out lie, then you do not maintain that we should use your preferred usage because it is the usage the majority prefers. So you agree that part of your argument is irrelevant to whether we should adopt your usage. Good. Can you acknowledge that? Because if you can't, then there is at least some truth to my characterization of your argument and therefore it can't be a flat-out lie, or you simply aren't capable of acknowledging when you are wrong.

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?

If it's a flat-out lie that you argue that we should adopt the majority usage, it isn't relevant at all. Make up your mind.

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.

I don't have a problem responding to people accurately. You have a solution in search of a problem.

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.

Yes, you were able to cherry-pick a definition that agreed with you. The difference is that we're not claiming our dictionary definition trumps your dictionary definition. Our dictionary definition includes yours. You are insisting on the narrowest (and older) definition. That is how you misuse a dictionary as an authority on current usage.

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

Yes, we already know you're capable of scouring the interwebz until you find a definition you like.

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?

The majority of atheists define atheism as lack of belief in any God or gods. You want the majority of atheists to define atheism differently. You maintain that it's irrelevant that we largely agree on this defintion because the theist majority prefers a different one. That's what being a minority has to do with this. The fact that you're an atheist agreeing with theists doesn't give you any more credibility. You're not the only strong atheist to think weak atheists aren't 'real atheists'.

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.

When you can manage not to reply to my posts, maybe I'll believe you don't care. You'll notice I don't reply to all your posts. Just the ones that I think are both in need of a reply and worth my time.

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.

No one is under the misapprehension that you can force us to change. It would be like defining a-conservative as anyone who is not a conservative.

Your approach: Take a controversial position on a thread. Stop responding to replies on that thread. Start a new thread to to rehash the same points without adding anything new. Claim there will be a witch hunt, because you're well aware that you're pushing people's buttons and will get emotional responses. Surrounded by people who disagree with you, maintain that their position is not only incorrect, but stupid. What part of your approach does not scream 'troll'? Is this not similar to what we see from plenty of people who have been banned? One occurrence isn't a sufficient pattern to characterize you as a troll, but this particular occurrence is certainly an example of troll-like behavior.

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.

Sorry, I forgot you're just looking for gotchas, and foolishly tried to be brief rather than rehash the entirety of my position on the matter from other threads. Look at the thread you abandoned in favor of starting this one and you'll see that I argued in favor of 'agnostic agnosticism' as a description for agnostics uncomfortable with identifying as either atheist or theist.

And yes, those arguing with me have done so regarding agnostics. For instance:

"Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition or premise to be true. [u]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."--Simon Moon

https://atheistforums.org/thread-26766-p...#pid696633

This would be relevant if one of Simon Moon's arguments against your position is that you should make allowances for minorities labeling themselves. I see no inconsitency between his position on agnostics and his position that weak atheists are atheists. He is claiming all nontheist agnostics as atheists, you are rejecting all agnostic atheists as atheists, I disagree with both of you, but SM is not calling you out for labeling minorities in this thread while labeling them himself somewhere else. His argument has nothing to do with people having any right to label themselves. Perhaps he agrees with you on that matter. SM is a poor example of the hypocrisy you claim.

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.

I do not believe you are truly this dense. I couldn't have been more clear that I have not redefined the word atheist since I was exposed to that definition. Which was years before I ever had a conversation on the internet about religion. or the existence of God. Wanting to win arguments had nothing to do with me identifying as an atheist. Realizing I didn't have to claim to know something that is unknowable did. Is looking for 'gotchas' all you have?

It's fine if it's your position. Doesn't mean others can't criticize it (otherwise we'd never engage theists).

My point is that you're not actually criticizing my position when you claim we redefined 'atheism' to win internet arguments. The definition precedes the internet by at least a century. Another claim you can't acknowledge being mistaken about. It's the position of some of the most famous and respected atheists of all time, writers in favor of disbelief whom you would redefine as mere agnostics.

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.

Thanks, but you needn't post just to indicate that you agree with my characterization of your position.

[Whateverist]

Long story short, you may no longer be a theist MFM, but you haven't completely shaken some of its worst habits of mind. You continually overstate the strength of your position, strawman the position of those with whom you disagree and mistake many of your assumptions for stone cold facts. Your user name and avatar are starting to fit you more and more. Real growth lies in the direction of getting insight into your own foibles.

[Mister Agenda]

That's okay. I'm expounding my view, not concerning myself with theirs.

How the hell is that not atheism?

The central question of this thread, well-summarized.

---

Long story short, you may no longer be a theist MFM, but you haven't completely shaken some of its worst habits of mind. You continually overstate the strength of your position, strawman the position of those with whom you disagree and mistake many of your assumptions for stone cold facts. Your user name and avatar are starting to fit you more and more. Real growth lies in the direction of getting insight into your own foibles.

Thanks for being much more short-winded, and kinder. Best 'long-story short' I've seen in some time.