Definition of Atheism

[Confused Ape]

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.

If a Christian, for example, says that atheists have rejected God because we hate him we can just say that atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Anything else can be said in further discussions.

Even people who say they know that deities don't exist still lack belief in them.

[SkepticismFirst]

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.

If a Christian, for example, says that atheists have rejected God because we hate him we can just say that atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Anything else can be said in further discussions.

Even people who say they know that deities don't exist still lack belief in them.

Atheists could also say that they reject God because there are good intellectual reasons to believe that God doesn't exist. Why not just say that instead?

[Confused Ape]

Atheists could also say that they reject God because there are good intellectual reasons to believe that God doesn't exist. Why not just say that instead?

This is about the definition of the word atheism - Dicitonary definition

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That's all that's needed for a definition.

I lack belief in deities being objective realities even though there's plenty of evidence that people can have subjective experiences which they interpret as being a deity. My personal opinion would be stated in a discussion, though, because it's not the dictionary definition.

[MindForgedManacle]

Arguments by dictionary are just illegitimate appeals to authority. After all, I can just post this:

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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

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.

[Confused Ape]

Arguments by dictionary are just illegitimate appeals to authority. After all, I can just post this:

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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

I don't think any atheist here would want to use the archaic meaning when we're just defining the definition in a post.

Spectrum Of Theistic Probability - Daawkins Formulation

6: De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7: Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

The doctrine of 'no deity' is fine for people who place themselves as a 7 on the scale but no good for those ranging from 6 - 6.9. So, we can use MWs definition of 'a disbelief in the existence of deity' because that's more or less the same as a lack of belief in deities.

[SkepticismFirst]

Atheists could also say that they reject God because there are good intellectual reasons to believe that God doesn't exist. Why not just say that instead?

This is about the definition of the word atheism - Dicitonary definition

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That's all that's needed for a definition.

I lack belief in deities being objective realities even though there's plenty of evidence that people can have subjective experiences which they interpret as being a deity. My personal opinion would be stated in a discussion, though, because it's not the dictionary definition.

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.

[Confused Ape]

You're missing the point. Instead of arguing over definitions, you could be defending a proposition. Why not do that instead?

This topic is about what we should use as a definition of the word 'atheism'.

[MindForgedManacle]

Funny, that's not how most atheists define it.

Funny, that's irrelevant. The category of "people" supersedes that of "atheist", so the most common usage of the word is not what most atheists supposedly use. Further, who cares? A group doesn't get to dictate that only the legitimate definition of their group is what they decide. Nazis may have believed, for all I know, that Nazism could only be defined as some positive movement. That obviously doesn't translate into people actually using Nazism in that light.

Blatantly false. You've been given the dictionary defintion, so you can't be ignorant of this. There is no practical difference between saying you don't believe something and saying you disbelieve it.

Again, using a dictionary as a means to settle a definitive meaning is silly and leads to contradictory "settled" meanings, because using dictionaries like that is a fallacious appeal to authority. What I'm saying is that there IS a practical difference between believing something is true and believing it's false. However, you (and others) are changing to conversation to "Either True or not True", which includes both indeterminate views on propositions and views that particular propositions are false, which is simply a way of trying give a priori preference to your own position.

The reason YOU believe these words as meaning those things is your agenda to get everyone to agree with your definition.

No it isn't. I just have a different view. Considering the rigidity with which internet atheists have argued for this lack theist position seems much more like an agenda than me critiquing what I think is just a nonsensical definition.

I see you avoided responses to this exact same argument in the other thread, so I'm not going to waste my time again. If you can refute objections to this particularly stupid argument, be honest and do it there instead of making us refute the same arguments repeatedly.

What is the objection? I don't remember you ever actually tackling this. If you did, just repost it here and I'll gladly address it.

I'm going to stop here. You lack the most basic capacity for honest discourse in that you can't acknowledge any error on this topic, so you can't adjust your argument or position to accomodate new information, you've got your conclusion and all you care about is arguing for it, not whether it is actually reasonable. You're just repeating yourself because saying the same thing in different ways is all you've got. This topic isn't worth discussing with someone who is irrational about it.

When did I say I can't accept any error on this topic? Whenever I disagree with you guys, I invariably get told - and have been told by you in this post - that I'm telling people what they think. And ironically and hypocritically, by the very same people who are telling those who only label themselves agnostic what THEY think. 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".

[pocaracas]

Is atheism "not theism"?
Is "not theism" equivalent to "theism is false"?

[MindForgedManacle]

I think atheism is "theism is false". It is a necessary condition of atheism to be "not theism", but it's not sufficient in my view. Just like it's a necessary condition of negative numbers to be "not positive", but it's not sufficient since the number 0 is "not positive", and yet it's still not a negative number.