I don't really care whether you call it "meaning", "definition" or "butterscotch sundae". If you can, just tell us what you mean by "god" with enough detail that the rest of us would be able to tell whether any given thing would or wouldn't be considered a "god" in your formulation... without all the dancing around.
You'll never get a definition where it will always be possible to judge whether every entity you examine belongs to that category. That is because of semantic vagueness inherent in virtually all word meanings. There is no perfect definition of mundane words like "rock", "book", or "table", let alone "god". However, you can produce definitions that allow unambiguous classification in the majority of cases. Here is one for "god":
"A supernatural being that has control over natural physical forces and that people worship."
This is important to note: the meaning of a word or expression stays the same no matter what definition you use to describe it. Definitions are not fixed in stone. Your understanding of what the word "god" means and mine is probably fairly close. We judge the adequacy of definitions by examining how people use the words, not just how they say they use words.
So in your view, a faulty form of atheism isn't necessarily atheism at all?
No. What I was saying was that you cannot know the meaning of "atheism" if you do not know the meaning of "god".
Yes, it probably could, but it's rarely relevant the way that the vagueness of the term "god" is relevant to your definition of "atheism". I can't think of any term used to talk about doors, trees or rocks that requires a person to do something for the entire category in question.
I see no difference at all. A communist must know what communism is. An anti-communist must know what communism is. There are lots of words that are just like "theist" and "atheist". Your special treatment of words that rely on the concept of "god" is a form of special pleading, since you deny the relevance of your argument for other words.
For instance, there's no such thing as "a-geology" (which I'm defining as the study only of things that aren't rocks), so we don't need to ask whether a paleontologist studying fossils qualifies as an "a-geologist" or not.
You've completely lost me with this one. Perhaps it would be better to stick with "-ism" examples. There is such a thing as antisemitism, and it is relevant to ask whether a given politician is an antisemite. If you tried to define antisemtism, you would find that it is not so easy. There are clear cases of it and borderline cases, just as there are for communists and atheists.
If I depend on an external definition of "door" and not just my own understanding of the term, I can't say that I reject belief in doors until I've considered every possible door.
When we speak a language, we strive to use the same meanings for words as others--i.e. we assume that our meaning is "external" or acceptable to others. So we assume that our understanding is shared by others. The word "god" is no different from "door" in that respect and should not be treated as special. Again, I see you as engaging in special pleading in order not to be backed into the corner of admitting that you know enough about gods to believe that they do not exist. Doors, on the other hand, do exist, because we've seen them.
People only invent words that are useful to them.
Yes! And "atheism" follows a pattern that isn't generally useful in other contexts. Hence why the term "atheism" creates problems that we don't normally encounter with other words... at least when we try to apply your definition.
I'm not sure what "other contexts" you mean here. I see no special problems that we do not encounter with other similar words.
No, we have a fundamental disagreement. You are not the ultimate arbiter of how you use words.
Exactly who else is deciding what I mean when I communicate, then?
Whoever listens to you.
Yes, I know that. That's what I've been trying to argue this whole time: rejection of all gods implies awareness of all gods. This is where the problem arises if you want to define atheism in terms of rejection.
No, it implies rejection of belief in a category of beings. For example, both of us reject belief in the real existence of all cartoon characters without actually have encountered every instance of a cartoon character.
Babies do not "reject" belief in gods. To say that the set of things the baby rejects includes gods is patently absurd.
If we use some established definition of the term "god" and not the baby's (non-existent) understanding, then sure. But that's not what I was arguing.
Then what was your argument? All your Venn diagram example did was confuse the argument. You admit that babies do not reject gods, yet you tried to include an empty "god" set in the babies "rejection" space. That did not make sense.
We actually get into something close to a divide-by-zero error. AFAICT, whether the baby is an atheist or not is undefined, which means that you can't say with certainty that the baby's not an atheist.
No, you were not using set theory properly to represent the babies state of mind. It is reasonable to believe that the baby has a set of beliefs about the world it rejects. All minds have that. What is unreasonable is to represent the set of things it doesn't have any concept for as being in that space. If there is a divide-by-zero error here, it is you who is committing the error. Move that empty set outside of the rejection space, and you have an accurate description of my definition and no division by zero.
Again, doesn't matter. If my definition of "god" is incorrect, then I'm a misguided atheist... but still an atheist.
Not really. You are just a person whose concept of atheism is misguided. A misguided atheist is someone who really is an atheist but defines atheism as "any person who lacks belief in gods".
My answer's B, but I think you knew that. I reject A because a baby has no belief in gods, and I reject C because I define atheism as "not theism", and therefore there is no such thing as "neither a theist nor an atheist"; every person is one or the other.
That is a false dichotomy that is motivated by your desire to maintain your definition at all costs.
If you're not willing to use your imagination on the issue of using the word "atheist" to describe a baby, why should I use my imagination on the issue of using the word "conveyance" to describe a car? It sounds "weird" to me, and apparently that's all that matters... right? I mean, that's basically what your argument comes down to for the word "atheist": you think it sounds "weird" to apply it to a baby, therefore it must be wrong.
Your analogy with "conveyance" fails, because everyone knows what "car" and "conveyance" mean, and we can come up with conversational contexts where your sentence would sound natural. That is not true for persons who have no "god" concept. In any case, I've started a survey on usage just to see what folks in RF who hang out in this forum think.
