Atheism: A belief?

[filthy tugboat]

The lack of belief in a god or deity is a belief in itself, yes. The idea has to be founded on some degree of reasoning.
I myself am agnostic, and do not believe that there is any way of knowing for sure the origins of reality, but if you think otherwise, that is your business.

By definition, atheism means 'without theism'. I can't see how this is a belief. If people want to avoid labels then perhaps we call people theists and normal people. I say normal not to insult but rather in the sense that one needs information and convincing to become a theist where the natural(normal) born in position lacks that information and subsequently that belief.

 

[Magic Man]

But should those people even be counted? Why? What's the purpose? Like I said, you end up with a technical definition, but one that isn't very useful or descriptive.

Of course they should be counted. They're atheists, as in "not theists". Why wouldn't they be counted? Why isn't it useful to include them, and how is my definition not descriptive, but yours is?

In regards to your "agnostism" definitions, I specifically referred to the "popular" definition of agnosticism. People who have no experience with philosophical debates (read: most people) will define agnosticism as the "I don't know" or "undecided" position regarding the existence of god.

Many will, but that's unimportant for a philosophical/theological discussion.

I have not advocated that we should use the negative belief definition as the only definition of atheism. I don't know how you can argue that precision is not lost with generalities. The more targeted the definition, the more specific characteristics you can include, and thus the more precise the definition becomes.

No. We're trying to be precise, meaning we're trying to use words in the most accurate way possible. Even if in everyday use, a word is used one way, in a discussion like this, everyday use may not be very important. Everyday usage tends to be imprecise, or just as precise as necessary for a regular conversation. When having an in-depth conversation like this, one needs to use the exact definition, or the most precise one. In this case, that means using the more general one.

 

[Magic Man]

The lack of belief in a god or deity is a belief in itself, yes.

Do you realize you just said the absence of X is X? If there is no bottle on the table, would you say there's a bottle on the table? A lack of something means that something is non-existent. A lack of belief in gods means that belief in gods is non-existent.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm sure you would. I'd define it as any use of the word that is valid, which is why I gave that definition.

What I asked for was your definition of "valid use". You responded with the circular "A use that is valid." In other words, you had no idea what you meant by that expression. You originally tried to distinguish "valid use" from "how most people use it," but that is exactly how dictionary makers define "valid use."

Going by the definitions of the two terms, you'd get: an sound, just or well-founded instance or way of employing or using something.

No, the word "valid" has several senses. You picked the "logically correct" meaning associated with logical proofs. A better sense is "well-grounded or justifiable" (from Merriam-Websters). What makes a use "valid" is whether or not it conforms to how people use the word.

I'm going by this board, since that's the one I can see for myself. On this board you're about the only atheist who agrees with your definition.

Well, that isn't even true for this thread, let alone the other threads on the board. The "baby" thread alone shows that the stats are roughly 50-50 that people agree with my intuition, but we cannot correlate the results with religious belief. There are some theists who buy the politically correct definition just because they think that the definition quoted so often by some atheists must be correct.

You have utterly refused to consider the possibility that the definition is wrong and needs to be adjusted to reflect common usage...

OK, I think we're pretty much done here. You're clearly not able to discuss this objectively. I have not refused to consider anything. I have also not taken any dogmatic position, much less that definitions determine how people use words rather than the other way around.

That is news to me. If you do accept that "how people use words" determines definitions, then why did you contradict me when I said that and claim that "valid use" determined definitions instead? That is what prompted me to ask you what you meant by "valid use". Now you appear to be contradicting your earlier position. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say about "valid use", but I suspect that you are as much in the dark on that as I am.

You have failed to show that most people use the term atheist to mean only people who actively believe God doesn't exist..

Please get it right. I never used the word "actively", and this is about "gods" in general, not the particular deity that we call "God". (I'm pretty sure that you know this, but you're just being sloppy in your wording here.) My definition of an atheist is a "person who believes that gods do not exist", and that definition is the same one we find in most dictionaries and on the Religious Tolerance definitions page. I have made the case that most people do use the term that way.

You've also failed to show why we should even use the definition of the majority for these purposes. I've shown that there is at least a small minority that use my definition.

Because "how people use words" determines definitions. And I've agreed all along that a community of religion-debaters use your often-cited definition in arguments. Whether they use the word in practice that way is another matter. Regardless of what definition they prefer, only half of the respondents in a survey on this board have agreed with you that a baby could be classified as an "atheist". That can be easily accounted for by the possibility that people are just letting the definition override their understanding of how the word is normally used.

I've also shown that what the majority use is not very relevant for the same reason that the majority usage of "Zen" is not relevant to a serious discussion of actual Zen Buddhism, just as the common usage of "theft" is not relevant to a legal discussion of the topic.

You have shown nothing of the sort. A legal community can set a standard for usage in legal contexts, but there is no authority to set a standard for usage of the term "atheist", nor is there any special context here to warrant it. The "Zen" example was based on your personal understanding of "Zen", which is not really relevant to the question of general word usage.

The fact is the best definition for atheism is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". That is supported by the existence of the terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", and by the existence of numerous instances of usage of the term to mean a broader group of people than simply those who belief gods don't exist.

Atheists have coined lots of terms to define different buckets of atheists in their frequent arguments about what it means to be an atheist, but that does nothing to detract from the fact that general English usage is what the Religious Tolerance page said it was. I think that you have even come around to accept that now, although you may still want to cling to the idea that common usage is somehow different from "valid use".

 

[That Dude]

Do you realize you just said the absence of X is X? If there is no bottle on the table, would you say there's a bottle on the table? A lack of something means that something is non-existent. A lack of belief in gods means that belief in gods is non-existent.

That would be reasonable if we were talking about a bottle and a table.
Unfortunately were talking about people.

There has to be a reason why someone doesn't have a belief in God.
Which are generally due to life's experiences.

I could ask a question of the atheist posting in this thread to show a commonality among them that helps dictate their actions through perspective.
If you want me to?

Just as I could ask Christians a question that would more then likely show a commonality among them.
It would be a distinct feature that separates the two.

 

[filthy tugboat]

That would be reasonable if we were talking about a bottle and a table.
Unfortunately were talking about people.

Can you show that the difference in subjects changes the meaning of the analogy?

There has to be a reason why someone doesn't have a belief in God.
Which are generally due to life's experiences.

Indeed, sometimes that unbelief is due to a lack of knowledge. There are many people in segregated African and Middle Eastern communities that have never encountered Christianity. Would you suggest their unbelief is a belief? Why/why not? If theirs is not, how is that different for those that have encountered the claims of this God and not believed those claims?

I could ask a question of the atheist posting in this thread to show a commonality among them that helps dictate their actions through perspective.
If you want me to?

Why would this be relevant?

Just as I could ask Christians a question that would more then likely show a commonality among them.
It would be a distinct feature that separates the two.

Most definitely. Why is this relevant?

 

[That Dude]

Can you show that the difference in subjects changes the meaning of the analogy?

Because someone didn't understand how to simply say, you cant believe in what isn't there?
My guess is, you only ask because I can't provide "proof" that there is a God
The question isn't about, if there is a God or not.
From an atheist perspective, that question is all that matters on the subject of their beliefs.
But there isnt a person on the planet with an unbiased perspective.
So the question really should be, why does your perspective lead you down a path of atheism.

Indeed, sometimes that unbelief is due to a lack of knowledge. There are many people in segregated African and Middle Eastern communities that have never encountered Christianity. Would you suggest their unbelief is a belief? Why/why not? If theirs is not, how is that different for those that have encountered the claims of this God and not believed those claims?

Depends on their own ability to understand whats around them.
They're bound by perception like everyone else.
The only difference would be the knowledge available to them and how they use it and for what reasons. Some reasons turn into traditions and some traditions turn into religions.
An impulse can be decided by perception which can alter a persons state of mind.

Why would this be relevant?

Because it can show where a unified decision came to be understood by more then one person. Basically, bringing the birth of a belief to understanding.
For instance, have you read Richard Dawkins and do you believe he understands atheist?
If so, then maybe your recognition of his ability to understand atheist has caused you to act on an impulse. If the impulse was to learn more about Richard Dawkins and what he teaches then you've started down the path of enlightenment.
Said, enlightenment could change your perspective.

Most definitely. Why is this relevant?

It defines the difference between two perspectives. An atheist seeks enlightenment but doesn't understand that it's enlightenment they're seeking.
While on the other hand someone who is religious understands that what they're after is enlightenment.
This causes confusion about what a belief is or isn't. But the only distinction is the confusion.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Please get it right. I never used the word "actively", and this is about "gods" in general, not the particular deity that we call "God". (I'm pretty sure that you know this, but you're just being sloppy in your wording here.) My definition of an atheist is a "person who believes that gods do not exist", and that definition is the same one we find in most dictionaries and on the Religious Tolerance definitions page. I have made the case that most people do use the term that way.

Because "how people use words" determines definitions. And I've agreed all along that a community of religion-debaters use your often-cited definition in arguments. Whether they use the word in practice that way is another matter. Regardless of what definition they prefer, only half of the respondents in a survey on this board have agreed with you that a baby could be classified as an "atheist". That can be easily accounted for by the possibility that people are just letting the definition override their understanding of how the word is normally used.

I was hoping I can jump in here and add to the debate you two are having. I have seen both of your definitions and one is simply more specific than the other, you are arguing that the majority of people (most of which happen to be theists) define the term atheist as: 'believing God's don't exist' correct? And you support this definition with dictionaries and such.

Assuming that is your argument, I wanted to clarify the definition of atheism, as we are well aware there are multiple definitions in the dictionaries, some of which contradict others. The literal definition of atheism is 'without theism' as the prefix 'a' means without or not. This definition would be favorable to the dictionary definitions you've used as it includes all of them, both the ones you suggest and those that Mball 1297 has used. Obviously the definition that is more inclusive would be the superior definition as it allows for less confusion than trying to be more specific.

I also noticed you made an appeal to the majority to support your definition and although you are correct, the common usage of words is often how they are defined, the problem is there is still a variation on the definition as to how people use it. Again the literal definition cures this variation as it is inclusive of all definitions of atheism that I am aware of.

If you feel the literal definition is too general and does not give you a proper scope of the definition then perhaps you should assume the literal definition of people claiming to be atheists and as you continue your debate or conversation or whatever, you can ask for specific details of their position to clarify some of the specifics. I ask you to employ this method as it is simply the best way i have seen to limit the confusion, if you want to cite polls and use specific definitions you are still able but all you will do is misrepresent the majority of atheists for no real reason I can imagine. Perhaps to push your own agenda but I am unaware of what that is so could not suggest you are doing so, only that it is a possible motive.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Because someone didn't understand how to simply say, you cant believe in what isn't there?
My guess is, you only ask because I can't provide "proof" that there is a God
The question isn't about, if there is a God or not.

Indeed the question: Is Atheism a belief? Atheism being the rejection of theism, which is most commonly defined as the belief in one or more deities. So the question is not about Gods existence, it is about belief in Gods existence. Without any evidence to suggest God exists, how is the analogy any different to the bottle which has no evidence to support it's presence on the table? I have no reason to believe there is a bottle on the table. I have no reason to believe a God exists.

From an atheist perspective, that question is all that matters on the subject of their beliefs.
But there isn't a person on the planet with an unbiased perspective.
So the question really should be, why does your perspective lead you down a path of atheism.

The simplest and probably most common answer would be, "in my perspective nothing suggests the alternative to be a notion that holds truth."

Depends on their own ability to understand whats around them.
They're bound by perception like everyone else.
The only difference would be the knowledge available to them and how they use it and for what reasons. Some reasons turn into traditions and some traditions turn into religions.
An impulse can be decided by perception which can alter a persons state of mind.

Indeed, I am not sure that this answered the questions though. I asked for why you might separate those notions of unbelief to see where the discrepancy comes in which turns 'unbelief' into 'a belief'.

Because it can show where a unified decision came to be understood by more then one person. Basically, bringing the birth of a belief to understanding.
For instance, have you read Richard Dawkins and do you believe he understands atheist?
If so, then maybe your recognition of his ability to understand atheist has caused you to act on an impulse. If the impulse was to learn more about Richard Dawkins and what he teaches then you've started down the path of enlightenment.
Said, enlightenment could change your perspective.

Indeed, why would reading Dawkins turn me down the path of 'enlightenment'? What exactly do you mean when you say 'enlightenment'?

It defines the difference between two perspectives. An atheist seeks enlightenment but doesn't understand that it's enlightenment they're seeking.
While on the other hand someone who is religious understands that what they're after is enlightenment.
This causes confusion about what a belief is or isn't. But the only distinction is the confusion.

Depending on what you mean by 'enlightenment' you could be wrong both about atheists being unaware of what they are searching for or theists being aware of what they're searching for. I commonly see this actually, people who group a bunch of people together based on what they are not rather than what they are. What do you expect to learn about what atheists are searching for or believe in by only looking at them for what they are not?

 

[That Dude]

Indeed the question: Is Atheism a belief? Atheism being the rejection of theism, which is most commonly defined as the belief in one or more deities. So the question is not about Gods existence, it is about belief in Gods existence. Without any evidence to suggest God exists, how is the analogy any different to the bottle which has no evidence to support it's presence on the table? I have no reason to believe there is a bottle on the table. I have no reason to believe a God exists.

Indeed. haha
But why is it you look for evidence, or proof? When so many others don't. What makes you different from them? The answer is what makes you who you are, not the fact that you need evidence.

The simplest and probably most common answer would be, "in my perspective nothing suggests the alternative to be a notion that holds truth."

That was my point.

Indeed, I am not sure that this answered the questions though. I asked for why you might separate those notions of unbelief to see where the discrepancy comes in which turns 'unbelief' into 'a belief'.

The difference is, their perception can only go one way because they don't have a choice. They dont have a choice because they're lacking information.
But for you, it's the "experience" and not the information that makes you who you are. If we all had the same experience, we'd all be the same person.
It's not simply the fact that you don't see any proof of God. It's what compelled you to think that you needed proof in the first place.

Indeed, why would reading Dawkins turn me down the path of 'enlightenment'? What exactly do you mean when you say 'enlightenment'?

Enlightenment in this case is a higher form of understanding.
If you're an atheist, what could possibly compel you to look for enlightenment in the bible?
Since the bible isn't your cup of tea, where else are you going to get it?
What other resources do you have that will help you, be you?
I guessed Richard Dawkins because a lot of atheist seem to like him.

Depending on what you mean by 'enlightenment' you could be wrong both about atheists being unaware of what they are searching for or theists being aware of what they're searching for. I commonly see this actually, people who group a bunch of people together based on what they are not rather than what they are. What do you expect to learn about what atheists are searching for or believe in by only looking at them for what they are not?

I'm not expecting anything. I'm trying to explain something.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Indeed. haha
But why is it you look for evidence, or proof? When so many others don't. What makes you different from them? The answer is what makes you who you are, not the fact that you need evidence.

Indeed. So what is your position on the relevance of your analogy, do you still feel it is inapplicable or have you conceded the point?

The difference is, their perception can only go one way because they don't have a choice. They dont have a choice because they're lacking information.
But for you, it's the "experience" and not the information that makes you who you are. If we all had the same experience, we'd all be the same person.
It's not simply the fact that you don't see any proof of God. It's what compelled you to think that you needed proof in the first place.

Indeed, that however does not make atheism a belief.

Enlightenment in this case is a higher form of understanding.
If you're an atheist, what could possibly compel you to look for enlightenment in the bible?
Since the bible isn't your cup of tea, where else are you going to get it?
What other resources do you have that will help you, be you?
I guessed Richard Dawkins because a lot of atheist seem to like him.

Meh, Richard Dawkins isn't my favorite author or debater that usually opposes theism, he's okay I guess. He is a fantastic biologist I'll give him that, he is a great reference if you need to understand certain things about biology and biological processes but not necessarily theologically favorable as a source for me.

I personally believe I will achieve a higher form of understanding of the Christian religion and what the source of their beliefs are as well as a more well informed philosophical knowledge base. This is what i expect to achieve from reading the Bible and debating it with Christians.

There are a great many sources that would help me achieve some form of enlightenment as you understand it. A lot of it may be fiction or factual, all of it helps me to understand many different things about the world and even about myself.

I'm not expecting anything. I'm trying to explain something.

I disagree with what you are trying to explain and how you are trying to explain it.

 

[That Dude]

Indeed. So what is your position on the relevance of your analogy, do you still feel it is inapplicable or have you conceded the point?

How is the table and the bottle still relevant if being atheist only requires a frame of mind, rather then proof?
An atheist is an atheist weather they have proof of it or not.
Nothing else dictates what that is except the individual.

Indeed, that however does not make atheism a belief.

It does, in so much so that there is a desire to be atheist.

Meh, Richard Dawkins isn't my favorite author or debater that usually opposes theism, he's okay I guess. He is a fantastic biologist I'll give him that, he is a great reference if you need to understand certain things about biology and biological processes but not necessarily theologically favorable as a source for me.

I personally believe I will achieve a higher form of understanding of the Christian religion and what the source of their beliefs are as well as a more well informed philosophical knowledge base. This is what i expect to achieve from reading the Bible and debating it with Christians.

There are a great many sources that would help me achieve some form of enlightenment as you understand it. A lot of it may be fiction or factual, all of it helps me to understand many different things about the world and even about myself.

I wish you luck with that

I disagree with what you are trying to explain and how you are trying to explain it.

I accept that you disagree with me and how I say it and respect your views.

 

[filthy tugboat]

How is the table and the bottle still relevant if being atheist only requires a frame of mind, rather then proof?
An atheist is an atheist weather they have proof of it or not.
Nothing else dictates what that is except the individual.

As far as I'm aware everything we do and believe requires only a frame of mind, the proof is absent for the bottle's presence on the table and my frame of mind has no reason to believe a bottle is on the table. The proof for God/s is absent and there is no reason to believe God/s is/are a reality. Our perception is what informs out beliefs, this is true of everything we believe, even that for which we assume others agree like a bottle not being on a table. The sentences are completely interchangeable, by lack of belief in that bottle being on the table is just as much of a belief as my lack of a belief in God.

It does, in so much so that there is a desire to be atheist.

How is there a desire to be an atheist?

 

[That Dude]

As far as I'm aware everything we do and believe requires only a frame of mind, the proof is absent for the bottle's presence on the table and my frame of mind has no reason to believe a bottle is on the table. The proof for God/s is absent and there is no reason to believe God/s is/are a reality. Our perception is what informs out beliefs, this is true of everything we believe, even that for which we assume others agree like a bottle not being on a table. The sentences are completely interchangeable, by lack of belief in that bottle being on the table is just as much of a belief as my lack of a belief in God.

I apologize, let me try and explain another way.
You're talking about a frame of mind that is brought on "after" you see or dont see the proof in something.

In other words, the proof itself makes you who you are.
If I am correct in that assumption, then you would be able to believe in God, but only after there is proof, it's impossible for you to do so with out proof.

Let us take that one step further.
This is just hypothetical. Say, you not only got proof God exist but that it is the Christian God who existed. Would you then become a Christian?
If yes, then why. If no then why not?
Neither one of those answers really matter because they'll be based on personal judgement. The answer isn't the point, point is to show that you're going to use personal judgement to answer that question.
You simply do or you simply dont want to be something and it has absolutely nothing to do with what proof you do or dont have.

How is there a desire to be an atheist?

If you had a desire to be something other then atheist, then that's what you'd be.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I apologize, let me try and explain another way.
You're talking about a frame of mind that is brought on "after" you see or dont see the proof in something.

In other words, the proof itself makes you who you are.
If I am correct in that assumption, then you would be able to believe in God, but only after there is proof, it's impossible for you to do so with out proof.

Correct, I need some reason or evidence to believe in something before I do actually believe in that thing, if I didn't all of my beliefs may as well be arbitrary nonsense. If I could and would believe in anything without reason I could believe in fairies, dragons, Norse Gods, the Flying spaghetti monster and even blatantly nonsensical things like square triangles. As far as I'm aware everybody operates similar to myself, obviously some to a lesser degree than others but still to some degree.

Let us take that one step further.
This is just hypothetical. Say, you not only got proof God exist but that it is the Christian God who existed. Would you then become a Christian?
If yes, then why. If no then why not?

That would be difficult for me to answer because there are many moral discrepancies I have with the Christian religion and belief in that God would probably not settle those discrepancies. So in all honesty, I could only tell you my answer if this event actually happened.

Neither one of those answers really matter because they'll be based on personal judgement. The answer isn't the point, point is to show that you're going to use personal judgement to answer that question.
You simply do or you simply dont want to be something and it has absolutely nothing to do with what proof you do or dont have.

It has nothing to do with what I want or not. My personal judgement was not one of my choosing because all of my choices are made with my own personal judgement, I couldn't exactly choose a personal judgement before I had a personal judgement. The personal judgement I have is natural to me and was more than likely shaped by external forces in my life.

If you had a desire to be something other then atheist, then that's what you'd be.

Sorry, my beliefs don't work that way and I'm pretty sure nobody else's does either. I can't simply choose what I want to believe or not believe, it isn't possible for me to believe the sky is green or believe my computer isn't real and that is no different to any theological question. My beliefs are a consequence of my entire life experience, at no point did I choose what I believed, it is the result of everything in my life.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course they should be counted. They're atheists, as in "not theists". Why wouldn't they be counted? Why isn't it useful to include them, and how is my definition not descriptive, but yours is?

I'm just trying to figure out why making the most general possible definition is the most important thing, rather than simply accepting that there are different kinds of atheism, which have slightly different, and often incompatible, connotations.

It's more of a personal thing I guess: I just don't find such a general definition that important or useful. It's just something to hold in the back of your mind: Yeah, technically those people are atheists too. But that's really the extent of it.

Many will, but that's unimportant for a philosophical/theological discussion.

How so? You are advocating for a definition of atheism that is slightly different than the regular use of the word. Why can't an alternate definition-- one that has been largely accepted and in regular use-- also be accepted for agnosticism?

No. We're trying to be precise, meaning we're trying to use words in the most accurate way possible. Even if in everyday use, a word is used one way, in a discussion like this, everyday use may not be very important. Everyday usage tends to be imprecise, or just as precise as necessary for a regular conversation. When having an in-depth conversation like this, one needs to use the exact definition, or the most precise one. In this case, that means using the more general one.

Sam throws 3 darts at a dartboard. One hits the 20, one hits the triple 17, and another hits the 3. Susan throws 3 darts, and all three stick in the 20. Sam's darts all hit the general area of the dartboard; Susan's hit the dartboard, and the specific area of the 20 wedge. Whose throws were more precise?

 

[filthy tugboat]

I'm just trying to figure out why making the most general possible definition is the most important thing, rather than simply accepting that there are different kinds of atheism, which have slightly different, and often incompatible, connotations.

The reason a general definition of atheism is required because there are many differences between individual atheists and peoples perception of atheists. When we come to a conclusion on a definition confusion is alleviated somewhat and that makes conversation and debate much easier.

It's more of a personal thing I guess: I just don't find such a general definition that important or useful. It's just something to hold in the back of your mind: Yeah, technically those people are atheists too. But that's really the extent of it.

Indeed but when people start spouting off their interpretation of the word and apply it to everybody who associates with atheism then all we get is confusion. If we can clear up the definition issue then assumptions made are limited in this regard. That's why i continually say, if you are going to address someone as an atheist and discuss their atheism stick to the most general view possible and then ask for more specific information. It is rude to assume something of someone when there are many possibilities.

How so? You are advocating for a definition of atheism that is slightly different than the regular use of the word. Why can't an alternate definition-- one that has been largely accepted and in regular use-- also be accepted for agnosticism?

It is different in the sense that they do mean separate thing is, the difference is that the general definition is more inclusive, if you are going to group people together you might as well be accurate.

Sam throws 3 darts at a dartboard. One hits the 20, one hits the triple 17, and another hits the 3. Susan throws 3 darts, and all three stick in the 20. Sam's darts all hit the general area of the dartboard; Susan's hit the dartboard, and the specific area of the 20 wedge. Whose throws were more precise?

Precision was the incorrect word for Mball to use in my opinion. I would go for the more inclusive definition.

 

[Falvlun]

OK, if you understand this, then you should understand why atheism itself is not a belief. Atheism is the yellow circle, which is not a belief.

Willamena was right; there is a logical inconsistancy with my diagram.

Negative Belief atheism cannot be a subset of Lack of Belief atheism, since you and others have made it clear that "Lack of Belief" also implies "No belief that gods don't exist".

This is another reason why you cannot simply say "atheism is not a belief" when using the general definition, since that would exclude (and the whole point is to be inclusive, right?) those who do have the belief.

 

[Magic Man]

What I asked for was your definition of "valid use". You responded with the circular "A use that is valid." In other words, you had no idea what you meant by that expression. You originally tried to distinguish "valid use" from "how most people use it," but that is exactly how dictionary makers define "valid use."

No, the word "valid" has several senses. You picked the "logically correct" meaning associated with logical proofs. A better sense is "well-grounded or justifiable" (from Merriam-Websters). What makes a use "valid" is whether or not it conforms to how people use the word.

I'm not going any further with this ridiculous side argument. We all understand what "valid use" means.

Well, that isn't even true for this thread, let alone the other threads on the board.

Yes, it is. I said "atheist", not "person". I think there was one or two other atheists who agreed to your definition, but that means you're one of maybe 3 out of the many atheists who have responded.

The "baby" thread alone shows that the stats are roughly 50-50 that people agree with my intuition, but we cannot correlate the results with religious belief. There are some theists who buy the politically correct definition just because they think that the definition quoted so often by some atheists must be correct.

Yes, roughly 50% agree with your definition. How many of the total respondents do you think are atheists? I'm guessing not many more than 50%, if even that many. I do like how you have yet another excuse for why people might accept my definition. It's amazing. You really are like a religious person trying to rationalize valid arguments against your belief. "Oh, it can't be because the definition makes more sense; it's obviously because the definition is politically correct, and they've heard it so often by some atheists that they feel it must be correct". Come on.

Please get it right. I never used the word "actively", and this is about "gods" in general, not the particular deity that we call "God". (I'm pretty sure that you know this, but you're just being sloppy in your wording here.) My definition of an atheist is a "person who believes that gods do not exist", and that definition is the same one we find in most dictionaries and on the Religious Tolerance definitions page. I have made the case that most people do use the term that way.

You haven't used the word "actively", but that's the only difference here. For you there has to be an active belief on the atheist's part. Your definition is found many places, as is mine. Your point is lost. Again, it doesn't really matter what most people use in this case. We're only interested in the best possible definition.

And there's no need to go further here. The fact is "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist" is the best definition because it includes everyone who would rightly be called an atheist. Someone who has never heard of gods and doesn't believe in them is an atheist. Your only argument is "That's not how most people use it". To have a valid argument, you'd have to show that that's not how any English speakers use it. You'd also have to show why we should discount the fact that the word literally means "without belief in gods". You haven't done any of that. The only thing you've done is offer outlandish reasons why some people accept my definition in an attempt to retain your precious belief about this.

If you want to attempt to do any of those things you'd need to do to support your assertion, please do. If all you want to do is nitpick about uses of other words, and try to argue that most people use the word this way, so that's the way it should be defined, then please leave it be.

 

[Magic Man]

That would be reasonable if we were talking about a bottle and a table.
Unfortunately were talking about people.

It's insufficient to just state it. You have to show why that would make any difference. As far as I can tell, in one case the area in question is a table. In the other case, the area in question is a person's mind. In the first case, there is an absence of a bottle in that area, and in the second case, there is an absence of a belief in the area.

There has to be a reason why someone doesn't have a belief in God.
Which are generally due to life's experiences.

Yes, and sometimes that reason is because the person has never heard of God, and sometimes it's because they have never taken any time to really consider the idea of God. In both cases, the person simply lacks belief in gods.

I could ask a question of the atheist posting in this thread to show a commonality among them that helps dictate their actions through perspective.
If you want me to?

Just as I could ask Christians a question that would more then likely show a commonality among them.
It would be a distinct feature that separates the two.

I don't know what your point is here. The difference between a Christian (who believes in God) and an atheist is that one believes in God and the other doesn't.