Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

No, but there are different definitions of atheism - some of them being a belief, and some not. Haven't picked this up yet either?

Oh, so... what is atheism again?

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, so... what is atheism again?

Absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, so... what is atheism again?

If you don't know by now, nothing I say is going to help you get it.

 

[Copernicus]

Good, so we're clear now that atheism is not a belief and it means "absence of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist", right? It would have been much easier to just agree to that on the first page.

Why do you post things that you know to be false? Do you think that it helps your argument? Just remove the words "absence of belief in gods, sometime accompanied by", and you have my definition. Otherwise, you have a bad definition that makes incorrect predictions about usage.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not according to common, everyday usage anyway.

While I appreciate your point, when it comes to philosophical discussions the "common, everyday usage" of words is beside the point.

Asserting that we should limit the word "atheist" to only mean strong atheism (i.e., positive belief that gods don't exist rather than just a lack of belief) because that's how "common, everyday" usage dictates would be just as backwards as asserting that we should use the word "theory" to mean "guess" in a scientific discussion.

I agree that in common (and, if I may be so bold, uninformed) conversations "atheism" usually strictly means strong atheism. But this isn't a common forum for common conversations; it's a forum for philosophical discussion. The best way to define the term philosophically is as the state of being without belief in gods (as per its etymology: privative a- prefix for "without," theos for "divine/god," and -ism suffix for "belief in." a-theos-ism: without belief in gods).

The common usage isn't exhaustive; there are cases that "slip through." So, I disagree that we should treat the word "atheism" as always the strong case (belief there are no gods). There are better ways to do it, and using the weak form as the default works best. I say who cares if common use is always strong -- in the same way I say who cares if common use of the word "theory" means "guess." Common use doesn't matter in rich conversation; the best use matters.

 

[Copernicus]

While I appreciate your point, when it comes to philosophical discussions the "common, everyday usage" of words is beside the point.

You have stepped into the big philosophy cow pie of the 20th century Linguistic Philosophy. Ordinary Language Philosophy took the position that philosophers were wrong to ignore "common, everyday usage". In fact, their general position has been that misuse of ordinary language had actually caused many philosophical conundrums. (I'm not defending their position on this, but I do agree that ideal language philosophers were misguided in thinking that they could "fix" English by developing formal languages to solve philosophical conundrums.)

Asserting that we should limit the word "atheist" to only mean strong atheism (i.e., positive belief that gods don't exist rather than just a lack of belief) because that's how "common, everyday" usage dictates would be just as backwards as asserting that we should use the word "theory" to mean "guess" in a scientific discussion.

I am not defining "atheism" as synonymous with "strong atheism" and exclusive of "weak atheism". Neither of those terms is uncontroversial. Quite often, people who call themselves "weak atheists" still hold that gods do not exist, but they tend to stick to "burden of proof" arguments or just deny that they are extremely certain that gods do not exist. It all depends on what we decide "strong" and "weak" atheism are all about. The meaning that people tend to settle on is what strikes them as most useful to their communicative needs.

I agree that in common (and, if I may be so bold, uninformed) conversations "atheism" usually strictly means strong atheism. But this isn't a common forum for common conversations; it's a forum for philosophical discussion. The best way to define the term philosophically is as the state of being without belief in gods (as per its etymology: privative a- prefix for "without," theos for "divine/god," and -ism suffix for "belief in." a-theos-ism: without belief in gods).

Two points:

1. This is not a philosophy forum. Few of the participants have any training at all in philosophy.
2. How can you present a (somewhat misguided) morphological analysis of the word "atheism", treat that as what determines meaning, and not be committing an etymological fallacy?

We have discussed these issues before, but I am curious to see your response, because I think that you are more philosophically sophisticated than most people in this forum.

The common usage isn't exhaustive; there are cases that "slip through." So, I disagree that we should treat the word "atheism" as always the strong case (belief there are no gods). There are better ways to do it, and using the weak form as the default works best. I say who cares if common use is always strong -- in the same way I say who cares if common use of the word "theory" means "guess." Common use doesn't matter in rich conversation; the best use matters.

Bearing in mind that this is not a forum devoted to philosophy, but one in which everyone participates regardless of philosophical or linguistic expertise, what does the word "atheism" mean? There is what I regard as a "politically correct" version of the definition, but not everyone here shares it. I certainly do not. I think that the primary sense of the word that most dictionaries agree on is clear and easy to understand. It communicates what most people understand by the word. But here is what I would ask you. Why ought we to use a different meaning for the word. Who does it benefit, and what does it buy those who perceive a benefit? I see no reason at all to promote a meaning that has people puzzled as to whether to call babies "atheists". That strikes me as both absurd and counter-productive from the perspective of religious skeptics. It just muddies the waters in religious debates and makes those who advocate it look silly and doctrinaire.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Why do you post things that you know to be false? Do you think that it helps your argument? Just remove the words "absence of belief in gods, sometime accompanied by", and you have my definition. Otherwise, you have a bad definition that makes incorrect predictions about usage.

Your definition is faulty though, you have based it on specific definitions of atheism, some of which contradict each other. You have also based it on peoples definitions some of which also contradict each other. I gave you a literal and inclusive definition to use in post #1308 that would absolve much confusion and subsequently increase the quality of a debate or conversation that may concern itself with the definition of the term atheist. Your definition and your reasons for using that definition do not alleviate confusion, they simply assert that which is widely disregarded by those associating with atheism.

If your interests are not to increase the quality of conversation or debate regarding the definition of atheism then I can see no reason for your attempts to stick to your current definition, it seems nothing more than pointless argument from someone who does not want to give up their position. You can use the word by any one of the definitions you've found but it would not serve any useful purpose. My advice only applies to people who actually want to increase the quality of debate.

 

[Copernicus]

...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.

Not quite. An atheist is a person who holds the opinion that gods are non-existent beings. That is common English usage. I do not know what the majority of atheists believe, but a sizable number promote the definition that an atheist is any person who merely lacks belief in gods. I doubt that a majority of atheists believe that, but it is a popular definition in internet discussion forums.

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...

Nobody disputes that dictionaries have different word senses. This is really about whether the definition "absence of belief in gods" correctly predicts usage, even among those atheists who claim the definition.

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.

This is another popular argument, but it is really a type of genetic fallacy known as an "etymological fallacy". Word meanings and definitions are based on usage, not historical analysis or amateur linguistic analysis.

Obviously the definition that is more inclusive would be the superior definition as it allows for less confusion than trying to be more specific.

That just isn't true. Social convention--usage--is the only valid criterion for determining the meaning of words. Definitions are succinct statements about the meaning that are intended to help people understand word usage.

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.

Actually, usage is the only criterion upon which you can base word meanings. There is always variation in usage, and word meanings can shift around in discourse contexts, but there are commonly understood meanings that words have. If there were not, then we could not use language to communicate with each other. The "absence of belief" definition is not a good definition, because it leads people to make absurd statements--e.g. to claim that babies are really atheists because they have no concept of "god" to believe in . This is a counter-intuitive claim for most speakers (albeit not for the minority that assert the "absence" definition).

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.

I don't think any of us has the right to appoint ourselves the spokesman for all atheists, so please don't try to tell me what the majority of atheists believe. That is an empirical question, and you need data to determine it. What you seem to advocate here is that we just vote on what the best definition of a word should be rather than look at how people actually use the word. That is not how language works. People will use words the way they want, regardless of how much you may disagree with that usage.

If your interests are not to increase the quality of conversation or debate regarding the definition of atheism then I can see no reason for your attempts to stick to your current definition, it seems nothing more than pointless argument from someone who does not want to give up their position. You can use the word by any one of the definitions you've found but it would not serve any useful purpose. My advice only applies to people who actually want to increase the quality of debate.

I see. You are questioning my motives here. You disagree with a position that I have taken, so you conclude that I do not want to increase the quality of the debate. Sorry that I gave you that impression, but you have not actually contributed anything new here. You have made some points that others have made and ignored my responses to those points. I have repeated some of my argument here for your benefit, since I doubt that you've read much of the previous discussion.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Not quite. An atheist is a person who holds the opinion that gods are non-existent beings. That is common English usage. I do not know what the majority of atheists believe, but a sizable number promote the definition that an atheist is any person who merely lacks belief in gods. I doubt that a majority of atheists believe that, but it is a popular definition in internet discussion forums.

I have no reason to suspect otherwise, most of the atheists I converse with consider it to be the lack of belief and those that do not often take the stance of a strong atheist, not always knowingly but they are certainly identifiable as strong atheists as they insist that God's do not exist which is a common theme in strong atheism.

Nobody disputes that dictionaries have different word senses. This is really about whether the definition "absence of belief in gods" correctly predicts usage, even among those atheists who claim the definition.

The most general and subsequently acceptable definition would be 'without theism' which implies only a lack of belief in a God rather than a belief that God's do not exist. When we begin to specify we leave out individuals that do not insist that God's do not exist.

This is another popular argument, but it is really a type of genetic fallacy known as an "etymological fallacy". Word meanings and definitions are based on usage, not historical analysis or amateur linguistic analysis.

Indeed, what you've defined atheism as is more common than the literal definition, regardless, if you seek to increase the quality of debate over this topic a more inclusive definition would be the only reasonable conclusion.

That just isn't true. Social convention--usage--is the only valid criterion for determining the meaning of words.

Why?

Definitions are succinct statements about the meaning that are intended to help people understand word usage.

Indeed and if we opt for a common use that excludes many, if not the majority, we would not help people understand word usage. All it would do is increase confusion and ignorance. The more inclusive the definition the better the application.

Actually, usage is the only criterion upon which you can base word meanings. There is always variation in usage, and word meanings can shift around in discourse contexts, but there are commonly understood meanings that words have. If there were not, then we could not use language to communicate with each other. The "absence of belief" definition is not a good definition, because it leads people to make absurd statements--e.g. to claim that babies are really atheists because they have no concept of "god" to believe in . This is a counter-intuitive claim for most speakers (albeit not for the minority that assert the "absence" definition).

What makes you think babies are not atheists? Do you think babies are theists? There is a massive stigmatization on the word 'atheism' and I honestly don't know why. It is due to that stigmatization that the definition of atheism has led to ignorant claims of what atheists really believe concerning religion. If you opt for a less specific definition then you would be wrong about atheists less often. If you jump the gun and start saying to everybody who associates with atheism that, "you believe God's don't exist." Then you would simply look like a fool who assumes too much. This goes for everybody that makes massive generalizations and assumptions. If you want to avoid such an outcome, use the least specific definition so that you make the least assumptions.

I don't think any of us has the right to appoint ourselves the spokesman for all atheists, so please don't try to tell me what the majority of atheists believe.

I was merely speaking from my own experience, a vast majority of the atheists I know and have seen do not suggests that God's don't exist, as far as I'm aware the same is the case for you(I gathered this from what you've written, if I am wrong I apologize, feel free to correct me).

That is an empirical question, and you need data to determine it. What you seem to advocate here is that we just vote on what the best definition of a word should be rather than look at how people actually use the word.

Not at all, I am not suggesting we vote on it, I am suggesting we stick to the most general and inclusive definition to limit confusion. i thought I was pretty clear on that. The way that majority of people use the word may be in ignorance and I believe that it is, why should the way they use it be considered authoritative?

That is not how language works. People will use words the way they want, regardless of how much you may disagree with that usage.

I noticed and they are welcome to do so, I am merely warning you and others that such behavior will only seek to misrepresent a large group of individuals and in turn make themselves look foolish for basing their conclusion on assumptions. If you seek to encourage this behavior, you are welcome to do so however, I personally view it as counter productive to a functioning social system.

I see. You are questioning my motives here. You disagree with a position that I have taken, so you conclude that I do not want to increase the quality of the debate. Sorry that I gave you that impression, but you have not actually contributed anything new here. You have made some points that others have made and ignored my responses to those points. I have repeated some of my argument here for your benefit, since I doubt that you've read much of the previous discussion.

You are correct, i did not wade through 100 pages of posts when i joined this thread and I do not regret that decision. The reason I question your motives is because the definition you are suggesting should be used is not based on people's awareness of what atheists identify with or what they even believe regarding religion, the common definition is born out of ignorance and you seek to advocate such a definition. I did not suggest you did not want to increase the quality of debate, I suggested that you are ignoring a definition that would increase the quality of debate. I do not know what reason you ignored it for, I only know that it was ignored.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do you post things that you know to be false? Do you think that it helps your argument? Just remove the words "absence of belief in gods, sometime accompanied by", and you have my definition. Otherwise, you have a bad definition that makes incorrect predictions about usage.

I'm tired of trying to correct you. You've been proven wrong in several different ways. The best thing for you to do is accept it. Your definition of atheism is unfit for this discussion. Move on.

 

[Magic Man]

it seems nothing more than pointless argument from someone who does not want to give up their position.

Indeed. It can be hard to admit you're wrong after dozens of pages of arguing you're right. Copernicus told us from the beginning that we only support our definition to give us a better stance in some arguments. Clearly, it's not we who are clinging to a definition for a reason other than the fact that the definition is correct.

 

[Orias]

Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

Again, there is nothing about atheism that you can hold in your hand and study. It is a completely subjective and abstract peice of a work, that has been developed over thousands of years.


Surely, if atheism were not a belief, there wouldn't be atheists claiming that it is. So there seems to be some sophistacted dissention among the ranks of "atheists".


Some assert that "atheism" is not a belief because it is merely, "a lack of belief". Yet a certain dialect allows to me to consider their proposition that they themselves as atheists, believe in this to the utmost certainty. It is simply a belief in more than one aspect, as many atheists have beliefs about their "flavor" of "atheism".


When it comes down to the aesthetics of the matter, you would answer "No I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)". The strength of this presupposition is irrelevant to the propteries of your argument (which you really don't have one besides saying, "I don't speak gibberish, this doesn't make sense, you are wrong").

Simply because one is willing to "change" at the discovery of such an immaculate being, does not mean one does not already hold the belief that they do not exist. It is presumption, a declaration without any surmountable evidence. To declare oneself an "atheist" or a "theist" is a giant assumption, a state of belief. Both being positions of determination. If either positions were determined to be "true" or "false" then the world would conform to the "truth" (except for those that consider themselves apatheists of course).


It is not merely a belief of strength, rather one of doubt.

So in essence, atheism is a belief, because it is a position used to describe one "without "God(s)". A position that is highly subject to critisism and inconsistency, because there is no "evidence" to really support it's own declaration(besides prayers answered in silence of course ).

Don't act so stupid Kilgore, you are of great understanding, so let it be.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Surely, if atheism were not a belief, there wouldn't be atheists claiming that it is. So there seems to be some sophistacted dissention among the ranks of "atheists".

Indeed, for those atheists, the ones who hold the belief that god doesn't exist, atheism is a belief. For those of us who do not hold a belief either way, atheism isn't a belief. It's quite simple if you pay attentin.

Some assert that "atheism" is not a belief because it is merely, "a lack of belief".

Yeah, I'm not one of those. I don't lack a belief in god, I simply don't have one.

Yet a certain dialect allows to me to consider their proposition that they themselves as atheists, believe in this to the utmost certainty. It is simply a belief in more than one aspect, as many atheists have beliefs about their "flavor" of "atheism".

Okay, none of which makes atheism a belief.

When it comes down to the aesthetics of the matter, you would answer "No I do not believe in the existence of "God(s)".

Nope - knowing how easily confused people are, I answer I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god(s). Something I've said repeatedly that people won't seem to absorb. I try to keep my answers simple, yet accurate. The simple statement I don't believe in [the existence of] god(s), doesn't really state fully what my position is.

It is not merely a belief of strength, rather one of doubt.

So in essence, atheism is a belief, because it is a position used to describe one "without "God(s)". A position that is highly subject to critisism and inconsistency, because there is no "evidence" to really support it's own declaration(besides prayers answered in silence of course ).

The description of one "without god(s)" isn't a belief, it's a description/label.

Don't act so stupid Kilgore, you are of great understanding, so let it be.

Your refusal or inability to understand my reason doesn't make me stupid. By saying I'm acting stupid, you're either questioning my sincerity or my intelligence, and don't kid yourself that you're in a position to judge either one.

 

[Meow Mix]

You have stepped into the big philosophy cow pie of the 20th century Linguistic Philosophy. Ordinary Language Philosophy took the position that philosophers were wrong to ignore "common, everyday usage". In fact, their general position has been that misuse of ordinary language had actually caused many philosophical conundrums. (I'm not defending their position on this, but I do agree that ideal language philosophers were misguided in thinking that they could "fix" English by developing formal languages to solve philosophical conundrums.)

I am not defining "atheism" as synonymous with "strong atheism" and exclusive of "weak atheism". Neither of those terms is uncontroversial. Quite often, people who call themselves "weak atheists" still hold that gods do not exist, but they tend to stick to "burden of proof" arguments or just deny that they are extremely certain that gods do not exist. It all depends on what we decide "strong" and "weak" atheism are all about. The meaning that people tend to settle on is what strikes them as most useful to their communicative needs.

There is a problem in this schema, however. Due to the plethora of god concepts, all rational beings are strong atheist towards some gods, weak atheist towards others (both are forms of explicit atheism), and all beings (rational or not, so long as they're aware) are implicitely atheist towards the rest.

To describe this state of affairs exhaustively the common definitions can't suffice.

Two points:

1. This is not a philosophy forum. Few of the participants have any training at all in philosophy.
2. How can you present a (somewhat misguided) morphological analysis of the word "atheism", treat that as what determines meaning, and not be committing an etymological fallacy?

I disagree that this isn't a philosophical forum. The topic is, I would assume, uncontroversially philosophical regardless of the training of the speakers. I'd also call a forum about, say, evolution a "scientific forum" even if no one on the forum held a degree. My philosophy on the matter is that it isn't wise to bring a knife to a gunfight; and if someone really wants to participate they should learn the basics of the topic: which includes understanding some philosophy for theistic conversations and understanding some biology for evolution conversations respectively.

That's not to say that, say, on an evolution forum someone with a PhD in biology should throw their weight around over everyone's heads -- babbling in some arcane terms no one else understands, etc. Like any decent conversation, concepts should be explained where there is confusion; but that doesn't mean the terminology has to be bastardized.

We have discussed these issues before, but I am curious to see your response, because I think that you are more philosophically sophisticated than most people in this forum.

Bearing in mind that this is not a forum devoted to philosophy, but one in which everyone participates regardless of philosophical or linguistic expertise, what does the word "atheism" mean? There is what I regard as a "politically correct" version of the definition, but not everyone here shares it. I certainly do not. I think that the primary sense of the word that most dictionaries agree on is clear and easy to understand. It communicates what most people understand by the word. But here is what I would ask you. Why ought we to use a different meaning for the word. Who does it benefit, and what does it buy those who perceive a benefit? I see no reason at all to promote a meaning that has people puzzled as to whether to call babies "atheists". That strikes me as both absurd and counter-productive from the perspective of religious skeptics. It just muddies the waters in religious debates and makes those who advocate it look silly and doctrinaire.

I don't think it's silly or doctrinaire to use exhaustive definitions in preference to ones which aren't.

For instance, I definitely believe that it's not possible whatsoever for a Euclidean square-circle god to exist. Does that mean I'm a strong atheist? Should that bold and exclusive title be applied to me for that belief? Does the common use of the word "atheist" apply to me because I hold that belief, even if I otherwise do not deny the possibility of the existence of gods; and make no assumption that they strictly do not exist per se?

 

[atanu]

The most general and subsequently acceptable definition would be 'without theism' which implies only a lack of belief in a God rather than a belief that God's do not exist. When we begin to specify we leave out individuals that do not insist that God's do not exist.

'Lack of belief in a God' can develop based only on an idea/belief as to what God is.

 

[Copernicus]

I have no reason to suspect otherwise, most of the atheists I converse with consider it to be the lack of belief and those that do not often take the stance of a strong atheist, not always knowingly but they are certainly identifiable as strong atheists as they insist that God's do not exist which is a common theme in strong atheism.

People have different ideas about what "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" mean. To me, it appears that the difference has more to do with how they defend their rejection of belief in gods rather than presence or absence of belief. But I am more concerned with the meaning of "atheism" than in finer-grained terms like those.

The most general and subsequently acceptable definition would be 'without theism' which implies only a lack of belief in a God rather than a belief that God's do not exist. When we begin to specify we leave out individuals that do not insist that God's do not exist.

Bear in mind that all who reject belief in gods are 'without theism'. My point is that not everyone 'without theism' is properly labeled an "atheist". Your criterion for a valid definition seems to be that it include the greatest number of people, but isn't accuracy more important than inclusion? If babies are not really thought of as atheists, why apply that label to them? What does it buy you? (And please come up with something less circular than "because they lack theism". Mball has already employed that kind of logic for over 100 pages.)

Indeed, what you've defined atheism as is more common than the literal definition, regardless, if you seek to increase the quality of debate over this topic a more inclusive definition would be the only reasonable conclusion.

If you seek to increase the quality of the debate, then you will explain why a "more inclusive definition" is superior to one that accurately reflects usage. Why does that seem desirabele to you? Should we, for example, expand the definition of "planet" to include moons and stars? What would be the advantage of pushing a definition merely to make it a broader category? You would then need to invent a new term for "planet", just as you now seek to replace the common usage for "atheist" with "strong atheist".

Why?

Lexicographers base meanings on usage because people who buy dictionaries want to know how to use the words they look up. They don't want to be told that atheist refers to any human being who lacks a belief that gods exist, because that is not how English speakers normally use the word, although it is true that all atheists lack belief in gods. A more accurate definition would be "people who believe that gods do not exist". Definitions should be neither too broad nor too narrow.

Indeed and if we opt for a common use that excludes many, if not the majority, we would not help people understand word usage. All it would do is increase confusion and ignorance. The more inclusive the definition the better the application.

I agree with everything but your last statement. If your definition includes people that we do not normally associate with the label "atheist", then it is too broad. Do you understand my point? If you accept usage as the criterion for the accuracy of a definition, then you need to present evidence that we use the word the way your definition suggests. However, if you survey people on whether they would label a baby an "atheist", most English speakers seem to reject that on the grounds that babies have no concept of "god" to have a belief in.

What makes you think babies are not atheists? Do you think babies are theists?

I think that babies are not atheists for the same reason that I think they are not theists. They have no concept of "god" to accept or reject belief in. Older children of theists are theists for the simple reason that they tend to believe in what adults tell them to believe in. Santa Claus and God are both endorsed by people they trust.

There is a massive stigmatization on the word 'atheism' and I honestly don't know why. It is due to that stigmatization that the definition of atheism has led to ignorant claims of what atheists really believe concerning religion. If you opt for a less specific definition then you would be wrong about atheists less often. If you jump the gun and start saying to everybody who associates with atheism that, "you believe God's don't exist." Then you would simply look like a fool who assumes too much. This goes for everybody that makes massive generalizations and assumptions. If you want to avoid such an outcome, use the least specific definition so that you make the least assumptions.

Is this the motive for trying to change the common usage of the word "atheist"? Your point corroborates what I said earlier in the thread--that atheists promote the "absence of belief" definition because of a political agenda. Some folks got really angry when I said that. I would just respond to it by pointing out that the campaign to change the use of the word will not make the stigma go away. Euphemism is probably a more effective tactic--changing the label, not the meaning of the label. You see euphemism a lot, e.g. "gay" for "homosexual", "funeral director" for "undertaker", "bathroom" for "toilet". What you seem to want to do here is include people with whom there is no stigma in order to lessen the stigma on the class it describes. In that case, it makes sense to try to associate atheists with babies, even if the tactic is unlikely to work.

I was merely speaking from my own experience, a vast majority of the atheists I know and have seen do not suggests that God's don't exist, as far as I'm aware the same is the case for you(I gathered this from what you've written, if I am wrong I apologize, feel free to correct me).

As a linguist, I have learned to distrust my intuitions about such things. Sometimes a loud minority can sound like a majority (although that isn't necessarily the case here). That is why I started the "baby" survey here--to try to get a sense of the demographics for religion-debaters. On this board, it came out 50-50, and we do not know what percentage were self-styled atheists. On two other boards, the percentage is roughly 2-1 against the more inclusive definition. And both of those boards have a lower percentage of theists answering the survey. So I am far from convinced that the majority of atheists are comfortable with the "mere absence of belief" definition.

Not at all, I am not suggesting we vote on it, I am suggesting we stick to the most general and inclusive definition to limit confusion. i thought I was pretty clear on that. The way that majority of people use the word may be in ignorance and I believe that it is, why should the way they use it be considered authoritative?

Because that is how language works. Word meanings have to be conventionally agreed on in order for there to be communication. It increases confusion to use words differently from the way others use them, contrary to what you say here.

I noticed and they are welcome to do so, I am merely warning you and others that such behavior will only seek to misrepresent a large group of individuals and in turn make themselves look foolish for basing their conclusion on assumptions. If you seek to encourage this behavior, you are welcome to do so however, I personally view it as counter productive to a functioning social system.

I agree with your reasoning here, but not your perception of the status quo. Your logic applies to those who seek to use an artificial definition in order to carry out a political agenda. It makes atheists look foolish when they start calling babies, animals, and inamimate objects "atheists", and there is nothing wrong with denying belief in gods. You seem to have bought into the popular idea that atheists are stigmatized because denying belief in gods is somehow offensive, even though you think it shouldn't be. If it shouldn't be offensive, then that is what the message should be--not that we need to change the definition of "atheism" in order to dilute the stigma.

You are correct, i did not wade through 100 pages of posts when i joined this thread and I do not regret that decision. The reason I question your motives is because the definition you are suggesting should be used is not based on people's awareness of what atheists identify with or what they even believe regarding religion, the common definition is born out of ignorance and you seek to advocate such a definition...

You did not need to wade through all 100 pages. Many of the points I've made here were made since you joined the discussion, so you should have been somewhat up to speed. I do not question your motives, and it should only be common courtesy that you not question mine. You keep talking about what atheists believe as if you were somehow a better judge of that than me. Let's talk about what we believe and leave it an open question as to what our fellow atheists believe.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your point corroborates what I said earlier in the thread--that atheists promote the "absence of belief" definition because of a political agenda.

This opinion is what seems to keep you stuck in your position. However, the fact of the matter is that I, among others, use that definition because it accurately describes our position, and is an applicable definition of atheism. That's it. I have no political agenda regarding atheism, nor any emotional attachment to the word. Ignoring or dismissing this doesn't make it any less true.

I think you might be projecting a bit regarding an agenda associated with the label.

 

[Copernicus]

This opinion is what seems to keep you stuck in your position. However, the fact of the matter is that I, among others, use that definition because it accurately describes our position, and is an applicable definition of atheism. That's it. I have no political agenda regarding atheism, nor any emotional attachment to the word. Ignoring or dismissing this doesn't make it any less true.

I think you might be projecting a bit regarding an agenda associated with the label.

However, I was replying to filthy tugboat, and he was the one whose statements corroborated my opinion. I have speculated about this in the past, and you, among others, rejected that speculation, as you do again here. However, tugboat did seem to agree with the point that the value of broadening the class of people we call "atheists" would have a desirable social impact--to reduce the stigma that people associate with atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

There is a problem in this schema, however. Due to the plethora of god concepts, all rational beings are strong atheist towards some gods, weak atheist towards others (both are forms of explicit atheism), and all beings (rational or not, so long as they're aware) are implicitely atheist towards the rest.

This is a good point in a debate over whether one should believe in gods. It is not a good point in a debate over what a word means. The word "atheist" does not apply to theists who reject all other gods but their own. Telling theists that they are "atheists" is flaunting the use of the word in order to make the point that almost all theists engage in special pleading. (Of course, some will profess belief in all gods.) I refer you to Grice on the the subject of how such conversational implicatures work.

I disagree that this isn't a philosophical forum. The topic is, I would assume, uncontroversially philosophical regardless of the training of the speakers. I'd also call a forum about, say, evolution a "scientific forum" even if no one on the forum held a degree...

You can call the forum whatever you like, but you cannot treat people in it as if they understood technical language. In any case, the dispute over "atheism" is not really about technical language. Some participants are pretty open about the fact that the "absence of belief" definition does not reflect popular usage. There is no need to change the meaning of "atheism", which is quite clear. The usual purpose of creating technical terms is to eliminate vagueness and ambiguity. What people are arguing for here is to make the term vaguer than it already is. There is nothing wrong with the ordinary language use of "atheist".

My philosophy on the matter is that it isn't wise to bring a knife to a gunfight; and if someone really wants to participate they should learn the basics of the topic: which includes understanding some philosophy for theistic conversations and understanding some biology for evolution conversations respectively.

My philosophy is that it is counterproductive to turn rational debates into knife and gun fights. Violence works by suppressing the other side, not changing its thinking. This semantic debate over "atheist" does not really advance the discussion about what gods are and whether it is worth believing in them.

That's not to say that, say, on an evolution forum someone with a PhD in biology should throw their weight around over everyone's heads -- babbling in some arcane terms no one else understands, etc. Like any decent conversation, concepts should be explained where there is confusion; but that doesn't mean the terminology has to be bastardized.

I agree, but our disagreement seems to be that you consider the ordinary usage definition of "atheism" to be a case of "bastardization". I consider the "absence of belief" definition to be the real bastardization. A definition like "person who believes that gods do not exist" is not only accurate usage, it is precise enough to stand on its own as a technical term. It is distinct from the broader categories "non-theist" and "nonbeliever", both of which are perfectly good terms to describe people who lack belief in gods.

I don't think it's silly or doctrinaire to use exhaustive definitions in preference to ones which aren't.

It becomes doctrinaire when you start applying the label to people that most other speakers think it obviously does not apply to.

For instance, I definitely believe that it's not possible whatsoever for a Euclidean square-circle god to exist. Does that mean I'm a strong atheist? Should that bold and exclusive title be applied to me for that belief? Does the common use of the word "atheist" apply to me because I hold that belief, even if I otherwise do not deny the possibility of the existence of gods; and make no assumption that they strictly do not exist per se?

Absolutely not. I don't really follow the argument you are trying to make here. Do you think that my position in this matter would drive me to call you an atheist? BTW, atheists are not really people who deny the possibility of gods. They deny their plausibility.

 

[Willamena]

I agree, but our disagreement seems to be that you consider the ordinary usage definition of "atheism" to be a case of "bastardization". I consider the "absence of belief" definition to be the real bastardization. A definition like "person who believes that gods do not exist" is not only accurate usage, it is precise enough to stand on its own as a technical term. It is distinct from the broader categories "non-theist" and "nonbeliever", both of which are perfectly good terms to describe people who lack belief in gods.

It becomes doctrinaire when you start applying the label to people that most other speakers think it obviously does not apply to.

Well said. To me, rationalizing "non-theist" or "igtheist" to be "atheist" is just so much extra work. The terms work perfectly well on their own.