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?
Indeed and if the definition were accurate then in this case it would be more inclusive. If we assume atheist to be the definition you advocate then it would misrepresent many who associate with atheism, that wouldn't be accurate.
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.)
It doesn't buy me anything, it just so happens that the most accurate and inclusive definition of atheism would happen to include babies.
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?
In this case accuracy is directly related to inclusion. If we want a definition that is accurate then we would need a definition that covers as many definitions of atheism as possible because that way it accurately describes the most atheists.
Should we, for example, expand the definition of "planet" to include moons and stars?
No, why would inclusion in this matter increase accuracy and decrease inclusion?
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".
The advantage would be to increase the accuracy of the term and decrease confusion.
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.
Indeed, the definition I am advocating is the truthful one that accurately describes more atheists than the definition you advocate.
A more accurate definition would be "people who believe that gods do not exist".
How is your definition more accurate, from what I can tell you are basing accuracy on how people use the word rather than how accurately the definition describes something. Why?
Definitions should be neither too broad nor too narrow.
Indeed and the limits for broad and narrow should be determined by the accuracy of the terms. From what I understand the definition you are using is not as accurate as the definition I use. The broad and narrow comments should fit around the optimum accuracy.
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.
I don't see why you feel the majority of people should determine the definition. It is not the most accurate definition as it misrepresents many that associate with the term atheist.
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.
I do not accept usage as the criterion for the accuracy of a definition.
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.
Indeed, assuming your definition babies would not be atheists.
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.
This is not the motive, no.
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.
That is not what i am trying to do, what i am trying to do is present a more accurate definition.
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.
It doesn't matter what the majority of atheists are interested in, the fact is the definition you are trying to present misrepresents many, the definition I am trying to present misrepresents none.
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.
If we use a definition that makes assumptions then we would create more confusion than using a definition that although is different to the more widely used definition still includes that definition. What I'm proposing doesn't completely throw out the notion of your definition, it just removes assumptions that shouldn't be there in the first place.
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.
Not at all, you proposed this point as a question earlier and now you have assumed the answer to that question.
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.
We aren't changing it, there is no established definition, there are many and this one is far more accurate than any other I've come across. The fact that the definition includes all of that does not add foolishness to it because in the same sense that babies and inanimate objects are not theists, they also don't collect stamps, there are many terms and statements that can be used for living organisms that also apply to inanimate objects, it doesn't take away from their meaning, it is just a byproduct of an accurate 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.
I don't mean to portray that i am speaking of all atheists and in the quote you wrote this from I don't think i portrayed that at all, I know that I and many I know do not associate with the definition you are proposing.
