Atheism is not a default position

[Copernicus]

... You aren't seriously suggesting that we should drop a definition accurately describing every atheist on the planet just because some people can't handle that the definition happens to implicitly include infants? I would suggest that these people seek therapy instead.

Artie, your defensive shields are in place and working perfectly. Although I like to think of myself as usually having patience, I have little patience for ad nauseam exchanges and doctrinaire prescriptions on how we ought to use words. The only question of interest to people who actually define words is whether the definition accurately describes general usage patterns. When I suggest that the definition is bad, you don't bother to say why you think it is good. Instead, you simply repeat your preferred definition as if it had never been challenged in the first place, or you go into the "weak atheist" vs "strong atheist" sidetrack, which is off point. I don't actually care whether atheists call babies "atheists" and insist on a disputed definition as the basis for that claim. I care about whether English speakers generally think that a reasonable thing to say. AFAICT, they do not. Not even all atheists agree that it is reasonable, although I would concede that the majority here probably do. Unless you actually have something new to say, or unless you show evidence of addressing the substance of my argument, I see no point to continuing this discussion with you.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie, your defensive shields are in place and working perfectly. Although I like to think of myself as usually having patience, I have little patience for ad nauseam exchanges and doctrinaire prescriptions on how we ought to use words. The only question of interest to people who actually define words is whether the definition accurately describes general usage patterns. When I suggest that the definition is bad, you don't bother to say why you think it is good. Instead, you simply repeat your preferred definition as if it had never been challenged in the first place, or you go into the "weak atheist" vs "strong atheist" sidetrack, which is off point. I don't actually care whether atheists call babies "atheists" and insist on a disputed definition as the basis for that claim. I care about whether English speakers generally think that a reasonable thing to say. AFAICT, they do not. Not even all atheists agree that it is reasonable, although I would concede that the majority here probably do. Unless you actually have something new to say, or unless you show evidence of addressing the substance of my argument, I see no point to continuing this discussion with you.

OK.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A person who disbelieves in deities is without belief in deities. The person who disloves books is a person without love for books.

It's the opposite of, without, none, whatever both of us put as links; they say the same exact thing. Grammar doesn't change because of how we (as individuals) want to define a simple term that doesn't need our adjectives--such as weak and strong--to define it. If that be the case, there is no such thing as deity because everyone would have their own definition.

So, I my point again is:

Someone who believes in deities is a theist.
Someone who disbelieves in deities is an atheist.
Someone who is against deities is an antitheist

It's not fansy language.

Here. I'll put this in my view:

I am atheist.

I define an atheist by "someone who 'disbelieves' in the existence of deities"

I go by this definition if someone asks because my views match this definition.

In my view, there is no denying, no rejection, not even thought to "what if" a deity exists. If I had not known the internet, that wouldn't even part of my reality growing up and it is not now.

My friend believes in deities. She is a theist. I disbelieve in deities I am an atheist. I am a direct opposite of her belief regardles if she is strong, weak, how many deities, how she defines them, whatever.

I am an atheist regardless of how I define the deity I don't believe exists, how it looks, what it does, (this is kinda silly me typing this sentence actually). Anyway, I am complete opposite of what she believes and millions of others who believes in deities of some fashion or form.

My question is: Do you understand? Not do you agree.

Not at all. The prefix a- literally means "not, without" as described here. https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm
The opposite of loving books isn't not loving books but hating books. The opposite of being on one side of the room isn't not being on that side of the room but being on the opposite side of the room. Obviously.The opposite of a person loving books is a person hating books...No it isn't. The opposite of believing god(s) exist (theists) is believing god(s) don't exist. (Strong atheists.)
"Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.[1][2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

Technicals:

Without- is an opposite of with. Same definition. Both links are correct. They are opposite of what the noun is implying.

My bookworm example. Do you get my point? Hate is the best word for it; but, I used "don't love" books for a reason. When someone hates something, odviously they don't love it.

AND

My point: There are some people who don't love book but don't hate them either.

Hence the differences we use the terms: a- and anti- respectively

Example: I am an a-theist because I disbelieve in deities. I do not hate deities that do not exist. Your reasoning based on my italic sentence reads off.

Also, take off the adjectives: weak and strong. I am just talking about the word atheist and theist only.

Before we get to the details of weak and strong atheist, let's get over the fact that atheist dont believe in Gods and theist do. Once we get through that, we can go through the types of theist and atheists there are.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi, Carlita. Your argument would seem to be valid, but it is actually a type of genetic fallacy called an etymological fallacy. That is, you are arguing that we ought to use a word in a certain way because of the way the word is structured--in this case, with a negative prefix--and its etymological origin.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on what an etymological fallacy is:

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology. This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. Notable examples include the terms antisemitism and philosemitism, which were coined to refer to Jews specifically, rather than to Semites in general.​

From a purely linguistic perspective, the "a-" prefix in "atheism" is not actually as productive as you think. In modern English, we tend to use it productively to form adjectives, not nouns. The word originally came into English from French, although its origin was ultimately Greek. When it came into use, it was used to refer to people who rejected belief in the Christian concept of God. In modern usage, it refers to anyone who generally rejects or denies belief in gods, although the dispute in this thread is over whether it can refer to anyone who, for whatever reason, lacks a belief in gods. That includes people who do not even have a concept of what a god is. Anyway, the basis for any definition is always going to be in how people actually use the word, not necessarily how the word is structurally composed or what its meaning was when people historically started using it.

Eh. That's how I see it. We got different definitions of the word atheist, and true, words are changing from its original meaning daily. It's easier to go off of what a theist is and when we attach the a- it just means the opposite.

Unless atheist are implying their lack of belief has nothing to do with a theist belief because their definition of the word is not "disbelieve in deities" anymore but something completely different?

If that be thecase, are they really atheist and from what foundation do they even define their lack of belief if they tell me there are more than one definition of the fact that some people disbelieve in God?

 

[ArtieE]

So, I my point again is:

Someone who believes in deities is a theist.

Correct.

Someone who disbelieves in deities is an atheist.

Weak atheist.

Someone who is against deities is an antitheist

Correct. You just forgot
Someone who believes deities don't exist is a strong atheist.

I am atheist.

I define an atheist by "someone who 'disbelieves' in the existence of deities"

Correct.

I go by this definition if someone asks because my views match this definition.

My friend believes in deities. She is a theist. I disbelieve in deities I am an atheist. I am a direct opposite of her belief regardles if she is strong, weak, how many deities, how she defines them, whatever.

I am an atheist regardless of how I define the deity I don't believe exists, how it looks, what it does, (this is kinda silly me typing this sentence actually). Anyway, I am complete opposite of what she believes and millions of others who believes in deities of some fashion or form.

My question is: Do you understand? Not do you agree.

No.
1. Just don't you believe deities exist (weak atheist) or
2. Do you also actively believe deities don't exist? (strong atheist)
Are you 1 or 2?

My bookworm example. Do you get my point? Hate is the best word for it; but, I used "don't love" books for a reason. When someone hates something, odviously they don't love it.

You can
Love a book (have a belief) (theism)
Hate a book (have the opposite belief) (strong atheism)
Neither (have neither beliefs) (weak atheism)

My point: There are some people who don't love book but don't hate them either.

The equivalent to weak atheists.

Hence the differences we use the terms: a- and anti- respectively.

Example: I am an a-theist because I disbelieve in deities. I do not hate deities that do not exist. Your reasoning based on my italic sentence reads off.

Also, take off the adjectives: weak and strong. I am just talking about the word atheist and theist only.

Before we get to the details of weak and strong atheist, let's get over the fact that atheist dont believe in Gods and theist do. Once we get through that, we can go through the types of theist and atheists there are.

Sure.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Correct.Weak atheist.Correct. You just forgot
Someone who believes deities don't exist is a strong atheist.Correct.
No.
1. Just don't you believe deities exist (weak atheist) or
2. Do you also actively believe deities don't exist? (strong atheist)
Are you 1 or 2?You can
Love a book (have a belief) (theism)
Hate a book (have the opposite belief) (strong atheism)
Neither (have neither beliefs) (weak atheism)The equivalent to weak atheists.Sure.

Why are you adding weak and strong?

I am just talking about the foundation of the word, atheism. Whether one is weak or strong is not my point.

 

[ArtieE]

Why are you adding weak and strong?

I am just talking about the foundation of the word, atheism. Whether one is weak or strong is not my point.

It helps me understand what kind of atheist you are. Can't you just answer if you

1. Just don't believe deities exist (weak atheist) or
2. Also actively believe deities don't exist? (strong atheist)

so I know what kind of atheist you are for further reference?

 

[outhouse]

Weak atheist.

Weak or strong, its only a vague weak reference to part of he definition that also lies within implicit and explicit atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Weak or strong, its only a vague weak reference to part of he definition that also lies within implicit and explicit atheism.

You have to start somewhere...

 

[Copernicus]

Eh. That's how I see it. We got different definitions of the word atheist, and true, words are changing from its original meaning daily. It's easier to go off of what a theist is and when we attach the a- it just means the opposite.

My criticism was not that your conclusion was incorrect, but that your argument in support of the conclusion was incorrect. To be specific, it was an argument form known as an etymological fallacy. Conventional usage determines what words mean, not necessarily the composition and historical pedigree. The reason that such arguments are invalid is that word meanings can change. That doesn't mean that etymology has nothing to do with what words mean, but it does mean that you need to base your argument for meaning on how people actually use the word, not how we think they ought to use it.

Unless atheist are implying their lack of belief has nothing to do with a theist belief because their definition of the word is not "disbelieve in deities" anymore but something completely different?

There are many atheists who argue exactly that, and they are not wrong because of the structure of the word. (The linguistic study of word structure is called morphology.) They are wrong, IMO, because their preferred definition of "atheism" is too broad. And, to be fair, many dictionaries use that same overly-broad wording to define the word--"lack of belief in gods". From that definition, one could conclude that we ought to be calling babies, who have no "god" concept, atheists. The reality is that most people, outside of these very polemical discussions about how to define "atheism", do not call babies "atheists". My contention is that a better definition of "atheism" is "denial of belief in gods", which is something that babies are not equipped to do.

If that be the case, are they really atheist and from what foundation do they even define their lack of belief if they tell me there are more than one definition of the fact that some people disbelieve in God?

Well, that is actually what this thread is about, and there are a lot of different opinions on the subject. Among atheists, the idea that the burden of proof lies with theists--that theists must provide some good evidence to support belief in gods--seems to lie at the heart of the matter. Their position is made stronger, if they can maintain that atheism is somehow the "default" condition that every human being starts out with. If you can't supply a good reason to believe in a god, then you should revert to the default condition. However, that is just my take on why this is such an issue for atheist debaters. Others may, and quite often do, disagree with me on such matters. In my view, the "default" position on gods is simply ignorance of what they are. Once you know, you can weigh the merits of claims about whether they exist. Atheists have weighed the merits and concluded that they don't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It helps me understand what kind of atheist you are. Can't you just answer if you

1. Just don't believe deities exist (weak atheist) or
2. Also actively believe deities don't exist? (strong atheist)

so I know what kind of atheist you are for further reference?

I am an strong atheist. I know, thus do not believe, dieties exist.

Like many other topics, I stay from my personal beliefs since some atheist say they are because of their experience with the abrahamic god. Some are athiest and say they are polytheist but define polythiesm deity-symbols rather than entities as hard polytheist believe.

So the general belief without looking at our beliefs is that theism is belief in god/s and atheist is without (if you like) belief in gods. Weak or strong doesnt play a tole in the difference in terms based on belief in god/s.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you. I understand.

That doesn't mean that etymology has nothing to do with what words mean, but it does mean that you need to base your argument for meaning on how people actually use the word, not how we think they ought to use it.

I get kind of irritated when one word is used for millions of definitions. Like the word christian. Is it "relationship with the Church", "relationship with Christ" or "relationship with Jehovah through Christ" or do we prefer to use hebrew over latin...does that make its meaning or sacredness better?

At least with christianity, we have blocks to play with. Atheism, outside of my definition, as you say is broad. I quite agree with your opinion.

My contention is that a better definition of "atheism" is "denial of belief in gods", which is something that babies are not equipped to do.

Hmm. That would fit the majority of self identified atheist. How about those who cant deny something that doesnt exist to begin with? Maybe "deny the concept of a deity"?

 

[ArtieE]

Hmm. That would fit the majority of self identified atheist.

Carlita, Copernicus said and I quote: "My contention is that a better definition of "atheism" is "denial of belief in gods", which is something that babies are not equipped to do." This is not a definition of atheism at all. No atheists deny there's a belief in gods. Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Here are some interesting facts...

As I understand it Copernicus wants to base the definition of atheist on usage not what most atheists define themselves as.

Copernicus lives in the US.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

The Christian definition of atheist is: "Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."

 

[Curious George]

Here are some interesting facts...

As I understand it Copernicus wants to base the definition of atheist on usage not what most atheists define themselves as.

Copernicus lives in the US.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

The Christian definition of atheist is: "Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."

http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/meyers/controversial-wikipedia-corpus/english-html/main/main_0068.html

No, that is a non sequitur. Just because there are more English speaking xtians does not mean they will define atheism that way.

Whether to define atheism positively or negatively is an ongoing discussion. Copernicus wants to engage you in that discussion, that is all.

He/she has made it very clear that he/she would like to know why you favor the negative definition.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, Copernicus said and I quote: "My contention is that a better definition of "atheism" is "denial of belief in gods", which is something that babies are not equipped to do." This is not a definition of atheism at all. No atheists deny there's a belief in gods. Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.

What are you trying to say? You quoted a portion of my post; so I have no context of what you're point is. I dont care for indirect point/quotations.

My point is atheist do not believe in God. Theist do.

How we define atheist (weak, strong, tall, fat, chubby, whatever) is not my point.

What are you saying?

and yes, I made many points; but, that's beside the point.

 

[Curious George]

Here are some interesting facts...

As I understand it Copernicus wants to base the definition of atheist on usage not what most atheists define themselves as.

Copernicus lives in the US.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

The Christian definition of atheist is: "Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."

How about drange's definition:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The distinction between negative and positive claims doesn't really hold. Every negative claim is a positive claim, and vice versa. Every negative claim implies a positive way of looking at the evidence and of forming an alternative conclusion. Such games are not enough to establish that atheism is any sort of logically default position.

 

[Curious George]

The distinction between negative and positive claims doesn't really hold. Every negative claim is a positive claim, and vice versa. Every negative claim implies a positive way of looking at the evidence and of forming an alternative conclusion. Such games are not enough to establish that atheism is any sort of logically default position.

Excepting the case where a negative claim is true because of an entity's inability to make a positive claim. Hence the discussion of babies rocks etc.

 

[Sees]

Animistic, pantheistic, agnostic, wondrous atheism is the default/natural/starting position, of course.

Case closed.