Atheism, part 3: Definitions

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm interested why you did selective quoting which erased the meaning of what I was saying.

Because there was too much there, I went to what you seem to have presented as your summation. Nothing more.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Because there was too much there, I went to what you seem to have presented as your summation. Nothing more.

I'll give you a B for effort.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll give you a B for effort.

Hey, I've never been an A+ scholar.

(Except once. I was assigned an essay by a Catholic Priest professor at York University in Toronto, to write about "what St. Paul understood salvation to be." As an atheist, this was a tough essay, but I used only the agreed-upon certain texts of Paul in the Bible, and wrote 6000 words. He gave me an A+, called it a "brilliant piece of exegesis" and wrote on the paper "you're going to Hell." I still have that paper. Quite proud of it, actually.}

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hey, I've never been an A+ scholar.

(Except once. I was assigned an essay by a Catholic Priest professor at York University in Toronto, to write about "what St. Paul understood salvation to be." As an atheist, this was a tough essay, but I used only the agreed-upon certain texts of Paul in the Bible, and wrote 6000 words. He gave me an A+, called it a "brilliant piece of exegesis" and wrote on the paper "you're going to Hell." I still have that paper. Quite proud of it, actually.}

Actually, what you said before was pretty good. It may help someone. Just if you were trying to point it out based on something I said, you quoted a chunk of a larger example I was using.

And congratulations on the paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

He gave me an A+, called it a "brilliant piece of exegesis" and wrote on the paper "you're going to Hell." I still have that paper. Quite proud of it, actually.}

Going to Hell, eh....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Going to Hell, eh....

You are a very strange man. You sure you're felling okay?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are a very strange man. You sure you're felling okay?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Careful now.

I might make you the subject of an "Atheism, part 5" thread!

Just kidding.

 

[Valjean]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.

What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.

So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.

In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...

Person A: "Atheists believe that..."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.

But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:

Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.

@PureX
@Nimos

Dictionary definitions of "atheism" are numerous, varied, and constantly changing. Keep in mind that ordinary dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and that word meanings change.

When specialists engage in serious discussion, they tend to use more prescriptive, technical definitions than casual speakers, to avoid confusion. I'm treating this thread as a serious discussion.

There are several "types" of atheist.
7 different types of non-believers

Different types have different defining characteristics, but all can be classed as atheists. They're distinguished by modifiers, like 'strong' or 'weak'.
So what is unmodified atheism? What is the single characteristic shared by all the various types?

The unique, shared, definitive characteristic is lack of belief. A lack of belief in god, gods or other deities is defining characteristic of atheism.

So: A, or B?
A religious atheist has some extra beliefs tacked on to her atheism, somewhere. These extraneous beliefs would make it a religion.
A plain, unadorned atheist is example B, which is what's currently understood, philosophically, as as atheism per se.

 

[Nakosis]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.

What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.

So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.

In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...

Person A: "Atheists believe that..."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.

But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:

Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.

@PureX
@Nimos

Atheism for me simply means I have chosen not to define God.
Now I also don't believe in the existence of anything supernatural, however these are almost separate lines of thought except were they can slightly overlap in the case where some would define their God with supernatural characteristics.

Also, atheism needn't be a religion but I have no problem with the idea that it could be.

 

[sun rise]

I have spoken.

Ex Cathedra, of course.

 

[Heyo]

Let's get a dictionary...a good one.
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com
It has 2 entries...
1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Think of these definitions as creating the
spectrum between...
Strong atheism - There are no gods!
Weak atheism - I don't believe in gods that might or might not exist (ie, agnosticism).

Stop right there. You were right about atheism/Atheism but be careful with agnosticism/Agnosticism. There is some overlap but it's not as simple as you make it.
I like to rephrase your weak/strong distinction to colloquial and philosophical atheism/agnosticism.
Strong Atheism or philosophical Atheism is a position, a claim about the world. Saying that there are no gods puts the burden of proof on the claimant. Colloquial atheism is just a statement about an inner state.
Same goes for agnosticism. Colloquial it is a statement about ones own knowledge instead of belief. It is possible to be agnostic and atheistic at the same time.
Philosophical Agnosticism is a position about the knowledge of the world. "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you.". It is much stronger than simple atheism and it comes with a burden of proof. Agnosticism and Atheism don't mix.
And if you insist on using strong/weak, note that there are weak and strong Agnostics. While the former states that nobody knows what a god is, the later states that nobody can know what a god is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist use that definition to strawman a theist, but I can see how that could plausibly happen.

"We're all an atheist, I just believe in one less god than you."

 

[RestlessSoul]

Who are you going to believe? The person who can't understand how anybody can be without religion, credulity and magic, and therefore tries to cast somebody else with no need of those things in his own image,

or the person who doesn't need them at all who simply says, "I don't need them?"

This is only rocket science to people who couldn't do rocket science with the backup of NASA.

I don't believe in God. That's not a religion. I don't collect stamps. That's not a hobby.

I’m going to be a little sceptical of a person who says “I don’t need spirituality, faith or religion”, then takes up semi permanent residence on something called “religious forums”.

Further, I personally doubt the capacity for original thought, of any human being who feels the need to define themselves by an “ism”.

 

[sayak83]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.

What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.

So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.

In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...

Person A: "Atheists believe that..."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.

But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:

Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.

@PureX
@Nimos

Since you are looking at atheism now, if you have access to any library then this may be a good resource to read
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/37199

 

[PureX]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.

What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.

So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.

In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...

Person A: "Atheists believe that..."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.

But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:

Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."

Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."

Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.

@PureX
@Nimos

Sadly, for some reason you seem to be completely overlooking the importance of logical reasoning in debate. The point of debate is to use logical reasoning to both clarify and substantiate your position. "Atheism is a lack of belief in gods" clarifies and substantiates nothing. Because it offers nothing. "Lack of belief" is nothing. It's meaningless in terms of logical debate. It's the equivalent of just saying "no". It's just empty, meaningless negation. And I can guarantee that it will immediately be followed up with a challenge to the other person in the debate to "prove it", whatever "it" happens to be in the debate. Because the whole point of this "unbelief" nonsense is to attack the other person's position without ever offering an alternative. And I see this scenario played out constantly and consistently on these threads.

Once one demands that we logically and reasonably define "belief" out of the debate (as it should be), and we then logically and reasonably demand that atheism actually MEAN SOMETHING by referring to a philosophical position, the debate is over. Because the atheist can't accept the logic of that reasoning, and cannot offer any logical reason why not. At that point they tend to just turn to personal attacks: like "PureX thinks he owns the words", or "the dictionary says otherwise", etc. But what you won't see is a reasoned rebuttal to the observed clarifications and elaborations posed regarding the terms. Because they have none.

They want to debate, but they can't, because they can't assert any position, or counter anyone else's position without exposing their own position, and they know they can't defend it. So all they can do is keep spewing this endless and dishonest nonsense about atheism being "unbelief".

The truth is that the atheist's position is that no gods exist unless and until someone proves otherwise to them. Which they have no intention of ever allowing to happen, because they will reject any and all evidence anyone offers them by defining it out of existence. It wasn't convincing. It wasn't "scientific". It wasn't testable. It was anecdotal. It was immaterial. And on and on and on. They place themselves in the position of being the decider of what constitutes evidence, and then they decide any evidence being offered isn't evidence.

Every aspect of this supposed "debate" (and I have witnessed and participated in many of them) is disingenuous. And it all begins with this nonsense about atheism being "unbelief". Atheists believe that no gods in any form exist. And they hold to this assertion because they believe that if any form of God/gods existed, they would see and grasp sufficient and convincing evidence of it. But unfortunately for them, they cannot defend this position, logically. They can;t even tell you what that evidence would look like. So they have to hide from it behind the "unbelief" nonsense, and keep the onus on theism, so as not to be called out.

 

[ChristineM]

@Snow White

I'm a bit late to this thread and no doubt without reading every post someone has already said

Atheiem is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Both by definition and etymology.

Nothing more, nothing less

Some people add to or change that definition to massage their own ego. All that does is say much about the one bastardising the word but nothing about atheism

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop right there. You were right about atheism/Atheism but be careful with agnosticism/Agnosticism. There is some overlap but it's not as simple as you make it.
I like to rephrase your weak/strong distinction to colloquial and philosophical atheism/agnosticism.
Strong Atheism or philosophical Atheism is a position, a claim about the world. Saying that there are no gods puts the burden of proof on the claimant. Colloquial atheism is just a statement about an inner state.
Same goes for agnosticism. Colloquial it is a statement about ones own knowledge instead of belief. It is possible to be agnostic and atheistic at the same time.
Philosophical Agnosticism is a position about the knowledge of the world. "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you.". It is much stronger than simple atheism and it comes with a burden of proof. Agnosticism and Atheism don't mix.
And if you insist on using strong/weak, note that there are weak and strong Agnostics. While the former states that nobody knows what a god is, the later states that nobody can know what a god is.

You're over-complicating things.
But this is RF, where needless & erroneous
complexity add to the conversation.
Atheism, as defined in Ameristanian
dictionaries wields a very broad umbrella.

 

[Heyo]

Sadly, for some reason you seem to be completely overlooking the importance of logical reasoning in debate. The point of debate is to use logical reasoning to both clarify and substantiate your position. "Atheism is a lack of belief in gods" clarifies and substantiates nothing. Because it offers nothing. "Lack of belief" is nothing. It's meaningless in terms of logical debate. It's the equivalent of just saying "no". It's just empty, meaningless negation. And I can guarantee that it will immediately be followed up with a challenge to the other person in the debate to "prove it", whatever "it" happens to be in the debate. Because the whole point of this "unbelief" nonsense is to attack the other person's position without ever offering an alternative. And I see this scenario played out constantly and consistently on these threads.

Once one demands that we logically and reasonably define "belief" out of the debate (as it should be), and we then logically and reasonably demand that atheism actually MEAN SOMETHING by referring to a philosophical position, the debate is over. Because the atheist can't accept the logic of that reasoning, and cannot offer any logical reason why not. At that point they tend to just turn to personal attacks: like "PureX thinks he owns the words", or "the dictionary says otherwise", etc. But what you won't see is a reasoned rebuttal to the observed clarifications and elaborations posed regarding the terms. Because they have none.

They want to debate, but they can't, because they can't assert any position, or counter anyone else's position without exposing their own position, and they know they can't defend it. So all they can do is keep spewing this endless and dishonest nonsense about atheism being "unbelief".

The truth is that the atheist's position is that no gods exist unless and until someone proves otherwise to them. Which they have no intention of ever allowing to happen, because they will reject any and all evidence anyone offers them by defining it out of existence. It wasn't convincing. It wasn't "scientific". It wasn't testable. It was anecdotal. It was immaterial. And on and on and on. They place themselves in the position of being the decider of what constitutes evidence, and then they decide any evidence being offered isn't evidence.

Every aspect of this supposed "debate" (and I have witnessed and participated in many of them) is disingenuous. And it all begins with this nonsense about atheism being "unbelief". Atheists believe that no gods in any form exist. And they hold to this assertion because they believe that if any form of God/gods existed, they would see and grasp sufficient and convincing evidence of it. But unfortunately for them, they cannot defend this position, logically. They can;t even tell you what that evidence would look like. So they have to hide from it behind the "unbelief" nonsense, and keep the onus on theism, so as not to be called out.

While I agree that atheism is not a position and that the believers are at a disadvantage, that doesn't allow you to change the definition. It also doesn't force the atheists to take a position. hey are well in their right to not believe you.

When I don't believe that you have candy in your van, I don't have to enter and I don't have to prove you haven't. And it is a good thing to teach that to children.

 

[PureX]

While I agree that atheism is not a position and that the believers are at a disadvantage, that doesn't allow you to change the definition. It also doesn't force the atheists to take a position. hey are well in their right to not believe you.

When I don't believe that you have candy in your van, I don't have to enter and I don't have to prove you haven't. And it is a good thing to teach that to children.

I didn't "change the definition" of atheism, I simply expressed the logical, reasonable definition of the term. One with actual philosophical content, and in keeping with how I have seen it expressed many times by atheists, themselves ... when they are't trying to pretend they're invisible.

If you object to my reasoning, feel free to rebut it with logical reasoning of your own. But be aware that "unbelief" is neither logical nor reasonable as it defines nothing, everyone, and no one.