The Ascent of Atheist sects/religions?

[Augustus]

And here, yet another example of somebody who refers to 'The Definition of Atheism'.

I wonder when people will realise that meaning derives from usage in context rather than dictionaries...

Quite a few here are a bit like fundamentalists who considers any deviation away from rank scriptural literalism to be blasphemy.

 

[oldbadger]

So food, sex, sport, crosswords, health, education, environment, mouse-training, chess, astronomy, sewing, just about anything you can think of is a 'religion'.

Nah, that use of 'religion' is just a vague metaphor. Try again, this time for the essential meaning.

Look, if you don't like my choice, offer one yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

I wonder when people will realise that meaning derives from usage in context rather than dictionaries...

Quite a few here are a bit like fundamentalists who considers any deviation away from rank scriptural literalism to be blasphemy.

I agree with the above.
The definition of 'Atheist' has moved over 2000 years. Why should it not move some more?

Atheists can be so extreme that they seem to bristle with fundamentalism.

 

[Augustus]

The definition of 'Atheist' has moved over 2000 years. Why should it not move some more?

The generic definition doesn't even need to move, as words are far more flexible than that anyway.

People get too tied up with dictionary definitions at the expense of usages, as if words lead monadic existences isolated from any broader context. Usage may be figurative or contextual, for example you could contrast the atheism of Dawkins with that of Nietzsche.

Here you are going beyond the dictionary definition and including the aspects of their worldviews that are built around attitudes towards god and religion, but it makes perfect sense in context. Unfortunately, you'll still get some pedant who likes to pretend they can't understand this as it doesn't conform with dictionary literalism, like those who pretend they have absolutely no idea what New Atheism is simply because it's not literally a new form of atheism.

 

[blü 2]

Look, if you don't like my choice, offer one yourself.

Here are some primary entries from nearby dictionaries:

"Belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny"

Is that atheism? Nope.

"Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power."

Is that atheism? Nope.

"The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

Is that atheism? Nope.

So I fear you're not winning.

 

[oldbadger]

The generic definition doesn't even need to move, as words are far more flexible than that anyway.

People get too tied up with dictionary definitions at the expense of usages, as if words lead monadic existences isolated from any broader context. Usage may be figurative or contextual, for example you could contrast the atheism of Dawkins with that of Nietzsche.

Here you are going beyond the dictionary definition and including the aspects of their worldviews that are built around attitudes towards god and religion, but it makes perfect sense in context. Unfortunately, you'll still get some pedant who likes to pretend they can't understand this as it doesn't conform with dictionary literalism, like those who pretend they have absolutely no idea what New Atheism is simply because it's not literally a new form of atheism.

Most clearly and brilliantly explained, and thank you very much.

Atheist cliques and clubs seem to be blooming, and as you have explained, they seem to have their own individual creeds.

Blimey! Think of that, they even have their creeds.

 

[oldbadger]

Here are some primary entries from nearby dictionaries:

"Belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny"

Is that atheism? Nope.

"Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power."

Is that atheism? Nope.

"The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

Is that atheism? Nope.

So I fear you're not winning.

Thank you for the time spent on those.
But I'm not losing, blu, because the first two do not fit with Deism, and while the third might fit, it could also fit for some atheists.

You may not have read Augustus's brilliant post about definitions and human tendencies to cling to these temporary descriptions and their own beliefs, making these a kind of creed for atheist to cling to.

A creed, even.

The logic of my claim, that I cannot be a Theistic if I do not believe in Theism, ergo an atheist, is fairly strong

 

[blü 2]

Thank you for the time spent on those.
But I'm not losing, blu, because the first two do not fit with Deism, and while the third might fit, it could also fit for some atheists.

Some atheists even believe in an afterlife, I'm told. So what? You're looking for a definition of 'religion' that applies to all atheists, and the best you've offered so far is so broad, vague and metaphorical I could probably make it fit to cactuses with a moment's thought.

So I'm not the one making the claim, and so I'm not the one not succeeding with it.

The logic of my claim, that I cannot be a Theistic if I do not believe in Theism, ergo an atheist, is fairly strong

How can a disbelieve in the existence, the reality, of something, be a belief in the existence, the reality of something?

If I don't believe real unicorns exist, your argument says that means I must believe real unicorns exist. And that's a really BIG non sequitur.