The default position...

[leibowde84]

Not a single definition provided by anyone has the requirement of people in regards to atheism. This is why my argument from reductio ad absurdum shows such a definition to be fallacious.



Nope, every argument for atheism has been on the grounds of rejection of theism and it's claims or based on naturalism in philosophy. The first atheist used naturalism as part of his argument. You are spouting counter-apologetics in which people attempt to avoid their burden of proof thus justification for their stance.

Nope. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. Atheist is what I said referred to people, not atheism. I agree that atheism started with those who explicitly rejected God's existence, but since when does the initial meaning of a term ages old determine it's meaning for the rest of time. Just not reasonable. Many atheists merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Not a single definition provided by anyone has the requirement of people in regards to atheism. This is why my argument from reductio ad absurdum shows such a definition to be fallacious.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nope, every argument for atheism has been on the grounds of rejection of theism and it's claims or based on naturalism in philosophy. The first atheist used naturalism as part of his argument. You are spouting counter-apologetics in which people attempt to avoid their burden of proof thus justification for their stance.

 

[Shad]

Nope. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. Atheist is what I said referred to people, not atheism. I agree that atheism started with those who explicitly rejected God's existence, but since when does the initial meaning of a term ages old determine it's meaning for the rest of time. Just not reasonable. Many atheists merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Which is still wrong as per my argument. It is counter-apologetics, nothing more. We are talking about a philosophical term, your dictionaries are meaningless given centuries of arguments for atheism which is based on the rejection of theism not the absences of it. Atheist can still apply to rocks since the definition provided by you does not includes a single parameter of requiring personhood.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Which is still wrong as per my argument. It is counter-apologetics, nothing more. We are talking about a philosophical term, your dictionaries are meaningless given centuries of arguments for atheism which is based on the rejection of theism not the absences of it.

Simply because something is one thing does not mean it cannot be another.
So what if most atheists were those who rejected God(s)? It certainly wasn't all of them.
Philosophical terms are just as subject to change with the times as mainstream definitions.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the issue lies with both the term "atheist" and it's suffix, "-ist" usually refer only to people. Your logic is fine, but I think "atheistic" would be a better word choice.

Perhaps you can explain this a little bit to me.

-ist applies to person, and it means "belief", correct? So a-the-ist means not-person-with-belief-in-God? Why would it break up the "person" and "belief" part in -ism so "a-" only applies to the belief, but not theos (God) or the "person" part of -ism?

Put it this way, A-The-Ism = Not-God-Person-Belief. And that's supposed to translate to Person-with-not-belief-in-God. Why not Not-Person-Belief-in-God?

 

[Shad]

Simply because something is one thing does not mean it cannot be another.
So what if most atheists were those who rejected God(s)? It certainly wasn't all of them.
Philosophical terms are just as subject to change with the times as mainstream definitions.

The issue is that the philosophical term has not changed only the mainstream term has. Your point is moot. It is also arguing for a redefinition of a term to the opposite it has always been based on nothing besides that non-philosophers want to change the definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

The issue is that the philosophical term has not changed only the mainstream term has. Your point is moot. It is also arguing for a redefinition of a term to the opposite it has always been based on nothing besides that non-philosophers want to change the definition.

Perhaps agnostics should start the same campaign. Agnosticism meaning "not belief in knowledge". Babies don't have belief in knowledge either, so they're really agnostics. They're also anarchists, not-belief-in-ruler.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The issue is that the philosophical term has not changed only the mainstream term has. Your point is moot. It is also arguing for a redefinition of a term to the opposite it has always been based on nothing besides that non-philosophers want to change the definition.

Hm, well mainstream definitions are granted as the most accurate way to define a word in use.
So I wonder why, if what you say is true, the creators of the definition for "Atheism" worded it such away.

I don't know if you are a pro in such a field, but I most certainly am not.
I recognize my lack of knowledge on the reason definitions are worded the way they are.
However, I do trust the professionals in such a field, and such definitions were indeed worded by such people.

Similar to how one might trust a doctor or nurse with their health symptoms instead of google.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hm, well mainstream definitions are granted as the most accurate way to define a word in use.
So I wonder why, if what you say is true, the creators of the definition for "Atheism" worded it such away.

The word originated from Greek a-theos, meaning "without gods". Nothing more than that. It doesn't suggest belief in one way or another. There were even some philosophers who believe that gods might exist, but they were unimportant, and life should be lived as they didn't exist. In other words, it had nothing to do with belief if gods existed, but merely about how you treated or viewed the gods (regardless of their existence). Socrates was accused of atheos. Christians as well. What they did was more of rejection of the gods, not just unbelief.

Later, the French added the -isme part, to form action, state, condition, or doctrine of something. Basically, atheos then became something more, not just a rejection of the gods, but a state of thinking, believing, having a doctrine, a philosophy behind it. Basically, it was "the doctrine of not belief in gods."

Most atheists in history were not just some quiet kids sitting in the corner totally ignorant about anything, but grown up, rather outspoken, well educated, well informed people who had good reasons to not to believe. It was "do not believe" based on what they could understand, not "do not believe" because they had no clue.

This is what I've learned at least.

 

[Shad]

Hm, well mainstream definitions are granted as the most accurate way to define a word in use.
So I wonder why, if what you say is true, the creators of the definition for "Atheism" worded it such away.

Mainstream definitions are simplification of terminology for the masses since they are ignorant of the technical terms. this is a language game since the masses lack an education in the topic experts are attempting to communicate to the masses. To confuse the dumbed-down language with the technical language is a mistake.

I don't know if you are a pro in such a field, but I most certainly am not.
I recognize my lack of knowledge on the reason definitions are worded the way they are.
However, I do trust the professionals in such a field, and such definitions were indeed worded by such people.

Which is why I point of every argument for atheism is based on rejection of theism and/or proposing naturalism as an alternative.

Similar to how one might trust a doctor or nurse with their health symptoms instead of google.

Again the mainstream definition is not the technical one. For example a doctor tells tells a patient they have cancer. They are avoid the technical terminology, along with it's baggage, for the sake of communication. This does not mean the reduced language is the technical language used by professional within their collection of peers. This is the difference between say an introduction course in philosophy in which people are taught technical terms in a common language while jumping in a MA/PhD program in which the technical language is the only one used. One set expects the audience to be ignorant of the technical language while the other expects the audience to understand it fully.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The word originated from Greek a-theos, meaning "without gods". Nothing more than that. It doesn't suggest belief in one way or another. There were even some philosophers who believe that gods might exist, but they were unimportant, and life should be lived as they didn't exist. In other words, it had nothing to do with belief if gods existed, but merely about how you treated or viewed the gods (regardless of their existence). Socrates was accused of atheos. Christians as well. What they did was more of rejection of the gods, not just unbelief.

Later, the French added the -isme part, to form action, state, condition, or doctrine of something. Basically, atheos then became something more, not just a rejection of the gods, but a state of thinking, believing, having a doctrine, a philosophy behind it. Basically, it was "the doctrine of not belief in gods."

Most atheists in history were not just some quiet kids sitting in the corner totally ignorant about anything, but grown up, rather outspoken, well educated, well informed people who had good reasons to not to believe. It was "do not believe" based on what they could understand, not "do not believe" because they had no clue.

This is what I've learned at least.

And I have seen similar (If not only the same) information, however none of it has ever justified "lack" being taken out of the definition.

To lack is to be without.
To be an atheist you are to be without a God belief.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Mainstream definitions are simplification of terminology for the masses since they are ignorant of the technical terms. this is a language game since the masses lack an education in the topic experts are attempting to communicate to the masses. To confuse the dumbed-down language with the technical language is a mistake.



Which is why I point of every argument for atheism is based on rejection of theism and/or naturalism



Again the mainstream definition is not the technical one. For example a doctor tells tells a patient they have cancer. They are avoid the technical terminology, along with it's baggage, for the sake of communication. This does not mean the reduced language is the technical language used by professional within their collection of peers. This is the difference between say an introduction course in philosophy in which people are taught technical terms in a common language with jumping in a MA/PhD program in which the technical language is the only one used. One set expects the audience to be ignorant of the technical language while the other expects the audience to understand it fully.

I am quite aware of how mainstream definitions are worded for the masses, but that changes very little.
Even if you were to use technical terms the definition has the same meaning.

Unless you can provide valid definitions without that meaning, that is.
Do present to me a popular definition of atheism that is created professionally and doesn't imply lack of belief.

 

[Shad]

I am quite aware of how mainstream definitions are worded for the masses, but that changes very little.
Even if you were to use technical terms the definition has the same meaning.

Nope since the technical term is rejection of theism.

Unless you can provide valid definitions without that meaning, that is.
Do present to me a popular definition of atheism that is created professionally and doesn't imply lack of belief.

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion » Arguments for Atheism
Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Willamena]

Nope. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. Atheist is what I said referred to people, not atheism. I agree that atheism started with those who explicitly rejected God's existence, but since when does the initial meaning of a term ages old determine it's meaning for the rest of time. Just not reasonable. Many atheists merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, a few centuries from now, atheism will no longer mean the absence of theism?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Nope since the technical term is rejection of theism.

Do show me the source of that.
.

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion » Arguments for Atheism
Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This is why I should be more specific, I knew you were gonna do this.
When I asked for definition I meant definition, not long *** articles based on a viewpoint.
The first one was the closest to what I wanted, but even though it gave you the definition you wanted it also provided "lack" a little further down.
Leading me to believe they were articles you have either not read in a while, or just found on the first page of a google search.

[Edit] I actually read all three of them too, and checked their sources.
(Even though I didn't have to due to them not fitting the request)

 

[leibowde84]

No it is assumed to refer to people but it is actually about a belief system, theism and not theism. Yet animals have rough belief systems as demonstrated by pattern errors.

A deer hears a bush rustle. The deer will either assume the sound was created by a predator, belief A, or the sound was created by a non-predator, belief B. Hence why animals prey animals will flee from noises even if there is no predator as belief A results a greater chance of survival than B. This is an observed reaction of many prey animals.

Buddy ... atheist, not atheism.

Which is still wrong as per my argument. It is counter-apologetics, nothing more. We are talking about a philosophical term, your dictionaries are meaningless given centuries of arguments for atheism which is based on the rejection of theism not the absences of it. Atheist can still apply to rocks since the definition provided by you does not includes a single parameter of requiring personhood.

1. The meaning of terms change throughout history. Why should atheism be any different? And, why were the early Christians regarded as atheists by the romans? Because they didn't believe in the Roman gods slecifically. Yet again, they used a different meaning for the term. I think I have provided more support than you for the modern usage of the term.

2. Read previous comment with definition of atheist (not atheism).

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps you can explain this a little bit to me.

-ist applies to person, and it means "belief", correct? So a-the-ist means not-person-with-belief-in-God? Why would it break up the "person" and "belief" part in -ism so "a-" only applies to the belief, but not theos (God) or the "person" part of -ism?

Put it this way, A-The-Ism = Not-God-Person-Belief. And that's supposed to translate to Person-with-not-belief-in-God. Why not Not-Person-Belief-in-God?

"Not a person who believes in god" is the same thing though.

 

[Ouroboros]

ATHEISM (from Gr. ἀ-, privative, and θεός, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist. But the ambiguities arising from the points of view described in (b) are much more difficult both intellectually and in their practical social issues. Thus history shows how readily the term has been used in the most haphazard manner to describe even the most trivial divergence of opinion concerning points of dogma. In other words, “atheism” has been used generally by the orthodox adherents of one religion, or even of a single sect, for all beliefs which are different or even differently expressed. It is in fact in these cases, like “heterodoxy,” a term of purely negative significance, and its intellectual value is of the slightest. The distinction between the terms “religion” and “magic” is, in a similar way, often due merely to rivalry between the adherents of two or more mutually exclusive religions brought together in the same community. When the psalmist declares that “the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” he probably does not refer to theoretical denial, but to a practical disbelief in God’s government of human affairs, shown in disobedience to moral laws. Socrates was charged with “not believing in the gods the city believes in.” The cry of the heathen populace in the Roman empire against the Christians was “Away with the atheists! To the lions with the Christians!” The ground for the charge was probably the lack of idolatry in all Christian worship. Spinoza, for whom God alone existed, was persecuted as an atheist. A common designation of Knox was “the atheist,” although it was to him “matter of satisfaction that our most holy religion is founded on faith, not on reason.”
...
Atheism has to meet the protest of the heart as well as the argument of the mind of mankind. It must be judged not only by theoretical but by practical arguments, in its relations either to the individual or to a society. Voltaire himself, speaking as a practical man rather than as a metaphysician, declared that if there were no God it would be necessary to invent one; and if the analysis is only carried far enough it will be found that those who deny the existence of God (in a conventional sense) are all the time setting up something in the nature of deity by way of an ideal of their own, while fighting over the meaning of a word or its conventional misapplication.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition

"Lack" isn't even mentioned, except when Christians lacked idolatry.

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood here much less positively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheism' for the former doctrine and 'negative atheism' for the latter. The introduction of this new sense of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism,2 going arbitrarily against established common usage. '

Antony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism, 1972

Antony Flew admitting that the usual definition is "someone who asserts that there is no such being as God", he wants it to be interpreted in a looser sense. Here's obvious evidence from history that the common understanding of atheism wasn't "lack of" but more of an active disbelief, and Antony Flew was propagating a new, more liberal or broad definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Not a person who believes in god" is the same thing though.

Not a person ... means something that is not a person.

My computer is not a person.

 

[leibowde84]

So, a few centuries from now, atheism will no longer mean the absence of theism?

Who knows. Like everything else, language evolves. It has to be a natural progression on its own fruition, but it has always happened.