The default position...

[atanu]

Disbelief includes those who are incapable of belief.
dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun

1. inability to accept that something is true or real.

Is "incapabilty of belief" same as "inabilty to accept"?

 

[leibowde84]

Is "incapabilty of belief" same as "inabilty to accept"?

No. Not the same. One is just included in the other.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually I did considering I am one of the only 3 people in the last few pages to even provide philosophy sources for atheism while you have quoted dictionaries while providing few or no source links. None were philosophy sources. Legion, Ouroboros and I have done our homework. The major issue is most people are using pop-culture references while only a few of us are using contextual sources. It is apparent which one of us is using contextual sources

As I previously stated, I do not agree with your claim that the archaic meaning of the term "atheism", whether it was the original meaning or not, limits the evolution of the term as you demand. I agree that the coining of the term had to do with an explicit belief that God cannot exist. But, that in no way limits the term, as, under our definition, the original meaning is still included. Over time, and especially in the late 90s, the "philosophical meaning" of the term changed in American culture. Nearly every single term, philosophical or not, evolves in meaning over time. Thus, your attempts to limit the evolution specifically for the term "atheism" is unsupported by the evidence.

Language evolves, and our argument is that our understanding of what "atheism" means now is more inclusive than that of men thousands of years ago. The reason being enlightenment to new ideas of levels of atheism or non-belief in God or gods.

 

[Curious George]

As I previously stated, I do not agree with your claim that the archaic meaning of the term "atheism", whether it was the original meaning or not, limits the evolution of the term as you demand. I agree that the coining of the term had to do with an explicit belief that God cannot exist. But, that in no way limits the term, as, under our definition, the original meaning is still included. Over time, and especially in the late 90s, the "philosophical meaning" of the term changed in American culture. Nearly every single term, philosophical or not, evolves in meaning over time. Thus, your attempts to limit the evolution specifically for the term "atheism" is unsupported by the evidence.

Language evolves, and our argument is that our understanding of what "atheism" means now is more inclusive than that of men thousands of years ago. The reason being enlightenment to new ideas of levels of atheism or non-belief in God or gods.

And others note the problematic nature of trying to stick everything into a word for the purpose of inclusivity.

That the term has changed for some does not mean that this change was logical, necessary, more efficacious, helpful, more descriptive or a closer approximation to the truth.

In fact, those that are arguing against this your definition are arguing that the most inclusive definition is wrong. No one is disputing that some choose to define it in such broad terms that prove meaningless.

They are suggesting those who do define atheism in such a way ought to change how they define the term.

 

[leibowde84]

And others note the problematic nature of trying to stick everything into a word for the purpose of inclusivity.

That the term has changed for some does not mean that this change was logical, necessary, more efficacious, helpful, more descriptive or a closer approximation to the truth.

In fact, those that are arguing against this your definition are arguing that the most inclusive definition is wrong. No one is disputing that some choose to define it in such broad terms that prove meaningless.

They are suggesting those who do define atheism in such a way ought to change how they define the term.

That's the thing. For language to evolve, the changes don't have to live up to anyone's subjective view of helpfulness. All we can be sure of is that the meanings of terms change a lot over time. We are discussing appropriate nomenclature now, during this time, and whether it is reasonable to ASSUME that someone who identifies as atheist meant to express any active belief with that word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good grief ...

 

[leibowde84]

And others note the problematic nature of trying to stick everything into a word for the purpose of inclusivity.

That the term has changed for some does not mean that this change was logical, necessary, more efficacious, helpful, more descriptive or a closer approximation to the truth.

In fact, those that are arguing against this your definition are arguing that the most inclusive definition is wrong. No one is disputing that some choose to define it in such broad terms that prove meaningless.

They are suggesting those who do define atheism in such a way ought to change how they define the term.

And, why do you think that the meaning of a term must be confined only to include those who identified as such at the time of its creation?

 

[Curious George]

And, why do you think that the meaning of a term must be confined only to include those who identified as such at the time of its creation?

I did not say it needed to but if I tack on the term "or a goldfish" to the definition of atheist it will not make the definition better. Some would surely argue that it is worse. I would agree with those who said it was worse.

Some would be happy to cite the definition of atheist and point out that some dictionaries include "or a goldfish" so goldfish are therefore atheist and this is just a product of the natural evolution of the term, andsince language changes, we should all accept the new definition.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not say it needed to but if I tack on the term "or a goldfish" to the definition of atheist it will not make the definition better. Some would surely argue that it is worse. I would agree with those who said it was worse.

Some would be happy to cite the definition of atheist and point out that some dictionaries include "or a goldfish" so goldfish are therefore atheist and this is just a since language changes, we should all accept the new definition.

As I stated before, I agree that there is an issue with the application of "atheist" (not "atheism") to anything that isn't a person. The definition does state that it applies only to people. I agree with you on that, and I have never claimed otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

As I stated before, I agree that there is an issue with the application of "atheist" (not "atheism") to anything that isn't a person. The definition does state that it applies only to people. I agree with you on that, and I have never claimed otherwise.

You can not read this answer and see how semantic one's argument must be to entertain the definition you choose to employ?

Riddle me this:

If I accept a God exists, and I accept a God does not exist. Is that theism or atheism?

 

[ChristineES]

Mod Post

We would like to remind members that when you make quotations of other posts, please do not alter them and add things that the original poster did not say. If you alter a post, it can be considered a Rule violation and will be treated as such. ​

 

[leibowde84]

You can not read this answer and see how semantic one's argument must be to entertain the definition you choose to employ?

Riddle me this:

If I accept a God exists, and I accept a God does not exist. Is that theism or atheism?

You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously. The first would be a theist and the second would be an atheist. If there was another person who had never heard of the concept of God, they would be implicitly atheist, as they would "be without" ("lack") "a belief in the existence of God". What's the problem?

 

[Curious George]

You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously. The first would be a theist and the second would be an atheist. If there was another person who had never heard of the concept of God, they would be implicitly atheist, as they would "be without" ("lack") "a belief in the existence of God". What's the problem?

Now explain why I cannot hold both these propositions. That propositions are mutually exclusive does not prevent one from accepting them as true.

This has been proven. Alive and not alive are mutually exclusive positions. Schrodinger has shown that the acceptance of both of these is possible.

Do not answer my question by saying such is impossible.

The formulation is no different than the rejection of both propositions.

So, is such a person a theist or an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

No it was a counter which is a valid logical argument. It take the proposition to it's logical conclusion when those that propose it have not done their due diligence.

No,not at all - it was a fatuous evasion.

Imagine we were discussing 'republicans', and rather than engage in meaningful dialogue - you were enough of a troll to dismiss whatever your opponent was saying by waving your hand and quipping 'Well, huh, huh, huh.....by that definition strawberries are republicans!"

 

[Bunyip]

He is showing bad form, imho. He accused me of changing definitions when, in actuality, I literally copied and pasted them from an online dictionary. I can completely understand disagreement on meaning, but accusations of fraudulently changing definitions is pretty darn pathetic.

All I see is a person whose approach to debate is limited to insult, evasion, pedantry and obfuscation.
It is the art of never understanding or responding to what your opponent means.

 

[leibowde84]

Now explain why I cannot hold both these propositions. That propositions are mutually exclusive does not prevent one from accepting them as true.

This has been proven. Alive and not alive are mutually exclusive positions. Schrodinger has shown that the acceptance of both of these is possible.

Do not answer my question by saying such is impossible.

The formulation is no different than the rejection of both propositions.

So, is such a person a theist or an atheist.

You are assuming that if life and not life can happen simultaneously, then so can belief and lack of belief, correct?

That is a pretty outrageous assumption, but I'm interested to see your reasoning. Can you back up this claimed symmetry?

 

[Curious George]

You are assuming that if life and not life can happen simultaneously, then so can belief and lack of belief, correct?

That is a pretty outrageous assumption, but I'm interested to see your reasoning. Can you back up this claimed symmetry?

No, I am assuming such. That one believes the cat is alive and also believes the cat is not alive does not assume that both happen simultaneously.

To violate the rule of non contradiction I would have to believe God exists and not believe God exists.

As believing God does not exist is =/= not believing God exists there is no contradiction.

 

[Willamena]

As I stated before, I agree that there is an issue with the application of "atheist" (not "atheism")...

They are two forms of the same term. When you speak of one, the other is present.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually I did considering I am one of the only 3 people in the last few pages to even provide philosophy sources for atheism while you have quoted dictionaries while providing few or no source links. None were philosophy sources. Legion, Ouroboros and I have done our homework. The major issue is most people are using pop-culture references while only a few of us are using contextual sources. It is apparent which one of us is using contextual sources

You merely provided evidence of the initial "atheists" expressing that they believed that God did not and could not exist. I agree that this was the case, but you make the false assumption that, for some reason, this limits the term. I agree that atheism includes those that explicitly claim that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean the term cannot extend beyond that, even when it was coined. The term was a rejection of Theism, and rejecting theism does not necessarily mean that one believes actively that God does not exist. It isn't "rejecting God". It is "rejecting the belief in God's existence". Thus, those who are aware of the theism option, reject it due to lack of sufficient evidence, but also reject the belief that God does not exist, still would be included in your definition. Thus, the claim that "God does not or cannot exist" is not necessary to fall under your definition of the term.

Most of the atheists I know would not claim that they believe God cannot exist. They merely don't see sufficient reasoning to believe actively that God does exist. That is why I feel like the state of being "without belief" is in modern times referred to as atheism.

 

[Thief]

You merely provided evidence of the initial "atheists" expressing that they believed that God did not and could not exist. I agree that this was the case, but you make the false assumption that, for some reason, this limits the term. I agree that atheism includes those that explicitly claim that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean the term cannot extend beyond that, even when it was coined. The term was a rejection of Theism, and rejecting theism does not necessarily mean that one believes actively that God does not exist. It isn't "rejecting God". It is "rejecting the belief in God's existence". Thus, those who are aware of the theism option, reject it due to lack of sufficient evidence, but also reject the belief that God does not exist, still would be included in your definition. Thus, the claim that "God does not or cannot exist" is not necessary to fall under your definition of the term.

Most of the atheists I know would not claim that they believe God cannot exist. They merely don't see sufficient reasoning to believe actively that God does exist. That is why I feel like the state of being "without belief" is in modern times referred to as atheism.

and again....a line drawn that does not really exist.