The default position...

[Bunyip]

This makes no sense.

Ask a friend to help you read it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ask a friend to help you read it.

It's nonsense. It's not factual, and has no meaning or bearing on the debate. You don't want to have a real debate, that isn't my problem.

 

[Bunyip]

It's nonsense. It's not factual, and has no meaning or bearing on the debate. You don't want to have a real debate, that isn't my problem.

Do you have anything other than just complaining? Like a reason why it is nonsense?

Debate about what people believe is interesting, debate about definitions is pointless - definitions are arbitrary, they change with usage.
I do want genuine debate - as opposed to endless diversions focussing on definitions, which are not definitive anyway, hence a diversion.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you have anything other than just complaining? Like a reason why it is nonsense?

Debate about what people believe is interesting, debate about definitions is pointless - definitions are arbitrary, they change with usage.

Complaining? I wasn't even answering you or the other poster that had a problem with my comments. I'm not interested in your silly banter.

 

[Bunyip]

Complaining? I wasn't even answering you or the other poster that had a problem with my comments. I'm not interested in your silly banter. Like I said, not my problem.

LOL You weren't answering me? Well here's a tip buddy - don't address comments to me if you aren't addressing me.

 

[Thief]

Yes, and until that time the baby is ignorant of God claims - and hence atheist.

So an atheist IS ignorant ...as a default!

 

[lstan135]

Ah, a Calvinist!


Is this really true, since faith comes only to those pre-selected by god?


Or you're faking your faith to fit in with the cool kids that god liked better.

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm a Baptist.
It is stated in the scripture that faith is from God given to those who are pre-destined to be a believer. And faith cannot be faked. If anyone try to fake faith, he/she will be exposed when put to the test.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, I'm not a Calvinist. I'm a Baptist.
It is stated in the scripture that faith is from God given to those who are pre-destined to be a believer.

Being a Baptist has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a philosophical Calvinist...
Perhaps you should read more about the reformers of your branch of Christianity.

Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And faith cannot be faked. If anyone try to fake faith, he/she will be exposed when put to the test.

Anything can be faked. Not that it will get them anywhere - but their ability to fake something is simply a fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Theism isn't an incredibly general term. It means, the belief in a deity. The dictionary definition seems to be more strict; whatever, we can use the broad definition. The definition itself, is specific. One has to actually believe in a deity. One is not a theist, if one does not actually believe in a deity.
Atheism, the way you are proposing it, would mean not only a disbelief in deity, buck also, an ambivalent or even non-knowledge of, the concept of deity. You are proposing a definition that is not only //more than one meaning//, but one that does not have an implicit meaning when written alone. We call words like that ''meaningless''.

This is not a valid argument, as most terms have more than one meaning. It merely depends on context. But, in actuality, I am proposing that only one definition is necessary. "Atheism" refers to those that don't hold a belief in any deity. That is the only definition that we need.

 

[Thief]

This is not a valid argument, as most terms have more than one meaning. It merely depends on context. But, in actuality, I am proposing that only one definition is necessary. "Atheism" refers to those that don't hold a belief in any deity. That is the only definition that we need.

with implied ignorance holding.....

 

[leibowde84]

'theism', means a specific thing. The names of the religions, are not the 'same' thing, as saying theism. It would be the same for atheism. One wouldn't say 'atheism', if they meant to say 'Buddhism', /an atheistic branch of Buddhism/.

You are mixing up, what can be included in a description, of something, for ''meaning the same thing''.

I am only discussing what can be included under the term "atheism". What terms are you claiming that I am equating?

 

[leibowde84]

with implied ignorance holding.....

More nonsense ... this doesn't mean anything in English. Are you using a translator app?

 

[Thief]

I am only discussing what can be included under the term "atheism". What terms are you claiming that I am equating?

You've been tossing babies all through this thread....and then denying effect.

You still insist.....babies don't know?
Default to atheism by means of ignorance?

If the implication fits....wear it.

 

[leibowde84]

You've been tossing babies all through this thread....and then denying effect.

You still insist.....babies don't know?
Default to atheism by means of ignorance?

If the implication fits....wear it.

You just are ignorant of grammatical construction and logic. All of this I do agree with. But, this in no way means that "atheism" is synonymous with "ignorance", like you falsely claim. It just means that ignorance CAN BE A POSSIBLE REASON BEHIND (one of many) atheism ... "implicit" atheism (without a declaration or conscious choice) of any kind.

If you have evidence that shows, not that children have a propensity or are inclined to believe in God, but believe in God automatically without having ever been introduced to the concept, I'm all ears. You have not provided any.

 

[Augustus]

I see your definition (which is hotly contested in the comments section of the same page) and raise you these definitions:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
atheist - definition of atheist in English from the Oxford dictionary
Atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary
Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
Atheism | Definition of atheism by Merriam-Webster

You are incorrect. Maybe you missed the several times that I expressed this, but "atheism" is a general term that includes both "explicit" atheism and "implicit" atheism. It also includes weak atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) and strong atheism (belief that God does not and/or cannot exist). Because people from all of these subcategories refer to themselves as "atheists", I think this generalized definition without the requirement for active belief is the best. I accept that you do not agree with this.

Am just trying to make a neutral point here, rather than make a point about which definition is best.

A definition that appears in a dictionary signifies that it forms part of 'common usage', absolutely nothing else. Common usage does not imply traditional, long term, uncontested etc. usage.

Gods, for example, means more than 1 god, or the gallery in a theatre. Neither can be said to be a more correct definition than the other, although one can certainly be said to be an older usage than the other.

This is usually not a problem when the 2 definitions refer to completely different things, as in this case, however it becomes more problematic when multiple definitions become applied to the same word (fascist, terrorist, atheist, etc).

A word probably does not start with 2 definitions, it is unlikely that in a word with more than 1 definition, both are equally old. Saying a definition is older also doesn't mean it is the most common or most 'correct' usage either, just that it is older.

For people to say atheist is defined in the dictionary as 'a lack of belief in god(s)', says nothing other than this definition is in common usage. To then use this dictionary definition to state 'the dictionary says absence of belief as one definition, so you can't disagree with this definition' is not true. Being in the dictionary does not mean 'uncontested', 'logically correct' or anything else.

The older definition of atheist is 'someone who believes there are no god(s)', there is plenty of evidence to support this view - look at older dictionaries, or dictionaries with detailed etymologies if you doubt this.

The newer definition is 'absence of belief in gods', probably dating from around the time of the enlightenment.

So how did this become part of 'common usage'?

I would guess (reasonably confidently) that this definition was created by atheists/sceptics for philosophical/ideological reasons, and was used by atheists as part of their debates and arguments. Over time, those who were in agreement with this philosophical position adopted this definition and as atheism grew in popularity it was widely enough used to become part of 'common usage'. I would guess that it has only been included in dictionaries relatively recently, almost certainly 20th C and possibly mid/late20th C (if anyone can find an older dictionary definition than this I would be interested to see it, please share).

In effect, this is now a correct definition purely because atheists have used it to support their ideological position. If enough people use freedom to mean slavery it will become part of common usage and will be listed in dictionaries.

"If we use our definition enough, it will be appear in the dictionary" is thus a factually correct statement.

"If we use our definition enough, you must accept it because it appears in the dictionary" is obviously not a valid argument in light of the previous statement.

Again, you can agree with all of the above, but still think that 'absence of belief' is a better definition than 'belief there are no gods' or vice versa.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

 

[leibowde84]

Am just trying to make a neutral point here, rather than make a point about which definition is best.

A definition that appears in a dictionary signifies that it forms part of 'common usage', absolutely nothing else. Common usage does not imply traditional, long term, uncontested etc. usage.

Gods, for example, means more than 1 god, or the gallery in a theatre. Neither can be said to be a more correct definition than the other, although one can certainly be said to be an older usage than the other.

This is usually not a problem when the 2 definitions refer to completely different things, as in this case, however it becomes more problematic when multiple definitions become applied to the same word (fascist, terrorist, atheist, etc).

A word probably does not start with 2 definitions, it is unlikely that in a word with more than 1 definition, both are equally old. Saying a definition is older also doesn't mean it is the most common or most 'correct' usage either, just that it is older.

For people to say atheist is defined in the dictionary as 'a lack of belief in god(s)', says nothing other than this definition is in common usage. To then use this dictionary definition to state 'the dictionary says absence of belief as one definition, so you can't disagree with this definition' is not true. Being in the dictionary does not mean 'uncontested', 'logically correct' or anything else.

The older definition of atheist is 'someone who believes there are no god(s)', there is plenty of evidence to support this view - look at older dictionaries, or dictionaries with detailed etymologies if you doubt this.

The newer definition is 'absence of belief in gods', probably dating from around the time of the enlightenment.

So how did this become part of 'common usage'?

I would guess (reasonably confidently) that this definition was created by atheists for philosophical/ideological reasons, and was used by atheists as part of their debates and arguments. Over time, those who were in agreement with this philosophical position adopted this definition and as atheism grew in popularity it was widely enough used to become part of 'common usage'. I would guess that it has only been included in dictionaries relatively recently, almost certainly 20th C and possibly mid/late20th C (if anyone can find an older dictionary definition than this I would be interested to see it, please share).

In effect, this is now a correct definition purely because atheists have used it to support their ideological position. If enough people use freedom to mean slavery it will become part of common usage and will be listed in dictionaries.

"If we use our definition enough, it will be appear in the dictionary" is thus a factually correct statement.

"If we use our definition enough, you must accept it because it appears in the dictionary" is obviously not a valid argument in light of the previous statement.

Again, you can agree with all of the above, but still think that 'absence of belief' is a better definition than 'belief there are no gods' or vice versa.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

I agree. I think that both definitions are valid. I think the discussion is what definition works better in modern society.

 

[lstan135]

Being a Baptist has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a philosophical Calvinist...
Perhaps you should read more about the reformers of your branch of Christianity.

Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anything can be faked. Not that it will get them anywhere - but their ability to fake something is simply a fact.

Anyone can fake to look like he has faith but he cannot fake faith itself.

 

[Shad]

Believers tend to stick to 'debating' definitions - mainly I assume because of the absence of any evidence or logical argument to engage on. It is just a deflection.

Likewise people stick to flawed definition which have no arguments for supporting the definition to avoid their burden of proof by attempting to change a definition of a word then hide behind it. They then yell from the bleachers crying poor forms when someone pokes holes in their definition. Rather defend their definition they just repeated it and cry about poor form again. I am not even a theist. I just see the word games and avoidance of many modern fad atheists

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Likewise people stick to flawed definition which have no arguments for supporting the definition to avoid their burden of proof by attempting to change a definition of a word then hide behind it. They then yell from the bleachers crying poor forms when someone pokes holes in their definition. Rather defend their definition they just repeated it and cry about poor form again. I am not even a theist. I just see the word games and avoidance of many modern fad atheists

Ridiculous. I have it on good authority that "all theists are atheists". Of course, "good authority" here is intended to indicate the same persons arguing that and foundations for any definition consisting with logic, language usage, or linguistics that indicates atheism means a "lack of belief": baseless assertions coupled by a simultaneous inability to point to even consistent dictionary definitions whilst claiming the other side is dismissing these and dismissing all the things (usage, semantics, logic, consistency, etc.) required to dismiss without justification the position that atheism is a position and this "lack of belief" nonsense empirically and logically flawed.

 

[Shad]

So "no", then?


Why do you need to differentiate atheists and non-theists and render the terms mutually exclusive? What is wrong with atheism being an umbrella term that includes non-theists?

The umbrella terms renders the ontological and epistemological history of atheism void and changes the context of the word to a psychological view point with no supportive argument. Atheism is not about the believer but the belief, ie claim, about reality. Just as theism is not about the believers but the belief about reality. This shift then argues that babies are atheists while only a proof by logic via deduction. However for such a proof to be true it must be sound which has not be proven by a single supporter of this "new" definition.