The default position...

[Shad]

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.

I based on claims on experience which is part of this thread and from other external to these forums. I also based it on Flew's own book in which he fully acknowledges his re-branding of atheism is just agnosticism. Martin and Smith make no arguments for their new definition, they just insert it and call it a day.

Perhaps I am misreading you. I am not sure. I am running on caffeine more than sleep atm after driving for half the day and all of the night.

 

[Shad]

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?

I do since it changes a claim about reality into a mental state of the adherent. I would also argument that average language use which modifies a word does not by default mean this is the correct term or the modification is valid. Otherwise people can start arguing slang is a valid form of English.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps I am misreading you. I am not sure. I am running on caffeine more than sleep atm after driving for half the day and all of the night.

Been there. I was being very sarcastic. I was sarcastically agreeing with the position you were countering, and I believe your position to be far more accurate here. Basically, I was agreeing with you.

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe I'm just slow, but isn't the only practical default position, "I don't know!" or "Not enough information to give an intelligent answer!"

 

[idav]

Maybe I'm just slow, but isn't the only practical default position, "I don't know!" or "Not enough information to give an intelligent answer!"

Yes agreed. So if I ask someone if they believe in god(s) and they say "I don't know", are they atheist or theist? Wrong question?

Edit: Default position is not having a belief position.................

 

[Shad]

Been there. I was being very sarcastic. I was sarcastically agreeing with the position you were countering, and I believe your position to be far more accurate here. Basically, I was agreeing with you.

Yah sorry. A friend was released from the hospital a day early after major back surgery. A long drive between the hospital, his home and mine took it's toll.He would of been stuck in some local hotel which is not the best idea at the time.

 

[Shad]

Maybe I'm just slow, but isn't the only practical default position, "I don't know!" or "Not enough information to give an intelligent answer!"

That would be non-theist, agnostic or noncognitivist in relation to the propositions of theism. Depends on the approach used and justifications for it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hello. Have you all ever heard of the term 'Cellular memory' or DNA? That is if your parents have certain diseases like breast cancer, stroke, diabetes. etc. they most likely pass on to you? Even in characteristics, habits and sins. So, a baby or a child is not that ignorant as you might thought. It is just a matter of time that they will be inclined to believe what their parents believe. Just like a leopard, the baby is born with their spots similar to that of its parent. Got it?

Your entertainment value went up.
However, you logic/intelligence value is still at zero.

Anything to bring to the table other than bigoted interpretations?
-
By your logic, I'm an under educated Christian fundamentalist that has control issues.

 

[lstan135]

Your entertainment value went up.
However, you logic/intelligence value is still at zero.

Anything to bring to the table other than bigoted interpretations?
-
By your logic, I'm an under educated Christian fundamentalist that has control issues.

Why don't you come up with some logical facts to dispute my cliam? Looks like you have nothing in your faculty but trash to throw at people who are smarter than you. Anyone can criticise like empty vessels.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Why don't you come up with some logical facts to dispute my cliam? Looks like you have nothing in your faculty but trash to throw at people who are smarter than you. Anyone can criticise like empty vessels.

Why don't you make some damn sense for once and I just might.

How do you figure that you are smarter than me?
I have yet to see any proof for that funny claim.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Also, I did somewhat refute your claim.
I'm the living proof as both my parents, and almost all of my family, are Christians.
I am not, nor will I ever be.

So much for your 'belief genetics'.

 

[lstan135]

Why don't you make some damn sense for once and I just might.

How do you figure that you are smarter than me?
I have yet to see any proof for that funny claim.

This goes to show how ignorant you are. These are scientific news that are readily available on the internet, my friend. Just go ahead and help yourself before you become obsolete.

 

[Deathbydefault]

This goes to show how ignorant you are. These are scientific news that are readily available on the internet, my friend. Just go ahead and help yourself before you become obsolete.

Yes, I know of genetics and all that.
Genetics don't give you the same belief system as your parents, that's absurd.
Genetics are proven only to pass on physical traits, not beliefs.

If you've seen a website that says otherwise I would like to view it.
I am already certain that such a site has insufficient or no sources to back up such a claim.
-
When it comes to beliefs you may want to look at this fancy word called "influence".

[Edit] I will be back in 3 hours or so, feel free to post as much as you like.
I'll be sure to flip through it all....

 

[lstan135]

Yes, I know of genetics and all that.
Genetics don't give you the same belief system as your parents, that's absurd.
Genetics are proven only to pass on physical traits, not beliefs.

If you've seen a website that says otherwise I would like to view it.
I am already certain that such a site has insufficient or no sources to back up such a claim.
-
When it comes to beliefs you may want to look at this fancy word called "influence".

Haha. I did not say anything about passing on beliefs. I only said that there will be some characteristic inclination toward what the parents believes.

 

[Bunyip]

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

LOL, How hard is it for you to grasp that I am not even interested in arguing about definitions? Your desperation is palpable.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Of course all theists are atheist - they are theist towards whatever God or Gods they believe in and atheist towards those that they don't. Of course you will pretend to be completely baffled by such a simple point. Atheism remains the absence or lack of a specific belief - however challenging such a simple fact may be for you.

 

[Bunyip]

Nice try at avoiding the definition that is contained within the comment I replied to. Let me remind you of it.



The only way this works if you hold to the definition of "lack of belief". The only attack is when you display yourself as a blatant liar, as per above, or lack reading comprehension enough that you do not even know what the sentences you string together means. After this you directly contradict your previous post. Hilarious waffling going on here. I must of entered a I-Hop.

Well don't 'display yourself as a blatant liar' then. Think harder and try to raise an intelligent argument as opposed to the dishonest bleating and transparent misrepresentation.



If name calling and misrepresentation are all you have, you should just stop. You accuse me of a contradiction that you have not even evidenced - sure, babies are implicit atheists. They lack the belief in God, and are hence atheist. Just throwing a rude tantrum and bleating does not actually constitute a counter argument.

 

[Curious George]

Theism = when one believes in the existence of God or gods ... even a little, at least if it is an active belief and not merely suspicion. The differentiation is whether the subject does not allow the obvious lack of evidence in God to stop his belief that God is real and that God exists in reality as an entity of some kind or another ... or any other god as well. Belief/faith is ignoring the lack of evidence in something and accepting it's factuality anyways. In this case, the subject believes in a god as being real. Doubts are surely going to happen from time to time, but the subconscious assumptions are still there. Obviously there are different strengths, but if a belief of this kind is present, "theism" applies.

Atheism = when one does not believe in God or gods. They either are unaware of all dieties, they do not see sufficient reasoning to ignore the issue with the lack of sufficient evidence for God's existence and choose not to buy into the concept of God or gods, or they believe that the evidence is sufficient to show that God cannot exist and is merely an illusion created by the mind of man.

I don't get why the meaning of these terms cause you issue. Imho, they work perfectly together. They both are general and describe the two options that exist. SInce "theism" is such an old concept, that idea existed (most likely) even before the term "atheism". So, one should expect the first "atheists" to be explicitly rejecting even the possibility of God. But, that does not mean that the term, logically and linguistically speaking, cannot and/or should not be seen in modern times to be more inclusive. The "atheism" movement has been growing for quite some time. So, I would expect the term to become more inclusive to include new "levels" of those who do not believe in the existence of God or gods.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they cause me issue. I can employ these definitions fine. However these definitions are problematic. They are poorly defined. Another definition exists that is better. This other definition doesn't lead to equivocation, doesn't classify the same position with mutually exclusive terms, and causes far less confusion. This other definition leads to clarity of thought and efficient communication. I am not saying I take issue with your definitions, just that they are not as good as mine. I am not saying we cannot use your definitions for discussion, just that mine are better. I am not saying your definitions cannot work, just that mine work better. I am not saying your definitions have no approximation to truth, just that mine are closer approximations.

No, these definitions do not cause me issue. I just understand why they are more problematic that my definitions. If you do not understand why they are more problematic we can certainly run through it again.

 

[Bunyip]

Arguing about definitions is the pointless alternative to discussing what people believe and why.

 

[Curious George]

Arguing about definitions is the pointless alternative to discussing what people believe and why.

Usually definitions are paramount to understanding what people believe and why.