Atheism: What's the point?

[Grave_n_idle]

Then why don't you say "the appropriate definition is blah blah blah, although it may be common to define atheism as blah blah, there are actually different types of atheism, that can be split into explicit and implicit blah blah blah" rather than "no! you suck at English, the definition is blah blah blah". That probably would have avoided 50 pages of semantic crap.

I didn't say 'you suck at English'.

In 80 pages, I've repeatedly argued that the appropriate vocabulary be used. About every 5 pages, someone comes in and 'enlightens' the whole debate, by giving us... another old, inappropriate set of definitions.

We KNOW that most people think 'denies the existence of God' when they see the word 'Atheist'. We've also moved on a lightyear from there, so it is NOT helpful to keep trotting the same shit out over and over. So, every five pages, I end up repeating the difference between Implicit and Explicit Atheism - because being told I don't have the belief structure I have is unhelpful and boring.

[Hydesland]

I didn't say 'you suck at English'.

Yes well you weren't the only one I was addressing.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say 'you suck at English'.

Yes well you weren't the only one I was addressing.

Ah.

Well, 2000 posts (or whatever) into this thread - about a hundred of which posts have been trying to re-explain the vocabulary - perhaps it would be more helpful to work with the vocabulary that is appropriate, rather than be overly critical of people trying to defend it. Just a thought.

[Nineteen Halves]

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20509

Check out around the second half on the complexities still left with atheism. The entire thing is interesting if you want to listen.

[Tmutarakhan]

I don't think you really read it, then

Yes I did. Stop bullshitting.

- it talked about all the same sorts of things I talk about - whether or not you can trust sources because of bias, whether the credentials claimed for the source's creator actually give you carte blanche to accept it

It is NOT AT ALL talking about the same thing. Do you not understand the difference between a "primary" source and a "secondary" source? Runciman writing about the crusades (in the 20th century) is a secondary source; Froissart writing about the crusades as a veteran of the crusades is a primary source. Your article is talking about whether we can trust Runciman to have read the primary sources non-selectively, thoroughly, and with good comprehension of their meaning. It talks rather little about the question of how far Froissart is to be trusted: insofar as it does, it is in the context of determining whether Runciman is to be trusted to be savvy enough to deal intelligently with the Froissart material.
Your position, which is apparently (if I am misunderstanding your position, that is because getting it out of you has been a tooth-pulling exercise) that nothing in Froissart should be considered true unless several others say the same thing, is not a position that any academician would take.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't think you really read it, then

Yes I did. Stop bullshitting.

- it talked about all the same sorts of things I talk about - whether or not you can trust sources because of bias, whether the credentials claimed for the source's creator actually give you carte blanche to accept it

It is NOT AT ALL talking about the same thing. Do you not understand the difference between a "primary" source and a "secondary" source? Runciman writing about the crusades (in the 20th century) is a secondary source; Froissart writing about the crusades as a veteran of the crusades is a primary source. Your article is talking about whether we can trust Runciman to have read the primary sources non-selectively, thoroughly, and with good comprehension of their meaning. It talks rather little about the question of how far Froissart is to be trusted: insofar as it does, it is in the context of determining whether Runciman is to be trusted to be savvy enough to deal intelligently with the Froissart material.
Your position, which is apparently (if I am misunderstanding your position, that is because getting it out of you has been a tooth-pulling exercise) that nothing in Froissart should be considered true unless several others say the same thing, is not a position that any academician would take.

I've never made my position even vaguely unclear.

I always look for corroboration. I always favour independence and contemporary status. I don't place absolute trust in eyewitnesses. I trust the primary source over the secondary source. I identify and consdier bias and agendas.

I'm always open about these things. I have never tried to hide that - so I really don't know where your 'tooth-pulling' storyline comes from.

Everything I'm saying there, is in that link I just presented to you.

[Canuck Utopia]

NSG is not 'coming up with' definitions, here.

We're using the accepted definitions that are the currency of this debate.

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else. You don't accept dictionary definitions and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.

Some proponents of this definition can be found in the alt.atheism newsgroup and at the following web sites:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/a ... ism101.htm

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness ... theist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.

But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of people:

Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).

Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.

Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).

It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists.

One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless.

Another problem with a “lack of belief” definition is that it is not accepted by the vast majority of people. I personally don’t know anyone who considers babies atheists because they lack belief in gods. I also don’t know of any people who are agnostic or undecided about the existence of God who call themselves atheists.

The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of “atheism” is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition. On page three I have posted and examined many reputable dictionary definitions. On page four I have posted excerpts from reputable Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica.

On the next page I have posted some of the arguments these people have used, and I explained why why they are so damn stupid. But first this would be a good time to read the following links.

Some posters here want to expand upon the “lack of belief” definition to the point of declaring that everyone is an athiest of some sort. Total nonsense.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Look, do you really want to play the dictionary game? Here you go. Note that a theist is one who has belief in a god or gods, as opposed an atheist, who would then be one who lacks such belief.

Seriously, can we move on from this already? What's so problematic about defining people who say "I do not believe that there is a God" as atheist? It's the fucking definition of the word: 'a-theist', literally 'not-theist' -- that is, 'one who does not believe in a god'.

[JarVik]

Well if your going to get a definition of Atheisim it makes a bit more sense to start with what the self described atheists define it as opposed to asking people who are not part of such group. Kinda like how it makes more sense to ask for a definition of punk rock from followers of the genere as opposed to my grandma.

Even If the writer for websters dictionary doing the def for Atheisim isn't relgious, odds are the majority of the editing committe are, as such I expect any stance on religious issues that doesn't include the word "belief" to produce an out of cheese error for the committe as they can't grasp the concept and would strick it from the book.

[Ashmoria]

NSG is not 'coming up with' definitions, here.

We're using the accepted definitions that are the currency of this debate.

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else. You don't accept dictionary definitions and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

do you really think that using an obnoxiously large font size makes your point any better?

[Grave_n_idle]

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else.

You're telling me that there is a group out there somewhere that objects to the definition of the phrase "Implicit Atheist"?

You don't accept dictionary definitions

Because they are insufficient.

and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

Considering you've ignored a number of definitions, you've no room to speak.

And you still haven't answered the "do you agree babies do not believe in gods" question.

[Deus Malum]

NSG is not 'coming up with' definitions, here.

We're using the accepted definitions that are the currency of this debate.

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else. You don't accept dictionary definitions and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

do you really think that using an obnoxiously large font size makes your point any better?

No, but it does allow me to dismiss him more readily.

[Dyakovo]

No, but it does allow me to dismiss him more readily.

Did you really need more reason?

[Deus Malum]

No, but it does allow me to dismiss him more readily.

Did you really need more reason?

Just makes the process easier.

[Aman Velath]

There is no "point". It's just recognizing the state of the universe by using rational thought to exam the evidence.

Could'nt have put it better. I also believe that it is seeking truth about the state of the universe.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Look, do you really want to play the dictionary game? Here you go. Note that a theist is one who has belief in a god or gods, as opposed an atheist, who would then be one who lacks such belief.

Seriously, can we move on from this already? What's so problematic about defining people who say "I do not believe that there is a God" as atheist? It's the fucking definition of the word: 'a-theist', literally 'not-theist' -- that is, 'one who does not believe in a god'.

No, we need to continue this petty and fruitless debate for another 20 pages. What are you, new to NSG?

[DMistan]

Look, do you really want to play the dictionary game? Here you go. Note that a theist is one who has belief in a god or gods, as opposed an atheist, who would then be one who lacks such belief.

Seriously, can we move on from this already? What's so problematic about defining people who say "I do not believe that there is a God" as atheist? It's the fucking definition of the word: 'a-theist', literally 'not-theist' -- that is, 'one who does not believe in a god'.

No, we need to continue this petty and fruitless debate for another 20 pages. What are you, new to NSG?

Okay.

Babies are not atheists.
No more than a Rock is an atheist.

No, no that will never do. The fish have seen too much of this bait.

We need to toss a little chum into this thread:
Babies are born with an innate knowledge of God. All Atheists are just in denial.

*casts fishing rod*

[Treznor]

No, we need to continue this petty and fruitless debate for another 20 pages. What are you, new to NSG?

Okay.

Babies are not atheists.
No more than a Rock is an atheist.

No, no that will never do. The fish have seen too much of this bait.

We need to toss a little chum into this thread:
Babies are born with an innate knowledge of God. All Atheists are just in denial.

*casts fishing rod*

Do I look like a large-mouth bass to you?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Do I look like a large-mouth bass to you?

You should know better than to ask that of NSGers.

[Kadagai]

I've got nothing more to say than this thread is ridiculously huge.

[Canuck Utopia]

NSG is not 'coming up with' definitions, here.

We're using the accepted definitions that are the currency of this debate.

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else. You don't accept dictionary definitions and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

do you really think that using an obnoxiously large font size makes your point any better?

Side issue.....the font here on the new forum sucks, especially on quoted material. The backgound also hinders the presentation. Sorry if I have offended your sensibilities.

[Canuck Utopia]

Accepted by who? Accepted by atheists perhaps but certainly not everyone else.

You're telling me that there is a group out there somewhere that objects to the definition of the phrase "Implicit Atheist"?

I would suggest that most people don't give a damn what label you want to apply to yourself, but I further suggest that you wil meet with massive resistance if you try to slap your label on them.

You don't accept dictionary definitions

Because they are insufficient.

To you they are but to some other athiests and myself, they aren't

and you don't even accept definitions by other athiests that I posted:

Considering you've ignored a number of definitions, you've no room to speak.

I haven't "ignored" any definitions......I just question the wisdom as to the application of those definitions and again, so do other atheists. According to your definition, the minimal requirement to be an atheist, is to have an infantile mind, and that suggests that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

And you still haven't answered the "do you agree babies do not believe in gods" question.

I have given my opinion on this many times. If we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence, that would make the baby an agnostic if you want to apply labels. However, some people argue that we are born with a God sense. To unequivocally state that babies are born atheist is illogical and impractical.

[Tmutarakhan]

In 80 pages, I've repeatedly argued that the appropriate vocabulary be used...
We KNOW that most people think 'denies the existence of God' when they see the word 'Atheist'.

So, then, that IS the most appropriate definition for "Atheist": if the purpose of language is to communicate, then you ought in general to use words with the meanings that are most likely to be communicated to your readers when they read those words. There are cases where arguments can be made against going with the flow of whatever has become the most common usage: when old distinctions between words have become blurred by recent usage, and a nuance of meaning which used to have a word devoted to it could become inexpressible; but this nuance of "implicit atheist; someone who doesn't really believe one way or the other" is not part of the ancient usage of "atheist": it is a new coinage which hasn't really caught on with the English-speaking public at large. So: your insistence on using the word in a way which is likely to be misunderstood simply causes communication failure, hence the tedious circularity of this thread.

[The Tofu Islands]

I haven't "ignored" any definitions......I just question the wisdom as to the application of those definitions and again, so do other atheists. According to your definition, the minimal requirement to be an atheist, is to have an infantile mind, and that suggests that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

No. Atheism (or implicit atheism, if you want to use that term) simply requires lack of belief in gods. Just because a baby is, by that definition, atheist, doesn't mean that atheism based on a "thoughtless infantile mindset".

I have given my opinion on this many times. If we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence, that would make the baby an agnostic if you want to apply labels.

No it wouldn't. Agnostic is a statement about whether it's possible to know if gods exist.

However, some people argue that we are born with a God sense. To unequivocally state that babies are born atheist is illogical and impractical.

Not really. By the definition of "implicit atheist" (the form of atheism that we're arguing babies have), they are definitely atheist. They have no belief in gods.

[Treznor]

Perhaps a quick summary of the position is in order.

In order to believe something, you have to be aware of the possibility. In order to be aware of the possibility, you have to have the cognitive ability to think about it. If you don't have that cognitive ability or you've simply never been exposed to the idea, you can't ponder it to believe or disbelieve it. If there's no belief, then we arrive at our conclusion.

As far as I know, this evolution in thought is still relatively new to the theist community, so definitions haven't caught up yet. That doesn't invalidate the position, it just means we're in the "education phase." A hundred years ago we wouldn't have been able to have this discussion, because a lot of us would be running for our lives to avoid getting strung up as devil-worshipers.

To further summarize the summary: we are separating knowledge from belief. Knowledge is a prerequisite for deciding whether or not you believe in something like gods. If I don't tell you about the dragon in my garage, how can you form a belief about it?