Who are "no religion" people?

[midniterider]

CB: "I also see no reason to think that positive and negative are the only two options. Null is a viable one and neither."

 

...

 

93% of black and white thinkers hate percentages. (haha)

[ContraBardus]

2 hours ago, mymistake said:

Right now, all across our country, religious fanatic parents are being cruel to their own children because of vicious lies that Christianity has spread about atheism.  It causes great suffering.  And the victims are in a vulnerable position, economically and emotionally.  And the abuse is coming from the people someone should be able to trust.  Secular children have to hide their thoughts because their parents' minds have been brainwashed to hate. 

 

Go ahead and stubbornly pretend you can't see the point.  Make up false accusations.  Pat yourself of the back for winning.  Throw together a loose collection of ideas and call it a "proof".  But this stuff isn't a game.  It's real.

 

 

This is an emotional appeal, but fine, I'll rebut it.

 

I'd say this is faulty cause and effect, and that you have it backwards.

 

I wouldn't say it has anything to do with "vicious lies", but rather dogmatic belief and bronze age inspired tribal thinking.

 

It doesn't matter how Atheism is defined, how logical it is, or how nice you make it sound, it won't change anything regarding this. The problem is on the other end.

 

[mymistake]

40 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

This is an emotional appeal, but fine, I'll rebut it.

 

Facts are not an emotional appeal and clearly you won't.  Kind of like that proof you said you can provide but never produced.   

 

 

42 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 I wouldn't say it has anything to do with "vicious lies", but rather dogmatic belief and bronze age inspired tribal thinking.

 

 

So that bronze age tribal thinking/dogmatic belief is the truth?  Because it would be wrong to call it lies?

 

Refusing to see the point doesn't mean there is no point.

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

The problem is on the other end.

 

That is what I am talking about.  Christians are taught to hate atheists.  It's bigotry.   That would be the problem on their end.  You are going to pretend you can't see my point and then pretend that my point is your point?  

 

These games are a waste of time.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Is there another kind?

 

Not that I'm aware of. I assume the deist god concepts end up tracing back to mythology, then projecting the already existing idea of mythological gods out into a deistic conceptualization. 

 

And people either believe they exist or they lack that positive belief. 

 

Saying I don't know if they exist doesn't address whether or not they believe in them. We must go one step further in order to establish belief or lack of belief. 

 

Me personally, understand that I don't know what could be out there. But that doesn't give me the sense of believing just because of the possibility. In terms of knowledge of the existence of gods, I don't know for certain. In terms of believing in the existence of gods, I really don't. 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

This isn't civil rights where a minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, in regard to language and it's use, the majority rules. It kind of has to be that way for language to function.

 

 

There you have it then. The majority of atheist's themselves, have spoken and spoken clearly. They have declared that the historical weak definition and greek root is what represents the majority. That's what I've been showing. 

 

The strong definition, which the majority is opposed to, doesn't seem to fit any one. 

 

Again, who are these atheist's operating outside of the organizations and majority of atheist's? Where are they? They obviously don't comprise ranks enough to change the historical weak definition. The strong definition is roped in along side the weak in many dictionaries for what reason? 

 

A simple lack of education about atheism, combined the derogatory straw man accusations which christians have placed on atheism for centuries. 

 

Trying to make atheist's argue a strong position that doesn't represent them in the first place. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, mymistake said:

Right now, all across our country, religious fanatic parents are being cruel to their own children because of vicious lies that Christianity has spread about atheism.  It causes great suffering.  And the victims are in a vulnerable position, economically and emotionally.  And the abuse is coming from the people someone should be able to trust.  Secular children have to hide their thoughts because their parents' minds have been brainwashed to hate. 

 

Go ahead and stubbornly pretend you can't see the point.  Make up false accusations.  Pat yourself of the back for winning.  Throw together a loose collection of ideas and call it a "proof".  But this stuff isn't a game.  It's real.

 

 

Yes, and I contend that that's why education about what atheism actually is, historically, what the greek root means, and how this relates to opinions about conflating gnosticism with theism, as if being gnostic or agnostic addresses one's belief's rather than one's knowledge. This is the grass roots message that has been put forward by atheism world wide. And I tend to agree with their efforts to correct common mis-usage and misunderstanding regarding their position taking. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

Facts are not an emotional appeal and clearly you won't.  Kind of like that proof you said you can provide but never produced.   

 

 

 

So that bronze age tribal thinking/dogmatic belief is the truth?  Because it would be wrong to call it lies?

 

Refusing to see the point doesn't mean there is no point.

 

 

 

 

That is what I am talking about.  Christians are taught to hate atheists.  It's bigotry.   That would be the problem on their end.  You are going to pretend you can't see my point and then pretend that my point is your point?  

 

These games are a waste of time.

 

 

 

This is like arguing that common opinion about some other minority rules, rather than taking into account the majority of the minority position and then defining them that way, based on their OWN claims and how they themselves, choose to define their OWN position. 

 

So it's ok to make assumptions about some one's position, which run contrary to that position, and then toss it into dictionaries? 

 

That further's the problem of bigotry. 

 

Modern dictionaries are mainly defining atheism two ways, representing the weak and hard definition. Go searching, that's mainly what you'll see. With a mix of some defining only the strong while others tend to show an understanding of the importance of illustrating the weak definition. So it looks to me like over the last decade or so there's been something in the way of improvement. Maybe eventually the straw man's will be weeded out completely. 

 

This is like defining something like Satanism based on public opinion, which is very christian majority inspired, rather than objective and dealing only in terms with what actual Satanist's do believe and would define themselves as. That illustrates how something like christian bias can play into definitions.....

[ContraBardus]

14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There you have it then. The majority of atheist's themselves, have spoken and spoken clearly. They have declared that the historical weak definition and greek root is what represents the majority. That's what I've been showing. 

 

The strong definition, which the majority is opposed to, doesn't seem to fit any one. 

 

Again, who are these atheist's operating outside of the organizations and majority of atheist's? Where are they? They obviously don't comprise ranks enough to change the historical weak definition. The strong definition is roped in along side the weak in many dictionaries for what reason? 

 

A simple lack of education about atheism, combined the derogatory straw man accusations which christians have placed on atheism for centuries. 

 

Trying to make atheist's argue a strong position that doesn't represent them in the first place. 

 

 

 

Yeah, there is no evidence that "The majority of Atheists" have said shit.

 

You can't even identify who the "majority of Atheists" are, much less that they hold a particular viewpoint. That's the thing about autonomous collectives, which is what Atheists really are.

 

Organizations don't represent the whole like they do with churches. There are no "official Atheist organizations" only organizations that are officially Atheist, which isn't the same thing.

 

They can "declare" it all they want, that doesn't make it so.

 

Also, a minority group within a larger whole doesn't dictate the language of the larger whole. So your entire premise here is faulty.

[ContraBardus]

15 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Facts are not an emotional appeal and clearly you won't.  Kind of like that proof you said you can provide but never produced.   

 

 

 

So that bronze age tribal thinking/dogmatic belief is the truth?  Because it would be wrong to call it lies?

 

Refusing to see the point doesn't mean there is no point.

 

 

 

 

That is what I am talking about.  Christians are taught to hate atheists.  It's bigotry.   That would be the problem on their end.  You are going to pretend you can't see my point and then pretend that my point is your point?  

 

These games are a waste of time.

 

 

 

No, but your arguments are not facts that relate to the how terms are defined in the current iteration of our language. At best it is historical context for how it ended up being defined as it is now. That's cursory and not really relevant in regard to it's current usage as a term.

 

I did provide said proof, more than enough to support my point. You set up a false dichotomy anyway regarding that part of the discussion.

 

You're acting as if I'm defending Christians or their attitudes. I'm not. I just don't accept your terminology or the idea that the current definition is particularly slanderous or offensive in the first place. It is simply more specific, which isn't a bad thing. How it got to be defined that way isn't particularly relevant anymore.

 

Again, this isn't about the history of anything, it is about the definition as it is currently understood and commonly used today. Full stop. All this history stuff and political nonsense you keep bringing up over and over again is irrelevant. When the vast majority of people say "Atheist" the definition they mean it to imply is "someone who denies the existence of God". That means it's the definition, because that's how language works. This is provable within a reasonable degree of certainty because that's how dictionaries determine definitions, and current dictionaries reflect that definition.

 

There are a lot of words and phrases that have worse origins than their common definitions today. It's not unusual, and what they mean now is more important than what they originally meant. In regard to modern language, only the current definitions are relevant. It also isn't cause to stop using those terms and words because they don't mean what they used to anymore.

 

"Hysterical" was once associated only with women and was a derogatory term used to shame them.

 

"Bugger" is still used in it's original state in some outdated laws. However, it's current usage, while still somewhat crass, has softened quite a bit. It originally meant sodomy and was associated with homosexuals or beastiality. Now it's used to just mean "fuck".

 

"Ghetto" used to mean places that were restricted so that Jews could not enter.

 

"Mumbo Jumbo" likely has it's origins as a West African God that was used to frighten women into obedience. Now it just means incoherent speech.

 

"Fuzzy-wuzzy" was originally a derogatory term for dark skinned natives with curly hair.

 

"No can do" was originally making fun of Chinese speech patterns when speaking English.

 

"Hip Hip Hooray" Originally "Hep Hep". The origins of this are a German anti-semitic catch phrase. Look up the 1819 "Hep Hep" riots for confirmation of this, though the term and it's anti-semitic origins are older than that.

 

"Uppity" had racist origins. Referring to Blacks who were considered too self assertive. Interestingly, it may have origins in slave dialect, and might have originally been used by blacks to refer to other blacks. Though some claim it was first used by slave owners and that the slaves picked it up afterwards. It's usage continued as a racial slur for some time after the slaves were freed, but eventually shifted away from that meaning into it's more benign current meaning over time.

 

"Gyp" started as a racist term referring to Gypsies and Roma.

 

"Paddy Wagon" was a derogatory term originally and referenced the high number of Irish in the police force. Paddy was an offensive term for the Irish in general. Now it just means police van and isn't considered offensive.

 

"Long time no see" was originally derogatory towards Native American speech.

 

"Moron" has origins in eugenics, and meant worse than just idiot.

 

All your platitudes about how it's some sort of historical injustice for some reason don't really matter.

 

You seem to be saying that there's something wrong with expressly denying the existence of God to varying degrees of certainty for some strange reason, and that people who neither believe or disbelieve are somehow being "left out". I don't see anything wrong with denying the existence of God. My only problem is when it is stated as a provable fact in a dogmatic fashion, and even then it's only a matter of asserting a definitive level of certainty about proving an undefined negative.

 

I also never said that the current definition of Atheism references a dogmatic statement and that it is defined as stating that there is no God beyond doubt. You seem to be implying that. Many christians might imply that, but that doesn't make it the commonly accepted definition either.

 

Your entire premise is faulty. You're really arguing about a completely different subject that really only has a cursory relation to how the term Atheist is currently defined and isn't really relevant.

 

Definitions are about how most people use a term and the commonly stood understanding of what it means. The definition for the term Atheist you're promoting does not currently fit that criteria. The reasoning for why it is defined that way, or even how offensive it is or is not, doesn't really matter in the context of what the definition is. Dictionary definitions don't determine that, they only reflect it.

 

The definition could change in the future, but that will only matter then, and not now.

 

Your argument is an emotional appeal because it is about what you want it to mean, not what it does mean.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Yeah, no evidence that "The majority of Atheists" have said shit.

 

You can't even identify who the "majority of Atheists" are, much less that they hold a particular viewpoint. That's the thing about autonomous collectives, which is what Atheists really are.

 

Organizations don't represent the whole like they do with churches. There are no "official Atheist organizations" only organizations that are officially Atheist, which isn't the same thing.

 

They can "declare" it all they want, that doesn't make it so.

 

Also, a minority group within a larger whole doesn't dictate the language of the larger whole. So your entire premise here is faulty.

 

Put it this way, all we have to go by with atheism is the people who are speaking for atheism. 

 

Where are the speakers asserting the strong definition within the context of atheists speaking on behalf of atheism?

 

My premise is not faulty. What’s faulty is your obsession with trying to weasel around the facts I’ve laid here, which, are simple logic and sound reason. 

 

If I want to know what Satanism is about, I look to some one speaking on its behalf. Not some some douche bag who would promote a highly biased misrepresentation. 

 

This goes for anything that carries a christian bias, which has social impacts on wide spread misrepresentation. 

 

Atheism is basically next in line in terms of bias. I listed a variety of atheist representation. It’s all running the same direction. 

 

So far you’ve not been able to substantiate the hard definition as even credible, no one is owning it. Again, where are they? 

 

Meanwhile all of the representation I’ve found is saying the same thing, the weak definition is historical and in line with the root word. 

 

The strong definition is something more like anti-theism than atheism, because it’s opposite to theism. The opposition of one positive belief. The belief that gods do not exist. 

 

And granted, anti-theists would have an argument to stand on. But it would be limited to the known and knowable. The main point would be not rope in atheists with anti-theists with a broad brush. 

 

Anti-theist (belief gods don’t exist) > Atheists (no god belief at all) > Pantheism’s (what people mean by god is merely the natural universe) > theists (belief that god or gods do exist)

 

 

[ContraBardus]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Put it this way, all we have to go by with atheism is the people who are speaking for atheism. 

 

Where are the speakers asserting the strong definition within the context of atheists speaking on behalf of atheism?

 

My premise is not faulty. What’s faulty is your obsession with trying to weasel around the facts I’ve laid here, which, are simple logic and sound reason. 

 

If I want to know what Satanism is about, I look to some one speaking on its behalf. Not some some douche bag who would promote a highly biased misrepresentation. 

 

This goes for anything that carries a christian bias, which has social impacts on wide spread misrepresentation. 

 

Atheism is basically next in line in terms of bias. I listed a variety of atheist representation. It’s all running the same direction. 

 

So far you’ve not been able to substantiate the hard definition as even credible, no one is owning it. Again, where are they? 

 

Meanwhile all of the representation I’ve found is saying the same thing, the weak definition is historical and in line with the root word. 

 

The strong definition is something more like anti-theism than atheism, because it’s opposite to theism. The opposition of one positive belief. The belief that gods do not exist. 

 

And granted, anti-theists would have an argument to stand on. But it would be limited to the known and knowable. The main point would be not rope in atheists with anti-theists with a broad brush. 

 

Anti-theist (belief gods don’t exist) > Atheists (no god belief at all) > Pantheism’s (what people mean by god is merely the natural universe) > theists (belief that god or gods do exist)

 

 

 

No we don't. Nobody "speaks for" Atheism. There's no Pope, no leaders, no official organization, no structure. When I said it is an autonomous collective, I meant it. It makes no sense to say there is some sort of organization that speaks for Atheists that is some sort of authority. The very nature of Atheism as a non-organization precludes that.

 

Satanism is a church. However loosely organized, it is an organization with specific tenants and structure. It has leaders and a governing body, standardized religious texts, and is a structured and organized faith.

 

There is no Atheist church. It does not have specific tenants or structure. There is no governing body. There are no standardized religious texts, and it is not a structured or organized faith.

 

Like I said, these "organizations" you speak of are not Atheists Organizations, they are organizations that are Atheist, they are in no way are officially representative of Atheism. They do not represent a majority, and even if they did you have no way of proving it just due to the nature of Atheism as an autonomous collective. Atheists don't become a member of anything when they become Atheists, quite the opposite in most cases actually.

 

Again, your argument seems to be more about the definition you want, not the one that is.

 

I've provided more evidence that it is the standard definition and is the current common usage of the term than you have that it is not. In fact, you even inadvertently helped me with this when you posted the definitions for Atheism from several dictionaries as they all explicitly define it as an assertive negative.

 

The reasoning why it is defined that way, or even how offensive it is or isn't, doesn't really matter. It's the commonly accepted definition, and the definitions used by various dictionaries support that. They determine that definition by studying what usage is most common and then reflecting that in the definitions they publish. It's also worth pointing out that many of them are secularist organizations.

 

Atheists organizations aren't language specialists, the institutions that publish dictionaries are. They actually study how words are used and adjust the definitions to fit that. They are also independent and collectively agree on this. It's not a fast process, but it does evolve as the use in language does. Currently, your position is not supported, so the definition has not been changed.

 

If it happens, great, but until it does it doesn't matter what these organizations say. They have no authority to determine it on any level. They don't represent Atheism because it's not a collective organized group to begin with. They aren't studying language and keeping track of common usage, but rather are trying to influence that process. There isn't anything wrong with that and it may eventually succeed, but they haven't succeeded yet.

 

You claim that Atheists in general want this, and that because of that it should be. This is faulty on two counts, firstly you can't prove the first part just due to the nature of Atheism and the fact that it is inherently not an organized belief system, and secondly, that isn't how definitions in regard to language work in the first place.

 

Good luck campaigning for the change of the current definition of Atheism, but I see no reason to pretend that you've succeeded when you have done nothing of the sort.

[mymistake]

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I did provide said proof, more than enough to support my point. You set up a false dichotomy anyway regarding that part of the discussion.  

 

If you don't know what a formal proof looks like then you shouldn't say that you can provide one.  Your complaint about hard atheists was that they assert a negative that they cannot prove is true.  Yet you asserted a negative about hard atheists that you cannot prove true.  That makes your argument a contradiction.  And no, a list of why something is difficult does not prove it does not exist.  So your list of "oh it's so hard to prove a negative" doesn't save you.  Either prove the negative you asserted or accept that you are wrong.

 

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Again, this isn't about the history of anything, it is about the definition as it is currently understood and commonly used today. Full stop. All this history stuff and political nonsense you keep bringing up over and over again is irrelevant.  

 

You are trying to change the subject because you can't counter the arguments Josehpantera and I have made on the topic of how definitions have been used to cause discrimination.  We are talking about real suffering endured by real people.  Changing the subject does not address the arguments that have been made here.

 

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

That means it's the definition, because that's how language works. This is provable within a reasonable degree of certainty because that's how dictionaries determine definitions, and current dictionaries reflect that definition. 

 

You can look up all kinds of ethnic slurs in the dictionary.  The fact that the definition matches does not mean there is no abuse.  Again nobody is saying that you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you about the meaning of atheist.  We are saying that fundamentalist believers are using that meaning to hurt real people.  And no, that is not an appeal to emotion.  It is a fact.  Secular teens today are having a very hard time if they have fundamentalist Christian parents.  There is abuse, hatred, withdraw of support, estrangement, homelessness.  It's bad.

  

 

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 You seem to be thinking that there's something wrong with expressly denying the existence of God to varying degrees of certainty for some strange reason, and that people who neither believe or disbelieve are somehow being "left out". 

 

Nope.  I don't think anything like that at all.  If you are asking for my views on agnosticism and atheism I think the two dimensional chart is a great model

 

 

 

 

At no point did I say it was morally wrong to have a belief or to express it.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I don't see anything wrong with denying the existence of God. My only problem is when it is stated as a provable fact in a dogmatic fashion, and even then it's only a matter of asserting a definitive level of certainty about proving an undefined negative. 

 

Dogmatic is the opposite of provable.  And remember you have asserted that you can prove a negative.  You still did not provide that proof.  Let's not have any more lists about why it is hard.  Either prove your negative or accept you were wrong.

 

 

2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Your entire premise is faulty. You're really arguing about a completely different subject that really only has a cursory relation to how the term Atheist is currently defined and isn't really relevant.

 

You are the one who refuses to address the subject that Josehpantera and I are talking about.  That would be fine as long as you didn't pretend that you have somehow magically refuted the arguments made on that subject.  Again nobody claims you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you.  The point you are arguing is not contested.

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

30 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

If you don't know what a formal proof looks like then you shouldn't say that you can provide one.  Your complaint about hard atheists was that they assert a negative that they cannot prove is true.  Yet you asserted a negative about hard atheists that you cannot prove true.  That makes your argument a contradiction.  And no, a list of why something is hard does not prove it does not exist.  So your list of "oh it's so hard to prove a negative" doesn't save you.  Either prove the negative you asserted or accept that you are wrong.

 

 

You are trying to change the subject because you can't counter the arguments Josehpantera and I have made on the topic of how definitions have been used to cause discrimination.  We are talking about real suffering endured by real people.  

Changing the subject does not address the arguments that have been made here.

 

 

You can look up all kinds of ethnic slurs in the dictionary.  The fact that the definition matches does not mean there is no abuse.  Again nobody is saying that you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you about the meaning of atheist.  We are saying that fundamentalist believers are using that meaning to hurt real people.  And no, that is not an appeal to emotion.  It is a fact.  Secular teens today are having a very hard time if they have fundamentalist Christian parents.  There is abuse, hatred, withdraw of support, estrangement, homelessness.  It's bad.

  

 

 

Nope.  I don't think anything like that at all.  If you are asking for my views on agnosticism and atheism I think the two dimensional chart is a great model

 

 

 

 

At no point did I say it was morally wrong to have a belief or to express it.

 

 

 

 

Dogmatic is the opposite of provable.  And remember you have asserted that you can prove a negative.  You still did not provide that proof.  Let's not have any more lists about why it is hard.  Either prove your negative or accept you were wrong.

 

 

 

You are the one who refuses to address the subject that Josehpantera and I are talking about.  That would be fine as long as you didn't pretend that you have somehow magically refuted the arguments made on that subject.  Again nobody claims you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you.  The point you are arguing is not contested.

 

 

 

 

You can prove negatives within certain limitations. The key part is the second part of that statement. I already outlined this earlier, so there is no need to repeat it.

 

I also did prove my claim. As I said, you have a vested interest in denying that, so it's pointless to argue about it. Yes, you could say the same of me, but that just puts us at an impasse. Thus, it's a waste of time to bother with referencing it, because we're essentially just going to end up going "Uh-huh" and "Nuh-uh" over and over again.

 

I also would point out that your chart has a zero point in the middle. It's not labeled, but it is there.

 

My point is that you are arguing about what you want, not what is. The dictionary definitions are strong evidence of this.

 

Most of what you and Joshpantera are going on about isn't really relevant in the context of how the definition is currently defined. It is relevant to wanting to change it, and why you might want to, but doesn't actually have any impact on how it is currently defined. It might be relevant in an etymological sense as an explanation for how and why it ended up being defined as it currently is, but doesn't really have any bearing on the current usage beyond that, nor does it change it.

 

I would also point out that you not liking my answers is not the same as not addressing your points and arguments.

 

I have been addressing the subject and have repeatedly done so. I simply do not accept your reasoning and don't find your arguments particularly convincing. You keep bringing up etymology and historical use as directly relevant to the present day definition, and I have proven that isn't the case with multiple examples that show that line of thinking is false.

 

I accept current common usage as the definition, because that is how definitions work. It doesn't really matter what the previous history of the term is, how offensive anyone finds it, whether a minority group thinks it should be defined differently, or what the etymology of a term is. What matters is how most people use it and what it is commonly understood to mean.

 

You've provided no real evidence that how you want it to be defined is the current commonly understood definition. You can argue about the etymology and history of the word all you want and it won't ever matter. What does matter is how it is commonly currently used, and dictionary definitions are literally designed to reflect exactly that. The publishers are independent, and there is an overwhelming consensus on this matter among them as well. In this context, that does matter. Dictionaries don't determine the definitions, common usage does, and they reflect that usage. It's all the evidence I need really. Etymology and outdated historical use don't really contest it, they just provide a map and explanation of a term's evolution and how it ended up where it is now.

[mymistake]

5 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

As I said, you have a vested interest in denying that, so it's pointless to argue about it.  

 

Pure projection.  My vested interest is in the truth.

 

 

6 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

1+1=2 is incontrovertibly true.

 

Not beyond all doubt.  In mathematics you can prove it true because math is a logical system with no unreasonable objections allowed.  If you hold mathematics and the existence of God to different standards that is inconsistent.  Once you introduce magic or the "power to do anything" as premises you are not going to be able to prove squat.

 

 

11 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

I also would point out that your chart has a zero point in the middle. It's not labeled, but it is there.

 

Of course.  

 

13 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

My point is that you are arguing about what you want, not what is.

 

 

Wrong.  There are plenty of testimonies right here on ex-C from secular people who are being hurt, under threat of being cut off from support, being manipulated and so on because their fundamentalist Christian parents were brainwashed.  I don't want that.  But I accept reality because of the evidence.

 

 

16 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Most of what you and Joshpantera are going on about isn't really relevant in the context of how the definition is currently defined.

 

Because nobody contests the claim you keep making.  We all know the dictionary agrees with you.  I told you that in the very beginning but you just can't seem to understand.  We are talking about how people are being harmed and how misconceptions (even if found in the dictionary definition) are contributing to this harm.

 

 

18 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

I have been addressing the subject and have repeatedly done so.

 

Not the one we are talking about.  If you don't want to talk about what we are talking about that is fine but you are not addressing our subject.

 

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

Pure projection.  My vested interest is in the truth.

 

 

 

Not beyond all doubt.  In mathematics you can prove it true because math is a logical system with no unreasonable objections allowed.  If you hold mathematics and the existence of God to different standards that is inconsistent.  Once you introduce magic or the "power to do anything" as premises you are not going to be able to prove squat.

 

 

 

Of course.  

 

 

 

Wrong.  There are plenty of testimonies right here on ex-C from secular people who are being hurt, under threat of being cut off from support, being manipulated and so on because their fundamentalist Christian parents were brainwashed.  I don't want that.  But I accept reality because of the evidence.

 

 

 

Because nobody contests the claim you keep making.  We all know the dictionary agrees with you.  I told you that in the very beginning but you just can't seem to understand.  We are talking about how people are being harmed and how misconceptions (even if found in the dictionary definition) are contributing to this harm.

 

 

 

Not the one we are talking about.  If you don't want to talk about what we are talking about that is fine but you are not addressing our subject.

 

 

You're having a completely different argument than everyone else.

 

You're also ignoring important points. Such as my statement that negatives can be proven within limitations. I've gone over this before at length, and see no reason to repeat it now.

 

Again, this is an emotional appeal that has no impact on how the term is currently defined.

 

The definition is not contributing to this harm. That is a faulty cause and effect fallacy at best.

 

Yes, I'm aware of secular people being hurt. It isn't relevant to this. Black people have been hurt and suffered racial injustice historically in this country, but that doesn't change what "nigger" means. The use of the term "nigger" didn't cause the injustice or suffering of Blacks in America. It is just a reflection of it. Someone calling black people "nigger" didn't make them slaves, trample on their rights, or make them victims of violence and oppression.

 

Do you really think that if the word "nigger" didn't exist things would have been any different? If it didn't, it would have just been something else, "blacklodite" or "Afriscum" or something. Nothing would have been any different regardless, and the racist people of today wouldn't be any less racist, more reasonable, or fewer in number.

 

It doesn't actually matter if a term does mean something that has a negative or derogatory definition or origin, or even if it does contribute to harm as you claim. Even if it is true, it's an argument for why it should change at best, not that it already means something different.

 

At most, the current definition of Atheist could be considered a reflection of the harm you're outlining, and I don't see that as the case. It's not particularly derogatory or offensive as it is currently commonly defined. Just because the origins of a word are less than savory, doesn't mean the current use is negative. See my above post regarding terms that once meant something worse than their current definitions do as evidence of this. It's also something that can go back and fourth over time.

 

Most people don't like being called an asshole. Does that mean we should change the definition of asshole in dictionaries to mean something nicer? Do you think that will that stop people from using it as an insult and change the commonly understood definition? It certainly won't stop people from being assholes just because we stop using the term to refer to them. Changing the commonly understood meaning of Atheist won't do a single thing to stop any Christians from being assholes either. Dictionaries don't create the definitions they publish, they simply present them as they are commonly understood, when the commonly understood definition changes, the dictionary definitions are also changed to reflect this.

 

I'm not arguing against it changing, that sort of thing happens all the time, just that it does not currently mean what you'd like it to, and that's true. Just declaring that it means something different won't make it happen. I'll accept the definition you're arguing for as correct when the definition is commonly accepted and the evidence that it is reflects it, not before.

 

It's also not just "a dictionary" it's a consensus among them. Each publisher is an independent entity that studies and tracks word usage and the commonly understood definition of those terms, the definitions they publish are designed to reflect that usage. I see no reason to believe there is some sort of Christian conspiracy involved, especially considering the secular nature of many of these organizations. That's relevant here, and it is evidence that I am correct and that you are not.

 

You're not really arguing that the meaning is different at all, but rather why it should be different, which isn't the topic of discussion.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

You're also ignoring important points. Such as my statement that negatives can be proven within limitations. 

 

I don't ignore what I already know.  It is not contested that negatives can be proven within limitations.  You keep trying to have a debate on topics where nobody opposes you.  If we agree on a given topic then posting evidence that my opinion is true will not make me wrong.  

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

Again, this is an emotional appeal that has no impact on how the term is currently defined.

 

What emotional appeal?  Maybe you should look up the meaning of that phrase.  It doesn't mean what you think it means.  And since I agree with you on how the term atheism is currently defined all the evidence you provide will only show that I am right.  Go ahead and lay more on.  Make me even more right.

 

"Changing a meaning in order to encourage better understanding so that there will be less discrimination" is a different topic than "how the term is currently defined".  Get it?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

Yes, I'm aware of secular people being hurt. 

 

If you accept it as fact then let's stop calling it an appeal to emotions.

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

. . . didn't make them slaves, trample on their rights, or make them victims of violence and oppression.

 

What a horrible analogy.  The thinking caused those things and the abusive language as well.  Even though black people are not property today using that word harms them by bringing up the evil way of thinking which in turn causes bad behavior.  The idea is to change the way people think about atheists by increasing understanding.  It is hopped that when Christians understand atheists then the bad behavior will stop.

 

Behavioral science is not an appeal to emotion.  Bad thoughts and abusive language feed off of each other.

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

Just because the origins of a word are less than savory, doesn't mean the current use is negative.

 

Never said the origin was relevant.  The current use is negative because of the bad behavior caused by bad thinking.  Nothing to do with origins.  You keep trying to change the subject.

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

It's also not just "a dictionary" it's a consensus among them.

 

Oh so I was absolutely right about the current meaning of atheism found in the dictionary?  By all means pour on more evidence that I was right.  When a topic is not contested that means it is not contested.  Get it?

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

I see no reason to believe there is some sort of Christian conspiracy involved, especially considering the secular nature of many of these organizations.

 

I never said there was a conspiracy.  Are you changing the subject again?

 

 

1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

That's relevant here, and it is evidence that I am correct and that you are not.

 

Remind me again of where I claimed there is a dictionary that disagrees with your definition of atheism?  I don't remember saying that.

 

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

I don't ignore what I already know.  It is not contested that negatives can be proven within limitations.  You keep trying to have a debate on topics where nobody opposes you.  If we agree on a given topic then posting evidence that my opinion is true will not make me wrong.  

 

 

 

What emotional appeal?  Maybe you should look up the meaning of that phrase.  It doesn't mean what you think it means.  And since I agree with you on how the term is currently defined all the evidence you provide will only show that I am right.  Go ahead and lay more on.  Make me even more right.

 

"Changing a meaning in order to encourage better understanding so that there will be less discrimination" is a different topic than "how the term is currently defined".  Get it?

 

 

 

 

If you accept it as fact then let's stop calling it an appeal to emotions.

 

 

 

What a horrible analogy.  The thinking caused those things and the abusive language as well.  Even thought black people are not property today using that word harms them by bringing up the evil way of thinking which in turn causes bad behavior.  The idea is to change the way people think about atheists by increasing understanding.  When Christians understand atheists then the bad behavior will stop.

 

Behavioral science is not an appeal to emotion.

 

 

 

Never said the origin was relevant.  The current use is negative because of the bad behavior caused by bad thinking.  Nothing to do with origins.  You keep trying to change the subject.

 

 

 

Oh so I was absolutely right about the current meaning of atheism found in the dictionary?  By all means pour on more evidence that I was right.  When a topic is not contested that means it is not contested.  Get it?

 

 

 

Never said there was one.  Are you changing the subject again?

 

 

 

Remind me again of where I claimed there is a dictionary that disagrees with your definition of atheism?  I don't remember saying that.

 

 

 

 

 

How is going on about people's suffering and the harm the way a word is defined may cause as if it has any relation to how words are actually defined not an emotional appeal? It's all completely irrelevant, and no, my analogy is not poor and is quite relevant to your argument. I'm not going to stop calling it an emotional appeal because that's literally what it is. Being based on behavioral science doesn't make it not an emotional appeal when used in this context. I also question that claim a bit in regard to whether what you've been arguing would actually be considered behavioral science in the context of how you're using it, but whatever.

 

Yes, the thinking is the problem, not the definition of the term. As I said, Christians will not stop being assholes because you tweak the commonly understood definition of Atheism a bit. It will not prevent any suffering in the past or future to do so. It won't change their arguments, make them more reasonable, or erase any of their hate or tribal mentality. The commonly understood definition of the term not being broader has no impact on that whatsoever. I have no idea why you seem to think this is the case.

 

Also, the current use is not negative. You keep claiming that, but it's not true. If anything it's more positive than it's ever been.

 

Explain why stating that "there is no God" as an assertive positive is a bad thing and somehow a negative. Especially if it's not a declarative absolute and within a range of certainty. How is that bad, how does it hurt secularists in any way that a simple change of the definition would improve, and how is it not true exactly?

 

Why would things be better for Atheists if the term refers to a simple disbelief in God exactly? Why would they be treated better? How will this pacify theists any? Do you really think they would treat people different if that was the case? I don't see any reason to believe that.

 

Your entire argument revolves around what you want it to mean, and arguing about why it should mean something else. It doesn't matter how good your reasons for why it should be defined the way you want are. The topic is about how the term is currently defined, not the social impact of it and reasons why it should be changed to mean something different.

 

You did outline a Christian conspiracy. That is literally what this is:

 

Quote

"You are using the terms the way Christianity defines them in order discredit non-Christians.  That is one way to do it but many people realize Christianity should not get to classify the rest of humanity.  Christianity doesn't have to own the language unless we give up.  If we forget the false narrative that Christians gave the term "atheist" then it means anybody who isn't a theist, as in not theist."

"I was alluding to the fact that the Catholic Church had the power to kill anybody who questioned their authority back when English was being developed so they controlled the definitions.  By controlling the language the Catholic Church could misrepresent opposing ideas and thus discredit atheists."

 

 

These are both conspiracy. Again, you imply that the current definition as it is commonly understood is influenced by this, and it may be, but that isn't really relevant to what the current definition is. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Nor does anyone's suffering or how derogatory the use of the term is or has been. Those are irrelevant points regarding what the definition currently is and how it is used in modern language.

 

You've basically all but admitted that the definition isn't what you want it to be, but are trying to downplay the evidence that proves it. Which is the fact that pretty much every dictionary contradicts your argument and that the definition you prefer is not really common usage, which is why you're so keen on downplaying it and brushing it off.

 

I have no interest in arguing whether the term should be changed or not for whatever reason. That is completely irrelevant to what the current definition actually is and not the subject of discussion.

 

At the end of the day, this is an argument about grammar and proper word usage, not ideology, morality, or the social impact of how Atheist is currently defined. I'm thinking both you are being the wrong kind of nerd in regard to the discussion at hand.

 

I've been arguing the Grammar Nazi side of this subject from the start, not the actual Nazi side of it.

 

I think that might be where the problem here lies.

[mymistake]

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

I'm not going to stop calling it an emotional appeal because that's literally what it is.  

 

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Once again, you inadvertently say I'm right.

 

I have intentionally said you are right about the dictionary definition of atheism multiple times now.  I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.  It isn't a contested point.

 

Look man, a discussion isn't a zero sum game.  There isn't a winner or loser.  There can be understanding or misunderstanding.  There can be agreement or disagreement.  The topics where we already agree are areas where I think you are right.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Yes, the thinking is the problem, not the definition of the term.

 

But this is a point of disagreement.  Christians are using their misunderstanding of atheism to feed their bad behavior toward secular people.  Just because the dictionary says a word means X does not mean that definition is a good understanding of a population.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Also, the current use is not negative. You keep claiming that, but it's not true. If anything it's more positive than it's ever been.

 

What?  You've not been paying attention.  The dictionary definition confuses hard atheism with soft atheism.  Most atheists are not hard atheists like me.  I would never assume that about them but many Christians do because the dictionary def. does not lead to good understanding.  You don't propose changing something unless it needs a change.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Why would they be treated better? How will this pacify theists any?

 

The same way theist stopped burning people at the stake for thinking Jupiter has moons or the world is round.  When enough non-theists get together and stop accepting the nonsense the theists improve their behavior.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Your entire argument revolves around what you want it to mean . . . 

 

Facts.  You have admitted the facts I have cited are facts.  Facts are facts.  Not wishing.  Not an appeal to emotions.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

You did outline a Christian conspiracy.

 

That isn't what conspiracy means.  The Roman Catholic Church had real power for a long time and used that power.  This is history, not conspiracy.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

You've basically all but admitted that the definition isn't what you want it to be, but are trying to weasel your way out from under that by downplaying evidence that proves it.

 

You commit the strawman fallacy.

 

 

37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

I have no interest in arguing whether the term should be changed or not for whatever reason.

 

Then why have you been answering for five pages?  If you are not interested then don't comment on that subject.

 

[ContraBardus]

5 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

 

 

I have intentionally said you are right about the dictionary definition of atheism multiple times now.  I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.  It isn't a contested point.

 

Look man, a discussion isn't a zero sum game.  There isn't a winner or loser.  There can be understanding or misunderstanding.  There can be agreement or disagreement.  The topics where we already agree are areas where I think you are right.

 

 

 

But this is a point of disagreement.  Christians are using their misunderstanding of atheism to feed their bad behavior toward secular people.  Just because the dictionary says a word means X does not mean that definition is a good understanding of a population.

 

 

 

What?  You've not been paying attention.  The dictionary definition confuses hard atheism with soft atheism.  Most atheists are not hard atheists like me.  I would never assume that about them but many Christians do because the dictionary def. does not lead to good understanding.  You don't propose changing something unless it needs a change.

 

 

 

The same way theist stopped burning people at the stake for thinking Jupiter has moons or the world is round.  When enough non-theists get together and stop accepting the nonsense the theists improve their behavior.

 

 

 

Facts.  You have admitted the facts I have cited are facts.  Facts are facts.  Not wishing.  Not an appeal to emotions.

 

 

 

That isn't what conspiracy means.  The Roman Catholic Church had real power for a long time and used that power.  This is history, not conspiracy.

 

 

 

You commit the strawman fallacy.

 

 

 

Then why have you been answering for five pages?  If you are not interested then don't comment on that subject.

 

 

You really need to look up what some of these terms mean yourself.

 

It is entirely possible to use facts in a fallacious argument. They are not mutually exclusive. This includes an appeal to emotion argument. In fact, I'd say that most fallacious arguments contain some sort of fact or truth in them.

 

Also, that Catholic Church thing literally exactly fits the definition of conspiracy. Being history doesn't make it not conspiracy. They are not mutually exclusive. It just becomes a historical conspiracy.

 

At any rate, we've been arguing two completely different topics and aren't having the same conversation. I have always been arguing about the grammar and usage of the current meaning of the term. I hate to put it this way, but that's fairly obvious if you actually read my posts as I have directly said so. I've repeatedly said I'm only talking about what the current definition as it is defined right now is, and how it is commonly used. Like a bunch of times, seriously.

 

As it is currently defined within our language, the definition implies a negative assertion about the existence of God. That is merely what the current commonly understood definition right now is, not what it might become, or what it was previously.

 

If you want to change that, great, but it isn't just going to instantly happen. It's not as simple as declaring it so, and a few Atheist organizations supporting it doesn't change that. It needs to become a common usage by the majority of people, that's not a simple matter and will take a while to happen.

 

I never argued against the meaning being changed, or said that it shouldn't be. Not once. In fact, I've said multiple times I'm fine with it if it does happen, as it happens all the time.

 

I did express a preference for the term as it is currently used, as it is more specific and clearer, but pretty much always followed that statement with the statement that I would be fine with it changing in the future and would see no reason to complain despite my preference.

 

I also don't see the current definition as negative or derogatory. I'm not sure why you seem to, but whatever.

 

If you want it to be different, great and good luck. Just be aware that's probably going to take a while. It's easier than it used to be thanks to the internet, but realistically will probably still take at least a few years.

[midniterider]

As far as fundy Christians go, I'm doubtful as to their treating atheists and atheism differently no matter what subtle definition change we may apply to it. If it aint Jebus, it's evil!

 

Regarding the general attitude of the average Joe towards atheists, I dont have that data.

 

 

 

[plastivore]

Fundy rightwingers don't care about nuance.  They care about judging people, absolute conformity, being authoritarians, and prepping for the apocalypse because they are stupid literalists incapable of abstract thought.  They are the problem.  The last two or three pages of this thread, ugh.  Head hurting from totally pointless and worthless argument that proves nothing except that some of you get needlessly hung up on semantics that your opponents could truly care less about, if I know anything about fundies from what I've seen in the media.

 

I will say something about religions, though.  Religions don't exist without people.  And god/God, whether you do or don't believe, exists/doesn't exist independently of religion.  People, whether they are organized into towns, religious groups, political parties, philosophical schools, sports fans, etc - people can be massive dickbags or they can be really cool and progressive.  There are atheist dickbags and there are Christian dickbags.  There are Yankees dickbags - there are LOTS of Yankees dickbags.  Fuck the Yankees (and the Cubs).  Tribalism in general has a tendency to produce dickish, oppositional behavior.  Don't be tribal dividers.  Be uniters.  That is the true subversion.  I get the sense that a lot of posters on this site may have a knee jerk reaction to all flavors of Christianity, when in fact many of you would find allies among proponents of the social Gospel that aren't trying to save you, don't care if you do or don't believe, and mostly just care that you are good people that can help advance the world to a more peaceful, prosperous, and environmentally sound place.  Peace out. 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, plastivore said:

Fundy rightwingers don't care about nuance.  They care about judging people, absolute conformity, being authoritarians, and prepping for the apocalypse because they are stupid literalists incapable of abstract thought.  They are the problem. 

I stop short of calling them stupid (spoken as a former fundy, who afterall came to her senses and started thinking). A good many are capable of thinking abstract thoughts, if they just let themselves. I think it's a mistake to attack them, a better method would be to try involve them in dialogue (as frustrating as that is), it could lead somewhere.

2 minutes ago, plastivore said:

 

I will say something about religions, though.  Religions don't exist without people.  And god/God, whether you do or don't believe, exists/doesn't exist independently of religion.  People, whether they are organized into towns, religious groups, political parties, philosophical schools, sports fans, etc - people can be massive dickbags or they can be really cool and progressive.  There are atheist dickbags and there are Christian dickbags.  There are Yankees dickbags - there are LOTS of Yankees dickbags.  Fuck the Yankees (and the Cubs).  Tribalism in general has a tendency to produce dickish, oppositional behavior.  Don't be tribal dividers.  Be uniters.  That is the true subversion.  I get the sense that a lot of posters on this site may have a knee jerk reaction to all flavors of Christianity, when in fact many of you would find allies among proponents of the social Gospel that aren't trying to save you, don't care if you do or don't believe, and mostly just care that you are good people that can help advance the world to a more peaceful, prosperous, and environmentally sound place.  Peace out. 

 

 

I think most of us have had more than enough of tribal behaviour. Some may have a knee jerk reaction, but I do agree with you, finding allies is a better solution.

[ContraBardus]

2 hours ago, plastivore said:

Fundy rightwingers don't care about nuance.  They care about judging people, absolute conformity, being authoritarians, and prepping for the apocalypse because they are stupid literalists incapable of abstract thought.  They are the problem.  The last two or three pages of this thread, ugh.  Head hurting from totally pointless and worthless argument that proves nothing except that some of you get needlessly hung up on semantics that your opponents could truly care less about, if I know anything about fundies from what I've seen in the media.

 

I will say something about religions, though.  Religions don't exist without people.  And god/God, whether you do or don't believe, exists/doesn't exist independently of religion.  People, whether they are organized into towns, religious groups, political parties, philosophical schools, sports fans, etc - people can be massive dickbags or they can be really cool and progressive.  There are atheist dickbags and there are Christian dickbags.  There are Yankees dickbags - there are LOTS of Yankees dickbags.  Fuck the Yankees (and the Cubs).  Tribalism in general has a tendency to produce dickish, oppositional behavior.  Don't be tribal dividers.  Be uniters.  That is the true subversion.  I get the sense that a lot of posters on this site may have a knee jerk reaction to all flavors of Christianity, when in fact many of you would find allies among proponents of the social Gospel that aren't trying to save you, don't care if you do or don't believe, and mostly just care that you are good people that can help advance the world to a more peaceful, prosperous, and environmentally sound place.  Peace out. 

 

 

 

This did get a little out of hand around the end of page three.

 

We usually confine this sort of stuff to ToT, but semantics or not, I still say it's on topic, even if only barely. If only because it's hashing out the terminology related to the original post regarding the people the question was about.

 

I think it's probably run its course though and that we did indeed overdo it a bit. There's nothing to be gained by continuing at this point, so I'm done arguing the grammar and definition of the term Atheist.

 

[ContraBardus]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:50 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Not that I'm aware of. I assume the deist god concepts end up tracing back to mythology, then projecting the already existing idea of mythological gods out into a deistic conceptualization. 

 

And people either believe they exist or they lack that positive belief. 

 

Saying I don't know if they exist doesn't address whether or not they believe in them. We must go one step further in order to establish belief or lack of belief. 

 

Me personally, understand that I don't know what could be out there. But that doesn't give me the sense of believing just because of the possibility. In terms of knowledge of the existence of gods, I don't know for certain. In terms of believing in the existence of gods, I really don't. 

 

I would posit that all Gods are based on Mythology whether they are real or not. At least, all the Gods with names and specific characteristics, present or former.

 

Even if the God of Abraham is real, I don't trust that the Bible itself, being an amalgamation of various books, passing through the filter of time, oral tradition, translation, and being copied and adjusted however many times, is not more myth than an accurate account or depiction of said God. That's not even getting into the limited knowledge humans had at the time to describe these concepts.

 

I'd say the same of any other holy text that claims to depict a God or Gods. Even if said God or Gods are real, their stories have had the misfortune of having our grubby fingerprints all over them for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Relying on our mouths, ears, and memories to accurately represent them over time, and being modified, translated, and revamped to reflect our own morality and justify our behaviors, good and bad, throughout history.

 

Call it the telephone effect amplified millions of times.

 

I suppose you could say that a general deistic God that is more a concept than a character might be exempt from that. I'm not so sure that really counts as it's more a concept and idea than what we'd normally call a God. I wouldn't argue if someone said it did count, but am uncertain about how well it fits within this.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/11/2018 at 1:15 PM, ContraBardus said:

As it is currently defined within our language, the definition implies a negative assertion about the existence of God. That is merely what the current commonly understood definition right now is, not what it might become, or what it was previously.

 

Let's look at the most popular definitions now, to check your assertion. 

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism 

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

Definition of atheism

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

 

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

 

a·the·ism

  (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)

n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist

 

noun

The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

atheist

a person who believes that there is no God

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let's not go any further without making sure to first look at how atheism is currently defined on large scale. 

 

It's defined right now by conflating both agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism for the sake of making a single definition for the word atheism. Most dictionaries online include the root meaning of a simple lack of belief in the existence of gods, the soft definition. But they also add the hard definition to cover both bases. This gives the impression of conflating both the soft and hard definitions into the generic term, "atheism," as our current state of affairs. 

 

There's currently both a negative and positive assertion roped in together to define atheism in most dictionaries. 

 

By negative I mean a simple lack of belief in gods. 

 

And by positive I mean a belief that gods do not exist.

 

I tend to think that even in the case of gnostic atheist's, knowing gods do not exist, they too are blanketed by agnostic atheism by necessity and so it's all consuming across the board in atheism in that way. 

 

Why? 

 

Because it's impossible to know anything with certainty out to beyond our range of perception out to infinity. Literally no one can know anything beyond a certain point. We can know all sorts of things about how religious traditional gods are man made and evolved. But at some point we loose all knowledge. So agnostic atheism over rides and consumes gnostic atheism (1), has the traditional usage of the soft defintion (2), and is in accord with the root meaning of the word itself, meaning simply, "not-god belief" (3). 

 

So the argument from the atheist organizations is a sound argument. They've obviously thought this through and understand their position taking. I'm not sure if their efforts are the reason we find dual definitions of both soft and hard atheism on just about every dictionary today or what. But they have been campaigning that way so it may be.