enaidealukal wrote:
The definition of atheism Im endorsing ... While Im not sure that it is the standard one in the sense of being most popular in general,
I think it is the most popular among theists, and that makes it the most popular in general. But our preferred definition is coming on like gangbusters. I wouldn't predict that yours will be most popular in twenty years.
There are likely exceptions
There are many many exceptions. You may have been one earlier in the thread when you talked about degrees of belief. At that point, you sounded like Dawkins. Dawkins uses an eccentric personal definition that you might like.
but for the most part when you hear scholars and professionals talk about atheism, they are speaking of the reasoned rejection of/opposition to theism, not merely the absence of theism.
And we can have a discussion about that too. But, I note that you started your new thread by talking about "atheism," when you know how most people here use that word. Then, later in the thread, you tried to change to your preferred meaning.
You say you want to avoid ambiguity, but you wallow in it.
You could have started your new thread by saying something like, "When I say atheism, this is what I mean." Then give your definition. Then name your topic: "I want to know how these atheists (as I have defined the term) justify their beliefs."
If you did that, you would have a discussion of the justifications of strong atheism.
What you actually did though, is analogous to going into a synagog, starting a discussion about Judaism, and then, well into that discussion, saying, "Oh, by the way, when I say "Jew," I'm using a definition that most of you don't agree with, but I think we should all conform with my usage anyway."
The discussion you actually get is not the discussion you say you want. But the power to get the discussion you say you want is entirely within your hands.
...
And it is a simple fact that in most serious discussions of religion and religious views, "absence of theistic belief" simply isn't a very useful definition of atheism;
Nonsense.
this doesn't even distinguish atheism as a cognitive, intellectual position (or 'doxatic' attitude)
Google is not my friend. Either that or "doxatic" is misspelled.
in the first place- most things lack theistic belief, after all. This definition doesn't distinguish the intellectual, reason atheism of a person from the unthinking absence of ANY belief of a rock,
An atheist is
a person who doesn't believe gods exist, just like a theist is
a person who believes that gods do exist. Everybody understands that, so there is no reason to state the obvious. The only exception I can think of would be if someone were dogmatically insisting that he was confused about things that aren't really confusing.
... And yet, that is exactly what we want to distinguish most of the time when we speak of atheism; when we want to talk about atheism, we usually aren't interested in the non-cognitive, non-position of an infant. We want to talk about atheism in the sense of a view or a position- the cognitive and reasoned opposition/rejection of theism; the view that theism is false.
Hey, if you want to talk about that, we can talk about that. You are the one directing the conversation to definitions.
But not only do we generally want to distinguish atheism as a view- a doxatic attitude or intellectual position- with respect to theism, we also want to distinguish it from agnosticism. Obviously the definition of atheism as absence of theism fails to distinguish atheism from agnosticism- agnostics also lack belief in God. And yet, most of the time to say someone is agnostic is to say they are NOT an atheist- are you an atheist? No, Im agnostic- agnosticism is the "middle option" between atheism and theism. As mentioned, this is probably the standard usage (at least outside of the online message board community) and so to have atheism and agnosticism overlap is, at the very least, misleading- and there is virtue to having agnostic/theist/atheist form exclusive categories. If they form exclusive categories, they are more precise- there is less room for equivocation, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.
We are not confused on this point. We understand your argument for your usage. We disagree emphatically about where the room for equivocation, ambiguity, misunderstanding, and imprecision lies, but we get what you're saying.
Now, as I've said, that "absence of theistic belief" is ambiguous isn't a huge problem in colloquial discourse, but if we want to have a serious, rigorous discussion, it behooves us to be more precise.
It is precise. There's no ambiguity at all. Either you believe that god(s) exist, or you don't.
And I'm surprised I have to give arguments for why we want precise, unequivocal terms in a serious discussion-
You don't have to give those arguments. We are entirely in agreement on that point. What we disagree with is claim that your usage of "atheism" is more precise and unequivocal than ours.
ambiguity allows for errors and misunderstandings to creep in, and imprecise terms have a trickle-down effect on all subsequent arguments and inferences (for instance, one can be guilty of fallacious equivocation simply because ones terms were equivocal). Perhaps you disagree with my assessment, but if you honestly can't at least understand the motivation behind wanting a definition of atheism that distinguishes atheism as a cognitive, intellectual view or position (as opposed to the absence of ANY intellectual view or position), and distinguishes atheism from agnosticism, then there probably isn't anything more I (or anyone else) can say at this point.
I assume that we're all entirely with you in your desire for clarity. That's why we don't think you should be using the word "atheist" the way you do.
No, there isn't really anything more to be said on this point. We understand your position, and I assume you understand ours.
It might be time to quit arguing definitions, therefore, and actually go to the topic you claim to be interested in.
