The Definition of Atheism According To...

[WinePusher]

The definition of atheism according to an internet debater:

Actually, EJ, the Atheist position (according to Atheists -- not Theists) is "I do not believe in gods" -- period -- full stop.

SOME Atheists (often referred to as Hard Atheists) deny the existence of "gods" but that is NOT required in Atheism -- which means "Without belief in gods."

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2&start=10

The definition of atheism according to Carl Sagan:

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Social_concerns

The definition of atheism according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The definition of atheism according to Dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

Questions for debate:

1) What is the definition of atheism?

2) When considering the definition of atheism, should one rely on the opinions of an internet debater or the opinions of Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary?

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt.

3) Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary 'theists' and 'theistic sources?' Are Carl Sagan, the Stanford Encyclopedia and the dictionary guilty of straw man attempts?

[enaidealukal]

Technical language being given as an additional subdefinition not as the only or overarching definition, often in specific contexts.

Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of what is the case. This is pretty much exactly how it works- within that particular domain or context (for instance, in the example we've been using, formal logic), the technical definition, which is more narrow and specific (i.e. has a smaller extension) supplants the usual definition. In logic, if one says the P is possible, this means no less and no more than that P is possible in the technical sense of "possible", not the colloquial sense.

... what they "really believe" is irrelevant in a debate.

Which is why I said, several times now, that I don't concern myself with any such thing and confine myself to their assertions and arguments.

It's an objection to your definition of agnostic.

Not in itself, no. And your original objection was that it was not clear- but not only does it look pretty clear, you've yet to say what you mean by that- i.e. in what wise it is unclear.

Why "undecidable"?

Because that is what I take to be distinctive of agnosticism, rather than any claim about knowledge specifically- especially since decidability encompasses knowability here (if X is undecideable, then X is unknowable); that, whether due to limitations of our knowledge, a lack of sufficient evidence, or some other reason, atheism vs. theism is not a decidable dispute or proposition. There certainly are people who suspend judgment on the existence (or non-existence) of gods, not because they don't think it can be known, but because they don't think it can even be reasonably believed. Making knowledge a part of the criteria would unduly rule them out.

Clear does not mean unambiguous

Really? This would be news to... well, everyone. Curious then that, for instance, "ambiguous" is typically given as an antonym for "clear". What's up with that?

They aren't more precise for the same reason that redefining rectangle to be square isn't more precise.

"Square" is more precise than "rectangle"- it appears your argument against my definitions been clear or precise is to simply deny the plain English meaning of "clear" and "precise".

I could equally say the existing terms make yours redundant.

I suppose, but there's a bunch more of them.

Definitions are not adopted on utility at all. Definitions are adopted on usage.

We've covered this. In lexicography, this is certainly true. Elsewhere, it isn't. Technical definitions most certainly are adopted on utility. They aren't adopted willy-nilly.

New words sometimes be adopted this way - because the people that first use the words (who start their trends) choose to do so.

Ok, and how do you think new technical terms are coined? (people choosing to do so)

And why do you think they would choose to do so? (utility)

Look, if you're going to simply deny some plain facts about technical fields and the language they employ, I'm not sure what point there is in us continuing. Given that technical fields do employ precise language, and do not do so arbitrarily (but do so on the basis of practical considerations like precision), the definitions I prefer have merit. If you reject these patent facts about technical terminology, however, there isn't really anything else to say.

As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying the only meaning of atheism should be "lack of belief in gods". I'm saying that the overarching definition - the definition that includes all subdefinitions - should at least cover it.

Well but why do we need a single usage that encompasses all the others? What's wrong with having dictionaries simply list all the various differing usages (which is pretty much what they do now)?

That at the very least, weak atheism should be a subset of atheism in all it's definitions. That people should acknowledge that it is used by weak atheists and that it isn't wrong for them to do so.

Nobody is saying it is "wrong". I'm saying that, according to a different set of definitions, which are more useful in certain contexts, they end up not qualifiying. That's it. And in itself this is no problem at all, particularly since in many of the contexts I happen to be interested, such as the philosophy of religion, there is nothing distinctive or relevant about weak atheism as distinguished from non-theism or agnosticism, such that it needs to be considered a form of atheism at all. The claims made by strong/positive atheism, or atheism, on the other hand are distinctive and relevant in that it makes ontological/epistemological claims about the status of God.

Yes, we do. We know they don't think "yes".
To reword it for clarity's sake, that question literally is "Are you a theist?"
It's a yes or no question. No leads to atheist (as I define it), yes leads to theist.
"Are you an atheist?"
It's a yes or no question, No leads to theist, yes leads to atheist (as I define it)

"Do you hold the belief that at least one god exists?"
Yes -> Theist
No -> Weak Atheist or Strong Atheist

On the other hand,
"Do you hold the belief that no gods exist?"
Yes -> Strong Atheist
No -> Weak Atheist or Theist

Telling us whether they hold a belief in a god, yes or no, is not the exactly the same as telling their position of the existence of gods, seeing as it doesn't distinguish between absence of familiarity with the concept of gods altogether (i.e. "natural" or "anthropological" atheism), absence of theistic OR atheistic belief (agnosticism), rejection of belief ("weak" atheism) or positive disbelief ("strong" atheism)- and that's supposing, for the time being, that there is a valid distinction to be made between rejection of belief and disbelief in the first place.

In other words, for a label for one's position on the existence of god, this particular definition of "atheism" actually tells us very little about the persons position on the existence of God.

That isn't important, however, what you have objected to is that content itself having a word for it. Saying it's "too broad" for instance. If atheist is "too broad", and you replace it with non-theist, then the same applies. Now non theist is "too broad".

(Not that breadth is an issue for words)

Well, it obviously can be- which is why we introduce distinction, qualifiers, and technical terminology. But as I've already noted, I didn't "replace" atheist with "non-theist"- I refined/narrowed the definition of "atheist", and didn't change the definition of "non-theist" at all.

I'm discussing atheism as a word.
Words have synonyms.

Um. Ok.

You were saying that you'd use your own definition of atheist. The reason for this is patently that you wanted to address strong atheists and not weak atheists.

No, it isn't a matter of who I'm addressing at all. Its a matter of what is more appropriate or useful relative to the subject matter. I would still prefer these definitions, at least in the contexts I've mentioned, even if I fully expected my audience to be entirely theists, or entirely agnostics, or entirely weak atheists.

Why not use the words as they are used?

I am. We've covered this many times. I'm not offering novel definitions. I'm saying I prefer an already existing set of definitions, just not the ones that you and others on this thread obviously prefer. But even if I was the first to use these particular definitions (I'm not, and neither was Sagan), that wouldn't be a problem in itself, if they were indeed more precise and clear and thus useful in contexts that demand rigor.

Yes, and academic papers are not online, active discussion forums.

Irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you want to go to an active discussion and talk to people about what they believe, it might be counter productive to use words they don't agree with for no reason.

Good thing that's not what I'm endorsing, then eh?

Academic papers don't redefine words because it's their whim to use those words.

Like above, a mere strawman.

Name one word that's ever had a definition removed because it was redundant.

What do you mean "had a definition removed"? As in, this word has been redacted, delete it from the dictionaries? If a usage is redundant, you're not going to use it in any serious academic context- it adds nothing, and thus can only lead to confusion. Its extra (and unnecessary) baggage. Not a big deal in colloquial discourse, but it is a problem if we care about precision.

That's like saying the existence of square rectangles is inconsistent with the definition of rectangles.

The definition of a word is an appeal to consensus.

Only if we're doing lexicography.

What is being claimed is that the common meaning of the word - as described by the common usage - hence what will be the dictionary definition (what already is to some extents "the definition") - depends on the common usage.

Nobody is disputing this- but neither is this relevant to what I am arguing.

So far, we've had "these words would be better", "this word doesn't cover what I want", and "this word is too broad".

"These words would be better" - even if it were correct, it is demonstrably not how existing definitions are lost. There's a type of book called the thesaurus that's founded mainly on the redundancy of English words.

"This word doesn't cover what I want" - Tough.

"This word is too broad" - The word "thing" is fairly broad. In fact, it covers everything.

Irony alert. 'These definitions are more precise" is not an argument (or, more accurately, is supposedly not a good argument), but "tough" is?

As I've said before, wouldn't complain about something like:

Atheist:
1 : A person who does not accept theism.
2 - Academic Philosophy - The belief in the non existence of Gods

If you wouldn't complain about defining atheism as the meta-position that theism is false in certain (scholarly) contexts, then what on Earth are you objecting to here? What do you think I'm saying if not exactly that (as I've explicitly pointed out several times)?

[enaidealukal]

This thread exists because Winepusher was telling us that his usage is right and ours is wrong.

Which is pretty much what I just said- that it has largely consisted in people missing the point, as if there were a right/wrong or true/false definition.

If your case is strong, you won't need the straw-man argument. Atheists are people who aren't theists. We don't claim that rocks are atheists. There's no reason for you to impute that claim to us.

Ironically enough, you're dangerously close to strawmanning my position here. I didn't say that "atheist" applies to such things, but that "atheism" does. Obviously any definition of "atheist" other than "a person who endorses atheism" is going to be rejected. But if you define atheism as merely the absence or lack of theistic belief, then you have no grounds for denying that any absence of theistic belief constitutes atheism. Including the absence of theistic belief on the part of inanimate objects. That's part of the problem- such a definition renders atheism a property, and not an intellectual position, and a property that anything which lacks theistic belief shares.

In any case, focusing on inanimate objects is a red herring, since my point applies equally well to infants, non-linguistic humans, and persons/cultures that have no familiarity with god-concepts in the first place.

Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. That isn't the tiniest bit ambiguous.

Of course it is. Are they not a theist in the sense that they've never heard of the concept of gods before? In the sense that they've heard of it but never given the matter any serious thought? In the sense that they've suspended judgment? In the sense that they reject the concept? In the sense that they positively disbelieve?

If "atheism" being subject to multiple, often conflicting, meanings is not a case of ambiguity, then I submit that you're using "ambiguous" in a peculiar way. If this particular definition of atheism is not ambiguous, then nothing is.

You only have to make those distinctions when that's what you're talking about.

Ok, sure. But the consequence of the definitions I prefer is that you don't need any such distinctions, even when that's what you're talking about- they are more precise.

Suppose we used your definition of "atheist," and wanted to have a discussion about the distinction between implicit and explicit non-believers. We'd still need those terms (or other terms meaning the same thing) to discuss that topic, even though we used your meaning for "atheist."

For one thing, in the sorts of contexts I'm talking about, this wouldn't be a meaningful or relevant distinction in the first place. We're merely talking about degrees of belief/disbelief, and there's no reason one needs a specific label to indicate as much when plain English is perfectly clear and sufficient in this regard.

Principled rejection. Interesting. I don't think I've run across that, ever. Certainly not in a dictionary.

Ok... And?

But, hey, not to split hairs, I'll grant that a whole lot of people think atheists are those who have a belief (principled or not) in the nonexistence of gods.

It's just that there are also a whole lot of people who use "atheist" the way I do: Atheists are those who are not theists.

Right. Neither observation helps us here. We have two sets of definitions. People use both. They both seem relatively adequate, at least in colloquial discourse. The only difference I see is that the common internet parlance is unwieldy, imprecise, and often redundant.

Strong atheism and weak atheism don't overlap.

I didn't say strong and weak atheism overlap.

But your system overlaps two kinds of agnosticism.

Overlaps?

You mean includes?

Let's call them type A agnostics, and type B agnostics. Type A agnostics are neither theists nor strong atheists. Type B agnostics don't know whether gods exist.

In our system, Type A's are "weak atheists," and type B's are "agnostics."

And so what is the point in grouping weak atheists with strong atheists, when their position is closer to agnosticism? And why ought agnosticism be distinguished by a claim about knowledge specifically?

Our system is the one with clarity and precision. Your system is the one that is irredeemably muddy.

One system overlaps terms which many people understand as, and which optimally would be capable of, distinguishing a persons position on the matter (i.e. my 3 categories are exclusive), one of which denotes such a wide range of fundamentally divergent positions so as to require several further distinctions (atheism), and yet it is "the one with clarity and precision". Apparently you're trying to establish your point by fiat here.

I don't believe you. I think that is a falsehood.

Remember how you started your post by saying that statements barren of corroboration are generally suspicious?

Then I guess you'll have to remain suspicious. I'm not going to pour even more time into this thread to go rifling through forums and quotes to support a point that I can readily admit is largely speculative. I don't know that is their motivation, but I strongly suspect it is- and if it is, it is entirely unnecessary, because atheism doesn't need to play word games to avoid substantiating itself. If not, then its a moot point.

Again, I don't believe this. Please support or withdraw.

I will say this- the claims of Hitchens and Dawkins regarding atheism's evidentiary burden and epistemic justification are misguided and untenable, regardless of the relation between this and any definition of atheism (i.e. as possible motive for defining atheism in a certain way). But, as I pointed out to Jashwell, this is entirely off-topic and if we want to discuss that I'll open a new thread.

Oh, hey. Are you trolling?

Are you?

So, three categories:
1. Those who believe gods exist.
2. Those who believe gods do not exist.
3. Everyone else.

You call them
1. Theists.
2. Atheists.
3. Agnostics.

No, not exactly. See the (actual) definition in my post, above.

And if we add in the other issue:
X. Those who know whether gods exist.
Y. Those who don't know whether gods exist.
then we see that your system confuses category Y with category 3. You call them both "agnostics."

No. X is not agnostic.

And as for your alleged tradition, we have tradition on our side too.

If you had read my posts, you would notice that I explicitly made this same exact point, more than once.

And even if you have more tradition, well, old ways aren't always better than new ways.

This too. More than once. Glad we're in agreement.

I'm not tempted to give up clarity just so I can claim more tradition.

Ditto.

[Jashwell]

Technical language being given as an additional subdefinition not as the only or overarching definition, often in specific contexts.

Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of what is the case. This is pretty much exactly how it works- within that particular domain or context (for instance, in the example we've been using, formal logic), the technical definition, which is more narrow and specific (i.e. has a smaller extension) supplants the usual definition. In logic, if one says the P is possible, this means no less and no more than that P is possible in the technical sense of "possible", not the colloquial sense.

"Supplants the usual definition"
You seem to have completely missed what I'm talking about.

At no point have I been arguing that the technical definition of atheism in a particular field should be anything, only that part of the entire definition, esp. colloquial usage and usage among some atheist communities, should include weak atheism.

Otherwise, you'd be defeating your own argument by effectively saying "no, the technical definition is the only definition because it supplants the other definitions" (in which case it's not the only definition)

... what they "really believe" is irrelevant in a debate.

Which is why I said, several times now, that I don't concern myself with any such thing and confine myself to their assertions and arguments.

Then why do you continue to object to the definition on the grounds that some of the people who use it may be lying?

It's an objection to your definition of agnostic.

Not in itself, no. And your original objection was that it was not clear- but not only does it look pretty clear, you've yet to say what you mean by that- i.e. in what wise it is unclear.

... It's part of an objection. Agnostic comes from a-gnosis meaning without knowledge.

Why "undecidable"?

Because that is what I take to be distinctive of agnosticism, rather than any claim about knowledge specifically- especially since decidability encompasses knowability here (if X is undecideable, then X is unknowable); that, whether due to limitations of our knowledge, a lack of sufficient evidence, or some other reason, atheism vs. theism is not a decidable dispute or proposition. There certainly are people who suspend judgment on the existence (or non-existence) of gods, not because they don't think it can be known, but because they don't think it can even be reasonably believed. Making knowledge a part of the criteria would unduly rule them out.

... No, because one of the two normal definitions of agnostic (weak atheist & no belief in the ability to know whether or not a God exists) covers "those who suspend judgement", as does one of the definitions of atheism.

I'm unaware of anyone whose ever used "agnostic" to mean undecidable.
Inconclusive yes, but undecidable no. Decisions aren't entirely based on knowledge, nor is the degree of certainty implied by agnostics to be unattainable (or more accurately not claimed to be attainable) exhaustive of the degree of certainty required to make a decision.

Clear does not mean unambiguous

Really? This would be news to... well, everyone. Curious then that, for instance, "ambiguous" is typically given as an antonym for "clear". What's up with that?

clear
adjective
1.
easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.

unambiguous
adjective
not open to more than one interpretation.

Lack of ambiguity can be a subset of clarity, but is not exhaustive of it.

What you mean by ambiguity certainly isn't - as you have previously expressed, your idea of ambiguity is that it doesn't address what you want it to. I.e. there can be multiple different positions within "atheism".
Not only is this not relevant at all - whether or not it addresses what you want it to is not important - but it's not the case.
Atheism clearly and unambiguously shows that one is not a theist. The fact that it can be divided up into weak and strong atheists is no more surprising or troublesome than the fact it can be divided into those who like the colour orange and those who don't, or those who have heard of Christianity and those who haven't.

You can only get one bit of information by asking a yes or no question.
"Are you a theist?" tells you exactly what "Are you an atheist?" tells you.

They aren't more precise for the same reason that redefining rectangle to be square isn't more precise.

"Square" is more precise than "rectangle"- it appears your argument against my definitions been clear or precise is to simply deny the plain English meaning of "clear" and "precise".

precise
adjective
marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail.

exactness
noun
the quality of being accurate or correct; precision.

accuracy
noun
the quality or state of being correct or precise.


"Square" is not a correct definition for "rectangle", because it is not exhaustive of the definitions of rectangle. "Square" is not a precise definitions for "rectangle" because it misses the mark so to speak.

You seem to be confusing accuracy in terms of being correct for accuracy in terms of a more precise measurement.
Definitions don't get measured with rulers.

But anyway, are you saying that we should replace rectangle with square because it is more precise?
If not, preciseness is a non-argument.

I could equally say the existing terms make yours redundant.

I suppose, but there's a bunch more of them.

Strong Atheism = Positive Atheism = Your Atheism
Weak Atheism = Negative Atheism = (Your Non Theism) - (Your Atheism)
Theism = Your Theism



Implicit/explicit are different and not covered by your definitions. (You would still have implicit/explicit non-theists)
Agnostic/gnostic are also different.

Definitions are not adopted on utility at all. Definitions are adopted on usage.

We've covered this. In lexicography, this is certainly true. Elsewhere, it isn't. Technical definitions most certainly are adopted on utility. They aren't adopted willy-nilly.

And as I've stated so many times I'm not talking about some technical definitions.

New words sometimes be adopted this way - because the people that first use the words (who start their trends) choose to do so.

Ok, and how do you think new technical terms are coined? (people choosing to do so)

And why do you think they would choose to do so? (utility)

.. as I said "adopted this way - because the people ... choose to do so"

Look, if you're going to simply deny some plain facts about technical fields and the language they employ, I'm not sure what point there is in us continuing. Given that technical fields do employ precise language, and do not do so arbitrarily (but do so on the basis of practical considerations like precision), the definitions I prefer have merit. If you reject these patent facts about technical terminology, however, there isn't really anything else to say.

There's significant difference between the two.
All words are defined by usage.
In technical fields, usage is often decided by whoever coined the term - whoever made it popular.
Sometimes, they do this out of utility. Lots of the time, it's done out of etymology or simple arbitrarily.

As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying the only meaning of atheism should be "lack of belief in gods". I'm saying that the overarching definition - the definition that includes all subdefinitions - should at least cover it.

Well but why do we need a single usage that encompasses all the others? What's wrong with having dictionaries simply list all the various differing usages (which is pretty much what they do now)?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with what we have now.
A "single definition that encompasses all the others" is what we have now - take all the existing definitions and group them together - that's what I mean by the "overarching definition". It's quite clear that by "all subdefinitions" I mean this.

What I've said so many times is that the entire definition of atheism - all of the sub definitions should include weak atheism - i.e. one of the subdefinitions should include weak atheism.

That at the very least, weak atheism should be a subset of atheism in all it's definitions. That people should acknowledge that it is used by weak atheists and that it isn't wrong for them to do so.

Nobody is saying it is "wrong". I'm saying that, according to a different set of definitions, which are more useful in certain contexts, they end up not qualifiying. That's it. And in itself this is no problem at all, particularly since in many of the contexts I happen to be interested, such as the philosophy of religion, there is nothing distinctive or relevant about weak atheism as distinguished from non-theism or agnosticism, such that it needs to be considered a form of atheism at all. The claims made by strong/positive atheism, or atheism, on the other hand are distinctive and relevant in that it makes ontological/epistemological claims about the status of God.

Then why have you objected to what I've said about what should be included in the general definition so many times on the grounds of technical definitions?

Yes, we do. We know they don't think "yes".
To reword it for clarity's sake, that question literally is "Are you a theist?"
It's a yes or no question. No leads to atheist (as I define it), yes leads to theist.
"Are you an atheist?"
It's a yes or no question, No leads to theist, yes leads to atheist (as I define it)

"Do you hold the belief that at least one god exists?"
Yes -> Theist
No -> Weak Atheist or Strong Atheist

On the other hand,
"Do you hold the belief that no gods exist?"
Yes -> Strong Atheist
No -> Weak Atheist or Theist

Telling us whether they hold a belief in a god, yes or no, is not the exactly the same as telling their position of the existence of gods, seeing as it doesn't distinguish between absence of familiarity with the concept of gods altogether (i.e. "natural" or "anthropological" atheism), absence of theistic OR atheistic belief (agnosticism), rejection of belief ("weak" atheism) or positive disbelief ("strong" atheism)- and that's supposing, for the time being, that there is a valid distinction to be made between rejection of belief and disbelief in the first place.

In other words, for a label for one's position on the existence of god, this particular definition of "atheism" actually tells us very little about the persons position on the existence of God.

It tells us what position they don't have, and it tells us exactly what theism tells us.
You need two yes/no questions to split something into 3 or 4 categories.
A definition either fits or it doesn't.
"Are you x?" Can only be yes or no.

If you want to know what position they are, then ask them for their position.
If they say atheist, ask if they could be more specific.

The fact that it doesn't answer the questions you want it too isn't a valid objection.
"Are you an atheist?" will only tell you what "Are you a theist?" will.

Atheist is a useful term because the overwhelming majority are theists. Otherwise, simply being the negation of theism, it probably wouldn't be its own term. Like non-theism. (and so you can't argue that "non-theism" should be a technical word while arguing that "atheism" with the same definition should not on these grounds)

That isn't important, however, what you have objected to is that content itself having a word for it. Saying it's "too broad" for instance. If atheist is "too broad", and you replace it with non-theist, then the same applies. Now non theist is "too broad".

(Not that breadth is an issue for words)

Well, it obviously can be- which is why we introduce distinction, qualifiers, and technical terminology. But as I've already noted, I didn't "replace" atheist with "non-theist"- I refined/narrowed the definition of "atheist", and didn't change the definition of "non-theist" at all.

Breadth is never an issue. If a term is "too broad for that context", people just won't use it, they'll use OTHER more specific words.

You took away the usage of atheist, and gave it's usage to non-theist.
That's replacing.
Once again, the main objection is that if it's a problem with atheist, it'd be a problem with non-theist too.

I'm discussing atheism as a word.
Words have synonyms.

Um. Ok.

Not as a sole technical usage.
The existence of synonyms is a refutation of anyone hoping redundancy is an argument for the exclusion from the general definition.

You continue to object on grounds of technical usage.

You were saying that you'd use your own definition of atheist. The reason for this is patently that you wanted to address strong atheists and not weak atheists.

No, it isn't a matter of who I'm addressing at all. Its a matter of what is more appropriate or useful relative to the subject matter. I would still prefer these definitions, at least in the contexts I've mentioned, even if I fully expected my audience to be entirely theists, or entirely agnostics, or entirely weak atheists.

If a term is too broad, use a different more specific term.

Why not use the words as they are used?

I am. We've covered this many times. I'm not offering novel definitions. I'm saying I prefer an already existing set of definitions, just not the ones that you and others on this thread obviously prefer. But even if I was the first to use these particular definitions (I'm not, and neither was Sagan), that wouldn't be a problem in itself, if they were indeed more precise and clear and thus useful in contexts that demand rigor.

Yes, and academic papers are not online, active discussion forums.

Irrelevant.

Eminently relevant if you wish to start address people on this forum as you've exemplified. Eminently relevant for usage of the terms on this website.

On the other hand, if you want to go to an active discussion and talk to people about what they believe, it might be counter productive to use words they don't agree with for no reason.

Good thing that's not what I'm endorsing, then eh?

Your example was. "Good reason" or "a non-arbitrary reason" was kind of implicit.

Academic papers don't redefine words because it's their whim to use those words.

Like above, a mere strawman.

Not at all.
Part of above and the example of using it on this forum.
Not one argument you've given - aside from "it doesn't address what I want it too" - actually addresses usage of it on this forum.

Name one word that's ever had a definition removed because it was redundant.

What do you mean "had a definition removed"? As in, this word has been redacted, delete it from the dictionaries? If a usage is redundant, you're not going to use it in any serious academic context- it adds nothing, and thus can only lead to confusion. Its extra (and unnecessary) baggage. Not a big deal in colloquial discourse, but it is a problem if we care about precision.

I'm not talking of technical usage - and no, redundancy doesn't address precision. They're entirely separate topics.

The definition of a word is an appeal to consensus.

Only if we're doing lexicography.

Which we are, largely talking about whether or not "weak atheism" is a form of atheism.
I've stated it many times.

What is being claimed is that the common meaning of the word - as described by the common usage - hence what will be the dictionary definition (what already is to some extents "the definition") - depends on the common usage.

Nobody is disputing this- but neither is this relevant to what I am arguing.

.. Yes it is, you've said "dangerously close to appeal to consensus".
That's not a problem.

So far, we've had "these words would be better", "this word doesn't cover what I want", and "this word is too broad".

"These words would be better" - even if it were correct, it is demonstrably not how existing definitions are lost. There's a type of book called the thesaurus that's founded mainly on the redundancy of English words.

"This word doesn't cover what I want" - Tough.

"This word is too broad" - The word "thing" is fairly broad. In fact, it covers everything.

Irony alert. 'These definitions are more precise" is not an argument (or, more accurately, is supposedly not a good argument), but "tough" is?

Your argument doesn't cover what I want.
How's that?

I say tough because it really needs no rebuttal. It's just what you want.

As I've said before, wouldn't complain about something like:

Atheist:
1 : A person who does not accept theism.
2 - Academic Philosophy - The belief in the non existence of Gods

If you wouldn't complain about defining atheism as the meta-position that theism is false in certain (scholarly) contexts, then what on Earth are you objecting to here? What do you think I'm saying if not exactly that (as I've explicitly pointed out several times)?

No you haven't, you've only recently mentioned that you're only referring to certain academic disciplines. (And your arguments for usage in academic disciplines aren't valid)

[mwtech]

I don't mean that no one should call themselves agnostic. I said that just identifying youself as agnostic when discussing religious beliefs is the cop out, becuase it says nothing about your position of belief. Like I said, every single human being alive is agnostic. It would be wonderful if they would admit it. But when someone asks youi about religious beliefs, "agnostic" is not a position of belief. That tells you nothing you don't already know. If you agnostic but believe in a theistic God, you are a theist. If you are agnostic and believe that you cannot know at all whether there is a god, so you lack belief either way, you are without theism, ergo an atheist. If you think there absolutely are no gods, you are an atheist, and you can elaborate on your atheistic position by calling yourself a strong atheist. Agnostic doesn't really help anyone know what you believe.

How you self-identify is a personal choice, subjective, based maybe on how you see yourself. If your position allows you the choice of identifying as an agnostic or an atheist, your choice may depend on what you want to emphasize.

Neither choice is a cop out.

If Joe introduced himself as a Christian, would you call that a cop out because he didn't say he's a Baptist? If he said he's a Baptist Christian, would you call that a cop out because he doesn't say whether he believes in baptism by immersion?

Whatever label you pick to describe yourself is just a label, a starting place. If someone's label doesn't fully sate your curiosity on that subject, that's a good thing. That's a conversation starter. You can ask questions.

There's no reason to be telling people that they copped out.

You're right. I apologize. It would be rude an uncalled for to claim that anyone was copping out for using a different definition for a word than I would use. As long as they tell you what they believe it doesn't really matter what they call it.

[enaidealukal]

Otherwise, you'd be defeating your own argument by effectively saying "no, the technical definition is the only definition because it supplants the other definitions" (in which case it's not the only definition)

I've never said anything remotely close to "the technical definition is the only definition"- outside of the technical domain. I said that within that technical field, the technical definition supplants the colloquial one (because that's how it works- using "possible", in logic, to mean the colloquial rather than the technical usage is simply mistaken), but not outside of that domain.

Then why do you continue to object to the definition on the grounds that some of the people who use it may be lying?

I haven't. It was simply a passing observation that had some relevance, which we've only continued to discuss because you (and others now) keep responding to that particular point.

... It's part of an objection. Agnostic comes from a-gnosis meaning without knowledge.

Ok, but as pointed out already, the literal etymology is irrelevant- if "a-gnosis" meaning "without knowledge" were a good argument for agnosticism meaning without knowledge, then by the same token Space Shuttle would have to be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself).

... No, because one of the two normal definitions of agnostic (weak atheist & no belief in the ability to know whether or not a God exists) covers "those who suspend judgement", as does one of the definitions of atheism.

Which is, if anything, a good example of the poverty of general definitions. What meaningful distinction do we need to make between someone who doesn't accept atheism or theism because they don't think they can know whether gods exist or not, and the person who doesn't accept atheism or theism because they don't either can be reasonably believed (perhaps due to an absence of evidence)? If knowledge is the criteria, this person is not an agnostic, and yet there doesn't appear to be any substantive or relevant difference between the two.

I'm unaware of anyone whose ever used "agnostic" to mean undecidable.
Inconclusive yes, but undecidable no. Decisions aren't entirely based on knowledge, nor is the degree of certainty implied by agnostics to be unattainable (or more accurately not claimed to be attainable) exhaustive of the degree of certainty required to make a decision.

I mean "decidable" in the sense of computation theory and/or logic (a proposition whose truth-value cannot be determined, or a problem for which there is no algorithm that leads to a correct yes-or-no answer)- whether they think it can be known, or reasonably believed, they don't think that the factual dispute is decideable (i.e. in terms of truth or falsity).

What you mean by ambiguity certainly isn't - as you have previously expressed, your idea of ambiguity is that it doesn't address what you want it to.

Not exactly; I said that it doesn't differentiate between multiple possible alternatives- I said that "atheism" is ambiguous in that it doesn't give us enough information to differentiate their position RE the existence of gods from various alternatives; it is equivocal. And yet, that's pretty much exactly what "ambiguous" means.

Not only is this not relevant at all - whether or not it addresses what you want it to is not important - but it's not the case.

Mistaken on both counts. It is the case that your definition of atheism is ambiguous, in that it doesn't distinguish between the various (distinct and substantively divergent) interpretations, and obviously this is "relevant" and "important" in that when we want to talk about positions RE the existence of God, we want our terms for those positions to specify what positions we're talking about as precisely as possible.

In any case, you (and pretty much everyone else on this thread) implicitly grant this argument anyways, by the mere fact that you employ further labels to differentiate these alternate interpretations of "atheism"- strong/weak, etc.- the only difference here is that I differentiate them according to a different schema.

"Square" is not a correct definition for "rectangle", because it is not exhaustive of the definitions of rectangle.

Given their current definitions? Obviously.

"Square" is not a precise definitions for "rectangle" because it misses the mark so to speak.

"Square" is a more precise term than "rectangle", because they are not co-extensive. That's the entire point.

If not, preciseness is a non-argument.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow. Also, perhaps you should tell us what you mean by "argument" since you clearly are using it in a peculiar way, i.e. something OTHER than premises/evidence leading to/implicating a conclusion. Given the usual sense of "argument", precision/clarity is certainly an argument for preferring one definition over another; indeed, it is one of the only possible arguments. More precise language means we can express our ideas better, which is a good thing.

And as I've stated so many times I'm not talking about some technical definitions.

Well, why not? I've clearly stated that I'm not talking about, nor do I really care, how people use these terms colloquially- either set of definitions appear to work well enough for everyday discourse (and yet others would probably serve as well)

Sometimes, they do this out of utility.

I can live with that- conceding that they at least do so "sometimes" strikes me as progress.

If you want to know what position they are, then ask them for their position.
If they say atheist, ask if they could be more specific. The fact that it doesn't answer the questions you want it too isn't a valid objection.

These definitions aren't intended for taking surveys or questionnaires. For the most part, one isn't asking one anything. In the sorts of contexts I'm concerned with, they're intended to characterize a position, meaning we want them to be as precise and informative as possible. And so, the fact that they "don't answer the questions I want" (i.e. they are equivocal, and thus do not characterize the position they denote with any precision) is certainly an objection, when the purpose is to accurately and conveniently refer to/characterize a position regarding the existence of gods.

Breadth is never an issue. If a term is "too broad for that context", people just won't use it, they'll use OTHER more specific words.

Or just pick an already existing definition that happens to be more specific and thus more appropriate. Which is what I'm endorsing.

If a term is too broad, use a different more specific term.

Or the same term, and specify a more precise definition.

Your example was.

No. Never have I said anything about using different definitions arbitrarily. I've specific the reasons for preferring the definitions I do. Claiming I'm endorsing using different definitions "for no reason" is a strawman, plain and simple. Lets not stoop to that sort of nonsense.

Not one argument you've given - aside from "it doesn't address what I want it too" - actually addresses usage of it on this forum.

Of course it does. This forum allows for the philosophical and anthropological/comparative discussion of religion. I've said why I prefer these definitions in those contexts. Implying that I'm changing definitions on a "whim" is not only simply inaccurate (and apparently intentionally so, since you've presumably been reading my posts, right?), it is inflammatory. It is a strawman.

Which we are

Whatever gave you that impression (that we're doing lexicography)? I'm certainly not, and I've been clear about that from the beginning.

.. Yes it is, you've said "dangerously close to appeal to consensus".

That the "common meaning", as described by the dictionary for instance, reflects common usage does not entail that we should employ the common meaning in all contexts. If you think I'm disputing that the definitions provided by dictionaries reflect common usage, you're not understanding me at all. And to cite the popular usage as an objection against a particular technical usage is pretty close to a (fallacious) appeal to consensus.

Your argument doesn't cover what I want.
How's that?

A false comparison, since my argument is, well, an argument, and the definition that "doesn't cover what I want" (which isn't quite what I said to begin with) is a definition. But regardless, I suppose the same holds- if it doesn't cover what you want, then don't use it. Just like I won't use the definitions that I find to be inferior.

I say tough because it really needs no rebuttal. It's just what you want.

Except that "its just what I want" is something you came up with, not me. I didn't cite subjective personal preference, but objective/practical suitability to a particular goal or function.

No you haven't, you've only recently mentioned that you're only referring to certain academic disciplines. (And your arguments for usage in academic disciplines aren't valid)

I'm not sure what "recently" means here, but I have explicitly stated it in each of my last 3 or 4 posts (of the 4 or 5 total I've made to this thread). As to the validity of my arguments, I guess that remains to be seen. Your attempt to defeat them by mere fiat isn't going to cut the mustard, however.

[Jashwell]

Ok, but as pointed out already, the literal etymology is irrelevant- if "a-gnosis" meaning "without knowledge" were a good argument for agnosticism meaning without knowledge, then by the same token Space Shuttle would have to be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself).

Curious as to the choice of undecidable. Seems ad hoc.

... No, because one of the two normal definitions of agnostic (weak atheist & no belief in the ability to know whether or not a God exists) covers "those who suspend judgement", as does one of the definitions of atheism.

Which is, if anything, a good example of the poverty of general definitions. What meaningful distinction do we need to make between someone who doesn't accept atheism or theism because they don't think they can know whether gods exist or not, and the person who doesn't accept atheism or theism because they don't either can be reasonably believed (perhaps due to an absence of evidence)? If knowledge is the criteria, this person is not an agnostic, and yet there doesn't appear to be any substantive or relevant difference between the two.

We use other terms.
An agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.
Because these terms are only combined with respect to the broader definition of atheism, and the knowledge definition of agnosticism (they'd be contradictory otherwise).

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe it's possible to know whether or not a God exists (though they don't claim it's impossible) and doesn't believe one does.
A gnostic atheist does believe that it's possible to know whether or not a God exists.

Similar for gnostic and agnostic theist. (Agnostic theism either refers to a purely faith based position or alternatively considers know to be a higher degree of certainty than is necessary to justify belief)

Whether or not by know they mean to any reasonable degree is a different matter.

I'm unaware of anyone whose ever used "agnostic" to mean undecidable.
Inconclusive yes, but undecidable no. Decisions aren't entirely based on knowledge, nor is the degree of certainty implied by agnostics to be unattainable (or more accurately not claimed to be attainable) exhaustive of the degree of certainty required to make a decision.

I mean "decidable" in the sense of computation theory and/or logic (a proposition whose truth-value cannot be determined, or a problem for which there is no algorithm that leads to a correct yes-or-no answer)- whether they think it can be known, or reasonably believed, they don't think that the factual dispute is decideable (i.e. in terms of truth or falsity).

I thought that falls under ignosticism.

What you mean by ambiguity certainly isn't - as you have previously expressed, your idea of ambiguity is that it doesn't address what you want it to.

Not exactly; I said that it doesn't differentiate between multiple possible alternatives- I said that "atheism" is ambiguous in that it doesn't give us enough information to differentiate their position RE the existence of gods from various alternatives; it is equivocal. And yet, that's pretty much exactly what "ambiguous" means.

Why should atheism describe a specific position on the existence of gods?
This is also somewhat subjective. I consider monotheism, polytheism and deism to be different positions RE the existence of gods. These aren't distinguished by being a theist.

Similarly, do we also need different words for those who think a God is impossible? Wouldn't your definition of atheism also be too broad?
What about those who believe gods don't exist because they're impossible?
What about those that don't believe gods don't exist because they're implausible?
What about those that don't believe gods exist because they don't think they are consistent with the data?

Not only is this not relevant at all - whether or not it addresses what you want it to is not important - but it's not the case.

Mistaken on both counts. It is the case that your definition of atheism is ambiguous, in that it doesn't distinguish between the various (distinct and substantively divergent) interpretations, and obviously this is "relevant" and "important" in that when we want to talk about positions RE the existence of God, we want our terms for those positions to specify what positions we're talking about as precisely as possible.

It's not ambiguous - just as the word rectangle isn't ambiguous.
Not to a reasonable degree at least - just because something is broad, does not make it ambiguous. Just because it doesn't answer the questions you want (whether or not you believe gods don't exist), doesn't mean it isn't a valid word.

In any case, you (and pretty much everyone else on this thread) implicitly grant this argument anyways, by the mere fact that you employ further labels to differentiate these alternate interpretations of "atheism"- strong/weak, etc.- the only difference here is that I differentiate them according to a different schema.

No, I do not grant that at all.
These terms exist to distinguish.

The fact that terms do distinguish in no way implicits that the original term itself needs to be distinguished to be meaningfully. It simply means that isn't the entire usage for that word.

"Square" is not a correct definition for "rectangle", because it is not exhaustive of the definitions of rectangle.

Given their current definitions? Obviously.

"Square" is not a precise definitions for "rectangle" because it misses the mark so to speak.

"Square" is a more precise term than "rectangle", because they are not co-extensive. That's the entire point.

No, it's less precise because it covers less of what is actually meant. The concept conveyed by rectangle is broader than the concept conveyed by square. Square is a less precise description of rectangle.

If not, preciseness is a non-argument.

I'm afraid that doesn't follow. Also, perhaps you should tell us what you mean by "argument" since you clearly are using it in a peculiar way, i.e. something OTHER than premises/evidence leading to/implicating a conclusion. Given the usual sense of "argument", precision/clarity is certainly an argument for preferring one definition over another; indeed, it is one of the only possible arguments. More precise language means we can express our ideas better, which is a good thing.

When I say it "isn't an argument" I mean it either isn't relevant or isn't the basis for the argument at all, or sometimes just that it's plainly not valid. That is ambiguous to be fair, unlike the definition of the word atheist (which is of course clearly defined by definition. I wonder how any word could intrinsically be ambiguous).

I want to refer to people that aren't theists.
How do I do that? What is the most precise term to use?
Atheist.
100% precision.

I want to refer to people that believe no gods exist.
How do I do that? What is the most precise term to use?
Strong atheist.
100% precision.

Strong atheist is not a precise description of people that aren't theists. It only describes some of them.
It is like saying "human male" is a more precise definition of "human".
I agree that it's more specific but that does not make it more precise.
Even if it did, the increased specificity of "human male" is not an argument to replace "human".

And the idea of creating a new word to have the old meaning of atheist, defeats the entire purpose.
If this is a reason why we should not use this definition of the word atheist technically, then it is a reason why we should not use the word non-theist technically.

Sometimes, they do this out of utility.

I can live with that- conceding that they at least do so "sometimes" strikes me as progress.

And the key fact their is not only is it just sometimes, but that it's the usage that's the deciding factor.

Sometimes people try to coin terms, sometimes out of utility, and it's never used. It never gains that definition.

The utility isn't what decides it.

If you want to know what position they are, then ask them for their position.
If they say atheist, ask if they could be more specific. The fact that it doesn't answer the questions you want it too isn't a valid objection.

These definitions aren't intended for taking surveys or questionnaires. For the most part, one isn't asking one anything. In the sorts of contexts I'm concerned with, they're intended to characterize a position, meaning we want them to be as precise and informative as possible. And so, the fact that they "don't answer the questions I want" (i.e. they are equivocal, and thus do not characterize the position they denote with any precision) is certainly an objection, when the purpose is to accurately and conveniently refer to/characterize a position regarding the existence of gods.

If you want to describe a specific atheistic position, use qualifiers.
Similarly, a "square" is better than redefining the term rectangle to mean square.

Breadth is never an issue. If a term is "too broad for that context", people just won't use it, they'll use OTHER more specific words.

Or just pick an already existing definition that happens to be more specific and thus more appropriate. Which is what I'm endorsing.

Yet it contradicts many existing terms that are used only in philosophy and almost exclusively by professed atheists. And it disputes many who profess atheism.

Why would you choose a controversial word that meaningfully incorporates both, over an existing specific word?
We don't need a new word to specify - we have them - weak and strong atheist.

If a term is too broad, use a different more specific term.

Or the same term, and specify a more precise definition.

Henceforth, all rectangles shall be known as squares.
But what shall we call the rectangles?

This is nothing but counter-productive controversy.
It is at best unintuitive and at worst provokes the wrong connotations.

People who want to refer to squares can use the word squares.
People who want to refer to rectangles use rectangles.

Why would they want to use the word rectangles for squares?

Your example was.

No. Never have I said anything about using different definitions arbitrarily. I've specific the reasons for preferring the definitions I do. Claiming I'm endorsing using different definitions "for no reason" is a strawman, plain and simple. Lets not stoop to that sort of nonsense.

Obviously you didn't say it was arbitrary or for no reason, but you didn't provide a good reason for the context as I have said.
(Actually it's in the quote below)

Not one argument you've given - aside from "it doesn't address what I want it too" - actually addresses usage of it on this forum.

Of course it does. This forum allows for the philosophical and anthropological/comparative discussion of religion. I've said why I prefer these definitions in those contexts. Implying that I'm changing definitions on a "whim" is not only simply inaccurate (and apparently intentionally so, since you've presumably been reading my posts, right?), it is inflammatory. It is a strawman.

... No, because all of your existing arguments are insufficient, and the actual position you are advocating is counter-productive, so your decision to use such a words in this scenario is nothing but a whim.

Which we are

Whatever gave you that impression (that we're doing lexicography)? I'm certainly not, and I've been clear about that from the beginning.

Nothing in this
[Replying to post 204 by enaidealukal]

Gives me the slightest indication that you merely refer to a subdefinition, let alone academic philosophy.

Now, my immediate response, "
At the very least, there is no reason to disagree that given the large number of atheists who are weak atheists, even if dictionaries didn't already, they should incorporate lack of belief as a new context. "

"As a new context". Not the only meaning.

.. Yes it is, you've said "dangerously close to appeal to consensus".

That the "common meaning", as described by the dictionary for instance, reflects common usage does not entail that we should employ the common meaning in all contexts. If you think I'm disputing that the definitions provided by dictionaries reflect common usage, you're not understanding me at all. And to cite the popular usage as an objection against a particular technical usage is pretty close to a (fallacious) appeal to consensus.

Technical definitions are defined by popular usage within that field.
That's what a definition is. A statement of the exact meaning of the word.
That meaning could be what the author originally intended, or not, but what the words mean are determined by what they are used to mean.

For example, the philosophical term atom. Used to refer to an indivisible subunit.
That meaning of atom no longer exists - it's not in usage.
(Though atomism is)

Your argument doesn't cover what I want.
How's that?

A false comparison, since my argument is, well, an argument, and the definition that "doesn't cover what I want" (a misleading restatement of what I actually said to begin with) is a definition. But regardless, I suppose the same holds- if it doesn't cover what you want, then don't use it. Just like I won't use the definitions that I find to be inferior.

You've missed the point somewhat.
You're now said again
"If the words don't mean exactly what I want, I'll use them for a different meaning"
A less counterproductive version would be
"I'll use different words that do have that exact meaning"

But regardless, whether or not the words suit your specific usage is as arbitrary as whether your argument suits my specific usage.
One individual's usage is not sufficient for a definition.

I say tough because it really needs no rebuttal. It's just what you want.

Except that "its just what I want" is something you came up with, not me. I didn't cite subjective personal preference, but objective/practical suitability to a particular goal or function.

To your goal or function.

[enaidealukal]

Its getting a little too hard to respond piecemeal to different posters, and that has a tendency of leading to losing sight of the issue and getting off-track, so a few things here, to clarify/summarize what Im saying, and to potentially correct a few misunderstandings- first, it should be understood that Im not offering new definitions. Im not suggesting we change anything, necessarily. The definition of atheism Im endorsing (and by extension definitions of agnosticism and theism) is offered as one example of definitions of atheism by the OP, and as I've already noted represents a large and consistent body of usage. While Im not sure that it is the standard one in the sense of being most popular in general, it certainly is the standard one in scholarly contexts. There are likely exceptions (for instance, I think Flew specifically argues for the sort of definition Im rejecting), 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. Nor is this a recent trend- as I've mentioned, as long atheism has been a distinct view or position at all, rather than a mere insult, equivalent to calling someone a heretic or blasphemer, atheism has been understood by philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists as the position represented by Diderot, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Marx, and so on; the reasoned rejection of theism- the view that theism is false. So when I defend defining atheism as that position, rather than the lack of theistic belief, I am not offering a new definition or usage, but defending an existing one- what is almost certainly the predominant one in most academic fields where atheism figures as a topic at all. So the suggestion, offered by some posters, that I'm coming in and demanding that everyone change their definition of atheism in favor of some peculiar or unprecedented one, is fundamentally mistaken.

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; this doesn't even distinguish atheism as a cognitive, intellectual position (or 'doxatic' attitude) 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, from the unthinking absence of ANY (propositional) belief in pre-linguistic humans (or animals), or from the unthinking absence of any theistic belief in cultures/persons who have no familiarity with any god-concepts (and obviously if it fails to distinguish between these drastically different things, it cannot be anything BUT ambiguous and equivocal- to suggest otherwise simply is not credible). 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.

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.

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. And I'm surprised I have to give arguments for why we want precise, unequivocal terms in a serious discussion- 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.

[enaidealukal]

If anyone is interested, I've started a new thread on the topic of evidence for atheism and epistemic justification, which you can view here.

[Jashwell]

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.

Rejection isn't necessarily acceptance of the contrary.
Simply choosing not to accept is rejecting.

So the suggestion, offered by some posters, that I'm coming in and demanding that everyone change their definition of atheism in favor of some peculiar or unprecedented one, is fundamentally mistaken.

It wasn't entirely clear from your original post, but at the very least you have recently suggested to change the definition used here.

Not one argument you've given ... actually addresses usage of it on this forum.

Of course it does. This forum allows for the philosophical and anthropological/comparative discussion of religion. I've said why I prefer these definitions in those contexts.

This site is by no means an academic philosophy haven, but it is full of atheists who colloquially use the term to refer to non theism.
You would be changing this site's context in a rather counter productive fashion.

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;

Yes it is, discussion of religious positions does not require alternative religious views, the mere lack of a view is in itself a position with relevant contributions (largely the rebuttal of positive concepts), and is the default position.

"Is there a God?" and "Is there no God?" are two different questions, and often, debating both a claim and a contrary claim at once is counter productive because sides are diverted from addressing the opposition's arguments and those reading, lurker or poster, may be distracted from or perhaps unaware of the under-represented side that is weak atheism.

A professional debate is almost always between a positive and negative side.
The positive side seek to prove a claim, while the negative side seek to rebut it - not to prove the opposite or an alternative. Weak atheism or non-theism is the only negative side in the two above questions. Similarly, in replies to a scholarly article, we don't see responses trying to prove alternatives, but to rebut the arguments given.


"Of atheism" is a redundant qualifier. You could equally say "of non-theism". This argument does nothing to address a difference between using "atheism" and "non-theism", and hence if it is an argument against atheism it is one against non-theism.
Do you think non-theism isn't a useful concept in discussions of religious views?

it cannot be anything BUT ambiguous and equivocal- to suggest otherwise simply is not credible).

This is simply not the case. To be ambiguous is to be uncertain. You are not uncertain about a definition by definition of definition, you may be uncertain about other, irrelevant topics but there is no ambiguity in reference to the actual definition.

Once again, this would be like calling the term "rectangle" ambiguous when referring to rectangles and not squares specifically. It covers everything it's supposed to. It'd be "less ambiguous" in your sense if we also had words that specified whether the pairs of parallels had sizes of ratio 1:2, as well as specifying whether they're 1:1.

This is not only another argument that would oppose non-theism, or anything else you give or is allowed to have this definition (and the eventuality of this would be not having a word for this meaning), but if this was a valid argument, it would be no more an argument to specify strong atheism, than to remove unqualified atheism entirely.

It'd be more productive to simply eliminate the term "atheism" and only have "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" for positive and negative unbelief.

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.

It need not be the non-cognitive non-position of an infant, it may be explicit or reasoned weak atheism.

I'm unaware of those who find the discussion of the falsity of theism more relevant than the discussion of the truthfulness of theism.
There's seldom difference between the practices and implications of positive and negative unbelief in an existential claim, why would one want to distinguish between the two outside of a debate in which theism itself is addressed? (eg in a debate of weak vs strong atheism)
There is a much more significant difference between positive belief and negative unbelief however.

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.

Given the definition that is seldom used with respect to this context of atheism.

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-

Firstly, this is no more an argument to choose a different definition of atheist than to choose a different one of agnostic.
In fact, under this definition, it seems we're lacking words for those who don't believe the existence of a God to be knowable (and those who do). Maybe we could use it for that, I hear it's sometimes used for that.

Redundancy / overlapping of terms isn't a problem even in technical papers.
The existence of multiple words that overlap is in no way a problem whatsoever.

Overlap is a poor choice of word. Overlapping itself is (by far) obviously non-problematic, different words mean different things. The only time we could have non overlapping words would be if we only wanted to distinguish between two things.

But not just this, but I see no reason why the congruency of words would be troublesome.

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.

No more so than previously. People will continue to misunderstand terms.
All you do is require people to say "agnostic and atheist" and "theist and agnostic" regularly, because often comparing a concept and its negation is relevant.

It is also not more precise. You repeatedly claim this. This is a false equivocation of preciseness in terms of correctness, with preciseness in terms of specificity of measurement.

A term being more specific doesn't make it better, nor more clear.
For instance, what if we had a unique word for every belief in a different number of gods?
That would be by your argument "more precise" but it would be less clear, and it would be in practice more ambiguous even if it's "less ambiguous" in theory.

Consider this: If we change rectangle to mean square in a technical field, because it is "more precise", what will we call rectangles in that field?
Or are you suggesting that we should abandon the concept of rectangles entirely, and only refer to specific categories of former rectangles at any time?

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.

In my view, it's less precise to define the roll of a 6 sided dice to be between 1 and 3, and more ambiguous to then create a second word to refer to 4-5 and a third for 6.

A serious, rigorous discussion about whether or not it's reasonable to believe in a God will not necessarily address whether or not it's reasonable to believe in the non existence of gods. Because a serious, rigorous discussion will likely be comparing the positive side (There is a God) against the negative side (The positive side have made an insufficient case).

Splitting things up into more sections will, for lack of a better analogy, turn a team competition into a free for all.

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.

It seems to me that you confuse the motive for having ways to distinguish between three categories with the motive for having atheism distinguish which of these three categories.

[wiploc]

You're right. I apologize. It would be rude an uncalled for to claim that anyone was copping out for using a different definition for a word than I would use. As long as they tell you what they believe it doesn't really matter what they call it.

What a handsome apology. Well said. I hope I do as well when my time comes.