To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[William]

Whatever we collectively say is the correct definition, is automatically correct.

Is this truth?

Or is this an example of an appeal to popularity?

The appeal to popularity fallacy is made when an argument relies on public opinion to determine what is true, right, or good. This approach is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate something is true. Using this flaw in logic, a person may come to a conclusion that has little or no basis in fact.

It would only be a fallacy if there is some objective standard we can appeal to. There is no such standard for language, word usage changes with how we use them. If anything it's a more a tautology in the form of "whatever is the most popular, necessarily indicate that something is the most popular."

So you are simply pointing out what is most popular. You are not saying that said definitions are truthful definitions....just that they are definitions accepted by the majority of folk using them...

Whereas, the bandwagon fallacy deals with identifying that aspect of the popular definitions being accepted as truthful by the majority of folk using them...

?

[William]

Indisputable Evidence:

Truthful definitions = 250
A type of significant hint
This reality experience

Indisputable Evidence = 199

The Solar system
Ask and It Will Be Given
Tracks in the Snow
Without - Within
Thomas Campbell’s T.O.E
The Smallest Spark
Royal Raymond Rife
One Thirty Seven
It is all making sense

Ethical Progress = 175

The English Language
Asking Politely
Surface Scratching
Consciousness
Always Vigilant
Ethical Progress

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #80]

It would only be a fallacy if there is some objective standard we can appeal to. There is no such standard for language, word usage changes with how we use them.

Re Ethical Progress...

Should it be that we assign truthfulness as the objective standard when using sounds and symbols to convey with, in order to win over the hearts of others through the settling of truth - and all things unsettled take the deserved second place to that objective.

?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #78]

Okay, well I will just start with this,

No, I am aware of no such thing.

In order for you to become aware the below quote occurred on 1/7 of this year right here on this site,

Well, the burden of proof lies with the side who makes/asserts a positive claim. For the most part, the 'atheist' does not state 'god does not exist'. Heck, even Richard Dawkins has made statements that his confidence level, that a god(s) does/do not exist, is something around 6.? out of 7. Hence, it is not up to even Richard Dawkins to prove why 'god does not exist'. He simply has great doubt.

Are you now aware?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The phrase "one can't just redefine X" is simply an informal way of saying "the definition of X is typically something established through precedent and not individual whim".

Not by one particular individual whim, sure, but get enough individuals together to reach a critical mass, well, that's how a new precedent is established.

Try this for yourself, redefine "screw" to mean what "thanks" means today. Then spend the day saying "screw you" rather than "thank you" to all who deserve your thanks and report back here with the results.

No thanks, we both know what the result would be; instead I will reiterate existing results showing how our collective individual whims have successfully redefined words such as "awful" and "clue."

Flew was not successful because the definition has not been universally adopted, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not define it that way, nor does the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

If universal adoption is the benchmark then why are you peddling the definition in those links which is much less widely adopted?

Furthermore there are atheists who describe themselves thus and do use the correct, established definition - "there is no God" - and they are content with that position and definition, if you want to let them know that they are not real atheists then by all means do so.

Another good thing about the current definition is that there is no need to relabel any old school atheists, because they are still real atheists according to the current definition re: lack of belief. Those who hold that there is no God, also lack belief in God. Bonus!

I care not with whom you do or do not desire to be "lumped in with" we're discussing the definition of "atheism" not your likes or dislikes.

How do you think your preferred definition of "atheism" was established, if not by consensus according to the likes of dislikes of the speakers of the language? Why should we care about your likes or dislikes, or that of the two authors in your links?

I was surprised when I heard that Philosophy (in some cases, at least) uses the incorrect definition of atheism. And it is incorrect because it is not logically tenable. Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God (which is itself sloppy as 'are no gods' is logically more valid). Already I begin to suspect that either something is wrong with philosophy, or there's something else going on.

I think it's the latter and what I suspect it is, is that the rules of philosophy require an assumed total assertion, even if in the real world one cannot logically make such an assertion.

I've seen this done with 'materialism', the metaphysical (philosophical) definition being a flat assertion that nothing but the material can or does exist. While I can see that this definition might be required in making philosophical constructs, in the real world, however, it is simply not correct, though usable, and is used with implied caveats such as 'only the material, so far as we know' and 'the material seems to be the better supported basis' and of course the practical working standpoint or 'mechanical materialism' I have heard it called is the actual practical materialism that science, rationalism, secularism and atheism is based on and NOT the metaphysical (philosophical) definition, even though I seen that used to try to discredit materialism not by saying that it is not supported by the evidence, of courser it is but on the grounds that it is logically untenable. And that's why it is not correct for practical use outside philosophy, but it wouldn't matter if theism did not use it to debunk Materialism.

I think that is what it done with atheism. On evidence atheism has a very big degree of probability of there being no gods and even higher that there is no Biblegod, just as with no other personal/religious gods. And it wouldn't matter that technically it isn't logically correct to say 'There is no God' (caveat - 'so far as we know', other than theists use it to try to force on us a definition that is in fact logically untenable. So even if the Philosophical definition of Atheism had been used, we'd have had to change it to the definition we actually do now use to be correct.

I am aware that, apart from the constant insistence of Theists to force the Philosophical definition of atheism on us (and 'because it is logically untenable' tells us why they do it) but I still don't know why the universal take on atheism and agnosticism is 'agnostic - one who is not sure whether a god exists or not' and 'atheist - One who denies the existence of God' (the definition there used to be in Websters). If that definition has been corrected as it is no longer 'common usage', then there is no reason to insist that 'Metaphysical atheism' should be given any credence or usage outside of philosophy.

.p.s. I once read the essay on atheism in Standford. It stunk. Like it had been written by a Christian, as it probably had been.

You say "Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God".

How did you establish that nobody knows for certain if there is or is not a God?

Also, if we say "But God is not defined so nobody can meaningfully say 'there is no God' when the thing is undefined" then the same is true of "I do not hold a belief in God" if God is not defined, how can one be sure they don't hold a belief in it?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The statement "I do not hold a belief in God' is vacuous as I've said many times.

Consider what I regard as logically equivalent "I have not personally encountered evidence that leads me to develop a belief in God".

This is true of all unheld beliefs, they are unheld because no evidential justification has ever been encountered and so we have no basis for holding them.

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

So the pop-atheist's position is "I have absolutely no idea what evidence for God looks like but I am absolutely certain I have never encountered any".

That my friends, is a vacuity, that my friends is where listening to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens and Krauss will get you, a straitjacket, don't say I didn't warn you...

[William]

I was surprised when I heard that Philosophy (in some cases, at least) uses the incorrect definition of atheism. And it is incorrect because it is not logically tenable. Given that nobody knows for certain whether there is a god or not, it is logically not possible to make a logically tenable assertion that there is no God (which is itself sloppy as 'are no gods' is logically more valid).

Well, lets not go that far, "correctness" isn't really a thing when it comes to things that are purely a matter of consensus. It's correct if something matches the consensus, it's incorrect if it doesn't match. Logical bases helps build the consensus, as untenable positions naturally aren't as popular. Using logic to evaluate which definition is correct misses the point that society is under no obligation to adopt the most logical position. Whatever we collectively say is the correct definition, is automatically correct.

I find that the lacking belief in gods is an untenable position to hold when superimposing it over the idea that there is a mind behind the formation of this reality. Here and Now. A Cosmic Mind.

This is because the result is a confused state of being, re the prime directive to hold that position as true when it has not been established as true - only accepted as a popular belief acquired through a logical process filtered through said prime directive.

Not any more true than any other popular position.

Opinions based upon the assumption of truth where no evidence to support that assumption, are still tabled - as if somehow relevant - when that opinion remains unproven.

Let us - if not return to - then at least permit the possibility that truth/truthfulness simply has to be the objective standard of all use of sound and images re the human language...

...Otherwise, all is hot air = 246
The Spirit of The Planet
Please ask me questions.
Sensory Data Quality
Time for Soul to Drive
When In Doubt - Set It Aside
The Dark Night of The Soul
Otherwise, all is hot air

Here and Now = 107
Navigator
The Point
Happiness
Feel Be Still.
Quantum
Measuring
Each morning
Optimum
Researching
Minor Arcana

A Cosmic Mind. = 103

Fascinating
Co creation
Ride Water
Virtual
Genetic Mind
Distracted
Algorithm
Propagated

[Purple Knight]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

[TRANSPONDER]

Whatever we collectively say is the correct definition, is automatically correct.

Is this truth?

Or is this an example of an appeal to popularity?

The appeal to popularity fallacy is made when an argument relies on public opinion to determine what is true, right, or good. This approach is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate something is true. Using this flaw in logic, a person may come to a conclusion that has little or no basis in fact.

It would only be a fallacy if there is some objective standard we can appeal to. There is no such standard for language, word usage changes with how we use them. If anything it's a more a tautology in the form of "whatever is the most popular, necessarily indicate that something is the most popular."

So you are simply pointing out what is most popular. You are not saying that said definitions are truthful definitions....just that they are definitions accepted by the majority of folk using them...

Whereas, the bandwagon fallacy deals with identifying that aspect of the popular definitions being accepted as truthful by the majority of folk using them...

?

As you say. Bandwagon fallacy or fallacy of numbers. A more popular belief opinion of definition does not make it right. It really requires some better validation than that. And science really has the best track record for establishing reliable facts, and the religions do not fare well. I'm sorta cautious about philosophy. I think it is invaluable in providing logical rules, without which processing raw (observed) data would be impossible. But I have seen it run into problems when it tries to act as a research tool when it has no method of research. I mentioned the problem that Nietzsche got into when he could see no basis for morality if we took God away. Now that morality can be seen in a biological context (which even provides an objective basis) the problem he had evaporates.

The definition of atheism (to be logically tenable) should be a logically sound construct.

(knowledge position) 'We do not know whether there is a god or not' (agnosticism)

(belief -position) 'So I (we) will not believe in any gods until we do know' (atheism)

or of course 'even though I don't know, I will believe' (theism)

Very simple. Cue of course the case for crediting any kind of god -claim (which I think Dawkins means by his scale 1-10 of atheism) and the evidence and the interpretation of it is what is debated here (1), and so far I (nor any other that I have seen) have made a persuasive case for the god -claim, even using the gap for god of Cosmic origins and cosmic constants.

Of course it frustrates the Theist -side that all atheists have to do is smirk and say 'I'm not convinced - you lose'. And that's why they are so desperate to reverse the burden of proof, even if starting from a position of Faith didn't make that a given, anyway.

There was a cartoon I saw as a teen that stuck in my mind. A couple of dudes or bods walking and talking and one is saying:

"...of course, I wouldn't call myself an atheist, either..."and a bolt of lightning just veers off when about to strike him. Funny that stuck in my mind. At the time I (along with everyone else) saw myself as 'agnostic', Atheists being (of course) in the generally accepted definition, in denial about God. It wasn't until I started debating that I learned that an agnostic who does not believe any god claim is an atheist and the agnostic who Does believe in a god - claim is a theist.

Funny now to think that the cartoonist thought that God would spare someone who wasn't sure that He existed or not (at least in this world ). Did he really thing that God wouldn't burn him for eternity for not believing just because he had stopped short of the stony denial he thought atheists did? I don't know. No more than I understand UR plastic tray - bods who reject the insupportable Hellthreat but still cling to Christianity. Why? When the stick is gone, and who wants to live off carrot?

(1) there's a lot of confusion about 'believe or not' and being persuaded by the evidence is not a (coin -flip) choice but a reasoned decision (given that the evidence has been fairly present - not always the case ) but faced with the clear conclusion of reasoned evidence, one Then has the choice to accept it or not or (frankly) opt for Faith instead of evidence. That's the 'believe - or not' choice. Cue election -speeches for opting for theism or atheism. Anyone want to start a thread?