William wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:53 pm
That is one definition without doubt. But how are we to know it is the correct definition and not just a misrepresentation further adding to the confusion which already exists.
I mentioned this before, definitions are not matters of correctness, but of popularity. And definitions along the lines of lack of belief is popular enough to be in most dictionaries. The wouldn't be any confusion if people just stick to this dictionary definition. The only people confused are the ones not using that definition.
Even so, that is not what makes it okay for you to call yourself an atheist if that is not what an atheist is, because to do so is simply enabling confusion to happen.
That's moot because the fact that I fit the definition of an atheist, makes it okay for me to call myself an atheist.
Do you want folk to be confused in this manner? Is it a matter of strategy, like how Christians use similar type strategy to confuse the enemy?
No, I want the exact opposite. I want everyone to be clear on what I am - an atheist, as defined alone the lines of someone who lacks a belief in deities. The strategy, if you could call it that, it's more of goal: is that by making this very clear, it limits the opportunities for theists to shift the burden of proof onto us.
By acknowledging that atheists are getting about the business of life without wasting time in internet forums debating the undebatable.
Please don't generalise, while most of us are getting about life without debating, some of us are not.
Anyone else, is non-theist/anti-theist or theist/religious rather than strictly exact examples of "Atheism" or "Theism".
You are still speaking as if non-theists/anti-theist are not merely variations of atheists, but somehow different from atheists. Quit it.
It [potentially] would remove the confusion which has been ongoing - probably since the formation of Atheism and Theism - and removing confusion has to be an advantage, would you not agree?
Sure. But you are just adding to the confusion, when sticking to the dictionary definition I referred to, is best for removing confusion. Your proposal is counter-productive to the stated goal.
Yes. Although as you say, you do get actively aggressive with theists, which would change your position to anti-theist when such occurs.
Why call it a change when I am both a non-theist and an anti-theist?
If only things were that simple in the real world.
They can be if people like you stop adding to the confusion.
I would say, based upon your premise "Yes" you are different from an atheist when you are being a non-theist or an anti-theist...
How? Based upon my premise, non-theists and anti-theists are just variations of atheist, not a different category.
That is the nature of this game we are all involved with. In order to communicate with each other we need to use words and actions and words and actions often result in confusion.
One way to counter this natural tendency to confusion is to understand the self sufficiently that one can succinctly convey ones position to another when questioned about it, whilst also bearing in mind that there still currently exist, confusing ideas about what positions are what and where the lines blur, and so - how to sharpen words and actions up enough to cut through known potential ways in which confusion find its way into our interactions, is commendable to that end.
Yes, that's why you should stick to the definition - it succinctly convey ones position to another when questioned about it, it helps clarify confusing ideas about what positions are what and where the lines blur.
I understand you there and thank you for making the effort to clarify.
I did not mean to say that ANY position is less or more than ANY other position. Just different. Different enough to be noticed and acknowledged as different. And labeled accordingly/truthfully
The label Christian is different from theist, yet it's clear Christians are a subset of theists. Yet there you were, speaking as if non-theists and anti-theists are not atheist, or only atheists when we are sleeping. There is an inconsistency between with how you use your terms re: Christians and theist, vs non-theist/anit-theist and atheist.
Just as coming from a Christian position is not less than someone coming from Jewish position - they are the same that they come from a religious position, but are different than the theist position, because they branch away from one another to the point where the differences can be acknowledged as real.
You are missing the point, you are supposed to be comparing Christians with theists, not Christians with Jews. Being Christians does not stop one from being theistic.
The atheist position is not one of less or more, but of lack. If you were just atheist about things, then you would not be concerned with having to deal with feelings which cause you to resist.
Therefore those feelings should not be associate with being atheist...
They never were associate with being atheist though. Atheism is about one thing only re: the existence of gods.
