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.

[benchwarmer]

I believe this post pretty much demonstrates the point you have attempted to make in the OP. In other words, this post seems to clearly demonstrate there are those who would like to use a different definition "one made up". To the best of my understanding, this change is due to the fact that there are those who would like to identify as atheist who want to shed themselves of the burden.

Incorrect. There are those of us who are atheist that simply want to actually, precisely define our position. As explained a number of times now, one can use atheist/theist with gnostic/agnostic and arrive at 4 positions that cover more cases.

I'm an agnostic atheist as already stated in this thread. Language evolves and the people using the language today (not people who used it hundreds of years ago) are able to refine and/or change meanings (or even add extra meanings) to words.

Example: If a teenager walks up to you and sees you playing a guitar and exclaims "That's sick dude!". What do you think he is saying? It certainly meant something completely different when I was young than it does now.

You see, if the definition is changed (which seems to be clearly what they are admitting is occurring) to a simple "lack of belief" these folk are somehow under the impression this frees them from owning any sort of burden and shifts the burden to the Christian.

Wrong. It is not about burden shifting (which ironically seems to the point of this thread whether admitted or not). It's about precisely stating our position. If a Christian simply wants to state their position as a set of beliefs then no problem. No burden imposed.

This is certainly a tactical argument and seems to demonstrate those who really have no interest in pursuit of truth.

Woah, where did that come from? An underhanded insult because some people would like to state their position clearly? Do you want some truth? I'm an atheist and that means I lack belief in gods. Full stop. My labeling myself as an atheist does NOT burden ME with any need to provide evidence of my position or any claims. How this is not clear after this thread has gotten this far is a little boggling.

Rather, they are simply looking for a way in which to win an argument.

Baloney. In fact, this thread seems to be the opposite. Why are theists so bent out of shape how atheists define their position? Could it be that they are tired of needing to support any positive claims they might be making during their apologetics? I don't know, but it seems like it. I'm not however going to make a sweeping assertion (like you are) that this is the case.

The problem as I see it is, this tactic does not accomplish all that much. Because you see, the Christian who simply explains what it is they believe, based upon the facts, and evidence, who makes no claims which cannot be demonstrated owns no burden. So exactly what does one think they are accomplishing by changing the meaning? I mean if they claim neither faith nor disbelief in God, this would be the definition of agnostic and would accomplish the same thing, which is exactly nothing as far as I can see.

Well, it's not a tactic. It's about precision in labeling our position. We all know that words can have multiple meanings. If unaware, consult any dictionary. For clarity on the topic of language evolution, consult some really old dictionaries and then compare them to modern ones.

A more fruitful discussion could be had by actually engaging atheists where they are at rather than trying to tell them their labels don't mean what they think they mean.

[Bust Nak]

To the best of my understanding, this change is due to the fact that there are those who would like to identify as atheist who want to shed themselves of the burden. You see, if the definition is changed (which seems to be clearly what they are admitting is occurring) to a simple "lack of belief" these folk are somehow under the impression this frees them from owning any sort of burden and shifts the burden to the Christian.

But we never had the burden in the first place. Had the world stuck with the old definition, we would simply be classed as old school agnostics. As agnostics we still don't need to prove that God doesn't exists. Here are are simply debating what label to use, it's purely semantics. The burden of proof can't shift when the underlying stance hasn't shifted, regardless of what label we decide to use.

So exactly what does one think they are accomplishing by changing the meaning? I mean if they claim neither faith nor disbelief in God, this would be the definition of agnostic and would accomplish the same thing, which is exactly nothing as far as I can see.

That's the point, nothing changes. So why exactly would you still accuse us of using some sort of tactical argument to win an argument, when you know that this so called tactic does nothing?

[TRANSPONDER]

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 think that we must go into that, as we know that dictionary definitions reflect a common usage whether it is correct or not. The common use of 'Theory' to mean 'hypothesis' of even just 'an opinion' is not correct in the context of a 'scientific theory' so the distinction must be pointed out and understood.

That's why I came to understand that Philosophical materialism is (probably) correct for philosophical use but not 'correct' in the real world, and as I recall from on former debate, the same may apply to evidence or 'evidentialism' at least. From what I could discover, 'evidentialism' was some extreme use of 'evidence' in philosophy that had been debunked, or so the meme 'evidentialism is dead' seemed to proclaim. But quite clearly (as I pointed out to my opponent) the use of evidence is valid and far from dead, (he was pulling the 'nobody can know anything for sure' apologetic) and so 'evidentialism', dead or not, was irrelevant to the use of it in the everyday world, just as I suggest that materialism is the logical and practical default hypothesis for any unknowns and 'Anything More' (the supernatural) has no credibility until those who believe in it prove it. Metaphysical materialism (claiming nothing exists other than the material) is irrelevant to the logically correct and practical use in the real world and the same applies to atheism.

A lack of belief or non belief or even disbelief in any god -claim (1) and not any philosophical (metaphysical) definition implying knowing for a fact that no gods exist. Because the undeniable agnostic truth and basis is that nobody knows for sure whether God exists or does not, even though some believers say they do. But they have Faith (which I think means belief in a direct personal experience of God (2) while atheists do not, just a conclusion and belief based on how they see the evidence.

(1) whatever definition the Theist uses and I've seen that definition misused to try to wrongfoot atheism 'Anything of supreme importance'. Things of supreme importance exist so god exists'. Mind, he was not making a serious argument but just 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' . Or more correctly, 'Troll atheists because they are Lefties'.

(2) which logically they don't know is true (doubters will say it's not) even if they admit that this is what Faith is. You can't get them to say How they know, they just say 'They know', and will try to back it up by fiddling evidence to support the Faith, but I'm sure they believe that God is getting into their heads and that's how they Know, how they believe they Interpret correctly and why evidence and logic, no matter how compelling, is simply wrong if it conflicts with whatever they prefer to believe.

[Realworldjack]

Incorrect.

What am I "incorrect" about?

There are those of us who are atheist that simply want to actually, precisely define our position.

Okay? Well, you certainly seem to agree there was indeed an established meaning of atheist, which you now seem to go on to admit you would like to change. So????? I'm not seeing where I would be "incorrect"?

As explained a number of times now, one can use atheist/theist with gnostic/agnostic and arrive at 4 positions that cover more cases.

Right! But I think you would have to admit this would not have always been the case, which sort of demonstrates a new meaning, or meanings, have been made up in order to accommodate these other positions which would not have been accommodated in the past. So?????? Where am I "incorrect"?

However, you do seem to be admitting the term atheist will not completely cover it all, thus one has to apply these other terms along with the term atheist? In other words, if you simply claim to be atheist, I would be correct to understand atheist to mean "believing there is not gods", because there are indeed those who identify as such who hold this belief to which you would have to agree. Therefore, to correct my understanding of the position you hold, you will have to add something to the term atheist.

I'm an agnostic atheist as already stated in this thread.

And this demonstrates my point completely! In other words, you really cannot simply identify as atheist. If you could, there would be no need in adding anything to the term.

Language evolves and the people using the language today (not people who used it hundreds of years ago) are able to refine and/or change meanings (or even add extra meanings) to words.

Which goes on to clearly demonstrate you acknowledge the word atheist had an established meaning which you want to change. Where am I "incorrect"?

Example: If a teenager walks up to you and sees you playing a guitar and exclaims "That's sick dude!". What do you think he is saying? It certainly meant something completely different when I was young than it does now.

Well no! The word "sick" continues to refer to those who are ill, correct? The context determines the meaning. In other words, the word "sick" is not undergoing a complete redefinition in which it cannot be used in the way it was once used. This does not seem to be the case with the word, atheist. Because you see, I think you have agreed the term once held a certain meaning, and if I were now to attempt to confine the word atheist to the meaning it once held, you would want to scold me for doing so. However, as we look at the example above, the "teenager" is not going be outraged when, and if I use the word "sick" in order to refer to one who may be ill. So, no! The word sick does not in any way mean "something completely different" in the same way as you would like the word "atheist" to evolve.

Wrong. It is not about burden shifting (which ironically seems to the point of this thread whether admitted or not). It's about precisely stating our position.

Oh? Okay? My bad! But I could have sworn the argument was, atheism holds no beliefs, and makes no claims, and therefore owns no burden? Rather, the burden rest with those who are making the claims? Are you telling me I have never heard such an argument? Have you ever used this argument? Would you agree with the argument?

It's about precisely stating our position.

So then, you are telling me it had (past tense) nothing to do with the argument above? If this is the case, then that is certainly fine by me, because I am sure I have heard that exact argument before, and you have taken the wind right out of the sails!

If a Christian simply wants to state their position as a set of beliefs then no problem. No burden imposed.

Right! And I believe it is this fact which really took the wind out of the sails!

Woah, where did that come from?

It comes from the fact that there have in fact been those who have used the exact argument I stated above. Those who make such an argument are using a tactic, and demonstrate they are not really in pursuit of the truth. If this is not the position you hold, and you have never made such an argument, then I have no problem. But please do not attempt to tell me, this argument has never been made.

An underhanded insult because some people would like to state their position clearly?

Again, if you do not hold such a position, and have never made such an argument, then the facts I have stated would not apply to you. However, it is a fact there are those who have made the argument, and if facts insult folks, I can hardly do anything to help them.

Do you want some truth?

YES!

I'm an atheist and that means I lack belief in gods. Full stop.

If it is a "full stop", then why do you continue on?

My labeling myself as an atheist does NOT burden ME with any need to provide evidence of my position or any claims.

Again, if it is a "full stop" why do you feel the need to add this in, above all things? I mean if the objective is not in any way to rid yourself of the burden, then why bring it up?

How this is not clear after this thread has gotten this far is a little boggling.

What is "boggling" is the fact, when one identifies themselves as an atheist, I can have no idea whatsoever as to what that means now? I cannot simply assume it means "lack of belief", because there are those who identify as atheist who are not satisfied with this in the least. I can tell you this, if the objective had nothing to do with shedding the burden then I am fine with it, and the conversation is pointless. You can call yourself anything you wish as far as I am concerned.

Baloney.

My friend, it is not "baloney" if there are those who have made the argument I have given above. If you are not, and have not made the argument above, this does not make my statement "baloney" if there are others who have and do.

Why are theists so bent out of shape how atheists define their position?

As I have said, I could not care less, as long as it is not an attempt to shift the burden?

Could it be that they are tired of needing to support any positive claims they might be making during their apologetics?

AHHH! And here we go. I think you have just revealed to us, exactly what I have been saying. It sure looks like to me, it has everything to do with, "shifting the burden" after all.

I don't know, but it seems like it.

You are only digging the hole deeper!

I'm not however going to make a sweeping assertion (like you are) that this is the case.

It is not a "sweeping assertion". Rather, it is a fact there are those who have made the argument above. If you are not included, then it is not a "sweeping assertion". However, you certainly seem to have included yourself at this point.

Well, it's not a tactic. It's about precision in labeling our position.

Right! And it has nothing whatsoever to do with apologists who may be "tired of needing to support any positive claims they might be making during their apologetics"? I gotcha!

We all know that words can have multiple meanings.

Correct! And context usually explains to us what meaning is intended. How many different contexts can atheist be used?

For clarity on the topic of language evolution, consult some really old dictionaries and then compare them to modern ones.

I am fully aware of "language evolution" and I have no problem with the change in the meaning of atheist, as long as it does not involve an attempt to shift the burden. However, as we have seen above, it certainly has something to do with it.

A more fruitful discussion could be had by actually engaging atheists where they are at rather than trying to tell them their labels don't mean what they think they mean.

Here's what I'll tell you. Atheism had a particular meaning at one time, and now the meaning is being changed, and there is a reason for this change in meaning, and I think you have identified this reason above.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #72]

But we never had the burden in the first place.

Well, that would depend now wouldn't it? If atheist means "not believing in god" and the atheist is simply sharing what he believes, without making any assertions which cannot be demonstrated, then you would be correct. However, if this atheist goes on to insist there are no gods, he will then own the burden, correct? In the same way, if a Christian is simply explaining what they believe, along with why they believe as they do, without making any assertions which they cannot demonstrate to be fact, they own no burden.

If the change in the meaning of atheist, (which we all seem to agree is occurring) has nothing to do with shifting the burden, then have at it. But please do not attempt to tell me there are not those who have used this change for that very purpose. It is one thing to insist this would not be your objective, but please let us not pretend we are not aware that there are indeed many who have done just as I have described.

Had the world stuck with the old definition

Which clearly demonstrates you understand there is a change occurring. I will assume it is your claim this would have nothing to do with "shifting the burden" in your case. Are you aware of any who have indeed used the change in meaning in order to shed the burden? Or, are you completely unaware of this?

That's the point, nothing changes. So why exactly would you still accuse us of using some sort of tactical argument to win an argument, when you know that this so called tactic does nothing?

Is it your position no one has ever used the change in meaning in order to shift the burden? If you have never used it in such a way, then I am not accusing you.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

What your post highlights is that definitions alone do not provide clarity or a pathway to truth/device for truthfulness.

This means that language can be, and often is, used as a device of suppression of truthfulness, although I would hesitate to congratulate you on your post because you have clearly only identified the way in which your tribe [non-theists] is mis-represented by the opposing tribe [religious theists] through this method of untruthfulness.

Clearly a line has been drawn and clearly these battles can only end bitterly in real-world terms as long as this method of warfare continues along these same lines as it apparently always has done, since the line was first drawn.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #75]

Well, that would depend now wouldn't it? If atheist means "not believing in god" and the atheist is simply sharing what he believes, without making any assertions which cannot be demonstrated, then you would be correct. However, if this atheist goes on to insist there are no gods, he will then own the burden, correct?

What you are identifying here is that an individuals position changes depending upon the individuals argument.

In which case, the atheist is arguing from the position of philosophical materialism - rather than from the position of atheism.

A snip from post#66 shows how the author tries to place atheism in a position of equality with 'practical materialism';

mechanical materialism' I have heard it called is the actual practical materialism that science, rationalism, secularism and atheism is based on

making it appear that atheism is based upon practical materialism when it is simply only a position that [in popular regard] 'lacks belief in gods' as if practical materialism is actually interested in gods enough to feel it is an important part of the recipe lack belief in them.

Practicing practical materialism does not require one lacks belief in gods.

Search "Practical materialism"
postulates a constitutive role of human beings in the production and transformation of social and cultural formations."

Indeed, the role of a creative mind behind creation [Cosmic Mind] must also fit into that definition, regardless of what name is placed upon it.

[Bust Nak]

Well, that would depend now wouldn't it? If atheist means "not believing in god" and the atheist is simply sharing what he believes, without making any assertions which cannot be demonstrated, then you would be correct.

I was speaking of atheists who qualify as old school agnostics, we are not the ones who assert that there are no gods.

However, if this atheist goes on to insist there are no gods, he will then own the burden, correct?

Correct. They are what I would call old school atheists (or strong atheists, or gnostic atheists.)

But please do not attempt to tell me there are not those who have used this change for that very purpose.

How about if I tell you I have not seen a single atheist using this change for the purpose, and I am quite active in the English speaking atheist online community.

Which clearly demonstrates you understand there is a change occurring. I will assume it is your claim this would have nothing to do with "shifting the burden" in your case. Are you aware of any who have indeed used the change in meaning in order to shed the burden?

No, I am aware of no such thing. Look, I will let you in on what the actual tactic is - it's not about shifting burden in order to win a debate here and there, think bigger: we are uniting old school agnostic and old school atheists under a new banner to fight theists in (what some has called) a culture war. The agnostic label give the false impression that we are passive observers when we are in fact siding with the old school atheists; secondly, by making the atheist label inclusive, we hope to encourage passive observes who think "yeah, that label fits my stance, I am an atheist" to be less passive.

Is it your position no one has ever used the change in meaning in order to shift to burden?

I won't go that far, I will however say that it is a complete non-issue, given a) how ineffective it is as a tactic, it's irrational to even try as whoever makes a claim always has the burden; and b) how rare strong atheists / old school atheists are.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #69]

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.

[Bust Nak]

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."