Rant: definitions of atheism

[Longfellow]

I’m posting my thoughts about this here, because I’m just giving my personal opinions without trying to substantiate them.

First I want to say that the definition “the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists,” looks doubly insulting to me, not what most atheists mean by it or how they define it, and worse than useless for any practical, beneficial purpose. I’d like to know if there are any atheists who agree with defining atheism that way.

Apart from that, this post is about a definition that is popular in some circles, and what I think the reasons might be for its popularity. One form of that definition is: “lacking belief in any god or gods.”

Possible reasons for the popularity of that definition in some circles:
- At one time it might have been part of the marketing strategy for some kinds of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim storytelling.
- It’s a way of trying to convince more people to identify as atheists, for that purpose and for others, for example like keeping atheist forums alive.
- It’s a diversion tactic for people to denounce other people for believing in their Gods without evidence, while excusing themselves from providing evidence for their own belief that those Gods do not exist.

(later) Denouncing other people for believing without evidence while excusing themselves from providing evidence for their opposing belief, diverting attention from that with a definition of “atheism “ customized for that purpose.

Fooling and intimidating people into identifying as atheists, if they don’t want to be stigmatized as “theists.”

(later) I've seen one, possibly two atheists who agree with the definition "the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists," and don't see it as insulting. That's enough to convince me that there might be many others.

(later) I read some more posts in that thread, and I see that there's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said, much better than I could have ever said it.

My solution to people understanding a word in different ways is not to use it in public discussions, and just spell out what I'm thinking. Also, if I see people misunderstanding what I'm saying, I try saying it in a different way.

[Tcg]

Apart from that, this post is about a definition that is popular in some circles, and what I think the reasons might be for its popularity. One form of that definition is: “lacking belief in any god or gods.”

Possible reasons for the popularity of that definition in some circles:
- At one time it might have been part of the marketing strategy for some kinds of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim storytelling.
- It’s a way of trying to convince more people to identify as atheists, for that purpose and for others, for example like keeping atheist forums alive.
- It’s a diversion tactic for people to denounce other people for believing in their Gods without evidence, while excusing themselves from providing evidence for their own belief that those Gods do not exist.

You've overlooked the obvious and most logical explanation for this definition:

- It was developed in an attempt to accurately define atheism.

I've seen others suspect that atheists attempt to define atheism in a way that will somehow convince more people to identify as atheists. It's always amusing. As if we get a bonus for adding to our numbers. To suspect that it is done to keep atheist forums alive is a new level of absurdity.


Tcg

[Longfellow]

Repeating what I said in the other thread, it looks to me like sometimes people on all sides are attached to some definition of a word for psychological, social, political and religious reasons that make them impervious to all logic and reason, I’m thinking now that there might not be anyone posting in that thread who is trying to understand better what other people are thinking, apart from looking for ways to knock it down, I might post some more to ask questions, to help me understand what other people are thinking, but not with any hope of anyone trying to understand what I’m thinking.

(later) Well, it is a debate thread, after all. Why would I think that anyone would be trying to understand what anyone else is thinking? Maybe I shouldn’t even be doing that myself, in that thread. Maybe it’s okay to ask questions if it doesn’t distract too much from the debating.

I’ll be trying to learn more now about how and why the categories “atheist” and “agnostic” are used in philosophical literature. That looks to me like it might need some critical examination.

[Longfellow]

You've overlooked the obvious and most logical explanation for this definition:

- It was developed in an attempt to accurately define atheism.

As I’m understanding it now, the problem is people thinking that all atheists believe that their God does not exist.

I remember you saying in one post that no matter how you define it and how well you explain it, people are going to stubbornly persist in misunderstanding it, and it looks that way to me too. If people don’t understand it, it’s because they don’t want to understand it, and no definition or explanation is going to change that.

[Tcg]

You've overlooked the obvious and most logical explanation for this definition:

- It was developed in an attempt to accurately define atheism.

As I’m understanding it now, the problem is people thinking that all atheists believe that their God does not exist.

I remember you saying in one post that no matter how you define it and how well you explain it, people are going to stubbornly persist in misunderstanding it, and it looks that way to me too. If people don’t understand it, it’s because they don’t want to understand it, and no definition or explanation is going to change that.

Some people are going to intentionally persist in misunderstanding it. Some will read or hear a valid definition and understand it.


Tcg

[Longfellow]

I've speculated that maybe one of the reasons for the popularity of "lack of belief" definitions is because that's a way for people to disparage and denounce other people for believing, without evidence, that their Gods exist, while excusing themselves from providing evidence for their own belief that those Gods do not exist. Because they don't state that belief and call it a "belief" doesn't make it any less a belief than people believing that those Gods exist.

I could be wrong about that being a reason for the popularity of "lack of belief" definitions, but however those definitions became popular in the first place, that looks to me like a popular way of using them now. However that may be, those definitions are popular now in some circles, and whatever confusion and misunderstanding that creates, I don't think that arguing and pushing back against those definitions is going to help. It might be helpful though, for people to understand better why they don't like it. Besides the popularity of using those definitions dishonestly and hypocritically, I'm thinking that maybe one reason is because of the confusion and antagonism that it creates. Maybe another reasson is because there are people who lack belief but who don't identify as atheists and who don't want to be labeled as atheists.

[Longfellow]

The argument that dividing people into the categories "theist," "atheist," and "agnostic" agrees with how those terms are used in philosophy is false. In philosophy, a person can be agnostic, and be a theist or an atheist, at the same time. I've been searching for a word in philosophy for "neither theist or atheist," but I haven't found one yet.

[Longfellow]

Deleted.