-->
@secularmerlin
One wonders if that white Male slave holder left the bits about slaves and wives being obedient
there wouldn't be much left after all that
Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
Posts
Total:
417
-->
@3RU7AL
If you believe any type of god exists you are a theist. Does that mean your not anti- theists? Not at all. There are several theists, who claim gnostic and agnostic, who are anti-theists and champion atheist rhetoric and harass practicing theists. Are they atheists? They say no. Do they post the same as atheists? Yes.
Christian atheism is Buddhism for Westerners who want to claim culture.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Does that mean your not anti- theists? Not at all.
good point
historically speaking,
the most rabid "anti-theists" have been other theists
-->
@3RU7AL
it's part of a conditional statement
I know. That is why falsifying your conditional statement falsified your conclusion.
can we agree that the primary function of a dictionary is to reduce miscommunication between humans ?
No. Some dictionaries actively increase miscommunication for ideological reasons. For example, Webster chose to ignore traditional English spellings and pronunciation in favor of creating a distinctly American dictionary, creating a new American standard which sometimes disagrees with British standards.
I think most lexicographers would prefer to document the miscommunication rather than take sides.
So, for example Wiktionary documents:
#########
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
########
STRICT means "Rigidly interpreted; exactly limited; confined; restricted." That is, the MOST PRECISE definition of Atheism is the BELIEF that no deities exist. If we were to force a LESS PRECISE interpretation to be PRIMARY (whatever that is supposed to mean), we would be deliberately obscuring the most precisely intended and truthful interpretation in favor of a less precise, less truthful re-definition.
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans for at least two reasons:
- ATHEISM is a lack of belief in deities but 3RU7AL's definition fails to specificy. That is, ATHEISM is NOT a lack of belief in democracy or gravity but we could not infer as much using 3RU7AL's underdefined definition.
- Unlike ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM is a modern term for which the original intent as coined is preserved "The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word AGNOSTIC in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
- That is, the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM.
- Let's agree that taking a well-established word and meaning and replacing it with some other word that already has other well-established meanings is a deliberate attempt to increase error and miscommunication in the English language.
-->
@oromagi
Hold on a minute.
Please choose (EITHER) "Wiktionary" (OR) "original author's intent"
It seems incoherent to hold one word to one standard and another word to a completely different standard.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiHold on a minute.
Please choose (EITHER) "Wiktionary" (OR) "original author's intent"
It seems incoherent to hold one word to one standard and another word to a completely different standard.
Wiktionary defines the word as "Coined by Huxley"
agnosticism
Etymology
Coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. From a- + gnostic + -ism (see also agnostic).
Noun
agnosticism (countable and uncountable, plural agnosticisms)
- The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.
- The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.
- Doubt, uncertainty, or skepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.
- (by extension) Doubt, uncertainty, or skepticism regarding any subject of dispute.
Wiktionary's definition of AGNOSTICISM is entirely inclusive of Huxley's original definition. It is false to say that Wiktionary applies a completely different standard than Huxley's.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well historically men are pigs and historically white men are even bigger pigs. So I'm going to go off my experiences, my personal experiences from 1970 forward. If you want to talk about s*** that's before that feel free to.
-->
@oromagi
Are you suggesting we should refer primarily to "original author's intent" for (BOTH) "atheism" (AND) "agnosticism" (and all other words generally or is this a case of "special pleading") ?
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAre you suggesting we should refer primarily to "original author's intent" for (BOTH) "atheism" (AND) "agnosticism"
Yes.
(and all other words generally or is this a case of "special pleading") ?
I don't have the capacity to consider all one million words in English, much less six thousand other languages.
-->
@oromagi
Are you suggesting we should refer primarily to "original author's intent" for (BOTH) "atheism" (AND) "agnosticism"Yes.
Is your primary objection based on your assessment that "atheism" (defined as a mere "lack of belief in any specific theistic god") is synonymous with "agnosticism" (defined as a merely "The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable") ?
-->
@3RU7AL
Is your primary objection based on your assessment that "atheism" (defined as a mere "lack of belief in any specific theistic god") is synonymous with "agnosticism" (defined as a merely "The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable") ?
My primary objection is that your suggested re-definition, "a lack of belief" is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs.
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans for at least two reasons:
- ATHEISM is a lack of belief in deities but 3RU7AL's definition fails to specificy. That is, ATHEISM is NOT a lack of belief in democracy or gravity but we could not infer as much using 3RU7AL's underdefined definition.
- Unlike ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM is a modern term for which the original intent as coined is preserved "The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word AGNOSTIC in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
- That is, the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM.
- Let's agree that taking a well-established word and meaning and replacing it with some other word that already has other well-established meanings is a deliberate attempt to increase error and miscommunication in the English language.
-->
@oromagi
My primary objection is that your suggested re-definition, "a lack of belief" is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]
Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]
Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]
This is "the present state of affairs".
-->
@3RU7AL
Originally, you responded to a remark I made in a debate as follows:
>[Double_R argued that] strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itselfThere's your conditional statement.Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
I proved to you that "language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible"
- and you have conceded the argument by lack of response.
You argued that we should "remove and modify the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent"
- I pointed out that removing and modifying definitions of ATHEISM to simply read "a lack of belief" would introduce more error and miscommunication.
Now you're quoting a bunch of definitions that demonstrate what we've already known, that "a lack of belief in the existence of gods" is one of several less precise definitions of ATHEISM.
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
- Have you given up on your plan to redefine ATHEISM as "simply a lack of belief?"
- All of the status quo definitions specify "belief in deities/gods" but your definition does not.
- All of the status quo definitions acknowledge multiple uses but your definition wants to "simply" strip those out.
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "an absence of belief in the existence of deities."
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than " a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."
- Yes or No?
Are you still arguing to modify these definitions or have you conceded your original argument? I can't tell.
-->
@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
As I've repeatedly tried to make clear to you, it has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
Thanks.
As I've repeatedly tried to make clear to you, it has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions.
I see. So, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all. You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."
-->
@secularmerlin
Undoubtedly.
-->
@oromagi
So, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all. You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."
Atheism is ALWAYS "a lack of belief" which can sometimes be paired with "a strong DISbelief" (among other related and incidental beliefs).
Perhaps more precisely, "not a theist".
-->
@oromagi
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans
Complete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.
This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence.
"God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.
"No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.
No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.
The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.
-->
@Double_R
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiSo, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all. You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."Atheism is ALWAYS "a lack of belief" which can sometimes be paired with "a strong DISbelief" (among other related and incidental beliefs).Perhaps more precisely, "not a theist".
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagiFurthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humansComplete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence."God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed."No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.
Moving goalposts. At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims. We are discussing whether the current definition of ATHEISM should be modified
FROM:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notesThe term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- A lack of belief.
I call that going from clear and inclusive to fuzzy and exclusive.
3RU7AL defended your argument that ATHEISM should be redefined to only its broadest sense with this proposition:
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
3RU7AL defended your argument that beliefs that are alike in non-worship should be defined identically with this proposition:
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed(THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.
and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
3RU7AL never explained the value or consequence of making some definitions PRIMARY, whatever that means.
-->
@oromagi
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".
-->
@oromagi
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue, especially since, according to yourself, that was not your primary objection.
-->
@oromagi
At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.
-->
@oromagi
This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.
I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".
That is not the same as "conceded".
In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.
And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.
-->
@3RU7AL
In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.
Deliberate deception. I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM. At no time have I suggested any modification.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAt no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.
Which does not refute the claim, "At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims."
It is true that Double_R argued in his debate that strict atheism is logically incoherent but that was not in this forum and that claim was not disputed by me. I asked why logical incoherence should be a just reason to remove a term from the dictionary. Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
-->
@oromagi
Deliberate deception. I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM. At no time have I suggested any modification.
You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."
And as it turns out, it actually already is "the present state of affairs".
-->
@oromagi
Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.
Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.
You yourself have made this argument.
The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.