The meaning of 'atheist'

[zippy2006]

The meaning is clear, but it doesn't match with your OP. "Does not believe" =/= "believes there is no".

I gave four examples showing that it does. Against that we have your gratuitous assertions. Do you know why New Atheists say "I lack belief in God," rather than, "I do not believe in God"? It is because they understand what you do not.

 

[RC1970]

Gnostic would be to have certainty, the opposite of agnostic.

Exactly, an Atheist would be a Gnostic concerning God's nonexistence. They would say they know He does not exist.

 

[zippy2006]

Exactly, an Atheist would be a Gnostic concerning God's nonexistence. They would say they know He does not exist.

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins agrees with you.

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero a person is willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity... Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice". (Wikipedia)​

 

[bhsmte]

The infatuation on this topic, is comical.

 

[Cute Tink]

I gave four examples showing that it does. Against that we have your gratuitous assertions. Do you know why New Atheists say "I lack belief in God," rather than, "I do not believe in God"? It is because they understand what you do not.

No, they really don't, but I cannot force you to understand that or why your OP doesn't support your statements, especially since you quote dictionaries that back up the common usage of atheist that you are objecting to.

 

[Cute Tink]

Exactly, an Atheist would be a Gnostic concerning God's nonexistence. They would say they know He does not exist.

No. One is knowledge, the other is belief. One could be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. The OP supports this position. I'm out.

 

[bhsmte]

No, they really don't, but I cannot force you to understand that or why your OP doesn't support your statements, especially since you quote dictionaries that back up the common usage of atheist that you are objecting to.

One reason this thread is so comical.

 

[zippy2006]

No, they really don't, but I cannot force you to understand that or why your OP doesn't support your statements, especially since you quote dictionaries that back up the common usage of atheist that you are objecting to.

Answered in an edit here:

Let's see:

• Disbelieve: be unable to believe (someone or something). (Google Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe ; to withhold or reject belief (Merriam-Webster)
• Disbelieve: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in. (Dictionary.com)
• Disbelieve: to not believe someone or something. (Cambridge Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: To refuse to believe or accept; reject. (The Free Dictionary)
• Disbelieve: to refuse to believe; reject as untrue. (Collins English Dictionary)

If you look at the examples the various dictionaries give, you will see that "to not believe" or "to have no belief" are meant actively as believing the thing is false.

Note that your argument is based on a small percentage of definitions of disbelieve within a small percentage of definitions of atheist, and even these can be answered as noted above.

 

[zippy2006]

The infatuation on this topic, is comical.

I find it comical that New Atheists attempt to completely redefine a word because they want to be considered atheists and yet have no intellectual obligations. We already have a word for indecision and lack of belief: agnostic.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it comical that New Atheists attempt to completely redefine a word because they want to be considered atheists and yet have no intellectual obligations. We have a word for indecision and lack of belief: agnostic.

Agnostic means unknowable. Someone can base not believing on knowing the well evidenced reality doesnt support god claims and they conclude (based on knowing this knowledge) they dont believe the deity exists. Precisely why i am atheist towards the christian god and agnostic towards a non personal god.

 

[zippy2006]

Agnostic means unknowable. Someone can base not believing on knowing the well evidenced reality doesnt support god claims and they conclude (based on knowing this knowledge) they dont believe the deity exists. Precisely why i am atheist towards the christian god and agnostic towards a non personal god.

So you are a "Gnostic atheist" with respect to the Christian God and agnostic towards a non-personal God. I don't have any problem with that.

...they dont believe the deity exists.

...another example for @Cute Tink of someone using "don't believe the deity exists" for "believing the deity doesn't exist."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But atheists don't get to decide what any word means...

Incorrect.

Everyone gets to decide what words mean for themselves. If they desire coherent communication, their definitions need to coincide with whatever group or individual they're speaking with, no matter how small.

If I define atheism as a lack of belief in a god claim, I can clearly communicate with anyone who has a similar definition. And if I am in a conversation with someone who has a different definition, it's not a difficult matter to "trade definitions" in order to communicate clearly.

Your refusal to accept others definitions is not logical, since words don't have objective meanings. It says more about you than the people you disagree with...

 

[quatona]

It´s almost like a different dictionary definition would somewhat change what I am or believe.
Or, actually, almost like some people aren´t even interested in addressing the positions I hold.

 

[Ron Gurley]

A-theist = without God
Ag-nostic = without knowledge

 

[Cute Tink]

Answered in an edit here:

Continuing to quote definitions which disagree with you are not helping your argument, but I'll give it to you that it's both thorough and honest to give a range of definitions.

I do have to question other methods though:

The meaning of words is not determined by a small group of people.

Dictionaries are written by small groups of people. It was also you who presented a statement by an individual, as if you hadn't already claimed there was no validity to such presentations.

Again, no matter how many times you argue it, the very dictionaries whose definitions you have personally presented don't support your argument. Sorry, but I see no further argument to be had here. I'm not sure of the obsession going on in the boards lately, but I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this argument.

 

[zippy2006]

Dictionaries are written by small groups of people.

And the data they take into account to determine a definition is much broader than the opinions of any single group of people.

Again, no matter how many times you argue it, the very dictionaries whose definitions you have personally presented don't support your argument.

1. I don't believe in X -> I believe ~X.
2. I don't believe in X -> I lack the belief X.

I hold (1), you hold (2). That is our difference. Of course we are talking about colloquial conversation, not some sort of partitioned-off logical analysis. I gave an argument in the form of common phrases in favor of my position, and you gave no argument for your own. To be clear:

• I don't believe in unicorns -> I believe unicorns do not exist.
• I don't believe in second chances -> I believe second chances do not exist.
• I don't believe it will rain tomorrow -> I believe it will not rain tomorrow.
• I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl -> I believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl.

I admit that your case is not implausible at a first glace, but once the matter is analyzed more deeply it becomes clear that your argument is based on a misuse of language and an incapacity to acknowledge the actual meaning of words and phrases in English. You desire language to work like (2) because this would be convenient for the type of "atheism" you wish to propose. But language isn't determined by convenience. In order to know what a word or phrase means we must look at usage and follow the evidence where it leads. We must accept the truth passively rather than actively imposing our personal will. In the colloquial and dictionary world, (1) is true and (2) is false. Therefore even the small percentage of definitions to which your argument applies do not favor your position.

 

[Cute Tink]

And the data they take into account to determine a definition is much broader than the opinions of any single group of people.

Or people who want to insist that the dictionaries aren't defining the words the way they quote them as defined?

I admit that your case is not implausible at a first glace, but once the matter is analyzed more deeply it becomes clear that your argument is based on a misuse of language and an incapacity to acknowledge the actual meaning of words and phrases in English. You desire language to work like (2) because this would be convenient for the type of "atheism" you wish to propose. But language isn't determined by convenience. In order to know what a word or phrase means we must look at usage and follow the evidence where it leads. We must accept the truth passively rather than actively imposing our personal will. In the colloquial and dictionary world, (1) is true and (2) is false. Therefore even the small percentage of definitions to which your argument applies do not favor your position.

I'm not the one staunchly refusing to acknowledge the very definitions that I've personally quoted, so is this projection? Possibly.

The "small percentage" of definitions, btw, going off what you gave in your OP is 6 out of 10. If you mean 60% of the given definition is a "small percentage", then perhaps we have a different definition of "small" as well. Nothing I can do about that either.

I see this discussion going nowhere at this point, so I'm unsubscribing. Have a nice day.

 

[zippy2006]

Or people who want to insist that the dictionaries aren't defining the words the way they quote them as defined?

This is a blatant strawman. You're begging the question and ignoring my arguments.

I'm not the one staunchly refusing to acknowledge the very definitions that I've personally quoted, so is this projection?

The difference between your posts and mine is the difference between mere assertion and argument. You say things, I explain why. That's a fairly significant difference. I've explained in great detail why the definitions you claim favor your position do no such thing. At this point there is nothing to do but assume you have no response.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've explained in great detail why the definitions you claim favor your position do no such thing. At this point there is nothing to do but assume you have no response.

Your explanations don't take into account the fact that definitions aren't objective, but are tied to the individuals and groups that use them.

So your explanations are incorrect.

 

[zippy2006]

Your explanations don't take into account the fact that definitions aren't objective, but are tied to the individuals and groups that use them.

So objective things can't be tied to individuals and groups that use them? It seems that you don't know what 'objective' means.

So your explanations are incorrect.

They actually have a name for this. It's called the "fallacy fallacy."