From: Ant (antallan@mac.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 02:11:30 MST
So... ?
The Lexicon definition of atheism is: "The doctrine that there is no
God. Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence for God
and/or that the concept of God is incoherent so its existence is
logically impossible."
Compare this to:
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity" [Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/]
These are equally clear that atheism is "a very positive belief in the
nonexistence of God". Not uncertainty.
There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's
been called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!
The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is
unknown and probably unknowable.
This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended
in line with [MW]:
(agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as
God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god" [Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/]
So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?
No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic
meaning of agnosticism.
But maybe in the second sentence... ?
I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a
doctrine. You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...".
Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of
God is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be
many other reasons...
Regards,
Ant
On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 01:54 am, metahuman wrote:
>
> October 20th
> [07:08pm] <Lucifer> Why should the definition of atheism be changed?
> [07:08pm] <KalGone> lemme show you, lucifer
> [07:09pm] <KalGone> ATHEISM:(vl) The doctrine that there is no God.
> Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence for God and/or
> that the concept of God is incoherent so its existence is logically
> impossible.
> [07:09pm] <Lucifer> Looks like quite a workable definition
> [07:09pm] <KalGone> the guy from positiveatheism that metahuman quoted
> has some very valid points, namely that a- anything is absence of
> anything, rather than doctrine that the thing does not exist
> [07:09pm] * localroger sees where Kal may be going with this
> [07:10pm] <KalGone> did you read the post, lucifer?
> [07:10pm] <Lucifer> So atheism should be defined to be just weak
> atheism?
> [07:10pm] <localroger> "Weak" atheism is much more logically
> defensible than "strong" atheism.
> [07:11pm] <KalGone> atheism should be consistent with the definitions
> of other a- prefix words
> [07:11pm] <KalGone> here's a quote:
> [07:11pm] <KalGone> An examination of all the words that have been
> modified with this prefix will show no exceptions to this pattern --
> unless, of course, the Anglicans are right after all, and that for
> this one lonely term, *atheism,* the prefix indicates a doctrine
> rather than an absence, or, as the Anglican-owned dictionary asserts,
> the prefix indicates the denial of the existence of the object of the
> root (Wha...?).
> [07:11pm] <localroger> e.g. to not be a theist is not the same as
> being anti-theist
> [07:11pm] <Lucifer> localroger, can you say the same about all weaker
> stances about anything?
> [07:11pm] <KalGone> I am an atheist, but I do not agree with the
> doctrine that there is no god
> [07:12pm] <KalGone> I agree that most gods, as defined, are
> contradictory or could not exist as we understand existence
> [07:12pm] <localroger> Well you can, but then that's one reason I am a
> Weak atheist myself. I do not think there is sufficient grounds to
> positively declare that all religious ideas are bullshit.
> [07:12pm] <Lucifer> The definition is supposed to just reflect how we
> use the term in our own discussions
> [07:12pm] <KalGone> exactly
> [07:13pm] <KalGone> and the way *I* use the term in discussion is not
> the same as the way it's defined in the lexicon
> [07:14pm] <KalGone> i agree fully, roger
> [07:14pm] <KalGone> just because the idea comes from a religion, does
> not mean it's incorrect
> [07:14pm] <Lucifer> The definition accurately reflected the way we
> used the term at one time. This may have changed over the years.
> [07:14pm] <KalGone> ;-}
> [07:14pm] <KalGone> continuously evolving
> [07:16pm] <localroger> Lucifer, I don't think strong atheism has ever
> been nearly as popular as weak atheism. Maybe this forum was
> different, but even here I can think of at least 6 or 7 people who
> would definitely be on the Weak side.
>
> ...and then Lucifer involves himself in another conversation...
> A.D.D.? It seems to happen quite a bit. Either that or my logs are
> weird.
>
> The point is, Blunderov, that we should change the definition of
> atheism to reflect our majority views. I'm merely trying to get people
> to start discussing this issue more in-depthly. I'm throwing something
> out there. If my definition is wrong, show me what's right because the
> one that's up there right now is definitely incorrect.
>
> Atheism can be defined simply as "the lack of god-beliefs for whatever
> reason." It's a very open definition allowing for philosophies to be
> shaped around it. It's like a fill-in-the-blank definition. Atheists
> vary just like people do and not all atheists, obviously, would agree
> with my definition.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by metahuman to the Virus 2003 board on Church
> of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/
> index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29566>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 02:11:51 MST