LordReed:


And do you get where we are coming from? We are using a broader definition of atheism that includes the standard definition as you call it. There is no reason to quibble over this unless you want to hold us over the barrel with the standard definition.

Nope. When I offered the standard definition: this is what you wrote

LordReed:

Wrong. Once again atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is not the proposition that gods do not exist. Try again.

You outrightly dismissed it as wrong and held up only your preferred one.


As I've mentioned in many of my previous replies, two of which is below

jamesid29:


With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

Or

jamesid29:


We live in a world where people choose to define terms on their own for one reason or another, which is fine(as I stated in my piece),but doesn't make their "definition" authoritative.

Point is, you can choose to subscribe with the "lack of belief" definition. That is within your proragative.
What is outside of your prorogative is to say that atheism should not be defined as " the proposition that God(s) do not exist" ; Especially when that is the standard definition within the field that studies it itself.

You can not say I'm wrong with the standard definition the same way I cannot disregard the big bang theory as purely an educated guess because I choose to define theory using it's colloquial understanding of being something that is a "an idea or opinion".

As I mentioned to vic2ree, if your initial reply was something along the lines of

" I acknowledge the other definition but I only subscribe to this particular definition cos it better articulates what I hold to be true".
That would have been a different conversation and in my opinion a legitimate answer.

Tamaratonye5:

What you said is that atheism according to these sources does not provide representation of the definition that atheism equals a lack of belief. A person who "does not believe" is a person who lacks belief in the proposition that a god exists. The two are largely synonymous, so examining your first citation you were wrong.

No, they are not synonymous and further reading the entry clarifies it:

For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support. And they have argued that the evidence in favor of God’s existence is too weak, or the arguments in favor of concluding there is no God are more compelling.

And then it goes on further to clarify it, under it's sub heading:
1. What is Atheism?
Atheism is the view that there is no God

It then goes on to specify what it means by God and gods.

And finally it goes on to state that:
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.

The article no where uses "does not believe" as a psychological state as opposed to a proposition, as it's preferred definition.
The only time it mentions a psychological state entry, was when it was discussing Anthony Flew's position on negative atheism. And it quickly goes on to mention that Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as such a position.

The piece itself is clear on what definition and position it holds.

You can read Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entry on atheism for a critique of Anthony Flew's position.

Tamaratonye5:

This citation appears to be defective as well, as it characterizes atheism as, "rejection of religious beliefs." That's perfectly consistent with lack of belief; if you reject a belief, you don't hold that belief. It doesn't necessarily mean you embrace a position opposite to those beliefs in denying that a god exists. The Britannica entry makes that clear in the following quote where it points out that conceiving of atheims as a denial is problematic:

No ma'am
Lack of belief is argued as a psychological state where no position is held and no claim is made.
A rejection of a belief is a willful rejection of a belief. That is holding a position against a claim.
I've had this conversation with reed
That particular section actually broadens the definition to not only cover the rejection of the theistic conceptions of God but also rejection of all religious beliefs.
You can read the reply to Reed on that section.

Tamaratonye5:

I'd have to see the full entry, but we'll accept your claim as valid for that article in the companion pending further investigation of the source. However, the companion is not a dictionary and doesn't try to be. My experience with Oxford Companion books is that they're more like a reader's anthology than a dictionary. So this ultimately isn't legitimate support for your claim.

LoL, okay

This is similar to what general-purpose dictionaries present and isn't really more than a quick and dirty reference for word definitions. The quote you gave constitutes the entirety of that reference. On the other hand, Oxford Reference also does quote Oxford's "The Dictionary Of Atheism" which does support the lack of belief definition which Near1 quoted. So that's one that does and one that doesn't.

I didn't bring any of them up as none of them are philosophy dictionaries.. Near1 did.

So that's another in the lack of belief column.

Nope, that's the only one

I've already discussed the problem with the Stanford entry, but since the Stanford entry does mention Antony Flew's advocacy of the lack of belief definition, so that's another strike against your claim.

LoL. The entry actively argues against Flew

So in your view, by simply mentioning it, regardless of in what capacity, that's a plus?
Anyway below is the exert as to what capacity it mentions Flew's position

So totaling things up:

Supports lack definition: 5

Doesn't support lack defn: 1 (Oxford Reference's primary entry for atheism)

Undetermined: 5 (ismbook actually says active disbelief, which could fall both ways, but it is counted as undetermined for now.)

---

So even if all 5 undetermined references went your way, at best, half don't reference lack of belief. If those examined are typical, then most actually do reference lack of belief.

LoL. Ok ma'am... I guess you see what you want to see
That's fine ma'am

jamesid29:

Nope. When I offered the standard definition: this is what you wrote

You outrightly dismissed it as wrong and held up only your preferred one.


As I've mentioned in many of my previous replies, two of which is below

Or


As I mentioned to vic2ree, if your initial reply was something along the lines of

" I acknowledge the other definition but I only subscribe to this particular definition cos it better articulates what I hold to be true".
That would have been a different conversation and in my opinion a legitimate answer.

Ok I will acknowledge I should have phased it better to signify that the broader definition I am using also encapsulates the one you are using.

Hismasterpiece:


Lol.. you atheists try very hard to stand out. You don't want to appear like others. You say atheism is a 'lack of belief' but that is not the historical definition of atheism.

Wikipedia defines atheism as, 'Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities'

But it could also be restated as, ' Atheism, in the broadest sense, is a BELIEF in the nonexistence of deities'

Absence of belief is the same as belief.

If atheism is a belief, abstinence is a sexual position

LordReed:


Ok I will acknowledge I should have phased it better to signify that the broader definition I am using also encapsulates the one you are using.

Not at all sir. The "lack of belief" position is not a broader definition that encapsulates the standard one.
They are two distinct definitions.
"lack of belief" falls under a psychological state akin to agnostism, while "Gods do not exist" is a proposition & a claim. They don't fall under the same umbrella.

This is why even in text that mention both definitions, they are usually separate with an "or".
Namely: The belief that God(s) do not exist or a lack of belief in god(s)..

The original idea by Anthony Flew, was to have a definition that encompasses every ideology that doesn't fall under organized religion i.e atheist, agnostics, irreligious and everyone in-between(which can even include trees, cats or babies etc).
Problem was Flew's position actually excluded those who were atheist themselves and didn't achieve it's aim. You can't have a proposition and a state under the same umbrella.
It was critiqued by other philosopher and didn't gain acceptance.

You can look through the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy critique for a better explanation of the difference.
Or a very good resource written by a well respected atheist philosophers gives a more detailed delineation
Atheism and Agnosticism (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion) - Graham Oppy (https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Agnosticism-Elements-Philosophy-Religion/dp/1108454720).
"Plus side is , Graham does give good arguments for atheism"

So to recap: The "lack of belief" definition is not an encapsulation of the position that "God(s) do not exist".
They are two distinct definitions

alphaNomega:


If atheism is a belief, abstinence is a sexual position

What are you talking about guy?

XXXXTENTACION:
Name the white man that invented atheism...

I will if you can name the white man that invented theism

LordReed:


What claims does atheism make?

That there is no God?

alphaNomega:
. Because you have a story book filled with imaginary characters

Why can't the same be said about atheism?

Hismasterpiece:


Why can't the same be said about atheism?

Atheism is not a religion, that's why

Hismasterpiece:


What are you talking about guy?

I wrote what I wrote. No parables there, plain English

Hismasterpiece:


I will if you can name the white man that invented theism

You were the one who clearly stated on this forum that atheism came from the white man. And in other for you to clarify yourself I asked you to name the white man that invented atheism...
You know that you first statement is a lie and thats why you could'nt answer instead you decide to twist things up and push out ridiculous questions to me...

Hismasterpiece:


That there is no God?

While I do make the claim that your particular conception of god doesn’t exist, I do not make the claim that no gods of any kind exist however I do say I do not believe in any gods because I have no evidence that they do exist. In the first part I have shown you why I think so, your god will fail every type of test you put it to. In the second part I don't think we have explored the universe sufficiently to reach that conclusion but so far we have no evidence to suggest they do exist. Therefore it is not correct to say atheism makes that claim.

LordReed:


While I do make the claim that your particular conception of god doesn’t exist, I do not make the claim that no gods of any kind exist however I do say I do not believe in any gods because I have no evidence that they do exist. In the first part I have shown you why I think so, your god will fail every type of test you put it to. In the second part I don't think we have explored the universe sufficiently to reach that conclusion but so far we have no evidence to suggest they do exist. Therefore it is not correct to say atheism makes that claim.

Give me examples of such tests

Hismasterpiece:


Give me examples of such tests

Ask him to tell you my home address.

XXXXTENTACION:
You were the one who clearly stated on this forum that atheism came from the white man. And in other for you to clarify yourself I asked you to name the white man that invented atheism...
You know that you first statement is a lie and thats why you could'nt answer instead you decide to twist things up and push out ridiculous questions to me...

Atheism sha began with men with white skin, no?

Hismasterpiece:


Atheism sha began with men with white skin, no?

always making claims without evidence...
provide the names of the whitemen that started atheism or keep your mouth shut and stop spewing rubbish....

alphaNomega:
I wrote what I wrote. No parables there, plain English

I still don't get your point

alphaNomega:
Atheism is not a religion, that's why

But it is a belief system, no?

Hismasterpiece:


But it is a belief system, no?

It is not.

jamesid29:

Not at all sir. The "lack of belief" position is not a broader definition that encapsulates the standard one.
They are two distinct definitions.
"lack of belief" falls under a psychological state akin to agnostism, while "Gods do not exist" is a proposition & a claim. They don't fall under the same umbrella.

This is why even in text that mention both definitions, they are usually separate with an "or".
Namely: The belief that God(s) do not exist or a lack of belief in god(s)..

The original idea by Anthony Flew, was to have a definition that encompasses every ideology that doesn't fall under organized religion i.e atheist, agnostics, irreligious and everyone in-between(which can even include trees, cats or babies etc).
Problem was Flew's position actually excluded those who were atheist themselves and didn't achieve it's aim. You can't have a proposition and a state under the same umbrella.
It was critiqued by other philosopher and didn't gain acceptance.

You can look through the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy critique for a better explanation of the difference.
Or a very good resource written by a well respected atheist philosophers gives a more detailed delineation
Atheism and Agnosticism (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion) - Graham Oppy (https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Agnosticism-Elements-Philosophy-Religion/dp/1108454720).
"Plus side is , Graham does give good arguments for atheism"

So to recap: The "lack of belief" definition is not an encapsulation of the position that "God(s) do not exist".
They are two distinct definitions

The position "god(s) do not exist" is in effect a statement that the holder lacks a belief in gods so I fail to see how it isn't a subset.

alphaNomega:

It is not.

yes it is

XXXXTENTACION:
always making claims without evidence...
provide the names of the whitemen that started atheism or keep your mouth shut and stop spewing rubbish....

it sha began in greece and greece was full of white men.

Hismasterpiece:


it sha began in greece and greece was full of white men.

Bla bla bla bla bla....
you still can't provide a single name..
go and get a lesson on logic and human bias before arguing on this forum...

Hismasterpiece:
Dear atheists, you say there is no God. That is literally what atheist means: 'A Theos' which is the original greek word which means 'No God'.

You claim to be enlightened and more reasonable and logical and in your right mind unlike us religious people (not really religious people in general, more like Christians because that is the religion you people speak against the most in this section).

But i believe you guys are wicked. My reason being this. You see yourselves as being free and we religious as being enslaved. You see yourselves as being in your right mind and we religious as being out of our minds.

But in your wickedness you have left us all to our slavery and our insanity. Rather than reaching out to us in love and reasoning with us thoughtfully in order to bring us out of our deception and slavery you bash us, insult us, shame us, laugh at us in our wretched condition.

I don't believe you atheists really believe the things you claim to believe. If you really did, it would show. There is no aggressive effort being made by atheists to get the word out and deliver us poor theists out of our bondage. But the Christians who believe what they claim are aggressively spreading the word. Various radio stations and programs, various books and video and audio resources being used to spread the message but the same can't be said about atheists. How many atheist radio stations are there spreading the word about atheism and liberating people? How many Billy Grahams are there in atheism? How many Martin Luthers (both of them)? How many Oyedepos? How many apostle Pauls? How many mother Theresas? How many Andrew Wommacks? How many John Wesleys? How many D L Moodys? How many Kenneth Hagins?

If someone sees his neighbors house on fire and rather than rush and help them put out the fire and evacuate people from the house just walks on by and heads home without showing any concern at all, is that person a good person? If instead of helping them he begins to criticize them publicly and starts accusing them of being careless and stupid and idiotic and uneducated would that be fair? or kind? or good?

That is exactly what you atheists do. You people are selfish and want to enjoy your freedom alone while us religious folk suffer in chains. You show us no love or compassion. Rather than correct us lovingly and put us in the right path you shame us and try to make us look stupid for believing in what we believe in.

I don't believe this is fair treatment. The Christian believes the non-christian is going to hell, and in love he tells him and puts him in the right path. The atheist believes the theist is enslaved in his mind and out of his mind and rather than liberate him he attacks him. That is wickedness, pure wickedness.

Instead of making posts that logically and systematically explain atheism and why it is the right worldview, while logically refuting the claims of all religions step by step, you guys make posts mocking people who you claim to be in bondage rather than helping them lovingly.

You people are wicked.

Abraham Lincoln saw slaves and believed they shouldn't be slaves. And what did he do? shame them? mock them? no, he freed them. I believe that if you people really believe what you claim you should do the same.

Good evening.

Oga Op to measure good na wahala because good vary from one degree to other. Evil too vary from one degree to another. Good and evil cut across all people from varying works of life.


Yoruba people talk sey

Person wey wicked know sey im wicked im just dey look for person wey go tell am sey im wicked.

Mark 10: 18
New International Version
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

New Living Translation
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good.

English Standard Version
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Berean Study Bible
“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.


Matthew 7:11

New International Version
If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

New Living Translation
So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.

English Standard Version
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Berean Study Bible
So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!


Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.... Galatians 6:2

Galatians 6: 4,5.....
Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load.


Everything get degree and variation for this life. Evil people dey do good paapaa

Hismasterpiece:


yes it is

k

LordReed:


The position "god(s) do not exist" is in effect a statement that the holder lacks a belief in gods so I fail to see how it isn't a subset.

No it is not sir.
Kindly read the materials presented.




Sorry couldn't reply sooner. Been held up with other activities lately.