Jayhawker Soule

Sorry, but I have zero respect for this type of evasiveness. Have a good day.

Jack the Bodiless

If there was no evidence for the Holocaust, then Holocaust-denial would be an entirely reasonable position. If I publish an article denying that the Americans butchered millions of British civilians during WW2, I do not carry the burden of proof. This is a negative claim that does not have to be defended. Hence the importance of EVIDENCE for the positive claim: that the Americans did indeed kill millions of British civilians.
Evolution is a positive claim that requires evidence. Fortunately, there is plenty of it. Biblical creationism is also a positive claim, crushingly defeated by the evidence against it.
No. It is a lack of the belief that this "creator/designer" is required to be a conscious being. Theism makes a positive claim about specific attributes of this "creator/designer".
The existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to the question "is there purpose in life?". How is "I am God's plaything" more meaningful than "I was created by impersonal forces"?

agapeo

Gee, guess what? I have a dictionary too. Let’s see what mine says.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992

Convinced:
1.To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action.
Conviction:
1. a. The act or process of convincing. b. The state of being convinced.
2. A fixed or strong belief. See synonyms at opinion.
Belief:
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially (but not necessarily) a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group (normally, but not necessarily) of persons.
Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, and faith. The central meaning shared by these nouns is “mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something”: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; put no faith in a liar's assertions. Antonyms: disbelief.

Opinion:
1.A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2.A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3.The prevailing view: public opinion.

So, you don’t have an opinion as to what atheism is? Is this correct? Are you then expressing someone else’s? If not someone else’s, then what is it? Random thoughts? So let’s define thinking and see if there is any correlation to having a belief.

Think:
verb, transitive
1.To have or formulate in the mind.
2.a. To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through. b. To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.
3.To judge or regard; look upon: I think it only fair.
4.To believe; suppose: always thought he was right.
5.a. To expect; hope: They thought she'd arrive early. b. To intend: They thought they'd take their time.
6.To call to mind; remember: I can't think what her name was.
7.To visualize; imagine: Think what a scene it will be at the reunion.
8.To devise or evolve; invent: thought up a plan to get rich quick.
9.To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation: He thought himself into a panic over the impending examination.
10.To concentrate one's thoughts on: “Think languor” (Diana Vreeland).
verb, intransitive
1.To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.
2.To weigh or consider an idea: They are thinking about moving.
3.a. To bring a thought to mind by imagination or invention: No one before had thought of bifocal glasses. b. To recall a thought or an image to mind: She thought of her childhood when she saw the movie.
4.To believe; suppose: He thinks of himself as a wit. It's later than you think.
5.To have care or consideration: Think first of the ones you love.
6.To dispose the mind in a given way: Do you think so?

Sure do wish they would take #4 out of the equation. Maybe then we could agree to your definition. Let’s look at the definition of a definition.

Definition:
1.a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2.The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.

Now, if you want to re-define or define a word, the only way you can do so is to gain wide acceptance of its new meaning. After doing so, I’m sure the publishers of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language will accommodate you and change their definition. But heck, why don’t you just tell me where I can purchase the dictionary that you use so we can clear up the confusion.

Atheism:
1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Doctrine:
1.A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

Oh yeah, “Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy” aims to clarify language and analyze the concepts expressed in it. The proper activity of philosophy is clarifying language, or, as some prefer, clarifying concepts. The aim of this activity is to settle philosophical disputes and resolve philosophical problems, which, it is argued, originate in linguistic confusion. Don’t cry “foul” when Andrew engages in this philosophical discussion merely because you don’t agree with his clarification of what atheism is. Especially, when even atheists cannot agree among themselves of what it is and what it is that they are doing in discussing it.

So class, this concludes the lesson for today. I shall now retreat back into my “lazy mode.” I just love playing the “word game”. It’s soooooo much fun. Especially when there are soooooo many willing to play with along with you.

Wyrdsmyth

What followed was a series of definitions for atheism which you'd already posted previously. The irony here is it seems like you're trying to brainwash us with repetition. Andrew, maybe if you re-post those same definitions over and over again, we will accept them... Is that your line of thinking? Is that your entire argument?

Andrew, with all due respect it has by now been pointed out to you several times that dictionaries describe usage, they do not PRESCRIBE usage. By now, we all know that your position of argument in asserting such definitions is an attempt to establish that atheism is not a "lack of belief" but a "worldview" with its own positive claims that need evidence in order to be defended. But this kind of arguing is coming up against a serious road-block, because your argument can't go anywhere if no one accepts your premise. You can get red in the face and emit steam from your ears and repeat your assertions over and over, but that isn't going to impress anyone overly much.

Let's try another approach, though. Let us try to look at this in another way. We want to understand each other's points of view, correct? Do you want to understand us, or just try to shove a premise down our throats, ignoring our objections? You say that we are being fundamental, in our rejection of what you're saying... but that is your response no matter what we say. Ask yourself this: Are you even listening to us anymore? Do you want to understand us, or just keep telling us what we believe?

If two sides are simply going to keep saying, "No, I'm the one that's open-minded, you're the one being stubbornly committed to your fundamental views," then we're not going to get anywhere. If that is our starting point, then that is also where we end, quantity of words and posts notwithstanding. I can shout, "You're in denial" and you can shout that I am. We can each assert the other is deluded, and just keep shouting that over and over. That is what I see here in this thread. The theists and atheists are metaphorically shouting at each other.

I don't think anything productive can come out of nothing more than calling each other deluded. It is stating the obvious to say we have different points of view, different worldviews, or whatever -- that is essentially nothing more than to concede we indeed differ. And quibbling over the definition of a single word -- like atheism -- is starting to look like a profound and pathetic waste of time. Are we philologists or philosophers?

We need to establish a common ground, to have any productive discourse at all. We need to come up with a way in which two sides can settle their disagreement. I think the only way to do that is to examine the evidence, not make baseless speculations about each other's fundamental assertions. If two people disagree that something exists or not, they ought to examine the evidence itself, not focus on each other's predisposition to reject or accept the evidence.

Wyrdsmyth

Hi Agapeo,

Not everyone agrees that the proper activity of philosophy is merely clarifying language, or that all philosophical problems are just linguistic puzzles. Every time I hear this sort of Wittgensteinian assertion, I always think then it must be the case that Englishmen and Germans can't really disagree, they just are translating each other incorrectly -- and if they had a better grasp of each other's language, an absolutely clear sense of how and in what context the other is using his words, there would be no disputes. I think this is just silly. I mean, yes, there are times when philosophers can misunderstand what each other is saying. But, I think there are also times when they understand each other very clearly and yet still disagree.

No one is crying "foul" because Andrew is trying to "clarify" what atheism means. Repeatedly tossing out definitions from various sources isn't what I would call "clarifying." You seem to be implying that Andrew's approach is the right one, and if we look at a large enough quantity of dictionary definitions of atheism, we'll eventually get to a clear view of what the term means. But some people don't think that way (myself included), and cry "foul" because it looks like steering the conversation away from the real issue, which is whether or not there is any evidence for a deity.

Let's shut the dictionaries.

Where's the evidence?

Jack the Bodiless

Is it possible that we're talking about two different usages here? Many words have several meanings, depending on context.

A simple lack of belief is not a "doctrine". However, the official state "atheism" of various communist regimes WAS a doctrine. The Soviet Union was officially atheist, even though the people remained predominantly theists. It is not possible for a state to legitimately decree that its citizens do not believe in gods (unless they genuinely don't), but entirely possible to promote a doctrine that gods don't exist.

Not 1a AND 1b. 1a OR 1b. We are referring to definition 1a, NOT 1b, which applies only to certain totalitarian regimes.

Koyaanisqatsi

I agree with Wordsmyth.

Present evidence for supernature.

Nothing else is relevant.

agapeo

[I agree with Wordsmyth.
Present evidence for supernature.
Nothing else is relevant.]

Well, welcome to the "church" of Wordsmyth.

The meaning of words are relevent when they are brought to the table. I don't believe Andrew was the first to draw "blood." But as long as everyone else is doing so, I don't see where my inclination to do likewise is irrevelant to the topic. I'll "shut" my dictionary when you "shut" yours. Until then, when you call something black black, then it is only fair of me to ask "What is black?" Black to me might be a shade of gray.

Don't preach to me about getting off my "high-horse" while sitting atop yours.

Koyaanisqatsi

Present evidence for supernature.

Everything else is irrelevant.

agapeo

[Present evidence for supernature.
Everything else is irrelevant.]

If you're going to call something this and I insist on calling it that we might as well be on different planets. No logical discussion can be acheived, because we're in different worlds.

I suggest you review the entire thread to this topic of discussion. The evidence of a miracle was presented by Andrew. Dispute that evidence if you like by naturalistic means, but you'll discover when you review the whole topic that the issue of the "meaning of words" was brought up by another. If we're going to quival over words then they become relavent. For the record Wordsmyth was not the first to do so, but the first to present an argument based on it when he said something to the effect of "my brand of atheism." Well, then that begs the question. What is "your" brand of atheism? Which he willingly provided. But if you examine his as opposed to others you may discover various degrees of particular "brands." If the atheist will not submit to "nailing" down what an atheist is then it becomes a free for all. Anything goes, and if anything is allowed to be accepted then what's the point in discussing it. You're discussing perhaps two different things.

Again, review the topic if this is still unclear in your mind.

Finally, I have no intention to provide evidence of the supernatural. Andrew already did. The question is can you give a logical/naturalistic explanation for his example. If you have no inclination to do so, any arguments to the contrary become moot. In other words put up or shut up.