All atheists have these characteristics?

[Jumi]

The poll is interesting, often in practice apologetics equates atheism with materialism, belief that there can be no god and antitheism, along with various historical events that are made to have been done for the cause of atheism. It seems RF is more educated on these things, that they don't feature highly in the poll.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all atheists want a god made out of flesh who they can see and touch in order to believe him, in my opinion.

Well, you could either ask atheists if that's what they want, or just go on assuming what you do.

What atheists generally want is a reason to believe in a god or gods before so doing. Believers consistently having their prayers answered or being better protected from harm (violence, disease, poverty, lightning strikes, etc..) would be a start that wouldn't require a god to become manifest to the senses. A nice touch would be glowing auras appearing over their heads and their heads alone.

There simply needs to be more than what any of us could do ourselves - just talking or writing. We know that human beings make up gods and religions, and other human beings believe them. The atheist has no reason not to believe that that is the case with all religions and their gods.

Now that you have evidence that not all atheists require a god made out of flesh before believing - this one just denied that - has your opinion on this matter changed?

 

[Valjean]

If you didn't understand my point, let me rephrase it because you're asking me to define atheism as if I or anyone else can properly define it from a personal perspective.

You're right about the beliefs comment. I would rephrase that to not discuss beliefs in the first place.

The two definitions were not circular because we didn't define God. We only defined Atheist and Deity which used God in its definition. If Gods then then used Atheist or Deity in its definition, then you have a point.

I don't define these words. It's been defined and I've shown the source.

That's it. Simple isn't it?

For you to oppose such a definition would mean you base your perspective from a position of authority and expertise? Otherwise, why should I even consider your definition over a dictionary's? Why would I justify anyone else's definition over another? What basis is there?

Again, at some point, we have to unify our language. You can argue to use a different dictionary and I will agree as long as all parties agree to use the same dictionary. If we don't all agree then there's really no point in trying to come to a conclusion.

The essential definition, lack of belief, is the one used by most modern atheists and atheist groups.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is only one feature common to ALL atheists (and, therefore, definitive): a lack of belief in god or Gods.

That's not much of a characteristic.

That's the nature of all terms beginning with a privative prefix (a prefix that means lack or absence of). What does asymmetry mean beyond lack of symmetry. What do illogical, impossible, involuntary, and unnecessary mean beyond not logical, possible, voluntary, and necessary? That's as much of a characteristic as lack of a belief in a god or gods.

Although Valjean is correct that this includes infants (and some would add that it includes rocks), I don't find including either of these groups useful in most contexts, which is why my preferred definition of an atheist is anybody who answers "No" to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?". To get the babies (and rocks) into the fold, I would have worded it as anybody that doesn't answer "Yes" to that question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

at some point, we have to unify our language. You can argue to use a different dictionary and I will agree as long as all parties agree to use the same dictionary. If we don't all agree then there's really no point in trying to come to a conclusion.

Isn't it enough that we understand one another? We can have different definitions of atheism, for example, and still understand one another as long as we have each explained what we mean when using the word.

You just saw Valjean leave a definition of atheist that includes infants, and I left a different one (the "No" answer) that doesn't. Now that we know that about one another, we can communicate perfectly despite using different definitions. I don't disagree with Valjean's definition. I just don't use it.

Disagreeing with a definition is pretty pointless anyway. We are all free to assign any meaning to any word we like. Telling somebody that he is wrong is misunderstanding what a definition is. It's not a statement of fact about reality. It's merely an intended meaning.

Prescriptivism in lexicography is an authoritarian but impotent attitude attempting to restrict how words can or must be used. Most of us use language as we see fit, modifying it according to need and utility. You are correct that if our usage is idiosyncratic, that there is a risk of miscommunication, but explaining what the word means to the writer / speaker is all that is necessary to be clear.

 

[suncowiam]

The essential definition, lack of belief, is the one used by most modern atheists and atheist groups.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

Ok... I'm fine with that. But you deferred to another organization with supposed authority on the matter.

It isn't the actual definition that I'm debating. It is the process. This thread is a great example of why we cannot have personal definitions of a word. Read through all the personal opinions and we will find logical conflicts with each other. Someone's going have to budge or make an exception here and there. This will continue indefinitely as newcomers with variant definitions gets included into the discussion.

The proper process I argue is to base the definition and all folks have to defer to this definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's as much of a characteristic as lack of a belief in a god or gods.

I would think atheism would be a characteristic no more than "non stamp collector" is a characteristic. I suppose if one gets involved with atheist groups and does other things to make atheism "into a verb" then it could be said to be a characteristic, but smoking is more a characteristic than one being a non-smoker.

 

[suncowiam]

Isn't it enough that we understand one another? We can have different definitions of atheism, for example, and still understand one another as long as we have each explained what we mean when using the word.

You just saw Valjean leave a definition of atheist that includes infants, and I left a different one (the "No" answer) that doesn't. Now that we know that about one another, we can communicate perfectly despite using different definitions. I don't disagree with Valjean's definition. I just don't use it.

Disagreeing with a definition is pretty pointless anyway. We are all free to assign any meaning to any word we like. Telling somebody that he is wrong is misunderstanding what a definition is. It's not a statement of fact about reality. It's merely an intended meaning.

Prescriptivism in lexicography is an authoritarian but impotent attitude attempting to restrict how words can or must be used. Most of us use language as we see fit, modifying it according to need and utility. You are correct that if our usage is idiosyncratic, that there is a risk of miscommunication, but explaining what the word means to the writer / speaker is all that is necessary to be clear.

Which is fine. In my initial comment, I use some term that commonly is used in litigation, "all parties involved."

Again, it is not the definition itself but the process involved to base the definition. If you and Valijean agree to a definition, then that is a union of the minds between you two and no others.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok... I'm fine with that. But you deferred to another organization with supposed authority on the matter.

It isn't the actual definition that I'm debating. It is the process. This thread is a great example of why we cannot have personal definitions of a word. Read through all the personal opinions and we will find logical conflicts with each other. Someone's going have to budge or make an exception here and there. This will continue indefinitely as newcomers with variant definitions gets included into the discussion.

The proper process I argue is to base the definition and all folks have to defer to this definition.

This was done very clearly in the OP, was it not?

 

[leibowde84]

Which is fine. In my initial comment, I use some term that commonly is used in litigation, "all parties involved."

Again, it is not the definition itself but the process involved to base the definition. If you and Valijean agree to a definition, then that is a union of the minds between you two and no others.

The definition of atheism should be very simple. It is merely the absence of theism. Anyone who lacks belief in the existence of any deities is an atheist.

 

[james bond]

All atheists have the characteristics as described in the poll?

It's difficult to state when you say "all." In the case of atheists, "all" atheists, that is every single person, must be convinced God exists. To which, pain and suffering is the great persuader.

The closest in the poll I thought was, "All atheists have the belief that no god exists." They would have to believe that this is all there is and all there will be.

 

[suncowiam]

This was done very clearly in the OP, was it not?

Yes, the OP was a poll which indicates opinion.

But now we're beyond opinions and we are debating. Debating cannot be concluded based simply on opinions.

 

[suncowiam]

The definition of atheism should be very simple. It is merely the absence of theism. Anyone who lacks belief in the existence of any deities is an atheist.

I agree that the definition of atheism like many words should be very simple.

But I deferred that definition to a source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would think atheism would be a characteristic no more than "non stamp collector" is a characteristic. I suppose if one gets involved with atheist groups and does other things to make atheism "into a verb" then it could be said to be a characteristic, but smoking is more a characteristic than one being a non-smoker.

OK.

I think we agree about what the reality is, and are merely discussing what to call it.

Is a hole a characteristic of a graveyard just before a coffin is lowered into it, or of a green on a golf course?

I'm content with any answer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you and Valijean agree to a definition, then that is a union of the minds between you two and no others.

OK, but notice that what I posted is that it isn't necessary for us to agree on definitions, just to know what one another means. We don't need a union of the minds to communicate clearly and accurately.

I play bridge. When I open the bidding one no-trump (1NT), among other things, I mean that I don't have more than four hearts or four spades. Others play that this bid can be made with five of either. I can effectively communicate and the partnership play effectively with the two of us meaning different things by an opening bid of 1NT. My partner knows that I will never have five hearts or spades, and I know that my partner might.

No problem, apart from knowingly playing differently being a violation of the rules one particular form of the game (duplicate bridge).

Accordingly, when Valjean refers to atheists, he might mean infants. I know that. When I refer to atheists, I am not including infants. Valjean knows that. Where's the difficulty there?

"All atheists have the belief that no god exists." They would have to believe that this is all there is and all there will be.

Now I know what you mean. You are excluding people like me, so called weak atheists, from atheism. When you say atheism, you mean what I mean when I say strong atheist.

Once again, no problem. I can understand you even if I find that usage inefficient.

 

[suncowiam]

OK, but notice that what I posted is that it isn't necessary for us to agree on definitions, just to know what one another means. We don't need a union of the minds to communicate clearly and accurately.

I play bridge. When I open the bidding one no-trump (1NT), among other things, I mean that I don't have more than four hearts or four spades. Others play that this bid can be made with five of either. I can effectively communicate and the partnership play effectively with the two of us meaning different things by an opening bid of 1NT. My partner knows that I will never have five hearts or spades, and I know that my partner might.

No problem, apart from knowingly playing differently being a violation of the rules one particular form of the game (duplicate bridge).

Accordingly, when Valjean refers to atheists, he might mean infants. I know that. When I refer to atheists, I am not including infants. Valjean knows that. Where's the difficulty there?



Now I know what you mean. You are excluding people like me, so called weak atheists, from atheism. When you say atheism, you mean what I mean when I say strong atheist.

Once again, no problem. I can understand you even if I find that usage inefficient.

Again, that "agreement" is between you two. There is no diffulcty there. The issue lies when a newcomer enters and disagrees with either one or both of your definitions. Then all parties again have to come to an "agreement". Then again, this can happen with another newcomer. It will continue to happen indefinitely unless all parties current or new simply defers to a precedent or an arbitor for the definition.

[Edited]
Let me add that you can come to an agreement even if your definitions are different which includes your examples with Val and James. But you could also reject other definitions and then that agreement cannot be made. The union of the minds is not exactly an acceptance of definitions but an agreement of policies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, that "agreement" is between you two. There is no diffulcty there. The issue lies when a newcomer enters and disagrees with either one or both of your definitions. Then all parties again have to come to an "agreement". Then again, this can happen with another newcomer. It will continue to happen indefinitely unless all parties current or new simply defers to a precedent or an arbitor for the definition.

I don't have a problem with that.

Let me add that you can come to an agreement even if your definitions are different which includes your examples with Val and James. But you could also reject other definitions and then that agreement cannot be made. The union of the minds is not exactly an acceptance of definitions but an agreement of policies.

I'd say that it's more a matter of understanding one another than agreeing.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't have a problem with that.



I'd say that it's more a matter of understanding one another than agreeing.

Sorry, I've been phrasing it wrong. It's actually meeting of the minds. My bad.

Meeting of the minds - Wikipedia

I can see given the wording that union of the minds is more of understanding.

Thanks

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who cares, they are Atheists.

Was that intended as a display of your Christian love for you fellow man? I don't feel that it worked very well.

 

[Willamena]

No. #2 is an active disbelief, #1 just a lack. A stone age aborigine in the depths of Amazonas, who has never heard of or been exposed to any concept of God, is an atheist, even though he doesn't actively believe there is no God.
No. To believe there is no God, you have to be aware of the concept of God, and reject it.

You don't have to be aware of the concept to lack a belief in it. I'm pretty sure you lack belief in the four eyed crab people of Betelgeuse IV. You're an a-crabbist -- but I'll bet you never actively rejected belief in the crab people.

I'm never going to be convinced that atheism is defined as, "ignorance of God or gods."