Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Dictionary definitions have been called heuristic in the sense that they only give an indication of what the actual meaning of the word is. They help users to discover a word's meaning without actually exhaustively describing the properties of the word. So a lot of dictionaries will give definitions for the word "bachelor", one of which is simply "unmarried male". The online Merriam-Webster definition for bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". However, English speakers know that there is more to it than that. The definition doesn't tell you this, but eligibility for marriage is an essential component of the meaning. Hence, it would be strange to refer to a Catholic priest as a "bachelor", since Catholic priests can't marry. That won't stop some people from looking the word up in a dictionary and letting the definition drive them to claiming that the Pope is a "bachelor". And they will do so with the same dogmatic assurance that our internet friends have in touting the silly "babies are atheists" claim.

The definition of a bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". That this should include the pope so what? Contact Merriam-Webster and tell them their definition is lacking and should read "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married excluding the pope and every other person who can't marry because that sounds strange."

 

[Copernicus]

The definition of a bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". That this should include the pope so what? Contact Merriam-Webster and tell them their definition is lacking and should read "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married excluding the pope and every other person who can't marry because that sounds strange."

Merriam-Webster is aware of the issue. The definition of "bachelor" is a stock example in the literature. That you would take the definition as a prescription for how the word ought to be used underscores my point and, I think, Bunyip's. It is a mistake to look at dictionary definitions as establishing correct usage. They only inform us of what some lexicographers felt to be a reasonably succinct statement about a word sense, nothing more. It would be impossible to list all of the properties of a word's meaning, so that is not what lexicographers try to do when they create descriptive definitions for words.

 

[ArtieE]

Merriam-Webster is aware of the issue. The definition of "bachelor" is a stock example in the literature. That you would take the definition as a prescription for how the word ought to be used underscores my point and, I think, Bunyip's. It is a mistake to look at dictionary definitions as establishing correct usage. They only inform us of what some lexicographers felt to be a reasonably succinct statement about a word sense, nothing more. It would be impossible to list all of the properties of a word's meaning, so that is not what lexicographers try to do when they create descriptive definitions for words.

Sure. What if some dictionary company sent out a press release:

Our dictionary defines the word atheist as "a person who is not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods". This definition applies to every atheist on the planet and is as such a perfect description of all atheists. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken great offense because this definition implicitly also happens to cover infants. Please help us make a better definition. We suggest starting with

"a person who is not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods except the following:

infants
coma patients
some mentally handicapped
some people suffering from senile dementia
people who have never heard of gods
and so on

We appreciate your assistance in making our definition as correct as possible so please send us your list."

 

[Copernicus]

Sure. What if some dictionary company sent out a press release:

Our dictionary defines the word atheist as "a person who is not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods". This definition applies to every atheist on the planet and is as such a perfect description of all atheists. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken great offense because this definition implicitly also happens to cover infants. Please help us make a better definition. We suggest starting with

"a person who is not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods except the following:

infants
coma patients
some mentally handicapped
some people suffering from senile dementia
people who have never heard of gods
and so on

We appreciate your assistance in making our definition as correct as possible so please send us your list."

The board of trustees for the publisher would most likely face the unpleasant duty of searching for a new chief editor, preferably one who understood the way dictionaries are researched and compiled. Beyond that, I can only say that you have not learned anything from what I've written, so I won't waste more effort trying to explain it again. If you feel comfortable in claiming that babies, coma patients, those ignorant of the god concept, and those suffering from mental illness are "weak atheists", then you are welcome to it. Theists are sure to feel daunted by the sheer number of atheists out there!

 

[ArtieE]

The board of trustees for the publisher would most likely face the unpleasant duty of searching for a new chief editor, preferably one who understood the way dictionaries are researched and compiled. Beyond that, I can only say that you have not learned anything from what I've written, so I won't waste more effort trying to explain it again. If you feel comfortable in claiming that babies, coma patients, those ignorant of the god concept, and those suffering from mental illness are "weak atheists", then you are welcome to it.

I'm not "claiming" that babies etc are "weak atheists" any more than I am "claiming" the pope is a bachelor based on a dictionary definition just because he happens to be covered by the same definition. I just don't see it as a tragedy and abomination of galactic proportions that a perfectly good definition of a group of people should be incorrect because some people feel "uncomfortable" that it implicitly includes infants. Let us all take to the streets and arrange mass demonstrations against the dictionary definition of bachelor because I am "uncomfortable" with the pope and others falling under that definition.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not "claiming" that babies etc are "weak atheists" any more than I am "claiming" the pope is a bachelor based on a dictionary definition just because he happens to be covered by the same definition. I just don't see it as a tragedy and abomination of galactic proportions that a perfectly good definition of a group of people should be incorrect because some people feel "uncomfortable" that it implicitly includes infants. Let us all take to the streets and arrange mass demonstrations against the dictionary definition of bachelor because I am "uncomfortable" with the pope and others falling under that definition.

Indeed. Far be it from me to organize mass demonstrations against feckless lexicographers for their failure to create perfect definitions. You have made a cogent point. You may lead the charge.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sure.

Again, the point is that there is no correct definition of atheism. A simple point.

Well, I would argue that there may be multiple correct definitions. Who is the great arbiter of word definitions that gets to decide?

 

[Milton Platt]

So basically you're railing against this thing called "correct definition" that you can't define that doesn't exist?

(giggle)

Does there have to be only one correct definition? Most words in the English language have multiple definitions.

 

[ArtieE]

Indeed. Far be it from me to organize mass demonstrations against feckless lexicographers for their failure to create perfect definitions. You have made a cogent point. You may lead the charge.

The charge in question here is already lead by all the irate people who have such trouble accepting that the definition of an atheist as a person who is "not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in gods" happens to implicitly cover infants as well. Surely if these people study dictionaries in detail they might come up with much worse to fuel their need to eradicate definitions that they don't feel comfortable with because they cover people they think shouldn't be covered.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, I would argue that there may be multiple correct definitions. Who is the great arbiter of word definitions that gets to decide?

The people including you. When a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know with 100% certainty that this is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. By knowing that you have already decided what an atheist is.

 

[Willamena]

And this line is follow after the above definition from the wiki:
Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Um, no. It's the Atheism page.

 

[Willamena]

It is a test of some kind. However you are still missing it by miles.

Why don't you spell it out, then?

The fact you thought that belief that there is no god is a subsection of ignorance shows that you didn't understand him.

No, I questioned that, as it obviously makes no sense.

 

[Milton Platt]

So basically you're railing against this thing called "correct definition" that you can't define that doesn't exist?

(giggle)

Does there have to be only one correct definition? Most words in the English language have multiple definitions.

Merriam-Webster is aware of the issue. The definition of "bachelor" is a stock example in the literature. That you would take the definition as a prescription for how the word ought to be used underscores my point and, I think, Bunyip's. It is a mistake to look at dictionary definitions as establishing correct usage. They only inform us of what some lexicographers felt to be a reasonably succinct statement about a word sense, nothing more. It would be impossible to list all of the properties of a word's meaning, so that is not what lexicographers try to do when they create descriptive definitions for words.

The people including you. When a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know with 100% certainty that this is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. By knowing that you have already decided what an atheist is.

Exactly, thank you......

 

[Willamena]

How can it require something many people think doesn't exist. ?

Because objectivity is apart from what people think, and definition strives for objectivity.

 

[Willamena]

(giggle)

Does there have to be only one correct definition? Most words in the English language have multiple definitions.

Just so.

 

[KnightOwl]

We start learning from our experiences probably before we are born. Very early, our parents teach us to learn through the shortcut of learning from them instead of having to learn from experience. Quickly, we learn to learn from other people, via language spoken word, then from written word. And because our parents seem to know a LOT from our naive, ignorant point of view, we become conditioned to adopt as our own beliefs, those of our parents.

At least that's the way I see it. Of course, there are caveats when summing up something this complex in one paragraph.

Anyway, by the time we talk, we've already been introduced to theism and don't have a lot of need to reject those beliefs.
What I am trying to say is, by the time we can even understand theism and have enough verbal skills to convey that we do or do not believe in a theistic world view, the default position is long gone.

And if you've been indoctrinated into a theistic world view and you see something like the grand canyon, you're already conditioned to believe that its beauty comes from 'God's hand' so that is your default view at that point in your life and it is supported by LOTS of other such beliefs conveyed by others so it just seems natural.

 

[Pudding]

Also from the wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

And this line is follow after the above definition from the wiki:
Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Um, no. It's the Atheism page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Isn't it from wiki? Where did your previous post's mention of wiki page refer to?

 

[Willamena]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Isn't it from wiki? Where did your previous post's mention of wiki page refer to?

I'm sorry, but the wiki denies your theory that "Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing."

 

[Willamena]

For those who support it, please explain how absence of belief is in any way compatible with denial of belief.

 

[Pudding]

I'm sorry, but the wiki denies your theory that "Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing."

I can't understand what you mean.
My theory of "Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing." ?
Where have i say that i've this theory?
What is this theory means?
Where is and how is wiki denied this theory? Link?