Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« on: 2003-10-20 16:39:54 »
[Lexicon] 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.
[Cliff Walker, editor of PositiveAtheism.org] Meanwhile, I must take issue with the following, in the Lexicon, as aiding the movement to discredit atheism by calling it something that it is not.
>> ATHEISM:(vl) The doctrine that there is no God.
If theism is the belief that one or more gods exist, how could atheism be "the doctrine that" only ONE of those gods (the one named "God," that is, the god of the Christian religion) does not exist?
The prefix "a-" (and "an-") indicates the absence of what is indicated by the root. Theism is the root, so theism is what is absent in atheism. The same holds for amoral, which means the absence of morality.
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...?).
I am an atheist and do not hold to "the doctrine that there is no God." By knowing that I am an atheist you know one thing about me and one thing only: I am without god-beliefs of any kind.
My absence of god-beliefs DOES NOT require that I hold a specific opinion about the deity ("God") claimed to exist by a specific religion (Christianity). Neither does it require that I hold a specific opinion about the deity ("al'Lah") claimed to exist by Muslims, the deity ("YHVH" or "G-d") claimed to exist by Jews, etc.
To aid the Christians in the propagation of this slander of the nonbelieving classes serves only to worsen the quality of life of nonbelievers. "The doctrine that there is no God" is what a non-Christian believes, not (necessarily) what an atheist believes.
I strongly urge you to get with the picture and start popularizing the self-definition that nontheists have used for centuries, now, that the word *atheism* means no more than "without a god-belief of any kind, for whatever reason." This would make an atheist "anybody who is not a theist."
The awkwardness revealed when it is shown that a baby is rightly called an atheist pales in comparison to the awkwardness revealed when one compares this "a"-word with the other "a"-words in English. (The so-called Greek argument doesn't hold, because we speak English, here, not ancient Greek!)
----------------
Please also note that I requested from Cliff to add the Church of Virus to the PositiveAtheism.org links section and the CoV's website is now linked. If you have the time, please send Cliff Walker a "get well soon" e-mail (or letter) as he is very ill, if not fatally ill.
>[metahuman] >Please also note that I requested from Cliff to add the Church of Virus to >the PositiveAtheism.org links section and the CoV's website is now linked. >
am i to understand this is a church of atheists (in the sense of "no god")? or is this rather a church of ambigu-theists (no faith in one particular god belief structure)?
_________________________________________________________________ Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
what's coming through is alive, what's holding up is a mirror... totally void of hate, and killing me just the same... coming over like a storm again now considerately.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-21 06:26:00 »
[LhyR of Chaos] am i to understand this is a church of atheists (in the sense of "no god")? or is this rather a church of ambigu-theists (no faith in one particular god belief structure)?
[metahuman] Those who are without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason are, by definition, atheists. I am an atheist. David is an atheist. Hermit is an atheist. The idea that atheism is a religion--that atheists subscribe to an atheistic doctrine--is an old idea, outdated by new intelligence and knowledge. One of the Sins of the Church of Virus is "Dogmatism." Dogmatism is defined as "an inclination toward or the act of asserting opinions as though they were facts" (wordsmyth). The opinion that gods exist is more than often held true as fact. As stated on the Sins page of the Church of Virus website, "to hold an idea as true despite all evidence to the contrary is an abdication of reason", and because the Church of Virus promotes a philosophy of rationality (not to be confused with rationalism), in theory, all Virians are atheists.
I am excluding the 'strong' and 'weak' forms of atheism in this explanation though. Strong atheism is essentially what Anglicans claim all "atheism" to be: the doctrine of non-existence of gods and the active promotion of that doctrine. I've concluded for the time being that strong atheism is as irrational as the strong belief in the existence of gods. This is due to the reasoning that neither side--strong atheism and strong theism--can produce evidence of their claims. In addition, strong atheists ignore or actively deny the possibility of the existence of gods. It is reasonable to accept this possibility for several reasons known to us (three of which are listed): our current stage of cognition may not be advanced enough to determine whether what we define as illogical may actually be logical, we cannot 'know' (Kant), and we have no evidence to support strong atheism or strong theism, thus, a neutral position is optimal for rational inquiry.
In theory, Virians would self-identify as (a)gnostic atheists. Agnostic atheists (weak atheism) are atheists who are open to the possibilities. I self-identify as an (a)gnostic atheistic rationalist. However, you may have noticed that adherence to the Virtues and Sins is subject to choice rather than force. Believe it or not, strong theism esp. Christianity and Catholicism require theists to be fearful of their "God" for various reasons like eternal damnation and suffering, and religious societal outcasting (or oppression). This is a forced belief through fear.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-21 07:52:46 »
[LhyR of Chaos] am i to understand this is a church of atheists (in the sense of "no god")? or is this rather a church of ambigu-theists (no faith in one particular god belief structure)?
[rhinoceros] We are many kinds, but what is important is that the answer should follow from the premises of CoV -- not define them. For example, take these two statements:
"God(s) exist(s)" "There is no god"
Many virans would start responding to both in the same way:
"What do you mean by 'god'"?
After the object of the discussion is clarified, it often ends up to something similar to what Laplace told Napoleon when asked what was the place of God in his system.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #4 on: 2003-10-23 22:08:46 »
The lexicon definition of atheism has still not been changed. IRC participants including Hermit in the past when I first brought this issue up agreed to the modification of the lexicon definition of atheism. I think they had devised a definition of atheism on the Wiki.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #5 on: 2003-10-23 23:58:55 »
[metahuman] The lexicon definition of atheism has still not been changed. IRC participants including Hermit in the past when I first brought this issue up agreed to the modification of the lexicon definition of atheism. I think they had devised a definition of atheism on the Wiki.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #6 on: 2003-10-24 04:05:57 »
You weren't online at the time.
This was sometime before I registered the metavirus.net domain.
[02:23pm] <Demon> hermit [02:23pm] <Demon> The editor of positive atheism has some good and bad things to say about the CoV. [02:23pm] <Demon> He's going to list the CoV in the main index of Positive Atheism. [02:23pm] <Hermit> Why? [02:23pm] <KalGone> why? [02:24pm] <Hermit> Snap [02:24pm] <Demon> i'll put it into a text [02:24pm] <Hermit> Give us the gist [02:24pm] <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. [02:24pm] <Hermit> Shit [02:24pm] <Hermit> I agree with him [02:25pm] <KalGone> atheists believe [02:25pm] <Hermit> It is completely wrong [02:25pm] <KalGone> forward his response on to the list, demon [02:25pm] * Hermit notices that he has repeatedly used and expanded on the standard explanation. [02:25pm] <KalGone> yes you have [02:25pm] <Hermit> Add my comments here if you like. [02:26pm] <Demon> www.sonicexpansion.net/editorcomments.htm [02:26pm] <KalGone> wanna come up with something and submit it to the list for vote to update the lexicon? [02:26pm] <Hermit> Don't need to. [02:26pm] <KalGone> is there something in the wiki that works? [02:26pm] <Hermit> Just need to find one of my posts "A - Without Theism - Belief in gods" will do as a search string. [02:27pm] <Hermit> I'll look [02:28pm] <Demon> did you guys get that link? [02:28pm] <KalGone> yeah I'm reading it [02:28pm] <KalGone> he likes to write ;-} [02:28pm] <KalGone> and he seems to be good at clearly stating his arguments [02:28pm] <Demon> he's been doing it for 8-12 years [02:28pm] <KalGone> and as far as I can tell so far, I agree with him [02:28pm] <Demon> so do i [02:29pm] <Demon> i feel like sending an e-mail back that says: "We're sooooo sorry!!!!! Please forgive us!!!!! The web site is a bit outdated and the members of the CoV agree with you!" [02:29pm] <KalGone> our phoenetic representation in the lexicon should emphasize the 'a-' too I think [02:30pm] <KalGone> nah, we can do better than that, demon ;-} [02:30pm] <Demon> But I also just awakened so I'm hungry. [02:30pm] <KalGone> The awkwardness revealed when it is shown that a baby is rightly called an atheist pales in comparison to the awkwardness revealed when one compares this "a"-word with the other "a"-words in English. [02:30pm] <KalGone> lol [02:30pm] <KalGone> excellent point, one I had never considered before [02:30pm] <KalGone> "all humans start out as atheists" [02:30pm] <KalGone> ;-} [02:31pm] <Demon> hehe [02:31pm] <Demon> interesting [02:31pm] <Demon> I never thought of that either. [02:31pm] <Demon> So are you guys going to e-mail him back? [02:31pm] <Demon> Cliff Walker editor@PositiveAtheism.org [02:32pm] <KalGone> well lets get the lexicon changed and then email him, or post his comments to the list and cc: him [02:32pm] <Hermit> http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28161;start=0 Reply 6 [02:35pm] <KalGone> maybe it's time for a list-based lexicon going over [02:39pm] <Hermit> Probably. But it can hold off [02:40pm] <KalGone> or switching the link to point to the wiki [02:40pm] <KalGone> I'm sure some of the definitions are at odds [02:41pm] joins: EoD (Evolve_Or_@dial81-131-14-59.in-addr.btopenworld.com) [14 users] [02:41pm] parts: EoD (Evolve_Or_@dial81-131-14-59.in-addr.btopenworld.com) [13 users] [02:52pm] <KalGone> Welcome to the ChurchOfVirus wiki experiment to evolve the VirusDoctrine. [02:52pm] <KalGone> interesting way to state it [02:59pm] <Hermit> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirusLexicon [02:59pm] <Hermit> Just done with Atheism [02:59pm] <Hermit> 'See, we are evolving [03:01pm] <KalGone> lol [03:01pm] <KalGone> yup [03:01pm] <KalGone> ;-} [03:02pm] <KalGone> If you are a theist, this may help you understand our position. We Virions are atheists for the same reasons you are an atheist with respect to the other thousands of gods and goddesses. [03:02pm] <KalGone> from http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/OnAtheism [03:03pm] <Hermit> And added to agnosticism too. [03:03pm] joins: WW (~transgeni@ip68-0-110-39.tu.ok.cox.net) [14 users] [03:03pm] <Demon> Should I tell Cliff about those? [03:03pm] <KalGone> sure [03:04pm] <KalGone> in the interest of consistency however, I would almost like the two lexicons to be reconciled and then one eliminated (not the wikiwikione) [03:05pm] <Hermit> Sure Demon [03:05pm] <Hermit> Explain that we are a work in Progress, and thank him for bringing it to our attention.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #9 on: 2003-11-20 01:51:10 »
I apologize if I come off a bit aggressive, but I'm an advocate for effectivity and efficiency. Without correct and optimal definitions, memes can be distorted and become weak. If holes (or "bugs") are left in this system, someone inside or outside will eventually exploit these vulnerabilities and bring the Church of Virus down affirming my prediction.
[Lucifer] One vocal person took exception to the definition in the Virian lexicon
[localroger] I'd agree with the unnamed vocal person that the Virian definition may be overly narrow. It implies a very positive belief in the nonexistence of God, while I see the term more as "a-theism" -- without theism -- absence of a positive belief on the matter at all.
[metahuman/demon] Correction: 4 "vocal" people have taken issue with the INCORRECT CoV Lexicon definition of atheism. Hermit, Kalkor, Cliff Walker (Editor of Positive Atheism), and myself.
Update: 5 including localroger.
The current definition of atheism is incorrect and unsuitable for the CoV since the claim that god(s) do not exist is as irrational as the claim that god(s) do exist. Both claims require a strong cases with empirical evidence. Neither "strong" atheists or "strong" theists have provided such a thing. Despite David's disagreement with me on the matter that "strong" atheism is irrational while "weak" atheism is not (he's claimed that "strong" atheists have made a strong case for the non-existence of god(s) which is logically impossible for them to do so), "weak" atheism (aka. (a)gnostic atheism, (a)gnosticism) is the optimal position for Virians including all rationalists. Neutrality allows for objective empathy while the "strong" versions of atheism and theism do not. Consider that "strong" means arrogant or headstrong.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to get it. The unchanged definition of atheism in the Lexicon is evidence of his disapproval and lack of objective empathy.
[WRONG/CURRENT1] 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.
[RIGHT/CANDIDATE1] ATHEISM:(vl) Godlessness. Atheists accept that there is insufficient evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods and/or that the incoherent concept of gods causes their actuality to be logically impossible.
RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #10 on: 2003-11-20 08:25:27 »
metahuman > Sent: 20 November 2003 0851 <snip> > [RIGHT/CANDIDATE1] > ATHEISM:(vl) Godlessness. Atheists accept that there is insufficient > evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods and/or that the > incoherent concept of gods causes their actuality to be logically > impossible. </snip>
[Blunderov] I don't believe this definition can inspire complete confidence in its usefulness. It contains the clause 'evidence for the...non-existence of...'
Statements pertaining to existence must surely be couched in a way so as to permit a falsification or be dismissed as meaningless? It is not possible to produce definitive evidence that there are NO fairies at the bottom of my garden unless we are prepared to defer the decision until the end of time. It IS possible to produce evidence that there ARE fairies at the bottom of the garden by the simple expedient of being there at the same time as any one fairy.
To my mind, if we restrict ourselves to the statement that 'There is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods' then there is insufficient reason to bother oneself any further on the subject until somebody actually sights one. (I don't seriously entertain the possibility of there really being fairies at the bottom of my garden.)
So is it really true, as is sometimes suggested, that the most rational position is one of agnosticism?
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #11 on: 2003-11-20 10:22:21 »
Were you the one that made that erroneous statement awhile back that essentially read, "evidence is not required to prove a negative"?
[Blunderov] Statements pertaining to existence must surely be couched in a way so as to permit a falsification or be dismissed as meaningless? It is not possible to produce definitive evidence that there are NO fairies at the bottom of my garden unless we are prepared to defer the decision until the end of time. It IS possible to produce evidence that there ARE fairies at the bottom of the garden by the simple expedient of being there at the same time as any one fairy.
[metahuman] It's 7:06 AM. I haven't slept. Your paragraph is confusing (or confused).
[Blunderov] To my mind, if we restrict ourselves to the statement that 'There is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods' then there is insufficient reason to bother oneself any further on the subject until somebody actually sights one. (I don't seriously entertain the possibility of there really being fairies at the bottom of my garden.)
[metahuman] When writing definitions, it is necessary to remove needless commentary. Yes, most Virians would accept that the existence or non-existence of gods is "rationally irrelevant" as localroger puts it. However, this definition is not concerned with the Church of Virus. It is focused on a particular identifier: atheism. It is a contained context.
[Blunderov] So is it really true, as is sometimes suggested, that the most rational position is one of agnosticism?
[metahuman] Yes. Again, you have to keep the context in mind.
- "Strong" atheism is the absolute belief that gods cannot and DO NOT exist.
"Weak" atheism is the neutral position. It is neither a positive or a negative.
+ "Weak" theism is the precautionary belief that gods can and DO exist.
+ "Strong" theism is the absolute belief that gods can and DO exist.
Hopefully you understand this so I don't have to wake up and draw a picture.
"Strong" atheism is the absolute belief that gods cannot and DO NOT exist. "Weak" atheism is the neutral position. It is neither a positive or a negative.
[Lucifer] No, "strong" atheism is a positive belief that gods do no exist. It is not (necessarily) absolute, and is not (necessarily) irrational. Modus tollens, remember? Are you agnostic about Santa Claus and Mother Goose? Most adults have a positive belief that fictional characters do not exist, and for very rational reasons. You are right about "weak" atheism being the absence of belief in any gods, in other words agnosticism. This terminology is used extensively in the relevant literature such as Michael Martin's excellent "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" which is quite readable despite its size. I suggest you check it out. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877229430
Too bad you didn't show up to the excellent chat we had on Tuesday. The topic was "Defining Atheism". We discussed the many varieties of atheism and talked about relations between the different kinds and ways of categorizing them. Following the chat I changed the CoV about page to read "Virus is... a memetically engineered nontheistic religion". Chat log here>> http://tinyurl.com/vu8f
I'm willing to have a vote on changing the definition of atheism in the lexicon. The five people you mentioned have a combined equity slightly over 10%. Not a bad start. Given that we can expect 60% of the equity or less to participate in the vote you only need to convince another 20% in order to get your way.
RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #13 on: 2003-11-20 12:10:58 »
metahuman > Sent: 20 November 2003 1722
[metahuman] > Were you the one that made that erroneous statement awhile back that > essentially read, "evidence is not required to prove a negative"? [Blunderov1] I would be both surprised and regretful to discover that this was true. > > [Blunderov] > Statements pertaining to existence must surely be couched in a way so as > to permit a falsification or be dismissed as meaningless? It is not > possible to produce definitive evidence that there are NO fairies at the > bottom of my garden unless we are prepared to defer the decision until > the end of time. It IS possible to produce evidence that there ARE > fairies at the bottom of the garden by the simple expedient of being > there at the same time as any one fairy. > > [metahuman] > It's 7:06 AM. I haven't slept. Your paragraph is confusing (or confused). [Blunderov1] Please forgive my lack of clarity. Restated; it is not possible to furnish proof of the non-existence of something. It is possible to furnish proof of the existence of something.
The portion of the definition that suggests that there is a lack of proof of the non-existence of gods therefore asks for an impossible thing, and should be excised from the definition. > > [Blunderov] > To my mind, if we restrict ourselves to the statement that 'There is > insufficient evidence for the existence of gods' then there is > insufficient reason to bother oneself any further on the subject until > somebody actually sights one. (I don't seriously entertain the > possibility of there really being fairies at the bottom of my garden.) > > [metahuman] > When writing definitions, it is necessary to remove needless commentary. > Yes, most Virians would accept that the existence or non-existence of gods > is "rationally irrelevant" as localroger puts it. However, this definition > is not concerned with the Church of Virus. It is focused on a particular > identifier: atheism. It is a contained context. > > [Blunderov] > So is it really true, as is sometimes suggested, that the most rational > position is one of agnosticism? > > [metahuman] > Yes. Again, you have to keep the context in mind. > > - "Strong" atheism is the absolute belief that gods cannot and DO NOT > exist. > > "Weak" atheism is the neutral position. It is neither a positive or a > negative. > > + "Weak" theism is the precautionary belief that gods can and DO exist. > > + "Strong" theism is the absolute belief that gods can and DO exist. > > Hopefully you understand this so I don't have to wake up and draw a > picture. [Blunderov1] May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. But it does seem to me that if one redrafts the definition as suggested, it is more rational to conclude from it that gods do not exist rather than to conclude that they might. For this to be suspected there would need to be some other, so far unstated, premise.
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #14 on: 2003-11-20 20:54:52 »
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.
Author
Logged
