It requires courage to be an Atheist.

Originally posted by sonship
Are you counting on heftier Ad Populism arguments?

What do you think of Atheist Dan Barker's advice on Evangelistic Atheism ?

If you decide to be evangelistic, then ask yourself what you hope to accomplish. Are you trying to win an argument? To simply end an argument? To demolish the enemy? To chase bigoted theocrats from your door? If so, a ...[text shortened]... east given it a fair chance by not slamming the door shut at the outset.

Good luck.

Different people are swayed by different arguments and different styles.

There are lots of people for whom the more confrontational approach worked.

I am in favour of many different approaches.

And while I like Dan barker, he is on this point, wrong.

But that's ok, we don't all have to agree.

Originally posted by sonship
That's what the new atheists are doing.
Where else do you get your "Lack of belief ..." spin ?
Where else do you get your "By default [b] everyone is born an Atheist" spin ?

New language, new made up definitions to bolster up atheism.[/b]

You said I do think we should give them a definition

That is you declaring its OK to make stuff up.

I would like you to give an example of an atheist
using a non-standard definition for any word. We
don't do it - we don't have to.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You said I do think we should give them a definition

That is [b]you declaring its OK to make stuff up.

I would like you to give an example of an atheist
using a non-standard definition for any word. We
don't do it - we don't have to.[/b]

It's OK to make stuff up. Language is something that evolves. It is also OK to create a temporary definition for use in a single debate.

Just beware that the burden of informing the audience of any new or non-standard definition falls upon the person who introduces them.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
It's OK to make stuff up. Language is something that evolves. It is also OK to create a temporary definition for use in a single debate.

Just beware that the burden of informing the audience of any new or non-standard definition falls upon the person who introduces them.

I am all for languages evolving - but these days dictionaries are pretty
quick to pick up on new usage - and as you say words may be used in
new ways with an explanation.

What annoys me is someone else giving my words a definition to suit them!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I am all for languages evolving - but these days dictionaries are pretty
quick to pick up on new usage - and as you say words may be used in
new ways with an explanation.

What annoys me is someone else giving my words a definition to suit them!

It's called the equivocation fallacy and theists do it all the time.

It's why I usually define faith as I use it at least once per conversation about it.

So any time they argue the point and insert a different meaning in I can point
back to that definition.


However, when it comes to something like atheism and atheist.
Those words are a label for a group of people.
And if you redefine the word to not include all the people in that group then
you are just plain wrong.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You said I do think we should give them a definition

That is [b]you declaring its OK to make stuff up.

I would like you to give an example of an atheist
using a non-standard definition for any word. We
don't do it - we don't have to.[/b]

New terms that I think atheists use.

Strong atheism vs weak atheism

Atheology

Antitheism

Earlier definitions of Atheism spoke of disbelief in God.
Latter it was disbelief in gods.

Earlier definitions spoke of disbelief in the existence of God.
Latter definitions spoke of "lack of belief".

Per this thread - everyone by default is born an atheist.
I wager 300 years ago such a explanation would have amused academics.

Earlier philosophers drew a distinction between atheist and agnostic.
Latter philosophers attempt to lump the terms together - ie. agnosticism is a kind of atheism. Or is it vica-versa?

I do not mean totally new words were necessarily invented.
That was my lampoon. You lampoon sometimes so you should be able to be on the receiving end sometimes.

I believe also that "negative atheism" is probably a relatively more recent concept.

I believe that the phrase "practical atheism" is probably a newer concept.

I believe "godlessness" as a synonym for atheism is a latter concoction.
That is "godlessness" in ages past would mean wickedness, badness.
Latter atheists, I think, sought to hijack the term, sanitize it and make it just mean atheism. I realize a-theism would be no- god.

I think "freethinker" is a latter developed phrase for an atheist.

I think the axiom that Atheism is NOT a Denial of the Existence of God is a latter philosophical stance of atheists. IE. "We're Atheists. But we do not DENY the existence of God. There is nothing to deny."

Some atheists opt for redefining themselves as a Militant Agnostic.

Weak or "implicit" atheism in contrast to strong or "explicit" atheism are more recent developments. But I do not mean by a few years.

I regard these as evolving developments in the polemic of Atheism.

So I think Atheists over the years have developed some new definitions of concepts to reinforce their positions.

Originally posted by sonship
So I think Atheists over the years have developed some new definitions of concepts to reinforce their positions.

There were other errors, but this is where you go off the rails.

're-defining' atheism as you put it, doesn't strengthen our position,
it simply more accurately describes it.

You have it ass backwards.

We don't get our position from the meaning of the word.

The word gets it's meaning from our position.

And now that we have the voice and power to stop theists [specifically Christians]
from trying to define us out of existence to make their arguments appear stronger
we can make sure that the label actually points to the meaning that accurately
describes the group it's meant to describe.


Our positions are rock solid regardless what you call us.

Picking what label to use doesn't make those positions stronger.

Originally posted by googlefudge

And now that we have the voice and power to stop theists [specifically Christians] from trying to define us out of existence to make their arguments appear stronger we can make sure that the label actually points to the meaning that accurately describes the group it's meant to describe.

I don't know of any Christians trying to define you out of existence.

Dictionaries defining Atheism aren't particularly dedicated to Christian theology or trying to define Atheism out of existence.

You atheists are reviewing vulnerabilities in philosophical arguments and modifying the vocabulary in order to close up those vulnerabilities.

're-defining' atheism as you put it, doesn't strengthen our position,
it simply more accurately describes it.

Same difference.

Originally posted by sonship
Per this thread - everyone by default is born an atheist.
I wager 300 years ago such a explanation would have amused academics.

I wager not.

Originally posted by sonship

Some atheists opt for redefining themselves as a Militant Agnostic.

Maybe the Militant Agnostics do?
(Whatever that is!)

Originally posted by sonship
Earlier definitions of Atheism spoke of disbelief in God.
Latter it was disbelief in gods.

Words change meaning.
Languages evolve.
That is not in debate.

Originally posted by sonship

So I think Atheists over the years have developed some new definitions of concepts to reinforce their positions.

So that is what you think? - you are wrong.

Definitions of words are not developed by any group.
They evolve through popular usage.

Unless you can show me a new definition of a word that has been "developed by Atheists to reinforce their position"!!!! 🙄

And if you cannot - what has led you to that absurd idea?

Originally posted by sonship
Right. Just ask a new born baby freshly out of the mother's womb, even before the umbilical cord is severed. She or he will plainly tell you - "Yes, I lack a belief in God. I'm an atheist you know? "

Maybe they should change the name of the umbilical cord to the unbiblical cord.

Therefore we have a new definition of an atheist - "someone who is born."
If that doesn't make them feel normal, nothing will.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in supernatural deities. Newborns, lacking the mental capacity to understand what a supernatural deity is, are therefore atheists. A child cannot be born a Christian any more than a child can be born a communist.

Originally posted by sonship
New terms that I think atheists use.

When you say 'new' are you talking about the last year, last 100 years, last 1000 years?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra

An atheist is someone who does not believe in supernatural deities. Newborns, lacking the mental capacity to understand what a supernatural deity is, are therefore atheists. A child cannot be born a Christian any more than a child can be born a communist.

Since I do not claim that any child could be born a Christian, we are in agreement there.

But lacking the capacity to understand what a supernatural deity is does not make the baby an atheist. They don't understand what it is they are suppose to not believe in one way or the other.

Once they mature and learn something about deity then they can decide whether or not they believe in that.

Would you say the rock outside my window also lacks mental capacity to understand what a supernatural deity is, therefore it is also an atheist ?

If you do, I think you're being silly and for some reason a bit desperate too.