Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Posts

Total: 94
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
So, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all.  You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."
Atheism is ALWAYS "a lack of belief" which can sometimes be paired with "a strong DISbelief" (among other related and incidental beliefs).

Perhaps more precisely, "not a theist".
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @Double_R
-->@oromagi
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans
Complete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.

This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence.

"God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.

"No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.

No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.

The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.
Moving goalposts.  At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.    We are discussing whether the current definition of ATHEISM should be modified 

FROM:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
  • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1.  A lack of belief.
I call that going from clear and inclusive to fuzzy and exclusive.

3RU7AL defended your argument that ATHEISM should be redefined to only its broadest sense with this proposition:

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible 
(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself.

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.

3RU7AL defended your argument that beliefs that are alike in non-worship should be defined identically with this proposition:

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed 
(THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.

and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
3RU7AL never explained the value or  consequence of making some definitions PRIMARY, whatever that means.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue, especially since, according to yourself, that was not your primary objection.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.
I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".

That is not the same as "conceded".

In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.

And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.

And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.
Deliberate deception.   I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM.  At no time have I suggested any modification.



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.
Which does not refute the claim, "At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims."  

It is true that Double_R argued in his debate that strict atheism is logically incoherent but that was not in this forum and that claim was not disputed by me.  I asked why logical incoherence should be a just reason to remove a term from the dictionary. Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
Deliberate deception.   I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM.  At no time have I suggested any modification.
You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."

And as it turns out, it actually already is "the present state of affairs".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.

Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.

You yourself have made this argument.

The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."

That's quite false.  I think if you go back and read my arguments you will find I never argued for any modification to the current definition and the problem is exclusively in your comprehension.

Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs"  Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?  


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.
Well, that's true.  I should correct myself by saying "doesn't make a good argument for removing one or more definitions from the word ATHEISM"

Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.
Nobody has made that argument.  The only suggested definition that would prove confusing is yours:  simply "a lack of belief."

Double_R specifically argued against the coherence of the ideology and NEVER against the coherence of the definition.  In fact, Double_R failed to define ATHEISM at any point.

Double_R argued:  "Defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable.    In order for atheism to be the belief that no gods exist the atheist must therefore be in the position of having an active belief in the non-existence of every god concept imaginable."

Double_R explicitly argued for the removal of this definition: "Therefore this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."

The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.

You yourself have made this argument.
That the current definition should change?  No- that is a lie.

The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.
Nor is the definition of Atheist as "one who believes no deities exist."  That is semantically coherent but Double_R argued for its exclusion from the dictionary on ideological grounds: " this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".
I argue with the words people write, not the words people meant to write or the words some writers assume "everyone on Earth understands."  If your intent was to redefine the word ATHEIST 

From:
Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
  • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1.  A lack of belief vis-à-vis theism
You should have said so at least once during the course of your voluminous, ever-shifting argument.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue.
Sorry, but you folded.

You argued "if and only if we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible, then...."

But that's so obviously false a child could refute. 
Mom: "What do want you for dinner, Jimmy?" 
Jimmy: "Poopie-farts!"  (See what Jimmy did there?  He deliberately perverted clear communication between humans and inserted error and miscommunication for the purpose of humor or attention-getting).

If it was a red-herring type of logical fallacy, then my argument would not have relevantly and directly disproved your argument.  Is language sometimes absurd?  Does absurdity deliberately overthrow clear communication between humans?  Obviously.  The statement you used to justify rewriting the dictionary was obviously false on arrival.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL
I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".

That is not the same as "conceded".


-->@oromagi
  • Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,823
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @oromagi
Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief. Google the damn word. I just did, here are the results:

1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Google (taken from Oxford)

2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Miriam-Webster

3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists."
Plato.Stanford.Edu

4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
- Britannica

5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Wikipedia

So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the  definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria. You claim lack of belief will increase confusion, but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
Your criteria was literally the same as his
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @Double_R
-->@oromagi
Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief.
That's false.


Google the damn word.  I just did, here are the results:

1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Google (taken from Oxford)
That's right. "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Miriam-Webster
That's right. "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any god" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is
Plato.Stanford.
That's right.  "the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists." is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
- Britannica
That's right.  "the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerableis way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Wikipedia
That's right.  "the absence of belief in the existence of deitiesis way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.
Let's also note that all of the above have additional, valid definitions of Atheism.  Why do you want to change all of these valid definitions?

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the  definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria.
I beg your pardon, but I have not advocated for any specific defintion except to argue to leave the current definitions alone as fine and functional.

You claim lack of belief will increase confusion,
False.  I claim that if you re-defined ATHEISM 

From:
Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
  • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountableplural atheisms)
  1.  A lack of belief 
confusion would result and legitimate atheists excluded from your radical new definition.

but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.
I see.  So this is just a special new re-definition for the "critical thinkers."  Got it.  I think most lexicographers would agree that dictionary definitions should be written for the benefit of all readers.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
Your criteria was literally the same as his
How is  "language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible" the same criteria as "obviously, language exists for more than one purpose."

I am beginning to think both of you don't understand the meaning of the words ONLY, SIMPLY, MERELY.  Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."   

Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.  You've argued 

  • Y and Z are ideologically unsound and
  • Y and Z are sufficiently similar to X to just be redefined as X
Both of these notions are total non-starters as reasons to redefine A.  

Now you're coming back to me and saying, "Let's get something straight, X has always been part of A."  I never said it wasn't, I said ""why change A?"
3RU7AL's coming back to me saying "You argued that X was never a part of A!"  I never did.  I said, "why change A?"




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs"  Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?  
When you say ["lack of belief"] "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" (AND) "lack of belief" is ALREADY part of the standard definition of "atheism" (THEN) you are arguing AGAINST the standard definition of "atheism".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.
There are many different types of "christians", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "christian" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "christian" by characteristics only held by SOME "christians" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").

There are many different types of "theists", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "theist" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "theism" by characteristics only held by SOME "theists" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which would inarguably qualify you as a "theist").

There are many different types of "mammals", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "mammal" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "mammal" by characteristics only held by SOME "mammals" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which pretty much guarantees you are a "mammal", I mean, I don't know of any historical examples of a "non-mammal" that "professes a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,823
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @oromagi
Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."   
Is this a joke?

It doesn't mean something radically different, it literally means the exact same fucking thing. The debate I just had and the discussion in this thread is talking about the idea of what atheism is, not the best sentence structure the dictionary should use to define the term.

Seriously dude?

Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.
Sounds like you haven't paid attention to a word I've said here or in the debate.

A = Atheism
X= lack of belief in the existence of any dieties
Y = a belief in the non-existence of any dieties

To argue that "A = simply X" does not mean "Y is no longer part of A"

Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.

Thus the extra quality that Y adds into the equation is unnecessary and can be discarded.

To put it another way:

Y = X+

The + is the unnecessary part and therefore need not be included in the conceptual definition. This is where the term "simply" comes in. The definition only refers to X, which is part of both X and Y.

So no, we're not saying X has always been a part of A, we're saying X has always been the only necessary component to make one A
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,295
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?


(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever,
Agreed.

especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?

and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
I'll reserve my response pending the distinction about which I inquired.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Athias
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?
not necessarily

a good example of a logically incoherent concept is "infinite"

another good example of a logically incoherent concept is "free-will"

people generally believe these are comprehensible ideas

and people use these terms and exchange information containing these terms that may or may not contain perceived "miscommunication"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Athias
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
it's the difference between "not adopting a belief" and "belief in the impossibility"

for example,

i do not have a "positive belief" in bigfoot (i am not a "bigfoot believer") but i cannot DISprove bigfoot (because the claim is unfalsifiable) so i do not say "there can be no bigfoot" (i am also not a "bigfoot denier")

this all has to do with the burden-of-proof that theists try to foist onto atheists

more precisely than "lack of belief" atheist should be understood as simply "not a theist"
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 104
Posts: 7,336
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL @Double_R
Is this a joke?
Nope.  

it literally means the exact same fucking thing. 
Don't know why even a kindergartener would argue that "lack of belief" does not mean something  different than "lack of belief in gods or deities"
but it is this kind of disconnect from the obvious that loses debates.


Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief, they actively believe that there can be no gods and actively believe that belief in gods is wrong.

I think we're just repeating ourselves here but let's try one more metaphor.

1. Strong flatist = I know the Earth is flat
2. Weak flatist = strongly believes the Earth is flat
3. Flatist agnostic = The Earth looks kind of flat.
4. Impartial agnostic = I don't know- I can't see the Earth
5.  Roundist agnostic =  The earth looks kind of  round
6. Weak Roundist =  I believe  the Earth is round
7. Strong Roundist = I know for a fact the Earth is round.

Your argument is that since all impartials and roundists are anti-flatists let's re-define all impartials and  roundists as simply anti-flatists.  Doesn't a strong roundist have the right to say "I know for a fact that the Earth is round and I don't wish to be lumped in with wishy-washy anti-flatists.  I don't wish to be redefined and you don't have the authority to make me?"  What is the value of re-defining Roundists as Anti-flatists beyond the imposition of one ideology over another?

A belief that no gods can exist is a much more affirmative assertion than "simply lack of belief" and cannot be re-categorized as mere lack of belief without giving insult to those believers.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,524
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @oromagi
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,
Richard Dawkins does not have a belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins lacks a belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins lacks worship and profession of belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins does not have a tomato for a head.

Richard Dawkins lacks a tomato for a head.

This is not "an insult".

These statements are consistent with Richard's public statements on the matter.