Due to a disruption of another thread and the lack of a thread on the topic, I decided to create a thread to prevent future derailment and also provide legitimacy for moderation of using the definition of atheism to derail a thread solely onto that topic.
My stance
Atheism is best understood in the context of theism, which is a proposition, meaning atheism is best understood as a negation of a proposition. If people want to use "atheism" less stringently, that's their business. I do believe that defining it in the terms of "lack of a belief" within a discussion format is highly likely an attempt to avoid burden taking a propositional stance and thus avoid burden of proof. This can be resolved by answering the question "Do you lack the belief that God does not exist". If the answer is "no", then you're being dishonest.
Is there IRL utility in using an umbrella definition, yes, obviously, but definition games are just that, games.
P.S: The reason it's in the Philosophy subforum is that it's not purely an atheist/agnostic vs theist or apologetic issue, but here it gives theist a chance for input.
My stance
Atheism is best understood in the context of theism, which is a proposition, meaning atheism is best understood as a negation of a proposition. If people want to use "atheism" less stringently, that's their business. I do believe that defining it in the terms of "lack of a belief" within a discussion format is highly likely an attempt to avoid burden taking a propositional stance and thus avoid burden of proof. This can be resolved by answering the question "Do you lack the belief that God does not exist". If the answer is "no", then you're being dishonest.
Is there IRL utility in using an umbrella definition, yes, obviously, but definition games are just that, games.
P.S: The reason it's in the Philosophy subforum is that it's not purely an atheist/agnostic vs theist or apologetic issue, but here it gives theist a chance for input.
Comment