That is the problem with Humpty Dumpty and everyone else defining "glory" to mean whatever suits them at the moment: We get two agnostics and Christians deadlocked over what "atheism" even means. If each uses the same terms to mean fundamentally different things, how can we communicate at all? This is why metaphysics spends as much time defining terms as geometry does defining axioms: Because BOTH are defining axioms, must to establish logical coherence.


If belief is so strong it is effectively certainty, why qualify it, conversationally or otherwise?

I know we are either correct or I am insane, because having been in Gods Presence makes my belief undeniable. I no more doubt His existence or admit the possibility of countervailing evidence than I do yours or mine. He has more corroborating witness testimony than either of us, and I have never palpably, almost tangibly, felt your presence (I take your existence on faith though. ) My personal dogma (which I know is only that) is that absolute degree of belief is required, the difference between mere belief and a leap of FAITH. Perhaps only I and those like me require that, to banish the last bit of reasonable doubt preventing us from committing.

The thing is, commitment and reasonable doubt do not coexist very harmoniously. That is stressed from the first pages of the bible down through the Church Fathers to modern Christian theologians. We do not need unqualified comprehensive acceptance of every single doctrinal particular; "faith as small as a mustard seed" is enough, in part because, if nurtured, it will inevitably grow much larger. However, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief" is a pretty common refrain, because the critical core difference between belief and faith is a recurrent theme.

I do not want to get off on a Christian theological tangent, but compare Abraham demanding proof of God in Genesis 15 with his unquestioning obedience in Genesis 22, or Peter striding across the Galilee to meet Jesus only to sink when his faith faltered. The difference between belief and faith is critical, because people do not accept martyrdom rather than recant what they believe PROBABLY true. It is one of myriad reasons I took Pauls admonition against being "unequally yoked with unbelievers" very much to heart. The challenges facing Christians with non-Christian theists or agnostics are great enough, but with atheists they are compounded by many more (particularly when children are involved.)

I try not to appoint myself an arbiter of faith, but just believing yet entertaining reasonable doubt was not enough for me, personally, because Christianity demands a level of uncompromising commitment to God no less than Christs. I would not define the orthodoxy of your faith or anyones; I try to keep things on the terms of maintaining Christian fellowship with those who live by core Christian doctrine and respond appropriately when deviations from it are brought to their attention. Sorry if that is sidestepping the question, but it goes beyond mere dictionary definitions to matters of morality and godliness that are above my pay grade.


Um, have you ever heard of Richard Dawkins? I am reliably informed he is a real person. Wikipedia cites pp. 50, 51 of The God Delusion defining "atheism" in the exact same strictly absolute way I use it here. Just to be clear on that:

Richard Dawkins defines himself as a "de facto atheist" but TECHNICALLY "agnostic," solely because his belief is non-absolute.

Since you seem to know so many more interesting people than I do, I'm sure you'll know some who perfectly fit that description, but as I've tried to point out previously, you have to leave room in definitions for real people. I think the burden is on you to call your definition something more like "fringe, fundamentalist atheism."
That room exists: It is called "agnosticism." That is where the gray scale lies, not in active declarations (that is to say, POSITIVE declarations; framing the issue as "positive" vs. "negative" atheism is rather tipping ones hand.)

As in the other discussion, yes, people who unequivocally declare no deities exist manifestly exist; that is the whole basis for complicating atheism by distinguishing between "positive" and "negative" forms. I see no need to pick fights with them since they eagerly and adeptly that initiative, but DK created this thread in reference to them. Also as in the other discussion, I have already cited two authoritative philosophical dictionaries that currently define atheism in that way, and have no reason to think either refers to any hypothetical as yet undiscovered atheists. Perhaps you would prefer the Merriam-Webster Dictionarys definition:



If there is a qualifier, a "probably," "maybe" or even "beyond reasonable doubt" please point it out to me. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

The burden of proof is very much NOT on me to vindicate current dictionaries, philosophical encyclopedias, DKs usage or that of every human being prior to about two years after my birth and nearly all of those born since. The burden of proof is on anyone and everyone insisting the definition universally accepted for at least two centuries and generally accepted even now be rejected in favor of how a tiny fraction of humanity have described themselves for the past thirty years. Anyone may call themselves anything they like, but if they use a term with a well established, documented and widely understood meaning the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why their new arbitrary definition should displace the existing one.

Sorry this ran so long, and I am not trying to be obstinate, but the bottom line is a tiny group cannot just decide "we have redefined this word to mean us instead of what it has meant for centuries." I am sorry a rational undogmatic case for atheism is so impossible, but it is neither my fault nor that of dictionaries, encyclopedias or the general public.