How so?


Everyone but me does NOT know what they mean when they say, "atheist." The vast majority, including nearly all scholars, understand "atheist" the same way I do; that was my point: That a small minority who prefer a different meaning in defiance of both technical definition and common usage cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally redefine it. I give plenty of space to "people who truly don't believe in a god, but realize that that isn't a factually supportable position:"

If they also realize that does not rule out the possibility of a god, however remote, they are agnostics.

If they insist no such possibility exists, despite lacking any factual support for that position, they are atheists.

Even conceding the phrase "agnostic atheist" is not contradictory (which I do not) would not mean weak atheists are not agnostics; it would simply mean (as Wikipedia notes) they are also atheists (which, IMHO, is the problem with the phrase: It conflates two distinct positions.)


Anyone can call themselves anything they like, but the statements validity requires more; that is my entire point. And I did read what you said; note that my rhetorical question was not "why discuss belief?" but "why qualify statements of absolute belief?" Those with absolute belief should have the courage of conviction to state it as such, not hide behind empty declarations they accept an insignificantly small possibility they are wrong. That qualifier has no more meaning than its sincerity, and anyone who sincerely accepts a deity may or may not exist is agnostic by definition.

I still take no position on the orthodoxy of any professed Christians faith, incidentally, and so will not respond to that particular example.


Sure; Pithy Pet Phrase #0: Qualify everything. I have affirmed that for a quarter of a century but, once again, the qualifier is meaningless if empty. There is a difference between genuinely admitting the limits of ones knowledge and certainty (which with regard to the existence of deities is "agnosticism") and the pretense of doing so, to avoid arguments with those who disagree and consequent but impossible defences of absolute positions. One cannot say, "America was discovered by Elvis—but there is a vanishingly small possibility I am wrong," and expect that to end debate or be treated as a rational position.

Conversationally acknowledging a position one categorically rejects is very different from a qualified rejection sincerely acknowledging it might be correct (however unlikely.) "Weak" atheism annoys me precisely because it attempts to legitimize the former by nominally but disingenuously declaring it the latter. "Since I cannot prove it, I will pretend it is possible—even though I KNOW it is not—so I can claim a rational open mind." Saying it is "possible" with a smirking wink is not a good faith argument, and anyone sincerely admitting the possibility of divinity (however small) denies knowledge of it; again, that is agnosticisms definition.


I will answer anyway: I cannot prove it to others, because the proof is self-referential; without direct access to the same data others will not accept my testimony. Those who categorically reject the possibility of divinity tend to endorse the "you are (or momentarily were) insane" option. That is pretty much inevitable anytime witnesses to supernatural events describe them to people who categorically reject the supernatural.


You would not; only the Holy Spirit can provide proof, directly. Yet if there is a difference between reasonable doubt and lack of proof, you have not demonstrated it. A jury absolutely certain of defendant guilt but lacking proof beyond reasonable doubt must (or at least, should) acquit. We know many things unprovable beyond reasonable doubt. "Weak/negative" atheism is unproven beyond reasonable doubt; paying lip service to unreasonable doubt does not change that.

From my logical background, I find myself full capable of believing and knowing what I do while admitting none of it is absolutely provable: ALL beliefs rest on at least one axiom, unprovable by definition. The scientific method is as ultimately unprovable as it is flawless, but I accept it as proven beyond reasonable doubt just as I do my own sanity, and thus the existence of God. Yet "strong/positive" atheism does not claim certainty beyond UNreasonable doubt and is thus identical to "weak/negative/agnostic" atheism if the latter claims only certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Again, if that is the case, we can drop the "reasonable doubt" qualifier and just deal with general atheism.


No, I am not saying atheists make my life more difficult by forcing interaction with them, any more than Paul was. I am saying the prospect of eternal separation from my spouse, her knowledge I love Christ more than her and the challenge of maintaining my own and aiding our kids faith in a God she rejects would make our lives very difficult and painful, so I could not sign on for it. It was my primary concern when I met my wife, but the Holy Spirit and she resolved that remarkably well and quickly; considering her strong agnosticism three years ago she has an uncanny knack for reinforcing my faith and reminding me of its principles when I lapse. Christians more equal to that challenge are a blessing to their families, but I could not endure that anguish.


I did say outright I can only speak to what was necessary for ME, not what is sufficient for others.


You will have to take Dawkins' terminology up with him, but both common usage and philosophical references are on his side. The term "atheist" exists precisely because some people DO fit it; it might be better if no one held absolute positions, but some (mercifully not many) nonetheless do. The implication absolutist views are either univerally present or absent is rather absolutist itself. Yes, there are people with faith in non-divinity; if there were not, the term "atheist" would be sufficient (though inaccurate,) because there would be no "strong/positive" atheists from which to distinguigh them. There are people with faith in non-divinity just as there are people who believe tolerance requires accepting all beliefs; I still do not understand what is so inconceivable about that.


It does not mean everything: It precludes both certainty a deity exists and certainty none do. The definition being made "needlessly broad and confusing" is atheisms; that is why a thread mocking atheism is mostly filled with debate over whether DK used the term properly. Mostly coming from "weak/negative/agnostic" atheists seeking to simultaneously maintain and deny certainty; pick a horse and ride it, folks. Picking something 90% of the planet and virtually all dictionaries define as a squid, but CALLING it "a horse," does not count, incidentally.


1) The definition "wickedness" is clearly labeled "archaic" (i.e. no longer common usage;) the others are not. If atheists masquerading as agnostics who do not deny divinity beyond reasonable doubt successfully alter the definition to include that, dictionaries will no doubt be altered,too. In the the phrase "weak/positive atheism"s 35 year existence, they have not succeeded; most people and dictionaries still recognize "atheism" to mean unqualified "disbelief in the existence of deity."

2) Yes, "disbelief" in something means believing it does not exist; that is the difference between "disbelief" and "doubt." Merriam-Webster again:



I do not make the rules, but do try to consistently adhere to them, else nothing we say has any sense or meaning.

3) "Doctrine" can, but NEED not, be multiple laws; in this case it is the SINGLE "doctrine that there is no deity."


I am not trying to put atheism into any box; Merriam-Webster, two authoritative philosophy dictionaries and the vast majority of the planet already did. I am merely trying to prevent a tiny fraction of that last group disingenuously taking it OUT of that box and confusing its meaning until it HAS none.


Except that is EXACTLY how it is being used in modern terms; that is how I, DK, Richard Dawkins, Merriam-Webster and two philosophy dictionaries use it—and those are just examples from five minutes googling. Even Religious Tolerance.org prefaces its article on atheism with "Definitions of 'Atheism' in dictionaries and according to most Atheists; they differ," and, despite providing a couple examples of dictionaries that include "weak/negative/agnostic" atheists by default, notes



In other words, it is as I said: A very small fraction of the populace seeks to redefine "atheism" more broadly than it is commonly understood and defined in dictionaries. If they succeed, usage and dictionaries will be altered accordingly, but they are a long way from that goal. Until then, however, using a word 90% of the planet understands one way to instead mean how the other 10% understands it is MISusing the word to detriment of general understanding. Even atheists understand what most people mean by the unqualified term "atheist," they are just quick to affirm the different meaning they prefer.


I always listen, but do not always agree. In this case, there are two options; people who srongly dispute any deities exist but admit the possibility are:

1) Sincere in that admission, and thus agnostics (since they claim to not know one way or the other) or

2) Insincere in that admission, and thus atheists insisting on a position they cannot support, but pretending agnosticism to make impossible support unnecessary.

"Has meant" not "once meant." Past particple (current continuation of action begun in the past) not simple past (finished action.) According to Wikipedia, Thomas Dixons 2008 Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction attributes "agnosticism" to Thomas Huxley in 1869; if "weak/negative/agnostic atheism" is equally common in dictionaries, philosophical encyclopedias and common usage by 2118, I assure you I will not object to its usage. I am not aware of any Christians being called atheists, though "blasphemous" or "sacrilegous" seem possible, but will take your word. Yes, definitions can change; this one has not done so.

A final link, to establish once and for all positive atheists are no more a myth than the God they deny: The site linked below addresses the question generated by the authors book, specifically that "critics have been puzzled about my advocating both the factual meaninglessness of theism and the truth of positive atheism."