4 ms·

Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any go

Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods This is consistent with atheist writers like Dawkins. Can you explain the theological background of Chambers, since you seem to think he's some sort of authority on the matter? Edit: This from wikipedia on the Chambers dictionary: The Chambers Dictionary is widely used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble players (though it is no longer the official Scrabble dictionary). It contains many more dialectal, archaic, unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted for its occasional wryly humorous definitions. Examples of such definitions include those for éclair ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and middle-aged ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").[2] These jocular definitions were removed by the publisher in the 1970s, but many of them were reinstated in 1983 because of the affection in which they were held by readers. So you're using a dictionary whose purpose is entertainment, rather than accuracy.. and insisting this is the definition we should all use? What a joke.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god. > Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: > Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun in the first case, the verb in the second).
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not. A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim. This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you oppose, as that one clearly has some traction.
    - rgbrenner 8y ago
      A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > You're claiming a belief and a lack of belief are the same things. Am I? That's news to me. What I'm actually doing is making claims about grammar, the semantic evaluation of sentences, the the potential existence of multiple valid definitions of the same word.
        rgbrenner 8y ago
        You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief. You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways. I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just don't, I'm sorry.
- lorriman 8y ago
  Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions and reflects a common modern redefining, by atheists themselves, of 'atheism' to mean 'lacking belief' which dodges the problem that to positively believe there is no God or gods is clearly irrational without proof, which is thought to be logically impossible. That's why educated atheists claim to be agnostic, and uneducated atheists claim to be atheists. But the proof in the pudding is in how the individual expresses themselves towards religious persons, ie "The God Delusion". Dawkins claims to be 9/10ths atheist, "technically agnostic". But that book is a statement that religious believers are delusional, so revealing that he is in fact a true atheist. No genuine agnostic would ever make such a presumption in to minds they cannot see. Dawkins is therefore irrational. The irony of the situation is that : -while a religious believer might be rational (if there were, in fact, a god, and it were proving its own existence, as they claim, as opposed to faith as "Belief without evidence" is in fact an atheist redefinition, by Bertrand Russell to be precise, now also in the dictionary). -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god
  - hota_mazi 8y ago
    > -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?
    - lorriman 8y ago
      >Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational? I addressed that in what I wrote.

CharlesColeman 8y ago

>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god. > Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: > Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun in the first case, the verb in the second).

rgbrenner 8y ago
No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not. A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim. This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you oppose, as that one clearly has some traction.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing. Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > You're claiming a belief and a lack of belief are the same things. Am I? That's news to me. What I'm actually doing is making claims about grammar, the semantic evaluation of sentences, the the potential existence of multiple valid definitions of the same word.
      - rgbrenner 8y ago
        You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief. You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways. I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just don't, I'm sorry.
lorriman 8y ago
Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions and reflects a common modern redefining, by atheists themselves, of 'atheism' to mean 'lacking belief' which dodges the problem that to positively believe there is no God or gods is clearly irrational without proof, which is thought to be logically impossible. That's why educated atheists claim to be agnostic, and uneducated atheists claim to be atheists. But the proof in the pudding is in how the individual expresses themselves towards religious persons, ie "The God Delusion". Dawkins claims to be 9/10ths atheist, "technically agnostic". But that book is a statement that religious believers are delusional, so revealing that he is in fact a true atheist. No genuine agnostic would ever make such a presumption in to minds they cannot see. Dawkins is therefore irrational. The irony of the situation is that : -while a religious believer might be rational (if there were, in fact, a god, and it were proving its own existence, as they claim, as opposed to faith as "Belief without evidence" is in fact an atheist redefinition, by Bertrand Russell to be precise, now also in the dictionary). -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god
- hota_mazi 8y ago
  > -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?
  - lorriman 8y ago
    >Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational? I addressed that in what I wrote.