Posted: Dec 25, 2011 7:34 am
by jlowder
Mick wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
I disagree. I'm interested in a rigorous definition of atheism, not some dumbed-down strawman caricature thereof that simply makes life easy for duplicitous purveyors of supernaturalist apologetics. I propose as a corollary, that atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists quite simply of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions.

Mr. Jeff Lowder,

I have criticized this poster's definition elsewhere, though he doesn't see the obvious complications of this definition. For one, as you may have already noted yourself, there's nothing about not believing or denying that claims such as 'A god exists' is true. Consequently, unless he wishes to add something else to this droll definition, it's logically consistent for theist to be an atheist too.

Not exactly. Theism is the belief that God exists. Assume, for the sake of discussion, that we define "atheism" as the lack of belief that God exists. There is no way that theism is logically compatible with atheism, even when atheism is defined as the lack of belief that God exists.