Yes that would be an example of a poor definition, since we have already have a different word with that definition. Defining Christianity as a religion distinct from other religion isn’t the easiest of things. The broadest and yet effective in making the distinction from other religions like Islam is the earliest definition by the creed of Nicea 325 AD. It does mean categorizing a number of groups as pseudo-Christian whose beliefs don’t agree with that creed.
Halleluiah, praise the non-existent god of reason!
What??? atheism? Ho ho ho! that comparison still works with that criterion since developmental psychology has the ability to reason developing rather slowly step by step…
What is the average ability to reason of an atheist?
Using a definition which does include infants: far below average.
Using a definition which does not include infants: above average.
Which do you think is more accurate?
I had to take out the “considerably” in this case though. I think I can make a good argument that theism often requires even more sophistication in the ability to reason in order to justify their beliefs – not enough to change the “above average” conclusion for atheists though. So I think there is a better correlation with education than with the ability to reason (the reasons why is whole other topic). I have met far too many irrational atheists to swallow that particular whale (that atheism is about being more rational).
It didn’t even occur to me to call you an irrational atheist. One contradiction embedded in a lazy definition does not an irrational atheist make by my thinking. After all, you have corrected my thinking a number of times on this forum.
It’s almost as if you are defining Christianity by the beliefs all Christians share. Hmf, go figure.
What I am saying is that when I talk about atheists I am talking about people who are able to use reason, logic, evidence, and the rest. This is just a general guideline, and it is obvious to everyone that I am not talking about infants. If you feel like you can talk to someone like an adult then that is the group of people I am talking about. I don’t understand why you are having such a difficult time with this simple concept.
Well duh! Talk about a tautology. That is what any definition having to do with beliefs is going to do. You draw a line according to beliefs then obviously those inside that line are the ones who share that belief. It is not the only way people have defined the word – some define it by some standard of behavior. But I do not support such definitions because such would cross too many lines contrary to the consensus about what the word means. One common definition is the followers of Jesus. But that would include the Muslims, who also believe they follow the teachings of Jesus, and thus this definition is contrary to the consensus which distinguishes Islam from Christianity as a different religion.
How about we also add in the general guideline that we are only talking about those who have actually considered the question. Otherwise this is just an excuse for sneaking in a rhetorical advantage under the cover of a lazy definition. It is not only entirely possible but a frequent experience that people who haven’t considered the question decide that they always have believed in God but just didn’t use such words for what they thought, felt, and believed.
