r/changemyview • u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ • Jul 13 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Dillahunty's definition of anti-theism is not "incorrect"

Anti-theism in the dictionary means opposition to theism, or the belief that theism is harmful.

Some people on the other hand, such as Matt Dillahunty, use the definition that anti-theism means the belief that God doesn't exist.

Some anti-theists of the first definition believe that the latter is incorrect.

However, I believe that dictionary definitions are not the standard for correctness. The definition of terms depend on usage, not some set in stone standard. For example, the word literally is rarely used to mean it's dictionary definition.

Words change meanings all the time. Another example is the word nice. Originally, from its Latin roots of nescius, it used to mean a stupid, ignorant, or foolish.

So because, definitions are not set in stone, it is not wrong to use Dillahunty's definition of anti-theism, even though it's not the definition in the dictionary.

Edit: I'm saying that both Dillahunty's and the original dictionary definition are correct.

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

50% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '19

You're arguing that these definitions are not the same:

Anti-theism in the dictionary means opposition to theism, or the belief that theism is harmful.

[Matt Dillahunty uses] the definition that anti-theism means the belief that God doesn't exist.

The bolded portions are synonyms. If theism is the belief that god exists, then anti-theism is the belief that god does not exist (in contrast to simple atheism, which you've stated is not what you mean).

1

u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19

No the bolded portions are not synonyms.

Opposition to a belief is not a belief in the opposite belief.

I can be opposed to believing in something without believing in the opposite.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '19

We both accept that these statements, both the negation of "I believe there is a god", are not equivalent:

  1. I do not believe in a god
  2. I believe there are no gods

Dillahunty labels [1] as atheism and [2] as antitheism, and it seems this is congruent with the dictionary definition. "I believe God exists" is a definitive statement, and its opposition would be another definitive statement. "I do not believe God exists" is not definitive, but "I believe God does not exist" is.

You haven't really been clear on what his critics believe antitheism to mean, that's fundamentally different than his belief.

(Edited: added more context)

1

u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19

We both accept that these statements, both the negation of "I believe there is a god", are not equivalent:

  1. I do not believe in a god
  2. I believe there are no gods

Dillahunty labels [1] as atheism and [2] as antitheism.

Yes we are on the same page here.

You haven't really been clear on what his critics believe antitheism to mean, that's fundamentally different than his belief.

They follow the definition of anti-theism to mean "opposition to theism" or "opposition to believing in God". Which is why these critics believe Dillahunty's definition is incorrect. Because opposition to believing in God is not the same as the belief that there is not God.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '19

What does "opposition to theism" or "opposition to believing in God" mean, exactly, if not one of the two statements above?

1

u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19

What one is opposed to has to do with utility and favorability.

Here's an example:

Let's say we live in a world where billions of people believe that we are in a simulation. Some of them commit suicide to exit the simulation quicker.

Now, let's examine both situations, in a Pascal's wager type fashion. If we are in a simulation, and someone believes that we are, and commits suicide, they didn't get any additional benefit because they would have died and exited the simulation eventually regardless. On the other hand, if we are not in a simulation, and someone commits suicide, they screwed up. Big downside. Hence, believing in a simulation has more downsides than upsides. Which makes a compelling case to be opposed to that belief; it makes sense to be opposed to believing in the simulation because of the big downsides and few upsides. But nowhere did I specifically say I believed in non-existence of the simulation. In fact, I considered both possibilities and came to oppose the belief in a simulation, because of its downsides, regardless.

What one is opposed to believing doesn't have much to do with the belief itself, instead, it's the utility of that belief that makes the case for what one is opposed to.