Hi Bohm. Yep, I've no self control :)
You said: "Essan: First, lets simply agree to disagree if we should use the definition of atheism from the dictionary, since that was never really very important for this topic, and we allready have another topic that has gone for 10 pages on that subject. You put a lot of weight in the primary definition in some dictionaries"
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the etymology, historical usage and primary definition of any word to be absolutely crucial to understanding what any word means. It's bizarre to me to start off a discussion of a word by ignoring it's definition and indicative of where the discussion is heading. And by the way, it's not "some" dictionaries which have "the belief that there is no god" or "the denial of the existence of God" as the primary definition, it's the majority, and almost all when it's an etymological dictionary.
"I look at the contemporary movement and define atheism from them. Both has some value."
To me, this is like saying "I listen to other Atheists who agree with my definition of Atheism when I'm investigating the meaning of "Atheism".
I know what "Atheism" is becoming and what you and others in the "movement" want it to become. My argument is that this is just not what "Atheism" was or is. It's a reinvention that is trying to rewrite the past to justify it's actions and to disenfranchise traditional atheism and it's adherents, who are more numerous than you will acknowledge.
"Thus if you like, i think we should adopt the following terminology...."
I can't accept your new definition for atheist until you have justified it, which you haven't as yet, IMO. The "Atheist" that the dictionary primarily describes "Believes there is no God" or "Denies the existence of God". That is the "Atheist" I describe. I believe your "atheist 2" is "bunk" - of which more later. I'm certainly no "Atheist 2". There is a perfectly serviceable and historical label with thousands of years of history to describe my position, and that is "Agnostic". :)
But I understand your "atheist 2" concept. It is someone who says "I believe there is no God", but doesn't actually mean it. He's like "Atheist 1" who also says "I believe there is no God", except he does mean it. It allows you to claim that all those "atheists 1's" you'd like to disenfranchise aren't really saying what they are blatantly saying when they say it and mean it, and even to project that magic spell back in time so whenever an"Atheist" is quoted as saying "I believe there is no God" you can say, "Ah well, you see, he doesn't really mean it. It's scientific code."LOL.
Doublespeak. But I understand the concept, so I'll go with it.
"First, it is very important we agree believe can mean two different things"
Hmm, believe is not a flexible as you suggest and the context would determine it's exact meaning. The vast majority of Atheists are not scientists but ordinary people and when they say "believe", they are using is as ordinary people do, and in the same was as they would use it in other contexts. You can't get a great deal of variability from the word believe. Not from the definitions I have looked at. And, for instance, you discuss "belief" in terms of a proposed cancer cure and say:
"You might be quite sure your treatment will cure him - say 90% sure - but you cant rule out any of the other, some of them just seem very unlikely. This "educated guesswork" if you like, is what is called your "belief"'
Actually, this is almost identical the Theist "belief", it requires a degree if faith. The difference is only in your mind, I think, in that you don't respect Theistic "evidence" which they use to support their belief, whereas you respect the "evidence" of the one seeking a cancer cure (even if you don't know what it is) because he is in a profession you respect, so you respect his "belief". Theists have "evidence" and many of them are very intelligent, educated people. You just don't respect their conclusion so I suspect you see their evidence and conclusion as "Mumbo-jumbo". But his is really just a matter of perspective and opinion, not an objective basis of judgement. Their "belief" is essentially the same, but what that belief is in differs, and your attitude to that varies because of natural bias, IMO.
""I believe in X" --- "the probability that X is true is relatively high". Can we agree that "belief" can have this meaning, and usually take that meaning when it is used by scientists?"
Something to note is that if such scientists ever said, as they frequently do, something like "I believe X to highly probable" then this pretty much destroys your theory, because it would be a tautology. If "I believe"for Scientists means "I think X is highly probable", then whenever they say "I believe X to be highly probable" (or suchlike), then according to your reasoning they must actually be saying "I think X is highly probable is highly probable" LOL. Oh dear.
Of course that would prove that "believe" does not generally have that meaning even in a scientific context. If it doesn't even consistently have that meaning in a scientific context then there is no possible way it can have that meaning when used by ordinary atheists.
I said earlier: " Your claim that the word "belief" is part of some special "scientific" vocabulary employed by "Atheists" is pure fantasy." And you responded to this with:
"Can you please explain how come Jaynes use it in that sence over and over again in the textbook i quoted on page 1? Can you explain why my thesis advisors use it in that sence? Can you explain the naming of the algorithm "belief propagation" used in graphical models such as bayesian networks, the ising model, etc.?"
You are making a huge leap there. The fact that some scientists, sometimes, might use the word "believe" in the way you describe in scientific textbooks doesn't mean all "atheists", from all different backgrounds do, generally, in life do. You haven't proven that "atheists" use "believe" as part of a special scientific vocabulary - you haven't even proven that all Scientists do.
It's a novel idea, I'll give you that. But the evidence is impossibly thin, IMO.
"I also point out that when scientists say stuff like: "I believe the earth is not flat", "I believe the cambrian explosion was 10 mio. years long", "I believe horizontal gene transfer played a very important role in evolution" and "I believe there is no God" -- it may be prudent to consider they use the same meaning of the word "believe" out of habbit."
I'm not sure I understand you here. By your theory, when a scientist says "I believe the earth is flat" they actually only mean "I think it highly probable that the earth is flat"? I think we both know that can't be true. If a scientist said something like that it would show that they use "believe", at least sometimes, to mean "I am sure that...". For example they might say "I believe God does not exist", and mean: "I am sure God does not exist". And so we are back to square one, with believe meaning exactly what it does to everyone else, including Theists.
