[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.

And the concrete definition is what exactly? Your definition? That's just your definition. The original definition? Not always as discoverable nor as discernible as you might think. The dictionary definition? Choose your dictionary, then choose your definition, then tell me why you rejected the other definitions, because in the case of atheism, guess what... they don't all accord.

Alternatively, we can just accept that the definitions of some words, particularly those describing philosophical positions, are mere starting points, and that multiple definitions of contentious words like atheist may well differ, sometimes in ways that are imperceptible to the average person but fundamental to someone who has thought deeply about it.

For instance, you claim that an atheist is "one who believes there is no God", but you make no mention of the alternative definitions involving no such positive claim. If that's because you don't understand or accept the difference between, say, a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god, then I'm afraid it may be you who needs the primer in analytic philosophy, not anyone else.

There is no universally agreed 'concrete' meaning for words. The fact that words are not as fluid as water does not mean they are as solid as concrete. Some definitions are less solid than others. Words in general are closer to slurry than concrete.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence.

Why would an atheist deny the possibility of other dimensions being devoid of intelligence? Did you trip up with your double negative there?

Whichever way round you meant it - to be an atheist is no such thing. Either your deductive reasoning is in need of fine-tuning, or you're demonstrating that your concrete definitions are not so concrete after all. Atheism refers merely to the element of belief in a god. God is not, to most people, synonymous with "any intelligence residing in dimensions of reality beyond our human experience". If that was the case, it would be leaving the door open for God to be a theme park dolphin or a 78 year old prostitute or a cockroach, albeit in some higher-dimensional form. And none of us thinks that (apart from that evil Richard Dawkins, the bitter old swine!) Most of us imagine the concept of God as traversing dimensions, as being beyond them, and of possessing certain qualities.

The reality is that there's a pretty big difference between what most atheists are rejecting (the omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient gods of religion) and the possibility of intelligent life residing in areas of reality beyond what is current known to us - regardless of whether that area of reality is beyond the boundary of the observable universe, or in another universe of higher dimensions within a greater multiverse, or in a completely different reality about which we are destined to remain forever ignorant. Being an atheist involves ruling out no such thing. All it involves is not positively believing in god, a being about which, by most definitions, we can have no actual knowledge. (Look up ignosticism.)

There may be a lot more intelligence out there, not only in our own Universe, but in other universes, multiverses, and beyond even that, in a way that we can't begin to imagine. But there's a huge gulf between the idea of that and the idea of an all-encompassing loving judging God who takes an interest in human affairs, listens to prayers, and so on and who presumably straddles what we might call "everything". And that's why it's important to elaborate on word definitions, otherwise it can lead to quite different discussions and incorrect assumptions.