onewheeldave

I believe god doesn't exist. I also don't believe in god. I haven't made any positive claim that a god doesn't exist.

I think you have.

This is the whole point that you don't grasp and seem to be unable to accept. It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. It's not about opinions. It's about factual information-some words get misinterpreted and misused leading to confusion over terminology. For you to keep saying that you don't agree doesn't change that fact.

 

 

 

Yes, when a slang word is accepted by a society as a whole then it becomes accepted as a word with a usable meaning. Until then slang like innit is slang and will always remain slang.

 

 

 

So to repeat again, this is not some party political broadcast where you vote for how you want to use a word. My opinion doesn't matter and I tend not to have opinions anyway. I simply give out factual information. To have an opinion usually means you have some emotional attachment to it and I'm not interested in that, I'm only interested in the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again I've added to your statement so it reads more accurately.

On top of that, the whole point of education (outside of the arts and to some extent the humanities) is not about opinion. It's about understanding the world around us in the most realistic way possible. Therefore opinions are irrelelvant.

It's a shame you seem to be trapped in this mindset of 'everything is just an opinion and mine is just as relevant as yours' culturally relativistic claptrap. That's probably why people with your mindset are dismissed as wrong, deluded or stupid.

 

 

 

Concerning opinions- I have some, and you have some- clearly we differ.

What you consider to be a 'fact', I, and others, may, and in fact do, dissagree with your assessment.

You for example, seem to consider it a fact that 'atheist' means , exactly, and only, 'lacks belief in God'. Whereas many, me included, consider that to not be a fact, as we know that it can also mean 'believes god does not exist'.

So, we do not acknowledge your 'fact' as a fact. If you offered valid proof for it, I would change my mind, but, what you have offered thus far, does not convince me.

So, the reality is, that we dissagree, and, however much you continue to post your opinion as fact, it will not make it a fact- unless you produce the convincing proof.

 

 

There is plenty of evidence out there that there has been an attempt to redefine atheist from quisquose's post about the use of the term during the McCarthy years to conflate atheism with communism. A clear as day example of how attempting to redefine a word can do so much damage.

However, if it was true, it clearly doesn't mean that current attempts to inform the sceptical community that there are 2 valid definitions of atheism, would relate in any way to what happened back then.

Much as you strongly dislike the promotion of the fact that there is another definition of 'atheism', I would hope that you can see that at least some of those involved in it, are doing so for good intentions i.e. in my case, because (however misguided you may see me as being) I genuinely believe in will facilitate productive discussion on these issues, and, because I know how many people routinely currently use the 2nd definition.

I've only just noticed this...

 

So you believe that there is no God?

 

 

I know Jimmy has already pointed out (as I did earlier) that absence of faith is the broader category, not a narrow one. Do you really know any atheists who don't fit into this category?

I've never denied that absence of faith is a broader category (it is). However, clearly an atheist who believes God doesn't exist, is in a different category to one who doesn't believe in God- the first is making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), the second is making no claim.

And, I do know plenty of atheists who believe that God does not exist, in my experience, there are more of them than the other type of atheist.

What narrow category? The definition I use is far more broad than any other, that was rather my whole point. Did you not read the rest of my post or only the bit that you chose to quote?

 

You're the one that's trying to define atheism narrowly, the definition I use includes all atheists. Sorry but you appear to have completely and utterly missed my point.

 

And I do go out, loads, and I've never met an atheist who doesn't fit into the definition of atheism that I use. And I'd be willing to bet that you haven't either. Please give me an example of a self-identifying atheist who does not fit my definition.

I meant the narrow category of insisting that 'atheist' means 'without belief in God'- i.e. those who ignore the other, equally used definition of atheist as 'believes God does not exist'.

It would have more likely have been a Theist recording the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief but anyhow the word is meaningless to an atheist, it's just a word for theists to describe non believers and the word atheism originates from the Greek word atheos which means without god(s)

Yes, from what little looking I've done into the etymologyof 'atheist', it does look like it evolved, not from 'without belief, but, 'without god'.

Yes you did. It had nothing to do with the poll, it was you dragging it wildly off topic into your own delusional rants which kept swinging opinion in every other post that there was no point continuing with it. Have you decided between if you definately believe in God or that he definiatly doesn't exist yet, as you somehow tried to hold both views simultaneously in that thread.

Has it reached 'thread locking' time again

We all know that if a moderator gets pulled into this, it's just a matter of time.

Could you 2 just put your differences aside, so we can avoid that?

I'm aware of that but it only serves to reinforce the idea that some words get misused because of this lack of understanding the original meaning.

The original andcurrent meaning/s of a word is determined by it's correct etymology. If you don't have that then the word becomes meaningless which is what separates proper words from slang.

Where slang is concerned, once it's fully entered common usage and worked it's way into a variety of respected dictionaries, it becomes a 'proper' word, innit?

Also, many of our current words were once themselves slang.

No, because if the meaning is incorrect then that usage of the word, by default, becomes meaningless.

 

Yes. Ultimately if a group of people wish to use an already clearly understood word and change its meaning then logic states there must be some reason for this. Is it just purely ignorance or is there an intention to deceive because of a perceived threat from the group that the word describes.

Imagine if I took the 'N' word and somehow turned its meaning to become 'wonderfully spiffing black person', the meme took off and a lot of white people started using it resulting in black people then saying; "that's not what it means", but then I respond by saying; "sorry mate but so many people have adopted this meaning that you just have to live with it but hey.....stop being so militant and a word nazi about it."

It's happened already, with some sub-groups of the black community happily using the word, some promoting as being a positve word etc. Other people (black and white) have objected strenuously to it- it still continues to be used and clearly, has more than one meaning now.

Calling a vacuum cleaner a hoover doesn't come with any (political) baggage (just one for the dust:hihi:) so the vernacular doesn't matter. When a word does carry political baggage then people who try to redefine it need to be educated about its proper meaning for, however much it's misused, it doesn't matter if it's one person committing a fallacy or millions, the redefined word becomes meaningless because it's not addressing the reality of why the word came about in the first place and an accurate portrayal of what it points to. That's why the etymology is the most critical part of a word and language in general.

No-ones trying to re-define 'atheist'- it's got 2 meanings, neither of which is correct', other than in some people's opinion.

As for the sceptical movement 'educating' anyone, it's got a really bad track record fro that.

Partly because, though people generally want to 'learn', in doing so they like to be respected as human beings, not 'educated' by a self appointed elite band of rather arrogant seeming individuals who, when confronted by someone with a differing opinion, automatically seem to dismiss them as wrong, deluded, or even stupid.

If the sceptical movement wants to move forward and acheive it's considerable potential to genuinely 'educate' people about scepticism and rationality, it needs to drag it's head out of the sand, realise that education is a 2 way process where the 'teacher' can learn as much as the 'learner', and, start listening to people who are not themselves part of the club.

The reason I'm not involved currently in the sceptical movement, is cos I get the impression, that its meets consist of a group of people who already think in pretty much the same way, getting together for a ego-massaging session. That, to me, is a tragic waste.

I've been following this with interest and have not yet commented simply because I agree in part with both sides.

 

This however prompted me to post, I totally agree with you on the point of there being many atheists who identify with the more active meaning of not believing in God(s). In fact I find it nigh on impossible to think that the other posters have not encountered atheists who do have this view.

 

Likewise the term 'militant atheist', it's not a term I would use personally, but I'm quite happy with its use in debate because I do understand what is meant by it, I don't think it's 'correct' to call someone a militant atheist but that doesn't mean I don't get the gist.

 

Despite my own understanding of the word atheist being the same as roots/quisquose/six etc I think to simply pretend that this is the only meaning of the word is a bit silly (I'm not suggesting all of them do pretend this, merely pointing out my understanding of it meaning simply 'lack of' belief is identical to theirs), as we have said many times between us on this forum, as long as the meaning is agreed upon before (or at least during) a particular debate then the exact meaning of the word can be somewhat 'overlooked'.

 

That's it, end of my contribution

A useful contribution- I think it's always good when people not invloved in the sceptical movement give some 'outside' perspective: I feel that if the sceptical movement encouraged, or listened to, such input, it could become a lot more effective in communicating with people and getting it's message out.

(I put in bold the parts I particulalrly agree with).

You'll also find that anyone can publish a dictionary. The meaning of words is a communal thing, and isn't run by logic alone.

 

This isn't an argument in your favour though. I can call 'Henry' an hoover and everyone will understand what I mean. If they look in a dictionary they will understand what I mean. At no point though, will it ever be a hoover. It will always be a vacuum cleaner which is distinctly not an hoover.

 

The word has been given a meaning where it isn't logically sound anymore. An hoover that isn't an hoover is an hoover. It's not silly to point out how weak some language is in displaying certain ideas.

Again- it's a case where 'hoover' has 2 meanings- one a brand, one a generic device.

Language, and especially English, is quite messy, with vague meanings and definitions that often are not logically sound.

That's the way it is, and, as language is the prime form of communication, when it comes to communicating, those things need to be acknowledged.

Forming a little group and insisting that there's only one 'correct' defintion of the word 'atheist', and, resolutely sticking to it, knowing full well that many of those outside that group use a completely different definition, is not conducive to communicationg effectively with those outside that group.

Pushing for/campaigning for widespread acceptance of the prefered definition is always an option, but, outright denial of the other definition, and/or refering to those who use the other version as 'incorrect', or stupid, seems most counter productive.

Not that I'm accusing you, Chris, of being guilty of that, but, it's quite common amongst many of the sceptics who appear in these discussions.

If sceptics truly believe their definition is the best for everyone to use, then just make a good case for it- every time you accuse someone of being idiotic or stupid for using the other version, is yet another person who's not going to be at all interested in listening to you make your case.

I'm still waiting for you to verify the validity of your poll. How do you know the people voting actually understand the etymology of the word or are simply being truthful about it?

That's kind of the point I was making- many people do not need to know the etymology of a word to use it.

The current meaning of a word is not determined by it's etymology- it can be one factor, but it's rarely the sole factor.

A words meaning is as much to do with it's usage, as its' etymology.

Incidently, are you even sure that, when it comes to 'atheist', it's etymology is as neatly defined and definite as you seem to think it is?

The poll is fine by me and I'm quite pleased that a large number of people understand what atheism actually is but the verifiable part is how do you show that the people answering the question actually understand it enough to be able to give a meaningful answer. In other words have they thought about it, researched it or are they just parroting what they think the pollster wants to hear? That's why I'm not into 'common usage' of a term because there's usually a lot of ignorance surrounding it which, once again, hampers knowledge, understanding and therefore progress.

The poll was pretty clear-

The lack of a belief in God 21 36.84%

The belief that there is no God 26 45.61%

What's the difference between 1 & 2? 3 5.26%

Other (please post below) 7 12.28%

and understandable, it also had a option for those who couldn't see the difference between the 2 definitions.

 

I don't think dictionary definitions matter all that much in this case, the way I see it is this:

 

What a surprise in contrast, you'll find that many people do use dictionaries to check the meaning of words.

 

 

 

If instead we choose the definition preferred by self-identifying atheists: That atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, then it describes every single person who I've ever come across who identifies as an atheist.

 

 

3. Most importantly I don't know a single atheist who describes themselves by the 2nd definition, not one. Most atheists here, if not all, have gone to great lengths to align themselves with the 1st definition.

 

I'm an atheist, and I'm totally happy to acknowledge that there are 2 equally valid difinitions of 'atheism'- so, now you both know an atheist who does not align themselves with just the first definition.

If you guys got out a bit more, you'd encounter many more atheists who don't fit into the narow category acknowledged by the 'sceptical' variety of atheist.

 

 

 

So why does the 2nd definition of atheist persist in the public conciousness if the atheists themselves don't accept it? It can only be because the theists want it that way, and have used the word in that way.

 

But those who make up the public aren't just theists. Many of them are atheists, who just happen to go along with the 'belief that God does not exist' definition, because, it is the definition in common use and frequently appears in dictionaries.

There's no big anti-sceptic conspiracy going on here.

So, like I asked in that thread, where does that leave people who simply don't have a belief in God? What are they classed as?

They'd be atheists.

As would those who beleive God doesn't exist.

If you want to distinguish them from each other, some form of extra term will be necessary- this being one, of many, possible examples-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

Yes, it's one that you took part in.

Now that I've had a look back at it, I am reminded that it was one of the first threads that "Drone" wrecked.

Cheers

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1034412&highlight=atheism&page=31

By the end of it, the majority (45.61%, with 36.84% choosing 645s prefered variation) had voted for-

"The belief that there is no God " which is obviously a small scale poll of just the users of this forum, yet, does correspond to what i find when asking the question of members of the general public, except that then the portion who consider it to be 'belief that God doesn't exist' tends to be more like 90%

So, i'll assume 645, that your answer to the 2nd in this-

Would a few links to online dictionaries that use the 2nd definition do?

 

Would a poll on this forum count at all?

will be 'no, a poll here wouldn't count'

Verifiable evidence would be pretty good.

OK, go on. What possible verifiable evidence would count?

And, did you decide whether a look at some online dictionaries, or a poll, would be valid or useful?

The 2 you're talking about, have become.

 

My grandfather's old early 1900's dictionary simply has one line that reads "One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being", and that's it. That's enough, and many older dictionaries just carry this single line.

 

The trend to insert your favoured definition (I wonder why?) into common language only really began around the time of McCarthy, to make atheists seem more dogmatic at a time when atheists were pariahs. A nice cuddly word, agnostic, could be hijacked to define those nice undecided people, the ones that are Christians really.

 

The extreme examples I gave are mainly a continuation of this trend. They will be in common usage in many places of the world, the southern states of the US, and from many pulpits.

 

Given this trend to attempt to tar atheists as horrible creatures through language, which includes the common usage of the term "militant atheists" btw, I cannot fault six45ive on insisting on the correct definition.

Except, of course, it's not the 'correct' definition.

Sad as it may be, the current meaning of a word is not established by looking at your "grandfather's old early 1900's dictionary"

If I remember right, the poll/thread was locked prematurely, and this question went unanswered... -"Atheist" meaning someone who believes there is no God... well where does that leave someone who is simply without belief in God? What category do they fit into?

Do you have a link to the thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

covers many of the categories

Of course it does, if you believe there is no God, then you have no belief in God, by default.

 

If you have no belief in God, it doesn't mean that you believe there is no God.

The 2 definitions of 'atheist' in common use are-

'absence of belief in God' (most common amognst sceptics)

and

'belief that God does not exist' (most common amongst the general public)

I was pointing out that the first, does not include the second. (thought the 2nd, does include the first, of course).

Er........data would be a good start.

Would a few links to online dictionaries that use the 2nd definition do?

Would a poll on this forum count at all?

The trouble with that is this;

 

-"Atheist" meaning someone without belief also covers the many other labels (ie, an anti-theist/humanist/apatheist/atheist 2.0's are all atheists in this sense)

 

-"Atheist" meaning someone who believes there is no God... well where does that leave someone who is simply without belief in God? What category do they fit into?

Strictly speaking 'atheist' as in 'without belief', does not cover 'atheism' as in 'believes there's no God', as the 2nd makes a claim that the first doesn't.

As to which category each fits into- it's just a case of being aware of the differences and making it clear which you're using.

Just one of many options to deal with this long-standing, well-recognised issue-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

I found an unusual dictionary in a US library which had a definition of the word atheist as simply "evil", another line read "untrustworthy".

 

Because the word has become commonly used to mean all sorts of horrible things, by the self-labelled "righteous", you would be fine with using those definitions too?

No. That rather extreme example is certainly not in common usage

The 2 I'm talking about, are.

Under circumstances that are important yes but this wasn't one of them. It therefore depends on context. It was a throw away remark to move the conversation on and for you to highlight..... it in such a manner shows what a completely disingenuous person you are when the video is specifically about what atheists can take from religion.

In your opinion- anyone here can watch the video and decide for themsleves.

....and for you to highlight it in such a manner shows what a completely disingenuous person you are when the video is specifically about what atheists can take from religion.

Here we go... starting with the personal insults

Read back, it's current 'highlighted' position isn't down to me- I said straight away that it was best left alone IMO-

 

 

(* the asterix is there simply because, as you and I both know, there are, in common usage, 2 definitions of 'atheism'. We've spoke about this before and, you consider the 2nd to be totally invalid (i.e. atheist as someone who believes there isn't a God), whereas I, due to my respect for 'common usage' don't consider it invalid. I only mention it to be precise- in general I'm happy to work with the strictly logical/emtymological meaning that you use).

and-

Around 50% of dictionary defintions disagree though. And, if you ask around amongst the general public, in my experience, the majority go for option 2. Hence my mention of 'common usage' when it comes to the term.

 

However, that particular debate has been done to death, and, to now, this thread has been refreshingly clear of it, so, I'm very happy if we agree to disagree (or agree that their are differenent opinions on it) and cease to talk about it, as, the other issues we're discussing are, to me anyway, much more interesting.

Far from being disingenious, i made several clear offers to 'let it lie', but you couldn't resist picking away at it could you now look what's happened, you've made it the main part of the discussion (again)

Just wanted to make sure. I know how you need things to be spelled out extremely clearly.

 

 

 

I've once again had to adjust your statement so it reads more accurately.

I'd still like to see you back up your (readjusted or not) claim with some evidence please. All I'm getting from you at the moment are assertions and assumptions.

OK- what would count as evidence for you?

And the very fact you're arguing the point and espousing it is all you have to do to commit the fallacy. Obviously you also agree otherwise you wouldn't be arguing it.

Not at all. If some people want to remain ignorant by using wrong terminology/definitions that's up to them. If it's used to misrepresent my position then they're going to have a problem.

 

 

 

Which still doesn't change the fact that the meaning brought about by the wrong usage of a word is still wrong and can cause confusion.

There's a very good way to avoid confusion i.e. Man up and face the undeniable fact that, in this world, in our society, there are two differing definitions of the word 'atheist', and, when using the term, simply make clear which of the 2 you're using. Especially when trying to communicate with the general public, who, in the main, are using the different one to most sceptics, or, are not even aware the 2 are different.

That's only, of course, if, as a sceptic, you're genuinely interested in clear, productive communication. If, in contrast, you don't give a hoot about communication, or, don't care that confusion reigns, or, are just some kind of 'word nazi' elitist, who thinks etymology trumps common usage of a word, then, carry on