Angry atheists rant thread.

[RootsBooster]

Er.....atheist? Is this a trick question?

 

No trick question, to me atheist just means that the person doesn't believe. Not that they necessarily believe there is no God.

[six45ive]

I know 'you know he got it wrong which is why you're calling him a gnostic atheist': I've not said otherwise

 

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

 

I was simply pointing it out as an example of a sceptic who, like some of the general public, consider atheism to mean "belief that God does not exist".

 

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.

[onewheeldave]

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.

Rubbish

 

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

[onewheeldave]

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?

[janie48]

I am a millitant atheist. I also answer to the term 'anti-theist'. Religion deserves to be ridiculed and derided. Let's see what the wave of anti-blasphemy attempts at thought-control bring. Imagine just what that world would be like.

 

Ohhhh no!.... Karl has made an appearence

 

http://conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism

 

I'm out of here.

[RootsBooster]

Rubbish

 

 

 

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.

 

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?

[six45ive]

Yes. I was referring to the bit at 1:20 where he says 'of course there is no God', which obviously goes well beyond the scope of atheism being merely 'an absense of belief' and instead, makes the positive claim that there is no God.

 

(Which, according to 645, makes him a "gnostic atheist")

 

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.

[quisquose]

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

 

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?

[onewheeldave]

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)

Edited September 30, 2012 by onewheeldave

[onewheeldave]

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.