Angry atheists rant thread.

[six45ive]

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.

 

Thanks.

That's so true quisquose. You can see the lineage going back in history. This creation of strawmen that the religious use, the crass bearing of false witness that you see throughout religious history in an attempt to keep people gullible and ignorant.

It's similar to the misuse of the word 'theory' that creationists use. Here a word does have 2 clear meanings but they disingenuously conflate one with the other to 'muddy the waters'.

Clearly similar applies to atheism. If you're a creationist you're going to want 'common usage' of a word to mean what you want it to mean and not the people it applies to who knows what it means.

[RootsBooster]

They'd be atheists.

 

As would those who beleive God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

So like the first paragraph of your earlier Wiki link, athiest meaning "without belief" covers it all. Sweet.

 

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

 

I'm okay thanks, I like to keep things simple and as close to the original as possible.

[quisquose]

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-

 

 

 

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

 

So the SF poll beats my grandfather's old OED ... who'd have thought it.

 

The thing is, I don't disagree with you about the common public perception of what the word means, but more interestingly it's this:

 

1. Most old dictionaries didn't even carry the 2nd definition.

 

2. The 2nd definition is merely a subset of the 1st one, so is unnecessary. It's like a dictionary carrying two definitions for car as follows:

 

noun

a. a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and an engine.

b. a black passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and an engine.

 

Clearly b. is still a car, just as somebody who denies a god exists is still an atheist, but to include the 2nd definitions are unnecessary.

 

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.

 

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.

 

So my question to you is why have theists used the word that way?

[flamingjimmy]

Ah I see we've gone back to the meaning of the word atheist once again.

 

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

 

If we choose the definition that seems to be preferred by people who don't like vocal atheists: that atheism is the belief that there is no god, then it describes practically no-one, as there are very few people who hold that position.

 

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.

 

Once again, one version describes pretty much no-one, and rarely describes the people it is used to label, and the other version does describe everyone who calls them self an atheist. It seems a no-brainer to me which one to choose.

[quisquose]

Ah I see we've gone back to the meaning of the word atheist once again.

 

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

 

If we choose the definition that seems to be preferred by people who don't like vocal atheists: that atheism is the belief that there is no god, then it describes practically no-one, as there are very few people who hold that position.

 

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.

 

Once again, one version describes pretty much no-one, and rarely describes the people it is used to label, and the other version does describe everyone who calls them self an atheist. It seems a no-brainer to me which one to choose.

 

Exactly, and I wish I could have put it so simply and well.

 

But we still have the interesting debate about why the useless definition is the one which is persisted with.

 

I think the reasons are basically the same as the reasons why "militant atheist" and "angry atheist" are persisted with.

 

Muddying language is all they have in the absence of blasphemy laws, in country's with free-speech.

 

They'd rather we didn't exist of course, or at least dissenting voices didn't exist, and in some countries that can be arranged.

 

Oh, but of course we're the militant ones.

[six45ive]

So the SF poll beats my grandfather's old OED ... who'd have thought it.

 

The thing is, I don't disagree with you about the common public perception of what the word means, but more interestingly it's this:

 

1. Most old dictionaries didn't even carry the 2nd definition.

 

2. The 2nd definition is merely a subset of the 1st one, so is unnecessary. It's like a dictionary carrying two definitions for car as follows:

 

noun

a. a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and an engine.

b. a black passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and an engine.

 

Clearly b. is still a car, just as somebody who denies a god exists is still an atheist, but to include the 2nd definitions are unnecessary.

 

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.

 

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.

 

So my question to you is why have theists used the word that way?

 

Ah I see we've gone back to the meaning of the word atheist once again.

 

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

 

If we choose the definition that seems to be preferred by people who don't like vocal atheists: that atheism is the belief that there is no god, then it describes practically no-one, as there are very few people who hold that position.

 

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.

 

Once again, one version describes pretty much no-one, and rarely describes the people it is used to label, and the other version does describe everyone who calls them self an atheist. It seems a no-brainer to me which one to choose.

 

Exactly, and I wish I could have put it so simply and well.

 

But we still have the interesting debate about why the useless definition is the one which is persisted with.

 

I think the reasons are basically the same as the reasons why "militant atheist" and "angry atheist" are persisted with.

 

Muddying language is all they have in the absence of blasphemy laws, in country's with free-speech.

 

They'd rather we didn't exist of course, or at least dissenting voices didn't exist, and in some countries that can be arranged.

 

Oh, but of course we're the militant ones.

 

I also wish I could express it as well as these three quotes and it just further highlights why clear, honest, unambiguous language is so important to meaningful discussions.

I'll just have to leave you with my thought below.

[six45ive]

[quote=onewheeldave;9224826http://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-

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

 

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 'belief that there is no god' statement is a positive statement that requires some justification or knowledge which is why, under my clear bullet point description of how I define myself.....

1/ I don't believe in god.*

2/ I believe there are no gods.

3/ If a god could be proved to exist then I still wouldn't follow it, pray to it or worship it etc.....I think the idea or the realisation of a god would be inhuman and childish.

4/ I don't know that there aren't any gods.

5/ I'm as near to certainty as can be, without actually knowing, that there are no gods.

 

Atheism is only applicable to *

 

......I describe myself as an agnostic atheist, humanist and secularist.

 

Anyway I have work tomorrow and it's time for beddy byes so I'll leave you with this link to commit all the fallacies you want once again.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

 

I particularly like this example of the fallacy you're espousing.

 

"Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."

 

Night night.

Edited September 30, 2012 by six45ive

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

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.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

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.

[onewheeldave]

 

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.