onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Do you mean Bertrand Russell? Who said: And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. I can't find the quote you mention, and it sounds very unlike his point of view. No! Bertram russell]a bricklayer I used to work with on the ponderosa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) you'll find that many people do use dictionaries to check the meaning of words. 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. Edited October 1, 2012 by Chris_Sleeps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The poll was pretty clear- and understandable, it also had a option for those who couldn't see the difference between the 2 definitions. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Believer or Non Believer. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 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. The noisy level of some of the cleaners could do with being reduced,and the lighter the weight the easier to handle i find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hmm. Thanks for the response. The tone of it seems somewhat uncharacteristically stressed so I won't dig deeper - I'd hate you to turn into Drone - but I must point out that I have asked you a number of simple, genuine, questions regarding faith and you haven't answered any. I don't know if any still exist, of course. Also, the bold bit seems to contradict your previous post. Anyhow, I hope you are able to deal with whatever is causing your anxiety at the moment. Really. Noone needs to turn into Drone coz im back.. So Rake, your requirements of a mod alerter are no longer required That goes for rootsbooster too, and I didn't destroy the atheism thread, because the poll didn't fit your opinion, it felt like I destroyed it.. It doesn't matter if atheism is believe in no god or its lack of a belief in a god, end of day you still don't believe in god but what amuses me is that you still debate the meaning of the word.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts