Angry atheists rant thread.

[janie48]

So your response was purely militant then?

I feel a streak of militancy coming on when i read some of quisquose's posts lately.

 

but that link he posted about the US preacher made me want to

[RootsBooster]

Presumably one of the things he gets, in your opinion, glaringly wrong, is his understanding of 'atheism' to mean 'there is no God' (@1:20)

The interesting thing is that his opening line defines an atheist simply as someone who does not believe

That aside, cheers for the link, just watched it, he makes some good points, and, it's good to see a sceptic who is open to some of the positive aspects within religion/belief.

He isn't proposing anything new though. There's a thread on the subject here, if you haven't seen it before.

[RootsBooster]

I feel a streak of militancy coming on when i read some of quisquose's posts lately.

Care to show one?

[RootsBooster]

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

 

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

 

See post #282

[six45ive]

But I'm not committing a fallacy.

 

All I've said is that many dictionaries define atheism in a different way than you do, and, in terms of the common usage of the word, most of the public also define it in a different way to you. I also pointed out that, in the video you linked to, that speaker (a sceptic) also used the definition you oppose.

 

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.

 

So, I'd suggest that if you have good reason, why all those should, instead, stick to your definition, you've got some convincing to do (not to me, I've made my own mind up, but to everyone else who uses the word to mean other than what you do).

 

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.

 

By the way, the reason I consider the definition to be valid, isn't, as you accuse me of, any kind of appeal to common practice, but, because, words are the kind of entities which, by the nature of language, have meanings which are determined, in part, by their usage.

 

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.

[janie48]

Care to show one?

 

No! i recall the time i used the term militant once towards an atheist and the reaction it provoked.I have been more careful about my use of language since then.

[onewheeldave]

The interesting thing is that his opening line defines an atheist simply as someone who does not believe

 

 

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")

[six45ive]

Then under what label would somebody fall if they only believed there was no God?

 

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

[Marx]

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.

[quisquose]

I feel a streak of militancy coming on when i read some of quisquose's posts lately.

 

Yes, because stubbornly asking for evidence and not backing down when it is not reasonably presented, is also adequate behaviour to acquire the "militant" label if you don't believe in gods.

 

We should just shut up clearly.