The FINAL Thread on what "atheist/m" actually means!

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

They're different and, actually, incompatible.

Take 'similar'. To a mathematician, 'similar' means 'identical to'. To an everyday user of English it means 'quite like, but not identical to'.

Those two uses of the same word are actually close to being opposites. But mathematicians have learned to live with it.

And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

These usages co-exist. And I agree that in a discussion like this, we need to agree which meaning we're all assuming.

But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

---

Yes, but what we also have is an emotive term.

Importantly, the emotion surrounding the word all comes from the non-atheist, vast majority of the population. I don't know a single atheist who's passionate about atheism, as I likewise know nobody who is passionate about their a-philately.

The emotive usage of atheism equating "there is no god" is a simple ploy which is shared by the religious right,and militant agnosticism.

Militant agnosticism - now there's an oxymoron for you - and it's probably why I am deeply suspicious of people who claim to be agnostic yet get vehemently opposed to atheism, but it exists. There is a good example in this thread.

My question for those who oppose atheism as a concept, and continue to promote personal agendas at the expense of reality is:

Do the anti-atheists attack fundamental religion with the same vehemence they attack atheism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

---

The word "theory" is a better example, because the psychiatric use of "paranoid" is very specific and in a very limited group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

---

But that's identical to what I've been saying.

An atheist, is someone who doesn't believe in god! From any side of the fence.

:banana:

The problem, as I've been saying since post #1, is the option and accusation screamed at atheism by both theists and miltant agnostics is that atheism is saying "there is no god!" which is completely different from what you and I have now agreed is the meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

---

Oh, I have no doubt on that score, mate!

Threads like this are a great metaphor for life; if I am unable to convince people of the simplest, most-easily provable, cast-iron fact that the OP is correct, then it pretty much shows why positions of doubt and question - atheism and scepticism - are useful tools.

Still, the facts are there for those who choose to find them.

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

Quote:

---

belief in the fact that god doesn't exist

---

I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

Quote:

---

absolute morality is not inherent in the cultural composition

---

So?

Quote:

---

Are those people atheists?

---

Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

Quote:

---

As far as I am concerned, Christianity, especially in its first 1000 years did far more to help people than Atheism ever has. The dogma of Vatican two is far more progressive than any serious movement that has come out of the "Atheist movement" or the "actual atheism" as you term it.

---

That's nice. I'd say that it did more harm as well. But the two aren't really comparable. People will do things in the name of Christ, but not in the name of Hitchens:p.The point is that good done by Christians can be attributed to the Church, as opposed to that individual Christian. Atheists do not have a unified center, or movement.. So any good done by an atheist, is just done by that atheist and not one of them will claim to have done it in the name of atheism. You have really got to get rid of this comparison, the two are nowhere near the same.
Actually, I have come up with a wonderful idea! We should all band together and buy an enormous chalkboard. And anytime an atheist, irreligous person, or anyone who even has any doubts about religion does something good, we chalk it up to our organization!

Quote:

---

hear a bunch of loud annoying brats on the internet preaching their self-superior nonsense.

---

I'm sorry that you have had poor experience with atheists.

Quote:

---

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant.

---

Progressive? Yes. True? No, just probable. Moral? Eh, as much as any group of people. Now as to charity, once again I'm sorry that your interactions with atheists have been negative. But I assure you that we do help and contribute. I personally volunteer at a hospital and donate blood on a regular basis. I might consider giving money once I start making more than minimum wage.:D I know other atheists that do the same things, even some that work abroad in programs like Peace Corps.

Quote:

---

Finally, someone who shares my own views - about time people take a stand against isms that are so tediously annoying.

---

Actually, it seems to me that he is just taking a more diplomatic and effective standpoint in regards to debating in an attempt to get results. It's also very Buddhist, in that it regards the metaphysical as unimportant. I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted you, Juniper Woolf.

Quote:

---

nationalism in this world has proven to be a thing of the past, political ideology has begun to start to shrink, really now we need something to replace it.

---

Nationalism? You have clearly never been to an international soccer match. I'm a little confused as to the political ideology portion of your post. Has the number of ideologies shrunk, or has the belief in them shrunk?

Quote:

---

Atheism is not the strawman you create in the balance of your post, but I'll give it 8/10 for humour.

---

I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

---

:lol:

Respect for opinions? Are you mad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

---

And you're still right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

---

That's the disappointing part - is is so damned simple, and you have succinctly noted twice, the meaning has been that way for thousands of years: without god/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

---

:D

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

---

Yeah - take Saul of Tarsus. Complete change of mind; no change of approach.

Quote:

---

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

---

I agree with this. Just so long as either group's image isn't defined by the evangelicals or even the passive portion. Both have positive and negative sides to them.

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

---

Doubtless it is, but I have to confess that as an addition to either side of the argument, it leaves a certain amount to be desire, such as lucidity, understandability, and a few other -ilities. :brickwall

Quote:

---

..!.,

---

This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Viejo

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

---

Yeah, but it is a pretty irritating personality trait. There are a lot of us that will side with the opposing view just to spite people with the "evangelical bug," so more often than not it has the opposite to the desired effect. If pushy folk are going to look at it logically, shoving their opinions down other people's throats is a total waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

---

I suppose it was only a matter of time before this debate descended into semaphore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt

This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?

---

I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.

I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.

Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.

Quote:

---

I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.

I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.

Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.

---

Well, I wasn't thinking it was at all positive. My guess, was that he was mocking the perceived simplicity of the Big Bang Theory. *Sigh* But, I suppose your right. That was a whole lot less interesting than it could have been.