Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:You can date the negation definition back to the 18th century, if you're flexible, but it rose to contemporary prevalence in the 70's.

No, you can go quite a bit further than that. Hell, the Greek word from which it's derived means, "without god."

Its really not a simple concept, its been the subject of much debate for centuries. As with any concept, calling it simple generally means your level of understanding is not high.

Two things: are you really saying there's no such thing as a simple concept? That's amazing, if so. Secondly, just because something's been debated for centuries doesn't mean it's not really, really simple, like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. That one's simple because both are a load of nonsense, the wine and bread stay wine and bread.

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

GG

Again Disbelief = "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith in something."

Until you can prove a god to be real, not believing in said god is not a belief system. Based on the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, nor am I a theist.

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I have no doctrines, nor a belief that there is no god. As you have yet to prove what god is, and prove a god exists, there is no reason to disbelieve in something that is not real.

But explain this to me, why are you so eager to claim atheism is a belief system? and as you ducked my question "What docrines/dogma/teachings do you need not to believe in Zeus? or the invisible pink unicorn I have trapped in my basement? " Is your whole belief system just not believing in invisible pink unicorns?

Seaward wrote:
No, you can go quite a bit further than that. Hell, the Greek word from which it's derived means, "without god."

Dude, the Greek word was a pejorative. It meant, literally, what "godless" means today. As in "Those godless bastards!"

Prior to the 18th century it wasn't a seriously considered philosophical concept.

Seaward wrote:
Two things: are you really saying there's no such thing as a simple concept? That's amazing, if so.

Yep. At least in the context of a specific understanding of the term. If I hit you, I know it will hurt, but the detailed understanding of why, how, and where escapes simplicity; just as it does regarding the nature of atheism.

Seaward wrote:
Secondly, just because something's been debated for centuries doesn't mean it's not really, really simple, like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. That one's simple because both are a load of nonsense, the wine and bread stay wine and bread.

Sure, but its a pretty strong indicator that it isn't simple. You don't see many people arguing about whether or not a nail will go into a board if you hit it with a hammer.

dogma wrote:Dude, the Greek word was a pejorative. It meant, literally, what "godless" means today. As in "Those godless bastards!"

Pejoratives are in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider "godless" to be a pejorative, for example. If anything, I'd call it an accurate description of myself. Simply because the word was used with a negative connotation isn't enough to dispute that the idea wasn't around. "Bastard" is much the same, by the way; it can certainly be used as a pejorative, but it can also be used to signify its original definition.

This, incidentally, is the sort of crap that should've been discussed at the Reason Rally, but only about twenty people would have stuck around. The real "threat" to atheism is the religious right's attempt to frame it as just another religion, as requiring as much or more faith than their own beliefs, rather than accepting it for what it is.

I'm not surprised that an argument about historical context slipped over your head, Seaward, but what dogma meant is that atheist did not simply mean "absence of belief in divine beings" to the Greeks who were using it long ago.

Seaward wrote:
Pejoratives are in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider "godless" to be a pejorative, for example. If anything, I'd call it an accurate description of myself.

Sure, and I consider "donkey-cave" to be an accurate description of myself, but it doesn't stop being pejorative because of that.

Seaward wrote:
Simply because the word was used with a negative connotation isn't enough to dispute that the idea wasn't around. "Bastard" is much the same, by the way; it can certainly be used as a pejorative, but it can also be used to signify its original definition.

But it means the idea was different, and really not comparable to the present debate. We don't pretend Leucippus' views on the atom are relevant to the modern take on the same, so why this noise regarding atheism?

Seaward wrote:
This, incidentally, is the sort of crap that should've been discussed at the Reason Rally, but only about twenty people would have stuck around. The real "threat" to atheism is the religious right's attempt to frame it as just another religion, as requiring as much or more faith than their own beliefs, rather than accepting it for what it is.

"I'm not religious, but I'm deeply committed to my non-religiosity!"

Most people won't care if you're an atheist, same as most people won't care if you're Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. It becomes and issue because some prick makes it an issue, or because you, as a prick, make it an issue.

Manchu wrote:I'm not surprised that an argument about historical context slipped over your head, Seaward, but what dogma meant is that atheist did not simply mean "absence of belief in divine beings" to the Greeks who were using it long ago.

Of course it didn't. "Bastard," wasn't a simply neutral term that meant "one who was born of parents out of wedlock," either. It carried heavy social connotations. Does that mean its definition was inaccurate?

Without the heavy social connotations, I doubt there would have been a term. For example, there is no term for a person who has no aunts or uncles.

Manchu wrote:Without the heavy social connotations, I doubt there would have been a term. For example, there is no term for a person who has no aunts or uncles.

What difference does that make? In a society where everyone is religious, the outcast few who are not would certainly have pejoratives levied against them, just as the "outcast few" born to an unwed mother would in a time when everyone - or at least everyone of status - is born to married parents.

Furthermore, the argument that "atheist" was purely an invented pejorative with no actual basis of occurrence holds little water, from a logical standpoint; why would I call you godless if the concept of godlessness did not exist?

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

GG

Again Disbelief = "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith in something."

Until you can prove a god to be real, not believing in said god is not a belief system. Based on the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, nor am I a theist.

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I have no doctrines, nor a belief that there is no god. As you have yet to prove what god is, and prove a god exists, there is no reason to disbelieve in something that is not real.

But explain this to me, why are you so eager to claim atheism is a belief system? and as you ducked my question "What docrines/dogma/teachings do you need not to believe in Zeus? or the invisible pink unicorn I have trapped in my basement? " Is your whole belief system just not believing in invisible pink unicorns?

The thing is we know that most people in western society are more intellectually curious than "I haven't seen God so therefore I don't believe he exists". Every person in our society has asked themselves "where do I come from. how did it all begin". Some people research this question themselves and come up with "I don't believe the God, that so and so is talking about exists because of X.Y.Z.....etc." Other people after research come to a different conclusion and end up believing in a God.

So my point was to try and get you to think about how you came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. You are an intelligent person and intelligent people are intellectually curious therefore I know that you have done some kind of research on the issue to come to the stance you have come. Simply rattling off the pink unicorn, santa clause argument is not usefull here. Because logically the non existence or existence if santa clause does not = existence or nonexistence of God.

I.E. if I were to prove or disprove the existence of santa clause or the pink unicorn, that wouldn't mean that I can therefore prove or disprove the existence of God.

Now I think I agree more with dogmas definition of childrens belief in that they don't have the rational sense to be an athiest in the sense that sirlynch is claiming.

GG

Seaward wrote:What difference does that make?

It means that the phrase you are using to describe atheism in 2012 was not what ancient Greeks were talking about.

Furthermore, the argument that "atheist" was purely an invented pejorative with no actual basis of occurrence holds little water, from a logical standpoint; why would I call you godless if the concept of godlessness did not exist?

No one is making that argument. The argument is about what "the concept of godlessness" means and meant.

Seaward wrote:
Furthermore, the argument that "atheist" was purely an invented pejorative with no actual basis of occurrence holds little water, from a logical standpoint; why would I call you godless if the concept of godlessness did not exist?

The concept needs to exist, but seriously entertain the concept as something with philosophical weight is different.

Also, please don't misuse the word "logic", it annoys me, and most other people that actually study it.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Furthermore, the argument that "atheist" was purely an invented pejorative with no actual basis of occurrence holds little water, from a logical standpoint; why would I call you godless if the concept of godlessness did not exist?

The concept needs to exist, but seriously entertain the concept as something with philosophical weight is different.

Also, please don't misuse the word "logic", it annoys me, and most other people that actually study it.

I don't grant that the concept of atheism carries any more "philosophical weight" than the concept of not believing in unicorns. Nor does it require it.

I understand you're getting angry, but trying to impress me with your pursuit of a liberal arts degree isn't going to win you the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:]No one is making that argument. The argument is about what "the concept of godlessness" means and meant.

So you're suggesting it did not, in fact, mean a lack of belief in gods? I'm curious what else you think it could have meant.

Seaward wrote:I understand you're getting angry, but trying to impress me with your pursuit of a liberal arts degree isn't going to win you the argument.

I thought you came here more often than that?

Seward wrote:So you're suggesting it did not, in fact, mean a lack of belief in gods? I'm curious what else you think it could have meant.

As I understand it, it meant something more like "irreverent" to them.

generalgrog wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So you have a belief that people are born athiests. You now have defined your dogma and your belief system.

You have essentially said this... "I don't believe in God because I DO believe that people are born atheists. I don't believe in God because he hasn't appeared on Oprah."

So you do have the capability to form a belief system based on something outside of a vacuum.

Thanks for helping me prove that.

GG

Again Disbelief = "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Lack of faith in something."

Until you can prove a god to be real, not believing in said god is not a belief system. Based on the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, nor am I a theist.

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I have no doctrines, nor a belief that there is no god. As you have yet to prove what god is, and prove a god exists, there is no reason to disbelieve in something that is not real.

But explain this to me, why are you so eager to claim atheism is a belief system? and as you ducked my question "What docrines/dogma/teachings do you need not to believe in Zeus? or the invisible pink unicorn I have trapped in my basement? " Is your whole belief system just not believing in invisible pink unicorns?

The thing is we know that most people in western society are more intellectually curious than "I haven't seen God so therefore I don't believe he exists". Every person in our society has asked themselves "where do I come from. how did it all begin". Some people research this question themselves and come up with "I don't believe the God, that so and so is talking about exists because of X.Y.Z.....etc." Other people after research come to a different conclusion and end up believing in a God.

So my point was to try and get you to think about how you came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. You are an intelligent person and intelligent people are intellectually curious therefore I know that you have done some kind of research on the issue to come to the stance you have come. Simply rattling off the pink unicorn, santa clause argument is not usefull here. Because logically the non existence or existence if santa clause does not = existence or nonexistence of God.

I.E. if I were to prove or disprove the existence of santa clause or the pink unicorn, that wouldn't mean that I can therefore prove or disprove the existence of God.

Now I think I agree more with dogmas definition of childrens belief in that they don't have the rational sense to be an athiest in the sense that sirlynch is claiming.

GG

since their is no good definition for the word atheist, going by its etymological origin its simply "Not a theist"

Since you still don't seem to get it, here's a picture for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlzdiX_Fwzg

that being said, I'll say again its not a descriptive term, it is not any sort of belief system. Its just not being able to answer yes to one question.

If you insist on trying to say its a belief system in and of itself, then you also have to concede that not believing in invisible pink unicorns is your belief system. Its just as pointless to label my couch an atheist, a tree an atheists, but when it comes to cats, well don't cats consider themselves the supreme being? the Egyptians considered them gods. So GG is your god a cat?

You didn't answer "insert right name here" what your religion was, so are you just a theist? is that you're entire belief system?

And again I have to wonder, why are you so keen to label atheists as being a belief system in the first place. If your not an atheist, why is it so important to you to?

Seaward wrote:
I don't grant that the concept of atheism carries any more "philosophical weight" than the concept of not believing in unicorns. Nor does it require it.

God, I love it when people struggle to prove theirs is the "default" position, as though it matters.

Anyway, the argument hasn't changed, saying babies are atheists is exactly like saying rocks, cats, dog, guinea pigs, and platypuses are atheists. Philosophical weight enters the equation once rationality does, prior to that its just a pathetic attempt at political gamesmanship.

Seaward wrote:
I understand you're getting angry, but trying to impress me with your pursuit of a liberal arts degree isn't going to win you the argument.

I'm not angry, I've had this argument hundreds of times, and it always entertains. And while my undergrad degree was a BA, that "Dr." which goes in front of my name means it doesn't matter. Of course, you're assuming being studious is contingent on formal education, which is itself amusing.

And, really, I'm not here to convince you, that's not how argument works in a practical sense. I'm here to convince everyone else that you're position is untenable, useless, or otherwise without merit.

Manchu wrote:

Seaward wrote:I understand you're getting angry, but trying to impress me with your pursuit of a liberal arts degree isn't going to win you the argument.

I thought you came here more often than that?

Seward wrote:So you're suggesting it did not, in fact, mean a lack of belief in gods? I'm curious what else you think it could have meant.

As I understand it, it meant something more like "irreverent" to them.

As I understand it, it meant something more like,

"ἄθεος m, ἄθεος f, ἄθεον n; second declension; (atheos)

1. without gods
2. denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods,"

to them. But, hey, YMMV.

Seaward wrote:But, hey, YMMV.

Did you even read that before copy/pasting?

dogma wrote:God, I love it when people struggle to prove theirs is the "default" position, as though it matters.

Anyway, the argument hasn't changed, saying babies are atheists is exactly like saying rocks, cats, dog, guinea pigs, and platypuses are atheists. Philosophical weight enters the equation once rationality does, prior to that its just a pathetic attempt at political gamesmanship.

Actually, it matters quite a bit, if one has a desperate, underlying need to constantly reinforce one's belief in that for which there is no evidence. Suggesting that we are born believing in our sky faerie of choice lends credence to the notion that said sky faerie exists. To admit that we're not born with an inherent belief in sky faeries, on the other hand, suggests that belief in sky faeries is a social construct that we're indoctrinated to, rather than the universal truth its proponents would claim.

I'm not angry, I've had this argument hundreds of times, and it always entertains. And while my undergrad degree was a BA, that "Dr." which goes in front of my name means it doesn't matter. Of course, you're assuming being studious is contingent on formal education, which is itself amusing.

And, really, I'm not here to convince you, that's not how argument works in a practical sense. I'm here to convince everyone else that you're position is untenable, useless, or otherwise without merit.

I'd stick to your day job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Seaward wrote:But, hey, YMMV.

Did you even read that before copy/pasting?

I did.

It's now your turn to provide evidence that "atheos" actually meant irreverent.

I'll wait.

In context, t's definitions 1-4 of what you posted. Short wait, I know. Now, I'll give you a thousand internets if you can find even one ancient Greek text that use the word atheist in the neutral way that you have described it.

EDIT: You know what, scratch that. If you find that text, send it to Karen Armstrong so she can correct her scholarship.

Seaward wrote:
Actually, it matters quite a bit, if one has a desperate, underlying need to constantly reinforce one's belief in that for which there is no evidence. Suggesting that we are born believing in our sky faerie of choice lends credence to the notion that said sky faerie exists. To admit that we're not born with an inherent belief in sky faeries, on the other hand, suggests that belief in sky faeries is a social construct that we're indoctrinated to, rather than the universal truth its proponents would claim.

Of course, the above statement is not at all ironic, and totally possesses intrinsic merit, and not that which is applied by the speaker.

The entire argument from inherent characteristics is a joke, on both sides. That this is an "issue" at all is a joke.

Seaward wrote:
I'd stick to your day job.

My day job is a blend of telling people they're wrong, and telling those same people how to make other people believe they aren't.

Manchu wrote:In context, t's definitions 1-4 of what you posted. Short wait, I know. Now, I'll give you a thousand internets if you can find even one ancient Greek text that use the word atheist in the neutral way that you have described it.

EDIT: You know what, scratch that. If you find that text, send it to Karen Armstrong so she can correct her scholarship.

Go back and try again. I fully granted it was used in a pejorative sense, not a neutral one.

What you're arguing is that, because "godless" was used as a pejorative, the very concept of "godlessness" couldn't have existed. And I, frankly, have absolutely no idea why.

If that was what I was arguing, I'd be just as puzzled as you.

Seaward wrote:Would you say you believe that pink unicorns who secretly control the world's financial markets from an orbiting space station undetectable by any conventional means don't exist? If so, why does that require a positive belief rather than a negative lack of belief?

Atheism does not require any beliefs. It can quite easily be defined as a lack of belief in supernatural deities. And tiny pink unicorns, for that matter.

Why would I say anything about pink unicorns who secretly control the world's financial markets. I'm talking about descriptive terms for the groups that actually exist on Earth. And for those three groups we have three perfectly good, and well understood terms.

Consider a man accused of a murder. People follow the story in the media and quickly fall into three camps, those who believe he is guilty, those who do not know, and those who believe he is innocent. Each group would be identified by its own term.

Now, it might be possible to point out that the people who believe he is innocent hold no belief on who else might have murdered the man, that indeed they hold no belief other than the negative belief 'he did not do it'. This might lead certain people beloved of set theory or whatever to point out that the "I don't know" group and the "he didn't do it group" are actually part of the same group, but that's all irrelevant, pointless tosh that is utterly useless in actually describing these groups as they interact with each other.

Ultimately you need to describe three groups, which are significantly different from one another. So you have atheist, agnostic and theist. And we all know what each means. Or you can play fun and games and confuse the whole matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:How many examples would you like?

It's not quantity that matters, but quality. It's a country of 300 million, you'll always be able to find examples of people being obnoxious to some random group and saying mean things about them on the internet. I could, for instance, find at least as many examples of people saying mean things about Christians, but claiming that Christian groups are oppressed would be ludicrous (it doesn't stop them trying, of course ).

I mean, just look at the 'scariest states to be atheist article'. You have people on a march getting jeered. Billboards vandalised.

But that stuff really, really doesn't compare to what black people historically had to put up with, and what gay people still put up with to this day.

I'm not saying that stuff is okay, it's straight out bigotry and needs to be fixed, but it isn't the kind of oppression that demands rallies and activism to ensure equal rights. It is the kind of bigotry that can be solved just by being openly atheist and leading a good life, while being friends with Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:No.

For the love of Christ, quit loading atheism with more than it actually contains. It requires no dogma, no one set of coherent thoughts, nothing. It is, very simply, the lack of belief in deities. It's impossible to be neither a theist or an atheist; children are born one or the other, and unless you're saying they're born with a copy of the Bible in their hands, they're born atheistic.

If you've never considered a question before, then you can't be assumed to have answered it 'no'.

sebster wrote:Why would I say anything about pink unicorns who secretly control the world's financial markets. I'm talking about descriptive terms for the groups that actually exist on Earth. And for those three groups we have three perfectly good, and well understood terms.

Consider a man accused of a murder. People follow the story in the media and quickly fall into three camps, those who believe he is guilty, those who do not know, and those who believe he is innocent. Each group would be identified by its own term.

Now, it might be possible to point out that the people who believe he is innocent hold no belief on who else might have murdered the man, that indeed they hold no belief other than the negative belief 'he did not do it'. This might lead certain people beloved of set theory or whatever to point out that the "I don't know" group and the "he didn't do it group" are actually part of the same group, but that's all irrelevant, pointless tosh that is utterly useless in actually describing these groups as they interact with each other.

That analogy would probably work, if it wasn't so horrendous.

I'll fix it for you.

A man disappears. One group believes he was murdered. Another group doesn't believe he was murdered. A third group simply says they don't know what happened.

That's the religious, atheists, and agnostics in a nutshell. Atheists and agnostics, you'll note, are basically the same in that neither group actively believes he was murdered.

Ultimately you need to describe three groups, which are significantly different from one another. So you have atheist, agnostic and theist. And we all know what each means. Or you can play fun and games and confuse the whole matter.

The problem there is, you clearly don't know what all three mean.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:If you've never considered a question before, then you can't be assumed to have answered it 'no'.

So in other words, an individual raised in isolation - or a society that simply didn't follow a religion that included supernatural deities - who did not develop a belief in the supernatural because it never crossed his mind would not be an atheist. What exactly would you them, then? They do not believe in deities; it seems the definition of 'atheist' would be perfectly serviceable, but you object to that. No idea why.

Seaward wrote:
So in other words, an individual raised in isolation - or a society that simply didn't follow a religion that included supernatural deities - who did not develop a belief in the supernatural because it never crossed his mind would not be an atheist. What exactly would you them, then? They do not believe in deities; it seems the definition of 'atheist' would be perfectly serviceable, but you object to that. No idea why.

Well, no, you don't have to be completely isolated from the concept, you just need to have not considered it. That's the whole point of what I call the "unconsidered objection." Rocks aren't atheists because it isn't useful to call them atheists as they are incapable of holding beliefs of any sort. Similarly newborns, being incapable of holding beliefs, are not atheists. They may well become atheists, but you don't spring from the womb as an atheist because the descriptor simply isn't appropriate, just as it isn't appropriate in the case of the rock.

As to why someone would object to the application of that word, beyond simply being incorrect, you've already outlined for us exactly why its a form of political gamesmanship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
That analogy would probably work, if it wasn't so horrendous.

I'll fix it for you.

A man disappears. One group believes he was murdered. Another group doesn't believe he was murdered. A third group simply says they don't know what happened.

That's the religious, atheists, and agnostics in a nutshell. Atheists and agnostics, you'll note, are basically the same in that neither group actively believes he was murdered.

No, that's wrong.

Agnosticism doesn't pertain to belief, it pertains to knowledge. If you're going to break agnostics out from atheists and theists, then you effectively have to refer to atheists as people that believe that the guy was not murdered.

A better analogy is this:

Guy disappears.

Group 1 believes he was murdered. (theists)

Group 2 believes he wasn't murdered. (strong atheists)

Group 3 doesn't believe anything. (weak, or agnostic, atheists)

Group 4 believes he was murdered, but doesn't think we'll ever know if he was. (agnostic theists)

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:How many examples would you like?

It's not quantity that matters, but quality. It's a country of 300 million, you'll always be able to find examples of people being obnoxious to some random group and saying mean things about them on the internet. I could, for instance, find at least as many examples of people saying mean things about Christians, but claiming that Christian groups are oppressed would be ludicrous (it doesn't stop them trying, of course ).

I mean, just look at the 'scariest states to be atheist article'. You have people on a march getting jeered. Billboards vandalised.

But that stuff really, really doesn't compare to what black people historically had to put up with, and what gay people still put up with to this day.

I'm not saying that stuff is okay, it's straight out bigotry and needs to be fixed, but it isn't the kind of oppression that demands rallies and activism to ensure equal rights. It is the kind of bigotry that can be solved just by being openly atheist and leading a good life, while being friends with Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I never compared atheists to either of those groups, all I said was "they're not the most hated group in america" some of the articles showed how people in america hate atheists more than the other groups you listed. And at the bottom of the 10 worst states article the author even said the same thing I did. He also went on to explain very well that you can't compare peoples suffering, as its all subjective and based on what group you identify with.

but the rallies and activism helps in showing the world that atheists are people to, and it helps other atheists see that they are not alone. You missed the part where teachers and others have been fired for ``suspected of being an atheist.`` Its hard to be open about something that could cost you your job. the rallies also help show that we are not immoral just because we are not theists. I use immoral, because its a synonym in our dictionaries.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
So in other words, an individual raised in isolation - or a society that simply didn't follow a religion that included supernatural deities - who did not develop a belief in the supernatural because it never crossed his mind would not be an atheist. What exactly would you them, then? They do not believe in deities; it seems the definition of 'atheist' would be perfectly serviceable, but you object to that. No idea why.

Well, no, you don't have to be completely isolated from the concept, you just need to have not considered it. That's the whole point of what I call the "unconsidered objection." Rocks aren't atheists because it isn't useful to call them atheists as they are incapable of holding beliefs of any sort. Similarly newborns, being incapable of holding beliefs, are not atheists. They may well become atheists, but you don't spring from the womb as an atheist because the descriptor simply isn't appropriate, just as it isn't appropriate in the case of the rock.

As to why someone would object to the application of that word, beyond simply being incorrect, you've already outlined for us exactly why its a form of political gamesmanship.

Its not so much grammership, its the fact that all the words are so poorly defined. Yes the individual raised in isolation would be considered a atheist.

Do you believe in god? yes = theist, not yes = atheist.
do you know god exists? Yes=gnostic, not yes = agnostic
mix and match to taste.

the dictionary definitions are based on common usage, and will often not reflect the original meanings. Its why I keep saying atheist is a horrible descriptor, because it doesn't describe anything, it just says you are not a theist. we don't describe ourselves by what we are not. But due to the horrible definitions available for atheists, babies can be considered atheists, just like in the same regard they are not doctors, not lawyers, not warhammer players. so trying to attach labels based on things your/something is not is inane and futile. do we need words to express not believing in santa clause? not beliving in the easter bunny? not believing in gnomes? what are the synonyms for agnomiest? asantaist? what are their antonyms?

lets look at how badly the word is defined:

n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person.
legal definition: ATHEIST. One who denies the existence of God.

well which is it? the isolated person would be godless, so would babies. I believe I am a supreme intelligent being, so am I god? If I believe I am god, does that make me a theist? since god doesn't believe in other gods, does that make him an atheist?
what does disbelief mean: The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; Can you prove god to be true? nope, am I fully persuaded that your opinion, assertion, or doctrines about god is not true? nope, but you have yet to significantly prove he is true, so I don't need to disbelieve in it.

so we can see how trying to label anyone an atheist is really pointless. its like going around and saying not being a doctor is my occupation, not collecting stamps is my hobby, not playing tau is my 40k army.

Legally speaking, I belong to no religions, I am not a theist, does that mean I am denying gods existence? nope, so I am not a theists or an atheist. Are we dizzy yet? This is why we use positive labels to describe things, while I can say I'm not a doctor, its more correct to say I'm an electrician. because as I am an electrician, that implies that I am not all other profession. Does anyone go around saying I'm a theist? no, they'll normally say I'm a christian, or a specific denomination of christian. by stating which one you are, you also imply all the ones you are not.

so let see if I can wrap this up, Being an atheist is not a belief system. My belief system is I don't accept anything til it can be proved. As god can not be proved, I see no need to join any religions. especially since (according to theists) joining the wrong one is just as bad as not joining any. so because of my belief system I'm labeled an atheist, not atheism is my belief system.

Again I will claim to be an atheist for solidarity. despite my feelings about the word.

To be honest, I do not know of this is helpful since I jave completrly lost track of this odd argument, but here is the definition of 'religion'

(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Atheism does not fit either category.

Blackhoof wrote:To be honest, I do not know of this is helpful since I jave completrly lost track of this odd argument, but here is the definition of 'religion'

(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Atheism does not fit either category.

You left off a few(nice try)....from miriam webster


re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


GG

None of those definitions, of course, apply to atheism.

Although some people choose to add a creed with associated beliefs on top of their atheism.