Atheism is not a default position

[Shad]

What is the point of refuting a usage? All definitions are flawed - so what? Can you not see past these rocks you have imagined?

It renders the argument atheists are babies untenable. Can you not see passed the logical inconsistency such a definition creates. It is a defeater to the argument, nothing more.

 

[Bunyip]

It renders the argument atheists are babies untenable. Can you not see passed the logical inconsistency such a definition creates. It is a defeater to the argument, nothing more.

Well nobody is making that argument - that atheists are babies. Certainly not me.

 

[Shad]

Sorry buddy. No they don't.

Yes it does.

A book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage: I’ll look up ‘love’ in the dictionary

A word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study:

You have double-standard when it suits you, nothing more.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes it does.





You have double-standard when it suits you, nothing more.

Just the personal attack, but no details? What do I have a double standard about?

 

[Shad]

Just the personal attack, but no details? What do I have a double standard about?

Not a personal attack. It is evidence point to the fact that you ignore sources which refute your claims about dictionaries. You have a double-standard as you will use dictionaries definition until those no longer suit your argument.

 

[Shad]

Well nobody is making that argument - that atheists are babies. Certainly not me.

Yes you did.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-69#post-4378119
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-48#post-4367150

 

[Bunyip]

Yes you did.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-69#post-4378119
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-48#post-4367150

Neither of those make that argument. Take a breath, sit back and re-read ok?

 

[Shad]

Neither of those make that argument. Take a breath, sit back and re-read ok?

You still took this position, include a form of an argument based on a definition which flawed. Your lack of argument does nothing to refute the position you took using your own words on your account.

 

[Bunyip]

Not a personal attack. It is evidence point to the fact that you ignore sources which refute your claims about dictionaries. You have a double-standard as you will use dictionaries definition until those no longer suit your argument.

I'm sorry, but I can't respond to a personal attack without you at least explaining what it is you believe I have done. Dictionaries describe usages, they do not define terms. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Bunyip]

You still took this position, include a form of an argument based on a definition which flawed. Your lack of argument does nothing to refute the position you took using your own words on your account.

What are you talking about mate. What are you referring to?

 

[Shad]

What are you talking about mate. What are you referring to?

That babies are atheists. The whole dialogue between us has been based on this claim using a flawed definition. I attacked the definition to render the view untenable and illogical. We lack knowledge of what babies believe in since we lack the ability to detect beliefs without the subject interacting with the researcher. Language is a barrier to interaction until a child, not a baby, learns our language. However language carries certain meaning in the form of words. It would be easier to quote an example of language issues.

Two guys meet. One is an atheist, the other is... well, we don't know.

A (atheist) asks B if he's an atheist.
A - Are you an atheist?
B - I don't know. What is it?
A - It's someone who doesn't believe in God
B - What is God?
A - It doesn't matter. Do you believe in God or not?
B - I don't know what it is.
A - Then you're an atheist by definition because you don't believe in God, therefore you're an atheist
B - Okay.

Now, then the conversation goes on about the idea and concept of what God is, and B suddenly shows the true cards that he believes there's a magical sky-daddy with long beard sitting in a supernatural throne room pulling strings and controlling the world. Which leads to that the atheist now says:

A - But then you're a theist. You do believe in God.
B - You said that I didn't
A - That was before I knew that you believed in God.
B - But I don't believe in God. I believe in a magical sky-daddy. I still don't know what this "God" that you're talking about.

This is just a language barrier between two people that share the same language but one does not know the word God. Take this example to a baby with which you can not communicate with. We have no idea if they have a belief or not. People attempt to use deduction to prove babies are atheist due to a supposed lack of belief. However since the premise "babies lack belief" is not sound the argument can be dismissed. Babies could have a belief but lack the ability to verbalize it, we just do not know.

 

[Bunyip]

That babies are atheists. The whole dialogue between us has been based on this claim using a flawed definition.

All definitions are flawed. What do you mean?

.I attacked the definition to render the view untenable and illogical.

I know, why would you do that?

We lack knowledge of what babies believe in since we lack the ability to detect beliefs without the subject interacting with the researcher. Language is a barrier to interaction until a child, not a baby, learns our language. However language carries certain meaning in the form of words. It would be easier to quote an example of language issues.



This is just a language barrier between two people that share the same language but one does not know the word God. Take this example to a baby with which you can not communicate with. We have no idea if they have a belief or not. People attempt to use deduction to prove babies are atheist due to a supposed lack of belief. However since the premise "babies lack belief" is not sound the argument can be dismissed. Babies could have a belief but lack the ability to verbalize it, we just do not know.

Sure.

 

[Shad]

All definitions are flawed. What do you mean? I know, why would you do that? Sure.

The definition leads to an absurd logical conclusion so it is not just flawed but illogical. This render arguments for babies as atheist untenable and illogical.

 

[Bunyip]

The definition leads to an absurd logical conclusion so it is not just flawed but illogical. This render arguments for babies as atheist untenable and illogical.

Ok great. Don't apply it then, I didn't.

 

[Shad]

Ok great. Don't apply it then, I didn't.

Your statement implied and argued for it.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's okay. Just think about it for some time.

Maybe try to write better English.

Did I offend you? I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were incompetent, rather the opposite. With time you might understand what I was trying to say.

I was not offended, the problem is that your comment had so many redundant double, triple and quadruple negatives that whatever it is you are trying to say is lost.

I meant, considering your response about my English, it sounded like you were putting it to the edge because of what I said that you could just think about it for some time. That's the post I though offended you.

When it comes to the negatives, no they're not double negatives. They carry different levels of certainty.

I suggest removing them.

Can't, because it would change their meaning.

Read your post 2156 to anyone you can find close by - I bet nobody can follow it.

So instead of writting : Doesn't not disbelieve in no-God.
If you remove the redundant negatives you get: Doesn't believe in God.

Doesn't carry the exact same meaning. And I don't think I wrote "doesn't not disbelieve in no-God". I wrote "Does not believe in no-God." Which isn't the same as "Does believe in God."

 

[Copernicus]

If a person tells you he's an atheist exactly what does that tell you with 100% certainty about this person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. You don't know whether he's just not a theist or actively believe that gods don't exist. If the person was familiar with the distinction and wanted to further specify what he was he might have said "I'm a strong atheist" which would tell you that he not only is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods but also actively believe that gods don't exist.

If someone claims to be an atheist, I can be reasonably certain that that person knows what gods are. 100% certainty? No. I can imagine circumstances where a person might not use the word to mean the same thing that most English speakers do. Most understand an atheist to be a person who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them. That rejection may be very strong or very weak, but it is a rejection of belief.

Some people are trying to claim that only strong atheists are actually atheists despite the simple fact that every single person on the planet saying he's an atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. It is disrespectful to every single weak atheist who is just not a theist and has done nothing wrong that he should have to be defined as "Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good." just for saying he's an atheist.

Forgive my skepticism, but I doubt that you know what every single person claiming to be an atheist actually believes. Not a few have been known to dissemble. If weak atheists are offended by my views, I can only hope that the damage done their egos is neither severe nor lasting.

 

[Copernicus]

Bunyip, let's not equivocate over the meaning of the verb "define". You are using it to mean something like "authorize usage", and that is one possible sense of the word. However, this is where people start talking past each other, because there is another sense--the one I was using. Lexicographers define words when they come up with a succinct expression that captures popular usage. That is actually what lexicographers do. They define words. But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that their definitions do not establish how people ought to use words.

Wrong. This is one of the purposes of dictionaries. So people use the correct words rather than sting together a bunch of words in a sentence that have no meaning.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictionary

Well, there is truth to the point that people look up unfamiliar words in order to get a sense of how to use them. That is one of the purposes of a dictionary, and I can see where my statement could be construed in that way. What I meant to say was what I took to be agreement with Bunyip (although he prefers to construe everything I say as some kind of curmudgeonly disagreement, for some reason), that dictionary entries are not intended to create or enforce prescriptions for usage. Their function is primarily descriptive--to inform people how words are commonly used. Naturally, people usually wish to use words in a way that others understand them, so that is why they think dictionaries tell them how words "ought to be used". The problem is that bad dictionary definitions can actually influence people to use words in new ways. It is fascinating to see how people take some of these definitions as doctrinaire assertions of how the words must be used rather than how native speakers intuitively know to use them.

Dictionary definitions have been called heuristic in the sense that they only give an indication of what the actual meaning of the word is. They help users to discover a word's meaning without actually exhaustively describing the properties of the word. So a lot of dictionaries will give definitions for the word "bachelor", one of which is simply "unmarried male". The online Merriam-Webster definition for bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". However, English speakers know that there is more to it than that. The definition doesn't tell you this, but eligibility for marriage is an essential component of the meaning. Hence, it would be strange to refer to a Catholic priest as a "bachelor", since Catholic priests can't marry. That won't stop some people from looking the word up in a dictionary and letting the definition drive them to claiming that the Pope is a "bachelor". And they will do so with the same dogmatic assurance that our internet friends have in touting the silly "babies are atheists" claim.

 

[ArtieE]

Most understand an atheist to be a person who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them. That rejection may be very strong or very weak, but it is a rejection of belief.

Most people should understand that if a person says he's an atheist he is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. Then they can ask him if he's a weak atheist who simply is not a theist or a strong atheist who actively believes gods don't exist.

Forgive my skepticism, but I doubt that you know what every single person claiming to be an atheist actually believes.

Every single atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. If he says he's an atheist and then goes on to say he believes in the existence of one or more gods you must just correct him and tell him he's a theist.

 

[Copernicus]

Most understand an atheist to be a person who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them. That rejection may be very strong or very weak, but it is a rejection of belief.

Most people should understand that if a person says he's an atheist he is not a theist and doesn't believe in gods. Then they can ask him if he's a weak atheist who simply is not a theist or a strong atheist who actively believes gods don't exist.

Yes, quite so. That seems to be entirely consistent with what I said, so thanks for your agreement!

Forgive my skepticism, but I doubt that you know what every single person claiming to be an atheist actually believes.

Every single atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. If he says he's an atheist and then goes on to say he believes in the existence of one or more gods you must just correct him and tell him he's a theist.

I will do my utmost, Artie. Let us hope that they listen and accept wise counsel.