Atheism is not a default position

[NulliuSINverba]

I never suggested applying atheism to any context other than religion.

"This is the approach I am challenging in regard to atheism, people seem to think that if you can apply a given definition in another context where it does not make sense - they have somehow disproven the position it defined. Which is nonsense." ~ Bunyip

...

Have you in fact alluded to other people trying to apply a given definition of atheism in another context or not?

...

And if I could have arranged the quotation in the shape of a mustache, I would have.

 

[Bunyip]

"This is the approach I am challenging in regard to atheism, people seem to think that if you can apply a given definition in another context where it does not make sense - they have somehow disproven the position it defined. Which is nonsense." ~ Bunyip

...

Have you in fact alluded to other people trying to apply a given definition of atheism in another context or not?

Yes, many times.

...

And if I could have arranged the quotation in the shape of a mustache, I would have.

 

[Bunyip]

It doesn't cease to amaze me when people are so attached to the definitions they've ingrained in themselves that they fail to see that a particular word is given no context most of the time it is used. Knowledge of definitions for words like 'atheist' is primarily expedited through a sort of spaced repetition, and when the word is used in natural sentences all the meaning is lost (it only remains inside of our heads.) Atheism in particular is a really hard one to deal with when it comes to a head because in effect it is possible to just deprogram and reprogram, and neither of these definitions matter as much as the person is led to believe.

I just can't believe that so many people are stuck on such a fundamental misunderstanding of language. It blows me away, I have tried so hard to explain and re-explain, but the endless game of who has the 'correct' definition continues.

 

[Norrin-6-]

Atheism is simply not being convinced regarding the truth claims of theism. It's very simple.

You've made it very simple, that much is true. I think the point Bunyip is making is that we're only ever really assigning definitions to the terms we use. We assign definitions based on the information we currently have and we're always making a judgment as to whether the definition fits our current notions about everything that interacts with the word. Our definition of robot may have a lot to do with what we think the future is going to be like.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You've made it very simple, that much is true.

Isn't that usually the best way to keep such things?

I think the point Bunyip is making is that we're only ever really assigning definitions to the terms we use.

Kind of like we're only ever really wearing the pair of shoes we have on?

We assign definitions based on the information we currently have and we're always making a judgment as to whether the definition fits our current notions about everything that interacts with the word.

Undoubtedly, language is an imperfect tool. Is anyone debating that point? Here?

Our definition of robot may have a lot to do with what we think the future is going to be like.

Umm. Doesn't the term "robot" date back to the 1920's?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I just can't believe that so many people are stuck on such a fundamental misunderstanding of language. It blows me away, I have tried so hard to explain and re-explain, but the endless game of who has the 'correct' definition continues.

I hope you don't think that I'm arguing with you. I ultimately feel that atheism is simply "to be without theism." Typically, it's because one isn't convinced by theism's less than compelling song-and-dance of an argument.

You either believe in the proposition that there's at least one divine being, or you don't. We don't have to call the rejection of religion's claims "atheism." We could simply call it "not buying that load of rubbish" and be done with it.

 

[Thief]

What is the "default" position?
Are you honestly interested in my dogs opinion or are you merely trying to be funny?

I bet the dog gets it....
and the default position is NOT atheism.

 

[Thief]

I hope you don't think that I'm arguing with you. I ultimately feel that atheism is simply "to be without theism." Typically, it's because one isn't convinced by theism's less than compelling song-and-dance of an argument.

You either believe in the proposition that there's at least one divine being, or you don't. We don't have to call the rejection of religion's claims "atheism." We could simply call it "not buying that load of rubbish" and be done with it.

2,600+ postings.....and we are NOT done with it.

keep watching.....

 

[Thief]

Because the definition of helium given, just like the definitions of atheism being discussed does not cover all usages and contexts.
Definitions tend to be that way. This is not a problem. Which is why I find it so bizzarre that people are arguing over which is the right definition.

we are seeking a line drawn.....
draw the line.

 

[Bunyip]

I hope you don't think that I'm arguing with you. I ultimately feel that atheism is simply "to be without theism." Typically, it's because one isn't convinced by theism's less than compelling song-and-dance of an argument.

You either believe in the proposition that there's at least one divine being, or you don't. We don't have to call the rejection of religion's claims "atheism." We could simply call it "not buying that load of rubbish" and be done with it.

Well it sure looked like you were arguing with me, now I'm completely confused.

 

[Curious George]

Well it sure looked like you were arguing with me, now I'm completely confused.

Nope, he was with you. Even his definition meshed with yours

 

[Norrin-6-]

Isn't that usually the best way to keep such things?

Sure. I don't take issue with it, just commentating.

Kind of like we're only ever really wearing the pair of shoes we have on?

Tentatively.

Undoubtedly, language is an imperfect tool. Is anyone debating that point? Here?

I think it's a fair reason to stop debating the things that are being debated here.

Umm. Doesn't the term "robot" date back to the 1920's?

The decade that Metropolis came out?

 

[Bunyip]

Nope, he was with you. Even his definition meshed with yours

I don't have one. I am not positing or arguing for a definition. It is a pointless exercise.
Maybe with you also it would help if you acknowledge that agreement at some point. That makes it much easier to understand where you are coming from.

 

[Thief]

stopping the debate requires a line drawn.

Atheism is NOT the default position.

shall we reduce to pending posts to a simple....yeah or nay

 

[Bunyip]

stopping the debate requires a line drawn.

Atheism is NOT the default position.

shall we reduce to pending posts to a simple....yeah or nay

Atheism is the default under some definitions and contexts, and not in others. What does it even matter?

 

[Thief]

Atheism is the default under some definitions and contexts, and not in others. What does it even matter?

Try a little harder.

you're a nonbeliever.....are you not?

 

[Curious George]

Well then, maybe with you also it would help if you acknowledge that agreement at some point. That makes it much easier to understand where you are coming from.

He disagrees with my posts in this thread. So do you. It's okay. There is a lot of conversations happening across multiple threads. In the end we will never get it sorted lol.

I was happy to try to push the thread towards something other than definitions when you sought to do such. But it appears there is no escape, lol.

I can't imagine this thread will continue too much longer, even I grow weary of it.

But give it a couple months and some similar conversation will appear and we can all go another 3k posts round the semantic wheel.

Cheers.

 

[Bunyip]

Try a little harder.

you're a nonbeliever.....are you not?

Mate you don't try at all.

 

[Thief]

Mate you don't try at all.

Atheism is NOT the default position.

yeah or nay.....?

 

[Bunyip]

He disagrees with my posts in this thread. So do you. It's okay. There is a lot of conversations happening across multiple threads. In the end we will never get it sorted lol.

I was happy to try to push the thread towards something other than definitions when you sought to do such. But it appears there is no escape, lol.

I can't imagine this thread will continue too much longer, even I grow weary of it.

But give it a couple months and some similar conversation will appear and we can all go another 3k posts round the semantic wheel.

Cheers.

Hopefully, sooner or later the point that arguing against definitions is pointless will finally be made. Then a logical error that has long been an obstacle to meaningful discussion will be laid to rest and people can move on to discussing things that do matter. Like what people mean when they say something, rather than what definition of a word they used.