Fundamentalist Atheists

[Falvlun]

That's one way to deal with the contradiction. Many people would also object to calling the Pope a bachelor. A negative emotional reaction to an implication doesn't necessarily mean that the implication is wrong.

Notice that you relegate the objection to classifying babies as atheists as a "Negative emotional reaction". That is not the only reason one may object to such a classification.

Probably. There's also a pretty large number of people who use definitions for "atheist" that everyone in this thread rejects (e.g. "someone who's rebelling against God's authority").

True.

It causes huge weirdness. It means that a person who doesn't have a robust definition of "gods" can't be an atheist.

I don't have a robust definition of "gods". You keep going back to usage as a measure of correctness. Do you think that I'm an atheist?

As we've touched on before, I'm not sure that a robust definition of "gods" is even possible. You do agree that atheists exist, right?

Same problem: what's a god?

Those are the definitions found in most dictionaries. Wouldn't you think that people would have noticed that they were illogical and weird?

I would label you an atheist under those definitions.

And you do have a concept of gods. We have went over this before: You apply unreasonable standards for the definition of God. And even if such standards were reasonable, they aren't necessary.

Here is your response to Cynthia's question as to what gods you are atheist about:

All of the ones I've ever encountered. The "why" depends on the specifics of the claim. In general, there are three categories:

- some apply the label "god" to things that I agree exist but can't be rightly called "god" without something more than they've given so far (e.g. love, the Sun, Haile Selassie)

- some god-concepts imply that evidence should exist, but the evidence is lacking.

- some god-concepts don't suggest any evidence at all. These I either take as unfounded assertions (at best) or fabrications that have been contrived to be irrefutable (at worst).

Rejecting all the gods you have encountered fulfills the definition.

(Also note: You claim that there are some things that the label "god" cannot be applied to. Which means you have a concept of what gods are.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Which is why, like I say: we need a new term. Ambiguity doesn't benefit anybody except the propagandists, proselytizers, and trolls.

I suppose that is to an extent true. Something like "explicit atheist" or "active atheist", perhaps.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Notice that you relegate the objection to classifying babies as atheists as a "Negative emotional reaction". That is not the only reason one may object to such a classification.

No, but it shouldn't be automatically dismissed.

I do think that for the most part, when people object the idea of babies being atheists, it's about the connotation of the word "atheist", not the denotation. Babies don't match a person's preconception of an atheist (whether it's Richard Dawkins or Cynthia's "neck-bearded gamma males"), so there's cognitive dissonance... similar to calling the Pope a bachelor.

Those are the definitions found in most dictionaries. Wouldn't you think that people would have noticed that they were illogical and weird?

The "person who does not believe in gods" definition is found in dictionaries, too.

I would label you an atheist under those definitions.

And you do have a concept of gods. We have went over this before: You apply unreasonable standards for the definition of God. And even if such standards were reasonable, they aren't necessary.

Here is your response to Cynthia's question as to what gods you are atheist about:


Rejecting all the gods you have encountered fulfills the definition.

(Also note: You claim that there are some things that the label "god" cannot be applied to. Which means you have a concept of what gods are.)

I don't have a robust concept of god; have two things:

- a list of god-concepts I've met. This list has been formed by a lifetime of people referring to different things as gods or not gods.

- a few high-level criteria that don't define "god", but filter certain non-god things out. However, all of them still let through some non-god things: gods are objects of worship, but so are plenty of non-gods. Gods are also "greater" than humanity in some way, but so are things like the Sun or democracy, but neither of these are gods. Gods are agents with wills, but so am I.

And I disagree that my standards are unreasonable. The unreasonableness comes from the implications of your definition and the high bar you set by demanding that an atheist has to disbelieve in every god. If just one god slips through, the person's not an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is why, like I say: we need a new term. Ambiguity doesn't benefit anybody except the propagandists, proselytizers, and trolls.

AFAICT, ambiguity is an unavoidable byproduct of language.

 

[Bunyip]

Notice that you relegate the objection to classifying babies as atheists as a "Negative emotional reaction". That is not the only reason one may object to such a classification.


True.


Those are the definitions found in most dictionaries. Wouldn't you think that people would have noticed that they were illogical and wierd

Dictionaries have plenty of wierd and illogical definitions, they supply definitions of words in common usage. Atheism is more accurately defined as 'not a theist', adding the 'a' to 'theist' indicates that the person described is not a theist.

Atheism is simply the absence of a specific belief - that a personal theistic god exists. Babies can fit that definition, given that they do not even know what a god is.

There is no claim of knowledge implicit in atheism.

More importantly, atheism refers to a specific claim - in the context of this forum for example it generally refers to the Hebrew god Yahweh. The Korean 'dear leader' Kim Jong Il was worshipped as a god, I beleive he existed - that does not mean that I am not an atheist.

 

[Quagmire]

I suppose that is to an extent true. Something like "explicit atheist" or "active atheist", perhaps.

The only atheists that I'm concerned with here are the one's who'd fit the definition of religiophobe, ie., the ones who fling poo at religion just for the sake of flinging poo at religion, with no thought at all for any innocent bystanders who get hit by the splatter.

Aside from that segment, a person's atheism is a non-issue for me. Explicit or active atheists aren't a problem.

Problem is, "religiophobe" would probably be a rule 1 violation if it were applied to anyone specifically, same as homophobe would.

 

[Bunyip]

The only atheists that I'm concerned with here are the one's who'd fit the definition of religiophobe, ie., the ones who fling poo at religion just for the sake of flinging poo at religion, with no thought at all for any innocent bystanders who get hit by the splatter.

Aside from that segment, a person's atheism is a non-issue for me. Explicit or active atheists aren't a problem.

Problem is, "religiophobe" would probably be a rule 1 violation if it were applied to anyone specifically, same as homophobe would.

Do you have the same policy towards atheophobes? People who fling poo at atheists for no apparent reason - like much of this thread for example?

 

[Quagmire]

Do you have the same policy towards atheophobes? People who fling poo at atheists for no apparent reason - like much of this thread for example?

I'm opposed to idiots in general, regardless of what jersey they happen to be wearing.

 

[Bunyip]

Much of this thread boils down to arguing about which label to apply to the group under attack, labels are not very useful in debate - does anybody have a specific example to discuss?

Dawkins was mentioned earlier, but he is hardly 'flinging poo' or evangelising. Sure there are atheists who have strong opinions, just as there are theists with strong opinions - a forum like this can be a great place to debate and discuss those opinions rather than attacking groups people believe associate with any given behaviour more generally.

 

[Quagmire]

AFAICT, ambiguity is an unavoidable byproduct of language.

Which is why some people should avoid language. :yes:

 

[McBell]

You took objection to this comment, by claiming that you could make such an absolute statement since you didn't ignore inconvenient definitions.

Except I did not make any absolute claim over the definition of atheist.
You made that assumption on your own.

I still fail to see how you are not doing precisely that: Ignoring inconvenient definitions.

I have acknowledged that there are several other irrelevant definitions of atheist.
You unwillingness to accept that fact is something you need to work on, not me.

It's not a matter of applying the correct definition. It's a question of whether the definition you applied should even be considered a valid one.

And instead of doing just that you are more interested in chasing your tail with your false accusation of my making an absolute claim concerning the definition of atheist.

 

[McBell]

That is not what I considered hypocritical. It was the claim of "ignoring inconvenient definitions". I am being accused of ignoring the inconvenient definition of atheism that you and he have put forward: that atheism should simply be defined as "lack of belief in the existence of gods".

Except that I never made the claim that atheist should be defined as "simply" anything.

Again, you jumped on that assumption of yours all on your own and now you seem to be like a half starved dog with a bone over it.

But the flipside of this is that in order to say absolutely that babies are atheists, you too must be ignoring inconvenient definitions: that atheism should be restricted to those who take the philosophical position that gods do not exist.

Why do you keep changing what I flat out stated?

You keep adding conditional modifiers to what I actually said in order to continue this "discussion".
Why?

 

[McBell]

Are comatose people atheist too?

Do they fit into one of the many definitions of atheist?

What evidence is there that babies believe in a god?

How many children have you had that makes you think your opinion on the matter carries so much weight?

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, we could probably use more specific terminology for theists as well. We have it to some degree already. It is too bad that such terminology is often avoided when it would make the most difference.

 

[Quagmire]

Come to think of it, we could probably use more specific terminology for theists as well. We have it to some degree already. It is too bad that such terminology is often avoided when it would make the most difference.

Which, or what kind of theist specifically?

Since the idea---at least the one I was shooting for---was to come up with a term to distinguish anti-religious trolls and propagandists from atheists in general.

 

[Quintessence]

I sometimes call the anti-religious/theistic trolls angsthiests, given they seem to have quite a lot of angst about the subjects.

However, I suspect that such negatively-slanted terminology would not be the best sort to use in good company.

 

[Quagmire]

I sometimes call the anti-religious/theistic trolls angsthiests, given they seem to have quite a lot of angst about the subjects.

I like it. And I think it would be less susceptible to rule 1 than religiophobe.

However, I suspect that such negatively-slanted terminology would not be the best sort to use in good company.

If we're thinking of the same kind of people, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Thief]

If you say so. But scripture is inherently limited as an argument; people may simply not feel compelled to lend it importance.

and what do you think is important when talking about ...God?

 

[LuisDantas]

Which, or what kind of theist specifically?

Since the idea---at least the one I was shooting for---was to come up with a term to distinguish anti-religious trolls and propagandists from atheists in general.

A few categories of theists do come to mind.

On one "non-extreme" there are apatheists who simply happen to also be theists.

On the extreme, there are the Acolytes of the True Faith, a group I would probably belong to if I believed in God at all.

Those are people who go beyond simply having strong belief in the existence of God, who also have for some reason or another a need to convince others to renounce their mistaken ways, supposedly for their own good. Many end up using their beliefs as justification for disrespecting the personal space of others. It happens with fire-and-brimstone preachers, but also with parents and relatively well-meaning people that are simply too lazy, too weak or too addicted to their abusive ways.

It is only human to feel tempted to influence other people. But it is considerably easier to fall prey to that temptation once one convinces himself to be doing God's work.

 

[LuisDantas]

and what do you think is important when talking about ...God?

Art, inspiration, religious wisdom and dharma.

While I don't recommend belief in God, since I consider it a dangerous path to pursue, it is undeniable that many believers make marvelous use of it and end up being impressive, ivery constructive, inspired and inspiring people.

Some of them even quote or comment scripture while at it. But scripture itself is just an accessory.