Fundamentalist Atheists

[Willamena]

Sometimes I truly wonder if you are kidding, Willamena.

About what?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unless you are referring to something else, "gay," meaning homosexual, has been around since the late 1100's. Between 1880 and 1920, homosexuality was more accepted than it is today, at least in North America, and the crack down on it in the mid 1900's was a response to its growing popularity. I can't speak for other parts of the world.

We tend to give decades names here in North America, and the 1890's were known as the "Gay Nineties."

I've never heard that before. Can you give me some references?

My assumption is that homosexuality wasn't even recognized in the 1890s -- much less broadly accepted.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

About what?

About homosexuality being widely accepted in the 1890s US.

It strikes the ear as a joke.

 

[Willamena]

I've never heard that before. Can you give me some references?

My assumption is that homosexuality wasn't even recognized in the 1890s -- much less broadly accepted.

Wikipedia

No, I have no references. You can google as well I can.

They'll tell you the Gay Nineties was because people were happy, but that's euphemistic.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They'll tell you the Gay Nineties was because people were happy, but that's euphemistic.

It's contrary to everything I know, Willemena. As a child I rubbed shoulders with people born in the 1890's. Trust me, they did not accept homosexuality. I've also read a lot of history.

To my ear, it sounds like a joke to claim that the 'Gay Nineties' referred to an acceptance of homosexuality.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. Just very odd, even unique.

 

[Willamena]

It's contrary to everything I know, Willemena. As a child I rubbed shoulders with people born in the 1890's. Trust me, they did not accept homosexuality. I've also read a lot of history.

To my ear, it sounds like a joke to claim that the 'Gay Nineties' referred to an acceptance of homosexuality.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. Just very odd, even unique.

Fair enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

About homosexuality being widely accepted in the 1890s US.

(...)

Among other things.

Then again, what was "acceptance" back in the day exactly?

As recently as in the 1950s at least, it was commonly accepted that "accepting" one's wife and children involved letting them follow one's orders.

For all I know the 1890s saw themselves as very accepting of homosexuality. Heck, enslavers probably felt to be "embracing" foreign cultures as well.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

And I should accept your assertion of absolute correct knowledge as to the proper definition of atheism because...??

 

[Falvlun]

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


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.



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.

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.


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?

You can backpedal all you like. You claimed that babies are atheists. I replied that it depends upon which definition you are using-- which is 100% correct.

You can claim that the other definitions are irrelevant, but that would be untrue. You can continue claiming untrue things if you like, but it's not a particularly good way to go about things.

 

[Sunstone]

Anyone even passingly familiar with a dictionary knows that most words in the English language have more than one definition. Atheist is no exception. It is folly and masturbatory mischief to argue over which of its definitions is the "right", "correct", or "proper" one.

 

[Falvlun]

I guess I just disagree. Going back at least thirty years, as I recall it atheism has always been lack of belief.

I find this hard to believe.

I have asked many random people-- even whole classes-- and overwhelmingly, people define atheism as "disbelief in the existence of gods" or "belief that gods don't exist." Outside of this forum, I haven't heard anyone define atheism as merely a lack of belief. It really does seem to be the new kid on the block.... with an agenda.

Even looking at dictionaries, it's hard to find support for your contention:

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

Merriam-Webster:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And the first part of the encyclopedic entry there: "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial."

Cambridge Dictionary:
The belief that God does not exist

Oxford Dictionary:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Longman Dictionary:
the belief that God does not exist

This was all the dictionaries on the front page of google. Only one includes the "lack of belief" definition, and even that is linked to "disbelief".

Now, language morphs. It may very well be that the definition for atheism is in the process of morphing towards the "lack of belief" definition. However, you guys do seem to be a bit out of touch in your claims that this is the standard definition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone even passingly familiar with a dictionary knows that most words in the English language have more than one definition. Atheist is no exception. It is folly and masturbatory mischief to argue over which of its definitions is the "right", "correct", or "proper" one.

Other than on RF, I generally haven't referred to myself as an atheist in years. In real life, the range of connotations and implications associated with the word "atheist" is so wide and varied as to make the word virtually useless, and will often lead people to believe that you worship satan, hate christians, or possibly eat babies.

The only religion-themed word I can think of that has a broader range of interpretations is "agnostic." Both words should really be completely scrapped at this point.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find this hard to believe.

(...)

Now, language morphs. It may very well be that the definition for atheism is in the process of morphing towards the "lack of belief" definition. However, you guys do seem to be a bit out of touch in your claims that this is the standard definition.

What can I say? That I am surprised to hear that? I truly am.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I think it's because most people defined atheism as "the belief that gods don't exist" or the "disbelief in the existence of gods".

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

I am not the one claiming that your definition utilizes "logical inconsistency or weird, arbitrary, artificial usage rules."

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.

You have a philosophical concept that simply doesn't mesh with reality. I, for one, prefer reality.

You stated shortly after this post:

AFAICT, ambiguity is an unavoidable byproduct of language.

It's funny how you can accept the ambiguity of language when it suits you, but when it comes to the word "god" you must have a rigid, perfect definition.

Many words don't have a perfect definition that perfectly includes everything it should and excludes the things it should. It doesn't matter. We still understand the concept, and what is meant when the word is utilized. Just like you understand the concept of the word god, and can utilize it adeptly.

Your contention that the more exclusive definition of atheism doesn't work because of the possibility of a god slipping through is just more evidence of the unreasonable stance you have taken on this.

Every other statement that we make about ourselves is dependent upon our current state of being. We can say "I don't believe in evolution". Or "I believe that gays shouldn't get married." Or "I do not like asparagus."

We can make all of these statements even though some time in the future we can have been convinced of the facts of evolution, or change our beliefs regarding gay people, or have a dish of asparagus that we like. I can say that "I don't believe Bigfoot exists", and if tomorrow scientists find Bigfoot, I can change my position. That doesn't mean that I wasn't an"A-Bigfootist" before.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whoa, are people back on that thing about "atheist" being a meaningful description of infants, even though they are not capable of holding any beliefs? What a strange obsession.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyone even passingly familiar with a dictionary knows that most words in the English language have more than one definition. Atheist is no exception. It is folly and masturbatory mischief to argue over which of its definitions is the "right", "correct", or "proper" one.

There's not even such a thing as a set word definition. All words change their meanings depending on context.

Words deceive us by appearing to stand alone, with white space on either side.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I find this hard to believe.
Outside of this forum, I haven't heard anyone define atheism as merely a lack of belief. It really does seem to be the new kid on the block.... with an agenda.

Well who would have thought that certain groups of people would actually attempt to change the meaning of a word to suit their agenda...I mean who would have thought of that...besides...George Orwell.

Now we can magically turn anything we want into an atheist...ants, rocks, toilet seats...anything...the sky is now the limit.

 

[Breathe]

Well who would have thought that certain groups of people would actually attempt to change the meaning of a word to suit their agenda...I mean who would have thought of that...besides...George Orwell.

Now we can magically turn anything we want into an atheist...ants, rocks, toilet seats...anything...the sky is now the limit.

And eventually the word becomes so useless that they will need another one to state how they feel.

 

[Koldo]

Whoa, are people back on that thing about "atheist" being a meaningful description of infants, even though they are not capable of holding any beliefs? What a strange obsession.

I am as impressed by the opposite's side reluctancy to accept that label.
It is the kind of thing that should be just shrugged at.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well who would have thought that certain groups of people would actually attempt to change the meaning of a word to suit their agenda...I mean who would have thought of that...besides...George Orwell.

Actually everyone does that, all the time. Language is often or usually about politics.

Everyone spins. I myself spend much time fighting for my own meaning of 'God' and 'prophet' and 'scripture' and 'truth'... stuff like that.

I like to go right for the Big Words.