Fundamentalist Atheists

[LuisDantas]

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.

Accuracy can finally be pursued, is that what you mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

How could that possibly happen in this case?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

I'm always reluctant to accept meaningless labels. Doesn't mean I don't shrug at them. It's certainly not a big deal to me if someone wants to call babies atheists. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal for them to need to do so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

This is such absurd hyperbole and obvious demonization that it certainly belongs in a George Orwell novel.

Surely, it is a dark day when a group of people suddenly decide to use the word by its actual, literal definition.

I'm always reluctant to accept meaningless labels. Doesn't mean I don't shrug at them. It's certainly not a big deal to me if someone wants to call babies atheists. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal for them to need to do so.

It's not about "the need to define babies as atheists". That's never been the point. The point is that atheism is a broad term encompassing not only a belief in the nonexistence of a diety, but also a lack of a belief in one.

Have I gone crazy? Why is it so difficult for people to grasp the concept of "babies don't believe a thing" and why are they so incensed at the concept? Yes, we are born absent of a belief in a God - and this, by definition, means we are born atheists. We are also born without a belief in giraffes, gravity or rice pudding. Does this trouble you?

It's about trying to draw an accurate line in this debate. Too many people claim to be "in the middle" on the theistic debate, without understanding or accepting that the existence of a God (and the belief in one) is an either/or proposition, and the very definition of the words "theist" and "atheist" cover all available positions with regards to that proposition. It drives me absolutely crazy when people attach all this baggage to these labels, and particularly to the word "atheist", when there are millions of parents going around labeling their children as belonging to whatever religion they feel they should be labelled as. Where are the countless, endless threads in which people bemoan the labeling of these children? And yet, a term as absolutely harmless and broad as "atheism" cannot be applied to children despite the fact that they actually fit the definition of what the word means.

I really thought we'd reached a point as a society where the word "atheist" didn't suddenly conjure up images of demon-worshipping, immoral degenerates whose secret agenda is to "undermine traditional values". But no. Apparently people are still scared stiff by the very concept of "atheists" and the gall of some of them to even consider labeling anything other than their demon-worshipping bretheren as one of them.

See? We can all play at hyperbole.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

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.

Everyone does it but it is still deception. Marketers do it, politicians do it, philosophers do it. Religions are notorious for doing it, just look at Scientology or the Jehovah's Witness as a few examples. It just something that we all have to be aware of, especially when we start to do it ourselves.

But it is still deception and it only serves to instill confusion and further misunderstanding.

So if some atheist wish to confuse the meaning of atheism to mean something else than what it traditionally means then all they are doing is to confuse and further misunderstanding. And that is their sole agenda in doing so.

 

[Koldo]

I'm always reluctant to accept meaningless labels.

I don't find it meaningless, since it has meaning. It is just useless, barring a few situations.

Doesn't mean I don't shrug at them. It's certainly not a big deal to me if someone wants to call babies atheists. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal for them to need to do so.

Everything appears to be a big deal over the internetz. Even if it is not really so.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't find it meaningless, since it has meaning. It is just useless, barring a few situations.

The distinction between meaningless and useless when referring to a label seems to be a case of splitting hairs.

Everything appears to be a big deal over the internetz. Even if it is not really so.

I find that the measure of people's emotional involvement with a subject matches up pretty well with how they express themselves regarding it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm always reluctant to accept meaningless labels. Doesn't mean I don't shrug at them. It's certainly not a big deal to me if someone wants to call babies atheists. I just don't understand why it's such a big deal for them to need to do so.

One among many conceivable reasons is to underscore that people should not be assumed to believe in god until proven otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One among many conceivable reasons is to underscore that people should not be assumed to believe in god until proven otherwise.

That seems to be a rather poor justification in most circumstances. For example, here in the US, if you meet an average adult, you'd be right far more often than not if you assume that they were some type of Christian, before knowing their beliefs. And, if we're speaking about infants themselves, of course one would be wrong to assume they believe in god, since they aren't capable of holding any such beliefs.

 

[Koldo]

The distinction between meaningless and useless when referring to a label seems to be a case of splitting hairs.

Not really. But let's not turn this into another semantic debate.

I find that the measure of people's emotional involvement with a subject matches up pretty well with how they express themselves regarding it.

That's true for both sides though.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Every single Atheist person I have ever met in person, grew up with, including family members, all to this day, have the stance that there are no deities.

I was puzzled when I first came online and realized online Atheists have their own definition of the word atheist that vary.
I cant see why all the new definitions, its not that complicated.
"I am atheist and I do not believe deities exist"...
"cool, want a beer?, I'm getting one"

The last forum I spend many months in, almost all of atheists define it as, just a lack of belief, God might exist for all they know.
To me, that is agnostic.
I tend to wonder if its just because of the word itself.
Even I like the sound of the word atheist over agnostic...
Agnostic sounds like a "nasal congestion" thing...

"hey bro, you sound like you have a cold"
"yah, my nose is a little agnostic"

juts funning around, but yah, if I didn't believe in God, I rather be titled Atheist, just because of how it sounds and its "sternness"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's true for both sides though.

It's not a "sides" thing. It's a human thing - when something impacts somebody emotionally, they express it emotionally.

 

[Breathe]

How could that possibly happen in this case?

Quite easily, in my opinion: in such a case, one could say that there are different kinds of atheism according to:

a. ignorance of concepts
b. non-sentience
c. lack of belief in a concept
d. active disbelief in a concept

The one who is d. may not feel happy sharing the same concept as an 'ignorant' a., and may feel as though a. is not a good enough term to describe his or her position.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Quite easily, in my opinion: in such a case, one could say that there are different kinds of atheism according to:

a. ignorance of concepts
b. non-sentience
c. lack of belief in a concept
d. active disbelief in a concept

The one who is d. may not feel happy sharing the same concept as an 'ignorant' a., and may feel as though a. is not a good enough term to describe his or her position.

I am shocked that certain people of identify themselves as atheist and who believe that they are "more rational than thou" do not find it absurd to call a rock an atheist just so they can hang on to the ridiculous canard that babies are atheist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Everyone does it but it is still deception. Marketers do it, politicians do it, philosophers do it. Religions are notorious for doing it, just look at Scientology or the Jehovah's Witness as a few examples. It just something that we all have to be aware of, especially when we start to do it ourselves.

But it is still deception and it only serves to instill confusion and further misunderstanding.

I have to disagree. The idea that language is set in stone... that's illusion. Language changes every moment of every day. As a theologian, I try to change it in my direction, and unapologetically so. It's my duty to help everyone use language in better and more rational ways. It's your duty, too.

So if some atheist wish to confuse the meaning of atheism to mean something else than what it traditionally means then all they are doing is to confuse and further misunderstanding. And that is their sole agenda in doing so.

I think that the people who label themselves as atheists have way more right to define the term than do those with an obvious anger toward atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am shocked that certain people of identify themselves as atheist and who believe that they are "more rational than thou" do not find it absurd to call a rock an atheist just so they can hang on to the ridiculous canard that babies are atheist.

Because you see atheism as a form of arrogance, I assume?

 

[Willamena]

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.

Those darned babies!

 

[LuisDantas]

Every single Atheist person I have ever met in person, grew up with, including family members, all to this day, have the stance that there are no deities.

Maybe you have met a lot more who don't make much of a point of saying that they are atheists and don't quite agree with that stance. Who knows?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that the people who label themselves as atheists have way more right to define the term than do those with an obvious anger toward atheists.

Can it be that we know more about our own agendas than those who pick on us?

 

[Willamena]

It's not about "the need to define babies as atheists". That's never been the point. The point is that atheism is a broad term encompassing not only a belief in the nonexistence of a diety, but also a lack of a belief in one.

But there's no good reason to extend "atheist" to include a lack of belief in deity. Why do we need a word for people who have never conceived of, and may never hear of, deity? What use is it?