Fundamentalist Atheists

[Willamena]

I am not interpreting anything. I am not making any assumptions. I am simply regurgitating what every single source on the topic states.

And what people commonly know. It's bizarre that there should be assertions to the contrary.

 

[Willamena]

My main point is that the definition of atheist must include as one of the entries the basic neutral version: person without a god belief.

And one for those atheists who do have a god belief.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The more interesting thing to consider is why we feel so strongly about our positions here. Why would you deny my one entry of a basic definition into the list of the several current uses of the word? I would suggest that it the same phenomenon as the attack on Christmas. Theist do not like that they are losing the default position of what is considered normal and resist an equalizing of the playing field.

So your theory is that Falvlun is working for the theists? That's what this dustup is about?

That's pretty upsetting. I didn't even know they were hiring mercenaries from among the atheists to do their debating for them.

Does anyone know where to sign up? The pay rate? Bennies?

 

[Falvlun]

The more interesting thing to consider is why we feel so strongly about our positions here. Why would you deny my one entry of a basic definition into the list of the several current uses of the word? I would suggest that it the same phenomenon as the attack on Christmas. Theist do not like that they are losing the default position of what is considered normal and resist an equalizing of the playing field.

I haven't denied you your definition. I merely demonstrated why a particular piece of evidence you used to support it does not, in fact, do so.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheists put the "fun" back in fundamentalism!

 

[Falvlun]

That statement has very little to do with etymology actually. If I say the appropriate current use and function of a house has a lot to do with it's construction, that does not mean we have to delve into earlier uses or the reasons and motivations it was built.

Except that the development of words is "etymology". You can't say that you are just talking about the construction of words, and not etymology, because they are the same thing.

To use your analogy, it would be like claiming that "the function of a house has to do with how it's built", and then deny that you were talking about its construction.

And you have obviously not understood that the history of the word "atheist" obviously indicates that it was not purposefully constructed to mean "person without a god belief".

Wrong-

from your undigested pasting The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was impartial in its initially intended use."

What do you think that this passage demonstrates?

It certainly does not demonstrate that the initial Greek take on "atheos" simply meant "person without a god belief".

It merely demonstrates that "without deities" did not (at least initially) indicate an anti-theistic sentiment. It doesn't say whether people were prejudiced or not against those "without deities"-- it states that the word was not "anti-theist", but it doesn't state whether it was "anti-atheist" or not.

My other sources do indicate that the Greek use of the word was "anti-atheistic", in that it was generally used as a pejorative.

This quote, from the ironchariots source, illustrates the difference between the initial usage and the later one:

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods", instead of the earlier meaning of "impious".

"Ungodly" or "impious" fits the information given by the quote you used: there is no anti-theistic sentiment. For that matter, someone who believed in gods could be considered "impious".

 

[Uberpod]

Atheist is constructed by uniting three component parts , parts that are currently used in other words. For the sake of parsimony and consistency, one definition of atheist can be found by extrapolating from the current use of other words that hold at least one component part. Does any of this necessarily involve etymology?

 

[Willamena]

"Athiest" is the personalized form of the word atheism. That's where its construction comes from. The atheist is the agent of atheism.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The position, 'atheism', as per a self definition or descriptor, confuses me a bit. It seems so self defeating, especially when coming from the more vocal anti-religious people.

So your goal, as one of these guys, is to have religious ideas not taken seriously, right? So why the heck would you proceed to define yourself in a way that references the very thing you are trying to get rid of? The term 'atheist' is married to and mutually exclusive to the idea of God/s, right? So why even define yourself that way? 'every time you invoke 'atheism' you are in fact shining light on and giving a measure of credit to it's counterpart.

In my mind, the idea of 'theism' sits right along side the idea of 'unicornism' or 'batmanism'. Epistemologically equal with any other bit of fiction, I would no more define myself as 'atheist' as I would 'aunicornist', because it just seems silly to me.

 

[Uberpod]

Except that the development of words is "etymology". You can't say that you are just talking about the construction of words, and not etymology, because they are the same thing.

I can try.

What do you think that this passage demonstrates?

It demonstrates that at least one author claimed that the original use of the term atheist was impartial as in neutral.

My other sources do indicate that the Greek use of the word was "anti-atheistic", in that it was generally used as a pejorative.

So your sources are clearly inconsistent, and yet you presented them as monolithic. Did you read them before all that cutting and pasting?

To recap, you saw a fancy word in the thread and remembered a Semantics 101 rule of thumb you thought I was violating in regard to it so you accused me of not doing my homework. You proceeded to offer your own homework, an undigested cut and paste job and present it as if it were in total support of the thing that you claim does not support anything at all ( and I think is mildly relevant). You then continued to harp on all that evidence for the thing that is really irrelevant ignoring any inconsistency. Then you accused me of obstinately refusing to sip on what you offer.

And, I have yet to hear why you think this it is so important to prove this basic definition false.:run:

 

[Falvlun]

I can try.

It demonstrates that at least one author claimed that the original use of the term atheist was impartial as in neutral.

Neutral in regards to what?

Personally, I found that passage to be a bit ambiguous.

It dawned on me, as I was writing my reply to you, that the author doesn't appear to be using "anti-theist" in the way we use it here: to denote prejudice against theism. It appears that s/he was using it to denote something more like explicit atheism.

This makes the passage make a lot more sense: S/he was stating that the initial meaning of "atheos" didn't denote disbelief in the existence of gods. It was "impartial" or "neutral" as to belief in the existence of gods-- which makes perfect sense when combined with the other sources, which state that "without gods" was something more akin to "impious". Impious doesn't denote belief or disbelief in the existence of gods.

So your sources are clearly inconsistent, and yet you presented them as monolithic. Did you read them before all that cutting and pasting?

There is no inconsistency.

To recap, you saw a fancy word in the thread and remembered a Semantics 101 rule of thumb you thought I was violating in regard to it so you accused me of not doing my homework. You proceeded to offer your own homework, an undigested cut and paste job and present it as if it were in total support of the thing that you claim does not support anything at all ( and I think is mildly relevant). You then continued to harp on all that evidence for the thing that is really irrelevant ignoring any inconsistency. Then you accused me of obstinately refusing to sip on what you offer.

And, I have yet to hear why you think this it is so important to prove this basic definition false.:run:

Your summation of our conversation is rather ungenerous. But, I will let others form their own opinions.

In many posts within this thread, I have hashed and re-hashed the reasons I find the "lack of" definition wanting. You are free to peruse. Please note that I don't think you can "prove a definition false". I have mentioned many times that the definition of "atheism" appears to be in flux, meaning, there currently is no "right" definition. I don't think the "lack of" definition is false; it is not wrong. I just think that there is a better one.

 

[yoda89]

This has really degenerated into an argument over the meaning of the word "atheist"?

Yep that's why I jumped ship

 

[Uberpod]

Are these examples of inappropriate word usage.

1) Buddhistic Theravada is atheistic.

2) In a science fiction novel an isolated family in the distant future raises it's children on empiricism and never happens to reference a deity or the ancient theistic practices. The adult children can accurately be described as atheists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are these examples of inappropriate word usage.

1) Buddhistic Theravada is atheistic.

2) In a science fiction novel an isolated family in the distant future raises it's children on empiricism and never happens to reference a deity or the ancient theistic practices. The adult children can accurately be described as atheists.

The first I agree with simply because of the connotations of atheism. However the second I feel is a valid assumption. The knowledge of such a concept as god seems irrelevant when we look at some of the key and important distinctions of what defines someone as an atheist.

 

[Thief]

Not buying the word games.
To be an atheist...you need the declaration....'no God'.

 

[Willamena]

In a science fiction novel an isolated family in the distant future raises it's children on empiricism and never happens to reference a deity or the ancient theistic practices. The adult children can accurately be described as atheists.

More accurately, you should say that the children have no information about "god."

Ignorance doesn't equate to atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ignorance doesn't equate to atheism.

But it can be inspiring.

 

[Uberpod]

One day the human race will be able to relax it's need to cope and make meaning through supernatural myths, and there will be no need for the word atheist whatsoever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It meshes fine with reality.

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.

I think you're having trouble understanding my meaning. The fact that I acknowledge that language has inherent ambiguity in it doesn't mean that I'm going to turn a blind eye to that ambiguity when the way you use the term "atheist" demands a lack of ambiguity that I think is impossible to achieve.

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.

As I've said many, many times, I don't "understand the concept of the word god"; all I have is a mental list of things that the term "god" is applied to and a mental list of things that the term is not applied to.

But since your post suggests that you do have a concept of the word god, tell me something. Consider two figures from religious mythology:

- Gabriel, the divine messenger of Yahweh in Christianity
- Hermes, the divine messenger of Zeus in traditional Greek religion

Gabriel is considered by Christians to certainly not be a god. Hermes was considered by the ancient Greeks to be a god.

Does your concept of god allow both the Christians and the Greeks to be right? If so, how? If not, is it the ancient Greeks or the Christians who are wrong?

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.

If I ask you what you mean by "evolution", "gays", "asparagus", or "Bigfoot", you can tell me what these words mean. Can you tell me what the word "god" means?

That's the difference. If someone says "I believe that Bigfoot exists" because they think "Bigfoot" means "the British monarch", then their definition of "Bigfoot" is simply wrong.

This isn't how we use the word "god". Almost universally, we use a person's own understanding of the word "god" to judge what their beliefs make them. We don't call Christians who believe in angels or Muslims who believe in djinn "polytheists" even though similar figures are considered gods in other religions, because that person doesn't consider them to be gods.

Same for atheism: whether you want to define atheism as "lack of belief in gods" or "disbelief in gods", the thing that matters is the individual's definition of "gods". And in the case of a person with no beliefs whatsoever and no definition of "gods", it is valid and correct to say that both that they don't believe in anything they consider a god AND that they reject everything they consider a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Every single Christian I have ever met in person, grew up with, including family members, all to this day, have worn clothes in public. Does this mean that a Christian would stop being a Christian if they were a nudist?