ATHEIST definition changed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2017, 09:05 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
My fav def of FAITH:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
And... faith is belief without evidence. Ohmy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
I would have preferred...
"Atheist - a person who lacks a belief in any god or gods."

I'm not sure I care for the verbage of "does not believe in the existence of a god or gods."

It's like they are saying the "existence of a god" is something that is true and atheists do not believe it.

Maybe I'm making more out of this than needs to be.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
10-06-2017, 02:03 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 02:14 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(09-06-2017 08:03 AM)SYZ Wrote:  The Aussie Atheist Foundation says...

"Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, gods or the supernatural."

Bear in mind too that Merriam-Webster is an American publisher, and the US has the official motto of "In God We Trust". The seppos don't necessarily always know what they're talking about. Dodgy

I don't know how serious this is, but I take issue with the insertion of methodology. This is describing a sceptic atheist. What would they call someone who lacks belief for other reasons, I wonder? Also, there's no need to insert the whole of the supernatural. This is again scepticism.

(09-06-2017 08:33 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(08-06-2017 08:09 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Let's remember that dictionaries describe how words are used, not how they are supposed to be used. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.
Point taken, and I agree. Theists will sometimes use dictionary definitions to tell us what we MUST mean on any given topic, rather than asking us what we're actually saying (generally, which of the many definitions we're actually using). There is no attempt to be on the same page as them bringing up THEIR preferred definition is a deflection from the actual points being made.

A great example is "faith", a word that generally has the following two dictionary definitions:

1) Strong belief in the doctrines of god or religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

2) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

When we critique faith, it is religious faith we are critiquing, definition 1 -- not definition 2, which, when you think of it, is nearly its polar opposite. The faithful always try to claim that religious faith is justified based on experience, hence #2. The dictionary says so!

At any rate, if the dictionary is now coming more into alignment with how atheists see atheism, and that shows a shift in general usage towards something that at least half-assed understands what atheism actually is and isn't, then that's a Good Thing.

This is why I find it so important to ask people to define what they mean by words at the start of any sort of debate on these issues. If someone wants to use different definitions to me then that's fine as long as they stick to them, and that they appreciate that I will have to modify my use of language to accommodate.

Often I find dishonest debaters refuse to do this. Nailing down words stops them being able to equivocate.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
10-06-2017, 03:56 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(10-06-2017 02:03 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(09-06-2017 08:03 AM)SYZ Wrote:  "Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, gods or the supernatural."

I don't know how serious this is, but I take issue with the insertion of methodology. This is describing a sceptic atheist. What would they call someone who lacks belief for other reasons, I wonder? Also, there's no need to insert the whole of the supernatural. This is again scepticism.

All atheists are skeptics by default. (Skeptics seem not to always be atheists of course.)

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 04:03 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(09-06-2017 04:47 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I would have preferred...
"Atheist - a person who lacks a belief in any god or gods."

I'm not sure I care for the verbiage of "does not believe in the existence of a god or gods."

It's like they are saying the "existence of a god" is something that is true and atheists do not believe it...

You're misinterpreting the point of my definition: It's the possibility for the existence or reality of any supernatural entities that atheists lack a belief in—not the entity itself. If you were to disbelieve in the entity in and of itself, then there's an implied presupposition that it may exist in the real world.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 05:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 06:02 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(10-06-2017 03:56 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 02:03 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't know how serious this is, but I take issue with the insertion of methodology. This is describing a sceptic atheist. What would they call someone who lacks belief for other reasons, I wonder? Also, there's no need to insert the whole of the supernatural. This is again scepticism.

All atheists are skeptics by default. (Skeptics seem not to always be atheists of course.)

Why are they? Someone may reach a rational position, through an irrational method. For example, "I just don't feel like there is a god". Or, "I don't want there to be a god so I managed to convince myself there isn't".

My wife is an atheist, but certainly not a sceptic. She believes in ghosts, for starters.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim to be a sceptic and be a theist. Of course, claiming to be one and doing a good job at it are two different things. To this end, I'm going to say that I "try to be a sceptic" in future, as it's really for others to decide for themselves if I'm achieving it.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 06:59 AM by AB517.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(10-06-2017 02:03 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(09-06-2017 08:03 AM)SYZ Wrote:  The Aussie Atheist Foundation says...

"Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, gods or the supernatural."

Bear in mind too that Merriam-Webster is an American publisher, and the US has the official motto of "In God We Trust". The seppos don't necessarily always know what they're talking about. Dodgy

I don't know how serious this is, but I take issue with the insertion of methodology. This is describing a sceptic atheist. What would they call someone who lacks belief for other reasons, I wonder? Also, there's no need to insert the whole of the supernatural. This is again scepticism.

(09-06-2017 08:33 AM)mordant Wrote:  Point taken, and I agree. Theists will sometimes use dictionary definitions to tell us what we MUST mean on any given topic, rather than asking us what we're actually saying (generally, which of the many definitions we're actually using). There is no attempt to be on the same page as them bringing up THEIR preferred definition is a deflection from the actual points being made.

A great example is "faith", a word that generally has the following two dictionary definitions:

1) Strong belief in the doctrines of god or religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

2) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

When we critique faith, it is religious faith we are critiquing, definition 1 -- not definition 2, which, when you think of it, is nearly its polar opposite. The faithful always try to claim that religious faith is justified based on experience, hence #2. The dictionary says so!

At any rate, if the dictionary is now coming more into alignment with how atheists see atheism, and that shows a shift in general usage towards something that at least half-assed understands what atheism actually is and isn't, then that's a Good Thing.

This is why I find it so important to ask people to define what they mean by words at the start of any sort of debate on these issues. If someone wants to use different definitions to me then that's fine as long as they stick to them, and that they appreciate that I will have to modify my use of language to accommodate.

Often I find dishonest debaters refuse to do this. Nailing down words stops them being able to equivocate.


true.

When both parties agree to be open and honest its easy. I also find that honest debaters find the disconnect quickly and close it. its way harder on forums because some people are driven by a statement of belief and are posting more for marketing reasons then resolving disconnect.

theist/atheist debate is an excellent example. honest people Quickly move off of omni-god and lack belief in anything. Honesty, Observation based beliefs, and the scientific method just don't work in those arenas.

However, when two literal people are debating they are held (bound even) to their statement of beliefs only. Literal omni dude and literal skeptic. That gap, as we can see everyday, can't be closed when to literal people are debating.

so what do the rest of us do Rob?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 07:05 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(10-06-2017 05:59 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  My wife is an atheist, but certainly not a skeptic. She believes in ghosts, for starters.

Interesting. I've not heard of that apparent self-contradictory stance before.

Gods and ghosts are both defined universally as paranormal entities. Why then does she accept the existence of one but not the other? Part of her dismissal of gods is based on a lack of supporting empirical evidence, and as she also has no empirical evidence supporting ghosts, she must be undergoing some sort of suspension of disbelief to believe in them. Dunno why really.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 07:20 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(10-06-2017 07:05 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 05:59 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  My wife is an atheist, but certainly not a skeptic. She believes in ghosts, for starters.

Interesting. I've not heard of that apparent self-contradictory stance before.

Gods and ghosts are both defined universally as paranormal entities. Why then does she accept the existence of one but not the other? Part of her dismissal of gods is based on a lack of supporting empirical evidence, and as she also has no empirical evidence supporting ghosts, she must be undergoing some sort of suspension of disbelief to believe in them. Dunno why really.

Its a data point. what does it tell you about the brain sy. we see it all the time, seemly rational people have a few areas of seemly irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: