Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[AV1611VET]

I'm fed up with this, AV. I give you a very clear, explicit answer AS A PSYCHOLOGY STUDENT and you tell me I'm wrong, throwing an outdated text in my face as the Final Answer. Then you have the audacity to claim that "nobody has answered my question." It's absolute RUBBISH, beyond the level of your silly word games. You are literally rejecting my reality and substituting your own. I am in no mood and will have none of it. I'm taking this as personal and I am reporting you. Posting whatever you want, ignoring all responses is called spamming.

The nerve...

Man --- chill out.

Sorry about that.

I fixed it --- okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

A mad agnostic? Must be God's fault.

More like a short fuse, would be my guess.

 

[mpok1519]

I'm fed up with this, AV. I give you a very clear, explicit answer AS A PSYCHOLOGY STUDENT and you tell me I'm wrong, throwing an outdated text in my face as the Final Answer. Then you have the audacity to claim that "nobody has answered my question." It's absolute RUBBISH, beyond the level of your silly word games. You are literally rejecting my reality and substituting your own. I am in no mood and will have none of it. I'm taking this as personal and I am reporting you. Posting whatever you want, ignoring all responses is called spamming.

The nerve...

 

[plindboe]

Meanwhile atheism is well defined; you can check for yourself.

define:atheism - Google-søgning

It's pretty obvious that dictionaries define it either as "belief in non-existance of God/gods" or "absence of belief in God/gods", few define it as "assertion that there is no God/gods". There's no definition that everyone agrees with, hence dictionaries reflect the different usages. You, and many others, seem to behave as words have 1 meaning, and 1 meaning only, and anyone who uses it differently that what you consider the right usage is wrong.

In the real world, words are merely used for people to communicate with each other, and if two people can agree on definitions of the words they use, they will be able to communicate with each other. When people apply a certain label for themselves, accepting the definition they use for that label is the only thing that makes sense if you truly want to understand their position. If you insist that the label they use about themselves mean something they do not agree with, you are essentially attributing characteristics to them that they themselves do not adhere to. You're basically throwing communication out the window, and for what reason? It looks like an agenda to put the other side down.

Peter

 

[gaara4158]

Man --- chill out.

Sorry about that.

I fixed it --- okay?

Yeah, I apologize for that. the rage was inappropriate; a result of my lack of sleep I suppose. Thanks for acknowledging at least my answer, but mine wasn't the first... I seem to recall a few others explaining it to you as well. I wish you'd stop pretending they don't count...

 

[Catherineanne]

But come back in a few years, as the dictionaries should have caught up to reality by then, and what atheism actually means these days will be properly represented.

Yep, all those dictionaries must be wrong. It couldn't possibly be you, could it?

 

[Catherineanne]

More like a short fuse, would be my guess.

Just as a matter of interest, AV, did you ever pull the legs off spiders when you were small?

You certainly seem to be doing the equivalent of that same thing here at present. Such behaviour does not reflect well on our faith.

I suggest you desist, and show a little more respect for those who happen not to think the way you do. We are told to love our enemies, not sneer at them.

 

[Catherineanne]

It's pretty obvious that dictionaries define it either as "belief in non-existance of God/gods" ...

This is correct. Atheism is a belief.

It looks like an agenda to put the other side down.

Nice theory. You will find no evidence to support it, however.

My interest in a proper definition of atheism actually constitutes a defence of what atheism is, in contradistinction to what it is not. Therefore, this is not putting atheism down, but the exact opposite.

I would say exactly the same thing if I perceived any other word being used in an inappropriate or inaccurate way. And the reason I do so is that I am a linguist/linguicist. I care about language, and I do not care for sloppy use of it.

Certainly some words change meaning over time, but not always in favour of the least educated perspective; what one might call lcd or tabloid language. Where there are three clear words, standing in a position of mutual incompatibility, any confusion must constitute an abuse of language, rather than a reasonable, normal change. A challenge to that is not reactionism but a defence of educated standards, the same as in any other area of knowledge.

And yet what do I hear? Not that the less educated are willing to learn, but that I must abandon my hard won knowledge of the English language, such as it is, and accept the lcd position.

I am sure I do not need to point out that there will always be the educated and those who are less educated. What is bemusing to note is the resistance to accepting information which does not fit an existing frame of reference. This is exactly what has been criticised in relation to fundamentalism, and yet is what is demonstrated in relation to precision of language in relation to atheism.

Here it is again. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are mutually exclusive. A person may be any one of the three at any one time, and may change between them ad libitum, but may not be more than one at any one time.

 

[plindboe]

This is correct. Atheism is a belief.

That's called cherry picking. You earlier claimed that if one wanted to know the true definition one could simply look it up. I did, and it's obvious that dictionaries give different definitions, ranging from belief to rejection of belief to a simple lack of belief. You simply seem to cherry pick your favourite and claim it to be the one true meaning. Reminds me of the way christians read their bibles.

It might do you some good to read this: Dictionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice theory. You will find no evidence to support it, however.

My interest in a proper definition of atheism actually constitutes a defence of what atheism is, in contradistinction to what it is not. Therefore, this is not putting atheism down, but the exact opposite.

Funny then that this definition is only used when people try to dismiss or put atheism down (i.e. "Atheists have faith", "Atheims is just another religion"). It's practically identical to how creationists dismiss evolution (i.e. "Evolution is nothing but faith", "Evolution is a religion").

The way it's used is clearly in a derogatory fashion, and that constitutes evidence for my theory.

I would say exactly the same thing if I perceived any other word being used in an inappropriate or inaccurate way. And the reason I do so is that I am a linguist/linguicist. I care about language, and I do not care for sloppy use of it.

Yes, I can imagine you telling kids off when they exclaim that Batman is cool, insisting that the word has to do with temperature.

Certainly some words change meaning over time, but not always in favour of the least educated perspective; what one might call lcd or tabloid language. Where there are three clear words, standing in a position of mutual incompatibility, any confusion must constitute an abuse of language, rather than a reasonable, normal change. A challenge to that is not reactionism but a defence of educated standards, the same as in any other area of knowledge.

It's curious to see a person trying to argue that words have some objective and absolute meaning, and at the same time acknowledging that words change meaning over time. Perhaps you should ask yourself why words change meaning over time.

And yet what do I hear? Not that the less educated are willing to learn, but that I must abandon my hard won knowledge of the English language, such as it is, and accept the lcd position.

I am sure I do not need to point out that there will always be the educated and those who are less educated. What is bemusing to note is the resistance to accepting information which does not fit an existing frame of reference. This is exactly what has been criticised in relation to fundamentalism, and yet is what is demonstrated in relation to precision of language in relation to atheism.

Urgh, the self-worship is overflowing.

Here it is again. Atheism, agnosticism and theism are mutually exclusive. A person may be any one of the three at any one time, and may change between them ad libitum, but may not be more than one at any one time.

Because repetition makes things true. Say it 50 times in a row and we'll all have to agree with you.

Peter

 

[TheBear]

I suggest you desist, and show a little more respect for those who happen not to think the way you do. We are told to love our enemies, not sneer at them.

So, you consider those who think differently than you, your enemies? Wow.

 

[Hespera]

Just as a matter of interest, AV, did you ever pull the legs off spiders when you were small?

You certainly seem to be doing the equivalent of that same thing here at present. Such behaviour does not reflect well on our faith.

I suggest you desist, and show a little more respect for those who happen not to think the way you do. We are told to love our enemies, not sneer at them.

After all the comments about how "I have no respect for...." I wont particularly be looking for MORE respect. I'd settle for just not hearing the "no" respect over and over.

 

[Hespera]

Atheism is a "belief" in the same sense that "abasketballism" is a "belief".

The use of the word "belief" by Christians is used to describe atheism specifically to contrast it with belief in god. That it is the same sort of "belief". Its like saying "enolution is a religion". It isnt.

If someone wants to be a theist, and a basketball fan, fine. That doesnt make me an atheist and an abasketballist. Im just a person, who happens to be free of those particular things.

 

[atomweaver]

Not hardly ---
SOURCE

Luv your "source", AV... If I wanted to know about Rorschach tests, the first place I'd go would be to an unbiased source like "Psycho-Heresy Awareness Ministries" The site name alone engenders clear-minded scientific objectivity...

/sarcasm

 

[atomweaver]

Yep, all those dictionaries must be wrong. It couldn't possibly be you, could it?

What is it with your obsession with dictionaries? If I want to learn about Italy, which is the more authoritative source; a dictionary, or an Italian?

Dictionaries are great as a first source, and to be on the same page on a topic, but when it gets into detailed discussions, you cling to that dictionary def in the face of a dozen atheists telling you what their beliefs entail... Time to move past such a narrow-minded approach, Catherineanne. "Nuh-UUHHH, my dictionary says different" does not, in itself, form a valid argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it with your obsession with dictionaries? If I want to learn about Italy, which is the more authoritative source; a dictionary, or an Italian?

Dictionaries are great as a first source, and to be on the same page on a topic, but when it gets into detailed discussions, you cling to that dictionary def in the face of a dozen atheists telling you what their beliefs entail... Time to move past such a narrow-minded approach, Catherineanne. "Nuh-UUHHH, my dictionary says different" does not, in itself, form a valid argument.

Defining the word atheism as "a belief that a god or gods don't exist, insofar as they might," is not a useful definition.

 

[Skaloop]

Yep, all those dictionaries must be wrong. It couldn't possibly be you, could it?

Not wrong, incomplete.

And it's not just me. Pretty much every atheist in these forums and anywhere else I've seen this discussed, plus plenty of Christians in these forums, comprehend that when people talk about atheism today, the meaning of the word extends beyond the mere dictionary definition. The dictionary is not wrong, per se, since the definition it gives can be accurate in some situations, but like I said, it is incomplete because it does not yet reflect the reality of how the word is used.

The meanings of words evolve and change. Spam used to just be a brandname of pressed meat. Then people started using it to describe unsolicited emails. Now that's in the dictionary. In between, were those using spam in regard to email using it wrong? Were people confused about how meat could be sent via the internet? Was anyone arguing that it wasn't possible to get spam from PETA because spam was meat and PETA was a vegetarian organization, and therefore the two were mutually exclusive? Of course not. Because people understood the reality of the word outside of the dictionary.

Dictionaries don't lead, they catch up. And because atheism has only recently moved vocally into the mainstream, there's a lot of catching up to do in this case.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it's not just me. Pretty much every atheist in these forums and anywhere else I've seen this discussed, plus plenty of Christians in these forums, comprehend that when people talk about atheism today, the meaning of the word extends beyond the mere dictionary definition.

Skaloop, would you explain this statement to me, please:

• Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

 

[Skaloop]

Skaloop, would you explain this statement to me, please:

• Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

I'll try, at my own peril.

Throughout the history of mankind, many god (or god-like) figures have been worshipped and believed in. Say there were 100 of them, for the sake of this explanation. This includes the Christian God of the Bible, so in the eyes of a Christian, 99 of those gods are not actually gods. To an atheist, 100 of those gods are not actually gods. So Christians believe in 1 God, and atheists believe in 0 gods. Zero is one less than one.

And I understand that some Christians do believe that the other gods (or some of them) were real, but that God is the only true god. I'm not really addressing those ones right now, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll try, at my own peril.

Throughout the history of mankind, many god (or god-like) figures have been worshipped and believed in. Say there were 100 of them, for the sake of this explanation. This includes the Christian God of the Bible, so in the eyes of a Christian, 99 of those gods are not actually gods. To an atheist, 100 of those gods are not actually gods. So Christians believe in 1 God, and atheists believe in 0 gods. Zero is one less than one.

And I understand that some Christians do believe that the other gods (or some of them) were real, but that God is the only true god. I'm not really addressing those ones right now, though.

So an atheist is one who believes in 0 gods --- is that correct?

 

[Skaloop]

So an atheist is one who believes in 0 gods --- is that correct?

Not exactly. It's possible, but not quite accurate, since some don't necessarily believe in 0 gods so much as they do not believe in any gods.

It's more like "There are no gods" is the null hypothesis, and they fail to reject the null hypothesis. That doesn't mean that the null hypothesis is correct.

Anyway, I'll be gone for a couple of hours, so if anyone else wants to take over answering any further questions on this, feel free. Otherwise, I'll get back to you.