The meaning of 'atheist'

[ToddNotTodd]

"I don't believe it's tails" means you believe it's heads.

I don't believe this is true.

The other atheists in this thread don't seem to believe this is true.

No one I've talked to, even people with no background in Philosophy at all, believes it to be true.

One of my old Philosophy professors, who specializes in the Philosophy of Language, emphatically says your wrong.

So you can continue to use language any way you'd like, but I wouldn't complain about others use of language and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't believe this is true.

And you're welcome to address the rest of my post where arguments for my position are given. That's what philosophers do. They address arguments and they give arguments. They don't just nitpick the conclusion and say, "I disagree!" That's why I generally ignore your posts, because you never substantively engage what was said and never offer anything substantive in return.

Yet perhaps I should clarify:

You toss a coin, catch it and don't show me the result.
You then ask "do you believe that it is tails?"
I have insufficient data to know that it is indeed tails. So I don't want to commit to such a statement. So I'ld have to answer "no, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism".

1. I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is not tails
2. I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is heads

This may be pedantic, but I have not argued for (2) in this thread, I have argued for (1). The fact that you believe a further reply is necessary than "no" (i.e. "no, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism") belies your own belief that (1) is true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And you're welcome to address the rest of my post where arguments for my position are given. That's what philosophers do. They address arguments and they give arguments. They don't just nitpick the conclusion and say, "I disagree!" That's why I generally ignore your posts, because you never substantively engage what was said and never offer anything substantive in return.

I and other atheists have pointed out both the fact that your position is demonstrably inconsistent with how people use and understand language, and the overall futility in forcing objective definitions onto words that are in fact subjective.

I usually try not to ignore incorrect positions, so I don't ignore your posts that have incorrect positions in them...

 

[zippy2006]

I and other atheists have pointed out both the fact that your position is demonstrably inconsistent with how people use and understand language...

Two atheists implicitly agree with my assessment (KC and Kyx), and zero theists agree with yours. That is a victory in my mind. Being familiar with your own dire form of sophism, it does not bother me in the least that you disagree, especially since you have no arguments to offer.

 

[quatona]

That is a victory in my mind.

Time for one of those dinner parties, I guess.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Two atheists implicitly agree with my assessment (KC and Kyx), and zero theists agree with yours.

So they agree with you that words have objective meanings beyond common usage? I'll need some confirmation from them before I'll believe that.

That is a victory in my mind.

Funny, I find this post by you to be a victory in my mind. But then, I don't rely on "victories in my mind" to know if I'm right or not. So we differ there...

Being familiar with your own dire form of sophism, it does not bother me in the least that you disagree, especially since you have no arguments to offer.

I think anyone with a background in Philosophy can see I'm not a Sophist, and I think everyone else besides you can see that I post arguments.

 

[KCfromNC]

Two atheists implicitly agree with my assessment (KC and Kyx)

If by "implicitly agree" you mean "disagree", then you're 100% correct. Seems like a weird way to use the phrase, but then again just look at the mental gymnastics in the OP so I guess it is kinda on topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

So they agree with you that words have objective meanings beyond common usage?

Is that what he's trying to pretend me telling him he was playing pointless word games actually meant?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is that what he's trying to pretend me telling him he was playing pointless word games actually meant?

I think he just wants to feel as though he's right about this topic. I don't understand the obsession myself...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right. You answer, "No, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism," because a simple "No" is insufficient to support your position.

/facepalm.

No. I added it for clarity. Because that is what it means when you answer "no" to the yes/no question "do you believe x is true?"!

"I don't believe it's tails" means you believe it's heads.

It does not. It just means that you don't accept it being tails as accurate / correct / true/.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you said, "I don't believe it's tails and I don't believe it's heads," you would cause considerable confusion.

I really don't get what is so confusing about that....
It means that you don't know and aren't willing to commit to either option.

If you don't want to commit yourself to any belief you would simply say "I don't know," or "I don't accept that claim as a true-ism," as you yourself admit.

Which is the exact same thing as not believing either way.

"do you believe x" is a yes/no question. "Yes" means that you accept it as true. "no" means that you do not accept it as true.

If you don't know, then you do not accept it as true!

Given that you failed to answer my question about the Giants and the other three propositions I will assume that you agree with my assessment.

Whatever makes you sleep better.

In reality, I'm just not interested in your word games.
I'm just trying to explain to you that not commiting to an idea being true, doesn't in any way imply that you commit to the opposite being true.

But I see it is an exercise in futility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you're welcome to address the rest of my post where arguments for my position are given. That's what philosophers do. They address arguments and they give arguments. They don't just nitpick the conclusion and say, "I disagree!" That's why I generally ignore your posts, because you never substantively engage what was said and never offer anything substantive in return.

Yet perhaps I should clarify:

1. I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is not tails
2. I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is heads

This may be pedantic, but I have not argued for (2) in this thread, I have argued for (1). The fact that you believe a further reply is necessary than "no" (i.e. "no, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism") belies your own belief that (1) is true.

Here's a question for you....

Consider a court case. A defendant is either guilty or innocent.
Yet, a jury rules either "guilty" or "not guilty".
Why isn't it "guilty" or "innocent"?

I mean, if they find a defendant "not guilty", in your logic, that would mean they believe he is "innocent", right? Yet, they rule "not guilty". Why?

Could it perhaps be because they are answers to different questions?
"Is X guilty?" and "is X innocent"?

Now consider
"Does god exist" vs "does god not exist"
"Will the giants win" vs "will the giants lose"
"is it tails" vs "is it heads"

 

[Barry Desborough]

It amuses me when theists try to insist, seemingly with an accusatory tone, that atheism is a belief, as if believing anything is wrong.

Personally, I don't do belief. I call myself an atheist because I think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely. I am also an agnostic in the original Huxleyan sense - it is not possible to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable notion. I think that most who call themselves atheists think as I do.

a-symmetric = not symmetrical
a-chromatic = not cloured
a-tonal = not melodious or harmonious
a-theist = not a theist
a-gnostic = not gnostic
etc.

 

[zippy2006]

Personally, I don't do belief. I call myself an atheist because I think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely.

If you think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely, then you believe that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely. Ergo: you "do" belief.

a-symmetric = not symmetrical
a-chromatic = not cloured
a-tonal = not melodious or harmonious
a-theist = not a theist
a-gnostic = not gnostic
etc.

Etymologies are not definitions.

 

[Barry Desborough]

If you think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely, then you believe that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely. Ergo: you "do" belief.



Etymologies are not definitions.

Nope. I retain in my mind the possibility that there is a "God" person after all. I just don't consider it very likely.

Who cares about definitions? We use words to communicate. I have, I think, communicated my thoughts effectively.