The meaning of 'atheist'

[ToddNotTodd]

So objective things can't be tied to individuals and groups that use them? It seems that you don't know what 'objective' means.

It's nonsensical to suggest that words have objective meanings, unless you can point to an objective standard to judge against. It can't be dictionaries, because those are descriptive rather than prescriptive. It can't be the majority, because outside of the context of the individual or group using the word to communicate the meaning they want the word to have, they have no definite meanings at all. You can say that someone is defining a word incorrectly "to you", but then you've just admitted that you're being subjective rather then objective.

It seems like I know very well what "objective" means.

They actually have a name for this. It's called the "fallacy fallacy."

Except that I'm not committing it...

 

[zippy2006]

It's nonsensical to suggest that words have objective meanings, unless you can point to an objective standard to judge against.

The answer is easy: dictionaries and the methodology used to create them.

It can't be dictionaries, because those are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Descriptive things can be perfectly objective. "The Earth exists" is a descriptive and objective statement.

It can't be the majority, because outside of the context of the individual or group using the word to communicate the meaning they want the word to have, they have no definite meanings at all.

There is no reason that stipulated meanings cannot be objective. The more we talk the less I think you know what 'objective' means.

You can say that someone is defining a word incorrectly "to you", but then you've just admitted that you're being subjective rather then objective.

As the OP makes clear, I think New Atheists define a word incorrectly and I reference the dictionary as proof. Not a single person has claimed that my argument is invalid.

It seems like I know very well what "objective" means.

Try a dictionary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There has been much conversation in this forum about the meaning of atheism. I've argued that defining atheism as a mere lack of belief is insufficient (see here, here, and here). I've been told that atheists get to decide what atheism means and that I should just keep quiet. But atheists don't get to decide what any word means, for common usage determines the meaning of words. So let's see what the dictionaries say:

• Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist. (The New Oxford American Dictionary)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition)
• Atheist: one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English)
  
• Atheist: one who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being. (The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)
• Atheist: someone who denies the existence of god. (WordNet 3.0)
  
• Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. (Merriam-Webster)
• Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)
• Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (The Free Dictionary)
• Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)
• Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Online Dictionary)

Note that only the Oxford Online Dictionary gives the lack of belief as a definition for atheism. Merriam-Webster is somewhat ambiguous, but two articles from MW provide a clear definition. The first is from their article, "Secular, Atheist, and Agnostic":

Though atheist and agnostic are words that are often used together or cited in similar contexts, they do not mean the same thing. Agnostic comes from the Greek word meaning "unknown" or "unknowable" (a-, "not" or "without," and gnōstos, meaning "known"). It means "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not" or, more broadly, "a person who does not believe or is unsure of something."

Atheist also comes from Greek, from a- meaning "not" or "without" and theos, meaning "god." In English it simply means "a person who believes that God does not exist."​

The second is from an Editor's note, "How Agnostic Differs from Atheist":

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help...
​

Dictionary.com gives a similar assessment in their "Synonym Study" on atheism and agnosticism:

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
​

As these entries should make clear, "atheism" is not a passive lack of belief, but rather an active disbelief or denial of the existence of God. Furthermore, we ought to call someone who merely lacks belief an agnostic rather than an atheist:

Agnostic -

1. a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god​

Some additional evidence:

• Most atheists would be willing to wager that if they were confronted with a new argument for God's existence, that argument would fail and they would remain atheists. But why would anyone so wager unless they actually believe God doesn't exist and that the conclusion of the argument is therefore false? (Extended version)
• A large number of agnostics would deny that they are atheists. Why would this be so if atheism meant mere lack of belief?

Atheist -- a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

What's so difficult to understand?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The answer is easy: dictionaries and the methodology used to create them.

Again, this is nonsensical, because there's no regulating body for the creation of dictionaries. Anyone can put out a dictionary. The methodology is also based on opinion, rather than objective fact. If any of this was objective, there would be an objective standard by which we can judge which dictionaries are "correct". But that doesn't exist. There's only subjective opinion.

Descriptive things can be perfectly objective. "The Earth exists" is a descriptive and objective statement.

As per someone who actually works at the Oxford Dictionaries:

"After all, as lexicographers we would consider the role of dictionaries to be scrupulously descriptive. We are in the business of recording the language, as it is spoken."

See, even the creators of dictionaries understand that they record the way the people subjectively use language.

There is no reason that stipulated meanings cannot be objective. The more we talk the less I think you know what 'objective' means.

There's no objective governing body that stipulates the meanings of words, only subjective opinions, hence no objective meanings at all. Everyone can use language as they like, and if the individuals and groups they interact with can clearly communicate with them, then they're successfully using language.

Again, it seems like I'm the one who knows what 'objective' means.

As the OP makes clear, I think New Atheists define a word incorrectly and I reference the dictionary as proof. Not a single person has claimed that my argument is invalid.

It's because it's not really an argument. It's a subjective opinion. You even allude to that yourself by saying "I think". And as any good philosopher knows, the word "proof" is for alcohol and math, not logical arguments.

 

[zippy2006]

Again, this is nonsensical, because there's no regulating body for the creation of dictionaries. Anyone can put out a dictionary. The methodology is also based on opinion, rather than objective fact. If any of this was objective, there would be an objective standard by which we can judge which dictionaries are "correct". But that doesn't exist. There's only subjective opinion.

You are mistaken. There are standard procedures in place for lexicography and creating dictionaries. Anyone could put out a dictionary, but without the proper credentials no one would pay it any mind.

As per someone who actually works at the Oxford Dictionaries:

"After all, as lexicographers we would consider the role of dictionaries to be scrupulously descriptive. We are in the business of recording the language, as it is spoken."

See, even the creators of dictionaries understand that they record the way the people subjectively use language.

You're failing to connect. Keep your eye on the ball.

Todd: Descriptive things can't be objective.
Zippy: Sure they can. (*gives example*)
Todd: Dictionaries are descriptive.
Zippy: No one has denied this, and your point has no relevance.​

There's no objective governing body that stipulates the meanings of words, only subjective opinions, hence no objective meanings at all.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Take the symbol "=". This symbol has an objective meaning, and that meaning derives from common usage and ultimately stipulation--not a governing body. It means equivalence, particularly mathematical equivalence. When I say that '=' means the equivalence of two terms, I am not merely expressing subjective opinion. I am stating a fact known by everyone.

It's because it's not really an argument. It's a subjective opinion.

It's an argument:

1. If someone contradicts the dictionary definition they are misusing the word.
2. Atheists contradict the dictionary definition.
3. Therefore atheists are misusing the word.

Again, not one person has claimed that this argument is invalid, nor have they questioned the first premise.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are mistaken. There are standard procedures in place for lexicography and creating dictionaries. Anyone could put out a dictionary, but without the proper credentials no one would pay it any mind.

There are no objective procedures in place to create dictionaries that are universal, other than recording how people subjectively use language. And no one is required to pay any dictionary any mind, because they have no authority. It's nonsensical to think that having lexicographer credentials allows someone to dictate what a word means.

You're failing to connect. Keep your eye on the ball.

Todd: Descriptive things can't be objective.
Zippy: Sure they can. (*gives example*)
Todd: Dictionaries are descriptive.
Zippy: No one has denied this, and your point has no relevance.​

You didn't read carefully enough:

"We are in the business of recording the language, as it is spoken.

Lexicographers are recording how people use language. How people subjectively use language. Dictionaries do not say "if you don't use a word how we've recorded its usage, then you're wrong." Because that would be nonsensical.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Take the symbol "=". This symbol has an objective meaning, and that meaning derives from common usage and ultimately stipulation--not a governing body. It means equivalence, particularly mathematical equivalence. When I say that '=' means the equivalence of two terms, I am not merely expressing subjective opinion. I am stating a fact known by everyone.

I'm glad you brought up symbols, because it bolsters my position and not yours. Let's take "#" for example. Now, everyone knows that this is called the "hashtag" and it's used to specify that a particular topic has been addressed. Right?

Well, it didn't always mean that. Does it mean that when people first started using the symbol in that manner they were "wrong", because a dictionary would show a different meaning for the symbol? Of course not.

Why? Because dictionaries DO NOT dictate how a symbol (or word) has to be used. If people start using the "=" symbol in a different way, they aren't objectively "wrong". To think so would be illogical.

Once more...

people use language in order to communicate, and as long as effective communication happens, words can be defined as anything the group wants them to be, and still be correct, for them. The "for them" part is why the definitions of words are subjective.

It's an argument:

1. If someone contradicts the dictionary definition they are misusing the word.
2. Atheists contradict the dictionary definition.
3. Therefore atheists are misusing the word.

Again, not one person has claimed that this argument is invalid, nor have they questioned the first premise.

P1 can't be logically seen as anything other than an opinion. So your argument isn't sound.

 

[bhsmte]

I always say, if you want to know what someone believes or doesnt believe and why, just ask them.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I always say, if you want to know what someone believes or doesnt believe and why, just ask them.

Which is a point that everyone has been saying throughout all the "atheists aren't defining things like I want them to" threads.

The real question should be "Since this is the Christian Apologetics section, why are Christians focusing on this rather than "doing" apologetics?

 

[zippy2006]

There are no objective procedures in place to create dictionaries that are universal...

Let's sum up your strange positions in this thread:

• Dictionaries are purely subjective manifestations of the lexicographer's opinions.
• Spoken language is necessarily subjective.
• The fact that symbols change over time means that they are completely subjective.

It seems that you're willing to say anything to support a desperate argument, and heaven knows we've been there before. I'm simply not going down this road again. If your argument depends on such desperate claims, then there's a good chance you've made a wrong turn somewhere along the way. But you'll have to find someone else to explain the details of that mistake--someone more dedicated than me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let's sum up your strange positions in this thread:

• Dictionaries are purely subjective manifestations of the lexicographer's opinions.

I did not say this. It's dishonest to put words in people's mouths.

• Spoken language is necessarily subjective.

True.

• The fact that symbols change over time means that they are completely subjective.

There's no point in putting the word "completely" with "subjective". Subjective is a binary position.

It seems that you're willing to say anything to support a desperate argument, and heaven knows we've been there before. I'm simply not going down this road again. If your argument depends on such desperate claims, then there's a good chance you've made a wrong turn somewhere along the way. But you'll have to find someone else to explain the details of that mistake--someone more dedicated than me.

You can say that I'm making desperate claims, but you haven't shown it to be the case. And we can put that to the test.

Does anyone else think I'm being illogical in saying that the definitions of words are subjective?

 

[Chesterton]

Atheist -- a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

What's so difficult to understand?

Do you believe these two sentences are saying the same thing?

1. I do not believe in Santa Claus.
2. I believe there is no Santa Claus.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you believe these two sentences are saying the same thing?

1. I do not believe in Santa Claus.
2. I believe there is no Santa Claus.

No, I do not. So which one are you going to claim applies to Atheism exclusively?

 

[Chesterton]

No, I do not.

Can you elaborate? Or tell me what you think is the meaning of "I do not believe in Santa Claus."

 

[bhsmte]

Which is a point that everyone has been saying throughout all the "atheists aren't defining things like I want them to" threads.

The real question should be "Since this is the Christian Apologetics section, why are Christians focusing on this rather than "doing" apologetics?

Likely a defense mechanism. Some feel more protected, when they can define those who disagree with them.

 

[variant]

The infatuation on this topic, is comical.

Indeed. Which is why I'm not commenting on it anymore with people who want to talk past me instead of to me.

 

[variant]

Which is a point that everyone has been saying throughout all the "atheists aren't defining things like I want them to" threads.

The real question should be "Since this is the Christian Apologetics section, why are Christians focusing on this rather than "doing" apologetics?

Apologetics, Ie the defense of Christianity from skepticism of all types, are hard.

One of the reasons I am an unbeliever is that I can't do them effectively for myself.

So, I empathize with their problem, but not the solution to focus on the definition of atheism.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Can you elaborate? Or tell me what you think is the meaning of "I do not believe in Santa Claus."

To me, it means "Although he could exist, I don't have evidence that Santa Claus exists, so I do not believe he exists."

Which is different than saying "I believe there is enough evidence to say that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

 

[quatona]

I understand why Christians use the No True Scotsman on each other. I´m still not quite sure why they start using it on atheists, too.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you elaborate? Or tell me what you think is the meaning of "I do not believe in Santa Claus."

Not until you address the question you deliberately ignored.

 

[TLK Valentine]

DP