The meaning of 'atheist'

[ToddNotTodd]

Like all sophists, I think they will contradict themselves in their daily living. John Doe will be having a beer with his friend Bob and he will say:

Bob: Do you really believe that Global Warming is a sham?
John: No, I don't believe it.
Bob: Me neither!
​

Both know that John just proclaimed his belief that Global Warming is not a sham. It's so obvious it doesn't even need to be spoken. Once the agenda is no longer at stake, the sophistic approach to common language is dropped and a return to the real world ensues.

I take it that you have evidence that this odd conspiracy theory is correct? Perhaps you believe you can read minds.

I'll just assume that everyone disagreeing with you believes they're correct and you're wrong.

Which is the more pragmatic stance to take...

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, but when it comes to subtle differences in the English language, you should ask Tarzan rather than intelligent, English speaking people.

Yep - make up whatever hypothetical one needs in order to come to a predetermined conclusion which might not actually line up with reality. See also : Philosophy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, neither statement indicates anything further than what they say. It's true that neither statement excludes anything else, but they don't indicate anything else.

That would only be true if it's impossible for Tarzan to mean anything beyond what he said -- you're completely ignoring his limited language capabilities, and assuming that his thought processes are similarly limited.

Tarzan could have mean any number of things, but his limited English proficiency made it difficult (but as I pointed out, not impossible) to express them.

That is a common mistake when dealing with non-native speakers. You would do well to avoid it.

 

[bhsmte]

I take it that you have evidence that this odd conspiracy theory is correct? Perhaps you believe you can read minds.

I'll just assume that everyone disagreeing with you believes they're correct and you're wrong.

Which is the more pragmatic stance to take...

Reading minds, seems to be an acquired and necessary skill for some theists on this board.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I admit that your case is not implausible at a first glace, but once the matter is analyzed more deeply it becomes clear that your argument is based on a misuse of language and an incapacity to acknowledge the actual meaning of words and phrases in English. You desire language to work like (2) because this would be convenient for the type of "atheism" you wish to propose. But language isn't determined by convenience. In order to know what a word or phrase means we must look at usage and follow the evidence where it leads. We must accept the truth passively rather than actively imposing our personal will. In the colloquial and dictionary world, (1) is true and (2) is false. Therefore even the small percentage of definitions to which your argument applies do not favor your position.

Dude.... you really need to stop telling us what we believe and accept what we tell you about our beliefs and disbeliefs.

Having said that, again, when somebody says "I don't believe X", then the ONLY thing they are saying is that they don't believe X.

They aren't telling you anything about what they DO believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course in the real world, "I don't believe in the existence of X" does mean, "I believe X does not exist."

It does not.

I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's an idea: call a friend who is uninterested in this question. Read him two statements:

1. I don't believe in Santa Claus.
2. I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Ask him if those two statements are saying the same thing, or different things.

I just asked my partner.
He answered: no, they are not the same thing. The first merely expresses a position on the claim that Santa exists. The second is a truth-claim by itself.

Ask him if (1) implies (2).

He says it doesn't.
I'll go ahead and agree with him.

 

[KCfromNC]

I just asked my partner.
He answered: no, they are not the same thing. The first merely expresses a position on the claim that Santa exists. The second is a truth-claim by itself.

Yep, this whole thing is strange. We're expected to buy into the fact that we're doing sophisticated philosophy here and at the same time gloss over distinctions like this as if we're having a casual conversation at a dinner party. I guess those are the kind of contradictions you'd expect to pop up when someone really wants something to be true and is working hard to find any way to rationalize that it might be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep, this whole thing is strange. We're expected to buy into the fact that we're doing sophisticated philosophy here and at the same time gloss over distinctions like this as if we're having a casual conversation at a dinner party. I guess those are the kind of contradictions you'd expect to pop up when someone really wants something to be true and is working hard to find any way to rationalize that it might be.

I'm actually also somewhat surprised by this whole discussion...
While I fully expect to disagree with Zippy on some core issues (being atheism vs theism and all that), Zippy nonetheless seems like a smart person. His use of language and overall posts don't make me think that he's some uneducated, dumb person.

So I find it very surprising to find out that he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between:
"I don't believe X is true"
and
"I believe X is false".

Very surprising, indeed...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm actually also somewhat surprised by this whole discussion...
While I fully expect to disagree with Zippy on some core issues (being atheism vs theism and all that), Zippy nonetheless seems like a smart person. His use of language and overall posts don't make me think that he's some uneducated, dumb person.

So I find it very surprising to find out that he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between:
"I don't believe X is true"
and
"I believe X is false".

Very surprising, indeed...

And quibbling over semantics seems like a distraction from the purpose of this board anyway. I came here expecting threads regarding arguments for the existence of the Christian god, not arguments that atheists don't "do atheism" correctly...

 

[zippy2006]

Yep, this whole thing is strange. We're expected to buy into the fact that we're doing sophisticated philosophy here and at the same time gloss over distinctions like this as if we're having a casual conversation at a dinner party.

Here you implicitly admit that the theists are correct. The goal is not "sophisticated philosophy," it is simply determining what common language means. Therefore the casual conversation at a dinner party is more insightful than your so-called "sophisticated philosophy" in determining the common meaning of language. Dictionaries are not presupposing that readers engage in "sophisticated philosophy" to understand what is meant.

It's good to see that at least one atheist implicitly admits that the meaning of language in casual conversation does not support the atheist thesis in this thread. But, to be fair, none have carried their sophistry so far as to contradict the commonsense examples given throughout the thread (e.g. here).

(By the way, there is nothing sophisticated about philosophy that fails to understand the basic meaning of words and phrases.)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Here you implicitly admit that the theists are correct. The goal is not "sophisticated philosophy," it is simply determining what common language means. Therefore the casual conversation at a dinner party is more insightful than your so-called "sophisticated philosophy" in determining the common meaning of language. Dictionaries are not presupposing that readers engage in "sophisticated philosophy" to understand what is meant.

It's good to see that at least one atheist implicitly admits that the meaning of language in casual conversation does not support the atheist thesis in this thread. But, to be fair, none have carried their sophistry so far as to contradict the commonsense examples given throughout the thread (e.g. here).

(By the way, there is nothing sophisticated about philosophy that fails to understand the basic meaning of words and phrases.)

You still seem to be dismissing without evidence all the people that are challenging you on your definition. People who probably go to dinner parties, people you work with, spouses, etc.

 

[quatona]

It's good to see that at least one atheist implicitly admits that the meaning of language in casual conversation does not support the atheist thesis in this thread.

It´s good to see that you admit it´s an "atheist thesis".

 

[quatona]

Here you implicitly admit that the theists are correct. The goal is not "sophisticated philosophy," it is simply determining what common language means. Therefore the casual conversation at a dinner party is more insightful than your so-called "sophisticated philosophy" in determining the common meaning of language. Dictionaries are not presupposing that readers engage in "sophisticated philosophy" to understand what is meant.

It's good to see that at least one atheist implicitly admits that the meaning of language in casual conversation does not support the atheist thesis in this thread. But, to be fair, none have carried their sophistry so far as to contradict the commonsense examples given throughout the thread (e.g. here).

(By the way, there is nothing sophisticated about philosophy that fails to understand the basic meaning of words and phrases.)

Let´s just say you are absolutely correct; that the meaning of abstract terms is decided at dinner parties; that people at dinner parties don´t understand the difference between "do not believe that..." and "believe that not..."; that consequently I and most every other self-professing atheists have forfeited the right to call ourselves "atheists".

Now what?

(I would love to ask for the definition of "Christianity" on dinner parties, btw., and see how consistent you are in your appeal to this authority.)

 

[zippy2006]

Let´s just say you are absolutely correct; that the meaning of abstract terms is decided at dinner parties; that people at dinner parties don´t understand the difference between "do not believe that..." and "believe that not..."; that consequently I and most every other self-professing atheists have forfeited the right to call ourselves "atheists".

Now what?

Now a misuse of language has been corrected and the thread has accomplished its purpose.

And this isn't theoretical. Dictionaries define words for common usage. Casual conversation at a dinner party is much closer to common usage than sophisticated philosophical musings.

 

[quatona]

Now a misuse of language has been corrected and the thread has accomplished its purpose.

If that´s all, I find your obsession with a single mere word quite odd.

 

[quatona]

It´s also interesting that you keep "misusing" the term yourself all the time.

 

[zippy2006]

If that´s all, I find your obsession with a single mere word quite odd.

"Language is the house of the truth of being" (Heidegger).

 

[RC1970]

And quibbling over semantics seems like a distraction from the purpose of this board anyway. I came here expecting threads regarding arguments for the existence of the Christian god, not arguments that atheists don't "do atheism" correctly...

Identifying your status and understanding what you know verses what you believe is crucial to anything you may want to gain from participating in a forum such as this.

I am a Theist, not because I merely "believe" there is a God, but because I know there is a God. The existence of God, to me, is self-evident. To be a Theist, is to have some degree of certainty.

To be an Atheist would have to be the opposite of being a Theist. It would be more than just a belief that there is no God, instead it would have to have a degree of certainty that there is no God. Otherwise, you would have to say that you are unsure, which is another way of saying I don't know, which would be the same as being agnostic.

 

[quatona]

"Language is the house of the truth of being" (Heidegger).

1. And Heidegger was surely known for defining his terms according to dinnerparty usage.
2. I fail to see how - were I to relabel myself - anything about the "house of the truth of my being" would change. My position, my convictions, my beliefs or lack thereof would still be the same.