The meaning of 'atheist'

[zippy2006]

1. And Heidegger was surely known for defining his terms according to dinnerparty usage.

He doesn't have to. You interpret philosophers according to philosophical usage and dictionaries according to common usage. Such principles are just basic common sense.

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.

Seeing oneself as an agnostic rather than an atheist will have effects on one's life, beliefs, and approach to religious questions.

 

[quatona]

He doesn't have to.

So neither have I.

Seeing oneself as an agnostic rather than an atheist will have effects on one's life, beliefs, and approach to religious questions.

No, it would be just a change of label due to a change of definition. Everything else would remain the same.
It´s a mere semantics thing.

What, however, I take away from this thread: When you make your statements about atheists, you aren´t talking about me, and you aren´t talking about hardly anyone frequenting this forum. You are probably talking about your dinnerparty buddies, or something.

 

[Chesterton]

The ad hoc mischaracterizations of language in this thread are so blatantly wrong, if I didn't know better I'd think some trolling was going on. Unfortunately, I know you're serious, and I know you revolutionaries would have us tear up our dictionaries.

 

[Chesterton]

...I and most every other self-professing atheists...

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

Says the atheist who labels himself a "seeker". What are you seeking, the remote control?

 

[quatona]

Says the atheist who labels himself a "seeker". What are you seeking, the remote control?

It´s the label CF has given me by default. I don´t care for such labels (I´ll leave that to Zippy).
I don´t think that "seeker" in this context (necessarily) means that you search for a predefined result, btw.
What do you think would be an item to search for (other than the remote control) that would justify giving oneself the label "seeker"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The goal is not "sophisticated philosophy," it is simply determining what common language means.

And in language, common or otherwise, when one says "I don't believe X is true" it doesn't mean the same thing as saying "I believe X is false".

Dictionaries are not presupposing that readers engage in "sophisticated philosophy" to understand what is meant.

And when one says "I don't believe X is true", one is only expressing a position on the claim that X is true. One is NOT making any claims about X being false.

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).

Those examples are wrong.
Again, saying "I don't believe X is true" is not the equivalent of saying "I believe X is false".

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

Says the guy who is hellbend on saying that "disbelief" and "belief" mean the same thing.

 

[KCfromNC]

The goal is not "sophisticated philosophy," it is simply determining what common language means.

By correcting people on what they really should believe based on the labels they give themselves? Come on, that's not even remotely convincing.

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.

Which atheist did that?

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

Does this mean you willing to try to understand what atheists mean when they call themselves atheists?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Why do you feel your beliefs in god(s) define what others must think about the subject?

 

[KCfromNC]

Seeing oneself as an agnostic rather than an atheist will have effects on one's life, beliefs, and approach to religious questions.

I can't imagine accurately labeling what people do or don't believe would change their approach to religious questions. Assuming "accurately labeling" is the goal of this thread, of course.

 

[bhsmte]

I will say again, if one wants to know the meaning and reasoning behind what they call themselves; atheist, agnostic, christian, etc, just ask them.

 

[Chesterton]

What do you think would be an item to search for (other than the remote control) that would justify giving oneself the label "seeker"?

A consciousness behind the universe which has purpose and will. Anything other than that would have to be simply nature, or "how things are", which you could still seek out, but what you find won't make any difference, by definition, because it's just brute nature.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I will say again, if one wants to know the meaning and reasoning behind what they call themselves; atheist, agnostic, christian, etc, just ask them.

I still don't know why this isn't ending the thread right here.

The way people here are defining the word "atheist" is common, widespread, and likely to continue.

It's not meant to be dishonest.

Calling ourselves anything else changes nothing about our lives in any way whatsoever.

So, get used to it.

 

[zippy2006]

By correcting people on what they really should believe based on the labels they give themselves? Come on, that's not even remotely convincing.

We are arguing about what a dictionary definition means. You have explicitly claimed that my interpretation favors a casual dinner conversation, and yours favor sophisticated philosophy. The question that remains is simple: are dictionary definitions more amenable to casual dinner conversations or sophisticated philosophical discussions?

The answer is obvious. The game is up.

Which atheist did that?

You, dear one.

 

[zippy2006]

And in language, common or otherwise, when one says "I don't believe X is true" it doesn't mean the same thing as saying "I believe X is false".

Another self-proclaimed atheist disagrees with you, even apart from KC:

I admit that a god is possible. I don't not believe in God...

He affirms the commonsensical position that to not believe in God is to deny the possibility of God's existence.

Are you of the opinion that my claims here are incorrect:

• I don't believe in unicorns -> I believe unicorns do not exist.
• I don't believe in second chances -> I believe second chances do not exist.
• I don't believe it will rain tomorrow -> I believe it will not rain tomorrow.
• I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl -> I believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl.

Do you really think that when someone says, "I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl," they are not saying anything about the Giants' chances of winning?

How about a poll? :

Q: Do you believe the Giants will win the Superbowl? (yes/no)
​

Do you really think that when someone answers "no" they are not at the same time saying that they believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl?

We shouldn't be arguing about this. It is too obvious.

 

[quatona]

A consciousness behind the universe which has purpose and will. Anything other than that would have to be simply nature, or "how things are", which you could still seek out, but what you find won't make any difference, by definition, because it's just brute nature.

Ok, so I am not seeking what you personally find worth of seeking exclusively.
You may want to notify CF about my misuse of the term, by standards of your personal definition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Another self-proclaimed atheist disagrees with you, even apart from KC:



He affirms the commonsensical position that to not believe in God is to deny the possibility of God's existence.

Are you of the opinion that my claims here are incorrect:


Do you really think that when someone says, "I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl," they are not saying anything about the Giants' chances of winning?

How about a poll? :

Q: Do you believe the Giants will win the Superbowl? (yes/no)
​

Do you really think that when someone answers "no" they are not at the same time saying that they believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl?

For crying out loud............

Let's try another approach.

The claim "I believe X is false" is compatible with the position of "I don't believe X is true".
But it is not implied by it.

Here's the thing: when you answer "yes" to the question "do you believe X?", then you are committing yourself to the claim that X is true.

Whenever you are uncomfortable to commit yourself to such a claim, for whatever reason, then your answer to that question is "no".

The answer "no" or "i don't believe x is true" is essentially synonymous to saying "I am unwilling to commit myself to accepting this claim as true".

That does NOT, in ANY way, imply that you commit yourself to accepting the opposite claim as true. It could be that the opposite claim is a position you hold, but that can NOT be derived from the mere statement that you don't wish to commit yourself to accepting the claim as true. It just does not work that way.


Let me give you another example...

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".

You then ask "do you believe that it is heads?"

In YOUR argument here, the answer to that question would have to be "yes". After all, it's either heads or tails, right? And if you don't accept it as true that it is tails, then that MUST mean that you accept it is heads, ha?

Well, guess again. The answer to the "heads" question is also "no", for the exact same reason as it was "no" to the tails question.


I can't explain it any simpler.

So to summarize:
Just because a claim is compatible with a position on some other claim, doesn't mean that the compatible claim is also implied by the position on the other claim.

We shouldn't be arguing about this. It is too obvious.

On that, I definatly agree. Probably for different reasons though.

 

[KCfromNC]

We are arguing about what a dictionary definition means.

You've said that your preferred redefinition of the word "will have effects on one's life, beliefs, and approach to religious questions". Seems like a weird intention if you're just looking to establish what common usage means. If you have to redefine terms in a way which changes what you think people should believe, maybe you're not doing such a great job of codifying common usage of the words people are using to self-identify.

You have explicitly claimed that my interpretation favors a casual dinner conversation, and yours favor sophisticated philosophy.

Citation needed on the bolded part.

 

[KCfromNC]

Another self-proclaimed atheist disagrees with you, even apart from KC

Where have I disagreed with what he wrote? Please be specific. Alternatively, stop making things up.

 

[KCfromNC]

I still don't know why this isn't ending the thread right here.

I do :

"Seeing oneself as an agnostic rather than an atheist will have effects on one's life, beliefs, and approach to religious questions."

Someone here believes that their crusade to relabel people will change what those people [don't] believe.

 

[zippy2006]

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".

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

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

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.