Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

Since I conventionally use this word with the meaning "someone who doesn't believe in God", I agree with the other posters.

I suggest you move on from here. There's no point getting stalled in semantics.

For example, you could accept the semantic consensus and go on with this concept of "atheist" or start with a different concept that suits the purpose of your thread.

I think you are right. It was suggested that I use skeptic. I understand the "strict legal interpretation" stance. I just don't buy it. That is not how I think the word is intended to be used. All atheist babies makes no sense to me, other than to support this "out of the box" "no position" position.

Ok, atheist is out and skeptic is in. There should be a survey to determine if there are common traits of skeptics, blah, blah, blah...

 

[ideogram]

I think you are right. It was suggested that I use skeptic. I understand the "strict legal interpretation" stance. I just don't buy it. That is not how I think the word is intended to be used. All atheist babies makes no sense to me, other than to support this "out of the box" "no position" position.

Ok, atheist is out and skeptic is in. There should be a survey to determine if there are common traits of skeptics, blah, blah, blah...

Excellent.

 

[Christian]

I am very confused.

Are you saying a deity is a supernatural entity with a mind?

Why confused? Not my definition, here Wikipedia:

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

 

[ideogram]

Why confused? Not my definition, here Wikipedia:

Well, if you want to use the word "skeptic" instead of "atheist" then I don't need to argue the term "deity" with you.

 

[Fiona]

I would just like to point out that although I am an atheist I do not identify as a sceptic.

 

[Sledge]

I identify myself as a sarcastic atheist. I'm not sure where this fits into Christian's definition.

Oh, and I'm a Transformers fan if he wants another data point.

 

[GeeMack]

Why don't you just pretend you're right and go on with your explanation? You're likely to learn a lot more that way, and a lot faster. Tell us that thing you're keeping a secret until you get the atheists to agree with your description of their positions (because you won't). It may be that you learn your original premise sucks, but you won't have to wait as long to find out.

I think I have found another common trait, atheist like erecting straw men. (My first official, in really bad taste joke.)

Actually I was being totally serious. Your consistent inability to understand what other people are saying is making you look pretty foolish. If you would just pretend you've convinced us that we hold a position which most of us don't seem to hold, and go on to make your point, you can get this whole ugly mess done and over with a lot sooner. As it is you've spent nearly 9 pages now communicating so poorly that most of us barely have any idea what you're trying to say.

You've also been so badly misrepresenting the responses you've received that it's starting to look like it's not just lousy communication, but an intentional effort to be dishonest. People generally don't like liars. And atheists, being a subset of people, probably dislike liars at a similar proportion to the general population.

So what's your point?

 

[Christian]

But your criteria are not "objective", you've got a bias built in because your working definition of "atheist" isn't the one that atheists themselves use.

It would be like defining "apples" to be "red fruit", examining a bunch of apples, tossing anything that was green, and then concluding that apples are red.

Ah, since we are talking about the definition of a word in a discussion where you are a party, you don't hold an objective criteria. For an objetive criteria we would need an independ third party who will give us an authentic interpretion and definition of the word. Your definition is simplistic, to say the least and it support your view point. That many hold the same view, does not make it so (you know the fallacy, right?) or more objetive. I have given two independent source that agree with how I use the word. You have rejected both.

 

[Dani]

Meanings are conventions, not truths. Whenever I have a semantic disagreement, I change the word for the meaning I want to give to it, and problem solved.

 

[Christian]

Actually I was being totally serious. Your consistent inability to understand what other people are saying is making you look pretty foolish. If you would just pretend you've convinced us that we hold a position which most of us don't seem to hold, and go on to make your point, you can get this whole ugly mess done and over with a lot sooner. As it is you've spent nearly 9 pages now communicating so poorly that most of us barely have any idea what you're trying to say.

You've also been so badly misrepresenting the responses you've received that it's starting to look like it's not just lousy communication, but an intentional effort to be dishonest. People generally don't like liars. And atheists, being a subset of people, probably dislike liars at a similar proportion to the general population.

So what's your point?

So, in order to be smart and truthful, I have to agree with you? Are you attacking the arguments or me? Calling me dishonest, a liar, and threatning me with "people won't like you" contributes to the discussion?

 

[ideogram]

Well, I don't believe words have objective definitions. And, I believe words have emotional connotations beyond their dictionary definitions. So I think using the word "atheist" is a good way to start an argument. "Skeptic" is more emotionally neutral.

 

[Christian]

Meanings are conventions, not truths. Whenever I have a semantic disagreement, I change the word for the meaning I want to give to it, and problem solved.

Not for members of this group.

 

[Beth]

I would argue that most children who are told that those things aren't real don't believe it. This reminds of the story of why Disney had to include the magic dust so that Peter Pan could fly.

I am reminded of an episode when my daughter was very young. An overnight stay with an older cousin had left her very afraid of ghosts. Telling her there were no ghosts did not comfort her or allow her to go to sleep easily at night. Spraying her curtains with magical ghost repellent did. She outgrew it, of course, but there was period when she could not be talked out of her belief in ghosts.

Christian, if I may, I think I understand what you getting out and will respond to a few questions for you. Please correct me if I am not answering them in line with your thinking.

No, not really. I am beginning to think your signature is very apt. I think it possible you are not capable of understanding, I did not conclude there is no god from weighing the evidence: it was my default position and nothing has happened to make me change it.

I think that you have indeed met his definition. It doesn't matter what default state you started with. Your current state is due to your giving the matter some thought and coming to a conclusion.

I don't think that Christian wishes to include children too young to have given the matter any thought. I think that he would be perfectly happy to include children who have thought it over and come to a conclusion.

That is more or less in line with my thinking on the matter anyway.

But your criteria are not "objective", you've got a bias built in because your working definition of "atheist" isn't the one that atheists themselves use.

Objective only means that the delineation between who is or is not in the group is not very fuzzy. Objective measurements can be biased, it's not an either/or situation.

Let's try this from another direction. Christian, the word "atheist" simply means "someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods." Why do you feel the need to add anything to this defintion?

I think he does not find that definition useful in terms of his hypothesis. It is too inclusive. I think he does not want to include agnostics (in the uncertain sense) or children too young to have given the matter any consideration in his classification of atheist.

It might be wise for him to alter his hypothesis to reflect that. It sounds like perhaps he didn't realize he needed to add an adjective to get the proper translation for his thoughts.

 

[Christian]

Well, I don't believe words have objective definitions. And, I believe words have emotional connotations beyond their dictionary definitions. So I think using the word "atheist" is a good way to start an argument. "Skeptic" is more emotionally neutral.

I get this completely but it defeats the purpose of a good survey. Skeptic is so vague that it creates a bigger problem.

 

[Christian]

I am reminded of an episode when my daughter was very young. An overnight stay with an older cousin had left her very afraid of ghosts. Telling her there were no ghosts did not comfort her or allow her to go to sleep easily at night. Spraying her curtains with magical ghost repellent did. She outgrew it, of course, but there was period when she could not be talked out of her belief in ghosts.

Christian, if I may, I think I understand what you getting out and will respond to a few questions for you. Please correct me if I am not answering them in line with your thinking.



I think that you have indeed met his definition. It doesn't matter what default state you started with. Your current state is due to your giving the matter some thought and coming to a conclusion.

I don't think that Christian wishes to include children too young to have given the matter any thought. I think that he would be perfectly happy to include children who have thought it over and come to a conclusion.

That is more or less in line with my thinking on the matter anyway.



Objective only means that the delineation between who is or is not in the group is not very fuzzy. Objective measurements can be biased, it's not an either/or situation.



I think he does not find that definition useful in terms of his hypothesis. It is too inclusive. I think he does not want to include agnostics (in the uncertain sense) or children too young to have given the matter any consideration in his classification of atheist.

It might be wise for him to alter his hypothesis to reflect that. It sounds like perhaps he didn't realize he needed to add an adjective to get the proper translation for his thoughts.

Thank you Beth, I needed someone who is more articulate than I.

 

[Sledge]

Christian, I'mma happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but I'd like you to answer this:

Let's try this from another direction. Christian, the word "atheist" simply means "someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods." Why do you feel the need to add anything to this defintion?

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
You really can't do that, Christian. You assert that in most people this sometimes involves the supernatural: maybe that is so: but you have shown precisely nothing is support of the tacked on assertion that it is based on how their brains operate. You just keep stating it and you have not given any reason at all why I should accept the statement. Instead of doing why not show your working ?

According to Michael Shermer, in an article in The Wall Street Journal,

That is, your culture may dictate which God to believe in, but the belief in a supernatural agent who operates in the world is universal to all cultures because it is hard-wired in the brain. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172233981688208.html

He also says:

A 2007 Pew Forum survey of over 35,000 Americans found the following percentages of belief:

God or a universal spirit 92%

Heaven 74%

Hell 59%

Scripture is word of God 63%

Miracles 79%

So powerful is the belief that there must be something else out there that even 21% of those who identified themselves as atheists and 55% of those who identified themselves as agnostics expressed a belief in God or a universal spirit.

Why do so many people believe in God? Although there is much cultural variation among different religious faiths, all have in common the belief in supernatural agents in the form of God, gods or spirits who have intention and interact with us in the world. Four lines of evidence point to the conclusion that such beliefs are hard-wired into our brains.

Something in support of "the tacked on assertion."

It is my understanding that most supernatural elements are effected by supernatural entities. Humans think like this. The logic, in most cases, is a supernatural event occurs because there is a supernatural entity behind it. The inference system takes what it know from the natural world and uses the same parameters. This is why all deities have minds and these minds act like human minds.

See above. Also, according to Donald E. Brown, in Human Understanding, Human Nature, Human Culture, a "universal of the mind" that tends to support your statement is a belief in myths, legends, and the concept of luck. humiliationstudies.org, then search for donald e brown; then select HBES Japan Tokyo Nov (sorry, I couldn't make the direct link work).

 

[Jeff Corey]

I get that you are making a judgment, an evaluation. You have structured a pros and cons analysis and come to the inequivocal conclusion that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about". That is a profound philosophical statement. You too fit my defintion of an atheist, and very well.

You still don't get it, do you?

 

[Christian]

Christian, I'mma happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but I'd like you to answer this:

Because I need a valid sample size that represents the population and the definition given goes not meet that criteria.

 

[Christian]

You still don't get it, do you?

Apparently not.