Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[ideogram]

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

Okay. You have a category in mind that you wish to study. Conventionally, you believe the word for this category is "atheist". Now we've established that this word is emotionally loaded and using a survey to find people who self-identify with this label is not going to match the category you have in mind. You've decided to move on to skeptic. This word is not emotionally loaded but few people self-identify with this label. Maybe you can suggest a better methodology to identify people in the category you wish to study?

 

[Sledge]

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

So you're going to change what a word means because otherwise your hypothesis doesn't work. You really don't understand this "science" thing, do you?

 

[Christian]

According to Michael Shermer, in an article in The Wall Street Journal,He also says:Something in support of "the tacked on assertion."

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).

I have read lots of material that support this idea but no one here seem to be aware of it. Thanks.

 

[GeeMack]

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?

Your arguments have pretty much consisted of telling people they are wrong about their positions, even after they've made concerted efforts to explain them to you clearly and articulately. That's rude and it's dishonest. And if you've been trying to make any other sort of argument, you've failed miserably. That's why I've asked you a couple times now to get directly to what you're trying to say. But instead of making your point, it seems you'd rather just complain and whine about not making your point.

So what's your point?

 

[Jeff Corey]

According to Michael Shermer, in an article in The Wall Street Journal,He also says:Something in support of "the tacked on assertion."

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).

What if those people don't know this, but are just asserting it. Show me some proof. Shermer is not a scientist. He gave up after getting a Master's in psychology and trouped off to to Philosophy Camp.

 

[Dani]

It looks like there's not a great consensus over the meaning of "atheist" in English. I suggest you start with something like "atheists who think there's no deity".

It's accurately informative for the people who don't agree with the meaning, and from your point of view it's redundant, but still accurate.

 

[Christian]

So you're going to change what a word means because otherwise your hypothesis doesn't work. You really don't understand this "science" thing, do you?

Ok, I'll bite. Why should I accept your definition? Why is your definition better than mine? Cause everybody here agrees with you? Because your intellectual superiority makes it so? Explain this to me Sledge?

 

[Fiona]

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.

No it isn't. That is what I am trying to explain. I started out atheist. I did give religions some thought at one point, because it is important in understanding people and the world. To me it is self evident that we cannot answer the question "does god exist?" It is, to me, a profoundly stupid question. The interest I have is in how people manage to convince themselves that it matters: and indeed matters enough to be nasty to each other over. I have never seen anything which would suggest that it is anything other than an interesting set of speculations for a wet afternoon

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 lets kids in and me out. And if you exclude me from the definition of atheist you have missed quite a lot of us

 

[Jeff Corey]

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

It's either "those criteria" or "that criterion".
You still don't get anything. Give it up. Take a hike. Play in another sandbox.

 

[Christian]

Okay. You have a category in mind that you wish to study. Conventionally, you believe the word for this category is "atheist". Now we've established that this word is emotionally loaded and using a survey to find people who self-identify with this label is not going to match the category you have in mind. You've decided to move on to skeptic. This word is not emotionally loaded but few people self-identify with this label. Maybe you can suggest a better methodology to identify people in the category you wish to study?

It is a double-blinded test. So I would use atheists, but they don't know it. So the emotional component is eliminated.

 

[ideogram]

It is a double-blinded test. So I would use atheists, but they don't know it. So the emotional component is eliminated.

I guess I don't understand how you are going to select the subjects for your study.

 

[Fiona]

I have read lots of material that support this idea but no one here seem to be aware of it. Thanks.

I am perfectly well aware of it: but the fact that I exist refutes it: it is not a "universal of the mind" so far as I can see: if you lived in the more secular parts of europe I doubt you could even entertain that thought

 

[Sledge]

Ok, I'll bite. Why should I accept your definition? Why is your definition better than mine? Cause everybody here agrees with you? Because your intellectual superiority makes it so? Explain this to me Sledge?

Because that's what the word means.

 

[Christian]

Your arguments have pretty much consisted of telling people they are wrong about their positions, even after they've made concerted efforts to explain them to you clearly and articulately. That's rude and it's dishonest. And if you've been trying to make any other sort of argument, you've failed miserably. That's why I've asked you a couple times now to get directly to what you're trying to say. But instead of making your point, it seems you'd rather just complain and whine about not making your point.

So what's your point?

And I will do it again. You are wrong. You see. I'm not attacking you. I'm simply stating that what you are saying is wrong. That's not rude or dishonet. That is my assessment of what you are saying. And that is proper protocol in a discussion. Then I tell you why you are wrong or show you evidence why you are wrong. If you read the whole thread you will see that some posters understand exactly what I want to convey and I have acknowledge that. Most posters have not agreed with me but have understood my position.

I have made my point, not once but many times, please read the thread.

 

[Christian]

Because that's what the word means.

By who's authority Sledge? Tell me please? Who is imposing this definition?

 

[Sledge]

Atheists, Christian. If you bothered paying attention to what THE ATHEISTS YOU CLAIM TO BE TALKING TO said, you'd know that.

 

[Christian]

I am perfectly well aware of it: but the fact that I exist refutes it: it is not a "universal of the mind" so far as I can see: if you lived in the more secular parts of europe I doubt you could even entertain that thought

The fact that you exists refutes it? I don't understand how?

 

[Fiona]

It is what the word means, Christian.

From OED

Atheist : 1. one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god

Atheism: Without god, denying god. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of god

Strong and weak, you see?

 

[Fiona]

The fact that you exists refutes it? I don't understand how?

No, I don't suppose you do

 

[Christian]

Atheists, Christian. If you bothered paying attention to what THE ATHEISTS YOU CLAIM TO BE TALKING TO said, you'd know that.

Oh, you mean the people contributing in this thread? The same people who are debating me on the very definition of the word? Then, I don't accept their authority. I will stick with the Britannica definition.