quadraginta
Becoming Beth
"5 stupid things about atheists"
- Thread starter pharphis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism steve shives
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
I think they feel they have a steak in it.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Cud be.
They want to commission an advertising campaign depicting vegetation telling people to eat more cows and chickens and fish.
But it seems that all advertising agents are vegetarians.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
The problem is that he's taking one meaning and saying that it is the only possible interpretation, and then No True Scotsmanning anybody who disagrees with that out of consideration. Going by your link, I'd say that the second definition of it being a state of being is equally valid.
If Wiki links are considered good evidence, then how about this one?
Reasonable, no?
Here is a very vivid proof of how the above highlighted two definitions of Atheism are being used in the archaic times of so far back in history as 2005.
In this documentary video (great and should be watched) about the Dover court case against ID we have one of the teachers who brought the case against the school board being called a "damned atheist" him and his family DESPPITE him and his family being active Christians and active church members.
Clearly this archaic usage is so old that it was only used in the dark ages of the long bygone annals of history of as far back as 2005 to mean exactly what it says in the dictionary.
Watch the minutes indicated below to see how much challenge is being done and how it is being done wherever and whenever and however possible.
- 1:26:30 to 1:28:00 Showing how to use word chicanery to obfuscate and obscure the real intentions.
- 1:46:10 to 1:47:00 citing what Judge Jones called the breathtaking inanity of the school board's decision... he found that several members had lied to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy … to get creationism inside classrooms and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that… ID is a religious view a mere labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory.
- 1:49:17 to 1:49:45 Judge Jones received DEATH THREATS after the trial and he and his family had to be place under round the clock protection
- 1:50:27 to end The issue is certainly not over. One of the things that we've learned is that the opponents of evolution are persistent and resilient. And they are still out there … history has taught us that there is an enduring dispute and disagreement in the USA as it relates to evolution … by no means did my decision put a capstone on that and that will proceed for generations.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Who claimed Christians, or more generally, the religious, don't use the archaic definition? Oh, that's right, no one.
I believe the claim was that the 2nd definition, in two parts, allows for disbelief in god(s) and belief there a no god(s).
But, it wouldn't be the first time straw man arguments have been made.
I believe the claim was that the 2nd definition, in two parts, allows for disbelief in god(s) and belief there a no god(s).
But, it wouldn't be the first time straw man arguments have been made.
Just as the first two definitions are used by people despite them being invalid (I am assuming you agree on that) .... so is the last definition also invalid if it is being used to IMPLY that atheism is a BELIEF.
The point is that words can have many uses... that does not mean that they are all admissible uses by all people.... you do agree that atheism is not wickedness despite it being a valid dictionary definition and despite it being used by people all the time....right?
You said
I gave you a definition based on the Etymological construction of the word Atheism as A and Theo and ISM which contrasts it to polytheism and monotheism.
Thus showing a LOGICAL progression from poly —> mono —> NONE.
Thus a definition of Atheism that is logical and methodical and based upon the Etymological construction of the word.
You go ahead and respond by giving me the dictionary definition and point to one of the definitions as equally valid. Also you said that you discard the first two because they are "you know archaic".
So I am pointing out to you that despite them being called archaic in the dictionary they are in fact in use all the time and being labeled archaic only means that they are derogatory and abusive.
Moreover, since they are definitions in the dictionary it shows that not all definitions in the dictionary are therefore valid and can be adopted as a good definition for atheism BY ATHEISTS.
I am saying that maybe atheists ought to agree on the LOGICAL and METHODICAL definition derived from the ETYMOLOGICAL construction of the word which means lack of a god ideology.
You said that not all atheists agree on a definition.... I have seen it on this forum and other forums and many other places where atheists repeat time and time again and again that
Atheism is as much of a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Or in my words
Atheism is as much of a belief as not playing sports is exercise or as much as not being alcoholic is addiction or as much as not killing is murder.
Or in my words
Atheism is as much of a belief as not playing sports is exercise or as much as not being alcoholic is addiction or as much as not killing is murder.
But you keep insisting that it is a belief.... oh well... carry on doing that but I am betting that the majority of atheists would disagree with you.
Also I would like to point out that many theists like to keep asserting that atheism is a belief so as to make it appear that therefor atheism is as an irrational position to take as theism.... which it is not!
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I never claimed the archaic definitions are invalid, only that they are... archaic. So, no, I don't agree in any of the different definitions being invalid.
I, an atheist, agree atheism is not wickedness. When I was a Christian, atheism WAS wickedness. It seems obvious that the archaic definition is a religious one.
And I gave you the definition of atheism, and the definition of idealogy (your definition of -ism). To remind you, Atheism includes the doctrine that no god(s) exist, and ideology is a set of doctrine or idea.
Now that we've caught up on the flaws of your argument...
Of course, ignoring the actual DEFINITION of the word Atheism.
Where did I say I discard the first definition? Oh right, I didn't. I said an archaic definition doesn't apply to OUR discussion. Want to pull in religious views, then the archaic definition is in play. Of course, both of us being atheist, and arguing what atheism is, I thought expedient to not worry what archaic religion believes.
Never argued otherwise, but you go right ahead.
Pro Tip: Not every definition of every word applies in every situation.
Could you post the data supporting that atheists have adopted definition 2a but not 2b. Thanks ever so. I embrace 2b, but then you claim anyone that disagrees with you is a faux atheist.
Sure, you go ahead and take charge of that. I would be interested in your progress reports. I'll stick with the definitions published in dictionaries, because those are the generally accepted meanings.
You are an atheist. I am an atheist. We disagree. The fact that this discussion comes up repeatedly demonstrates quite clearly not all atheists agree.
Again the stupid asportist thing, great. I have an active belief there are no gods.
If atheism is ONLY the lack of belief, then rocks are atheist, which renders the definition fairly useless in my opinion. I have considered the arguments and evidence and have arrived at a conclusion, a belief. My atheism is quite different than a rock's atheism.
Why should I care that theists attempt to present a flawed argument? My evidence based belief is quite different from their faith based belief. Why should I shy away from my belief because you fear what a theist might claim? Nonsense.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Edits after my response, so let me address your edits.
My spouse is avidly and aggressively not an alcoholic.
Help me out here:
a Theist believes in god(s);
a 'True' Atheist has no belief in god(s);
What do you propose we call someone who believes there are no god(s)? The dictionary groups these with 'atheist.' How should such as I identify myself? Atheist.
I happen to be an avid not stamp collector.
My spouse is avidly and aggressively not an alcoholic.
So, atheism is a majority rules club now? Theists could out vote us also, but we don't allow their numbers to dictate our beliefs, do we?
Help me out here:
a Theist believes in god(s);
a 'True' Atheist has no belief in god(s);
What do you propose we call someone who believes there are no god(s)? The dictionary groups these with 'atheist.' How should such as I identify myself? Atheist.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
Oh, wow. This takes me back. I used to have a roommate like this. Whenever you got into an argument with him, he'd try to steer it into semantics. Once there, you could safely argue in circles over the definitions of words, accomplishing nothing. The classic semantic argument is "Oh, well, words are only sounds with meaning. People decide what the meaning is, therefore I can legitimately decide that the meaning of the word is this." This is the lexical equivalent of a religious person saying "I don't need evidence. All I need is my faith!" In other words, there's no point in arguing with somebody like that.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
It appears that, while quoting accurately, you are unable to challenge a single statement.
I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking: That we can disagree, yet both be atheist.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Thank you for my laugh for today.
It is reassuring to see that you are aware of that. Someone might take you seriously otherwise.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
If atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in god(s), what is the qualitative difference? Please explain.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
sigh
Much as I love Cracked, they aren't above this stupid, childish clickbait. You know why? Because it works! Look, I clicked on it, too, even though I knew what it was! I had to be sure! If you're actually using something this lame to defend an argument, though, that's pretty sad.
In any case, no matter what you say about the atheist community, that says nothing about the existence of gods. Nothing, zilch, nada. It's like if I tried to use the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church as an argument for atheism. It's a bad argument. But nobody wants to talk about the existence of God, because they're afraid that if they did, they'd see what a thin facade it is. So, instead, we talk about what nasty people those atheists are so that no self-respecting person would ever want to be one. It's character assassination, pure and simple.