What is atheism?

[rivrrat]

Subjective meanings are worthless, and the fact that some other dictionaries have other definitions is an example of why those dictionaries are not as credable or authorative as Oxford or Webster.

LMFAO

Yes, of course... since they don't agree with you on this topic.

Whatever Jerry. Atheists know what we believe and do not believe. Sitting there trying to tell us that we believe something we do not isn't going to suddenly change things. Feel free to continue to spout crap, though, if it makes you feel better.

Crap spouter: "This is what an atheist believes"
Atheist: "No, it's not. This is what we believe"
Crap spouter: "No, it's not. This is what my dictionary says, so this MUST be what you believe!"

:roll:

 

[Jerry]

LMFAO

Yes, of course... since they don't agree with you on this topic.

Whatever Jerry. Atheists know what we believe and do not believe. Sitting there trying to tell us that we believe something we do not isn't going to suddenly change things. Feel free to continue to spout crap, though, if it makes you feel better.

Crap spouter: "This is what an atheist believes"
Atheist: "No, it's not. This is what we believe"
Crap spouter: "No, it's not. This is what my dictionary says, so this MUST be what you believe!"

:roll:

It's not your understanding of what you do and do not believe which I call into question, but your understanding of what English words mean.

At least I only misspell them, you flat out use the wrong word

 

[Tucker Case]

This is why we've been arguing about it for a long time.

To touch on a previous conversation, Buddhism is therefore an agnostic religion, not an atheistic religion.

Yes. And I hereby acknowledge that you were, in fact, correct in those arguments since I was using an incorrect definition for atheism.


(yes, even the one where you said I wasn't an atheist)

 

[rivrrat]

It's not your understanding of what you do and do not believe which I call into question, but your understanding of what English words mean.

At least I only misspell them, you flat out use the wrong word

According to the dictionaries/sources that you agree with. Obviously you are incorrect according to just about all atheists and other sources that you don't agree with.

Edit: And you just better make damn sure you've never used and never DO use any of the sources that have definitions about atheism that disagree with you on this topic. You know, since they're 'wrong'. I'll be sure to keep an eye on ya.

 

[Tucker Case]

According to the dictionaries that you agree with. Obviously you are incorrect according to just about all atheists and other dictionaries that you don't agree with.

It a better stance for us to try and get the dictionaries to update the definitions to reflect the subtly different definition that is used by self-described atheists than to argue that people only use the definitions they like.

I'm inclined to use the definitions from authoritative sources for definitions, such as Oxford and Websters instead of colloquial definitions, even if that means I have to acknowledge I've been using a word incorrectly.

I would rather try and argue that Webster's should alter their definition to be more inclusive of the preferred definition used by atheists and reflects the origins of the word ("a-" as in "not" and "-theism" as in a "belief in a deity".) than try and demonize people for using what is considered the correct definition by an authoritative source.

 

[Jerry]

Yes. And I hereby acknowledge that you were, in fact, correct in those arguments since I was using an incorrect definition for atheism.


(yes, even the one where you said I wasn't an atheist)

I won teh internetz today :monkey


...it doesn't happen very often, just let me have my moment :2razz:

 

[Tucker Case]

I won teh internetz today :monkey


...it doesn't happen very often, just let me have my moment :2razz:

You got it. :mrgreen:

 

[rivrrat]

It a better stance for us to try and get the dictionaries to update the definitions to reflect the subtly different definition that is used by self-described atheists than to argue that people only use the definitions they like.

I'm inclined to use the definitions from authoritative sources for definitions, such as Oxford and Websters instead of colloquial definitions, even if that means I have to acknowledge I've been using a word incorrectly.

I would rather try and argue that Webster's should alter their definition to be more inclusive of the preferred definition used by atheists and reflects the origins of the word ("a-" as in "not" and "-theism" as in a "belief in a deity".) than try and demonize people for using what is considered the correct definition by an authoritative source.

Of course they should alter their definitions to reflect the actual meanings today. But, there are plenty of sources that have been deemed reputable on this site as valid sources for information that use BOTH definitions of the word. I just think it's pretty hypocritical for someone to deem a source valid when it agrees with them, and invalid when it doesn't.

 

[Jerry]

According to the dictionaries/sources that you agree with. Obviously you are incorrect according to just about all atheists and other sources that you don't agree with.

Edit: And you just better make damn sure you've never used and never DO use any of the sources that have definitions about atheism that disagree with you on this topic. You know, since they're 'wrong'. I'll be sure to keep an eye on ya.

Personally I'd to see the DP community accept Oxford as the dictionary of choice.

I'm sure OKgranny would support that, as she uses Oxford in her abortion arguments.

 

[rivrrat]

Personally I'd to see the DP community accept Oxford as the dictionary of choice.

Not talking about dictionaries specifically.

 

[Tucker Case]

Of course they should alter their definitions to reflect the actual meanings today. But, there are plenty of sources that have been deemed reputable on this site as valid sources for information that use BOTH definitions of the word. I just think it's pretty hypocritical for someone to deem a source valid when it agrees with them, and invalid when it doesn't.

In this case, I'm actually deeming my own arguments, which I've made dozens of times (ask Jerry, he'll concur on this. It won him teh internetz), as invalid because a source I feel is valid disagrees with my arguments.

That's far form hypocritical.


I didn't realize I had been using the wrong definition until today, when I looked up the words to try and prove your argument correct. Turns out I was wrong this whole time. Sucks, but I can deal with it.

 

[Jerry]

In this case, I'm actually deeming my own arguments, which I've made dozens of times (ask Jerry, he'll concur on this. I twon him teh internetz), as invalid because a source I feel is valid disagrees with my arguments.

That's far form hypocritical.

You can't un-ring a bell.

When Oxford and/or Webster actually do update, I will redress my arguments accordingly.

 

[rivrrat]

In this case, I'm actually deeming my own arguments, which I've made dozens of times (ask Jerry, he'll concur on this. It won him teh internetz), as invalid because a source I feel is valid disagrees with my arguments.

That's far form hypocritical.


I didn't realize I had been using the wrong definition until today, when I looked up the words to try and prove your argument correct. Turns out I was wrong this whole time. Sucks, but I can deal with it.

Talking about Jerry. I've found hundreds of his posts wherein he uses wikipedia as valid source. But yet wikipedia gives both definitions of atheism. Suddenly it's NOT a valid source now that it disagrees with him? So is it a valid source ONLY if it agrees with your position? All I'm saying is, he better never use wikipedia again.

 

[Jerry]

Talking about Jerry. I've found hundreds of his posts wherein he uses wikipedia as valid source. But yet wikipedia gives both definitions of atheism. Suddenly it's NOT a valid source now that it disagrees with him? So is it a valid source ONLY if it agrees with your position? All I'm saying is, he better never use wikipedia again.

Using Wiki is like linking to google: it's when you want to point someone to something but don't care enough about the quality of the current discussion to put effort into it.

That and sometimes I'm just lazy,

 

[rivrrat]

Using Wiki is like linking to google: it's when you want to point someone to something but don't care enough about the quality of the current discussion to put effort into it.

That and sometimes I'm just lazy,

Probably shouldn't use it again, since it's not valid.

 

[AgentM]

LMFAO

Yes, of course... since they don't agree with you on this topic.

Whatever Jerry. Atheists know what we believe and do not believe. Sitting there trying to tell us that we believe something we do not isn't going to suddenly change things. Feel free to continue to spout crap, though, if it makes you feel better.

Crap spouter: "This is what an atheist believes"
Atheist: "No, it's not. This is what we believe"
Crap spouter: "No, it's not. This is what my dictionary says, so this MUST be what you believe!"

:roll:

Yeah, really. I think we know what we believe better than some theists who apparently can't stomach the fact that we actually don't believe in something bigger out there (and get along perfectly fine without belief in a supernatural deity). This seems to be some kind of psychological complex with some people, them being so desperate to define our beliefs (or lack thereof) for us, despite what we tell them time and again. The whole thing reeks of desperation. :roll:

 

[Tucker Case]

Probably shouldn't use it again, since it's not valid.

Saying it is not as authoritative as other sources for certain things doesn't necessarily mean it's universally invalid.

It's pretty obvious that Webster's and Oxford are far more authoritative sources for actual technical definitions than Wiki can be, because wiki often uses colloquial misapplications of the words.

If a more authoritative source for a certain thing disagrees with wiki, it invalidates wiki in that specific instance, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate every wiki article that exists.

Some things from wiki are fairly authoritative, while others are pretty far from accurate.

The general rule of thumb I use when I cite wiki is if the data it presents is corroborated through multiple sources that are more authoritative than wiki, it can be used as valid evidence for a debate.

But if someone presents evidence from an authoritative source which argues against the wiki evidence presented (such as an Encyclopedia Britanica article), that source has primacy over wiki since it is more authoritative.

 

[rivrrat]

Saying it is not as authoritative as other sources for certain things doesn't necessarily mean it's universally invalid.

It's pretty obvious that Webster's and Oxford are far more authoritative sources for actual technical definitions than Wiki can be, because wiki often uses colloquial misapplications of the words.

If a more authoritative source for a certain thing disagrees with wiki, it invalidates wiki in that specific instance, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate every wiki article that exists.

Some things from wiki are fairly authoritative, while others are pretty far from accurate.

The general rule of thumb I use when I cite wiki is if the data it presents is corroborated through multiple sources that are more authoritative than wiki, it can be used as valid evidence for a debate.

But if someone presents evidence from an authoritative source which argues against the wiki evidence presented (such as an Encyclopedia Britanica article), that source has primacy over wiki since it is more authoritative.

And I disagree. If it's invalid when it disagrees with you, then it's invalid when it agrees with you too. Not going to tolerate this picking and choosing bull****.

I also don't want to see this site ever used as a valid source on any religious topics, since it disagrees with what the theists believe that atheists believe and anything that states something different than Oxford must be wrong.

 

[AgentM]

Saying it is not as authoritative as other sources for certain things doesn't necessarily mean it's universally invalid.

It's pretty obvious that Webster's and Oxford are far more authoritative sources for actual technical definitions than Wiki can be, because wiki often uses colloquial misapplications of the words.

If a more authoritative source for a certain thing disagrees with wiki, it invalidates wiki in that specific instance, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate every wiki article that exists.

Some things from wiki are fairly authoritative, while others are pretty far from accurate.

The general rule of thumb I use when I cite wiki is if the data it presents is corroborated through multiple sources that are more authoritative than wiki, it can be used as valid evidence for a debate.

But if someone presents evidence from an authoritative source which argues against the wiki evidence presented (such as an Encyclopedia Britanica article), that source has primacy over wiki since it is more authoritative.

Yeah, Wikipedia is a good source for certain types of things. Typically it's fine for basic facts that can be easily corroborated, it can also be a good source of historical information. The good Wiki articles these days cite research sources for what they claim.

Where Wikipedia can break down is in more disputable areas such as philosophy and religion, where things are more open to interpretation. Even then it can act as a good basic guide, but what it says shouldn't necessarily be taken as gospel (pardon the pun) in these areas.

 

[Tucker Case]

And I disagree. If it's invalid when it disagrees with you, then it's invalid when it agrees with you too. Not going to tolerate this picking and choosing bull****.

Who said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with me?

My comments were about it agreeing or disagreeing with more authoritative sources.

If it agrees with more authoritative sources, it is valid on that issue. If it disagrees with more authoritative sources, it is invalid on that issue.

What I believe myself doesn't even come close to mattering.

In fact, the only one arguing against a source because it disagrees with them here is you, rivrrat.

You are arguing that Webster's and Oxford are wrong, and wiki is right, simply because you agree with wiki.

 

[rivrrat]

You are arguing that Webster's and Oxford are wrong, and wiki is right, simply because you agree with wiki.

No, I am not. I'm arguing that there's more than one valid definition. AND that there are subtle nuances not expressed and/or deliberately left out of the dictionaries some people believe are the most 'authoritative'.

 

[Mach]

I think labeling or categorizing everyone is ridiculous as well as hilarious.

If the backdrop was just a few people trying to communicate information, yes, it would be ridiculous.

But a number of times I have seen, not sure if on this forum or not, the debate was related to laws regarding separation of church and state, or christian apologetics.

Usually some thinly veiled attempt to classify atheism as a religion, i.e. a belief system of some sort, and then make secularism=religious, and this, eliminate secularism from the public square, be it a public display, or a textbook, etc.
Or from the apologetics side, trying to show either the irrationality of both reason AND religion and strike a "truce", or play semantic games in an attempt to show that faith and reason aren't opposites, etc. These phony "battles" are often centered around precise definitions that can turn what doesn't make any actual sense, into some form of Frankestein of a position that's supposed to defend religious belief from atheism, secularism, to erode sep. church state, or to erode various reasoned and philosophical refutations of religious teachings. You know, like the old argument that science is ALSO faith-based, and thus, science is really religion, yada yada.

And on this forum, having religion and philosophy in the same category...just begging for this sort of confrontation over and over. People interested in philosophy end up bashing christian ignorance, christians bash atheists for irreverance, a little of everyone takes a jab at muslims, everyone secretly wants to be Zen Buddhists, and we sing songs and swap revealing pictures of our significant others behind the scenes.

 

[Tucker Case]

No, I am not. I'm arguing that there's more than one valid definition.

Not according to most of the actual dictionaries I can find.

Definitions of atheism - OneLook Dictionary Search

I looked at the first 13 or so, and they all concur with AskOxford and Webster's.

Dictionaries define the parameters that a word is used in a technically correct sense. The other definitions being employed are technically incorrect until the dictionaries acknowledge them as being correct uses of the word. If people employ definitions not found in dictionaries, they are using a false definition.

There may be no consensus among people, but there is amongst dictionaries.

To me, that is definitive proof (pardon the pun) that the word is being used incorrectly.

 

[rivrrat]

Not according to most of the actual dictionaries I can find.

Definitions of atheism - OneLook Dictionary Search

I looked at the first 13 or so, and they all concur with AskOxford and Webster's.

Dictionaries define the parameters that a word is used in a technically correct sense. The other definitions being employed are technically incorrect until the dictionaries acknowledge them as being correct uses of the word. If people employ definitions not found in dictionaries, they are using a false definition.

There may be no consensus among people, but there is amongst dictionaries.

To me, that is definitive proof (pardon the pun) that the word is being used incorrectly.

Uh huh. And did you look up the word 'disbelief' in all of them too?

 

[Ikari]

I've always thought of atheism as the belief there is (unquestionably) no God(s).

I'm agnostic because I'm uncertain what to believe. I am a "show me the money" kind of woman and that doesn't work with belief in God(s) so much. I'm not ruling it out, I just don't know for certain.

gnostic atheism is that, where you make a claim to knowledge. But most atheists don't fall into that realm. I don't believe in any gods, thus I'm atheist. Can gods exist? I guess the same as any other mythological unmeasurable could exist. There's no (can be no) direct proof one way or the other as to absolute measurements of gods. We'll never know for sure. So I guess gods could exist in some form. But I don't believe they do, I've seen no evidence which suggests that they do, nothing that necessitates a god. Therefore, the probability that a god exists seems rather low and until there is some form of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to say that I don't believe in a god. Agnostics pretty much make no claim or either knowledge or belief. To them god existing or not existing is equal probability.