Ambivalent atheism

Originally posted by Suzianne
Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?

This is something you have asked me before - several times - and each time I answer it, you just ignore it. And then after some passes, you say something along the lines of 'you've never answered the question'... and then when I say I have, but then answer the question again anyway, you just ignore it. And so on and so forth.

Originally posted by FMF
I get the impression JerryH wants to discuss his viewpoint on the definition of "atheist" and this thing about the definition of "the earth" is a kind of preamble.

That I get.

However he has yet to convince me that me giving a 'definition' for 'The Earth' is relevant
to the discussion about the meaning of "the Earth" let alone discussing atheism.

As I expanded on in later posts, I am not sure that it even has 'a definition' in the sense
that he is talking about. It's certainly in a different category from 'atheism' which is a label
for a set of objects, whereas 'The Earth' is the common name of a particular planet.

A closer analogy [not that one is needed] is the word 'planet' which is likewise a label for a
set of objects.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How it is defined varies significantly from person to person and also depending on context. The most common usage has it referring to the body of rock etc. that we live on. Nothing more specific than that.
You on the other hand seem to think that if a meteor from Mars lands on earth the the Earth has changed ever so slightly and we must make a new defini ...[text shortened]... pdate all our dictionaries and anyone who doesn't has the 'wrong' definition.
You are mistaken.

Planets defined as exchanging material. Yes that might be part of the ultimate definition of a planet. We won't need to redefine the earth though, no I don't think that. Mistaken, I still don't think so. View reality very differently than you do, I'm beginning to see that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why?

Probing question. I'm trying to understand how you think. What you consider a definition and how it is formed.

Originally posted by FMF
I get the impression JerryH wants to discuss his viewpoint on the definition of "atheist" and this thing about the definition of "the earth" is a kind of preamble.

Yes I came to this thread to discuss atheism. I'm sorry all this definition discussion is sidetracking it.

Originally posted by JerryH
What you consider a definition and how it is formed.

Try this.
definition
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun: definition; plural noun: definitions
1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Try this.
[b]definition
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun: definition; plural noun: definitions
1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.[/b]

But is this the whole picture? I agreed with 1. never really thinking deeply about it. But 1. isn't all we are doing and provided you agree with googlefudge and twhitehead. You and I diverge radically.

definition🙂
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun: definition; plural noun: definitions
1. a statement of an imperfect approximation of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.[/b]

Originally posted by JerryH
View reality very differently than you do, I'm beginning to see that.

The difference being that I view it for what it is, you do not.
We could do a whole thread on language and what definitions are, what nouns are (a special form of definition) etc.
But ultimately the fact remains that you cannot change an object by changing its name. So the real question here is why you wish to argue the definition of 'atheist'. What is your real goal? Do you wish to assign attributes to those calling themselves 'atheist' that they don't actually have? Do you wish to categorize those calling themselves 'atheist' into different groups than they would wish to categorize themselves into?
I am sure you have a motive and I am sure that you wish to back it up with the false claim that some definitions are 'correct' and others are 'incorrect' rather than admitting your real motivations.

Originally posted by JerryH
But is this the whole picture? I agreed with 1. never really thinking deeply about it. But 1. isn't all we are doing and provided you agree with googlefudge and twhitehead. You and I diverge radically.

[b]definition🙂
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun: definition; plural noun: definitions
1. a statement of an imperfect approximation of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.[/b][/b]

As has been said before the purpose of a definition is to enable communication. Using
a non-standard definition such as yours is pointless and an obstacle to communication.

Is your usage of "statement", "imperfect" and "approximation" similarly non-standard?
How is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about. You may as well speak
a foreign language (which is known to you only). How do you even understand what I
have just typed if each word is open to non-standard interpretation? Your position is
plainly ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The difference being that I view it for what it is, you do not.
We could do a whole thread on language and what definitions are, what nouns are (a special form of definition) etc.
But ultimately the fact remains that you cannot change an object by changing its name. So the real question here is why you wish to argue the definition of 'atheist'. What is ...[text shortened]... efinitions are 'correct' and others are 'incorrect' rather than admitting your real motivations.

I don't believe an object can change by changing it's name. I do believe that definitions can be right and wrong. I don't have an ulterior motive for saying this. I do think the current definition of atheism is wrong and now we are back in the the spirit of the thread 🙂

When taking some future survey on religious belief I don't think I'll choose atheist, even if it's the only choice. Will this make me an ambivalent atheist? I don't think so.

When debating theists I often say something like,"I don't hold a baseless belief and you do blah blah blah".

Now let's say I accept the atheist label because after all I don't hold a belief that God exists. Now when I say,"I don't hold a baseless belief and you do blah blah blah". I may get back, " Oh yes you do. You're an atheist, you believe baselessly that God does not exist". Now I have to retort, " Oh I'm not that kind of atheist, I'm another kind of atheist". In short the current definition is adding confusion. It is even worse than this though.

If theist had simply been defined in the same fashion as atheist then the definition of theist would be: One who does not hold the belief that God does not exist. I would now be a theist? Same loose defining.

Definitions can be changed. The definition of planet has changed. If you want to call the new definition of planet "more useful" instead of "more correct" in this discussion that's fine with me. We need a more useful definition of atheism. Then we won't need the new term ambivalent atheism, at least in my case.

Originally posted by JerryH
I don't believe an object can change by changing it's name. I do believe that definitions can be right and wrong. I don't have an ulterior motive for saying this. I do think the current definition of atheism is wrong and now we are back in the the spirit of the thread 🙂

So you accept that the common usage of the word has a certain meaning but you feel that meaning is 'wrong'?
I think you are confusing 'definition' with 'description of a noun'. ie you are thinking 'atheist' means a specific group of people and that 'the definition of atheist' is therefore a description of that group of people and when you say the definition is wrong, you really mean the group of people in question do not match the description.
This is a misunderstanding of the definition of the word 'definition.

When taking some future survey on religious belief I don't think I'll choose atheist, even if it's the only choice. Will this make me an ambivalent atheist? I don't think so.
Neither do I. I think it will merely reflect your understanding of the word and whether or not you think it fits you.

Now let's say I accept the atheist label because after all I don't hold a belief that God exists. Now when I say,"I don't hold a baseless belief and you do blah blah blah". I may get back, " Oh yes you do. You're an atheist, you believe baselessly that God does not exist". Now I have to retort, " Oh I'm not that kind of atheist, I'm another kind of atheist". In short the current definition is adding confusion. It is even worse than this though.
There is confusion about the definition of atheist. However the confusion is largely created by theists wanting to misuse definitions to make false claims. ie they think that by labelling someone atheist they can therefore make claims about that person (exactly what you wish to avoid).

If theist had simply been defined in the same fashion as atheist then the definition of theist would be: One who does not hold the belief that God does not exist. I would now be a theist?
Obviously, yes. And it wouldn't be wrong.

Same loose defining.
I don't see anything loose about it. It seems very specific to me.

Definitions can be changed.
Which kind of goes against any claim that definitions can be 'right' or 'wrong'. Truth values typically do not change.

We need a more useful definition of atheism.
The current definition of atheism is perfectly useful for some of us and in some instances. If you want new terms that describes you separately from someone who does not believe there is no God, then go right ahead and invent some. Telling everyone else that their terms are 'wrong' will not get you very far and will only lead to greater confusion and not less.

Then we won't need the new term ambivalent atheism, at least in my case.
We obviously do need some way of describing you. Some term is required.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you accept that the common usage of the word has a certain meaning but you feel that meaning is 'wrong'?
I think you are confusing 'definition' with 'description of a noun'. ie you are thinking 'atheist' means a specific group of people and that 'the definition of atheist' is therefore a description of that group of people and when you say the definit ...[text shortened]... t least in my case.
We obviously do need some way of describing you. Some term is required.[/b]

No I don't think I'm confused. I believe in an ultimate definition or truth. I believe the term definition that we are using is really an imperfect approximation of that truth. I believe that ultimate truth is reached, if it can be by us, as a consequence of reality and logic. I believe that when a definition like that of atheism can be contradicted with the creation of a definition of theism with equivalent logic, ultimate truth has not been reached.

Originally posted by JerryH
No I don't think I'm confused. I believe in an ultimate definition or truth.

You are confused about what the word 'definition' means. You have the wrong definition of definition 🙂

Yes, I know I am contradicting myself above, and deliberately so. Definitions can, as I have said before have common usage and you are using the word in a non-standard way and thus failing to communicate. Your usage is not inherently false or wrong, but it is leading to obvious confusion.

Let me try and explain the common usage of the word:
A definition is an explanation of what a word means. When you give a definition for word x as y, you are saying that when you use word x in future, what you will mean is y. If I define planets as all bodies larger than a given radius and orbiting a star, then some bodies will fit this definition and some will not. When I say 'planet' you will no what I am referring to. If I change the definition, I will change what I am referring to and the bodies that match that definition may change. But at no point will my definition be true or false the only question is whether or not it matches a given body.

You on the other hand are confusing it with the word 'description' which is as follows:
When I give a description of a noun x as y, I am saying that all x's have the properties y. So for example if I describe the earth as flat, I am stating that an object named Earth is flat. If the earth is not flat my description is wrong. If on the other hand I defined the Earth as flat, then the body of rock you are currently standing on, would not be the Earth. But my definition would not be wrong. It would just be non-standard and likely to lead to confusion.

Originally posted by sonship

In John 8:31-34, Jesus clearly states that His true disciples, will know the TRUTH, will no longer commit sin, and will "live in the house forever". Those who continue to commit sin will not "live in the house forever".

This exegesis seems to be designed to rationalize some things:

1.) It makes it impossible that ToO the rationali ...[text shortened]... s. And anyone believing he is a disciple of Jesus can only be disqualified on general principle.

Up for sonship.

I responded to this post on page 3.

In case you didn't see it amongst all the on-topic flotsam.

Originally posted by JerryH
I do believe that definitions can be right and wrong.

Definitions can be impractical, non-standard, illogical but wrong?
I don't think so.
You yourself are redefining atheist.
Did someone give you special powers to do this? Of course not.

But those of us that speak a common language need common, shared definitions -
otherwise we cannot communicate. Now definitions do subtly change over time but
unilaterally changing a definition leads to confusion and pointless debate ... like this. 😛