What is an Atheist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually words are defined whatever way you want to define them. They only take on popular usage when no definition is offered and it is unknown what usage is intended.
When someone says he is an atheist then he means whatever he takes to be the definition. What popular usage has to say, or what other people have to say are irrelevant as the important t ...[text shortened]... ble that there are other people who label themselves atheist but mean something quite different.

Yeah, ok. So instead of calling my cat a cat I'm going to call him, ooooh, let's say... a furfangbrillikillthing. That's fine. Although it does mean that I have to explain what I mean every time I use the word. Which could become a bit of a pain I reckon. So it makes more sense to use the word which everybody else uses - to me anyway. See what I'm getting at? In all seriousness though, popular usage is everything where word definitions are concerned. Gay used to mean happy you know.

Originally posted by mikelom
Buddhists rely upon simple experience of the real world, and scientifically based at that.

Buddhists do not deny the existence of a higher power, but we wait for the proof of it, by physical experience and proven data.

Our philosophy of morale, codes of conduct and socialistic rules of general acceptance, of deeds done, makes for no knowledge of a know ...[text shortened]... pearance of a God, to further implement our path of known goodness as it is practised.

-m.

Nicely put.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Gay used to mean happy you know.

And before that "Gay" meant a decoration or ornament; as in nosegay.

Yes language changes all the time, normally by a slow gradual process, but in
modern times words seem to get hijacked by minority/fanatic groups to distort
what others are trying to say. This is exactly what is happening with "atheism".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
And before that "Gay" meant a decoration or ornament; as in nosegay.

Yes language changes all the time, normally by a slow gradual process, but in
modern times words seem to get hijacked by minority/fanatic groups to distort
what others are trying to say. This is exactly what is happening with "atheism".

Well why fight it? Let Dawkins and his ilk be the atheists and dagnabbit let's just call ourselves agnostic. All that hassle, done and dusted.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's an Amish guy that comes to the Royal Oak Farmers' Market every week. I've bought stuff from him in the past. Afterward, he goes back to his world and I go back to mine. We interact peaceably within those confines, with neither trying to impose anything more upon the other. The fact that he's a religious man who doesn't use electricity affects me not ...[text shortened]... what species loss is to a ecosystem - it weakens its ability to adapt and remain healthy.

I think I visited that place, next to the court house?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well why fight it? Let Dawkins and his ilk be the atheists and dagnabbit let's just call ourselves agnostic. All that hassle, done and dusted.

Because then they will hijack the word agnostic

And then they will hijack the word you use after that.

If we are going to have to keep fighting this battle (and we will) then I am going to
choose where I stand my ground and not let my opponents dictate it.

And the major atheist organisations all seem to agree with this position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because then they will hijack the word agnostic

And then they will hijack the word you use after that.

If we are going to have to keep fighting this battle (and we will) then I am going to
choose where I stand my ground and not let my opponents dictate it.

And the major atheist organisations all seem to agree with this position.

Dang dude, life's too short for fighting about semantics. And what are these atheist organisations you refer to? They sound baaaaad to me. Kinda like religious organisations but with less prayers. They're all just gangs aren't they?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that much of the bad that was/is perpetrated by the whites in South Africa and the Israelis is not being perpetrated by the Amish. But once again, this has more to do with their own restraint or their own lack of power than anything else. It is almost certainly the case that someone who is not Amish cannot got to live in their midst.
Deliberate s ...[text shortened]... them the situations would not have arisen if it wasn't for segregation resulting from religion.

So your solution would be to have everyone assimilated into one homogenous culture to avoid any sort of conflicts whatsoever. It seems the Borg tried that in Star Trek. It didn't go over too well.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Again no.

Agnosticism relates to what you claim to know (or can know)

An agnostic claims not to KNOW if there is a god or not (or sometimes that it can't be known if there is a god or not)

however theism and atheism relates to 'belief' not knowledge.

You can believe that there is a god but not that you know there is one.

In which case you ...[text shortened]... t flat out incorrect to say that to be an atheist you have to disbelieve in gods existence.

Remember, though, that some of us atheists do believe, and claim to know, that the concept 'God', as used by theists, has no extension. It is all sense, no reference. Not all of us are so wishy-washy about our atheism...

Originally posted by mikelom
Buddhists rely upon simple experience of the real world, and scientifically based at that.

Buddhists do not deny the existence of a higher power, but we wait for the proof of it, by physical experience and proven data.

Our philosophy of morale, codes of conduct and socialistic rules of general acceptance, of deeds done, makes for no knowledge of a know pearance of a God, to further implement our path of known goodness as it is practised.

-m.

Buddhism is a false religion along with atheism.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm

Originally posted by bbarr
Remember, though, that some of us atheists do believe, and claim to know, that the concept 'God', as used by theists, has no extension. It is all sense, no reference. Not all of us are so wishy-washy about our atheism...

You think I am wishy-washy about my atheism? .... Wow...
That doesn't generally happen to me... For some reason or other ;-)

I am a strong atheist.... or even a gnostic atheist depending on how you define 'god/s' and 'know'.

However I was discussing the broader atheist movement and what is required to be an atheist.


The minimum is to not have a belief in the existence of god/s... And that describes most atheists.

However this does nothing to restrict go further than that.

I am being inclusive not exclusive.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You think I am wishy-washy about my atheism? .... Wow...
That doesn't generally happen to me... For some reason or other ;-)

I am a strong atheist.... or even a gnostic atheist depending on how you define 'god/s' and 'know'.

However I was discussing the broader atheist movement and what is required to be an atheist.


The minimum is to not hav ...[text shortened]... this does nothing to restrict go further than that.

I am being inclusive not exclusive.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I know you're on the side of truth, goodness and light.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Dang dude, life's too short for fighting about semantics. And what are these atheist organisations you refer to? They sound baaaaad to me. Kinda like religious organisations but with less prayers. They're all just gangs aren't they?

No, nothing like gangs.


Their main aim is to provide support and a social network for people who are not
religious and thus can't/don't participate in church social groups.
AND
To promote positive atheism and debunk a lot of the bad/false PR various religions
organisations have been making up about us for the last few centuries.
AND
To fight for secular societies and governance so that nobody has anybody else's
religious preferences/beliefs imposed upon them.


Providing social networks and support is a pretty unambiguously good thing.

Letting people know that we are not evil amoral monsters who eat babies is also a good thing.

And we are joined by many religious people in wanting a secular society/governance
that allows both freedom of and freedom from religion.


You only have to look at the news (particularly but far from exclusively in the USA) to
see why fighting for that is important right now.




And at least a part of all that is fighting for our right to publicly proclaim who WE are and
not have whatever twisted and distorted lies the religious right impose on us to suit their own ends.


Which is where we get back to the meaning of the label we have correctly adopted.

Originally posted by bbarr
I wasn't referring to you specifically. I know you're on the side of truth, goodness and light.

"I wasn't referring to you specifically. I know you're on the side of truth, goodness and light."

... And Joss Whedon films.... Don't forget the Joss Whedon films.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yeah, ok. So instead of calling my cat a cat I'm going to call him, ooooh, let's say... a furfangbrillikillthing. That's fine. Although it does mean that I have to explain what I mean every time I use the word. Which could become a bit of a pain I reckon. So it makes more sense to use the word which everybody else uses - to me anyway. See what I'm ge ...[text shortened]... r usage is everything where word definitions are concerned. Gay used to mean happy you know.

If I say I had a gay time at the party last night, you may interpret it in multiple ways. But if someone who knows me correctly interprets it as having a happy time, then I don't even need to include a definition. All that really matters is that my intended meaning is understood by my intended audience. Popular usage is not everything. It is important, as it determines how most people will interpret something, but if your audience is not everyone, or you take the time to give a definition, then popular usage may not even come into the picture. Many words have multiple meanings some of which are more popular than others. Context often shows what meaning is intended. When it comes to labels, it is very common for people to have different interpretations of a word. When it comes to labels people give themselves, we should use the definition given by the person who gives the label to themselves. It is ridiculous to deliberately misinterpret someone simply because their intended meaning does not match the popular usage of a word.