Atheist Dictionary Missing the Point?

they do? is this well established? how exactly did you come to acquire this knowledge that "theists think we have to have believed in god, or reject god for some reason, and can't understand, that we simply do not believe, and perhaps never have"?

do you speak for all theists? are you psychic?

moreover, not being a theist yourself, how can you possibly purport to "understand the mindset" of a theist?

ahhh, so it seems--wavering a bit, are we?

and i'm not quite sure what you mean by "convolve."

do you realize how utterly absurd this sounds?

and because you have had this experience with a few theists, you are making these claims on behalf of all theists? fascinating.

whatever.

personally, i find it rather difficult to take you seriously, given the claims you've made above. at the same time, i am quite intrigued.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The wikipedia article on Atheism uses the word 'deities', not 'god' in the singular. Dictionaries that cite atheism being a lack of belief in one god, are falling into the trap of only explaining the term from a narrow cultural viewpoint, and taking the widely held misconceptions about the term into consideration too much.

So, onto polytheism, vs monotheism, I think it's rather arrogant of a monotheist to patronise a polytheist and assert that their collection of gods are not distinct entities, but facets of one, unified god.

OK, in the monotheists case, the dismissal of polytheists' viewpoint is seemingly due to a positive idea about a single god, rather than a lack of belief in individual gods, it's an exclusive viewpoint. But clearly, as you recognise;

The bible hasn't changed. It still says that. God recognising the existence of other gods. So what are we left with? A supposedly inerrant bible, being re-interpreted by the masses for their convenience (perhaps you now see where I develop my dislike for letting masses redefine things), simple terms like 'atheist' being hijacked, and monotheists rejecting polytheists gods without examining the full reasons to do so.

So, to sum up, I don't feel believing in one god is a 'Get out of Jail Free' card for monotheists, when it comes to being accused of some degree of atheism. Sure, some rejection is down to dogma and arrogance, but surely some is down to sheer disbelief. It is this latter part that is most salient.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was the 'sheer disbelief' that was the important part there. That's what atheism is. I know we seem to be going round in circles, but I think we are circling the issue, so let's go with it.

'Apostate' describes someone who has lost faith (but not their unmbrella), so the term 'atheist' needn't encompass those people.

'Anti' would be a better prefix for someone who believes that god does not exist, don't you agree?

 

True, but it is popular,....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

then can you explain to me how exactly i am to take a person seriously who make claims to know the minds of others--seriously, did you read the post to which i was responding? and, at the same time, he claims that these others cannot possibly "understand the mindset" of himself, or these mysterious "atheists" of which he is speaking.

now, ordinarily the sorts of persons who make such, uh, unusual claims would be challenged on this, would they not? i've got to wonder how he keeps the others from knowing his mind, while he can know theirs--tin foil hat perhaps?

so are we supposed to simply tolerate woo woo bullshit on the linguistics subforum?

 

Uh, no. Way simplistic.

The majority of who(m)?

How big a majority does it take? Can it change back and forth from year to year, as the talk radio jockeys find different footholds in the discursive landscape?

A general consensus of the best employers of the language - recognized as the best by that ever-evanescent "majority" - might be right by definition, but not a simple usage count among the population. Not even that majority of the population would agree with you - most people are comfortable with the idea that they and their neighbors sometimes misuse or confuse words consistently, and that using them "correctly" would be better.

And they expect the better speakers to do just that. As the bricklayer said to the college boy: "Four years of schoolin' an' they didn' learn you to talk better'n that? You should get your money back."

Words do change, over long times, but it is also true that people change words - even refine them, make them more useful, in the popular lingo - by deliberate effort and insistence. This discussion about the use of "atheism" is not settled by reference to majority opinion - especially a casual or unconsidered majority opinion, being brought into discussions in which its inconsistencies and inadequacies have substantial effects.

You can't be "part atheist", it's a presence/absence condition. A person with an obsessive interest in one political cause is not "partly apolitical", eh?

 

I agree with Fraggle on this one. The experts should note how people use terms and in this they can be experts, but it is native speakers in general who determine what words mean. Experts can agree in certain contexts - scientists in a given field for example can decide that a certain terms has a certain meaning in relevent contexts. But in general humans in general determine meaning.

If people use a certain word regularly in communication with each other, it is silly for experts to say they are wrong. Because meaning is determined by use in communication. There is no objective means, these are signs.

If we tell the majority, for example, that they are using a word wrong, we are telling them that they are not communicating with others. That is a silly thing to say if they are and effectively.

'But the word doesn't mean that,' the expert objects.

Well, it did in all those instances and it was effectively used in them.

 

Well, I kind of agree with you, and I think we could dispense with the notion that people who believe in one god are partly atheist, if we used the correct name for their belief, which is monotheism. I think we fall into a little trap of assuming theism implies monotheism.

Either way the point is, monotheists probably do not accept the full pantheon for varying reasons, one of which is sheer disbelief, and another which is arrogance.