Definitions (Not a Scictionary)

When the addendum is considered, yes, it's an incredibly biased and inaccurate definition.

Given I an an atheist, I think I should get a say at least.

Yet I know very few atheists that deem the word to effectively mean anti-theist.

Yes, generally atheists use the broad definition, and theists try to stick the latter one onto atheists.

Etymology agrees with the latter only. A-theist. Not-theist. Not anti-theist. It really is that simple.

Not at all. I won't go trying to define what the word 'theist' means, is they leave atheist alone. Leave the definition of the group to those to whom it applies.

Dude, we cannot discuss the sticky, it was locked. But I had a conversation with Skinwalker about the definition of atheism long before that sticky by Cris, and he and I tended to agree. Who the fuck was Cris anyway?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Noone is denying that you should have a say... not that you have, yet, other than to provide opinion on someone else's definition... which is itself rather dismissive and comes across as somewhat arrogant.

Neither does the definition that Cris provided in the Sticky... by saying that it is (as defined there) a reaction to theism it is not putting across the idea of anti-theism as much as that atheism is a conscious position i.e. an atheist is someone who has actually thought about the idea and is taking a position (whether it be one of belief in non-existence or merely non-belief)... thus separating it from the apathetic, the inanimate, those unable to think (e.g. babies).
If you can't read or understand someone else's definition and the implications thereof, how then are we to take your dimissive attitude with any seriousness?

Yet there are many atheists here who would try to insist on the stricter sense - i.e. actual belief in non-existence of God. Or wish to include babies, etc. Some require atheism to have an idea of the concept (God) that you are not having belief in... whereas others say that if you have no concept then you can't have a belief in it, etc.
Is it any wonder that theists often use the term inaccurately when atheists themselves can't always agree on the definition.

If only it was. Furthermore, etymology is rather redundant when it comes to common understanding and usage of words. Yes, we can hark back to the initial meaning of the term... but as stated elsewhere in this thread, the "a-" prefix could - and DID - also refer to those who merely lived as though the Gods did not exist - and did not relate specifically to belief at all. Someone who turned their back on the Gods in which they still believed was referred to as atheist.

How do people know to whom it applies if it is not defined adequately? Words are not owned by those who hold the label... but by those / anyone that uses the label to define either themselves or others.

We can't??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow - so the few posts of this discussion must never have happened?? :shrug:

Right - so two people "tended to agree" and this is enough for you to call all other interpretations "wholly wrong"?

I repeat: it comes across as unduly dismissive and arrogant.

As for who Cris was... why does it matter with regard what was written?
It is enough for you, it seems, to know that he is an atheist.

But in the same vein: who the **** are you, anyway? Who the **** am I, for that matter?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This 'Cris' person made a proclamation about atheism, which does not describe my atheism, and did not offer up the subject for discussion, by locking the thread, and you reckon I sound arrogant?

And Cris is loading the term. Simpy, the etymology means 'not theist'. Atheism does not require rejection, it simply implies a lack of belief.

I read and understood it. It's wrong. I am an atheist, and it does not describe me.

Then feel free to call them anti-theists. Stop raping the word 'atheist'.

Are babies theists? No. What's a good word to describe not being a theist?

Nope. That's loading the term with unnecessary baggage. What word do you use for someone who doesn't believe because they have no knowledge of a certain deity? given most people haven't heard of a lot of previously worshipped deities, how would you describe their position on them?

Show me an atheist who agrees with your definition.

This 'rejection' baggage is a recent addition. Atheists are simply correcting improper use of the word.

I tend to agree, but theism implies a belief in a God, and that could be personal definition, or one from any pantheon,... it doesn't imply the Judeo-Christian God at all, which is where the definition provided by Cris falls flat and breaks it's own nose. Atheists are required to examine and reject ALL deities, before they can be labelled atheist? That's FUCKING absurd.

It was a proclamation without discussion. Cris just made that statement and closed off potential discussion.

Skinwalker was the former moderator of the Religion sub-forum. I don't know who the fuck Cris was.

No, arrogant is Cris telling me what I think, or redefining atheism, so it doesn't apply to me, when I'm an atheist.

If Cris was a caretaker mod, Cris clearly didn't get the job. If Cris wasn't, why is the post enduring?

I'd rather have Cris declare that. I'd like to quiz Cris on their misconceptions too.

I am an atheist. That definition does not describe me. One of us is wrong. Oh wait, no, I'm still an atheist. I guess it's the description then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's get it into perspective... that thread was created on the back of just such discussion. It was the summary (biased or otherwise) of the inputs he had from those that joined the discussion - as stated in that sticky.
Personally I am not sure it is an adequate definition... but my point is twofold:
1. You dismiss it as "wholly wrong" - thus arrogantly implying that you know the one and only correct position on the matter yet failing to accept that both (his and yours - and mine) are just opnions in a confusing water of rather subtle currents.

2. Given that this discussion has been had before, and that noone paid any attention to the outcome the first time (if it even was the first time here, which I doubt), it lends weight to the pointless endeavour of trying to conclude on a single definition that is acceptable to everyone.

Etymology and common meaning... while one would hope they are the same, meanings change.

What about it does not describe you?

He's not defining atheist as "anti-theist". Anti-theist itself is rather a vague term as it, too, covers a broad range. Cris' put forward the idea that to be considered Atheist one must at least have come across theism, and rejected the belief in God. (which others have coined as EXPLICIT atheism). That is it... there need be no other action involved. It is not anti-theism. It is merely a slightly more limiting version of atheism than the one that includes chairs, the wind, babies etc. (which has been coined as IMPLICIT atheism).

According to Cris' view they would be considered ignorant of the matter, and thus neither theist nor atheist.

According to your view, which I am not saying is unreasonable, just that you need to see it as your view and not THE view.

Agnostic atheist, assuming they have some conception of what a "God" usually refers to

Personally I would describe them as agnostic (due to lack of knowledge) and atheist (because they have some conception of what "god" often refers to). Thus Agnostic Atheist.
These people differ to those that have no such conception of ANY god, i.e. have never heard of the term or even have the capacity to understand it - such as babies, rocks, chairs etc.

Cris' view, and according to Wiki, Ernest Nagel, for one.

Meanings can and do change over time.

Cris' definition does not require that you examine and reject ALL deities... it is enough to examine and reject the general concept of god/deity... lack of specifics would merely make you agnostic on the matter of the specific deity in question.

Nope - it was after discussion - and one is quite able to create a thread to discuss it. Heck, Cris' sticky actually suggest one does that!

Appeal to authority??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Get over yourself!
He didn't tell you what to think - he put up a definition for the purpose of trying to do exactly what this thread is trying to see if it is worthwhile or not.

Reread the sticky:

Spot the weakness in your position that he was in any way telling you what to think?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who cares if he was a moderator or not! It is the words that matter - not who posts them!

Then PM him, create a thread for him etc.

Or possibly YOUR description of what an atheist is. Spot the arrogance?
But I still don't see why that definition does not describe you.
Or do you not have a general concept/awareness/understanding of what is meant by "god"?

 

There is the group of people.
A subgroup, included in the group of people, are the theists.
All who are not member of the subgroup theists, they form the subgroup of atheists?
Or the group of people besides the subgroup of theists and the subgroup of atheists also has another subgroup?
(The question refers to dividing the people according to their position towards their belief in God.)

 

It's not arrogance. It's accuracy. Cris narrowed the term. This was unhelpful, and inaccurate. People who he disowned term themselves atheist. THAT makes him arrogant, saying they do not know what they are!

Because I was an atheist when I had no concept of God, and remained an atheist when I was not swayed by other's claims. My position had not changed: I saw no reason or evidence for the Pro position, yet Cris tries to exclude the former, and redefine the latter as quite strong rejection. It's not, it's simply not buying into it. I mean, I don't own a time-share, but that doesn't mean I have strong feelings against them, I simply have not been swayed to the pro position. I am still not in the set of time share owners, same as I am an atheist, not in the set 'theist'.

No I don't. To have that, elements of what others have told me would have had to stick. They haven't. I asked James to define 'God' in that 'Honest theist' thread, so far, the definition is not compelling. All definitions given so far have begged more questions than they answer. I have questions, but no answers. That's not really an understanding, is it?