Darkstar

Imagine if there was a citation required for every unsupported claim you made in your post.

Erase the parts that are unsupported. And give me what's left.

Lemonvariable72

Gay is still a colloquial term, not a proper term, like homosexual. If gay people started to say they cannot be called homosexual, you would think they are wrong.
And the original meaning of gay was not denied by homosexuals.

Think about what the problem is exactly- it's not that people cannot invent colloquial terms, like reusing "badass" to mean "awesome." But when people start to claim badass is some sort of proper, formal academically supported definition and the other definition is incorrect, is when you start to have problems.

Clueless Morgan

Like I told Lemonvariable72, radical's change in definition resulted in two acceptable meanings of the word, one colloquial, one proper.

But for atheist, you are saying the colloquial definition "lack of belief" is correct and the proper definition (denial of God) is false.

"Gay" has not replaced the definition so much as simply adding one more definition. The original definition was not revoked.

If you were to accept the formal, proper definition of atheism, you would say "formally I am/am not an atheist, while colloquially you are/are not an atheist."

Do you make such a distinction, or do you assume atheism means only what you colloquially take it to mean? While you might colloquially call yourself an atheist, formally are you an atheist as well?

Optimistic Mysanthrope

To the extent that philology or etymology work, they describe words and language. What they don't do is deal with what the words and language represent.

Since the discussion is about a disagreement not over the origin of words or use of language, both philology and etymology are irrelevant.

Feel free to continue ignoring the rest of my posts for a while, though. Not likely you'll say anything of substance if things were any different.

Ben Davis

Play the citation game with your own post. Erase the parts where you're just making up shit and have no citations to back up your assertions, and post the remaining three or four words that remain.

Mister Agenda

Your angst is duly noted. Have a nice day.

Incidentally, regarding Ben Davis' quote in your post, I had to chuckle that be misspelled Merriam. And I double-chuckled when I saw how Merriam-Webster defined atheism.

What's with all the nit-picking? I'll pick some fucking nits. Firstly, that Stanford definition is fucked up. If theism is a belief in god, then it follows that atheism is without a belief in god. Denying someone's belief in god is a far cry from denying the existence of god. Furthermore, the author uses God, which clearly shows a bias towards a particular, and particularly ill-defined, god.

So if you want to use this broke-assed definition, first you must tell me what Uri means by "God," and then I'll tell you I lack a belief in it.

Vin, seriously: what does all this questioning of definitions actually get you, in terms of the overarching debate here?

(November 29, 2013 at 4:30 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Ben Davis

Play the citation game with your own post. Erase the parts where you're just making up shit and have no citations to back up your assertions, and post the remaining three or four words that remain.

Until you start accepting corrections, I'm not going to waste time with the citations. Let me know when you stop conflating belief & knowledge.

Quote:Incidentally, regarding Ben Davis' quote in your post, I had to chuckle that be misspelled Merriam. And I double-chuckled when I saw how Merriam-Webster defined atheism.

*tuts
Yeah, spelling mistakes really damage my position, don't they. Also:

Merriam-Webster Online Wrote:Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

They still don't list the full etymology: they don't show that the 2 definitions root from different words (theos/atheos) but their current definitions are better than they were.

(November 29, 2013 at 4:30 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Optimistic Mysanthrope

To the extent that philology or etymology work, they describe words and language. What they don't do is deal with what the words and language represent.

Since the discussion is about a disagreement not over the origin of words or use of language, both philology and etymology are irrelevant.

Really? I thought the discussion was about the correct use of the word "Atheism". Silly me.

Dictionary Wrote:phi·los·o·phy noun \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\
: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

What's that? Nothing about the definition of words? That's strange, the dictionary seems to think you're full of shit.

Quote:Feel free to continue ignoring the rest of my posts for a while, though. Not likely you'll say find anything of substance if things were any different.

*Fixed that for you

houseofcantor
Theism and atheism are not merely about "belief" in God, because then theism and atheism are essentially about whether someone practices a religious faith or not, rather than about whether a deity does or doesn't exist. If we're talking to atheists about their "belief" in God rather than "the existence of" God then the conversation ends quickly- there is no belief, end of story. But this "lack of belief" extends not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists, some broad pantheists, some Buddhists and even some nominally religious people. Ie, someone can be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheist.

That should tip you off that houseofcantor's reasoning has gone off the deep end. But wait, there's more! Not only does houseofcantor's reasoning allow for the silliness that is fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheists, but it also voids a well-accepted term already in use that already does the job houseofcantor wants atheism to do. That term is "irreligious." The irreligious do not have any beliefs in Gods, whether or not they believe such deities exist.

So not only is your attempt a necessary precursor to much silliness, but it also requires a wholesale readjustment of well-established norms of the English language, like an atheist miracle whereby you steal the meaning of irreligious and apply it to atheism without anyone noticing.

One is forced to ask why you are so desperate to relabel atheism? What's the real reason you're so desperate to make such silly arguments to preserve your ridiculous redefinition?

Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg

Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.

I wouldn't say atheists are winning, because there really are some kooky theists I've talked to. But it looks pretty close if we're going by this forum.

Ben Davis
Imagine if Deepak Chopra tried to correct you. Would you accept what he says, or ask him to provide citations? Now imagine you are saying something as kooky as Deepak Chopra, trying to convince me that words mean what you declare that they mean.

PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Optimistic Mysanthrope

Yes, silly you.

(November 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: houseofcantor
Theism and atheism are not merely about "belief" in God, because then theism and atheism are essentially about whether someone practices a religious faith or not, rather than about whether a deity does or doesn't exist. If we're talking to atheists about their "belief" in God rather than "the existence of" God then the conversation ends quickly- there is no belief, end of story. But this "lack of belief" extends not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists, some broad pantheists, some Buddhists and even some nominally religious people. Ie, someone can be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheist.

That should tip you off that houseofcantor's reasoning has gone off the deep end. But wait, there's more! Not only does houseofcantor's reasoning allow for the silliness that is fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheists, but it also voids a well-accepted term already in use that already does the job houseofcantor wants atheism to do. That term is "irreligious." The irreligious do not have any beliefs in Gods, whether or not they believe such deities exist.

So not only is your attempt a necessary precursor to much silliness, but it also requires a wholesale readjustment of well-established norms of the English language, like an atheist miracle whereby you steal the meaning of irreligious and apply it to atheism without anyone noticing.

One is forced to ask why you are so desperate to relabel atheism? What's the real reason you're so desperate to make such silly arguments to preserve your ridiculous redefinition?

Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg

Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.

I wouldn't say atheists are winning, because there really are some kooky theists I've talked to. But it looks pretty close if we're going by this forum.

Ben Davis
Imagine if Deepak Chopra tried to correct you. Would you accept what he says, or ask him to provide citations? Now imagine you are saying something as kooky as Deepak Chopra, trying to convince me that words mean what you declare that they mean.

PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Optimistic Mysanthrope

Yes, silly you.

And why can't you let athiests use the term the way they prefer to define it?

Presumably it's for the same reason that we don't let creationists define science the way they prefer. Otherwise you might as well just through the dictionary in the bin.

Vincenzo "Vinny" G. le. Ie, someone can
PS-
' Wrote: athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Optimistic Mysanthrope

Yes, silly you.

The Ancient Romans coined the term 'atheism' to define Christians because they didn't worship the Roman deities.

Looks like you need to have a talk with the ancient Romans. According to them, you are misusing the term.

Yes, silly you.

By the way, Noah Webster was an Evangelical Christian. In the preface of his original editions he wrote,

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. "


If you find an old edition of Webster's dictionary, atheism is defined as 'Godlessness'.

So, after you take it up with the Romans, you can have a word with Webster himself.

Why do you insist on using incorrect definitions, Vinny?

(November 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866

athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery

Nice falacy those merriam guys have there....

How about we ask some other team?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...?q=atheist

Oxford Dictionaries Wrote:a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...?q=atheist

Cambridge Dictionary Wrote:someone who believes that God does not exist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

dictionary.com Wrote:a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[...]
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/atheist

Word Reference Wrote:a person who does not believe in God or gods adj of or relating to atheists or atheism

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...olicy=true

Collins Wrote:a person who does not believe in God or gods

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dicti...sh/atheist

MacMillan Wrote:someone who believes that God does not exist

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.as...ne=atheist

hyper Wrote:someone who denies the existence of god

http://www.babylon.com/define/40/online-...onary.html

babylon Wrote:one who believes that God does not exist

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/atheism

Longman Wrote:someone who does not believe in God : atheist

################
Well, it seems that all the dictionaries that state that an atheist is "someone who believes that god does not exist" Have been copying each other, given that the wording is always the same... Which is something that doesn't happen for the others... odd, don't you think?

Let's drop the dictionary, and look at... etymology!
Not many etymology dictionaries around....

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allo...hmode=none

etymonline Wrote:1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

http://wordinfo.info/searches/results/atheist

wordinfo Wrote:1. Someone who does not believe in a God or gods or who denies the existence of a God, gods, or deities: "An atheist believes there is no God while an agnostic believes human beings can never know whether there is a God or not."
2. A person who denies, or disbelieves, that there is a supreme being or beings: "John's friend, who is an atheist, enjoys having long philosophical discussions with the archbishop of the local church."
3. A disbeliever, an unbeliever, a nonbeliever, a denier of God's existence, a godless person: "Laura believes in the existence of God, but her brother is an atheist."
4. Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-), "without, no" + theos), "god".

#################

So, what is it?
Which dictionary is right?
Why do most atheists (the ones on this site, on other sites and those who've written a few books on the subject) claim that it means someone who does not believe in the existence of any god?
Why, based on the definition from the previous question, does it look like Merriam and others have a bias?