RE: Atheism -"no nod," "religion has no validity," either or neither?
February 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2015 at 5:39 pm by wiploc.)
(February 15, 2015 at 5:09 pm)dreamsofpotato Wrote: ... He responds and said he could never be one because atheism says there is absolutely no god
According to the old nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Atheists believe gods do not exist.
Agnostics (everybody else) don't believe either way.
According to the new nomenclature:
Theists believe gods exist.
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.
Most people use the old nomenclature, but the new nomenclature is gaining rapidly. Most self-identified atheists use the new nomenclature.
If you believe there are no gods, you can own the title "atheist" under either system.
But, either way, you don't have to stand still for him telling you that you meant something by the word that you didn't actually mean. You can say, "No, all "atheist" means is that I don't believe gods exist."
Quote: and nothing created the universe.
Atheism doesn't mean this. It's not part of either of the commonly used definitions, or of any other definition I've heard of. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That's all it means.
Quote: I disagreed with that definition and said that I'm pretty sure the only absolute claim that atheism makes is that Religion has no validity,
Atheism doesn't make that claim. I've heard that 25% of reformed Jews are atheists. They aren't non-religious. Buddhism is also an atheist religion (at least according to some sources).
So the only test of whether you are an atheist is whether you believe gods exist.
Quote:... Should i not have argued and accepted his definition of atheism?
No, that's a favorite theist move, creating straw-man definitions of atheism so they can tear them down.
Quote: Was I wrong in my definition?
Yes.
Quote: Does such a claim warrant a correction?
Yes.
Quote: Or were we both splitting hairs?
Trade him places in your head. Suppose he said he is a Christian. And suppose you responded, "That means you worship Mary, and believe baptism doesn't count unless it's by immersion, and you think life was brought to Earth by an alien named 'Kolob.'"
Wouldn't he have the right to correct you? Would his correction be just splitting hairs?
Given that misrepresenting what we mean by "atheist" is a favorite theist move, you're pretty much obliged to correct him.
But, if you'd rather avoid an extended discussion of nomenclature, you can parry rather than block. Correct him briefly, but then redirect the conversation so it's about something you want to talk about. Maybe, "No, that's not what atheism is. But let's not talk about terminology; let's talk about whether it makes sense to worship someone who can't defeat iron chariots."
