The meaning of Atheism.

[Existentialist]

I'm not telling you to conform to a dictionary. I'm telling you that the very purpose of dictionaries is to record what words mean in our language. That way, when we come across and unfamiliar word, instead of inventing a meaning for it, we look to see what the meaning is already (assuming it already has one). These meanings are invented by the people who create the words, and are modified to remove ambiguity. In many cases, the same word may have multiple meanings, all depending on the context the word is in. Dictionaries help us to understand which meaning should apply. It isn't cultural totalitarianism, so you can quit with the hyperbole; it's just a way of making conversation easier to understand. If we let people define their terms on a personal level, then you might be able to hold a conversation with people you are familiar with, but when you meet new people, conversing becomes impossible. If we have standards for what words mean, and we can get people to use those standards, then everyone can converse with everyone else.

That would be entirely valid if you were talking to a class of 8-year-old English pupils in a French class as an introduction to the concept of language. But come on, we're grown ups, we have autonomy. We don't have to play by those rules. (Please, don't let's go down the tangent of comparing me to an 8-year-old, really, there's no need)

I didn't deny that words change, or that you can't figure out what people mean when they use strange definitions, but it isn't helpful if everyone does this.

We are not talking about everyone doing this all the time. We are talking about the need to invent one word for people who believe there is no god, and another word for people who don't believe in god, rather than using the same word. Really, I'm not talking about going around jabbering in total nonsense. Just tweaking a couple of words. What's unhelpful about that?

It only makes conversing harder in the long run.

easier

I'd also point out that your anecdote doesn't show itself as the rule, only something that you have observed withint your own family. I could relate similar anecdotes where words used in a non-standard way are not understood at all, sometimes within families, but very often between subcultures.

True, but if people are determined to understand each other, often they don't need words at all. The willingness to try to understand is the key.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the standard of language didn't exist. People have kept records of what words mean in their heads

"In their heads" Exactly the same definition? Millions of people? Come on, back down - you have arrived at exactly the position I am arguing from. At that time, language would surely have been a far more fluid thing than you are allowing it to be.

longer than dictionaries came around. With the spread of civilisation, it helps to keep track of language; dictionaries made that job easier, and they put the standard by which people spoke into a record that could survive the ages.

Totally disagree. Ideas can only exist in the minds of living people. No meaning about human understanding of ideas can survive the "ages". That's theistic thinking.

By all means, have your own definitions for words. However, in a public forum; in a place where there are multiple people, it is considered *polite* to use words which everyone can relate to...in this case, the standard for the English language, which is neatly recorded in the dictionary. I don't care to learn your personal definitions,

"I don't care to learn your personal definitions," dismissiveness again. This is worrying in someone who is making a plea for others to be *polite* in a public forum. I have "cared" to study your personal definitions - I took some note of the Hayter-Braeloch scale before I rejected it. My personal definitions are considerably less complicated.

or anyone else's on this forum, when it is far easier to just make everyone use the meanings that are set out as a standard. If you don't do that, you are going to find yourself ignored.

Threats will get you nowhere!

By all means debate the logicalities of the concepts; I'm not opposed to that. What I am opposed is to you going around making arguments with words that already have meanings that are accepted by the people here, and using them to make confusing statements like "theism and atheism are not mutually exclusive".

"accepted by the people here" Would that be an appeal to the dictatorship of the majority? No - hyperbole - sorry. We are talking about just a couple of words. I'm even prepared to abandon them - give them up. Why are you so attached to just 2 words?

You still haven't explained how "agnostic atheist" is a tautology / logical impossibility.

Usage.

I said,

Actually, I'm not complaining. I'm putting forward rational alternatives to your point of view. That is ok, isn't it?

Sure...though they are far from rational.

Oh, now, that was cheap. (And incorrect)

"theos" means "God" in Greek; "atheos" means "without God". atheos only carries a particular statement about a person's stance on the existence of God if you apply it to their stance.

er... yes, we're talking about their stance, not their puddings, their cars, their houses, their mountains, their debts... yes, it's their stance that it is being applied to!

Saying someone is "atheos" doesn't automatically make them an atheist.

Well I can't imagine why an english speaker would lapse into greek. I was talking about introducing a couple of new words, not changing english into a foreign language.

Christians would say we have been without God since the fall. Both words carry a particular statement if you apply them to a stance on the existence of God. "theos" meaning God being present, and "atheos" meaning God not being present (in their beliefs).
In English, the words are both the stem of the words theism and atheism respectively. Theism means the belief in God; atheism means the non-belief in God.

Atheism, to me, means the belief that there is no God. I'm sorry, but I think the situation we have come across here is popularly known as "disagreeing". I hope this is ok. Please don't dismiss me! Please don't ignore me! I respect your opinion, Adrian, I just disagree with it. I am sure we can deal with this situation in a mature manner. Well, I'm not sure actually but I think I can anyway.

Why you insist on looking at the stems of words in order to tell something about their usage today is most amusing though, and of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Because I think all words have many influences, popular usage is often related to underlying levels of meaning which are themselves frequently closely related to the word stem. I don't see what's so funny about that.

Please stop.

With your repeated dismissiveness, your threat to ignore me and now a request for me to cease expressing my ideas thinly coated in a gloss of sarcastic politeness I am really getting quite worried about the level of irrational anger that is leaking out through your post at the moment. Don't worry, I'm used to this!

If you want to have a rational discussion, make rational arguments.

Now that is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have made rational arguments. All my arguments have a chain of reasoning backing them up. Your arguments have also been rational, but because our respective reasoning is taking a different course at different times is no excuse for one of us to accuse the other of irrationality. It is the basis of disagreement. A forum should be able to sustain this. It's what it's set up for.

Atheism and Theism have meanings; I've given you the meanings for them.

Your meanings; your opinions. Not the meanings. Or do you really see yourself as a guardian of objective truth on this subject? Will you swear to that on your dictionary?

Now tell me how they are not mutually exclusive (oh, and answer my challenge regarding agnosticism too).

I think atheism is the state of not believing in God. Theism is the following of religion. An atheist can follow a religion. These are my meanings; I see they cause a lot of anger, I am prepared to give them up if we can find alternative words - no, not the same words with a different meaning - different words. We are emerging from a long period of religious domination in our civilisation. The words we have been handed down are inadequate for our needs. We need new ones.

Agnosticism is the state of not having a belief about the existence of God. Therefore a person cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Burn me as a witch if you want.

---

My mistake for including anti-theism there if you didn't get my point correctly.

No, really, it was my mistake that you failed to explain yourself correctly.

---

I hope I don't need a xanax by the time you are done flexing your superior intellect and making me feel immoral with your like totally amazing ethical framework.

Well done on recovering your poise there - and without using a single expletive! Glad you've calmed down, welcome back.