'...And I'm an Atheist'

[KichigaiNeko]

just use Adblock this will block all of that annoying ads.
http://adblockplus.org/en/

Interesting...currently trialling Thanks

[Ben Davis]

The amount of bigotry here is staggering; before I started contributing here, I thought that most atheists were just normal people, not the super-assholes you guys have here.

...says the man who continuously tries to assign values to the word 'atheism' so that he can create strawman stereotypes to support accusations of discrimination against and/or persecution of religious people.

What would you guess is the proportion of, say, U.S. or UK atheists feel that way--and by "that way", I mean "that Christians should be violently suppressed / re-educated under threat of violence"?

[CliveStaples]

...says the man who continuously tries to assign values to the word 'atheism' so that he can create strawman stereotypes to support accusations of discrimination against and/or persecution of religious people.

...I don't really know what you're talking about. You think I have some kind of ax to grind with regard to discrimination against religious people, and that to this end I've come up with my definition of 'atheism'?

First, the only reason I even talk about bigotry here is because pretty much since my first post--and I was being polite--I was constantly barraged by people who willfully misconstrued what I was saying and peppered every other response (as in, every response to a quote from my post) with gratuitous insults like "christard". This kind of response is typical, here. I was shocked, since at another debate site I've contributed to for a long time, atheists and theists have far more polite debates.

Second, the definition I use for 'atheism' is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about; if I were to become an atheist, it would be with that definition in mind. I think it's an accurate (atheists are considered 'atheist' under my definition) and useful (gives you a way to compare and contrast properties of belief systems). It certainly wasn't done for some nefarious victim-status argument.

[jonb]

Second, the definition I use for 'atheism' is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about; if I were to become an atheist, it would be with that definition in mind. I think it's an accurate (atheists are considered 'atheist' under my definition) and useful (gives you a way to compare and contrast properties of belief systems). It certainly wasn't done for some nefarious victim-status argument.

What else are you going to define about me? Surely it is the hight of bad manners to ignore how a group of people choose to describe themselves, and as an outsider impose your description on them.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

[CliveStaples]

What else are you going to define about me? Surely it is the hight of bad manners to ignore how a group of people choose to describe themselves, and as an outsider impose your description on them.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

...I'm not defining anything about you. I don't get to define what you mean when you call yourself an "atheist". How can I impose my description on you? That doesn't make any sense.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

CliveStaples Wrote: The amount of bigotry here is staggering; before I started contributing here, I thought that most atheists were just normal people, not the super-assholes you guys have here.

Poor dear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtIHwbguO4

[Ben Davis]

You think I have some kind of ax to grind with regard to discrimination against religious people, and that to this end I've come up with my definition of 'atheism'?

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You do however regularly misdefine atheism by adding value-attributes. This has allowed you, on a number of occasions, to make negative generalisations about 'atheists' and 'atheism'. I've never seen you develop a discussion based on an accurate definition of the value system(s) actually in-play, instead always substitute 'athesim' for whatever value(s) make-up the other person's position thus misrepresent it.

First, the only reason I even talk about bigotry here is because pretty much since my first post... I was constantly barraged...

So your wilful & deliberate midefinitions & misrepresentations have been a defense mechanism? I assume you've heard the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

This kind of response is typical, here... at another debate site... atheists and theists have far more polite debates.

Hardly typical, I've seen many more polite & purposeful discussions than I have impolite & disrupted ones. And to get defensive myself for a moment, I've not seen you put forward any arguments/points which haven't been discussed many times before; given that all it would take is a brief review of the site to understand the common themes and that it's considered good netiquette to familiarise yourself with a site before posting, I don't blame some posters for throwing up their metaphoric arms in disgust and taking their frustrations out on you. I have to say that I don't agree with that approach but I understand it (I sometimes feel that way myself) so I recognise when it happens.

Second, the definition I use for 'atheism' is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about

Well, there's your mistake; you've spent too much time thinking about it. Instead, why don't you try listening to how atheists define themselves or if that becomes too confusing, look up the etymologically accurate definitions of the word. Cogitating & inventing your own definition is the surest way for errant value-attributes to pollute the accuracy of the definition.

...if I were to become an atheist, it would be with that definition in mind

With the amount of different & conflicting values I've seen you attribute to 'atheism', you'd likely never recognise it if you ever became atheistic.

I think it's... useful (gives you a way to compare and contrast properties of belief systems)

Yet here we are again! How many times do you need to be told? Atheism is not a belief system! Atheistic people simply have no theism in their belief/value systems!

Here's something you should practice doing. Any time you find yourself thinking the term 'an atheist', instead substitute it with the term 'non-theist'. It's only a small mental adjustment but many people have told me that it's helped them avoid assignment of erroneous values/assumptions to people's positions.

[downbeatplumb]

I've come up with my definition of 'atheism'?

I have now added to the definition of Christian fucking chickens every tuesday.

How can you as a christian commit this vile act every week?

And don't say you don't I know you do because you are a christian and all christians do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEQcsuXnnnc

[CliveStaples]

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You do however regularly misdefine atheism by adding value-attributes. This has allowed you, on a number of occasions, to make negative generalisations about 'atheists' and 'atheism'. I've never seen you develop a discussion based on an accurate definition of the value system(s) actually in-play, instead always substitute 'athesim' for whatever value(s) make-up the other person's position thus misrepresent it.

What "value-attributes" do I add to atheism?

Here's my definition, by the way (with an explanation of the notation and terms):

DEFINITION 1: A system S is a collection of propositions, along with a system of inference. We'll be using standard logic. If p is a proposition in S, write p ∈ S. If p is a proposition not in S, write p ∉ S.

DEFINITION 2: A system is closed if (p ∈ S and (p ⇒ q ∈ S)) ⇒ q ∈ S.


Example: Suppose that "Jane is in France" ∈ S, and "If Jane is in France, then Jane is in Europe" ∈ S. If S is closed, then "Jane is in Europe" ∈ S.



DEFINITION 3: The closure of a system S, Cl S, is the collection of all p ∈ S together with all propositions entailed by propositions in S.

Proposition 1: By definition of a system, if S is a system then Cl S is itself a system.

Proposition 2: Cl S is clearly closed, by definition of closed.


So here's my definition:

Atheism := {S | S is a system and "At least one god exists" ∉ Cl S}



Now, you claim that this definition adds 'value-attributes' to "atheism". I don't see how that's the case. Can you explain?


Regarding making negative generalizations about 'atheists' and 'atheism', I don't think I do that at all. Yes, there are many bad belief systems included in my definition of 'atheism'. But that doesn't mean that I'm somehow drawing the generalization "atheism is bad", or "atheism makes a belief system worse". I certainly don't draw negative generalizations about atheists. That would be mere prejudice.

So your wilful & deliberate midefinitions & misrepresentations have been a defense mechanism? I assume you've heard the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

I don't "misdefine" anything. I gave a particular definition of 'atheism'; that doesn't mean that my definition is the 'right' one (whatever that means). My definitions is probably not what most people have in mind when they use the term "atheism".

But I'm not equivocating. I've always been very specific in stating that my conclusions about 'atheism' are based on the definition of 'atheism' that I used. And I tried to be as consistent as possible in maintaining the definition throughout the argument.

Hardly typical, I've seen many more polite & purposeful discussions than I have impolite & disrupted ones. And to get defensive myself for a moment, I've not seen you put forward any arguments/points which haven't been discussed many times before; given that all it would take is a brief review of the site to understand the common themes and that it's considered good netiquette to familiarise yourself with a site before posting, I don't blame some posters for throwing up their metaphoric arms in disgust and taking their frustrations out on you. I have to say that I don't agree with that approach but I understand it (I sometimes feel that way myself) so I recognise when it happens.

It is good netiquette to offer relevant arguments and counter-arguments on currently-active threads. If my arguments have been off-topic, then you are right to give reproach. But the arguments I've offered, while not necessarily novel, have been relevant. If people don't want to rehash old arguments, then they don't have to respond.

Well, there's your mistake; you've spent too much time thinking about it. Instead, why don't you try listening to how atheists define themselves or if that becomes too confusing, look up the etymologically accurate definitions of the word. Cogitating & inventing your own definition is the surest way for errant value-attributes to pollute the accuracy of the definition.

I think you've misunderstood. I haven't thought about it in a vacuum. I've had lots of discussions with atheists, and I think my definition is very consistent with what most people mean when they say "atheism". For example, in one of the threads in which my definition was being discussed, I proved that D = "X is atheist <=> X lacks the belief 'at least one god exists" is equivalent to my definition, in the sense that X is D-atheist <=> X is CliveStaples-atheist.

With the amount of different & conflicting values I've seen you attribute to 'atheism', you'd likely never recognise it if you ever became atheistic.

What "different and conflicting values" would those be?

Yet here we are again! How many times do you need to be told? Atheism is not a belief system! Atheistic people simply have no theism in their belief/value systems!

That's precisely the notion that my definition captures.

Here's something you should practice doing. Any time you find yourself thinking the term 'an atheist', instead substitute it with the term 'non-theist'. It's only a small mental adjustment but many people have told me that it's helped them avoid assignment of erroneous values/assumptions to people's positions.

This is literally equivalent to my definition.

---

I have now added to the definition of Christian fucking chickens every tuesday.

How can you as a christian commit this vile act every week?

And don't say you don't I know you do because you are a christian and all christians do.

But how do you know that I'm a "Christian" under your definition? Just because I call myself "Christian" doesn't mean I'm using your definition.

In order for my definition of atheism to be similar to your definition of Christian, you would have to prove that someone is "Christian" (in some commonly-accepted meaning--perhaps 'a follower of Christ', or 'an individual who self-identifies as Christian') if and only if they are a "Christian" under your definition.

Since there are many "Christians" (followers of Christ / individuals who self-identify as Christian) who don't fuck chickens every tuesday, your definition cannot be equivalent to either of those definitions of "Christian".

[Ace Otana]

One thing I should make clear is that, if the definition of atheism was changed where it would state that an atheist was someone who believed there is no god (for example), I would no longer be an atheist. However I'd still lack belief in god, I'd still be a non-believer. Changing the definition of atheism won't change my views, nor now state that I do claim there is no god. It'll simply mean that I'm not an atheist, and that nor am I a theist.

As it stands, atheism means without theism. A lack of belief in god or gods. And so by that definition, I'm an atheist.