An Interesting Conversation About Atheism W/other Atheists

[miekko]

As for florduh's etymological fallacy, he's also got a pure etymological error in there. "A-" did not originally mean anything like "not a", it meant "without". Thus, an atheist - if we're to use etymological arguments, would be someone who is 'without a god'. Originally, "atheism" did indeed refer to the belief that no gods exist, rather than the lack of a belief in god's existence. 

 

Sorry, florduh, you were wrong and I hope you're man enough to admit it.

[RankStranger]

I'm the only True Atheist™ here. The rest of you are pretenders who are gonna be surprised to find yourselves in heaven when u die.

[florduh]

atheist (n.)  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://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

 

As for florduh's etymological fallacy, he's also got a pure etymological error in there. "A-" did not originally mean anything like "not a", it meant "without". Thus, an atheist - if we're to use etymological arguments, would be someone who is 'without a god'. Originally, "atheism" did indeed refer to the belief that no gods exist, rather than the lack of a belief in god's existence. 

 

Sorry, florduh, you were wrong and I hope you're man enough to admit it.

 

Fine. I'm just weary of people ignoring common definitions to further their agenda. Christians in particular do this, though they aren't the only ones. 

 

An atheist is not a theist, and is therefore without gods. One may add to that to suit their religious needs, but one cannot take away from it because that is its simplest form.

 

Theists are trying to redefine the word "atheist" to mean more than it actually does. Few will nitpick the language for its own sake, but many do so for political advantage. Some will try to make a case that an atheist, by definition, has rejected or is in rebellion against God, thus implying that the god exists axiomatically. Language is a tool and a weapon as well. 

 

I'll admit I'm wrong, for I couldn't bear being thought of as less of a man!

[miekko]

My actual main point about it is that etymological fallacies are the worst kind of fallacy, because they sneak up on unsuspecting, clever people and make them draw wrong conclusions too. I want there to be a huge campaign among reasonable people to recognize how it's a problematic fallacy that often misleads us because it's too little spoken about.

[RogueScholar]

 

I too have had the same discussion with people. Many have said that I am in fact agnostic because I do not claim to "know" that there is no god, but rather that I do not know, but without evidence I cannot believe. Some also call this weak atheism where strong atheism is making a knowledge claim. I consider my self agnostic when it comes to having knowledge, but atheist because I cannot believe without knowledge/evidence. For example, I do not know there is a pop tart under my bed, but I cannot believe there is a pop tart under my bed until I have evidence to support such a claim. It seems to me that strong atheism goes beyond that and makes a claim of knowledge. This IMHO shifts the burden upon the one making the claim. Rather, I default to the null until evidence is presented (evidence that can actually be verified, and potentially falsified because it makes real predictions).

 

At the end of the day that this whole agnostic/atheist debate really seems to hinge on the interpretational bias of certain language and words, but the general "sprit" of what is meant seems fairly consistent between both schools of thought. Although, I have heard some people like to assign probabilities and such, but I cannot do this without having evidence that can be looked at through our statistical methods to produce said probabilities.

[Guest MadameX]

I'm the only True Atheist here. The rest of you are pretenders who are gonna be surprised to find yourselves in heaven when u die.

[mymistake]

Sorry, florduh, you were wrong and I hope you're man enough to admit it.

 

That was so very academic of you.

[miekko]

 

Sorry, florduh, you were wrong and I hope you're man enough to admit it.

 

That was so very academic of you.

 

Do notice that I am being an asshole about this exactly because too many otherwise very clever people draw unjustified conclusions from misunderstandings about how language works. Someone has to put the foot down and start educating people.

 

Often, people like florduh rather justifiedly think they're probably right about a lot of things, and thus won't listen even when they're caught being flat out wrong. The only way of grabbing the attention of those who are rather intelligent is often to be just as intelligent in addition to somewhat insulting. It's sad, but that's how it often is.

 

The problem I had with what he said wasn't so much the conclusion - which could have been okay - but the reasoning he used to back it up, a reasoning which was entirely invalid. Invalid reasoning sometimes leads to correct conclusions, but every now and then it won't.

[SquareOne]

I like pancakes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I like pancakes.

 

The problem is that you have defined "pancakes" from an etymological perspective, which has led you to the logical fallacy that pancakes can be liked. 

[miekko]

 

I like pancakes.

 

The problem is that you have defined "pancakes" from an etymological perspective, which has led you to the logical fallacy that pancakes can be liked. 

 

oh fuck you

[mymistake]

Often, people like florduh rather justifiedly think they're probably right about a lot of things, and thus won't listen even when they're caught being flat out wrong. The only way of grabbing the attention of those who are rather intelligent is often to be just as intelligent in addition to somewhat insulting. It's sad, but that's how it often is.

 

I strongly disagree.

[miekko]

 

Often, people like florduh rather justifiedly think they're probably right about a lot of things, and thus won't listen even when they're caught being flat out wrong. The only way of grabbing the attention of those who are rather intelligent is often to be just as intelligent in addition to somewhat insulting. It's sad, but that's how it often is.

 

I strongly disagree.

 

Does it look like florduh was listening to my objection? He just shrugged it off. If you disagree with my objection, then show where I was wrong.

[mymistake]

 

 

Often, people like florduh rather justifiedly think they're probably right about a lot of things, and thus won't listen even when they're caught being flat out wrong. The only way of grabbing the attention of those who are rather intelligent is often to be just as intelligent in addition to somewhat insulting. It's sad, but that's how it often is.

 

I strongly disagree.

 

Does it look like florduh was listening to my objection? He just shrugged it off. If you disagree with my objection, then show where I was wrong.

 

 

You and I are not talking about your objection but rather the idea that being rude (and short tempered) is the best way to make intelligent people listen.  

 

Since you asked, I do not understand your objection.  The way you've worded things makes me uninterested in pursuing it.

[TrueFreedom]

A growing number of unbelievers are calling for others to adopt the atheist label as a sign of solidarity in a war against superstition.  Many of them insist on a positivist anti-theist position.  It's a reactive position.  The pendulum will swing closer to equilibrium in time.

[falemon]

This seems more to be an argument about semantics - that is, "which term is applicable to what" - than a substantive argument about anything.

But isn't that what 90% of arguments amount to?