What are atheists?

[Occam]

"What are atheists?" is a bad question. It presupposes a faulty way of looking at atheists. Although this is true no matter the common definition of atheist, I shall be using the term somewhat incorrectly to include those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a diety in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped.

We ought really to ask what is an atheist NOT? After all, the strict definition is someone who does NOT...

An atheist does not interpret the events around him using the idea that Thor causes lightning.

An atheist does not interpret the events around him using the idea that it's cloudy because Ra needed a rest.

An atheist does not interpret the events around him using the idea that another human has been appointed to tell him how to think by the guy who made us all.

An atheist does not interpret the events around him using the idea that anything is so because something undetectable caused it on a whim, instead he is open to the idea that further investigation is capable of yielding useful information.

An atheist does not believe that there is some higher power that bears responsibility for things, rather he is in the position of having ultimate responsibility for his own actions.

I shall not expand further for fear I might put words into the mouths of other non-religious people. We do not all speak for each other, any more than Reverend Moon speaks for you.

If you resent some of the above implications, remember that they do not each refer to all people of all religions. Remember that just as you do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as all other religions, so non-religious people do not wish to be tarred all alike. Or at all, for that matter. Sorry, maybe SOME of us do. Most seem not to, though.

[Mr. Personality]

I shall be using the term somewhat incorrectly

Wow, I'll say you shall.

to include those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a diety in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped.

I do not do that either. Please don't call me an atheist in any correct or incorrect sense of the word.

[5VP]

A person with faith would not deny you your atheistic religious beliefs but they might likely be more willing to accept the possibility that these statements of your are wrong .

EG. Native peoples around the globe have their own ways of describing their relationship with their creator and I wouldn't waste my time telling them that christianity or Islam etc. is the only way. They still exhibit a faith of sorts and are willing to acknowledge that a omnipotent force is at work in their lives and if that's what floats their boat then who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Do I believe all atheists will go to hell? No; But they are definitely less likely to get to heaven.

Proof of all this comes when we die so until then it's pretty pointless to try to dissuade others from their various faiths regardless of how the faith may be structured.

[Mr. Personality]

A person with faith would not deny you your atheistic religious beliefs but they might likely be more willing to accept the possibility that these statements of your are wrong .

EG. Native peoples around the globe have their own ways of describing their relationship with their creator and I wouldn't waste my time telling them that christianity or Islam etc. is the only way. They still exhibit a faith of sorts and are willing to acknowledge that a omnipotent force is at work in their lives and if that's what floats their boat then who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Do I believe all atheists will go to hell? No; But they are definitely less likely to get to heaven.

Proof of all this comes when we die so until then it's pretty pointless to try to dissuade others from their various faiths regardless of how the faith may be structured.

That was a well written, thoughtful post.
:rate10:

[Occam]

Nice to see a reply from Mr. Personality subsequent to private messages.

In his first post in this thread Mr. Personality seems to have taken offence to something, but I honestly can't see what. Since mine was the first post in the thread, I can only assume that he thought that I called him personally something because he considers that he falls into the definition I have supplied. There's nothing wrong with supplying your own definitions for the sake of a discussion when such a definition serves to make a point and not to confuse. Since people who don't take a deity into account for whatever reason have these things in common, the definition serves such a purpose.

I see no objection to the reasoning contained in my post, all I detect is some confusion on his part and some negative overtones. It occurs to me that perhaps he doesn't like something I've posted elsewhere, and since he can't come up with a valid counter he snipes at me here. This is admittedly conjecture, however until the gentleman posts something more concrete we are left with nothing else to go on.



5VP wrote:
"Native peoples around the globe have their own ways of describing their relationship with their creator and I wouldn't waste my time telling them that christianity or Islam etc. is the only way. They still exhibit a faith of sorts and are willing to acknowledge that a omnipotent force is at work in their lives and if that's what floats their boat then who am I to tell them they're wrong?"

I suppose your objection lies in the above quote? I fail to see discussion of anyone fitting my definition in it. When you bring up Native peoples it occurs to me that I might also in my definition have included lack of belief in a supernatural force... not sure if those are always considered to be deities or not. I apologize if this oversight has caused confusion, however you acknowledge that they acknowledge an omnipotent force so it seems to me that they are religious people, not atheists by any definition thus far proposed or in common usage. On what basis, then, might a person of faith object to how someone fitting the defintion supplied defines HIMSELF? I certainly don't go around objecting to how religious people define themselves in this sense.

If I have failed to see a genuine objection you have to what I have written, please clarify this with the above in mind.

[Mr. Personality]

Nice to see a reply from Mr. Personality subsequent to private messages.

In his first post in this thread Mr. Personality seems to have taken offence to something,

You're quite wrong, as I stated to you via PM. As it stands you've deliberately mis-defined a word and then lied about me "taking offense". I never took offense to anything you said. I simply stated you're quite wrong, which you were, and are again.
When you start living in reality, I'll be more inclined to read further posts of yours. As it stands, you live in a world where word definitions are arbitrary and anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint must be "offended".

For the record, an atheist is one who denies the existence of any God. Or, to be more official (taken from dictionary.com):

a·the·ist
   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You can put your own definitions on anything you want, just don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't take offense when someone does express disagreement.

[Occam]

Mr. Personality,

yes, I have deliberately misdefined a word. Do you even know what the word deliberately means?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deliberately

1. Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional
2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration

It is common practice to define terms at the start of a written work when such definitions will serve to make the point more clear. This does not indicate any intent to force the definition upon the world as a whole, rather in this case it serves to more accurately and comprehensively define a group, the character of which is dealt with in the material which followed. Such is common practice in literary works intended to convey complex or subtle points, your failure to grasp this as a device rather than an assault upon Merriam Webster is demonstrative.

That my carefully considered definition is a good one is verified by the fact that you have responded to this thread. You do not want to be called an atheist, yet you have responded to a thread entitled 'What are atheists'. You seem to think that I have called you something - this could not be the case unless you fit the definition. People responding to threads regarding atheism are typically divided into two camps, the faithful and the non-faithful. Perhaps I could have called them that. It does not really matter, as the definitions of words are PRECISELY arbitrary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

It is not inevitable that the word atheist should mean anything in particular. In other languages atheist is nonsense, and a different word is used to mean the same thing. It is good to have a convention, so that we all agree on meanings when we discuss things. Unless you think that the topic is better addressed by dividing the people discussed in it along different lines, you have no reasonable grounds for objecting to my definition. Words serve as a means of getting ideas from one person to another, and are best defined as best serves this transfer. The longer this discussion goes on, the more incompetent a communicator of complex or subtle ideas you appear to be.

As for accusing me of lying, you are yourself lying in the accusation. Yes, I was aware of the fact that you had claimed not to have taken offence to the original post via PM. I did not say that you had in fact taken offence, what I said was that you SEEMED to have taken offence.

You wrote: "Please don't call me an atheist in any correct or incorrect sense of the word."

Not always, but usually when people ask not to be called something, it's because they've taken offence to it. To someone reading the thread, who had no idea that you'd written that you had not taken offence via PM, it's likely that you would appear to have taken offence. Between the point where you 'seemed' to take offence and my saying so, you had not posted anything to the contrary.

ONCE AGAIN, you have yet to disagree with the content of my first post - how would you better divide the subject matter? You've really stuck your foot in your mouth here, simply by showing up. It's in up to your knee now.

I look forward to someone disagreeing with the content of my first post, as opposed to misunderstanding the intent. Ask your daddy to read it for you.

Define terms however you like when you have a worthwhile concept to share. It's a part of effective communication. Dictionary definitions are very handy, simply because they DON'T require definition during a discussion. However they are limited in number, and if you choose to limit yourself so, you're quite welcome to. It will be no great loss to the library of mankind.

[Mr. Personality]

My worthwhile concept is that you're using a deliberate misrepresentation of a word.
I really do think the title of this thread is more relevant to you than anything you've posted, as you don't seem to know what an atheist is.

Unless you're just trying to include non-atheists to get more people to say, "I'm an atheist" based on your deliberate misinformation.

[Occam]

Mr. Personality, far from a misrepresentation I've given a definition, as you've said yourself.

First mention of the title, either you have put little effort into explaining your objection which is somehow relevant to the title, or you're grasping at straws.

I'm not trying to get anyone to say that they're anything. It's not a poll. It's a statement about what I think people who don't think that deities (I later added supernatural powers) are either probable enough or relevant to accurate worldview enough to view the world through a lens incorporating their existence ALSO think. If you regard the people who think these things as a single group, and wish to talk about the beliefs of that group, what's wrong with that? If you don't wish to talk about the beliefs of that group, stop embarrassing yourself already. Include yourself within that group or not, as you like. Go start a thread and define your own group, and tell us what they tend to all think. I've invited that group to discuss their views, and so far have yet to hear about whether or not they hold the beliefs I listed, and why or why not it's useful to recognize that this is generally how lines get drawn in this sort of thread DESPITE what Webster has to say about it. You're the one insisting on discussing something which only exists in the mind and in books - the idealized form of a group which holds a single ideal, captured in a few sentences. MY INTENT was to help reduce arguments in threads on this very topic, by explaining to (what generally ends up being) one side what it is and is not that the other side (those who generally end up there, regardless of the dictionary definition) actually believe in common. You've yet to dispute that they do believe those things in common. You've yet to dispute that they tend to behave as a single group in internet forums. You have yet to display any such intent.

You do not seem to even understand where the failure in communication is, although I've told you repeatedly.

[Nebula]

A person with faith would not deny you your atheistic religious beliefs but they might likely be more willing to accept the possibility that these statements of your are wrong .

There's an oxymoron.

Atheistic religious beliefs.

[Occam]

But you know what he's referring to. 5VP is the ONLY person besides myself to address the issue so far, although I will concede the possibility that Mr. Personality is trying to work his way toward that. Really, let's try to be a bit more constructive please.

[Nebula]

It's an oxymoron. Sorry if that isn't constructive enough for you.

[Born_again]

atheos

THE END

[Mr. Personality]

Mr. Personality, far from a misrepresentation I've given a definition, as you've said yourself.

First mention of the title, either you have put little effort into explaining your objection which is somehow relevant to the title, or you're grasping at straws.

My objective is to get you to realize what you're doing is, at best, inane, as it presumes an incorrect definition of a word

I'll put it this way:
What is a dog?
I'll tell you what a dog is not. I'll tell you what a dog isn't. A dog isn't a lizard. A dog is not a fish.

Now, that definition, while not technically incorrect, is very misleading, as that definition includes me, you and everyone else. That's what I've seen you do here.

[Occam]

Mr. Personality, your continued efforts in this direction serve only to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.

You will fail in your objective, as what I set out to do is not inane. It's rather maddening that I am in the position of having to defend myself against an unwarranted attack which included an accusation of lying, simply to try to have a discussion on a discussion board. If you don't like the topic, why are you bothering to hog half of the thread to yourself? Aren't there any other threads you could derail? Maybe one that involves subject matter you can understand?

ONCE AGAIN, I do not presume an incorrect definition of a word. You're the one on about correct definitions. I have used ONE word to mean something that is somewhat different from the dictionary meaning, but not without clearly stating that I would do so. You, on the other hand, feel free to use words incorrectly without any such clarity. It is you who are deceptive with your use of the language. I don't suppose this is a malicious act on your part... you don't know what you're even discussing.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presume

3. To take for granted that something is true or factual; suppose

You see, I did not presume an incorrect definition of a word. I supplied it myself, in full view of everyone. You have accused me of something here once again. Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. You've been ranting that I should use a dictionary, and I've now used the dictionary to show that your attacks on me were unfounded. You have misused the language without bothering to make note of it. If it were not so clear that you are doing so due to incompetence I might accuse you of being misleading.

I explained this in private messages, so that I would not have to publicly embarrass you in the course of protecting my thread. Rather than take advantage of the consideration I have shown, you have chosen to derail a thread you don't understand, simply because you lack the capacity to make good use of it yourself.

There is nothing misleading about a group which includes dogs and people. For example, if we wanted to discuss mammals living together a group including dogs and people might well make for more productive discussion than if we were to only discuss humans. Mr. Webster will let us discuss dogs and humans at the same time, you know. He may have put them on different pages, but we need not feel restricted by this. In fact, we might even include cats and hamsters in our group. This does not constitute deliberate deception. You have accused me of both supplying a definition and obscuring my meaning - do you not see that these are opposites? I can assure you that most people who have bothered to read this far can see that.

You are showing some improvement, though. You have used an example to demonstrate a point, well done. The point you make also makes a point about what you think this thread was originally about, and you were wrong to think that. Your example also shows that you don't know what the purpose of defining a term is. Defining a term is only useful if you then go on to use the term. Whereas I defined a group of people, then went on to discuss that group of people, you have given a definition for dog. You have not gone on to discuss dogs, you do not use the definition for any purpose. What is it about non-lizard non-fish dogs that you would like to say? By the way, all dogs are mammals, therefore all dogs are not fish or lizards - you haven't really said anything about dogs that wasn't implicit in the dictionary definition. Kinda makes you look silly to anyone who can follow along. Really, get a friend to read this thread and explain it to you.

A definition of a word, by itself, cannot be misleading. The definition conveys no ideas about the real world, it applies only to a word. My intent was that it would apply for the duration of the discussion. If I'd wanted to trick people into thinking that they were atheists when they are really not, I would not have wrote: "...I shall be using the term somewhat incorrectly to include ...". See how that works?

Are you really this thick? You think that your last post was misleading? You have not gone on to say anything about dogs, so where is the deceit? How is the point I make deceitful? Have I made an incorrect point regarding those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a deity in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped? See how awkward it is to say those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a deity in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped every time I want to refer to those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a deity in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped? Much easier for both the author and the reader to use 'atheist' instead of those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a deity in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped.

In the original post I actually had some things to say about those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a diety in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped. In fact the whole thread was supposed to be about those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a diety in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped and their views. Have you even read what I said about those who think deities so unlikely or unnecessary to an accurate worldview that they simply do not include the existence of a diety in the lens through which everything they view is necessarily shaped? If so, you don't seem to have a problem with it, as you've yet to bring it up. And that is what the thread was about. Admittedly it is no longer about that, it's about your lack of comprehension. It is at the expense of the rest of us learning more about the subject matter.

Try to grasp this. We're a couple of kids at the local field on a Saturday afternoon. I've invited a bunch of kids over to play rugby. I have a brand new rugby ball (my new thread), and when it comes time to choose sides, you refuse to choose sides. Before anyone can choose sides (except for me, I'm the one team captain [my ball]) you create a third team. Your team is the football not rugby team. You don't understand that I'm wanting to play a different game. You're saying "that's not football", and I'm saying "I know, I want to play rugby." You say "You're trying to trick people into thinking that footballs look like that. They don't, they look like this." I'm saying "I know. I actually asked to play rugby, and I've told everyone that this is not a football, it's a rugby ball. Please let us pick teams." "No, you can't play this game. I play football. This isn't football, stop telling people it's football."

DO YOU SEE? You haven't been telling me what's wrong with rugby. If you don't want to play rugby, then don't. I should not have to spend my Saturday afternoon defending my right to play rugby against a kid who doesn't understand the concept of team sports other than football, who cannot grasp that it's okay to play a different game. Not trying to make you play, in fact I wish you would go away. If indeed there are other kids here who want to play rugby, you've made them wait through hours of arguing over which game we should play, when I showed up with a rubgy ball and it's the only ball here so far. They may be angry by now, I got angry a while back and beat you up. You lost this one a while back, you just don't have the sense to stay on the ground. I'm a much bigger kid than you, but you still insist on stopping me from playing rugby. At the start I took you aside in private, and told you that you didn't want to do this in front of the other kids. You have insisted on trying to force me to play football. Start a football thread and I will post there, promise to play football and not rugby in your thread.

If you still don't get it, try asking questions instead of just attacking. I'll try to answer them. I have been trying to give you the information you need to understand what's going on... you're not making it easy. You're not asking for an explanation of whatever it is exactly you're failing to grasp.