Many atheists might be closet Deists!

[oldbadger]

I must be thick.
It's taken far too long for me to arrive at this proposal.
And on enquiry I discover that the question has been shouted for yonks and yonks and I never saw it.

Quite simply, if you believe that there is a reason for the existence of everything, then how can you be a fundamental atheist? It just cannot be good science!


Here's a small selection of other ideas on the question.......



There is no such thing as a true atheist - Heaven Net

www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm
Here is why you are not really an atheist. ... If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search ...
Are There Really No Atheists? - Secular Web

infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/no_atheists.html
Some Christians maintain that there are no atheists. They believe, of course, that some people profess to be atheists. But according to them these people suffer ...

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that's ...
www.science20.com/.../scientists_discov ... _not_exist...
6 Jul 2014 - This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is .... While there is certainly growth in the number of bleak narratives being ...

[marco]

Heaven forbid we should have our poetic licenses revoked. Creative and imaginitve uses of the language can be effective and even beautiful. But in formal debate it can be confusing and often appears for what it is, bad grammar. For example, using 'atheist' as a verb, "Let's try to see you atheist your way out of that." Whether such usage is clever or stupid, I won't judge. Now, let's see someone christian his way around that.

You are plagiarising Tim Rice using Christian as a verb. Good God, this is catching on. I'm sorry that I have brought creative and imaginative language to this formal debate, sir. I will try to act more respectfully in future lest my badder grammar get worser. I am disgusted with myself for confusing you and you are very wise not to judge, even though you do. Now where's the closet deist in all this? Aye, where are the songs of spring, and the closet deist?

[parsivalshorse]

parsivalshorse wrote:

Now you are just being dishonest. 'Pretty much' is not identical.

No, "pretty much identical" as OnceConvinced wrote, means 'pretty much identical;' that is, not exactly identical, but similar.

All it takes is a little common sense, which apparently eludes you.

'Of course they are similar, they are definitions of the same word. What on earth is the point you are trying to make?
Yes, they are similar definitions, which is the 'standard'? There isn't one right? THAT is the point.

[Danmark]

Heaven forbid we should have our poetic licenses revoked. Creative and imaginitve uses of the language can be effective and even beautiful. But in formal debate it can be confusing and often appears for what it is, bad grammar. For example, using 'atheist' as a verb, "Let's try to see you atheist your way out of that." Whether such usage is clever or stupid, I won't judge. Now, let's see someone christian his way around that.

You are plagiarising Tim Rice using Christian as a verb. Good God, this is catching on. I'm sorry that I have brought creative and imaginative language to this formal debate, sir. I will try to act more respectfully in future lest my badder grammar get worser. I am disgusted with myself for confusing you and you are very wise not to judge, even though you do. Now where's the closet deist in all this? Aye, where are the songs of spring, and the closet deist?

I'm not plagiarizing. Don't have a clue who Tim Rice is. Just gave an example of improper usage. I doubt Tim Rice or anyone alive today was the first person to try to use 'christian' as a verb. It's too obvious.

[Danmark]

parsivalshorse wrote:

Now you are just being dishonest. 'Pretty much' is not identical.

No, "pretty much identical" as OnceConvinced wrote, means 'pretty much identical;' that is, not exactly identical, but similar.

All it takes is a little common sense, which apparently eludes you.

'Of course they are similar, they are definitions of the same word. What on earth is the point you are trying to make?
Yes, they are similar definitions, which is the 'standard'? There isn't one right? THAT is the point.

Then why did you make such a big deal out of correcting him? You ignored the fact he used a modifier, "pretty much."

[parsivalshorse]

parsivalshorse wrote:

Now you are just being dishonest. 'Pretty much' is not identical.

No, "pretty much identical" as OnceConvinced wrote, means 'pretty much identical;' that is, not exactly identical, but similar.

All it takes is a little common sense, which apparently eludes you.

'Of course they are similar, they are definitions of the same word. What on earth is the point you are trying to make?
Yes, they are similar definitions, which is the 'standard'? There isn't one right? THAT is the point.

Then why did you make such a big deal out of correcting him? You ignored the fact he used a modifier, "pretty much."

Because 'pretty much' the same contradicts his claim that there is a 'standard' definition. He admits that the definitions differ.
For there to be a 'standard' definition, they would need to be identical, not 'pretty much the same'.

[marco]

I'm not plagiarizing. Don't have a clue who Tim Rice is. Just gave an example of improper usage. I doubt Tim Rice or anyone alive today was the first person to try to use 'christian' as a verb. It's too obvious.

How agreeably we disagree, Danmark. In the great world of English usage there are monsters such as synecdoche, anaphora, hypallage, antonomasia.... and their employment is a delight, adding a scintilla a charm to a dull, explanatory piece of prose. Departing from the old grammatical signposts - and departing confidently and correctly - is a pleasure you should try.

That is enough of this frivolity - I offer not a Parthian shot but a friendly handshake. Best regards.

[Student]

Heaven forbid we should have our poetic licenses revoked. Creative and imaginitve uses of the language can be effective and even beautiful. But in formal debate it can be confusing and often appears for what it is, bad grammar. For example, using 'atheist' as a verb, "Let's try to see you atheist your way out of that." Whether such usage is clever or stupid, I won't judge. Now, let's see someone christian his way around that.

You are plagiarising Tim Rice using Christian as a verb. Good God, this is catching on. I'm sorry that I have brought creative and imaginative language to this formal debate, sir. I will try to act more respectfully in future lest my badder grammar get worser. I am disgusted with myself for confusing you and you are very wise not to judge, even though you do. Now where's the closet deist in all this? Aye, where are the songs of spring, and the closet deist?

I'm afraid that you are both incorrect. The word "christian" has been used as a verb; Tim Rice wasn't the first:

christian, verb.
Etymology: < Christian adj., partly a refashioning of earlier christen v.
Obs. rare.

To make Christian, to christen: chiefly in pa. pple., ppl. a.
1586 W. Fulke Against Allen 252 (T.) You allege the practice of all churches christianed to the contrary.
1645 S. Rutherford Tryal & Trivmph of Faith (1845) ix. 104 Every thing mercied and Christianed.
1684 Foxe's Actes & Monuments (ed. 9) III. 401/2 Them that be christianed [1583, 1631: christened].

The verbal cognate of "atheist" is atheize:

atheize, verb.
Etymology: < Greek ἄθεος (see atheal adj.) + -ize suffix.

1. intr. To speak, write, or act as an atheist.
1678 R. Cudworth True Intellect. Syst. Universe i. i. 23 Empedocles Atheized in the same manner that Democritus did.

2. trans. To render atheistic or godless; to make an atheist of.
a1711 T. Ken Hymnotheo in Wks. (1721) III. 63 Lewd Company..By impious Talk his Spirit atheize.
1865 A. B. Grosart Mem. H. Palmer Introd. 2 Who..have sought to atheize England's Second Thinker [Bacon].
Derivatives
atheized adj.
1678 R. Cudworth True Intellect. Syst. Universe i. ii. 59 The Atheized and Adulterated Atomology.

English as she is spoke.

[Bust Nak]

Because 'pretty much' the same contradicts his claim that there is a 'standard' definition. He admits that the definitions differ.
For there to be a 'standard' definition, they would need to be identical, not 'pretty much the same'.

Can't they be different way of phrasing the standard definition? Can't there be different standard definitions? Can't different definitions be considered "the standard?"

You are very forceful on something that seems to be a matter of perspective on what "standard" means. This is made all the more strange when your central point is that word use is fluid.

[parsivalshorse]

Because 'pretty much' the same contradicts his claim that there is a 'standard' definition. He admits that the definitions differ.
For there to be a 'standard' definition, they would need to be identical, not 'pretty much the same'.

Can't they be different way of phrasing the standard definition?

What 'standard definition'? There isn't one. There is no such authority in English to dictate a standard meaning.

Can't there be different standard definitions? Can't different definitions be considered "the standard?"

How can there be several different 'standard' definitions, and 'a' standard definition at the same time? That is contradictory. Besides, there are no 'standard definitions'. Such a thing does not exist. That was my point.

You are very forceful on something that seems to be a matter of perspective.

No, it is not a matter of perspective I'm afraid, it is in fact a critical understanding for meaningul debate/discussion. There is no 'standard' definition of atheism, god or theism. (Or any other word in common usage). Because the English language has no authoritative definitions.

It is an important and basic fact of the English language, without which no meaningful debate can proceed. Hence my interest in explaining it.

[Bust Nak]

What 'standard definition'? There isn't one. There is no such authority in English to dictate a standard meaning.

Seems to be circular reasoning. There isn't a standard definition therefore the standard definition given doesn't count.

How can there be several different 'standard' definitions, and 'a' standard definition at the same time?

When the one standard, encompasses the other definitions.

That is contradictory. Besides, there are no 'standard definitions'. Such a thing does not exist. That was my point.

Sure, and we are debating that point, I certainly don't accept that there are no 'standard definitions' as an axiom. As such I reject all argument that start with the premise of there are no 'standard definitions.'

No, it is not a matter of perspective I'm afraid, it is in fact a critical understanding for meaningul debate/discussion. There is no 'standard' definition of atheism, god or theism. (Or any other word in common usage). Because the English language has no authoritative definitions.

Well if there isn't standard definition of any word, then there isn't a standard definition for standard. Haven't you just sunk your own argument when I can simply definite whatever I like as the standard? You can't stop me because there is not authoritative definitions.

It is an important and basic fact of the English language, without which no meaningful debate can proceed. Hence my interest in explaining it.

If there is no standard meaning for words, the how are we even communicating to begin with, let alone debate anything?