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]

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

This is taking absurdity into elephantine proportions. I was jokingly referring Danmark back to my quotation from Tim Rice: "So Christian Dior me" and jokingly accusing him of using Tim Rice's cleverness. The point of the jocular discussion -if I can recall it now - was to illustrate that it is not necessarily a grammatical solecism to utilise a noun as a verb even though the dictionary gives no such approval. Christian Dior is a noun - Tim used it as a verb. Atheist is a noun - I used Tim's example and employed it as a verb. I would of course use atheize in less jocular circumstances - without checking the OED.

Go well.

[marco]

]


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.

It is possible to carry pedantry to extremes. Meaningful debate happily continues without the terrors of being left with no standard definition. Some folk who don't believe in God want to discuss with some folk who believe; in the course of the discussion they can find out if God is blue or red, or if the denying folk are only denying a personal God. It is almost always clear from the debate and people soon let you know if it's not clear.

I have come across people who are strident atheists and it emerges that they are pantheists. We'd have to settle on one of the meanings of pantheism. Sometimes we suffer from some illness without knowing it. So too, some atheists might well be deists. That's the door open again.

[Student]

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

This is taking absurdity into elephantine proportions. I was jokingly referring Danmark back to my quotation from Tim Rice: "So Christian Dior me" and jokingly accusing him of using Tim Rice's cleverness. The point of the jocular discussion -if I can recall it now - was to illustrate that it is not necessarily a grammatical solecism to utilise a noun as a verb even though the dictionary gives no such approval. Christian Dior is a noun - Tim used it as a verb. Atheist is a noun - I used Tim's example and employed it as a verb. I would of course use atheize in less jocular circumstances - without checking the OED.

Go well.

I think you have missed the point of my post. I was simply trying to illustrate how remarkably varied and diverse can be the meaning of English words, in, what I had hoped, was a light-hearted manner. Obviously I failed.

English, as you have pointed out, is a dynamic language. New words come into existence while old words can change their meaning, without any central control or guiding hand. It all comes down to convention; the convention that we collectively agree the meaning of words.

Consequently, the Oxford English Dictionary is a descriptive, not prescriptive reference. It illustrates the past and present usage of English words without any sign of approval or disapproval.

You suggested "atheist" can be used as a verb, and, sure enough, if enough people use it that way it will become one of the conventional uses of the word. And that despite the fact that there is an already a verb, the archaic and obscure word "atheize". Why stick with one word when you can have two; I say the more the merrier.

So, I apologise if you (or indeed Danmark) thought I was disrespecting* you.

*(I googled the word to make I wasn't being a knuckylbonyard).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

]


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.

It is possible to carry pedantry to extremes. Meaningful debate happily continues without the terrors of being left with no standard definition. Some folk who don't believe in God want to discuss with some folk who believe; in the course of the discussion they can find out if God is blue or red, or if the denying folk are only denying a personal God. It is almost always clear from the debate and people soon let you know if it's not clear.

I have come across people who are strident atheists and it emerges that they are pantheists. We'd have to settle on one of the meanings of pantheism. Sometimes we suffer from some illness without knowing it. So too, some atheists might well be deists. That's the door open again.

A pantheist less resembles in atheist and more resembles an agnostic, in the sense that many agnostics, while not subscribing to any specific belief in a God, will often acknowledge that they retain the suspicion that there may be some underlying purpose to existence beyond merely existing. This idea would presuppose the vague notion that some intelligent force is at work.

[marco]

So, I apologise if you (or indeed Danmark) thought I was disrespecting* you.

The apologies must come from me. We obviously went for the same deck chair and collided with each other. My fault and thanks for your nice reply.

[marco]

A pantheist less resembles in atheist and more resembles an agnostic, in the sense that many agnostics, while not subscribing to any specific belief in a God, will often acknowledge that they retain the suspicion that there may be some underlying purpose to existence beyond merely existing. This idea would presuppose the vague notion that some intelligent force is at work.

There are a few ways of defining pantheism; the one that belonged to the person I met was belief in some universal force, such as Nature. Agnostics doubt there are gods but don't claim to know what might and might not be beyond humanity. When you introduce the word "purpose" you move towards some sentient being.

When I reach the boundaries of my ignorance, and that doesn't take long, I don't pontificate on what lies beyond. The whole idea of a divine aristocracy is absurd to me but there may be things that my embryonic intelligence is incapable of imagining far less accepting. You may say, then, such abstruse concepts don't matter, but they may in some odd way affect what I say and do, without my knowing. I like the idea that the shake of a butterfly's wings changes continents. Incidentally my avatar is more wish than reality. Best regards.

[parsivalshorse]

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.

What 'standard definition'? There is no such thing as a 'standard definition' of atheism, theism, Christianity or God. I'm amazed you still don't get that.

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

When the one standard, encompasses the other definitions.

What? How can one definition 'encompass' all of the other different definitions? What does that even mean?

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.

Sorry, but you seem to be just playing the fool.

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?

Sorry, but you appear to have completely and utterly misunderstood the entire discussion.
And frankly in the context of debate most of the time the discussion between apologist and counter-apologist is in fact reduced to meaninglessness because many of the important terms are being applied at different definitions. Arguing about definitions is a sad and pointless alternative to arguing about positions.

There is no authoritative dictionary of the English language, no lexicon of 'standard definitions'. A simple fact that you evidently refuse to accept.

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

Well obviously not. How can there be a 'standard' definition, AND many other different 'standard' definitions? That is madness. If there are many standard definitions of a single word - what do you even mean by '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.

We garner definitions from context. People are argu I ng that there is a 'standard' definition of 'atheism' and at the same time saying that there are many different definitions - which you are saying can all be 'standard'. So essentially whilst you are arguing that there is a standard definition, you are using the word 'standard' in a way that means absolutely nothing. And yet you think MY approach is 'strange'?

I assumed that by 'standard' definition, you mean that there is a standard definition. That is; ONE universally accepted definition.

It turns out that you are using 'standard' to mean any one of all of the different definitions of a word. So you are definining 'standard definition' as any and all definitions.

Why insist that a standard definition exists, when you are using 'standard' in a way that means nothing? If a 'standard definition' is any one of the infinite array of different definitions, what on earth do you kean by 'standard'?

[Bust Nak]

What 'standard definition'?

Here is one: atheism, noun: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

There is no such thing as a 'standard definition' of atheism, theism, Christianity or God. I'm amazed you still don't get that.

Have you considered the possibility that we do get what you are trying to say, but think you are incorrect? Why presume we don't understand just because we disagree with you?

What? How can one definition 'encompass' all of the other different definitions? What does that even mean?

We gave you examples. Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief of gods, which encompass the definition atheism is the lack of belief of gods, plus the definition atheism is the disbelief of gods.

Sorry, but you seem to be just playing the fool.

That's not a counter argument.

Sorry, but you appear to have completely and utterly misunderstood the entire discussion.
And frankly in the context of debate most of the time the discussion between apologist and counter-apologist is in fact reduced to meaninglessness because many of the important terms are being applied at different definitions. Arguing about definitions is a sad and pointless alternative to arguing about positions.

You say that like you aren't arguing about definition.

There is no authoritative dictionary of the English language, no lexicon of 'standard definitions'. A simple fact that you evidently refuse to accept.

You say that a lot. What other than bare assertions have you produce to support your claim as fact? And for the record, I did accept that there is no authoritative dictionary of the English language. What I disagree is just the latter part, you don't need an authority to have a standard.

[parsivalshorse]

What 'standard definition'?

Here is one: atheism, noun: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Clearly you misunderstand, that is just one of many different definitions - not in any way a 'standard'. How are you defining 'standard'?

There is no such thing as a 'standard definition' of atheism, theism, Christianity or God. I'm amazed you still don't get that.

Have you considered the possibility that we do get what you are trying to say, but think you are incorrect? Why presume we don't understand just because we disagree with you?

Because disagreeing with me on this point is disagreeing with a basic fact of English.

What? How can one definition 'encompass' all of the other different definitions? What does that even mean?

We gave you examples. Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief of gods, which encompass the definition atheism is the lack of belief of gods, plus the definition atheism is the disbelief of gods.

That statement is self refuting.

Sorry, but you seem to be just playing the fool.

That's not a counter argument.

Sorry, but you appear to have completely and utterly misunderstood the entire discussion.
And frankly in the context of debate most of the time the discussion between apologist and counter-apologist is in fact reduced to meaninglessness because many of the important terms are being applied at different definitions. Arguing about definitions is a sad and pointless alternative to arguing about positions.

You say that like you aren't arguing about definition.

There is no authoritative dictionary of the English language, no lexicon of 'standard definitions'. A simple fact that you evidently refuse to accept.

You say that a lot.

Yes, and you expressly accept it to be true.

What other than bare assertions have you produce to support your claim as fact?

Well simply that no lexicon or dictionary even makes the claim to be authoratitive. It would be an outrageous claim. A point you even concede in the following...

And for the record, I did accept that there is no authoritative dictionary of the English language. What I disagree is just the latter part, you don't need an authority to have a standard.

Then what do you mean by 'standard'?

You accept my point and contest it at the same time, what am I to make of that?