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 ...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 161:

...
Qualifying terms can be added by some.

And refused by others, 'specially where they end up sayin' atheists are something they ain't.

Not that you said otherwise.

[OnceConvinced]

The 'problem' is the point - the definitions vary, some infer a denial others a disbelief. This varience demonstrates THAT THERE IS NO STANDARD DEFINITION. Which is the point.

I acknowledge that it is you with the problem here. That it is you that is unable to see a standard definition among those dictionary definitions. Please stop trying to place your handicap onto others.

You are spinning like a top. There are many different definitions of the noun/adjective 'atheist'. It can be and has even been used as a verb, and English has no international grammar police force with the power to dictate how words are used.

None of which are verbs. You were the one who insisted that the word "atheist" could be a verb. You have still not been willing to back up that assertion. If you would for once actually back up your many assertions, there would be no need to spin like a top.

Please provide proof that "atheist" can be used as a verb. If you can't do that then please do the honourable thing and withdraw that claim.

BTW, nouns are not adjectives. Nouns are naming words. Adjectives are descriptive words used to describe nouns.

I am not dictating the uses of nouns, verbs and adjectives. They are basic fundamentals of the English language, which anyone can confirm if they so wish:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/definitions.htm

[parsivalshorse]

The 'problem' is the point - the definitions vary, some infer a denial others a disbelief. This varience demonstrates THAT THERE IS NO STANDARD DEFINITION. Which is the point.

I acknowledge that it is you with the problem here. That it is you that is unable to see a standard definition among those dictionary definitions. Please stop trying to place your handicap onto others

Well of course I can not see a 'standard' definition amoung all of the different definitions. There is no 'standard' definition of atheism.

.

You are spinning like a top. There are many different definitions of the noun/adjective 'atheist'. It can be and has even been used as a verb, and English has no international grammar police force with the power to dictate how words are used.

None of which are verbs. You were the one who insisted that the word "atheist" could be a verb. You have still not been willing to back up that assertion. If you would for once actually back up your many assertions, there would be no need to spin like a top.

Ok, "I atheist Yahweh." Not an elegant sentence, but it's meaning is clear. "Christian" as another member pointed out has also been used as a verb.

Please provide proof that "atheist" can be used as a verb. If you can't do that then please do the honourable thing and withdraw that claim.

BTW, nouns are not adjectives. Nouns are naming words. Adjectives are descriptive words used to describe nouns.

Well yes, and 'atheism' is both. Many words can be used as both nouns and adjectives.

I am not dictating the uses of nouns, verbs and adjectives. They are basic fundamentals of the English language, which anyone can confirm if they so wish:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/definitions.htm

[OnceConvinced]

Ok, "I atheist Yahweh." Not an elegant sentence,[

Indeed. Extremely bad grammar as any school teacher will be able to tell you. If it's legitimate, you should be able to produce a dictionary that has it expressed as a verb. Bet you can't.

Also as pointed out the correct word would be "atheize".

Please provide proof that "atheist" can be used as a verb. If you can't do that then please do the honourable thing and withdraw that claim.

BTW, nouns are not adjectives. Nouns are naming words. Adjectives are descriptive words used to describe nouns.

Well yes, and 'atheism' is both. Many words can be used as both nouns and adjectives.

Just not possible. Please write a sentence that shows "atheism" or "atheist" as an adjective.

[parsivalshorse]

Ok, "I atheist Yahweh." Not an elegant sentence,[

Indeed. Extremely bad grammar as any school teacher will be able to tell you. If it's legitimate, you should be able to produce a dictionary that has it expressed as a verb. Bet you can't.

Also as pointed out the correct word would be "atheize".

Dictionaries record usages, they are not authoritative. I have told you that many times. There is no global dictator of English. It is a living language, in which meanings constantly change.

Please provide proof that "atheist" can be used as a verb. If you can't do that then please do the honourable thing and withdraw that claim.

BTW, nouns are not adjectives. Nouns are naming words. Adjectives are descriptive words used to describe nouns.

Well yes, and 'atheism' is both. Many words can be used as both nouns and adjectives.

Just not possible. Please write a sentence that shows "atheism" or "atheist" as an adjective.

Ok; I live in an atheist society.

[Zzyzx]

.

Dictionaries record usages, they are not authoritative. I have told you that many times. There is no global dictator of English. It is a living language, in which meanings constantly change.

The thread "Word games" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29694 is intended to address some of these issues.

Ok; I live in an atheist society.

Is that grammatically and/or rationally correct? Can a society be an atheist?

Perhaps "atheistic" would work better, ( pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism) indicating that constituent members of the society tend to be Atheists.

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 168 by Zzyzx]

A society can be atheist. The point is that dictionaries record usages, which change over time. They are not authoritative.

People use words as they wish, dictionaries record the ways they use them. They can not dictate an authoritative definition. Grammar rules are intended to be advisory, they are not actual laws that can be enforced.

[oldbadger]

The most basic definition of Atheism is "without belief in deities" -- with deity defined as: a god or goddess; divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity; the estate or rank of a god:

Is that somehow in error?

Yep..... totally muddled.
Some Deists are atheists, so as soon as you mention 'without belief in deities' it just looks daft.
And some Atheists accept 'sexed up Pantheism' which is a more involved God than any Deist God.

Back to the drawing board! And let's see if a definition can be produced which a reasonable % of atheists might agree upon, and stick with.

Qualifying terms can be added by some.

Yes........ I notice that......... a lot

EDIT: Further....
Many atheists will only deny the Abrahamic God........ much different to your definition, so it is looking as if any attempt at a definition is going to be a muddle.
Oh..... and this isn't word games.... this is simple clear fact, that atheists can't agree on a definition.

[Bust Nak]

Yep..... totally muddled.
Some Deists are atheists, so as soon as you mention 'without belief in deities' it just looks daft.
And some Atheists accept 'sexed up Pantheism' which is a more involved God than any Deist God.

Back to the drawing board! And let's see if a definition can be produced which a reasonable % of atheists might agree upon, and stick with.

But that was a definition which a reasonable percentage of atheists agree upon and stick with. So what's wrong with 'without belief in deities'?

Many atheists will only deny the Abrahamic God........ much different to your definition, so it is looking as if any attempt at a definition is going to be a muddle.
Oh..... and this isn't word games.... this is simple clear fact, that atheists can't agree on a definition.

Sure, but they are a minority. We have a definition that is broadly agreed up on. Use it.

[parsivalshorse]

The most basic definition of Atheism is "without belief in deities" -- with deity defined as: a god or goddess; divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity; the estate or rank of a god:

Is that somehow in error?

Yep..... totally muddled.
Some Deists are atheists, so as soon as you mention 'without belief in deities' it just looks daft.
And some Atheists accept 'sexed up Pantheism' which is a more involved God than any Deist God.

Back to the drawing board! And let's see if a definition can be produced which a reasonable % of atheists might agree upon, and stick with.

Qualifying terms can be added by some.

Yes........ I notice that......... a lot

EDIT: Further....
Many atheists will only deny the Abrahamic God........ much different to your definition, so it is looking as if any attempt at a definition is going to be a muddle.
Oh..... and this isn't word games.... this is simple clear fact, that atheists can't agree on a definition.

Why would they have to agree on a single definition? Who would enforce it?

Do you think people should have agreed on a definition of 'wicked' and that people applying a different definition should be arrested? By whom? Who would police such an 'agreement'?

I have to add a further question - What would be the point on organising the entire planet's population of unbelievers to accept a single definition of atheism? What could it possibly achieve?
It wouldn't change anybodies position at all, in fact all that would happen would be that any who do not fot the definition would no longer be atheist.

Who do you propose these international language police should be, and what powers would they have?

Wouldn't you have to enforce a standard definition of 'God', 'theism' and 'belief' first? And how do you propose to do so?