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 ...

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 171 by Bust Nak]

How do you intend to enforce a global standard definition of 'atheism'?
Nobody has ever tried to do that for any English word, so please explain how you think it could be acheived.

Imposing an international standard definition has never been attempted before, so you are setting a precedent - a kind of linguistic totalitarianism. A language dictated by an sole authority. Doesn't that seem rather implausible?

Wouldn't it be easier just to ask whoever you are talking to what they mean - rather than set up a form of international language dictatorship,and enforce it?

[oldbadger]

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'?

Can we have some evidence for your claim? A survey result maybe?

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

Citations please! And I can't use it, because the Deist, Pantheist and Abrahamic-only atheists will disagree with me!

Atheism just seems to be a mess of ideas.

[parsivalshorse]

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'?

Can we have some evidence for your claim? A survey result maybe?

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

Citations please! And I can't use it, because the Deist, Pantheist and Abrahamic-only atheists will disagree with me!

Atheism just seems to be a mess of ideas.

There are thousands of different forms of theism, so of course atheism is not monolithic. I just don't get what confuses you about that.

What is it you find challenging about the fact that different people define these concepts differently?

[Bust Nak]

Can we have some evidence for your claim? A survey result maybe?

I did that already, if I remembered correctly, 75% in favour.

Citations please! And I can't use it, because the Deist, Pantheist and Abrahamic-only atheists will disagree with me!

Then change if and when a non-standard atheist asks you to.

Atheism just seems to be a mess of ideas.

No worse than "theism." And I would say less of a mess than "Christianity."

[oldbadger]

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

They don't agree on a single def! They DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON A SINGLE DEF!
There is not single definition of atheism!
That is the point.
And so, atheists cannot expect ANYBODY to know what their particular individual atheism might be.
And so, when asked, atheists have no right to criticise anybody who asks..... 'What exactly do you mean by atheist?'

Now..... get it?

Easy!

[parsivalshorse]

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

They don't agree on a single def! They DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON A SINGLE DEF!
There is not single definition of atheism!
That is the point.
And so, atheists cannot expect ANYBODY to know what their particular individual atheism might be.
And so, when asked, atheists have no right to criticise anybody who asks..... 'What exactly do you mean by atheist?'

Now..... get it?

Easy!

Why would an atheist be bothered by somebody asking them to clarify what they mean? If somebody ever criticised you for that, they were being foolish. I have never even come across an atheist complaining about being asked to clarify their position.

[Bust Nak]

How do you intend to enforce a global standard definition of 'atheism'?
Nobody has ever tried to do that for any English word, so please explain how you think it could be acheived.

I don't intend to. A better question is, why do you want me to enforce a global standard definition of 'atheism'?

Imposing an international standard definition has never been attempted before, so you are setting a precedent - a kind of linguistic totalitarianism.

Don't look at me. No where have I implied, let alone stated such a thing.

A language dictated by an sole authority. Doesn't that seem rather implausible?

Indeed, which made it all the more odd that you would suggest such a thing.

Wouldn't it be easier just to ask whoever you are talking to what they mean - rather than set up a form of international language dictatorship,and enforce it?

Sure. That would definitely be easier. You know what would be even easier? Stick to the standard usage unless the context makes it obvious that the speaker is trying to convey something unusual.

[parsivalshorse]

Can we have some evidence for your claim? A survey result maybe?

I did that already, if I remembered correctly, 75% in favour.

Hang on, you think there is some sort of majority voting system to dictate word meanings? Who orchestrates it?

Citations please! And I can't use it, because the Deist, Pantheist and Abrahamic-only atheists will disagree with me!

Then change if and when a non-standard atheist asks you to.

Atheism just seems to be a mess of ideas.

No worse than "theism." And I would say less of a mess than "Christianity."

[oldbadger]

I did that already, if I remembered correctly, 75% in favour.

Excellent! So from now on, It will be most reasonable for me or anybody to ask for any atheist's personal definition of what their idea of atheism is, BECAUSE 25% think it's something else!

No worse than "theism." And I would say less of a mess than "Christianity."

As a rule, only atheists do this.
When cornered, I don't read Christians or other Theists calling back criticism of atheism, only this way round.
'What about them Christians then!' means to me that an atheist is getting cornered. It's a very accurate thermometer.

Love it!

[parsivalshorse]

How do you intend to enforce a global standard definition of 'atheism'?
Nobody has ever tried to do that for any English word, so please explain how you think it could be acheived.

I don't intend to. A better question is, why do you want me to enforce a global standard definition of 'atheism'?

I don't, it would he impossible. It was your idea, not mine. You are the one claim8ng that there is a standard definition. I am asking who gets to doctate to the English speamong world that it is the standard defintion? You?

Imposing an international standard definition has never been attempted before, so you are setting a precedent - a kind of linguistic totalitarianism.

Don't look at me. No where have I implied, let alone stated such a thing.

A language dictated by an sole authority. Doesn't that seem rather implausible?

Indeed, which made it all the more odd that you would suggest such a thing.

Wouldn't it be easier just to ask whoever you are talking to what they mean - rather than set up a form of international language dictatorship,and enforce it?

Sure. That would definitely be easier. You know what would be even easier? Stick to the standard usage unless the context makes it obvious that the speaker is trying to convey something unusual.

What 'standard' usage? There is no such thing. Who gets to dictate which of the many definitions of 'atheism' is the 'standard' one? And how do you propose to enforce that, and with what authority?