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 179 by Bust Nak]

This is pretty simple, YOU think there is a standard definition of atheism.

Upon what authority is it the standard definition?

How about a straight answer?

[Bust Nak]

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

Yes, it was a quick survey of the posters in this forum.

Who orchestrates it?

Yours truly.

[Bust Nak]

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!

Yep, do ask, just to be safe. The problem is people not only cannot be bother to ask us, they don't even default to the typical meaning.

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.

You need to speak to more Christians. Your rule seem broken.

'What about them Christians then!' means to me that an atheist is getting cornered. It's a very accurate thermometer.

Cornered about what exactly? Not having universal agreeing on what a word means is supposed to be a negative?

[parsivalshorse]

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

Yes, it was a quick survey of the posters in this forum.

Who orchestrates it?

Yours truly.

Wow!

So you believe you are the global authority who can dictate a 'standard' definition of atheism based upon a poll you conducted here?

Wow! That is just mind-blowing. What can I say?

Good luck! You'll need it.

May I ask yet again how you propose to enforce it?

At the risk of censorship, I have to say - that is a delusion of grandeur on a truly herculean scale.

[Bust Nak]

I don't, it would he impossible.

Then don't ask me questions about it.

It was your idea, not mine.

Incorrect. The record will show that you brought up enforcing a global standard definition, in post #173.

You are the one claim8ng that there is a standard definition.

That I did. Note the lack of implication, let alone mention of any enforcement.

I am asking who gets to doctate to the English speamong world that it is the standard defintion? You?

The English speakers, that's who, and yes, that includes me because I happens to speak English.

What 'standard' usage? There is no such thing.

Of course there are, that's what dictionaries document.

Who gets to dictate which of the many definitions of 'atheism' is the 'standard' one?

We do, the English speakers.

And how do you propose to enforce that, and with what authority?

There you go again, why would you want or need me to enforce such a thing?

This is pretty simple, YOU think there is a standard definition of atheism.

Aye. That I do. In fact, I think there are multiple standard definitions. Here are two examples:
1) Lack of beliefs in gods; and 2) Denial of theism.

Upon what authority is it the standard definition?

There is no such authority. None is required.

How about a straight answer?

Were those straight enough for you?

[Bust Nak]

So you believe you are the global authority who can dictate a 'standard' definition of atheism based upon a poll you conducted here?

No. I do not believe that.

Wow! That is just mind-blowing. What can I say?

You can say sorry for misrepresenting my view, you can say you would never do it again. How does that sound?

May I ask yet again how you propose to enforce it?

Quit asking me irrelevant questions. I made it very clear I am not proposing to enforce such a thing, back in post #179. I know you saw that post since you responded to it.

At the risk of censorship, I have to say - that is a delusion of grandeur on a truly herculean scale.

Straw man argument and ad hominem noted. As for censorship, I will let other moderators handle that since I am actively engaging with you.

[parsivalshorse]

I don't, it would he impossible.

Then don't ask me questions about it.

When you propose to do the impossible, it is perfectly appropriate to question your proposal. This is a discussion forum after all.

It was your idea, not mine.

Incorrect. The record will show that you brought up enforcing a global standard definition, in post #173.

You are the one claim8ng that there is a standard definition.

That I did. Note the lack of implication, let alone mention of any enforcement.

I am asking who gets to doctate to the English speamong world that it is the standard defintion? You?

The English speakers, that's who, and yes, that includes me because I happens to speak English.

What 'standard' usage? There is no such thing.

Of course there are, that's what dictionaries document.

No, that is a fundamental misconception. Dictionaries do not document standard definitions, they docuent common usages.

Who gets to dictate which of the many definitions of 'atheism' is the 'standard' one?

We do, the English speakers.

But English speakers define the word in countless different ways. There is no standard definition in English.

And how do you propose to enforce that, and with what authority?

There you go again, why would you want or need me to enforce such a thing?

Because an unenforcible, unauthorised standard is pointless.

This is pretty simple, YOU think there is a standard definition of atheism.

Aye. That I do. In fact, I think there are multiple standard definitions. Here are two examples:
1) Lack of beliefs in gods; and 2) Denial of theism.

Upon what authority is it the standard definition?

There is no such authority. None is required.

How about a straight answer?

Were those straight enough for you?

You gave two different definitions, and claim both are the standard - that is absurd. It is contradictory.

[parsivalshorse]

So you believe you are the global authority who can dictate a 'standard' definition of atheism based upon a poll you conducted here?

No. I do not believe that.

Wow! That is just mind-blowing. What can I say?

You can say sorry for misrepresenting my view, you can say you would never do it again. How does that sound?

May I ask yet again how you propose to enforce it?

Quit asking me irrelevant questions. I made it very clear I am not proposing to enforce it.

At the risk of censorship, I have to say - that is a delusion of grandeur on a truly herculean scale.

Straw man argument and ad hominem noted. As for censorship, I will let other moderators handle that since I am actively engaging with you.

You are denying your own claims as I contest them.

[parsivalshorse]

So you believe you are the global authority who can dictate a 'standard' definition of atheism based upon a poll you conducted here?

No. I do not believe that.

Wow! That is just mind-blowing. What can I say?

You can say sorry for misrepresenting my view, you can say you would never do it again. How does that sound?

May I ask yet again how you propose to enforce it?

Quit asking me irrelevant questions. I made it very clear I am not proposing to enforce it.

At the risk of censorship, I have to say - that is a delusion of grandeur on a truly herculean scale.

Straw man argument and ad hominem noted. As for censorship, I will let other moderators handle that since I am actively engaging with you.

You are denying your own claims as I contest them. There is no such thing as a standard definition of atheism. You propose two different definitions of many and claim BOTH are the standard definition. You are countering your own position and claiming to be getting misrepresented at the same time.

By what measure are the two definitions you gave the standard? Upon what authority? (You said yours, but now deny it, then claim to be giving straight answers.)

If you do not intend to enforce this 'standard' definition (both of them), what happens when somebody uses a different definition to the two you insist are the standard definition?

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 187 by Bust Nak]

Let's simplify yet again.

You cite two 'standard' definitions of atheism.

Upon what authority do you dictate which definitions are 'standard' and which are not? (Besides your poll here).

And how can you then ensure people apply only the two definitions you insist are the standard ones?