The Religion of Atheism

There are broad words, and narrow words. But, think about another example. Suppose we didn't have a purely mathematical definition for the natural numbers, so we had to sort of base it on a set of numbers that we consider more or less representative. If someone wanted to include -10, we couldn't strictly say that it isn't one of the natural numbers since we don't have a strict definition, but by including it, we have doubled the things that we refer to when we talk about natural numbers. In either case, we are talking about an infinite number of objects, but in the latter case we have essentially halved the information contained in the term. We now don't have a real difference between integers and natural numbers. So, it's not exactly the broadness, it's the fact that essentially if we consider atheism a cult, then almost everything is a cult, and the word cult doesn't really contain any information anymore.

That's true, I suppose I think more of rationalists or skeptics.

 

well thats a ridiculous connection, since rich is not what a banker does and the objective of a dictionary is to inform what a banker is not the monetary status of a banker.

That is a very poor example of whatever it is that you are trying to say.

Causation makes an excellent definition. A Baker Bakes, heats dough etc, a banker puts your money in his vault. getting rich is an ulterior motive outside the scope of the definition.

The issue I have is that you have the idea that there is no problem with the way dictionaries are written, that one can tell by the context a word is used, and when I very clearly used the word universal to mean most not all and even explained it and drew a picture of most (not all) as 95-99% you continued to argue universal meant all with complete disregard to its usage and you turn right around and prove my point by arguing that universal meant all. You cant rationally have it both ways at the same time. sorry.

Lenin and stalin make the point unless you have a benevolent one in mind?

by usage, you claim dictionaries report usage, with that claim usage establishes definition. or have you changed your mind on that?

sure but you need to step up your game a bit rather than simply operating as monty pythons argument clinic. That universal argument as well as others have taken on the appearance of trolling you know.

 

I don't see in what sense we double the things we refer to or halve the information.

 

You seem to see the ridiculousness that I wanted to highlight, so it seems to me to have been a very good example.

Richness can be caused by being a banker, there is causation between being a banker and being rich.
Richness is however not in the definition of a banker, you can be rich without being a banker and you can be a banker without being rich.

So there is a causation relation, but not a definitional relation, so causation cannot imply definition (since this is a counterexample).

I think you're using the word causation differently than WillReadMore does. He seems to me to be talking about definitions which specify how the defined thing comes about (like a banker's richness being caused by his being a banker), not about a definition about a person who happens to cause stuff. Maybe @WillReadmore can comment?

No, once it was clear that you meant something other than all-encompassing, I dropped that line. My point is not that "most" is an incorrect definition, but that it is rare enough not to be assumed by default. Since then, I have mostly been trying to make sense of your interpretation of the word, and what the bell curve has to do with it.

Are you trying to make the argument that if religion had had another name, Lenin and Stalin would not have attacked religious people?

That sound right, popular usage defines language, and dictionaries reflect usage. I'm not sure where you're going with this, there may be caveats like how much usage is enough to alter language, but that's a practical detail that I won't get into unless that's where you're going with the argument.

 

I'm probably needlessly muddying the waters, it's just that math is often where my mind goes. What I meant was that 'natural numbers' means positive integers, so if we include -10, now we have to include negative integers as well. So, while before when we said natural number, we knew we meant positive integers, now we just mean integers which is essentially half as specific even though we are referring to the same number of things.

So, what I mean is that if we arbitrarily map something to a definition, (ie cult to atheism), we might not be wrong technically. However, what we are doing is making the definition of cult more muddy, not more clearly defining what atheism means.

 

Baloney, popular usage defines 'slang'. Philosophy the courts and arts provide the meaning.

no, it was a counter argument.

Its not rare, in fact the opposite its typical, sorry.

That is meaningless.

Well next time at least come up with something that actually applies to what we are talking about, your example was just plain out there and useless unless your objective was to post some strawman entirely meaningless dribble.

Yeh again has nothing to do with this.

It can, I gave examples.

Thats the problem with them substituting 'usage' for meaning.

Here is the long abandoned method of real dictionaries.

https://books.google.com/books?id=J...erican Encyclopedic Dictionary Volume&f=false

I have a huge library of these gems.

 

Source to the statements that philosophy/courts/arts provide the meaning?

Slang is specifically informal language specific to certain groups (there's probably more to that definition as well). It's not really common usage for those who use the language (although I'm sure you could interpret slang as a sublanguage or something).

I found some interesting wikipages which puts words to some of the concepts I've been talking about.

"The lexical definition of a term, also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage. As its other name implies, this is the sort of definition one is likely to find in the dictionary." (source).​

That links the common usage to the use in the dictionaries (not that dictionaries are always right, but they're talking about the same sort of definition).

You argue that courts have some special power over the definitions, whereas I argue that courts exercise the right to create a temporary definition. The main difference being that you argue that these definitions stay valid outside that court or court decision, whereas I argue that it doesn't (or rather, it's just one instance of usage, rather than an authority). The wikipage goes on to say:

"When the breadth or vagueness of a lexical definition is unacceptable, a precising definition or a stipulative definition is often used." (source)​

So we read further there:

"A precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition."
"many legal definitions are precising definitions"
(source)

"A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term." (source)​

This shows that definitions given for instance in courts and legal dictionaries go beyond that of common usage, as you would find it in language in general. In particular, I enjoy the fact that the wiki page makes the same diagnosis as I do, equivocation:

"When a stipulative definition is confused with a lexical definition within an argument there is a risk of equivocation." (source)​

In philosophy and other parts of academia, you're likely to run into a theoretical definition:

"A theoretical definition is an abstract concept that defines a term in an academic discipline."
"A hypothetical construct may serve as a theoretical definition, as can a stipulative definition."​

As you can see, definitions found in philosophy can be (and often are) stipulative definitions, which are not to be confused with the lexical definitions.

What to? This wasn't in response to any argument I made. I don't think I've made any argument which has to do with Stalin, or which would be particularly shaken by considering him.

Source? Specific instances is not enough to show what is typical.

I agree, this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I had a completely separate discussion with WillReadmore, I'm not sure why you responded to my post quoting him.

The argument I was arguing against (from WillReadmore) was that the definition is directly linked to its cause, for instance, cars are defined as coming from a car factory (I don't think that's his intended argument, I merely pointed out that that was how I interpreted it, so that he might clarify). Clearly this is not true in general, you could build a car in your back yard if you wanted to. You gave examples of something different, not sure what.

 

Common usage is typically moronville gomer pyle......wanna do some 420? Totally rad. Thats so gay. As you can see the so called common usage is total bullshit.

Now when you want to get in a fight over words who do you think is going to win?

Last week, the Supreme Court sided with the couple. The 1970 opinion was wrong, the court held. Scientology is indeed a religion. For one thing, Lord Toulson’s opinion explained, Scientology does hold a belief in a supreme deity, albeit an impersonal and abstract deity. Anyway, belief in a deity is not necessary. Religion, Lord Toulson wrote, means:

a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system . . . . Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the sense or from science.

On this definition—and Lord Toulson made clear he was not announcing a categorical test for all circumstances—Scientology qualifies as a religion. The court ordered the government to certify the couple’s church as a place where valid marriages could take place.

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/f...k-supreme-court-religion-does-not-require-god

and that is only one version. there are common denominators in all this which is why I started the defining religion thread to expand on that since this is not the end of the story.

I disagree with your using common usage as a useful method of understanding the meaning of a word, most like because it has nothing to do with the actual 'meaning' of a word.

I gave you a link above how a dictionary should look to properly convey the 'meaning' of a word. Our argument over the meaning of universal should have ended the second I gave you the definition but it didnt, you seem to have a need to apologize for your error by passing it off as rare, which it is not. IDC either way, except I was surprised you didnt simply leave it slide.

 

908 posts and atheism, by definition, is still not a religion. Atheism after 908 pages still means the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Oh, well, as long as we are prancing around in moron territory, let's check with your religious nutball leaders:

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

 

show me any God believer with a track record that even compares with the atheists track record.

Many historians have suggested that Stalin was responsible for death total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, Gulag camps, deportations and other causes. Simon Sebag Montefiore suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of between 20 and 25 million people..
Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stal...

 

Ah, the Gish Gallop...a favorite tactic of charlatans...

 

Definition of atheism
1
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

yep and its still a religion, as far as the rest is concerned lack is meaningless since anything not theism can be said to lack.

 

apparently you have no idea what GG is.

 

So now you are posting proof that atheism can simply be a lack of belief in gods, and not necessarily a strong assertion that there are no gods.

And after all those posts from you, arguing otherwise.

How odd.

 

thank you for showing once again it is not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

 

apparently you dont understand what you read.

Definition of atheism
1
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

yep and its still a religion, as far as the rest is concerned lack is meaningless since anything not theism can be said to lack. It always seems to come down to crayola time doesnt it.

Oh and if that were really the case, failure of atheist denialists to admit that hitting a ball with a stick is not baseball is absurd, if not laughable, since as we can see not even webster can help.

Riddle me this batman, how does one hold and maintain a religious position without being religious, even as an agnostic I am forced by definition to admit to being religious.

 

yes, we got it the first time. You didn't need to show once again that atheism isn't a religion, or that it means lack of belief in a god or gods. that was perfectly clear the first time the definition was posted.

 

I did need to show it again, because you cant seem to read or maybe comprehend past the lack.

I showed you are in denial and hand-wave reality away, and cannot defend your denialism, which you have proven to be part of your religion.

 

So, conclusion:

Thread falls on its face. OP unwittingly undermines his own points, demonstrating the transient, reactionary nature of his declarations.

 

denialism and hand waving away counter arguments without any rational rebuttal what so ever as rahl and presumably yourself are doing never trumps reality. I am not the op here.

 

I don't care about anything after lack. The very fist definition of atheism, is lack of belief in a god or gods. that is, by definition, not a religion, just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

but you know everything you just posted is not true.

 

You have presented no counter arguments. You have merely repeated yourself over and over, thinking that reiterating your authoritative declarations is somehow support for them...all the while posting material that undermines your own claims.

This is not surprising, coming from a zealous religious person, whereby authoritative declarations are valued over reason and evidence, and are regarded as having some divine, magical authroity that our inferior species should not question and could never fully understand.

Your behavior here displays quite neatly what the acceptance of this anti intellectual culture does to the faculties of reason.

 

So your only response is denial and you throw the dictionary out when it does not suit your politics, fine with me, do you really think no one notices? everyone except your fellow deniers can see your strategy

You need to learn how to distinguish between an argument and your blind denial.

Yeh I know thats the way it goes when dealing with denialists, they dont get it even after its laid out with crayons.

I dont accept antiintellectualism, atheists have yet to rebut and they wont either because they have no port in this storm to hide out.

 

no. My response is the fact that atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods, and is by definition not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

It's literally right there in the very first and most commonly used definition, that you yourself posted. Lol