- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 1
@DogTyred: I think half of all discussions on the internet are spent trying to figure out what the other person is trying to say.I really should never have bothered to mention the possibility of an "official" definition - that was confusing and I apologize. I haven't been trying to convince you that the dictionary definition of atheist is anything but what is printed in the dictionary, only that that definition is not an accurate reflection of reality and is therefore unhelpful.
That said...
(a) - Of course I'm correct about that. I read his book and he wrote what I said he did in the book (The God Delusion, pp. 73-74). The primary source is good enough.
(b) - The inconsistency between your personal opinion and the opinion of The American Atheists alone should illustrate that the question of "what is an atheist" is not completely settled.
(c) - The term "bright" encompasses atheists, apatheists and agnostics, so while it functions to cast off some of the negative associations with the word "atheist", it also serves to create a unifying term that removes the need for the discussion that we just had. Atheists can be brights, but not all brights are atheists. Squares and rectangles. By your own definition, I'm not an atheist, right? Even in your posts, you've been using the term atheist to refer to technical agnostics and strong atheists alike. The term bright would create some consistency. I've mentioned this in myriad ways over the course of this discussion, but people keep reading "spin job, spin job, spin job." Movements can have multiple purposes.
Certainly you may use the term atheist to refer to whatever you like - I'm only illustrating that your usage does not jibe with the terminology nonbelievers use to identify themselves.
I agree with the first statement in bold. It is difficult to understand what someone is actually saying when you don't have body language and intonation.
I just want to mention a few things. First, your point in 'b' is that there is an inconsistency between my definition of atheism and the American Atheist's definition. I don't think that is true. Here is it again..."Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long." That's all I've been saying.
Second, the bold statement in 'c' is incorrect, imo. Could you point out to me where I've used atheist to refer to a technical agnostic? For instance, I would not say that Richard Dawkins is an atheist even though he calls himself one because he used the word 'almost' in his statement "Why There is Almost Certainly No God.
I have really enjoyed this discourse and appreciate your point of view. Thank you, it's been nice.
Willowhand said:To everyone else, I've been following this thread and I'm enjoying "hearing" the different perspectives. It's refreshing to see a discussion of religion, atheism, spirituality, etc., that hasn't descended into utter offended chaos
@Willowhand - I totally agree with you. These discussions have been insightful and everyone has kept emotion out of it. It seems like we are all just trying to see another's point of view and that is a refreshing change from how discussions about religion usually go. So, kudos to all of your who are genuinely interested in how other people see things. That is how we educate ourselves.
