Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[Sigz]

Yes, we are defining atheism in the traditional and correct manner. Atheists want to re-define it in a desperate attempt to claw themselves out of the indefensible position that God does not exist.

What the hell are you talking about? If someone doesn't believe in but doesn't actively deny the existence of god, whether they call themselves atheist or agnostic has NOTHING to do with their beliefs, or them trying to weasle out of some alleged philosophical problem.

You realize something is amiss here and so state "despite its definition, everyone has their own beliefs." Take that for what it is saying: there is an objective meaning, definition of a word that is being deliberately corrupted by one's beliefs.

No, it's saying that regardless of what someone calls themselves their views remain the same. There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication. Do you seriously have that hard a time comprehending how language works that you don't see that?

[yeshaberto]

omega and sigz, tone it down

[Ħ]

I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.

[Scheavo]

I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.

I'd garner that if atheism is being redefined, it's because more people don't care, and don't think you can know the answer to the question. And since agnostics get labeled as atheists by theists (as evidenced by this thread), agnostics then have a desire to be called the right thing, and redefine the word.

[Omega]

I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.

You're completely correct. I misspoke; I didn't quite mean objective. I meant "established". The point my post was that if one is allowed to re-define the already-established meaning of words, then what's the point of coming to an agreement upon the definitions of any words?

Atheism means "God does not exist." Anything less than this (eg "I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, however I won't commit myself to the absolute position of "God does not exist") is agnosticism. After establishing this, the individual then is free to add their own personal statements upon how sure they are of God's existence or non-existence.

To further clarify:

God does not exist = Atheism

I'm cant be sure whether God exists or not, but I'm convinced that God most likely does not exist



Red = agnosticism
Blue = personal biographical statement

[Rathma]

There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.

This.

From dictionary.com

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)

/lock thread

[Ħ]

There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.

This.

From dictionary.com

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)

/lock thread

[Omega]

There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.

This.

From dictionary.com

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)

/lock thread

I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?

[Ħ]

There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.

This.

From dictionary.com

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)

/lock thread

I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?

Based on 2, I guess so.

[Rathma]

I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?

Bro, I don't think anybody wants to have this argument.

FYI Richard Dawkins would answer yes to all of those. Well, maybe not the dog.

[Ħ]

He probably would.

[Adami]

There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.

This.

From dictionary.com

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)

/lock thread

I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?

1. No, because you believe in another god. You'd have to believe in no gods. None what so ever. Which one it is, doesn't matter.
2. No because newborns can't concieve of god and can't make a decision.
3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.

[GuineaPig]

Newborns don't believe in any gods.  They're atheists. 

However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.

[Adami]

Newborns don't believe in any gods.  They're atheists. 

However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.

They're also solipsists.

But you're right. It's meaningless.

[Rathma]

3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.

So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.

Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! 

RAW DOG BITCHES

[Adami]

3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.

So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.

Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! 

RAW DOG BITCHES

Well Brutus ate god. He knows that god is dead, thus doesn't believe in him.

[Ħ]

Newborns don't believe in any gods.  They're atheists. 

However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.

I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.

[Adami]

Newborns don't believe in any gods.  They're atheists. 

However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.

I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.

And you'd have a major difficulty proving it.

[Ħ]

Newborns don't believe in any gods.  They're atheists. 

However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.

I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.

And you'd have a major difficulty proving it.

You'd have a major difficulty proving otherwise, too. My main point is that you can't just make a blanket statement "Children would not believe in God in the absence of social influences".

[Adami]

There is a HUGE difference between "Children can't possibly concieve of god without someone telling them" and "Children don't have an innate belief in god"


Maybe as they grow, they will come to a belief. Maybe they won't. But believing in god doesn't rely solely on either A societies influence or B it being innate.

And is belief in the one true god innate? What about belief in multiple gods? Or nature gods? Which one is innate?

[Ħ]

To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.

[Omega]

3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.

So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.

Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! 

RAW DOG BITCHES

Well Brutus ate god. He knows that god is dead, thus doesn't believe in him.

My dog = Nietzsche 

[Adami]

To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.

Children of what age? Infants do not have the physiological capacity to even fathom such things.


And of course children who are old enough to imagine god do so. They live in a world where god is mentioned 100 times a day in a variety of circumstances.

[Ħ]

To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.

Children of what age? Infants do not have the physiological capacity to even fathom such things.


And of course children who are old enough to imagine god do so. They live in a world where god is mentioned 100 times a day in a variety of circumstances.

Like...8 years old or something. My parents weren't religious and I sort of believed in a pantheistic God (i.e. God is in everything), even though it didn't govern the way I lived at all.

[Omega]

And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s). By that logic, everyone is an atheist (because no one believes in all of the proposed gods and deities of the history of mankind and because believing in multiple gods is incoherent with monotheistic gods), including all animals, etc. It's simply silly.

[Adami]

Just curious Omega, is this how you see the world?

[Omega]

Just curious Omega, is this how you see the world?

I see skies of blue, clouds of white

Bright blessed days, dark sacred nights

And I think to myself...what a wonderful world

[Rathma]

And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).

Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:

[Rathma]

derp

[Ħ]

And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).

Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:

Be careful what you wish for, man. This is Omega you're talking to.

[Omega]

And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).

Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:

Rathma, are you saying that it is not a possibility that these dictionaries have been (unfortunately) influenced by the slimy rhetoric of the New Atheists into accepting an inadequate definition of atheism, whatever their reason for doing so may be?

[Rathma]

The job of dictionaries are to explain to people in which sense words are used. Definitions change over periods of time, you don't need conspiracies to explain it.

[yeshaberto]

since it is apparent that this topic cannot be discussed without insulting each other, despite warnings, this thread is now locked