What do you do when people tell you "you're not an atheist?"

[Roland98]

I've spent way too much of my time today over at this place. (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4877&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) It started out as a "atheists are bad people because they won't indoctrinate their children into Christianity" threads (allegedly due to something the poster read at the atheistparents.org site (http://www.atheistparents.org/forum), where I also post). However, it has since turned into a "you are not an atheist if you don't affirm the non-existence of any God; therefore, you are just an agnostic" thread.

Besides just ignoring them (which I've decided to do by stepping out of the conversation), has anyone come across any good way to deal with this kind of annoying bullheadedness? I hate to ignore it altogether because it then just cements people's misunderstanding of what atheists actually are, and what beliefs they hold (or don't hold, as the situation may be).

I should also add, that I'm not looking for a definition of "atheist" or "agnostic" here; if anyone wants to go that route, I'm sure there are many threads in GRD that can be revived. I'm more interested in what to do about the fundamental public misconception of what atheists really are.

[Viti]

I have had this happen. I simply say "I don't believe in God which makes me an atheist. I take your word for it that you are a Christian, that you fit your definition of a Christian, please accept my word about my own personal beliefs"

[Roland98]

I do like that second part.

Problem was in today's trainwreck, the first "I don't believe in God" isn't good enough to qualify as an atheist, since according to his dictionary (the second entry, mind you--the first one specifically mentioned simple disbelief) an atheist affirms that there is no God (or something of that ilk).

So the rest of the conversation was along the lines of,

Him: "You're not an atheist. An atheist says there are no Gods. You are an agnostic."

Me: "No, I am both an atheist and an agnostic. They are not the same thing. I admit I have no knowledge of any god, but neither do I believe in any. Being an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive, just as I am both a scientist and a mother."

Him: "You're not an atheist. My dictionary says so."

Me: "Yes I am. Here are sites which elaborate on the dictionary definition."

Him: "You're not an atheist."

Me: "Yes I am."

ad nauseum. :banghead:

[Will I Am]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-Stephen F Roberts


*They* are athiests.

Ask them why they don't believe in *other* gods. And then say, "see?"

[Viti]

Good suggestion Will. Roland, try asking them if they are simply agnostic about Shiva or Zeus. Also, disbelief is mentioned in the dictionary. Try posting the entire decitionary entry and leave it at that.

Can't imagine what they are trying to prove.

[KoopaFanatic]

Well, when my "born-again" housemate pulled that a few years back, I responded with, "You're right. I'm a heroin-dealing transgendered bisexual communist neo-pagan who's being indicted for criminal abuse of a turtle in Lebanon and who has a large collection of bondage computer porn in which he's going to superimpose your face over every image."
"Can you just be an atheist? That'd probably be easier to deal with."
Of course he later decided the fact that I could even conceive of such a sinful list was evidence of how horribly immoral all atheists are.
We didn't get along too well. Glad it was just for part of a summer.

Normally my response is something along the lines of, "Fine. There are no gods. I firmly avow this. Your religion is crap, and you're wasting your life. Happy now?"

Fortunately I don't have to deal with it very often, or I'd turn into a bitter person very quickly.

[Roland98]

Someone just posted what you suggested, LadyShea. Obviously he's been around the block a time or two on this matter. ;) I'll keep these suggestions in my bag 'o' tricks for next time. Keep 'em coming!

[arcangle]

When he allows me to define his Christianity, that's when I'd allow him to define my atheism.

Pull out the dictionary definition of god. But use the 3rd, 4th, or 5th definition, as he did. And claim that's what he worships, specifically. No wiggle room. It is the commonly understood definition after all. It's even in the dictionary!


Lyn

[Roland98]

Ooh, another good one. Let's see what we get just using boring dictionary.com:

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

I'm loving it...

[tracer]

5. A very handsome man.
... which might explain a certain, ahem, crucifix scene in The Exorcist.

[MysteryProf]

A Christian at my school: "You're not an atheist."

Me: "You're not a psychic."

:p
~MysteryProf

[Darwin26]

i've spent unfortunate wasted time with a xian over, if, atheism is or isn't a religion. Gawd they're like ...pitbulls of salvation... how does one discuss life with a pitbull? how does one discuss life with a robot? how does one ingage a robot pitbull spreading salvation ... just say "Have a nice rapture" and don't waste your precious time.

[BerntRostrom]

How could you be an Atheist? My neighbour asked me.

I've always been I replied. I have been a very proud Atheist too.

Now the very scary thing happened to me a few years ago.

An even more proud Atheist declared me to never have been an atheist.

He could could discern and be sure of this based on me telling him that although me being an Atheist I still feel like my Mom did when Iwas ten years old. To "feel religious" but still know me to be a true atheist.

No true or pure Atheist ever feet religious he told me.

Bernt You have never been an Atheist. You have been mistaken your whole life, you have lived on a deception. You don't even know what it is like to be a true Atheist.

He was very skillful in his rhetoric. My whole self-esteem went by the wind. I had no pride in my Atheism left he instantly converted me to a mistaken religionists.

Now you expect a true Evangelist Fundie to convert you to the enemy side but you don't expect a True Atheist to do it.

To be a proud atheist has given me so much pleasure and sureness in my life so such an identity is not somethign I give away becasue a rhetorically skilfull American told me the Truth!!!

this could be a cultural thing I tried to tell him .

Here in Sweden some 20% are Atheists and 28% Agnostics so we ahve anotehr culture here, only 1% of US citizen are Atheists or Agnostics.

Nothing could beat hsi internal logic and self-confidence.

I ahd to sever??? Cut off all my exchange of email with him to survive as a Atheist and as a Human.

My life was shaken, my whole identity was in sway, what if I ahd been mistaken for 40 years? Is such things really possible.

could he have been a Troll who set up his Atheist site to make religionists by pretendign to be the True Atheist?

Since then s few years have gone by and I am rather sure of me as an atheist again, still very shaken and if he is active in our formus I would not answer him at all. He is too skilful with words.

Why on earth tell you all of this? Cause to me it shows that to be an Atheist is not as esy as often described. If you meet somebody who is dogmatic in his Atheism the contrast could be overwhelming.

First though I try to be a Human. Don't you?

[DMB]

Bernt: it is an unfortunate truth that among human beings a proportion will turn out to be irrational arseholes. The person who attacked you in this way is one such. One finds them among atheists just as one does among theists.

Of course, this sort of thing is much commoner among xians, who love to accuse members of different sects of not being True Christians™. In the end, each of us knows best what we think, and I can't see why we shouldn't choose the description that seems to fit our beliefs best, so long as it is not self-contradictory, such as, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in any gods and I don't think that Jesus ever existed", or, "I am an atheist, but I firmly believe that my faith in Jesus will save my soul".

In deciding that I qualified as an atheist, I knew that I was agnostic on the existence of all and any gods, but I also knew that I lived my life, with no qualms at all, on the working hypothesis that no gods at all existed and that religion was basically a load of tosh. It is just a working hypothesis, but I would maintain that when theists claim to know the truth of their religion, it is they who are then misusing language. They simply have a working hypothesis that is different from yours or mine.

[Rhea]

Some quotes I like on the topic:

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.
-- Richard Dawkins, following a list of excerpts from hate mail sent to the editor of Freethought Today, after she won a separationist court battle, in "A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet" (Free Inquiry, Summer, 2002) paragraph division added ††



There's another one I'm looking for...

[Gunnaheave]

I probably put in a good 500 or so posts on this topic alone over at CF. I've tried every argument on that topic I can think of, many of which we've also seen here. In my experience there are a core of people who simply won't listen, and they will compound one error on top of another; anything it takes. They will preach about "thuh dictionary," cite definitions which don't demonstrate what they think it does, ignore all counter-arguments, demand citations, ignore citations when you provide them, tell you "most atheists here" don't use the word the way you do, then ignore evidence that most atheists on the cite do, and they will systematically misrepresent any argument about default assumptions you may produce. It's a control issue, IMHO, if they can keep you from controlling your even own identity in the discussion, then they don't have to listen to anything you say on the specifics.

I even had one sack of toe-cheese cite "Philosophy for Dummies" as a final authority on the subject, then dismiss a barrage of citations I provided drawing on original works of logic and philosophy, and several reputable dictionaries - all because I hadn't provided the specific credentials of each author. That's I think the last time I really made an effort on this one.

I think ultimately, you have to just keep the discussions focused on the issues rather than the identity-game. That is, if you wish to talk about the topic, then you can get into it, but in other areas you are not obligated to do more than clarify your own usage. When you become fed up with the semantics, you can tell them that you don't believe in God and that is what you mean to say when you call yourself an atheist. If they choose to ignore your self-representation, or if they choose to misrepresent the nature of your claims, then you are more than justified in ignoring their own views on the subject. For those that are playing head games, this is the only effective response you have, to deprive them of the leverage they have to fillibuster the issue at your expense. You simply let them know that you are moving on.

[Roland98]

I even had one sack of toe-cheese cite "Philosophy for Dummies" as a final authority on the subject

:eek: I knew there was a reason I didn't frequent CF...

[Gunnaheave]

Originally posted by Roland98
:eek: I knew there was a reason I didn't frequent CF...

…and if a fool loses an argument, but he doesn't know it, has he really lost?

[BerntRostrom]

Gunnaheave thanks for that one. Me when I am vry proud I feel honored by loosing that show that I am human and not a logical machine?

thanks to yo uand all of you for sharing your views and conforting thoughts. Bernt

[GunnerJ]

I think my initial response would be, "Pardon me, but I think I'm the expert on what I do and do not believe." I mean, how rude to just tell someone else that they're not something they are! This is really reserved for when I suspect the person thinks that everyone really believes in god, some just pretend not to.

[BerntRostrom]

Isn't it rather amazing that some Evangelistic Theists and some Activistic Atheists beahave soo similar.

The Evangelistic Theists says like this.

but Bernt I think you really do have a relation to God. This atheism you talk about is doubt that have come into your relation and if we pray together God will heal these misudnerstanding. You know in your heart that there is a God and that he loves you Bernt.

The True Atheists that I accidently came upon aound 1999? he was very similar in attitude and so cocksure of himself. He knew more about me than I did myself apparently.

How to look upon this cock sureness. No good quality at all.

Bertrand Russell is supposed to ahve said "Nothign is worth that kind of certainty" I guess he alleged to a fanatic fundamentalism but It seem to go both ways.

A remarkable similarity is this debates about the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And a similar one about Determinism and Free Will.

All of the active debaters seem very sure of them selves.

I mean waht if it is more complicated than we first thought or what it looks like from outside of us. No big deal we might say.

Either we have it or not have it. Could it not be that we get it wrong all together. To be conscious might turn out to be very different from what we thought?

Take Acupunctur. They teadched for thousands years very intricate meridians? and cosmic Qi Energies and ying and yang and a lot of remarkable things. Whe science finally looked at it it seems the so called experts ahd it all wrong from scratch. Not that we know all of it now either but it seem verly much less mysterious.

The sad effect is that a lot of peopel get the wrong view that Acupuncture was true and that Science has given evidence of it true. Almost all of it was wrong. It didn't work the way they proposed at all.

Same with Remote Viewing that the NSA? spent so much money on. If the TV prog I saw is true then nothing of it is true. And that could be why they stopped paying it too.

Ok I am too wordy.

[chrislee]

Originally posted by Roland98
I do like that second part.

Problem was in today's trainwreck, the first "I don't believe in God" isn't good enough to qualify as an atheist, since according to his dictionary (the second entry, mind you--the first one specifically mentioned simple disbelief) an atheist affirms that there is no God (or something of that ilk).

So the rest of the conversation was along the lines of,

Him: "You're not an atheist. An atheist says there are no Gods. You are an agnostic."

Me: "No, I am both an atheist and an agnostic. They are not the same thing. I admit I have no knowledge of any god, but neither do I believe in any. Being an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive, just as I am both a scientist and a mother."

Him: "You're not an atheist. My dictionary says so."

Me: "Yes I am. Here are sites which elaborate on the dictionary definition."

Him: "You're not an atheist."

Me: "Yes I am."

ad nauseum. :banghead:

This is one of the rudest things theists do. Far too many of them.

For some reason they imagine they get to be the final arbiter of what your and my positions actually are.

Part of this is because they cannot grasp the simple concept that the premises they're using to describe us don't even apply outside the confines of their religion. As long as they make this mistake they will always get us wrong.

But even if their premises did apply their definitions are still overly simplistic and form both a false trichotomy and a bait'n'switch between belief and knowledge.

Instead of addressing the people themselves, they try to force fit them to pre-defined labels which they then imagine accurately describe them.

I'm not any kind of theist. Nor have I ever been. I don't waste any time and effort believing that something as irrelevant as the object of deity belief in somebody else's religion doesn't exist.

Nor have I anything to be agnostic about.

The question doesn't even arise.

My life does not revolve around what only has meaning in terms of somebody else's religious beliefs.

Which is something else most theists seem incapable of grasping.

[Adora]

See, this is where I make a distinction between I guess what you could term an "atheist" and a "nontheist". An atheist, to me, lacks a belief in a higher power or deity. I believe there is a predisposed form of personality to be this way. Also, most people are atheists at some point in their lives, usually when they are very young. They lack any belief in a higher power, unless you count their Mother=God instincts.

Nontheists (or I guess, in a sense, 'anti-theists'), to me, would be someone who actively "affirm the non-existence" in an almost pseudo-religious sense. A bit like the active anti-religious section of Communism. That, to me, is not atheism, that is non-theism. I know it sounds strange, but that's how I draw the line in my head and help me sleep at night. I have always been an atheist. All the church sessions and religious education and work by my parents to try and make me believe never worked, and no amount of even logical (in a sense) agnostic arguments can, because that's just the way I am. Whereas a nontheist, you could say, grows into it, needs more convincing, more evidence etc. I mean, I'm sure someone will take issue with these definitions, but thats just the way I see it.

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by arcangle
When he allows me to define his Christianity, that's when I'd allow him to define my atheism.

If you know what sect of Christian the person is, you can always pick some other Christian sect's belief that they don't hold to and tell him that he obviously can't be a Christian because everyone knows that True Christians believe XXXXX. Just keep coming back to that until they give up on you and leave.

cheers,
Michael

[getalong]

Aaagghhh. NEVER MIND!

[jj]

Originally posted by Roland98
However, it has since turned into a "you are not an atheist if you don't affirm the non-existence of any God; therefore, you are just an agnostic" thread.


Well, if the well is already poisoned, I just tell them that if they think they can read my mind so well, they should apply for the Randi Prize, but that I think they have the same chance of winning that a mayfly has to win an endurance contest with Lazarus Long.

If the well isn't poisoned, I doubt that you need any help from me. :)

[Ego]

I ain't had the 'pleasure' of being told that I'm not an atheist, but I look forward to the moment I accuse them of not being a 'true' catholic/christian, because they're following the wrong set of interpretations for the bible, and people who don't are going to hell, or at least purgatory.

Once I've got them on the defensive (which almost all 'true christians' will) it's down hill from there, and with a bit of luck they might either drop the subject and realise that I - The True Atheist ;) can be just as irrational as them, and by parodying/satrizing their position they might just realise how dumb such an argument is, resulting in them questioning other parts of their belief system which could result in a realisation that they've been duped by the church and then they de-convert and go around as another 'happy atheist' (TM).

That or they'll just leave in disgust muttering something about eternal torture in the pits of hell.

Either way, I win! :D

[Rumplestiltskin]

YOU'RE NOT AN ATHEIST.

Response; that's right I'm not merely an atheist, I'm THE atheist. :cool:

[Occams_Razor]

Well maybe you're not an atheist. What do you care what word defines your beliefs? The word is just the word, not the belief.

If your thinking definition of "atheist" includes characteristics usually relegated to agnosticism, which some of the people who have posted here seem to, then the clarity of the word becomes blunted. Make up a new word. Don't call yourself an atheist if you say you are unsure if "there is a higher power but you just dont know what it is." That's an agnostic, dammit. Do you need to define yourself as an atheist rather than an agnostic when you seem to fit the bill of an agnostic and not an atheist? The problem becomes clarity and dilution of the word, not to mention self-delusion. Why do so many agnostics want to be called atheists and vice versa?

The long and short of it is, if the words do not have agreed upon definition, we will be using the word at cross-purposes.

While the definition of atheist may not be muddled, people's understanding of the definition IS very muddled. I always define what I mean by atheist when discussing atheism with someone, to avoid being confused with an agnostic.

The way I define atheism, an agnostic and an atheist are very different animals, and I am definitely not an agnostic.

An atheist is not someone who denies the existence of god; an atheist is someone who puts no credence in the hypothesis that there exists such a being to deny.

Believing in god makes exactly as much sense as believing that Mickey Mouse is a real person.

[Arkus 02]

There's this girl I go to school with, used to be a close friend of mine, but has since pissed me off so I no longer associate with her outside of school. Anyways, at school (I'm in high school if ya haven't picked up) whenever I mention my atheism, she thinks she sounds clever by telling the people I'm talking to "he thinks he's atheist" with a very smug expression. At first I kinda ignored this, then I switched to saying sarcastically (to her) "You think that?" then (to them) "My friend Kathryn here believes herself religiously tolerant; obviously she's a pretty poor judge of people". I talked to her twice about how that line, specifically, drives me crazy, but she never stopped.
Anyways one time I lost my patience with the whole "Chris here thinks he's atheist" line, so I turned to her, looked her in the eye and juat said "fuck you" with my mean voice, then turn back to the guy I was talking to and nicely explain my belief in the absence of god. Haven't had any problems with her since. Anyway, the point I'm making here is that some people are assholes and don't listen to rational thought, and instead need to be told off by a close friend before they learn some manners.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
Well maybe you're not an atheist. What do you care what word defines your beliefs? The word is just the word, not the belief.

I understand your point, and it wasn't really the word that was my problem; it was the fact that they were telling me what my beliefs were, and refusing to accept any evidence I offered showing them that my use of the word was indeed proper.

If your thinking definition of "atheist" includes characteristics usually relegated to agnosticism, which some of the people who have posted here seem to, then the clarity of the word becomes blunted. Make up a new word. Don't call yourself an atheist if you say you are unsure if "there is a higher power but you just dont know what it is." That's an agnostic, dammit. Do you need to define yourself as an atheist rather than an agnostic when you seem to fit the bill of an agnostic and not an atheist? The problem becomes clarity and dilution of the word, not to mention self-delusion. Why do so many agnostics want to be called atheists and vice versa?

I see atheism and agnosticism as two different, but related things, and see myself as both. But as I mentioned in the OP, this thread is not for the discussion of "what is an atheist" or "what is an agnostic." If you'd like, there are many threads on that topic in GRD which you can revive, or start a new one.

The long and short of it is, if the words do not have agreed upon definition, we will be using the word at cross-purposes.

While the definition of atheist may not be muddled, people's understanding of the definition IS very muddled. I always define what I mean by atheist when discussing atheism with someone, to avoid being confused with an agnostic.

That seems like an awful lot of work. I generally assume (obviously wrongly, much of the time) that people simply know that the prefix "a-" simply means "without."

[BerntRostrom]

Wrote a long text that none has time to read, edited it down to this message.

[Occams_Razor]

I see atheism and agnosticism as two different, but related things, and see myself as both.

Well then I don't get it.

Please explain to me your definitions of atheist and agnostic so that I can understand how you can be both.

The way I define the terms, and the way I believe most people who have delved into the subject define the terms, one cannot be both atheist and agnostic.

[Choy Lee Mu]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
Well then I don't get it.

Please explain to me your definitions of atheist and agnostic so that I can understand how you can be both.

The way I define the terms, and the way I believe most people who have delved into the subject define the terms, one cannot be both atheist and agnostic.

From this article (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_athorag.htm):

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge - it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

[Rumplestiltskin]

Originally posted by BerntRostrom
Wrote a long text that none has time to read, edited it down to this message.

I'll let you know when I get around to reading it. ;)

[Viti]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
Well then I don't get it.

Please explain to me your definitions of atheist and agnostic so that I can understand how you can be both.

The way I define the terms, and the way I believe most people who have delved into the subject define the terms, one cannot be both atheist and agnostic.

The easiet way is to say "I don't believe (atheist), and I don't think it can be known (agnostic)" I have used this description as well.

[Occams_Razor]

So that's how you are defining atheism and agnosticism huh?

Then the only difference between you and the guy who accused you of not being an atheist is your separate operating definitions of the words. As such, I cannot fathom why you would be upset about what he said and why it would have caused you such profound upset. Like I said in my first post, the belief is the belief and the label is just the label.

BY my operating deinition you are not an atheist. So what. So you keep calling yourself an atheist. and I'll call you an agnostic, how does this change anything?

[Viti]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
So that's how you are defining atheism and agnosticism huh?

Then the only difference between you and the guy who accused you of not being an atheist is your separate operating definitions of the words. As such, I cannot fathom why you would be upset about what he said and why it would have caused you such profound upset. Like I said in my first post, the belief is the belief and the label is just the label.

BY my operating deinition you are not an atheist. So what. So you keep calling yourself an atheist. and I'll call you an agnostic, how does this change anything?

Because it's rude to tell others what they believe. If they call themselves a Buddhist, a Christian, and atheist or whatever, it does not progress any conversation to argue about their self description. Just accept their self title and move on to the important discussion.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Because it's rude to tell others what they believe. If they call themselves a Buddhist, a Christian, and atheist or whatever, it does not progress any conversation to argue about their self description. Just accept their self title and move on to the important discussion.

Exactly. It's not like it's an extraordinary claim; I didn't say I was the Queen of England or something else that would have effectively stopped the discussion. Whether one defines "atheist" as solely what I'd call "strong atheist" shouldn't have been a part of the discussion. Plus, while he used the dictionary as his reference, he refused to acknowledge that my use of the term was in there as well. It is just aggravating.

[Gunnaheave]

I am always curious as to how people can insist on the strong definition of atheism, but accept a soft definition of agnostic. The notion that agnosticism is simply a default judgement has is no more plausible than that of weak atheism. So, why shouldn't I reserve the title of agnostic for those who maintain that knoweldge of God's existence is inherently unknowable, rather than simply unknown. Then all the major titles: Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism amount to affirmative claims, and there is no word for those whose judgement rests largely on default assumptions.

And if my practical assumptions are equivalent to those of a strong atheist, then why should details of about the reasoning I make in getting to that stance be an argument against the label of atheist. If I am wrong about the nature of default judgements and the propriety of a default negative assumption, then I am in error, but no-one says that a Christian is not a Christian if he believes based on erroneous judgements. It's only weak atheists who seem to have to prove their reasoning sound even to establish their identity, others get to assume an identity and proceed to discuss the issues.

[Occams_Razor]

Because it's rude to tell others what they believe. If they call themselves a Buddhist, a Christian, and atheist or whatever, it does not progress any conversation to argue about their self description. Just accept their self title and move on to the important discussion.

No. I'm not telling him what he believes. I'm telling him that since my definition of atheism is different than his, and he has defined his belief, I would not use the lable of atheist to describe him because that is not how I use the word, but only so that we understand what we are tallkjg about when we discuss the subject.

I have no problem with either his belief or that he calls it something that I don't. This has nothing to do with politeness. It's pure semantics.

The only problem that may arise from this is when we are using the terms but we don't know each other's definition of the terms as we're talking.

Thus, your statement, "Just accept their self title and move on to the important discussion," makes no sense. I do accept the self-title. But only after going behind the title to find out what he means by it. THAT'S THE POINT. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION. We can't discuss the important stuff until we know what each other mean by the words we use.

Once we understand each other's definition we can move on to the discussion. Until then we are talking and not undertanding each other because we mean different things by the words we use.

[Roland98]

Once we understand each other's definition we can move on to the discussion. Until then we are talking and not undertanding each other because we mean different things by the words we use.

I think we mainly agree. My problem came in when we had heard each other's definitions, and rather than saying, "OK, I never heard atheist defined in that manner, I learned something new today," he came back with, "See here in my dictionary (example 1; nevermind the others which affirm your stance); you are not an atheist." It was a sticking point that halted the discussion right there.

[Viti]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
No. I'm not telling him what he believes. I'm telling him that since my definition of atheism is different than his, and he has defined his belief, I would not use the lable of atheist to describe him because that is not how I use the word, but only so that we understand what we are tallkjg about when we discuss the subject.

I have no problem with either his belief or that he calls it something that I don't. This has nothing to do with politeness. It's pure semantics.

The only problem that may arise from this is when we are using the terms but we don't know each other's definition of the terms as we're talking.

Thus, your statement, "Just accept their self title and move on to the important discussion," makes no sense. I do accept the self-title. But only after going behind the title to find out what he means by it. THAT'S THE POINT. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION. We can't discuss the important stuff until we know what each other mean by the words we use.

Once we understand each other's definition we can move on to the discussion. Until then we are talking and not undertanding each other because we mean different things by the words we use.

I see. I was answering in context of the OP, where Roland explained her definition, and that became the argument.

[BerntRostrom]

I think we mainly agree. My problem came in when we had heard each other's definitions, and rather than saying, "OK, I never heard atheist defined in that manner, I learned something new today," he came back with, "See here in my dictionary (example 1; nevermind the others which affirm your stance); you are not an atheist." It was a sticking point that halted the discussion right there.

Christians kind of uses words that way. Not that I support it but to some of them it seems almost like a second nature. :)

Ok 1983 or maybe 1984 I don't remember the circumstances but the content or context.

I decided to give this christian Fundie a cahnce to really read the Bible and not only show it down my throat. So I told him. Let us read the Bible together but we do it my way.

Well he looked very suspeiciously at me and say Ok.

I opted for a part that IMO is metaphorical put one the surface look very much like somethign historical going on.

John 4 when Jesus meet teh Anon Samarian Woman and he ask her to give him water and when she ask him why he who are not supposed to talk to he at all ask her for soemthing the text switch to a kidn of proclamtion of who he really is and she get into mode of accepting him as the long awaited savior.

Now I had through the help of critical theologians found an alternative interpretation than what is usual among evangelical Lutheran Christians. Jesus never met this woman at all, It is all fiction and if you "really read" the text and look at the footnotes the ypoint out that the OT has the text that thsi one is mythic reference to. The text "play out" as if in real time the old text.

The formula is somethign like this.

As has been written in the Scriptures, this is happening now, the Kingdom is here, rejoice and bring in the Harvest.

Now him being loyal to his traditions "literalistic" take was stuck in seeing the text as somethign that really too place there and then.

To him Jesus really existed as physical person and met anotehr physical person who had sinned by 6 men.

that si not what the text says I told him. You even fail to read your own book. Read now what the book actually says.

This Woman is the symbol for the Samaritan people. She has not have sex at all cause she is a mythic person. The Men or Husbands that she was not married to is symbols for the 5 gods that the Samaritans obeyed during the time the Jew was in captivitity by the Assyrians. Taht is why the Jews smashed the Samaritan Temple at the Gerrisim Mountain which the Samaritan still worship the 6 god that is not their real Father. Now is the time come when we could talk to each otehr again the Jews and the Samaritans cause now Christ Jesus has brought us together in a new relations hsip with his Father. Through Jesus we could have the right relation in Spirit and Truth. And on and on ...

As an Atheist it felt crazy to need to teach him basic stuff from teh Book but Christians belong t osoo many variatiosn taht one doesn't know the theology of the other.


That is my conclusion of this thread that each person has his or her own interpretation and sometimes attachment to what the word refers to.

Take atheist. Io me that was more much more than a mere word as a tool for communication. To me it was my whole identity almost.

I got angry when peopel told me taht I was behaving like a religious evangelist but preaching my non-belief in God and they preaching their belief in God.

But words are tricky. Take non-theist. One of us here say that to her that non-theist seem to be the more aggressive word.

But then you have not read George Smith, Michael Martin, Paul Kurtz and probably more who try to discern how to use words like atheist.

I fail to get this difference between strong and weak atheism so it is no wonder taht many of us also fail to get the difference between

atheism and nontheism. But as far as I know it is atheist that is seen as the stronger assertive almost aggressive word while nontheism is more like "weak" atehsim in that it is a lack of belief and not the assertion that there is no god or God or Goddess either.

I've always been the Strong Atheist. Nontheism to me then was wimpy.

Now since 1983 or so I accepted taht this assertive style of me was an outer thign to hide my inner longing for emotional affirmation of beign worthy to be here at all. Atheism doesn't give me this but theism doesn't eitehr cause it lie on reality and thus is unethical to support. I am technically still the strong atheist cause I see nothing that support evidence for a God but withi nus I am sure of that a conceptual seed is sawn every thime somebody talk about God as a concept.

Memes is unfortuantely very contagious but the yonly exist within our heads. The effect of them though is very real and factual. People do as teh God within them tells them to.

So God is a real illusion as I tease about it.

What I tried to do to the Fudnie? To at least take him into history critical theology mode but he was as determiend as I was so we ighted over that text for six continuous hours without food and then we never talked to each otehr again. Him and me likewise sure of being the winner of the fight

Crazy.