Question for the Atheist

[_MrStakhanovite]

This is the etymological fallacy, Buffalo.

*Beats Mak to the punch*

[_sock puppet]

The word "atheist" simply means without god - as in, no belief in gods. That describes every baby I've ever met.

This is the etymological fallacy, Buffalo. The word atheism was developed millennia ago and has been used ever since to refer specifically and exclusively to those who deny the existence of deity. It is only recently that a minority of atheists has made a push to redefine the word.

I prefer the term evidence-based reliabilist.

[_Buffalo]

The word "atheist" simply means without god - as in, no belief in gods. That describes every baby I've ever met.

The derivation of a word is not always the same as its definition. That's not quite what atheist means.

What do you think it means?

[_maklelan]

That's not really relevant. The definition I'm using is a legitimate one - albeit the most inclusive of possible definitions.

No, it's not legitimate. It's a broadening of the definition beyond its usage for purely rhetorical purposes. An -ist is one who espouses an -ism. -ism is a suffix that forms nouns of action, state, condition, or doctrine. Atheism is not a state or condition. It is and always has been a doctrine. A baby cannot espouse a doctrine. You will find that this question is a rather basic way to distinguish people who think about atheism with a basic capacity for critical thinking from those who think about it from a dogmatic or emotive point of view.

[_Buffalo]

The word "atheist" simply means without god - as in, no belief in gods. That describes every baby I've ever met.

This is the etymological fallacy, Buffalo. The word atheism was developed millennia ago and has been used ever since to refer specifically and exclusively to those who deny the existence of deity. It is only recently that a minority of atheists has made a push to redefine the word.

As we all know, the first definition of a word can be the only legitimate definition, as all languages are static through time.

[_maklelan]

*Beats Mak to the punch*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gZ6-6RbSEg

[_Buffalo]

That's not really relevant. The definition I'm using is a legitimate one - albeit the most inclusive of possible definitions.

No, it's not legitimate. It's a broadening of the definition beyond its usage for purely rhetorical purposes. An -ist is one who espouses an -ism. -ism is a suffix that forms nouns of action, state, condition, or doctrine. Atheism is not a state or condition. It is and always has been a doctrine. A baby cannot espouse a doctrine. You will find that this question is a rather basic way to distinguish people who think about atheism with a basic capacity for critical thinking from those who think about it from a dogmatic or emotive point of view.

I don't think it's a recent innovation that the word means ""one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Babies meet the second half of that statement

[_maklelan]

As we all know, the first definition of a word can be the only legitimate definition, as all languages are static through time.

I'm not at all advocating for that view, Buffalo, but can you point to a history of such usage of the word in contexts that are not entirely dependent upon the rhetorical utility I've described?

[_Morley]

I don't think it's a recent innovation that the word means ""one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Babies meet the second half of that statement

You saying that a baby disbelieves the existence of God. That implies the ability to believe.

[_maklelan]

I don't think it's a recent innovation that the word means ""one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Babies meet the second half of that statement

Disbelieve means "to refuse credence to; to reject the truth or reality of." It's an active disbelief, not simply a lack of belief.