Question for the Atheist

[_Buffalo]

By the way, if atheists aren't allowed any say as to what is meant by atheism, I hope you'll return the courtesy by allowing atheists to have exclusive authority to define theism. Henceforth, the definition of theism is: (noun) a waxy buildup in the ears leading to infection.

[_maklelan]

Well isn't this argument rich? Adamant declaration of what it means to be atheist, but heaven forbid an atheist makes an assessment of what theists mean by theism.

By all means, make an assessment.

Basically, this argument boils down to "my strawman is better than yours..."

What strawman can you identify in my argument?

[_maklelan]

Yes, that's one definition. I understand your need to only acknowledge the definitions which support the argument to which you've attached yourself.

I've asked you repeatedly to show that your definition is legitimate. You've yet to even attempt to do so. All you've done is reassert the very unsupported thesis I've challenged. This is what the fundamentalists at CARM do when they know they can't defend their dogmas. Why are you doing it?

[_Buffalo]

Yes, that's one definition. I understand your need to only acknowledge the definitions which support the argument to which you've attached yourself.

I've asked you repeatedly to show that your definition is legitimate. You've yet to even attempt to do so. All you've done is reassert the very unsupported thesis I've challenged. This is what the fundamentalists at CARM do when they know they can't defend their dogmas. Why are you doing it?

I've already responded to your CFR, but if you need further assistance:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+wikipedia

[_maklelan]

By the way, if atheists aren't allowed any say as to what is meant by atheism,

I never said atheists aren't allowed to define the term. I have pointed out, as has Pat, that atheists define it along our terms as well. What I object to is the capricious declaration that "atheist" means whatever is most helpful to your rhetoric. We've explained the fallacies in your arguments and shown the texts that preclude your definition. All you've done is nakedly asserted that your definition is legitimate. When asked to show your definition is legitimate you've suddenly gone on the rhetorical offensive.

I hope you'll return the courtesy by allowing atheists to have exclusive authority to define theism. Henceforth, the definition of theism is: (noun) a waxy buildup in the ears leading to infection.

That's not how the term has ever been used. You don't seem to understand what etymology and usage have to do with what a word means.

[_Buffalo]

By the way, if atheists aren't allowed any say as to what is meant by atheism,

I never said atheists aren't allowed to define the term. I have pointed out, as has Pat, that atheists define it along our terms as well. What I object to is the capricious declaration that "atheist" means whatever is most helpful to your rhetoric. We've explained the fallacies in your arguments and shown the texts that preclude your definition. All you've done is nakedly asserted that your definition is legitimate. When asked to show your definition is legitimate you've suddenly gone on the rhetorical offensive.

I hope you'll return the courtesy by allowing atheists to have exclusive authority to define theism. Henceforth, the definition of theism is: (noun) a waxy buildup in the ears leading to infection.

That's not how the term has ever been used. You don't seem to understand what etymology and usage have to do with what a word means.

No, I've quoted definitions of the word atheism that support my assertion. My assertion is clothed, good sir, not naked.

As to your theism, I'd see an otolaryngologist about that if I were you.

[_Some Schmo]

Well isn't this argument rich? Adamant declaration of what it means to be atheist, but heaven forbid an atheist makes an assessment of what theists mean by theism.

By all means, make an assessment.

I've made it many times only to have it shot down because it didn't exactly match an individual's personal thoughts on the matter, as though that would get them out of whatever point I happened to be making at the time.

Basically, this argument boils down to "my strawman is better than yours..."

What strawman can you identify in my argument?

It's not relevant to the point I'm making about the hypocrisy of this argument.

[_Some Schmo]

Although I am not sure if all babies are atheist, I am certain that all atheists are babies.

Ha ha! Good one, Ceeboo.

Although you do realize you've just lost the moral high ground to say stuff like:

I am confident that the great majority of 6th graders could teach you a few things about common respect and class.

You want me to call the school and see if there are any young kids that would be willing to mentor you?

Just thought I'd let you know and welcome you to this shady group of disrespectful, classless assholes. Your membership card is in the mail.

[_maklelan]

I've already responded to your CFR, but if you need further assistance:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+wikipedia

And Wikipedia is no more a legitimate source than you are. Let's examine the quote you obviously think is authoritative here:

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

For some context, here's what the admin of the discussion page has to say about the definition of atheism:

The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. The current revision attempts to put forward all definitions without favoring any particular definition.

In other words, the definition to which you appeal may or may not be legitimate. They're just throwing everything at the wall. Obviously there are a lot of atheists who really want babies to be considered atheists. Some of the participants in the discussion point as much out:

It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that. Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument. Ugh. This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down.

But let's look at the source for this particular definition (religioustolerance.org):

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots:

"A" which means "without" or "not"

"Theos" which means "deity"
This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion or become Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

That first definition would fit your position, but that first definition is also nothing more than one possible implication of the etymology of the word alone. As Pat and I both pointed out, asserting a definition based exclusively on etymology is the etymological fallacy. It's not legitimate in and of itself. Words have meaning because of usage. Etymology plays a much smaller role, and etymology means nothing if the usage has nothing to do with it.

The word "atheist" developed with a very specific meaning that had specifically and exclusively to do with those that consciously rejected the gods. It has been used that way ever since. You've insisted that your definition is legitimate. I've asked you to show it. Wikipedia's non-committal stance regarding an implied definition based on the etymological fallacy doesn't cut it. Try again. Show me your definition has been in common usage outside of the little rhetorical game I've described.

[_Buffalo]

I've already responded to your CFR, but if you need further assistance:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheism+wikipedia

And Wikipedia is no more a legitimate source than you are. Let's examine the quote you obviously think is authoritative here:

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

For some context, here's what the admin of the discussion page has to say about the definition of atheism:

The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. The current revision attempts to put forward all definitions without favoring any particular definition.

In other words, the definition to which you appeal may or may not be legitimate. They're just throwing everything at the wall. Obviously there are a lot of atheists who really want babies to be considered atheists. Some of the participants in the discussion point as much out:

It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that. Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument. Ugh. This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down.

But let's look at the source for this particular definition (religioustolerance.org):

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots:

"A" which means "without" or "not"

"Theos" which means "deity"
This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion or become Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

That first definition would fit your position, but that first definition is also nothing more than one possible implication of the etymology of the word alone. As Pat and I both pointed out, asserting a definition based exclusively on etymology is the etymological fallacy. It's not legitimate in and of itself. Words have meaning because of usage. Etymology plays a much smaller role, and etymology means nothing if the usage has nothing to do with it.

The word "atheist" developed with a very specific meaning that had specifically and exclusively to do with those that consciously rejected the gods. It has been used that way ever since. You've insisted that your definition is legitimate. I've asked you to show it. Wikipedia's non-committal stance regarding an implied definition based on the etymological fallacy doesn't cut it. Try again. Show me your definition has been in common usage outside of the little rhetorical game I've described.

Yes, I understand. Only the definitions that fit your argument are to be tolerated, and atheists aren't allowed to define their own position. I get it.