Question for the Atheist

[_maklelan]

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

No, you've quoted dictionaries that I have conclusively shown do not support your reading. You can't just ignore my rebuttals and then reassert your original thesis. "Disbelieve" is unquestionably not simply a lack of belief. It is a conscious rejection. I've shown that from the OED itself and you didn't bother to respond.

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

Why don't you just point me to the usage you describe?

[_maklelan]

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.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can simply assert any definition you want for the word. As I've pointed out, you cannot show that the meaning you assert is in common usage. I've also pointed out that that meaning never appears outside of the context of the "everyone is born an atheist" rhetoric.

[_maklelan]

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.

So your point is that others have rejected your definition in the past in an effort to evade your argument. How does this bear on the current discussion? Are you trying to assert the conclusion that all theists do this? If so, I disagree.

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

Then don't bring it up. Since your main point appears to be the hypocrisy of this argument, can you point to the hypocrisy in my argument?

[_Buffalo]

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.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can simply assert any definition you want for the word. As I've pointed out, you cannot show that the meaning you assert is in common usage. I've also pointed out that that meaning never appears outside of the context of the "everyone is born an atheist" rhetoric.

I've already demonstrated that it's one definition of the word. I think we both agree that it isn't common usage. But neither are most alternative definitions for words.

By the way, I found this, I hope it might help with your theism.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

So your point is that others have rejected your definition in the past in an effort to evade your argument. How does this bear on the current discussion?

LOL... forgive me for assuming you were reading the discussion you were participating in.

Are you trying to assert the conclusion that all theists do this? If so, I disagree.

No, not all, but it's a pretty common tactic from theists (and Stak - it's actually his participation in this that amused me most).

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

Then don't bring it up. Since your main point appears to be the hypocrisy of this argument, can you point to the hypocrisy in my argument?

Ohhh, that's right. I forgot you like to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to say. Would you object to me telling you to blow me?

If you don't already see the writing on the wall, I'm not going to waste time pointing it out to you.

[_Tarski]

At the risk of coming off as a jerk, let me explain something to you guys.

Suppose we ask for the real meaning of a word. I think we can all agree that the dictionary doesn't settle things perfectly. Presumably, since the meaning of words change because usage changes, someone who writes a dictionary cannot always just appeal to a previously existing dictionary. Not only that but it is implausible that a few lines can completely capture all semantically relevant facts about current usage.

The meaning of a word is based on usage but even that needs qualification for the simple reason that we all know that there is a such a thing as a commonly misunderstood or misused word. How do we decide between the case where a meaning has changed because usage has changed and the case where a word is just commonly misunderstood. We could try to appeal to "educated" usage but part of what makes one educated is whether one uses words correctly. Thus there seems to be a chance of circularity.

How do we decide whether in a given case people tend to misuse a word or if rather that very usage determines the meaning?

So what is the case?

Sorry but there is no fact of the matter. The meanings of words simply do not have hard edges even if some words are more definite than others. On top of that words, can have several meanings at once which often shade off into each other. Fuzziness and variation in both time an space can be expected. Formerly incorrect usage can become correct usage over time and there is no definite line we can draw to say when it happened.

I am afraid that while the word atheist serves us well in most circumstances, we are never going to find the true perfectly clear univalent meaning of the word because it just doesn't have one--at least when viewed microscopically.

My point is that we would simply be better off simply clarifying our intentions conversation by conversation should any question arise rather than engaging in protracted debates about one true meaning of a word.

Why not use clarifying language such as "in this instance, by atheist I mean...". One can afford to add a personal stipulative component to the definition of a word, if that helps with making one's intentions clearer.

[_maklelan]

I've already demonstrated that it's one definition of the word.

You don't seem to be picking up that I've shown several times over that it's not a legitimate definition of the word, or that you actually have to support that assertion if you wish to make it. That means you have to engage the argument I made against it. Just barking "Yu-huh!" doesn't get the job done.

I think we both agree that it isn't common usage. But neither are most alternative definitions for words.

You've yet to show me that it is in usage at all outside of the expressed argument regarding whether or not everyone is born an atheist, and that argument is a discussion about the meaning of the word itself. Basically, people who want to make the argument are insisting that the word means X, and if asked to point to that usage of the word anywhere they can only point to the argument that insists the word means X. That's a circular argument:

"The word means X."

"Show me that meaning in usage."

"Ok, look at the statement above: 'The word means X.'" That's the meaning in usage."

You cannot find your definition of this word outside of a fallacy. That quite simply means it's not legitimate.

By the way, I found this, I hope it might help with your theism.

You've still not shown me where "theism" relates to the meaning you gave me.

[_maklelan]

LOL... forgive me for assuming you were reading the discussion you were participating in.

I generally only read posts directed at me. I only read other posts if they jump out at me for some reason. Are you going to directly address my concern, or just do more rhetorical jujitsu?

No, not all, but it's a pretty common tactic from theists (and Stak - it's actually his participation in this that amused me most).

I can't speak to the commonality of it, but I don't appeal to such tactics.

Ohhh, that's right. I forgot you like to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to say. Would you object to me telling you to blow me?

You're welcome to say whatever you want, but I will correct logical and factual errors. Certainly you agree that I'm not being a total douche by doing that.

If you don't already see the writing on the wall, I'm not going to waste time pointing it out to you.

Ah, so you're right, and if I'm too stupid to know it, you're not gonna waste your time. I wish that middle school BS worked in academia. My job would be so much easier.

[_Some Schmo]

You're welcome to say whatever you want, but I will correct logical and factual errors. Certainly you agree that I'm not being a total douche by doing that.

Certainly not. I'm just waiting for you to start.

If you don't already see the writing on the wall, I'm not going to waste time pointing it out to you.

Ah, so you're right, and if I'm too stupid to know it, you're not gonna waste your time. I wish that middle school BS worked in academia. My job would be so much easier.

Ah, so you're right, and by stomping your feet and insisting I'm wrong about the elephant in the room, you can chalk it up to me not providing references (which I already showed in the other thread when you couldn't help yourself). I wish that elementary school BS worked in real life.

[_maklelan]

At the risk of coming off as a jerk, let me explain something to you guys.

Suppose we ask for the real meaning of a word. I think we can all agree that the dictionary doesn't settle things perfectly. Presumably, since the meaning of words change because usage changes, someone who writes a dictionary cannot always just appeal to a previously existing dictionary. Not only that but it is implausible that a few lines can completely capture all semantically relevant facts about current usage.

The meaning of a word is based on usage but even that needs qualification for the simple reason that we all know that there is a such a thing as a commonly misunderstood or misused word. How do we decide between the case where a meaning has changed because usage has changed and the case where a word is just commonly misunderstood. We could try to appeal to "educated" usage but part of what makes one educated is whether one uses words correctly. Thus there seems to be a chance of circularity.

How do we decide whether in a given case people tend to misuse a word or if rather that very usage determines the meaning?

This is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.

So what is the case?

Most people align unilaterally with descriptive grammar, with the understanding that why someone uses a certain word in a certain way can determine whether or not something is really correct. For instance, "irregardless" is a pretty common word, even though it technically means the exact opposite of what it is used to mean. It comes from the conflation of the synonyms "irrespective" and "regardless." People use it because they confuse two different words. Because of the background of its usage, few grammarians, even descriptive grammarians, would insist it is correct. It's still in many dictionaries, though, usually listed as "non-standard."

Sorry but there is no fact of the matter. The meanings of words simply do not have hard edges even if some words are more definite than others. On top of that words, can have several meanings at once which often shade off into each other. Fuzziness and variation in both time an space can be expected. Formerly incorrect usage can become correct usage over time and there is no definite line we can draw to say when it happened.

I am afraid that while the word atheist serves us well in most circumstances, we are never going to find the true perfectly clear univalent meaning of the word because it just doesn't have one--at least when viewed microscopically.

My point is that we would simply be better off simply clarifying our intentions conversation by conversation should any question arise rather than engaging in protracted debates about one true meaning of a word.

Why not use clarifying language such as "in this instance, by atheist I mean...". One can afford to add a personal stipulative component to the definition of a word, if that helps with making one's intentions clearer.

I think that's an appropriate way to go about it. Of course, in this context it would mean answering the question, "Is everyone born an atheist" by appealing to a definition asserted first and only by those who insist everyone is born an atheist. It's a species of begging the question.