Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But who else agrees that people who do not have a concept of God, and those who do not believe in god, are the same thing?
They are not the same thing. They are called the same though. There is a factual difference, but the term applies to them both. Kinda like people who do not know Manchester United and people who hate Manchester United both fall in the same category of "Not a Manchester United Fan" though there is a difference between the two.
Originally posted by Bardock42But, when the term is used to describe an individual without the concept, by an atheist with the concept, it is typically being implied that the person without the concept are the same as those who have the concept and do not believe. The term's usage should thus be avoided when not an entirely accurate descriptive term, or perhaps when it is highly probable that such a misunderstanding of the language being used will occur. Given common usage of the term being in reference to one with the concept of God that lacks belief in said God, the term should not be used in referencing an individual without the concept, particularly if one is speaking of both types of atheist. But then that is only if one wishes to be properly understood by a general audience as exists in an open forum.
They are not the same thing. They are called the same though. There is a factual difference, but the term applies to them both. Kinda like people who do not know Manchester United and people who hate Manchester United both fall in the same category of "Not a Manchester United Fan" though there is a difference between the two.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I've noticed that it takes quite a while for Urizen and lil b to reply to our posts Bardock, weird don't you think?
I don't know. They might have lost interest. Or aren't on as much as we are. Or just realized they are wrong.
Originally posted by Regret
But, when the term is used to describe an individual without the concept, by an atheist with the concept, it is typically being implied that the person without the concept are the same as those who have the concept and do not believe. The term's usage should thus be avoided when not an entirely accurate descriptive term, or perhaps when it is highly probable that such a misunderstanding of the language being used will occur. Given common usage of the term being in reference to one with the concept of God that lacks belief in said God, the term should not be used in referencing an individual without the concept, particularly if one is speaking of both types of atheist. But then that is only if one wishes to be properly understood by a general audience as exists in an open forum.
That might be implied. Obviously that is incorrect. It does not change that it is an applicable term. That people mostly use it for people that actively do not believe in God does not change that it also applies to those that don't. I also don't see the problem in knowing and differentiating between the two.
And the term should be used. Because it is true. Atheism is the default. It just is. What else would you call it? You could call it "not believing in a deity"...but that's defined as atheism so you are at the beginning again. What is the problem with accepting that anyways? I mean it should be for atheists as well as Theists positive to think of it that way.
And usually it is very clear in the context (since hardly anyone ever talks about the baby atheist anyways). There is no confusion and it is the correct description. To deny it helps nobody.
Basically, what I am trying to say is....I am right, get over it.
Originally posted by Bardock42I do not disagree, but it does occur, and for the sake of clarity possible misunderstandings should be avoided. Unless of course you do not care about the audience's understanding. And in this thread, it does seem that confusion occurred, otherwise the topic would not have come up.
That might be implied. Obviously that is incorrect. It does not change that it is an applicable term. That people mostly use it for people that actively do not believe in God does not change that it also applies to those that don't. I also don't see the problem in knowing and differentiating between the two.And the term should be used. Because it is true. Atheism is the default. It just is. What else would you call it? You could call it "not believing in a deity"...but that's defined as atheism so you are at the beginning again. What is the problem with accepting that anyways? I mean it should be for atheists as well as Theists positive to think of it that way.
And usually it is very clear in the context (since hardly anyone ever talks about the baby atheist anyways). There is no confusion and it is the correct description. To deny it helps nobody.
Basically, what I am trying to say is....I am right, get over it.
Originally posted by Regret
I do not disagree, but it does occur, and for the sake of clarity possible misunderstandings should be avoided. Unless of course you do not care about the audience's understanding. And in this thread, it does seem that confusion occurred, otherwise the topic would not have come up.
There are no misunderstandings when I use it.
And frankly the definitions are there to avoid misunderstandings. I just go by them, because they are the ones that enable us to communicate.
No, the topic came up when someone explained that babies and people that don't know about Gods are atheist which others disagreed with (wrongly). It did not come up because someone used it only for babies. But because someone denied this definition.
Originally posted by Bardock42Possibly the first or third, they are on quite a bit, especially Urizen.
I don't know. They might have lost interest. Or aren't on as much as we are. Or just realized they are wrong.That might be implied. Obviously that is incorrect. It does not change that it is an applicable term. That people mostly use it for people that actively do not believe in God does not change that it also applies to those that don't. I also don't see the problem in knowing and differentiating between the two.
And the term should be used. Because it is true. Atheism is the default. It just is. What else would you call it? You could call it "not believing in a deity"...but that's defined as atheism so you are at the beginning again. What is the problem with accepting that anyways? I mean it should be for atheists as well as Theists positive to think of it that way.
And usually it is very clear in the context (since hardly anyone ever talks about the baby atheist anyways). There is no confusion and it is the correct description. To deny it helps nobody.
Basically, what I am trying to say is....I am right, get over it.