By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 15 September 2018
Edit Thread
Peh said:
JWeinCom said:

I understand that based on the definition you are using, babies fit.  But, I'd say that makes it a bad definition.

There is not an official definition for atheist.  The definition is whatever we (we meaning the people who are using the term) agree on.  That's why the definition changes over the year as you mentioned.  We notice "hey this definition doesn't quite capture what we mean" and then they propose a different one.  That's what I'm doing.  

That being said, it's not like I'm making up a new definition.  From Merriam Webster:  "one who subscribes to or advocates atheism". I don't think this one is perfect either, but I'd say it's much better at getting to what we really mean.

You said that when we are talking about atheists, what we are actually interested in is humans with complex thought processes that can evaluate the question, and no one cares about babies.  So then, wouldn't it be better to have a definition that includes only humans with complex thought processes, and excludes babies?  Isn't a definition that applies to what we actually care about better than one that includes things we don't actually care about?

As for it being a counter to theists, it's not really a good one.  I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought.  You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists.  I prefer Dawkin's counter-argument.  To paraphrase it's something like "There is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child.  There are only children born to Muslim or Christian families."  I think this is a much better response.  I think "child born to a Christian family" is a much more apt label than atheist, and it also subtly conveys the idea of indoctrination.

No, he messed up the quote.

"I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought.  You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists." 

I have the feeling that you have rather an issue with the label atheist itself. Calling babies atheists or not doesn't change for the fact that they don't believe in any deity. You trying to exclude babies for the simple fact that you don't like to call them atheist, because they have no option of choosing one over the other. But that's just how it is. Same as not believing in anything else out there. Because we don't have a label for everything doesn't mean it won't apply on them because they are babies. Hence, we call them babies and not not adults. What does adult mean anyway? Not everyone who reaches the age of an adult behaves like one. As if there is a standard on how an adult has to behave. 

This is pure semantics, and I don't wanna go deeper. I can also call them HIV negative unless they are HIV positiv. Or if you want to, not HIV positive. 

Just get over it. I'm done here. 

You're actually really close to getting my point with the last thing you said.  Although, you're a little off.

HIV Negative and HIV positive are direct negations of one another. (Also, those terms are adjectives and not nouns and so they skirt the issue altogether since we always have to attach them to something specific).  However, atheist is not a direct negation of theist.  Everything that exists either has to be a theist or not a theist. This is a law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.

 However, there are things that belong to that category not a theist (a sandwich for instance) that don't fall into the category of atheist. So "not a theist" and "atheist" are not the same thing.   Your definition of atheist seems to be the same as not a theist, and that's what I object to.   

Is it nitpicky?  Well yeah. But I kind of like being nitpicky. I'm interested in semantics and the intricacies of language.  I'm an English major with a heavy interest in logic.  I also quite like debate.  I find conversations on topics like this interesting. If you're not and don't, then by all means don't participate in a conversation about semantics.  But I don't appreciate you saying things like "get over it" or implying I have a problem with the label atheist.  It implies I'm being unreasonable or wrong, and I don't believe I am. Saying your not interested in semantics just means you're not interested in semantics.  It doesn't mean my argument about semantics (which is pretty well supported imho) is wrong.

You have presented a definition of atheist.  So have I.  Both can be found in legitimate sources.  We can choose to use either one.  I believe mine is a better definition.  I have explained why that is.  You have simply insisted that your definition is *the* definition, without explaining why it is more useful.  Despite acknowledging that it can apply to things you don't care about when you're talking about atheists.

So it's a simple question.  We have two choices of definitions.  Why is yours better?  This is the question I've been trying to get an answer to. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 September 2018