The meme of Richard Dawkins

[_Trevor]

Historically, the accusation atheist has been used to refer to those of divergent belief/practice. A couple of examples: Socrates was accused of being an atheist for not worshipping the gods of the state. Although Socrates shifted the argument to one of his belief or lack of belief in divine things, this does not change the fact that worshiping other divinities or differently from the community could be described as atheism.

Also, Romans described Christians as atheists for not worshiping the gods of Rome, including the emperor. Obviously it was well known that Christians did worship a god, but the definition of atheism Romans used allowed the application of the term to those who believed and practiced differently. For this reason I have no problem with Marg's definition of the term atheist.

[_dartagnan]

Socrates was accused of being an atheist for not worshipping the gods of the state. Although Socrates shifted the argument to one of his belief or lack of belief in divine things, this does not change the fact that worshiping other divinities or differently from the community could be described as atheism.

Also, Romans described Christians as atheists for not worshiping the gods of Rome, including the emperor. Obviously it was well known that Christians did worship a god, but the definition of atheism Romans used allowed the application of the term to those who believed and practiced differently. For this reason I have no problem with Marg's definition of the term atheist.

Let me get this straight. Historic precedent for misusing a specific term justifies its continued misuse?

Now that's just amazing.

I would have a problem with any attempt to render an established English term, utterly meaningless. And yes, that is what you're doing. If atheist can "logically" apply to anyone, it is essentially meaningless.

[_Trevor]

Let me get this straight. Historic precedent for misusing a specific term justifies its continued misuse?

Now that's just amazing.

I would have a problem with any attempt to render an established English term, utterly meaningless. And yes, that is what you're doing. If atheist can "logically" apply to anyone, it is essentially meaningless.

I did not offer you historic precedent for "misusing" the term. I offered you historic examples of use of the word. Historic use of a word as justification for continued use of it in that manner is not really that amazing. People do it all of the time.

And while the majority of people today do use the word atheist as you, many unthinkingly and some for purely doctrinaire reasons, that does not mean it is the only way to use the word. Language is not so inflexible as you seem to imagine. Marg is not suggesting anything new in her way of using the word atheist. Serious secularists, in their own explanation of their stance toward religion, have used the term in the exact same way she is. You may not agree with it, but it is not the risable misuse that you make it out to be.

[_dartagnan]

I did not offer you historic precedent for "misusing" the term.

Technically true, since the term used in Ancient Greece wasn't an English term.

I offered you historic examples of use of the word

Which have nothing to do with the English definition of the English term. A person isn't an atheist "to" something and their status as an atheist is not dependant on the perceptions of others who choose to use the term in the loosest manner imaginable - it isn't like the words ugly, smart, funny etc. Atheist has an established objective meaning. If you believe no God exists, you're an atheist. Period. That some people in history chose to apply it in a relative fashion is irrelevant to its current meaning.

Historic use of a word as justification for continued use of it in that manner is not really that amazing. People do it all of the time.

In a manner that renders the term utterly meaningless, and that flies in the face of established English definition? I suppose that might be the norm in the schoolyard or the backwoods, but in scholarship? People might call someone gay because he is in touch with his feminine side, but that doesn't mean he is a homosexual or even happy. But people use it that way, and language is dynamic, so "logically" anyone who appears less masculine to someone else, is actually gay!

Take another example. Some might say George Bush isn't really an American because he does things they believe are "unamerican," but the objective reality of the matter is that he is an American, and no subjective torturing of the word is going to change that. Using your logic, since the term American has been used in history as a term applied to people who only act like Americans according to whatever standard any give person has in mind, then "logically" everybody and nobody is an American.

So marg calling me an atheist is something along the lines of Sean Hannity calling Hillary Clinton anti-American or a bigot in the schoolyard calling another kid a queer. This kind of "flexibility" is exercised by ignorant individuals and is based strictly on a biased and often polemical purpose. It is along the same lines of trying to get ebonics accepted in the public school system. Hey, enough people speak it, and language is flexible, right?

And while the majority of people today do use the word atheist as you, many unthinkingly and some for purely doctrinaire reasons, that does not mean it is the only way to use the word.

The unthinking nonsense entered the room the moment the atheists here tried to rid themselves of the label by saying it is a meaningless term that applies to everyone! Hey I know, I think I'll start calling you guys Christians. I mean those who express concern towards their fellow man are only showing that they have the light of Christ. Intelligence is the Glory of God. You're intelligent. That's it! From now on you're a Christian. Even if you don't realize it and your perception is clouded by a doctrinare understanding. don't ya just love this flexibility.

Language is not so inflexible as you seem to imagine.

I never suggested that and you know it. Of course language is flexible, but it takes time for changes to be accepted. You cannot will your preferred changes upon the language just because an ancient pagans thought they could call everyone who didn't believe in their God, atheists. That isn't the definition of the term, nor has it ever been.

And changes are generally made for the purposes of expanding meaning, not rendering terms meaningless.

Atheism has never meant "without God X." It means without God, period. It need not require the absence of belief in a specific God. What the two of you are doing is desperate and unwarranted. "Think" about it? What purpose is there in saying I am an atheist while I believe in the existence of a God? You haven't provided a reasonable response to this.

Marg is not suggesting anything new in her way of using the word atheist.

Marg didn't come up with idea on her own. She was reading an article about the etymology of the word on a Catholic website and saw that the pagans used to call Christians atheists, and wallah, it dawned on her that if pagans can abuse the term is such a manner, then "logically everyone is an atheist."

Serious secularists, in their own explanation of their stance toward religion, have used the term in the exact same way she is. You may not agree with it, but it is not the risable misuse that you make it out to be.

Yes it is, and I have already established this. You're only defense here is that since others have misused the term, so can you. Well, go right ahead. Present your argument before a scholarly panel and see how it works out for you. I'd pay money to see that.

OK, now I'm off to RIo.

[_Trevor]

Don't let the airplane door smack you on the behind!

Welcome to the world of Kevin Graham, where a pocket Webster's and a calculator provide the definitive proof that everyone other than he thinks like a fool. I have no idea where you got your education, but the fact that you sit here and pretend that the meaning of words is limited to the agreement between your common knowledge and a dictionary, all the while acting like nuanced, informed thinking is simply stupid, is a testament to your giant ego, if nothing else.

Meaning is contextual and contested. Atheists use the term as marg has. That does not render it utterly meaningless. What she has done is inform you of another legitimate use of the word. That she prefers it over the traditional meaning, whose usage has been as much as an insult and a weapon of prejudice as anything else, should not be mysterious to you or troubling in the least.

And with this I bid you adieu. I will reserve my interactions for people who have a modicum of respect for the thoughts of others, especially when their own special genius has in no way been made manifest to the world.

[_marg]

Meaning is contextual and contested.

Exactly, my comments about everyone being an atheist to someone else's God belief which differs to one's own was within the context of the developed discussion.

Kevin had said "Quite simply, an atheist denies the existence of God. This denial is an idea, a position and a belief. It is more than just a failure to believe something (God exists), it also entails belief (God doesn't exist). "

So Kevin defines atheism as entailing a belief..that God doesn't exist. He doesn't use the word "a" before God, it is as if there is only one possible God belief. And according to him an atheist denies the existence of God. If I am going to deny something, my denial is relative to the idea presented. An individual is unable to access all the possible God beliefs in people's minds, nor all the God beliefs ever communicated, but if one holds no particular beliefs in any supernatural agent, then they must be atheistic relative to all supernatural agent beliefs that have ever existed. And that is the sense with which Kevin restricts the word atheist. But there are other senses with which the word can be employed if used within a different context. There are many God beliefs which differ significantly from one another. To lack a belief in one or all of those god beliefs, is relative to those God beliefs. The concept of atheism is relative to theism, atheism wouldn't exist conceptually without first theism existing as a concept. Since there are various God beliefs in the world which differ to Kevin's he must lack those God beliefs, and therefore conceptually Kevin is atheistic relative to those God beliefs which differ to his. So while I am an atheist relative to all God beliefs which exist and that is the common sense the word is used, when employing the word within a stated context as I did, everyone conceptually is an atheist relative to any God beliefs which differ to one's own.

To get to the main point, I didn't just say Kevin was an atheist, I employed the word within a context. The english language does not have words for every single concept, and so words are often interpreted by the context within which they are used.