We are all Atheists

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what i have a problem with is the use of the words

yes, you can define atheist as a christian that believes in 1 less god. and yes you can define christian as an atheist that believes in one more god. do you not see the contradiction yet?

No, I don't see any contradiction. What is it?

will we define ourselves by what we do not do?
Many of us do. I quite frequently refer to myself as an athiest, non-racist, harmless, non-native, foreigner. I do not lie, negatives is a standard part of language.

if so, then my sentence does indeed make sense, we are all murderers but some didn't commit any murders.
Now that is a contradiction, and is quite different from the examples you are disputing. A strawman perhaps?

but what use does such a language have? Hi, i am a murderer that hadn't committed a murder and a thief that hadn't stolen, i am also an atheist that believes in Allah and his prophet Mohamed and i am a retired 60 year old woman with XY sex chromosomes that hadn't retired yet and didn't turn 60 yet. Seems an odd way to communicate, hmm?
I am starting to think that you don't know what the origin of the word "atheist" is.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think what is obvious is observer-relative.

You inferred what I called the preamble from the text. Whup-de-do.

Are you saying that after reading the original quote, you had not figured out what was meant? Or do you know someone who hadn't?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying that after reading the original quote, you had not figured out what was meant? Or do you know someone who hadn't?

Are you saying that after reading the original quote, you had not figured out what was meant? Or do you know someone who hadn't?
Neither.

I am saying that we have direct evidence from this thread that to some observers, the use of 'atheist' seems problematic in the quote. Hence what is obvious is observer-relative.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what i have a problem with is the use of the words

yes, you can define atheist as a christian that believes in 1 less god. and yes you can define christian as an atheist that believes in one more god. do you not see the contradiction yet?

will we define ourselves by what we do not do? if so, then my sentence does indeed make sense, we are all murdere ...[text shortened]... somes that hadn't retired yet and didn't turn 60 yet. Seems an odd way to communicate, hmm?

Zahlanzi,

Perhaps we could see the analogy this way. A thief is somebody who steals things. Suppose there is a thief who steals all the apples except one. They are still a thief. There might be another thief who steals all the apples.

If we think of an atheist as somebody who rejects claims for the existence of gods, there might be an atheist who rejects claims for Thor, Poseidon and so on so that they reject every claim apart from one about Allah. What we normally think of as an atheist is like the thief who steals all the apples, in that they go one more step and reject the last claim, just as the second thief stole the last apple.

The point being made is that if you think of atheism as a process, whereby we adopt an atheist stance toward claims about gods, we are all atheists.

I hope that clarifies.

Originally posted by josephw
With which relative? Fornication is fornication. Or is it sodomy?

According to the bible we all come from adam and eve. According to science we all come from one ancestor. Either way you look at it...

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I don't see any contradiction. What is it?

[b]will we define ourselves by what we do not do?
Many of us do. I quite frequently refer to myself as an athiest, non-racist, harmless, non-native, foreigner. I do not lie, negatives is a standard part of language.

if so, then my sentence does indeed make sense, we are all murderers but some di ...[text shortened]... ]
I am starting to think that you don't know what the origin of the word "atheist" is.

you are clinging to a bad use of language on my part. yes, we sometimes define something by what it doesn't do, but i am sure you know what i mean.

when someone asks you if you are a thief, will you answer yes, but you are yet to steal anything?

Now that is a contradiction
and monotheists being atheists who have yet to dismiss the last god isn't a contradiction?

the last remark on my unknowing the meaning of the word atheist is odd. i am talking language, how all but the insane express themselves and you claim i don't know what atheist means? where did it come from? and yes, i do know what atheist means, do you know what christian means? i will give you a hint: it is not an atheist that believes in god and jesus.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Zahlanzi,

Perhaps we could see the analogy this way. A thief is somebody who steals things. Suppose there is a thief who steals all the apples except one. They are still a thief. There might be another thief who steals all the apples.

If we think of an atheist as somebody who rejects claims for the existence of gods, there might be an atheist who re ...[text shortened]... adopt an atheist stance toward claims about gods, we are all atheists.

I hope that clarifies.

yes, depends on how you look at it. are believers a subset of atheists? or are atheists a subset of believers. or are they independent? the problem with your example is that if a thief doesn't steal any apples, he is no longer a thief. you don't account for that issue. you also bend logic and language to suit your needs. if i would do the same i could also claim that all men are women that have XY chromosomes.

a believer may believe in something or another. if he doesn't believe in anything he is no longer a believer. you can't call him one and still remain in the land of logic.


atheism means 0 faith. if you have more than 0 faith you can no longer be one and that is why i say that quote is wrong. (well i think it is pretentious crp, but i would like to be polite)

EDIT: no it doesn't clarify. flawed example, flawed logic. sorry. try again.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I am saying that we have direct evidence from this thread that to some observers, the use of 'atheist' seems problematic in the quote. Hence what is obvious is observer-relative.

But that would apply to any possible piece of text you could imagine. Look at how much difference of opinion exists regarding the Bible.
I still maintain that anyone who is reasonably good at English should be able to get the point from the quote without a preamble or further explanation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that would apply to any possible piece of text you could imagine. Look at how much difference of opinion exists regarding the Bible.
I still maintain that anyone who is reasonably good at English should be able to get the point from the quote without a preamble or further explanation.

dismissal of something isn't the same as dismissal of everything.


that is why i don't "get" the quote even though i am reasonably good at english.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, depends on how you look at it. are believers a subset of atheists? or are atheists a subset of believers. or are they independent? the problem with your example is that if a thief doesn't steal any apples, he is no longer a thief. you don't account for that issue. you also bend logic and language to suit your needs. if i would do the same i could a ...[text shortened]... be polite)

EDIT: no it doesn't clarify. flawed example, flawed logic. sorry. try again.

yes, depends on how you look at it. are believers a subset of atheists? or are atheists a subset of believers. or are they independent? the problem with your example is that if a thief doesn't steal any apples, he is no longer a thief. you don't account for that issue.
That isn't a problem for my analogy which is narrow in scope and fits the usage of 'atheist' in the quote. You have attempted to over-extend the analogy by thinking about people who don't steal any apples. But that is just equivalent to maximal pantheists who reject no claims about gods at all.

you also bend logic and language to suit your needs.
Yes. We all do that. Constantly. That's what the original quote does- it uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way to make a political point. Only the terminally literal-minded would respond by drawing attention to the obvious non-standard use.

if i would do the same i could also claim that all men are women that have XY chromosomes.
From what I've seen of your posts you do in fact make nonsensical claims often.

atheism means 0 faith. if you have more than 0 faith you can no longer be one and that is why i say that quote is wrong. (well i think it is pretentious crp, but i would like to be polite)
Well I think you are a literal-minded buffoon with logic and comprehension problems, but I wouldn't dream of mentioning it 🙂. I imagine English isn't your first language though, so no doubt you are doing a lot better than I could in your first language.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that would apply to any possible piece of text you could imagine. Look at how much difference of opinion exists regarding the Bible.
I still maintain that anyone who is reasonably good at English should be able to get the point from the quote without a preamble or further explanation.

If the person looking at the quote is already an atheist then yes...they probably get the point (and they over look the inaccuracy of "atheist" )

If the person is one who defines himself to be not an atheist (because they take the generally accepted usage of the word and believe in at least one god) Then for all your claims that *its obvious, its clear, it needs no further explanation etc...* they have a right to have problems with it.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]yes, depends on how you look at it. are believers a subset of atheists? or are atheists a subset of believers. or are they independent? the problem with your example is that if a thief doesn't steal any apples, he is no longer a thief. you don't account for that issue.
That isn't a problem for my analogy which is narrow in scope and fits the ...[text shortened]... though, so no doubt you are doing a lot better than I could in your first language.[/b]

so then you conclude that you are right, i am wrong, you have some deeper understanding while i fail to grasp the finer points of your superior intelect and so on. is that correct?

the thief that doesn't steal any apples is supposed to be the atheist. but sure if you start on a wrong path you should be consistent with it. so i don't blame you you missed that part.

Yes. We all do that. Constantly. That's what the original quote does- it uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way to make a political point. Only the terminally literal-minded would respond by drawing attention to the obvious non-standard use.
so the guy who made the quote isn't a pretentious ass, but a master of subtlety and wit? of course it uses metaphors. but some are intelligent and some are idiotic.
this guy attempt at wit was feeble. a respectful and humble opinion form the terminal literal minded buffon with logic and comprehension problems.


From what I've seen of your posts you do in fact make nonsensical claims often. so it is ok when some make them. but not ok when someone else do? is that right?

Originally posted by Agerg
If the person looking at the quote is already an atheist then yes...they probably get the point (and they over look the inaccuracy of "atheist" )

If the person is one who defines himself to be [b]not an atheist (because they take the generally accepted usage of the word and believe in at least one god) Then for all your claims that *its obvious, its clear, it needs no further explanation etc...* they have a right to have problems with it.[/b]

the quote is equivalent to "Mary has apples. George has apples. Mary has 1 apple, George has 1 apple less."


Would you say you have to be a believer to have a problem with the above use of language? Or you have to be an apple farmer? Or could you spot a problem in that quote no matter your convictions?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so then you conclude that you are right, i am wrong, you have some deeper understanding while i fail to grasp the finer points of your superior intelect and so on. is that correct?

the thief that doesn't steal any apples is supposed to be the atheist. but sure if you start on a wrong path you should be consistent with it. so i don't blame you you missed ...[text shortened]... ten. so it is ok when some make them. but not ok when someone else do? is that right?[/b]

so then you conclude that you are right, i am wrong, you have some deeper understanding while i fail to grasp the finer points of your superior intelect and so on. is that correct?
It would be a bit silly of me to argue if I thought you were right and I wrong. As for your intellect in relation to mine, let's face it we don't know do we? Mind you, you're the polyglot 🙂

the thief that doesn't steal any apples is supposed to be the atheist.
Not in my analogy it isn't. Please try to focus. Still, why accept an alternative consistent view if you can plough on with your own leaden literal-minded agenda. So I don't blame you for not following that part.

a respectful and humble opinion form the terminal literal minded buffon with logic and comprehension problems.
I was joking. The joke was about the notion that one can be polite merely by putting an offensive opinion in brackets. But you missed that, so I might have to hold to the 'literal-minded' part.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]so then you conclude that you are right, i am wrong, you have some deeper understanding while i fail to grasp the finer points of your superior intelect and so on. is that correct?
It would be a bit silly of me to argue if I thought you were right and I wrong. As for your intellect in relation to mine, let's face it we don't know do we? Mind you, ...[text shortened]... in brackets. But you missed that, so I might have to hold to the 'literal-minded' part.[/b]

since you consider yourself to be right and me wrong, yet you offer no argument supporting your claim, i must assume you think me moronic.

Not in my analogy it isn't. Please try to focus. Still, why accept an alternative consistent view if you can plough on with your own leaden literal-minded agenda. So I don't blame you for not following that part.
so let's put a definite on the maybe. so we know what we argue. believers are a subset of atheists, right? that is the only way your odd thief analogy would work.

I was joking. The joke was about the notion that one can be polite merely by putting an offensive opinion in brackets. But you missed that, so I might have to hold to the 'literal-minded' part
oh no, i missed your "awesome" wit and sarcasm. must be because i was so in "awe" of your previous "arguments" that "totally" "destroyed" my position.
see those quotes? that is how they look like. yours were more invisible and non existent. no wait, it must be one of them. i would go with non-existent.