frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The word Atheist shouldn't even exist.

Debate Information

Update: I have since changed my mind somewhat on this position based on some good points and arguments by others.

This was originally said by Sam Harris and when it comes to down to it I have to agree. We don't use words to describe people that are not scientists, non-drivers, non-Doctors, Non-Teachers, etc. The word Atheist to describe someone that is not a Theist is absurd, and of absolutely no practical use in the 21st-century modern day. I think it's time this word gets removed from the dictionary.
AlofRIRS_master






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    More words double-plus un-good. Why have more words when less more.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    An Atheist to me, equates to a non religious individual.

    Whether they are a Doctor or not.
    SkepticalOne
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    More words double-plus un-good. Why have more words when less more.

    That's not what I am saying. Do we really need a word to describe someone that isn't a Doctor? If no, then why do we need a word to describe someone that does not adhere to a Theistic religion?

    Is there really much of a difference between saying "I'm not a Theist" compared with "I'm an Atheist." Only a one word difference. Not much at all.



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 Un-same words have no reason. New-speak will win.

    The word "theist" should be removed but maybe not.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @ZeusAres42 Un-same words have no reason. New-speak will win.


    Can you elaborate on this bit? I am not following. @Happy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 Ok, the Orwellian nonsense is hurting my head too, and I don't think I can actually make a good argument like that.

    This would be the point I am trying to make, just in the most sarcastic way possible. The infamous dystopian book 1984 depicts a future in which the state controls people's thoughts by limiting language and changing documents to suit their needs on a whim. One way they accomplish this is by removing words that have opposites and then adding the prefix "un" to mean the opposite.

    So for example "good / bad" = "good / un-good" or "great /horrible" = "good / un-good"

    Another way is through the use of "double-think" which is the holding of two contradictory beliefs as truth. The idea is to make it so that holding a single opinion is not possible.

    For example: "We should remove the word atheist" or "we should remove the word theist" = "We should remove the word theist unless but not also atheist"

    So there are two arguments here: the first is that Orwellian language is , and having opposite redundant words is not a problem.

    The second is that although declining, it would be superior to remove the word "theist" as they are still the global majority. This would however imply either you are normal or atheist, and that has obviously negative repercussions.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @ZeusAres42 Ok, the Orwellian nonsense is hurting my head too, and I don't think I can actually make a good argument like that.

    This would be the point I am trying to make, just in the most sarcastic way possible. The infamous dystopian book 1984 depicts a future in which the state controls people's thoughts by limiting language and changing documents to suit their needs on a whim. One way they accomplish this is by removing words that have opposites and then adding the prefix "un" to mean the opposite.

    So for example "good / bad" = "good / un-good" or "great /horrible" = "good / un-good"

    Another way is through the use of "double-think" which is the holding of two contradictory beliefs as truth. The idea is to make it so that holding a single opinion is not possible.

    For example: "We should remove the word atheist" or "we should remove the word theist" = "We should remove the word theist unless but not also atheist"

    So there are two arguments here: the first is that Orwellian language is , and having opposite redundant words is not a problem.

    The second is that although declining, it would be superior to remove the word "theist" as they are still the global majority. This would however imply either you are normal or atheist, and that has obviously negative repercussions.

    That's all very interesting reading but would you mind explaining what you're in favor of or not of in simple terms and why you are in favor of it or not? @Happy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 Against because the assumption that "Atheist" and "theist" are binary terms is inaccurate. For example what would you call someone who was raised in a Christian home, but then decides they don't believe in a literal sense, but still feel that the bible is a good source of moral knowledge? Are they a theist or an atheist?

    It's neither, they are their own thing. We might call them a "cultural Christian" or "non-denominational" or make up some other term, but the point is that language is messy, so even though some words may be redundant, it is not a good argument to say we should remove them because of it.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Well, the word exists for historical reasons: for the vast majority of recorded history, the overwhelming majority of humans were religious. In certain periods speaking openly against religious beliefs was even punishable (and in some countries - punishable to this day), and people not believing in god were seen as those nowadays thinking that the Earth is flat.

    I do think this word will disappear eventually, when religion is no longer something people take seriously. But for now still the vast majority of humans are religious, and it makes sense to have a word to describe the minority having statistically unconventional stance on religion.
  • smoothiesmoothie 434 Pts   -  
    Crybaby christian fanatics need it as a slur though
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
    why so serious?
  • @ZeusAres42 Against because the assumption that "Atheist" and "theist" are binary terms is inaccurate. For example what would you call someone who was raised in a Christian home, but then decides they don't believe in a literal sense, but still feel that the bible is a good source of moral knowledge? Are they a theist or an atheist?

    It's neither, they are their own thing. We might call them a "cultural Christian" or "non-denominational" or make up some other term, but the point is that language is messy, so even though some words may be redundant, it is not a good argument to say we should remove them because of it.
    Well firstly, I get your point now about the Orwellian bit before. I can see how it may have come across as though I was advocating that no one should call themselves Atheist anymore. However, that is not my intention. If someone wants to use a label to identify themselves as anything then so be it as long as it's within reason and not harmful to oneself or others. Anyway, I'm just going to go through some of your post bit by bit:

    Against because the assumption that "Atheist" and "theist" are binary terms is inaccurate.

    Now, I can see how it might seem like this is an inaccurate assumption given how the word "Atheist" is tossed around so much by lots of people attaching different meanings to the word to suit themselves. However, the truth is that they are quite literary binary terms by definition; the actual true meaning of the word. Taking into the account of how it is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as well as it's etymological roots. To epitomize this I usually try to get people to think of the word Atheist as "A-Theist." Notice the hyphen? It's Richard Dawkins that takes the credit for the hyphen here which was mentioned in a video titled "Should we call children Atheists?" Note, however, that I am not suggesting this right because of Richard Dawkins saying so; I think this is correct as it agrees with reason, at least with me anyway. It does appear that multiple people (and I used to be one of these people) think of the word "Atheist" as "Athe ist" as opposed to "A-Theist" where the latter exemplifies the true meaning of the word. And the inaccurate assumption on my part was when I used to think of the word "Atheist" as "Athe ist." The A denotes a negation of belief.

    Here's another point:

    Imagine you never shop and never buy anything at Walmart then you are not a buyer from that shop. On the other hand, regular buyers of that shop are well, regular buyers. Now, if someone asks you do you ever shop at Walmart you can either say "No" or you can say "I'm an A-Walmart shopper." The latter to me just seems silly. Likewise, given the true meaning of the word A-theist, I also think this is a silly way to describe someone that does not believe in God (aka Theos, Greek origin).

    For example what would you call someone who was raised in a Christian home, but then decides they don't believe in a literal sense, but still feel that the bible is a good source of moral knowledge? Are they a theist or an atheist?
    Given the true meaning of the word Atheist then they are Atheist by definition yes. Similarly, someone that is not a Buddhist but finds Buddhism a good source of moral knowledge is simply not a Buddhist. Furthermore, anyone that is not a Theist is simply an A-Theist by definition; it's the only logical inference unless you mean something different when you use the word Atheist.

    so even though some words may be redundant, it is not a good argument to say we should remove them because of it.

    Maybe. But I could equally say that it's not a good argument to keep redundant words simply because one likes the sound of them or for some other personal reason.

    With all that being said I may still identify as an Athiest myself but according to the true meaning of the word. In other words, I don't believe there is no god; I just don't believe that there is one. @Happy_Killbot



  • smoothie said:
    Crybaby christian fanatics need it as a slur though
    The trouble is that when you label yourself and then a religious fanatic label you too then they will see that all your arguments are based on the fact that you are an "Atheist." People love leverage but when you give them nothing to grab hold of then that's when they fall to pieces. As a Martial Arts instructor once said "you can't fight nothing." @smoothie
    smoothie



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 I disagree that atheist is a negative of belief, because it negates belief, because it is still belief positive, specifically in the belief that there are no gods.

    To make this less confusing, lets just consider numbers and superposition.

    You mean to equate belief there is a god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = 0.

    I would argue that this is not right..

    The way I see it, belief in god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = -1, and agnostic = 0, lacking the knowledge of = null.

    There is a subtle semantic difference responsible for this realization. Atheism is not absence of belief, it is believing that there is no god. Agnosticism would be zero belief, because it is nether for nor against, not belief in or not belief in.

    Now for the big reveal: we do not have a word that means "unaware of the possible existence of god".

    Sometimes people will say "everyone is born an atheist because nobody knows about god at birth" but this is technically correct, but it is also inaccurate.

    To demonstrate this, lets consider superposition, a term I am stealing from quantum. The TL;DR is that a particle before it is measured has an unknown quantum state, that is not one state but all possible states, until observed. Reality is weird. Anyways, the same is true with god beliefs.

    So let me make up a god, Cupkateur, goddess of cupcakes, Who is responsible for making all cupcakes delicious, and curses those who do not like them.

    Now the critical question: Before you knew about the potential existence of Cupkateur, did you lack a belief in her? Certainly now you do, (probably) but until you know that there is something for you to lack a belief in, you can neither have a belief in it or not have a belief in it. In other words, your state of belief in Cupkateur is undefined, or in superposition until knowledge of her sacred goodness is revealed to you, at which point you will snap into one of 2 positions, theist or atheist.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2020


    **** . We don't use words to describe people that are not scientists, non-drivers, non-Doctors, Non-Teachers, etc. 

    Yet we do so for non drinkers .....teetotalers, people against violence ....... pacisfists , people against meat eating .....Vegatarians , non Capiitalists etc , etc , these are non drinkers , non violence , non meat eating as you know

    I disagree with Harris the term cuts away all awkwardness as in “ do you believe in god “  reply “ no “ ok so what are you Buddhist “ etc , etc . Also where I come from in the past to admit being an atheist resulted in discrimination , victimisation and getting shunned by the sheeple now people like Harris want to do away with the phrase , I totally disagree it’s a hard won descriptive term that says it all in one word 
    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    I think the world would be safer if the word THEIST was used in a similar way that we use Neanderthal. Much of the killing in the world has happened between religious factions. If we didn't have to fight for some "god" we could change the word atheist to the word "everybody". :relaxed:
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    Dee said:


    **** . We don't use words to describe people that are not scientists, non-drivers, non-Doctors, Non-Teachers, etc. 

    Yet we do so for non drinkers .....teetotalers, people against violence ....... pacisfists , people against meat eating .....Vegatarians , non Capiitalists etc , etc , these are non drinkers , non violence , non meat eating as you know

    I disagree with Harris the term cuts away all awkwardness as in “ do you believe in god “  reply “ no “ ok so what are you Buddhist “ etc , etc . Also where I come from in the past to admit being an atheist resulted in discrimination , victimisation and getting shunned by the sheeple now people like Harris want to do away with the phrase , I totally disagree it’s a hard won descriptive term that says it all in one word 
    That's actually a very good point that I didn't consider. However, I am not entirely sure if Harris meant this in a very stringent way or even if he said it at all (I was just going by a quote in the rational wiki) as he still identifies as an Atheist himself. @Dee ;





  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    An Atheist to me, equates to a non religious individual.

    Whether they are a Doctor or not.
  • @ZeusAres42 I disagree that atheist is a negative of belief, because it negates belief, because it is still belief positive, specifically in the belief that there are no gods.

    That's not how I see Atheism. I see it in a much broader and literal sense as also defined by the Oxford dictionary. As I ended my last response with you I said: "I am not someone that believes there is no God; I just don't believe that there is one." Please note that I am not trying to preach to you what the definition is. I'm just telling you the definition that I adhere to:

    "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    ‘he is a committed atheist’
    non-believer, non-theist, disbeliever, unbeliever, heretic, sceptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic, infidel, irreligious person, heathen, pagan, freethinker, libertine, nihilist"

    And this isn't the definist fallacy by the way. Since I am the one that started the discussion I am the one that sets the definition criteria. To make the definist fallacy I would have to change the definition to suit my position. But I haven't changed anything; I've just adhered to a definition which also has a general consensus and that is the one I am and will continue to work with. But I adhere to this as this is exactly how I identify as an Atheist as well; not just because other people say so or just because it's in the Oxford Dictionary.

    To make this less confusing, lets just consider numbers and superposition.

    You mean to equate belief there is a god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = 0.

    I would argue that this is not right..

    And I would agree that this is not right. But it's also not what I meant or said.

    The way I see it, belief in god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = -1, and agnostic = 0, lacking the knowledge of = null.

    There is a subtle semantic difference responsible for this realization. Atheism is not absence of belief, it is believing that there is no god. Agnosticism would be zero belief, because it is nether for nor against, not belief in or not belief in.

    Now for the big reveal: we do not have a word that means "unaware of the possible existence of god".

    Sometimes people will say "everyone is born an atheist because nobody knows about god at birth" but this is technically correct, but it is also inaccurate.
    Fair enough, and fair point. Actually, Atheism in Psychology denotes the actual state of mind of not possessing a belief in God or Gods. But I get that in the philosophical world you've got people that argue that it is someone that believes or denies the existence of God too, as well as people that contend this too.

    To demonstrate this, lets consider superposition, a term I am stealing from quantum. The TL;DR is that a particle before it is measured has an unknown quantum state, that is not one state but all possible states, until observed. Reality is weird. Anyways, the same is true with god beliefs.
    Respectfully, I really don't think we need quantum mechanics to explain beliefs about God/s or lack thereof.

    So let me make up a god, Cupkateur, goddess of cupcakes, Who is responsible for making all cupcakes delicious, and curses those who do not like them.

    Now the critical question: Before you knew about the potential existence of Cupkateur, did you lack a belief in her? Certainly now you do, (probably) but until you know that there is something for you to lack a belief in, you can neither have a belief in it or not have a belief in it. In other words, your state of belief in Cupkateur is undefined, or in superposition until knowledge of her sacred goodness is revealed to you, at which point you will snap into one of 2 positions, theist or atheist.
    Quite simply, if I don't know about them then I don't have a belief about it.

    Anyway, regardless of whether Atheism is a belief or lack of belief the question/argument is still "do we need a word for this?"  Recently @Dee made a very good argument about how we do use words for many other things such as people against violence, people that don't eat meat. And I have since somewhat changed my mind.

    And I agree that my original post was kind of Orwellian. I also agree that my own prior subjective feelings and opinions about it being a silly word are no good grounds for it being removed. I was wrong to say that it should be removed. I will have have to agree that the argument of mine was not a good one. My argument in standard form would like this:

    Premise 1: I think the word Atheist is a silly word.
    Premise 2: We don't have words to denote people that non-other things. (Factual Error)
    Conclusion: Therefore, the word should be removed.

    My argument in standard form does show how weak it was. I should have done this first without posting a debate as soon as I got an idea in my head.

    Dee



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 I get where you are coming from, but believing something is false is still a positive belief by that same definition, because the word has two meanings which leads to people having this conversation periodically.

    even the phrase "or lacks belief" can be interpreted in two ways, however it would be redundant from the first part, "a person who disbelieves" so we can assume that it has a unique meaning.

    If anything, I think the compromise we could agree on is that the definition should be changed to remove the "or lacks belief" and then it becomes less ambiguous, having only a positive meaning, that meaning being someone who believes there is no god, gods, or other mythical beings.

    The definition should be "A person who disbelieves in the existence of god or gods"
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @ZeusAres42 I get where you are coming from, but believing something is false is still a positive belief by that same definition, because the word has two meanings which leads to people having this conversation periodically.

    even the phrase "or lacks belief" can be interpreted in two ways, however it would be redundant from the first part, "a person who disbelieves" so we can assume that it has a unique meaning.

    If anything, I think the compromise we could agree on is that the definition should be changed to remove the "or lacks belief" and then it becomes less ambiguous, having only a positive meaning, that meaning being someone who believes there is no god, gods, or other mythical beings.

    The definition should be "A person who disbelieves in the existence of god or gods"

    While some people may believe that the existence of God is false it is not one of my beliefs. I just don't believe in a God as I currently see no reason to believe in one. Having said that, I do believe that the idea of a Theistic anthropomorphic God is false. Believing in basically an immortal human being with superman powers is something I do have trouble believing as true. I am, however, more open to the idea of Deism though.



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 So you are not an atheist, you are technically an agnostic who leans atheist.

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @ZeusAres42 So you are not an atheist, you are technically an agnostic who leans atheist.


    @Happy_Killbot I am agnostic in terms of Deism. I'm an Atheist in terms of Theism.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI

    If people did not fight over differences in religions, they would find other reasons to fight (and they have; most of the wars of the 20th century had little to do with religion, for example). 

    I do not think using labels to define groups in itself leads to any negative consequences. It is what meaning people give to those labels that counts. If, say, people see words "Arab" and "Jew" as nothing more than a difference in historical origin, then everything is fine. It is when they start seeing "Arab" and "Jew" as fundamentally different creatures, collectively responsible for some systematic misdoings, that problems arise.

    I used to see labels denoting groups as fundamentally problematic and seek a society in which, for example, words "man" and "woman" are not really used. Nowadays I think instead that people are too afraid of labels: they should be used openly and with no shame, one of the reasons being that this is the best way to render them powerless.

    Nothing wrong with saying "I am a Muslim" or "I am an Atheist". It is saying "I am a Muslim and all non-Muslims are heretics", or "I am an Atheist and all non-Atheists are gullible sheep", that is problematic.
  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    The basic issue of atheist is it is an accusation that is then admitted to or denied.

    Example:  From an understanding given, explaining in a way every person can give proof of GOD yet most will still after learning refuse the burden of witness try to avoid tis responsibility as a choice. Many religions believe a person should not hold that ability to give proof of GOD exists. When giving proof literal or not, a difference is made which describes many religion as an independent principle. One that in truth not GOD and is a religion held in the beliefs of faith.

    Who is the Atheist? When fact is introduced which details a improbability of a human birth being a possibility from a contact or relation, offspring such as son or daughter to GOD is not possible so no birthright exists for this child, are they who hold and teach this principle as possible then atheists? Is it the person who does not share the democratic ideology of GOD being capable of birth rights which are inherited from a father who are the Atheist?



  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @AlofRI

    If people did not fight over differences in religions, they would find other reasons to fight (and they have; most of the wars of the 20th century had little to do with religion, for example). 

    I do not think using labels to define groups in itself leads to any negative consequences. It is what meaning people give to those labels that counts. If, say, people see words "Arab" and "Jew" as nothing more than a difference in historical origin, then everything is fine. It is when they start seeing "Arab" and "Jew" as fundamentally different creatures, collectively responsible for some systematic misdoings, that problems arise.

    I used to see labels denoting groups as fundamentally problematic and seek a society in which, for example, words "man" and "woman" are not really used. Nowadays I think instead that people are too afraid of labels: they should be used openly and with no shame, one of the reasons being that this is the best way to render them powerless.

    Nothing wrong with saying "I am a Muslim" or "I am an Atheist". It is saying "I am a Muslim and all non-Muslims are heretics", or "I am an Atheist and all non-Atheists are gullible sheep", that is problematic.
    There IS nothing wrong with saying "I am a Muslim" or "I am an atheist", but, try saying it without a negative reaction from MANY people. Nowadays people HAVE to be afraid of labels …. even more than a few years ago. An African American, an Indian, a Jew, an Irishman, an Italian … ALL used to have negative reactions from a FEW people. today the ratio has grown WAY larger.
    And the wars fought with "little to do with religion" were, at least justified to the actors BY their "god". As Hitler said: " I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Or, "Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless columns, and for the last time the Lord's Grace shined on his ungrateful children." 
    And on the other sides similar sentiments justified the wars. Today those feelings are even more intense. I agree, if a very large majority had similar thoughts to you, we would be better off. Sadly, I think there are still far too many "gullible sheep", with to many feeling that " …. my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" … (whichever one that is) and that they are "collectively responsible for some systematic misdoings". I still say that "beliefs" in religion, if not the cause, FANNED, or gave the justification, for the wars of the 20th century. 
    Someday we (if we survive), will drop those "labels" ….  Jews, Muslims, Christians, white, black, red etc., and then we could drop borders, religions, races etc. and become just "inhabitants of this world" with ONE governing body (without which there would STILL be chaos), the time of "Captain Kirk", you might say. :relieved:
  • Xink3ranimeXink3ranime 5 Pts   -  
         I see many people saying, "If we don't have a name for non-doctors, why have a name for non theistic religion." I think that there is an importance to this. When someone says that they are a doctor, its supposed to immediately make you think that they are someone who heals something right? And there are even job-specific names for individual specializations. I think we could also see it like this. When you hear doctor you think someone who heals people for a living. Why not use the word atheist to think someone who doesn't have a theistic religion. 

         The definition of the word label is, "a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive." according to google. atheist is a phrase or name applied to a person or thing.
          
    ZeusAres42
  • @Dee I said many things in the above post. What was it you disagreed with and why?
    Dee



  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @ZeusAres42

    Apologies  I hit the wrong key , your post was excellent and your honesty is totally refreshing and unique when it comes to such sites where people rarely admit they may have been in error . keep up the good work 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI

    I do not quite agree that removing all labels and mashing all people into a grey mass is the way to deal with these issues. Labels help us make out various traits in people, and a large combination of those traits forms the individual. Without traits, there are no individuals, and such world is bleak indeed.

    I have been quite shamelessly openly using the label "Asian" to characterise my romantic preference. Suppose we drop the label "Asian"; how should I now talk about my preferences? "People from Asia?" Same thing, but said in a longer way. "People with narrow eyes?" Not specific enough, plus sounds a bit prejudiced. "People who I prefer romantically?" Tautology. "People who like like this lady?" Too ambiguous and subjective.

    Labels are fine, and they serve an important function. It is when people attach extra meanings to labels that are not inherent to them that problems arise. "He is a Muslim" is fine; "He is a Muslim, and Muslims are evil" is not.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @AlofRI

    I do not quite agree that removing all labels and mashing all people into a grey mass is the way to deal with these issues. Labels help us make out various traits in people, and a large combination of those traits forms the individual. Without traits, there are no individuals, and such world is bleak indeed.

    I have been quite shamelessly openly using the label "Asian" to characterise my romantic preference. Suppose we drop the label "Asian"; how should I now talk about my preferences? "People from Asia?" Same thing, but said in a longer way. "People with narrow eyes?" Not specific enough, plus sounds a bit prejudiced. "People who I prefer romantically?" Tautology. "People who like like this lady?" Too ambiguous and subjective.

    Labels are fine, and they serve an important function. It is when people attach extra meanings to labels that are not inherent to them that problems arise. "He is a Muslim" is fine; "He is a Muslim, and Muslims are evil" is not.
    I think we are not that far from agreement. I said I don't like being grouped as an atheist because of the connotations that many attach to the "label". The "evil" that is seen BY MANY that goes with THEIR label. The visions THEY have about "blacks and/or Indians" as 3/5ths human, about Muslims as all evil, about Jews as all "crooks", etc. Labels are fine when used to "specify", it's when they are used to "group" all as ONE TYPE FITS ALL that they are ridiculous  …. and there is a LOT of ridiculous in this world. Those who group any who don't agree with their beliefs as evil are some of the MOST ridiculous.
    ZeusAres42MayCaesarPlaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI

    I hear you, and I do not call myself an atheist often; I usually just say that I do not take religion seriously, as it is far more specific and does not group me with other people many of whom I strongly disagree with.

    At the same time, we should not be afraid of labels. Labels only have any power over us when we let them have it. The presence of people who respond in a very negative way to some neutral labels should not discourage one from using those labels, and it is by using those labels in a neutral manner that we break the cycle of their systematic misuse.
    AlofRI
  • AlofRI said:
    MayCaesar said:
    @AlofRI

    I do not quite agree that removing all labels and mashing all people into a grey mass is the way to deal with these issues. Labels help us make out various traits in people, and a large combination of those traits forms the individual. Without traits, there are no individuals, and such world is bleak indeed.

    I have been quite shamelessly openly using the label "Asian" to characterise my romantic preference. Suppose we drop the label "Asian"; how should I now talk about my preferences? "People from Asia?" Same thing, but said in a longer way. "People with narrow eyes?" Not specific enough, plus sounds a bit prejudiced. "People who I prefer romantically?" Tautology. "People who like like this lady?" Too ambiguous and subjective.

    Labels are fine, and they serve an important function. It is when people attach extra meanings to labels that are not inherent to them that problems arise. "He is a Muslim" is fine; "He is a Muslim, and Muslims are evil" is not.
    I think we are not that far from agreement. I said I don't like being grouped as an atheist because of the connotations that many attach to the "label". The "evil" that is seen BY MANY that goes with THEIR label. The visions THEY have about "blacks and/or Indians" as 3/5ths human, about Muslims as all evil, about Jews as all "crooks", etc. Labels are fine when used to "specify", it's when they are used to "group" all as ONE TYPE FITS ALL that they are ridiculous  …. and there is a LOT of ridiculous in this world. Those who group any who don't agree with their beliefs as evil are some of the MOST ridiculous.

    @AlofRI The negative connotations for this was my motivation for this post in the first place. Often times when someone comes out as an Atheist they are viewed as some hateful Anti-Theist, and that just isn't the case. However, due to the current lacking in critical thinking on an epistemic level I opt to state exactly what I mean by Atheism or if that doesn't work then I say that I am not a Theist who also doesn't have a problem with Theism so long as this isn't causing harm to oneself or others.
    AlofRI



  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Update: I have since changed my mind somewhat on this position based on some good points and arguments by others.

    This was originally said by Sam Harris and when it comes to down to it I have to agree. We don't use words to describe people that are not scientists, non-drivers, non-Doctors, Non-Teachers, etc. The word Atheist to describe someone that is not a Theist is absurd, and of absolutely no practical use in the 21st-century modern day. I think it's time this word gets removed from the dictionary.
    @ZeusAres42 The word atheist should exist. The word describes your belief. Atheism shows your belief is god does not exist. If a word used to describe a belief, atheism, does not exist then believer should not exist. If atheism does not exist the following terms would not exist: Believer, christian, jewish, hindu, muslim hence atheism as a word should exist.
    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch