Thread: Argue Pointlessly over the Definition of Atheism

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

At what age did you become atheist?? I became atheist at age 5 LMAO! And no my parents are not Atheist =P

Two things wrong here, the absence of an indefinite article (indefinite article being an or a), and capitalization of the word (notice, I typed -word,- not group) atheist.

To make this simple, I can analogize it by using the group and singular title "Christian."

If I were to say "I am Christian," I am stating that I am part of the Christian religion. If I were to say "I am a Christian," (notice the indefinite article "a," distinguishing between the two statements) I am stating that I am a follower of Christ (and in this scenario, a Christian).

So, when you say (or type) "I am Atheist," you are then stating that you are -part of- a group and have taken the title of (hence the capital a, assuming the title) Atheist. "Atheist" is not a group nor is it a proper title, it is just a word meaning (a -- not -- theist -- believer in a solitary god --) a denier of supernatural.

But, atheism does not assume importance, thereby rendering it's capitalization...incorrect.

tl;dr is that atheist shouldn't be capitalized and the correct way of stating you are an atheist would be "I am an atheist."

Thank you.


13 btw

Originally Posted by Acid

Two things wrong here, the absence of an indefinite article (indefinite article being an or a), and capitalization of the word (notice, I typed -word,- not group) atheist.

To make this simple, I can analogize it by using the group and singular title "Christian."

If I were to say "I am Christian," I am stating that I am part of the Christian religion. If I were to say "I am a Christian," (notice the indefinite article "a," distinguishing between the two statements) I am stating that I am a follower of Christ (and in this scenario, a Christian).

So, when you say (or type) "I am Atheist," you are then stating that you are -part of- a group and have taken the title of (hence the capital a, assuming the title) Atheist. "Atheist" is not a group nor is it a proper title, it is just a word meaning (a -- not -- theist -- believer in a solitary god --) a denier of supernatural.

But, atheism does not assume importance, thereby rendering it's capitalization...incorrect.

tl;dr is that atheist shouldn't be capitalized and the correct way of stating you are an atheist would be "I am an atheist."

Thank you.


13 btw

Who gives a fuck?

Acid, clearly.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Who gives a fuck?

Linguists, verboses, the like.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Who gives a fuck?

I laughed pretty hard.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Who gives a fuck?

Acid actually made a legitimate point that atheists are not part of an organized group, unlike religious organizations. Therefore, the correct usage of the word 'atheist' is important.

Originally Posted by Acid

Two things wrong here, the absence of an indefinite article (indefinite article being an or a), and capitalization of the word (notice, I typed -word,- not group) atheist.

To make this simple, I can analogize it by using the group and singular title "Christian."

If I were to say "I am Christian," I am stating that I am part of the Christian religion. If I were to say "I am a Christian," (notice the indefinite article "a," distinguishing between the two statements) I am stating that I am a follower of Christ (and in this scenario, a Christian).

So, when you say (or type) "I am Atheist," you are then stating that you are -part of- a group and have taken the title of (hence the capital a, assuming the title) Atheist. "Atheist" is not a group nor is it a proper title, it is just a word meaning (a -- not -- theist -- believer in a solitary god --) a denier of supernatural.

But, atheism does not assume importance, thereby rendering it's capitalization...incorrect.

tl;dr is that atheist shouldn't be capitalized and the correct way of stating you are an atheist would be "I am an atheist."

Thank you.


13 btw

That has gotta be the dumbest post i have ever read in my entire life............. like........ seriously

I agree. Plus Atheists are still a group. They are a group of people who don't believe in a god. So your whole post is fail.

Originally Posted by tommo

I agree. Plus Atheists are still a group. They are a group of people who don't believe in a god. So your whole post is fail.

Yes, we are a "group" in the terms of what a group is, but he meant a group as in an organized religion, which we are not. We don't meet up regularly to discuss religion (or the lack thereof). We don't do things like that, which makes us not a "group".

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

Yes, we are a "group" in the terms of what a group is, but he meant a group as in an organized religion, which we are not. We don't meet up regularly to discuss religion (or the lack thereof). We don't do things like that, which makes us not a "group".

But what about when we all take to the street, chanting anti-religious slogans and burning models of the atom on peoples' lawns? And then there are the bible burnings, as per David Hume's philosophy:

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

And you're gonna say that Atheists aren't a great, unified group out to terrorize and oppress the religious?

Originally Posted by Mario92

But what about when we all take to the street, chanting anti-religious slogans and burning models of the atom on peoples' lawns? And then there are the bible burnings, as per David Hume's philosophy:



And you're gonna say that Atheists aren't a great, unified group out to terrorize and oppress the religious?

Are you being sarcastic? Personally, I don't do that and I wouldn't particularly say that atheists are to oppress the religious.
Also, I don't know who David Hume is, but I don't think he's a very good representative.

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

Are you being sarcastic?

Okay, here's the trick:

1. Examine the statements, for example, "atheists all burn models of the atom on peoples' lawns".
2. Ask yourself if this is actually true and seems like a sensible assertion.
3. If the answer is 'OBVIOUSLY NO FOR GOD'S SAKE' then it is sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, here's the trick:

1. Examine the statements, for example, "atheists all burn models of the atom on peoples' lawns".
2. Ask yourself if this is actually true and seems like a sensible assertion.
3. If the answer is 'OBVIOUSLY NO FOR GOD'S SAKE' then it is sarcasm.

I noticed the part about atoms and what-not but I was still questioning it.

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

Yes, we are a "group" in the terms of what a group is, but he meant a group as in an organized religion, which we are not. We don't meet up regularly to discuss religion (or the lack thereof). We don't do things like that, which makes us not a "group".

I don't care if we're an organised religion. A group is a group. And therefore all of his post was wrong.
More to the point I was hoping he would rant on about how I used the word fail incorrectly.

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't care if we're an organised religion. A group is a group. And therefore all of his post was wrong.
More to the point I was hoping he would rant on about how I used the word fail incorrectly.

Someone missed the message. I was saying that words can have two meanings. In this case, a group is not a group. You and him are thinking of two different types of groups.

Originally Posted by tommo

In reality you said we're a group but not a group, which makes no sense. So I largely disregarded your statement.

The italics were there for a reason.
Stop being ignorant when you know fucking well what I'm telling you. You're just trying to get around the fact that you misunderstood something and that you were actually wrong.

Nope. You just fail to understand what I'm saying. Acid said we are not a group etc. etc. Which is bullshit. I don't care if he MEANT a religious group because a religious group has nothing to do with the fact that ANY group is spelt with a capital A.

Originally Posted by tommo

Nope. You just fail to understand what I'm saying. Acid said we are not a group etc. etc. Which is bullshit. I don't care if he MEANT a religious group because a religious group has nothing to do with the fact that ANY group is spelled with a capital A.

Yes, it does. Take some classes in grammar.

The word "atheist" now refers to a group/organization? Why the hell didn't I get a memo?

Originally Posted by MindGames

The word "atheist" now refers to a group/organization? Why the hell didn't I get a memo?

No, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't refer to an organization.

And, I'm finally gonna ask, what the hell is up with this new font that some people post in, have their names in, etc.? What is it for?

I know, that post was directed at tommo.

See the Market. You use points to change how your shit looks. I've been trying to get it to use custom style code, so my posts might be a little hard to read for the time being.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I know, that post was directed at tommo.

See the Market. You use points to change how your shit looks. I've been trying to get it to use custom style code, so my posts might be a little hard to read for the time being.

Oh, okay.

And that's pretty cool.

LMAO i love watching arguements, even if it's about useless BS

Originally Posted by MindGames

The word "atheist" now refers to a group/organization? Why the hell didn't I get a memo?

A group doesn't technically have to be an organization, white people can be considered a group. But seriously why are all the RS threads people arguing over semantics?