Atheist "identity"

Perhaps I am. So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?

All I really expect, is for people (myself included) to be able to explain themselves without resorting to jargon-filled tropes. I recently read something to the effect of "you can call yourself an agnostic but you're still an atheist". Or even better, I read a free software rant that said "Microsoft's fonts aren't free, they're costless!". And I just thought, wait... what?!?

"So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?" I see that, especially as regards that block of text upscreen. Conversely, conciseness is also a virtue.

Why?

See what I did there? Yeah baby, I'm that good!

It's true by definition.

Cute little phrases are nice, but don't really mean much on their own.

See attention span.

I know, but that's more a practicality than a virtue, right?

Try reading some Ayn Rand if you think I'm wrong.

Touché.

Actually, I could turn that upside down and say that I don't expect too much of a single word. Anyone using a single word probably expects too much of it. If you think "atheism" completely sums up all your beliefs, then... well you know what they say: "if your opinion can fit on a bumper sticker..."

I think you're missing the point of words.

I don't get it. Is the point that you pick a word and then argue over its definition and etymology for hours on end?

No, the point is that it's an intellectual shorthand for a cluster of ideas. If you get rid of this, you'll just be producing hugely redundant and repetitive blocks of text as above. However, these concepts can be "unpacked" if a problem is encountered in the conversation.

Yes. That would be the point if you come across a problem. I recently saw a problem with people arguing over whether someone was agnostic or not - so I just proposed them just saying what their belief was.

See, that's a situation where it's necessary. It's all about context.

I would agree there. Actually, I like the "unpacking" term a little better. Though that would run the risk of "hey, let's define our term". I'm still firmly with Yudkowsky that this isn't the best solution.

??? Defining your term isn't the best solution? Then what is?

The linguist in me is shivering at the "don't define a word, just avoid it" concept. Just define it, then use it as you defined it. It's how every single thing we communicate is done, every day, unless you are talking art or music. If you don't define something, then the symbolic language humans have created ceases to be effective, cause everyone is avoiding so-called "problematic" words.

Now whether or not you are an atheist is a different question. My answer depends on teh context, how deeply people care about distinctions, etc. But isn't that the way with everything?

I agree (but only partially). We're getting back into the concept of rationalist taboo again, and, once again, I have to say it depends on the context. Sometimes there are terms that are so loaded it's easier to just avoid them altogether.

I don't know what we are doing. I'm just avoiding work. Loaded terms are intended to be loaded terms. But that doesn't apply to things like "religion" "god", "atheist" which are all useful terms that can be quickly and fairly precisely defined at the beginning of a conversation.

But mostly I don't care other than reading what sounds like the start of a very long conversation for ADK, dealing with someone who doesn't care what ADK has to say, only what that someone himself wants to think.

Those conversations will not be improved by avoiding or using loaded language; avoiding or using precise language - they will only be improved by avoiding using any language and saying "nertz" or making buzzing noises. ;-)

Here's the context that made me wonder about atheism as a useful term - well, strictly "agnosticism", but there's always that "oh, but atheists should always be agnostic!!" crap going on.

Someone says "I'm agnostic, because I think we'll never know if there's a God"

Everyone applauds such open minded fairness. After all, you have to be soooo deep to be open minded.

Then I say "wait, you say we'll never know?"

They say "yes". Well, they didn't, I cut that step out. I'm a little drunk, this could be fun to explain from now on.

So I add "so, you'll never know if God is real. Therefore there's no way of detecting God."

"Right"

"So there's no way that God can make a meaningful interaction with the world?"

"Erm..."

"So what is the fucking point in believing in God?"

"Derp"

Then someone else like chimes in and says "hey, so you must be an atheist then!!!"

And I'm like "bitches, please. Just shut up."

So basically, yes, "agnosticism" seems to be used as a loaded term. It's a term that says "hey guys, I'm totally open minded about God because I'm cool and open minded and intellectual and look at how open minded I am". When really it's saying "actually, I've just given undue privilege to a hypothesis with fuck all evidence for it. I just want the connotations of being open minded despite having no belief whatsofuckingever in God or gods or any of that crap but am too scared of putting my bollocks on the line to say so."

Though why a girl would be scared of putting her bollocks on the line is beyond me.

I should stop steam-of-conciousnessing... it never ends well.