On Bligbi, there is a recent post called On true atheists, about the fact that some “atheists” attempt to set what “true atheists” must be like.
I agree with KC on this, of course; atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. To say “you are not a true atheist” for any reason other than “well, you do believe in a god” is an obvious example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
It is, indeed, something I’ve mentioned in the past: how some people, for varied reasons, redefine words to mean something other than the accepted definintion, up to a point where you can’t have a useful conversation with them.
Some do it to escape from a negative association. E.g. “yes, the Inquisition was horrible, but those were not true Christians.”
Others, like the ones mentioned in the Bligbi post, do so to make the term fit with their own view. “I consider myself an atheist, and I like X, therefore true atheists must also like X.”
And some people are weirder. 
They make something up, but are not self-confident enough to admit their own originality, so they “steal” an accepted term and use it for what they just came up with. For instance, inventing a really weird set of beliefs — today — and calling it “Christianity”. For bonus points, say that it’s the only “true” Christianity, and that people have been wrong (see, Jesus was actually an alien, and to be saved you must worship pink things… while standing on one foot) for 2000 years.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I definitely agree with the bit on redefining words. I find people do it all the time with the word “God”, saying it means some random thing or another. It is quite frustrating holding a conversation with someone who refuses to use words by anything near their accepted meaning.
Ross, I think the problem with using “god” as an example is that almost nobody seems to agree on what “god” means and even whether the concept is logically coherent. The way many Christians seem to define “god” (at least the few points on which they can agree) leads to a logically incoherent concept. In other words, the entity they posit cannot exist because they often posit contradictory characteristics.
Oh, I realize that. But it is still the generally accepted definition. I mean, God is a word describing a logically impossible entity. Don’t say “God it love/the universe/truth/anything else”. It is just misleading.
To follow up on that, here is more of an example.
“I don’t believe in God”
“God is the universe, in all it’s infinity! How can you not believe in the universe?”
“…”
Or
“Do you believe in God?”
“Yes.”
“That’s illogical”
“No, I don’t believe in a conventional God!”
The word God, like it or not, right or wrong, has many attached implications. To use the word ignoring those is likely to cause confusion, so it annoys me.
You can believe in the universe, in love, in humanity, in truth, or in anything else…just call it what it is, instead of applying the label of “God” to it.
I used to think like that myself.
It’s wierd looking back at it.
Yes it is a problem. Atheist simply means “without god(s)”. Some people say that atheism is a religion, and others respond “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour.” It makes the point, sort of, because atheism doesn’t mean being without religion, but without god(s). Many Buddhists are atheists, but Buddhism is generally reckoned as a religion.
One could say that there are some atheists - militant atheists - who do treat atheism as a religion, but there are plenty of other atheists who don’t.
And I’ve heard the “true atheists” argument used just like the “true Christians” one. Some one points out things like the Inquisitions, and others say “OP but those weren’t true Christians.” But then people point to Stalin’s purges, and you get defensive atheists who say, in effect that the Bolsheviks weren’t “true atheists”. I don’t know who else they think they are kidding, but they are sure kidding themselves.
Except that there is a extreme difference of type between the purges of Stalin and the christian massacres and crusades. The former was committed in the name of power for the sake of power, having nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. The latter was done for religion in the name of religion, and is inseparable from the religion.
The purges of Stalin have no more to do with atheism than does vegetarianism have to do with the attocities of Hitler.