Re: This is Bluey

[Azdgari]

I do not understand what you are saying.

That much is clear enough.  Luci understands it well enough, though - despite his being distracted and short of sleep - and I was only really interested in explaining it to him.  If you don't understand what the thread is about, then I have little interest in trying to explain it to you.

[One Above All]

If I'm reading your post correctly, Graybeard, Azdgari is saying that unless one is proven wrong by reality itself[1], it doesn't matter if one's thoughts are about something objective or subjective; if one perceives them as objective, then one will think of them as if they really were objective.

An analogy:
Which is easier? Doing something you think is right or doing something you know is wrong? Obviously the former, even if it turns out you were wrong about it. From your perspective, you were right about whatever it is that you were doing, and kept on thinking that way until you were proven wrong. From that point on, you acknowledged your error and thought about whatever it was as if you were wrong about it, because you were.

1.	I think this is an extreme case, but let's just assume this is the only possibility for the sake of argument.

[Bluey]

I apologise if I'm the cause of the arguing. I wasn't trying to tell atheists what they believe or anything like that, I was just pointing out that according to the dictionary definitions, it's possible to convert to atheism. If converting means changing, and if atheism is an opinion (I don't see why that wouldn't be so) then you can convert to atheism. But words have connotantions, and of course, when we talk about converting, we usually mean converting to a religion or from one religion to another. So I understand the reluctance to go with the dictionary definitions which is why perhaps new terms should be devised that reflect what atheists wish to say about themselves, or not say about themselves, although of course not all atheists will necessarily agree.

[Azdgari]

I apologise if I'm the cause of the arguing.

It's what we do here.  I actually prefer to argue with atheists of this forum because the topics that most of the theists here argue are usually boring as Hell.  Literally. 

I wasn't trying to tell atheists what they believe or anything like that, I was just pointing out that according to the dictionary definitions, it's possible to convert to atheism. If converting means changing, and if atheism is an opinion (I don't see why that wouldn't be so) then you can convert to atheism. But words have connotantions, and of course, when we talk about converting, we usually mean converting to a religion or from one religion to another. So I understand the reluctance to go with the dictionary definitions which is why perhaps new terms should be devised that reflect what atheists wish to say about themselves, or not say about themselves, although of course not all atheists will necessarily agree.

Yeah, you get it.  This is the issue people on here have with it.  There's a reason why it's a hot-button issue, too:  A common theme pushed by theists who visit this site is the "atheism is a religious faith" canard.  Your talk of "converting to atheism" aligns quite nicely with that idea.  Which is annoying, even if you didn't intend it that way.

[Graybeard]

bm

[Azdgari]

(why would someone bookmark a thread in which he or she has already posted?  )