Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Atheist "identity"/reply (60)

I'm trying hard to avoid text walls, but evidently failing.

"Milk" probably wouldn't represent the same thing as "dog" - at least, it's very unlikely to. The cluster of four-legged, furry, barking objects in the real world called "dog" probably doesn't have much overlap with the cluster of wet, white liquidy stuff called "milk". I agree it's about knowing the audience because communication is a two-way process. We're both members of RationalWiki, we've both written things on skepticism and debunking, we read the same stuff on WIGO. The chances are that if I said "I'm an atheist" to you we'd know what we're talking about. This is fine, and we don't clash.

It is about what you infer from context, but that requires you to A) recognise the context and B) know precisely what you're implying, and what others are inferring. If you can't do this then... well you will clash and fail.

But I think there's one other important bit of context; what you intend to do with your statement. The other person you're talking to is important, and knowing what they're inferring from you is vital, but I think your actual intention is even more crucial to getting the idea across.

"I'm an atheist" is fine if you want to join an Atheist Society just because you're looking for somewhere to chat and hang out, or if you want someone to direct you to books like The God Delusion. It is not, however, very useful if you want to say something like "as atheists we should..." I think is a little more important because I don't think it is "written on their faces" when someone isn't actually inferring the same thing as you. If everyone agrees on their standard of evidence and logic then surely they would agree, A therefore B should be agreed upon by everyone, if half the people think A therefore Not B, then where is the problem - in the logic or in what A is?