dictionary.com atheist discrimination?

cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
dictionary.com atheist discrimination?

I am offended by dictionary.com, the most popular online dictionary. Upon a Thesaurus search for "moral", the first synonym that was returned was "Christian":
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ethical

Upon a Thesaurus search for "ethical", the first synonym that was returned was "Christian":
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/moral

If you wish to E-Mail them about this, here is their contact form:
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/forms/webmaster.html?Feedback

They say they read all messages. The current results project a false impression, and according to Alexa, they're in the top 300 busiest websites on the net:
http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=dictionary.com

 

I don't know if they're Christian so I really think it's worth a message. 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
You are aware those

You are aware most those definitions are in alphabetical order with the exception of 'moral' because it's taken from Roget's Thesaurus which really sucks balls? 

Type heathen in if you want a real giggle.  Also type Islam in if you want to see just how bad a reference source it is. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The word has an accepted

The word has an accepted usage as an adjective.
"Do the Christian thing," and all that. It doesn't get heavy use these days.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Oddly enough, equating

Oddly enough, equating christianity with morality is unfair towards christianity as well - to be a christian is to accept jesus as the christ, there's no rule stating that one must be moral.

 

C.S. Lewis said it well:

 

The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have... When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Thandarr
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I forgot to check the forum again.

Sorry, I forgot to check the forum again.  I use the "recent posts" deal and I miss the forum title.


cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm aware it's not first on

I'm aware it's not first on purpose. Nonetheless, it is first and it wouldn't be if it wasn't in there. Religion always has a free ride and that needs to stop. Apply this to women. If the results returned "slave" for the synonym, I'm willing to bet feminists would team up and try to hvae it changed. This is why women have rights. They didn't settle for 2nd best.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Maybe it will get an "obs."

Maybe it will get an "obs." tag next to it. Sticking out tongue


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I don't disagree on any

I don't disagree on any particular point OP, I just don't think that the world is required to be PC to anyone else. Personally, I am offended that people are so easily offended.

 Fighting for equal protection under the law is reasonable if not mandatory. Fighting to make sure everyone talks in a way that I find "acceptable" is absurd. (see: Don Imus)


cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, if it were black

Well, if it were black people being called niggers, societal consensus would be to immediately dismiss the Imus quote. It's the prodigious taboo of speaking against religion that shifts the perspective. On the flip side, I agree in a sense. This is a bit atypical and petty in comaprison to religious tax breaks. Sometimes taking the extreme side is the only way to have people meet you in the middle.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
cryptographix wrote: Well,

cryptographix wrote:

Well, if it were black people being called niggers, societal consensus would be to immediately dismiss the Imus quote. It's the prodigious taboo of speaking against religion that shifts the perspective. On the flip side, I agree in a sense. This is a bit atypical and petty in comaprison to religious tax breaks. Sometimes taking the extreme side is the only way to have people meet you in the middle.

Shocked

Sad

Puzzled

Jawdropping!

Cursing Man

tsk-tsk

Head Bash

Very Sad

shooting

finger

wtf

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
I proposed one form of

I proposed one form of discrimination is wrong and offensive, and then paralleled it with racial discrimination, which certainly implies racial discrimination is wrong.

 Append: I think if the word "Caucasian" returned the synonym "owner", you'd be offended and feel the same as me. You'd probably also be less concerned about it than you would if organizations of white people received tax breaks.

Skeptics were oppressed, tortured, and executed by Christians for centuries. 


SassyDevil
SassyDevil's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
You mentioned Roget's

You mentioned Roget's Thesaurus, but Roget's isn't a particular thesaurus.  Any company or person putting out a thesaurus can put Roget's name on it, regardless of how good a thesaurus it is or isn't.  Just like with Webster's Dictionary.  Many people think putting those names on such books makes them authorities, but they don't understand that the names have nothing to do with it.  There's no legal requirement or guidelines that have to be followed in using names like Webster and Roget.


cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
That's sounds about right;

That's sounds about right; however, it's not the brand name I have a problem with. It's the principle of synonymzing "moral" with "Christian" and excluding any irreligious term. If Jesus lived, he is the greatest source of terrorism the world has ever known. The Bible is pervaded by nasty evils. I don't feel "Christian" should ever be thought of as "moral" or "ethical". I know there are more significant issues to worry about, but since dictionary.com has high traffic, correcting their false projection could chip away at the pedestal of taboo. Like one vote in an election, the impact is minuscule but it counts for something.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
But that's how the word was

But that's how the word was used.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi cryptographix, Even

Hi cryptographix,

Even though you've been a member for quite awhile, we'd like to get to know you a little better.  When you get a chance, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and officially introduce yourself. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cryptographix wrote: I

cryptographix wrote:
I proposed one form of discrimination is wrong and offensive, and then paralleled it with racial discrimination, which certainly implies racial discrimination is wrong.

Are you seriously, seriously, comparing the placement of a dictionary term with racial discrimination?

If you are that just calls foir a "Wow, that's special!" moment. 

Quote:
Append: I think if the word "Caucasian" returned the synonym "owner", you'd be offended and feel the same as me.

Except caucasian isn't a synonym or an associated word for owner.  Christian is for moral. 

Quote:
You'd probably also be less concerned about it than you would if organizations of white people received tax breaks.

For sure. 

Quote:
Skeptics were oppressed, tortured, and executed by Christians for centuries.

Not just Christians or, indeed, theists actually.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


cryptographix
cryptographix's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician wrote:

The Patrician wrote:

Are you seriously, seriously, comparing the placement of a dictionary term with racial discrimination?

If you are that just calls foir a "Wow, that's special!" moment.

Well, it's certainly less strident than the majority of incidents we generally envision while discussing discrimination. When Dawkins says labeling children the religion of their parents is child abuse, he doesn't intend it to mean the same degree as what typically comes to mind. Of course my analogy will sound blown out of proportion if you compare with historical segregation and slavery.

 

Quote:
Except caucasian isn't a synonym or an associated word for owner. Christian is for moral.

They synonymize "ethical" as well. If it were just "moral" listed, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but I don't think they intended to take the standards-of-behavior route. Between the two, it really seems to intend synonymizing it in the altruistic sense.

Quote:
For sure.

Haha. I understand you perceiving my posts like that. I admit this thread's concept pushes to an extreme measure, but there's nothing as extreme what it opposes: Abrahamic, theistic religion. There are Christians devoting their entire lives, day in and day out, to nothing but scheming to attack rationality. I suppose this is pedantic but I feel so morally obligated to do something.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
cryptographix wrote: Well,

cryptographix wrote:
Well, it's certainly less strident than the majority of incidents we generally envision while discussing discrimination. When Dawkins says labeling children the religion of their parents is child abuse, he doesn't intend it to mean the same degree as what typically comes to mind. Of course my analogy will sound blown out of proportion if you compare with historical segregation and slavery.

I think the comparison of a racist slur in the dictionary to a slur against a religious group (not that we are a religious group but you get my meaning) is similar. There has always been a history of violence and intolerance toward peoples of beliefs or ethnicities outside the acceptable parameters. 

It is safe to say that publicly announcing ones bigotry toward other ethnicities is unsavory. People have lost their entire careers for a single off-hand remark that was seen as offensive toward an ethnicity. The masses are not quite as sensitive about the minority of atheists as they have had some sense of freedom for longer than American black people. Ethnic discrimination is still fresh in our minds and we're all very sensitive about it. 

I don't see how the comparison is unreasonable. I believe the point was that if it is unacceptable to slur one group why is it widely accepted to slur another? This is a good question and, I think, an in-depth conversation. 

I still think it is small potatoes, but I do see the point that if we are going to gain any ground in modern society we will eventually have to address comments like this. If we never take a stand against these minor offenses we will limit our upward mobility at some point or another.