WinePusher wrote:
Jashwell wrote:I'm not sure whether or not you understand what is meant by rhetorical.
He means he doesn't legitimately believe that is the definition of Christian, it's merely an example to provoke feelings and thought. (In this case the latter).
Doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are. What matters is that his attempt to 'do what I did' is inaccurate because I did not make up a definition of atheist while he DID make up a definition of Christian.
His point appears to be that you're defining the label a group of other people use for themselves. Not my example to defend though, ask him.
Jashwell wrote:Your definition of atheism only fits one of your sources - that source being Carl Sagan, a single man, who's authority on the definition of atheism is negligible to say the least.
You keep saying that but repeating something doesn't make it true. Fact: Carl Sagan is more of an authority on atheism than any internet atheist on this forum.
There isn't an authority on atheism.
What you mean is he's popular, and also happens to be an atheist.
Not to mention that since you're arguing the definition of atheist, you can't call him an authority on atheism when that itself is in question.
And I will need to keep saying this:
Carl Sagan is not a dictionary. He is not an authority on the meaning of words. One person doesn't dictate words - people in general do. The fact that many (even if it was a minority, which I see no reason to believe) people use atheism to mean lack of belief indicates it should at the very least by an additional definition.
Jashwell wrote:Your definition of atheism doesn't match the etymology of atheism.
Jashwell, you do realize that etymology deals with the origin and history of words, not the meaning of words right? You do realize that meaning changes over time, right?
Jashwell wrote:Your definition of agnosticism doesn't match the etymology of agnosticism.
Jashwell, you do realize that etymology deals with the origin and history of words, not the meaning of words right? You do realize that meaning changes over time, right?
Oh, so you take these comments about redefinition back?
And I do think that these definitions matter very much, especially when people try to erroneously redefine terms. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they're not free to make up new definitions for terms.
As I said, both of those statements express the same point. I never said there was any difference between those two statements. What I take issue with is how people like you attempt to redefine what atheism means. Atheism does not mean lack of a belief, atheism is itself a belief that God does not exist.
Like I said, people can call themselves whatever they like. What make syou think that I care about what you call yourself? I care about the meaning of words, and how some are attempting to redefine words. I also think it's not honorable to make false accusations against theists as the internet debater did in the OP.
The etymology is a meaningful, commonly used context of the word.
Jashwell wrote:Even if your definition were apt, terms like weak atheism and strong atheism, agnostic theism and agnostic atheism, gnostic theism and gnostic atheism, would still have meaning.
Weak atheism vs. strong atheism deal with levels of certainty. To say that a weak atheist is akin to an agnostic, as you've continually done throughout this thread, is fallacious. A weak atheist is still an atheist, he or she just does not deny God's existence with the same level of certainty a strong atheist does.
No. This is straight up false.
Weak atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
Strong atheism refers to the belief in the non existence of a god.
Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]
And the sources:
"The presumption of atheism 1976" (where the terms positive and negative atheism come from, meaning the same as strong and weak atheism)
"The Cambridge Companion to atheism 2006"
"Definitions of the term atheism - Ontario consultants on religious tolerance, 2007"
(These are just the sources given by wikipedia on the first paragraph, there are 6 more)
I challenge you to find a contrary definition of weak atheism/strong atheism.
Jashwell wrote:Do you accept that there is a noticeable number that acknowledge "lack of belief in a god" as atheism?
Yes, but I think they're misapplying the term. If you lack belief in God, meaning that you have no beliefs whatsoever pertaining to God's existence, the more appropriate title you should be using is agnostic.
But you accept many people use "atheism" to mean lack of belief in a god.
Jashwell wrote:Do you accept that the etymology of the term means "without theism", which could easily and not irrationally be understood to be "not theism" (a negation, not just a contradiction) which includes weak atheism?
I believe the Stanford Encyclopedia already clarified this for you. See the OP.[/quote]
... I'm asking about what you belief.
The Stanford Encyclopedia does clarify that the denial or negation of theism is atheism. The negation does not mean the antithesis. For instance, the negation of "hot" is "not hot" - not cold, it could be of neutral temperature. The negation of "over there" is "not over there" not "over here".
Anything that isn't theism is the negation of theism.
Do you believe that people who lack belief in God are theists?
If not, they are part of the negation of theism. Atheists.
Now, the more important point.
You acknowledge that a notable number of people recognise that atheism means lack of belief in god.
This indicates that the dictionaries that don't acknowledge this
should add it as a secondary definition.
As you said, etymology deals with the origin of the words, and words change.
You can't have it both ways. Either words don't change and we're stuck with atheism (lack of belief in gods) or words do change and we've got (lack of belief in gods) as a secondary (if not primary) definition.
Of course, the "lack of belief in god" would entirely cover (being a superset of) "belief in the nonexistence of god", making it possible to entirely replace.
