Amazing how people who are so pressed for time frequently find time for the "last word."
to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
People are giving Art a hard time but not responding to any of any of the important points.
We had two main arguments on this thread. Evolution and the definition of atheism.
Both times the other side has resorted to making new definitions saying that the commonly accepted definition is the strong form but that their chosen argument is the weak form.
These were the losing arguments.
We were all told that it was fact that we came from common ancestors and that at one point it was just goo. (strong form, and speculation) Now, factual evolution only stands for changes in the gene pool. This is a very weakened form of evolution in deed, and a victory for truth. (Not christians-- truth.)
We have also seen that atheists want a weak form and strong form of atheism. Great, but again that is not the definition because the weight of authority (almost all dictionaries and other sources) all say atheism == disbelief in God. Then axe argued that atheist should define atheism. So I got a representative quote of the many ( not all) atheists who admit that according to common usage atheism = disbelief.
Two weak arguments the same results.
We had two main arguments on this thread. Evolution and the definition of atheism.
Both times the other side has resorted to making new definitions saying that the commonly accepted definition is the strong form but that their chosen argument is the weak form.
These were the losing arguments.
We were all told that it was fact that we came from common ancestors and that at one point it was just goo. (strong form, and speculation) Now, factual evolution only stands for changes in the gene pool. This is a very weakened form of evolution in deed, and a victory for truth. (Not christians-- truth.)
We have also seen that atheists want a weak form and strong form of atheism. Great, but again that is not the definition because the weight of authority (almost all dictionaries and other sources) all say atheism == disbelief in God. Then axe argued that atheist should define atheism. So I got a representative quote of the many ( not all) atheists who admit that according to common usage atheism = disbelief.
Two weak arguments the same results.
EVOLUTION.
I don't think that the definition of evolution as change in the gene pool over time is weak at all. It is in fact exactly what happens when life evolves. Genes can be considered "selfish" and compete for regeneration. If they confer an advantage in the phenotype they for which code, they pass themselves on. The recombination process allows for change in the code. That is a fact. The theory is that the process is competitive in nature, and environments select for mutant genes that are adaptive, thus changing the phenotype, and permitting diversity. The change itself is a fact and has been observed in moth species and microorganisms.
ATHEISM.
If many atheists consider a lack of belief in God as an accurate definition of atheism, then it is. For where do we find the rules of language and the meanings of the words? In the use of the language itself! Dictionaries are always one edition behind the language. As languages evolve, meanings of certain words do as well and are shaded to reflect contemporary mores, practices, beliefs, customs, and attitudes. And that is exactly how editors of of dictionaries and thesauruses operate: they study the USE of the language and produce new editions. Take it from a former student of the late Robert Chapman, chief editor of roget's Thesaurus.
Languages, like lifeforms, and threads, evolve. That's a fact. Why only 3 decades ago, threads meant attire.
I don't think that the definition of evolution as change in the gene pool over time is weak at all. It is in fact exactly what happens when life evolves. Genes can be considered "selfish" and compete for regeneration. If they confer an advantage in the phenotype they for which code, they pass themselves on. The recombination process allows for change in the code. That is a fact. The theory is that the process is competitive in nature, and environments select for mutant genes that are adaptive, thus changing the phenotype, and permitting diversity. The change itself is a fact and has been observed in moth species and microorganisms.
ATHEISM.
If many atheists consider a lack of belief in God as an accurate definition of atheism, then it is. For where do we find the rules of language and the meanings of the words? In the use of the language itself! Dictionaries are always one edition behind the language. As languages evolve, meanings of certain words do as well and are shaded to reflect contemporary mores, practices, beliefs, customs, and attitudes. And that is exactly how editors of of dictionaries and thesauruses operate: they study the USE of the language and produce new editions. Take it from a former student of the late Robert Chapman, chief editor of roget's Thesaurus.
Languages, like lifeforms, and threads, evolve. That's a fact. Why only 3 decades ago, threads meant attire.
Nice misrepresentation and poorly drawn conclusion.
"almost all dictionaries and other sources all say atheism == disbelief in God"
Almost all? You have not shown this to be true.
Care to list them all? Ive listed many ATHEIST sources
which state it is merely the lack of belief in god.
In fact, if you look up the definition of "atheist" on dictionary.com
instead of atheism, the #2 definition is: a godless person.
Clearly, someone who has never even heard of god(s),
a) does not BELIEVE in god, and b) is therefore an atheist.
An active DISBELIEF is not required to be an atheist.
Further...these expert sources carry more weight than just a mere dictionary.
Why do you place so much authoritative weight on the dictionary?
Always believe what you read? If the dictionary wasnt written yet,
where do you think the authors would get the definition from?
Thats right... the experts in the field: the philosophers, atheistic
organizations, and atheists.
In the middle ages atheism was defined as: ungodliness, wickedness
Even some modern dictionaries STILL have these definitions.
They are clearly WRONG.
Further... You have failed to address my medical analogy.
Why is that we would readily accept a more precise medical
definition for a term OVER the dictionaries, from an expert in
the field, yet you refuse to accept a more precise definition
from experts in the field of atheism? A bit of a contradiction.
However, I DO agree that atheism is the disbelief in god, since
someone who disbelieves in god, obviously does not posses
a belief in god. This is a subset of the technically better term
used by experts in the field.
Theism - is a belief in god(s).
A- theism - without theism, is therefore anyone who does NOT
posses a belief in god(s).
This in no way makes it NECESSARY that they DISBELIEVE in god.
Just that they simply lack a belief in god.
Even the root meaning of the word supports this definition.
Now this begs the question. What would you call someone who
does NOT have theism? Or thats right.. an *A*-theist
Think of it this way ... if you dont posses a belief in god, then
you are clearly not a theist. You are also not necessarily an agnostic
since gnosticism deals in the domain of knowledge, and not belief
like atheism and theism do.
An Atheist is therefore logically the correct term to describe any person
who is not a theist, or simply lacks(does not possess) BELIEF in god(s).
Or as in dictionary.com states: a godless person.
About.com goes well beyond the limited dictionaries in properly
explaining atheism:
Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
peace
axeman
"almost all dictionaries and other sources all say atheism == disbelief in God"
Almost all? You have not shown this to be true.
Care to list them all? Ive listed many ATHEIST sources
which state it is merely the lack of belief in god.
In fact, if you look up the definition of "atheist" on dictionary.com
instead of atheism, the #2 definition is: a godless person.
Clearly, someone who has never even heard of god(s),
a) does not BELIEVE in god, and b) is therefore an atheist.
An active DISBELIEF is not required to be an atheist.
Further...these expert sources carry more weight than just a mere dictionary.
Why do you place so much authoritative weight on the dictionary?
Always believe what you read? If the dictionary wasnt written yet,
where do you think the authors would get the definition from?
Thats right... the experts in the field: the philosophers, atheistic
organizations, and atheists.
In the middle ages atheism was defined as: ungodliness, wickedness
Even some modern dictionaries STILL have these definitions.
They are clearly WRONG.
Further... You have failed to address my medical analogy.
Why is that we would readily accept a more precise medical
definition for a term OVER the dictionaries, from an expert in
the field, yet you refuse to accept a more precise definition
from experts in the field of atheism? A bit of a contradiction.
However, I DO agree that atheism is the disbelief in god, since
someone who disbelieves in god, obviously does not posses
a belief in god. This is a subset of the technically better term
used by experts in the field.
Theism - is a belief in god(s).
A- theism - without theism, is therefore anyone who does NOT
posses a belief in god(s).
This in no way makes it NECESSARY that they DISBELIEVE in god.
Just that they simply lack a belief in god.
Even the root meaning of the word supports this definition.
Now this begs the question. What would you call someone who
does NOT have theism? Or thats right.. an *A*-theist
Think of it this way ... if you dont posses a belief in god, then
you are clearly not a theist. You are also not necessarily an agnostic
since gnosticism deals in the domain of knowledge, and not belief
like atheism and theism do.
An Atheist is therefore logically the correct term to describe any person
who is not a theist, or simply lacks(does not possess) BELIEF in god(s).
Or as in dictionary.com states: a godless person.
About.com goes well beyond the limited dictionaries in properly
explaining atheism:
Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
peace
axeman
Great point slamma.
The fact is, the vast vast majority of atheists, atheist orgs,
atheist authors, and PHD philosophers all support the
"lack of belief" definition for the majority of atheists.
Many dictionaries are simply behind in this sense.
they study the USE of the language and produce new editions.
We can expect a revision the next time the review the word "atheism" then.
Since their current definition DOES NOT reflect the reality
of what they are trying to describe.
After all... a defined word is nothing more than a CONTRACT,
an agreement, on its meaning, extracted from reality, so that
we may communicate.
The reality is.... modern day ATHEISM, is defined as lacking belief.
If JEWS were to redefine themselves in another decade, it
would be ludicrous to DEMAND that they are wrong, and that
the older definition of JEW stand.
We would have to change the definition to properly re-fit reality.
peace
axeman
The fact is, the vast vast majority of atheists, atheist orgs,
atheist authors, and PHD philosophers all support the
"lack of belief" definition for the majority of atheists.
Many dictionaries are simply behind in this sense.
they study the USE of the language and produce new editions.
We can expect a revision the next time the review the word "atheism" then.
Since their current definition DOES NOT reflect the reality
of what they are trying to describe.
After all... a defined word is nothing more than a CONTRACT,
an agreement, on its meaning, extracted from reality, so that
we may communicate.
The reality is.... modern day ATHEISM, is defined as lacking belief.
If JEWS were to redefine themselves in another decade, it
would be ludicrous to DEMAND that they are wrong, and that
the older definition of JEW stand.
We would have to change the definition to properly re-fit reality.
peace
axeman
Quote from slammajamma:
EVOLUTION.
I don't think that the definition of evolution as change in the gene pool over time is weak at all. It is in fact exactly what happens when life evolves. Genes can be considered "selfish" and compete for regeneration. If they confer an advantage in the phenotype they for which code, they pass themselves on. The recombination process allows for change in the code. That is a fact. The theory is that the process is competitive in nature, and environments select for mutant genes that are adaptive, thus changing the phenotype, and permitting diversity. The change itself is a fact and has been observed in moth species and microorganisms.
ATHEISM.
If many atheists consider a lack of belief in God as an accurate definition of atheism, then it is. For where do we find the rules of language and the meanings of the words? In the use of the language itself! Dictionaries are always one edition behind the language. As languages evolve, meanings of certain words do as well and are shaded to reflect contemporary mores, practices, beliefs, customs, and attitudes. And that is exactly how editors of of dictionaries and thesauruses operate: they study the USE of the language and produce new editions. Take it from a former student of the late Robert Chapman, chief editor of roget's Thesaurus.
Languages, like lifeforms, and threads, evolve. That's a fact. Why only 3 decades ago, threads meant attire.
slamma- you wrote well.
Evolution has retreated from the statement that it is fact that we evolved from monkeys. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that when you looked at textbooks they showed that embryos evolved through stages. They claimed embroyos had gills. Natural history museums demonstrated how man evolved from chimps through cro magnon man to homo sapiens. I sure you are familiar with this artistic rendition. (now they realize cro magnon man was different ) Even Star Trek (TNG) (my favorite show) showed us that we evolved from muck. Penn and Teller said so, everyone educated in schools (non religious ones) has been taught that we evolved from a common ancsetor. Is this a provable fact of evolution or not. If it is please cite your sources. If it is not a fact, the theory of evolution has retreated. I will admit I am wrong about the state of the theory quite easily as I have no stake in it, I just am looking for facts or well documented sources.
Evolution has retreated from the statement that it is fact that we evolved from monkeys. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that when you looked at textbooks they showed that embryos evolved through stages. They claimed embroyos had gills. Natural history museums demonstrated how man evolved from chimps through cro magnon man to homo sapiens. I sure you are familiar with this artistic rendition. (now they realize cro magnon man was different ) Even Star Trek (TNG) (my favorite show) showed us that we evolved from muck. Penn and Teller said so, everyone educated in schools (non religious ones) has been taught that we evolved from a common ancsetor. Is this a provable fact of evolution or not. If it is please cite your sources. If it is not a fact, the theory of evolution has retreated. I will admit I am wrong about the state of the theory quite easily as I have no stake in it, I just am looking for facts or well documented sources.
The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984
Axe There is an atheist is he an expert on the definition. What do you propose a medical expert would testify too. How, we he be an expert on the definition of a word.
Why do you claim an atheist's opinion is like that of a medical expert. No expert testimony is needed on the definition of a word. A judge would take judicial notice of the word's definition. You would not even get to bring an atheist into to court as a expert. I have told you that you do not understand foundation. You must give up your silly medical expert analogy. Courts are not all the same and sometimes they need expert testimony and sometimes they treat it differently. But being that I can tell that you are not a lawyer, you are way out of your comfort zone on this argument. First you have to define the issue, then you have to show there is a dispute, then you have to lay foundation then you have experts argue. Judges avoid this at all costs. They would be happy to take judicial notice of a definition when it is a dictionary.
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Atheism
from the atheism web.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
notice nder the websters definition they define 1a and 1b as the weak and strong version. However it is not a lack of belief.
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
the dictionaries go on and on.
After you spend a lot of time you can only fairly conclude that atheist argue for a weak and strong forms, but that is not the standard definition and even many atheists agree that their preferred definitions are not the usual definitions. (see quote above as a sample of the many reasonable atheists)
The weight of authority is against you and you even some atheists disagree with you. Your case is closed.
Now, slamma again at least propels the argument saying that the dictionaries may be behind the times. This may be true. But you would now face a heavy burden to show that Atheism = lack of a belief. You would have to show the large majority of dictionaries (the experts on definitions) are wrong. Again what atheists desire the definition to be is of little importance. Especially since they are not monolithic in their beliefs.
But since slamma understands this I do not need to debate this with him. I rest comfortable and silently with the burden of proof on my side. (I hope I can withstand wasting anymore time on this thread. )
P.S. the guy you got your quote from did not state that "a theism" is defined by the roots. It was just what he was hoping the definition would become. And beside other dictionaries say the root means "not god"
Axe you admit disbelief is a good definition. disbelief is not lack of belief no matter how much you want it to be.
p.s.s Jews could redefine themselves but that does not support your argument. Besides (this is not my argument but I want to point out the flaws with your argument) If 99 perent of Jews in ten years claimed Jesus was God what would that do to your conjecture. Would you say that all the people who are currently jews today were not jews.
[Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984
Axe There is an atheist is he an expert on the definition. What do you propose a medical expert would testify too. How, we he be an expert on the definition of a word.
Why do you claim an atheist's opinion is like that of a medical expert. No expert testimony is needed on the definition of a word. A judge would take judicial notice of the word's definition. You would not even get to bring an atheist into to court as a expert. I have told you that you do not understand foundation. You must give up your silly medical expert analogy. Courts are not all the same and sometimes they need expert testimony and sometimes they treat it differently. But being that I can tell that you are not a lawyer, you are way out of your comfort zone on this argument. First you have to define the issue, then you have to show there is a dispute, then you have to lay foundation then you have experts argue. Judges avoid this at all costs. They would be happy to take judicial notice of a definition when it is a dictionary.
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Atheism
from the atheism web.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
notice nder the websters definition they define 1a and 1b as the weak and strong version. However it is not a lack of belief.
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
the dictionaries go on and on.
After you spend a lot of time you can only fairly conclude that atheist argue for a weak and strong forms, but that is not the standard definition and even many atheists agree that their preferred definitions are not the usual definitions. (see quote above as a sample of the many reasonable atheists)
The weight of authority is against you and you even some atheists disagree with you. Your case is closed.
Now, slamma again at least propels the argument saying that the dictionaries may be behind the times. This may be true. But you would now face a heavy burden to show that Atheism = lack of a belief. You would have to show the large majority of dictionaries (the experts on definitions) are wrong. Again what atheists desire the definition to be is of little importance. Especially since they are not monolithic in their beliefs.
But since slamma understands this I do not need to debate this with him. I rest comfortable and silently with the burden of proof on my side. (I hope I can withstand wasting anymore time on this thread. )
P.S. the guy you got your quote from did not state that "a theism" is defined by the roots. It was just what he was hoping the definition would become. And beside other dictionaries say the root means "not god"
Axe you admit disbelief is a good definition. disbelief is not lack of belief no matter how much you want it to be.
p.s.s Jews could redefine themselves but that does not support your argument. Besides (this is not my argument but I want to point out the flaws with your argument) If 99 perent of Jews in ten years claimed Jesus was God what would that do to your conjecture. Would you say that all the people who are currently jews today were not jews.
jem,
Your first quote states:
I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist.
A definition I agree with.
Then link to WordIq which states in the first paragraph:
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god or gods. The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of gods an atheist.
A definition I also agree with.
Then you point to the webpage where experts support
the definition I think is more accurate:
Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist - Michael Martin - PHD Harvard Philosophy
Then you quote: even many atheists agree that their preferred definitions are not the usual definitions.
Which is EXACTLY my point. They are pointing out the fact that
the dictionary definitions are DATED.
"The weight of authority is against you and you even some atheists disagree with you. Your case is closed."
Clearly it is not. You just made my case perfectly with all
your references. Thank you very much
"Now, slamma again at least propels the argument saying that the dictionaries may be behind the times."
Which I agree with, and your own sources are implying the same.
"You would have to show the large majority of dictionaries (the experts on definitions) are wrong."
No I wouldnt. We already know dictionaries can be "behind the times"
and my references show that they clearly are.
"Axe you admit disbelief is a good definition. disbelief is not lack of belief no matter how much you want it to be."
Yes... but it only covers a smaller subset of atheism.
As the DICTIONARY says, apparently your sole source for definition,
an atheist is also a "godless person". This would include infants.
A person can clearly be an atheist without actively disbelieving
by this definition. It is a contradiction to define an ATHEIST
as a "godless person", while at the same time not defining
ATHEISM as a "godless belief system".
The medical analogy stands. Its absurd to assert that people
who are experts in the medical field, can have their MORE ACCURATE
medical definition for a disease OVERRIDDEN by a common dictionary.
If this is your position, then you simply dont have one.
Following this line of reasoning, I could easily claim that any
more detailed definition found in an encyclopedia is INCORRECT
because the more GENERIC definition in a DICTIONARY somehow
overrides it.
Your reasoning doesnt hold water.
Try taking a college philosophy class, and when the teacher
defines a philosophical term DIFFERENTLY then what your
dictionary states, TELL HIM HE IS WRONG
Now that would be funny. Although it seems obvious to me,
the DICTIONARY is not the end all to all definitions, and
every specialized field contains words with definitions which are
more precise, whos parallel layman definitions in the dictionary
are inaccurate.
Are you seriously asserting that the dictionary over rules
ALL OTHER definitions in more specialized fields such as
philosophy and medicine?
Your argument seems to imply this. If you do assert this, then
you have to back it up. If not, then you admit the dictionary
is NOT the end all, and the question now becomes, who is
the ultimate authority on the definition of a groups BELIEFS?
The group who claims those beliefs, the philosophers of those
beliefs, the organizations which formed because of those beliefs,
or some dude who typed them into a book?
peace
axeman
Your first quote states:
I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist.
A definition I agree with.
Then link to WordIq which states in the first paragraph:
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god or gods. The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of gods an atheist.
A definition I also agree with.
Then you point to the webpage where experts support
the definition I think is more accurate:
Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist - Michael Martin - PHD Harvard Philosophy
Then you quote: even many atheists agree that their preferred definitions are not the usual definitions.
Which is EXACTLY my point. They are pointing out the fact that
the dictionary definitions are DATED.
"The weight of authority is against you and you even some atheists disagree with you. Your case is closed."
Clearly it is not. You just made my case perfectly with all
your references. Thank you very much
"Now, slamma again at least propels the argument saying that the dictionaries may be behind the times."
Which I agree with, and your own sources are implying the same.
"You would have to show the large majority of dictionaries (the experts on definitions) are wrong."
No I wouldnt. We already know dictionaries can be "behind the times"
and my references show that they clearly are.
"Axe you admit disbelief is a good definition. disbelief is not lack of belief no matter how much you want it to be."
Yes... but it only covers a smaller subset of atheism.
As the DICTIONARY says, apparently your sole source for definition,
an atheist is also a "godless person". This would include infants.
A person can clearly be an atheist without actively disbelieving
by this definition. It is a contradiction to define an ATHEIST
as a "godless person", while at the same time not defining
ATHEISM as a "godless belief system".
The medical analogy stands. Its absurd to assert that people
who are experts in the medical field, can have their MORE ACCURATE
medical definition for a disease OVERRIDDEN by a common dictionary.
If this is your position, then you simply dont have one.
Following this line of reasoning, I could easily claim that any
more detailed definition found in an encyclopedia is INCORRECT
because the more GENERIC definition in a DICTIONARY somehow
overrides it.
Your reasoning doesnt hold water.
Try taking a college philosophy class, and when the teacher
defines a philosophical term DIFFERENTLY then what your
dictionary states, TELL HIM HE IS WRONG
Now that would be funny. Although it seems obvious to me,
the DICTIONARY is not the end all to all definitions, and
every specialized field contains words with definitions which are
more precise, whos parallel layman definitions in the dictionary
are inaccurate.
Are you seriously asserting that the dictionary over rules
ALL OTHER definitions in more specialized fields such as
philosophy and medicine?
Your argument seems to imply this. If you do assert this, then
you have to back it up. If not, then you admit the dictionary
is NOT the end all, and the question now becomes, who is
the ultimate authority on the definition of a groups BELIEFS?
The group who claims those beliefs, the philosophers of those
beliefs, the organizations which formed because of those beliefs,
or some dude who typed them into a book?
peace
axeman
One of the aspects of a good dictionary is its objectivity when providing a definition.
Certainly Webster would not go to a grand imperial wizard and ask him what the KKK's definition of racism and bigotry were and place that as the primary definition.
Instead, he might study their behavior, their writings, and their ideology before reaching a fully objective and clear definition...as well as examine how the words racism and bigotry were used commonly and technically in language.
So the question is should some organization of practicing atheists be placed in the position of determining what the correct definition of atheism is, what expertise on atheism is, and how it should be used in language?
Clearly, the answer is no. The atheists lack the neutrality necessary to provide an accurate definition of what atheism actually is. They could proivde their subjective and biased opinon on what atheism is, but that would not be a proper definition in objective understanding of what atheism is.
An objective body who is neither strongly practicing theism and/or atheism...or is capable of setting their personal belief systems aside for the purpose of definition would be the best choice to provide proper definition.
Also, one major factor in this discussion is what is the nature of belief systems, as both theism and atheism have their foundation in the mechanics of the human mind to form and hold active belief systems.
Some atheists would have you accept that their "lack" of belief is a suspension of belief, but is that what you have seen in practice by the atheists here in this forum?
Have we seen detached expositions of a philosophy of atheism, or have we seen an angry and often emotional group of people practicing atheism who have issues with theism, and deem themselves to be superior to theists mentally in nearly the exact type of self righteousness we see from many theists project moral superiority?
I distrust the atheists and their "self definition process" as I don't view their work without agenda and motive to attack theism. I have viewed their websites and read their literature, and I find their work often as politically based as the Christian right wing is in is in their moral war.....as the atheists are equally determined in their efforts to "convert" the theists to their brand of "rationality."
I haven't seen a live and let live philosophy in this forum from the atheists, nor from some of the theists. What I have seen is a lot of fanaticism.
This is actually quite shocking and new to me.....as in the past I have discussed the concepts of theism, atheism, and the nature of belief systems on a quite a civil level with well educated people who had no axe to grind against those who choose to practice theism, and we came to a peaceful conclusion in our discussions to agree to disagree with respect to our different ideology and belief systems.
It is my opinion only, and has no bearing on the argument process, but it is my observation that the atheists who are angry and smack of self righteousness are either not genuinely secure in their own path, or have baggage from their past personal experience with theism or theists.
Certainly Webster would not go to a grand imperial wizard and ask him what the KKK's definition of racism and bigotry were and place that as the primary definition.
Instead, he might study their behavior, their writings, and their ideology before reaching a fully objective and clear definition...as well as examine how the words racism and bigotry were used commonly and technically in language.
So the question is should some organization of practicing atheists be placed in the position of determining what the correct definition of atheism is, what expertise on atheism is, and how it should be used in language?
Clearly, the answer is no. The atheists lack the neutrality necessary to provide an accurate definition of what atheism actually is. They could proivde their subjective and biased opinon on what atheism is, but that would not be a proper definition in objective understanding of what atheism is.
An objective body who is neither strongly practicing theism and/or atheism...or is capable of setting their personal belief systems aside for the purpose of definition would be the best choice to provide proper definition.
Also, one major factor in this discussion is what is the nature of belief systems, as both theism and atheism have their foundation in the mechanics of the human mind to form and hold active belief systems.
Some atheists would have you accept that their "lack" of belief is a suspension of belief, but is that what you have seen in practice by the atheists here in this forum?
Have we seen detached expositions of a philosophy of atheism, or have we seen an angry and often emotional group of people practicing atheism who have issues with theism, and deem themselves to be superior to theists mentally in nearly the exact type of self righteousness we see from many theists project moral superiority?
I distrust the atheists and their "self definition process" as I don't view their work without agenda and motive to attack theism. I have viewed their websites and read their literature, and I find their work often as politically based as the Christian right wing is in is in their moral war.....as the atheists are equally determined in their efforts to "convert" the theists to their brand of "rationality."
I haven't seen a live and let live philosophy in this forum from the atheists, nor from some of the theists. What I have seen is a lot of fanaticism.
This is actually quite shocking and new to me.....as in the past I have discussed the concepts of theism, atheism, and the nature of belief systems on a quite a civil level with well educated people who had no axe to grind against those who choose to practice theism, and we came to a peaceful conclusion in our discussions to agree to disagree with respect to our different ideology and belief systems.
It is my opinion only, and has no bearing on the argument process, but it is my observation that the atheists who are angry and smack of self righteousness are either not genuinely secure in their own path, or have baggage from their past personal experience with theism or theists.