So you cited the wrong definition at Merriam Webster to prove that I was wrong about the definition, and then you change positions on Merriam Webster's validity as a dictionary when you find that it does not support your specific view of the word atheist:
...what? Are you seriously suggesting that the definition for *atheism* is wrong because the definition used for *atheist* isn't as comprehensive as the one used for atheism? Wtf?
Yup. Although you really should read the clarification of the word atheist that
they provide in the synonyms section.
So what? That little blurb incomplete; which is understandable given that they don't actually have the room to properly address the difference between positive and negative atheism.
You probably should use the definition that English natives use on an English speaking discussion board.
I will use the definition used by english-speaking atheists.
Does this mean, that discovering some
homophone in an older language, we should use it to mean what the homophone means?
It means that words can have *multiple* meanings; and that one should utilize the one that makes the most sense given the context. Since atheism's definition includes several different ways in which it can be expressed, one should *not*, like you're doing, lock oneself into using only one of them.
Dictionaries are rough guidelines lacking context. They often attempt to make up for that by giving example phrases. Citing them isn't all that compelling. I want to know the context whenever a word's being argued about.
Yes, why are you pointing this out to me? I should think that my discussion with kharakov should establish that I agree with you on this. I didn't cite the dictionary definition as an authoritive source; I cited it as just one bit of evidence.
Why is your assertion about a "majority of atheists" supposed to be so compelling that questioning it would be absurd?
For the same reason that it'd be absurd to question that 'doctors' are people who perform medicine, even though most of them say that's what they do instead of making balloon animals like we might want to believe. When we're discussing the activities and beliefs of a distinct group of people, then it is THAT group of people who get to define those activities and beliefs, not the people who are NOT a part of that group. Why? Because that's how we get definitions like "atheist = satan worshipper"; or "Gay person = sheepfucker". Outsiders do not commonly have the proper understanding of a group's beliefs and thus their definitions of that group's beliefs can't be expected to be as accurate as a proper definition that's established by the members of the group itself.
It's likely that most, if not all, atheists adopted the term "atheist" for themselves because there's a god they disbelieve in. Reworking the term is something some (don't know how many, maybe just a few) started in on after their acknowledgment of their disbelief in a deity or all deities.
I can count on one hand the number of self-defined atheists I've met throughout my life that define atheism purely as the belief that god does exist, and none of them had thought through the consequences of such a strict singular definition.
What's most interesting to me is you care about people defining themselves. You make it an issue of identity, but surely identity is more a matter for individuals and not a group. Unless the "majority of atheists" are a hive-mind? You want to make up everyone's mind with a generality, holding to some system that some atheists contrived.
If the majority of *individuals* within a group define their beliefs a certain way, then that weighs more heavily when it comes to defining the beliefs of the group as a whole. than if a handful of individuals within the group define themselves in a slightly different way; especially when that slightly different way is still acknowledged as fitting within the majority spectrum of belief. If you don't accept the use of labels and words to describe certain groupings of people, then you might as well throw the entirety of language away because clearly, it should be up to me how I define a glarbooglooble and you can just pfinktploppity plop your own klooplah.
People without medical degrees defined both heart and surgery. The two words combined are widely understood,
No, I don't think so. Those two words have from the get go been defined by the surgeons themselves; if I invent a word for something, and then for the definition I say what basically amounts to: "this word is defined as what that person does"; then I'm not really the one who defined the word, I'm just the person who came up with a word to go with the existing definition.
and it's surgeons using terms that were already defined by the real people.
Are you suggesting surgeons aren't real people?
But I think you're saying "People who best know their own beliefs should be the ones who get to say what they mean by the word". To which I say: 1) ok; and 2) I am an atheist and am participating in that discussion, because there's no authority that ever finalized the topic; and 3) I wonder, again, do you imagine the "overwhelming majority of atheists" finalizing, once and for all, how everyone must define themselves?
No, I've never said that the majority represents some sort of absolute authority. But it doesn't really matter, does it? If you were to say that atheism is the specific belief that god does not exist; I say, okay... that's *A* form of atheism I already accept as part of the wider and more elaborate definition. I think you're confused here; *I* am the one who'se arguing that atheism can't be reduced to a singular definition (as that would leave many atheists out); and furthermore. None of which, incidentally, is relevant to my original argument in this thread, which is namely that regardless of how you define either theism or atheism, you still either believe or don't believe in god no matter how many qualifications like 'I believe this god does not exist' or 'I don't believe but I can't really know for sure' you tack onto that.
(And managing, in a self-serving way, to do it so that no one may say "I'm an agnostic" anymore without some fussy person correcting them and telling them they're such-n-such a kind of atheist and that's the last word on it.)
It's hardly being fussy; anybody who'se been an atheist for any length of time (and has spent time discussing it on the internet or elsewhere); will have more than once experienced the reason WHY I do so; namely, people using the term 'agnostic' as some sort of false 'neutral' ground that lets them off the hook (compared to us filthy 'angry' atheists); at the same time not realizing (or wanting to acknowledge because that takes away their precious ability to not be subjected to the same biases from theists as the rest of us nonbelievers are exposed to) that just because they're an agnostic doesn't mean they're therefore not both either a theist or an atheist as well. Agnostic isn't a third option between atheism and theism; it's a descriptive term that can slightly *modify* one's atheism or agnosticism. All it does is change your positition from "I do/do not believe this" to "I do/do not believe this, but I don't *know*".
That's only true if "lack of belief" automatically makes one into an atheist.
Which it does. The only way that it can't (and even then not really) is if you NARROW the definition of atheism to only meaning "someone who believes god does not exist"; in which case your earlier objection to your perception that I wasn't allowing for individuality to matter when it comes to these definitions. But even then, lack of belief is already included in the definition of 'believing god does not exist'. I suppose you COULD decide to define atheism as something that doesn't even address the belief in god at all; or reverse its definition to mean the opposite of nonbelief, but what would the fucking point of *that* be?
I can withhold believing one way or the other regarding Gods that I haven't even heard about yet. I am not a disbeliever in them.
And here is the problem, you are mistaking 'disbelief' for 'believe in non-existence.' That's not what it means. That's not what a lack of belief means either. Here we come into the territory of strong/weak atheism, which is at the crux of this sort of argument and which is very much a *necessary* distinction to make.
If I say "I believe god does not exist"; a theist might (and they usually do) go through the following exercise: They start by demanding how I can know that; at which point I the atheist and the theist might go through a lengthy argument about how the various attributes of god are incompatible with reality and therefore god can't exist and therefore that's what I believe. The theist might counter by arguing (correctly), that my argument falls apart as soon as we're dealing with a less well defined god; that I have no definitive reason to believe ALL possible deities don't or can't exist.
This train of argument is precisely why so many theists INSIST on only allowing atheism be defined as the denial of god; because it lets them create an easy strawman argument that shows the 'arrogance' of atheists.
Here's where strong versus weak atheism comes into play. Strong atheism refers to the type of atheism the theist argues against; the belief that (or a specific) god does not exist. Weak atheism refers simply to the lack of belief in god's existence. This is a subtle but important difference. I am a strong atheist when it comes to the judeochristian god; it is well defined enough for me to ascertain the impossibility of its existence. Like you, however, I can not believe in the non-existence of gods I haven't even imagined much less properly defined. So yes, it IS possible that there is some kind of god out there; I can't discount this possibility. But the fact that I accept the possibility does not mean I don't therefore lack a belief in this god. Do I believe in glargoobleglar the destroyer? No, even though I can't discount the possibility that he exists, I do *not* believe that he does. Therefore, I lack belief; I am a weak atheist when it comes to glargoobleglar. Just like you are. You're not an agnostic about glargoobleglar, because that would require you to make a claim about whether or not we *can* know whether he exists. You don't believe in him; that's not the same as being agnostic about him.