Many define it that way, against formal definition, for their political/emotional purpose of sneaking their hatred under the wire. That is extremely obvious in ALL of the threads on this site and most others.
And just as a small example; you say that, despite the dictionary quote of the meaning of the word that you were just given, even though you could have looked it up for yourself.
Technically he’s right James… it’s not called anti-theism, it’s called atheism. Not against theism, simply a lack of belief in it.
I know very well what the term means. Yes, you’re going to find many dictionary definitions defining the term as a strict belief in the non-existence of God; you will also find dictionary definitions defining the term as a lack of belief in God; you will find dictionary definitions going both ways.
But the meaning of terms is not determined by the dictionary; dictionaries are more like reports on how a culture or society uses words. Sometimes people use the term to mean “belief in the lack of God” and other times people use the term of mean “a lack of belief in God”. ← That’s just a fact of life.
I’m just going on the structure of the word itself: a-theist. Meaning not-a-theist–one who isn’t a believer in God.
Thus, stop trying to insist that it means only this one other thing that very, very conspicuously, very, very many people on THIS forum don’t actually believe despite what those same people lie about when they say it. The fact that you can use the “plausible deniability” clause to not blame them, doesn’t change ANYONE’S opinion at all.
And the “a-” prefix in English means BOTH “non-” and also “anti-” as I provided the references for on another thread here. It might mean either one.
Find an UNAMBIGUOUS word. Be HONEST for a change.
Category 2 is just the set of people who don’t believe in a god. As a class of people, there isn’t anything more that ties them together. The group includes newborns and philosophers - all varieties of mind and matter - and not a thread of common consciousness to bind them. Propagating a vague buzzword as a catch-all for this group of people only ends up giving more weight to the classification than it merits.
“non” includes “anti”. ← That’s covered by my definition.
I like how you try to make me out to seem like a liar just because you disagree with me.
What I suggest, James, is that you take that 10 foot stick out of your ass and lighten up a bit.
Those are two different concepts. Why do you want to redefine them to be ambiguous if not merely to create more deception?
The absence of does not equate to the opposite of.
And “includes” does not equate to “equates”.
Get a grip.
Actually, I am the one who suggested it (indirectly with my nipple metaphor which I thought was very clever).
I can claim a newborn does not believe in evolutionary theory and then infer meaning from it.
Or that a newborn does not believe in creationism and infer meaning from it.
I could also claim that a newborn does not believe in heterosexuality and infer meaning from this.
Agnostic/atheist/theist are self made declarations and if a human is unable to make that declaration for themselves then it is a breach of their human rights to do it for them.
These are all positions that are held as they are self made declarations - not imposed labels.
I am sure that theists will not argue against the notion that atheists/agnostics have intellects equivalent to that of a newborn (if that is what atheists are arguing for).
The label that applies to newborns is … unaware (hence not guilty of being a theist/atheist/agnostic).
Shoes and pumpkins and rocks don’t have hair, but we don’t typically call them bald. Words for a lack of something generally aren’t intended for things and situations in which they were never expected to exist in the first place.
That said, if there was some odd situation in which we needed to talk about all the things that lack hair, even things that we never expected to have it, I suppose ‘bald’ is the best word we have. Sure, it’s awkward, but it’s a bizarre situation in the first place.
Are you really sure in that case?
More often than not, theists attempt to be more forgiving than not. But on occasion, one will not even give them that much credit, but most of the time …
In general, as in definitely so, at this site, atheists are hardcore DIS-believers, ANTI-theists, not anything close to merely those who have no particular belief or merely “don’t see the evidence” (with their hands over their ears and their eyes glued shut).
What I am sure of is that my sense of humour failed in this context… but hey, I still enjoyed myself.
What word would you use to define one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists? Unless it’s something other than atheist, then atheist is the appropriate term for a neutral position.
Would you say the appropriate word to define those who don’t hold the belief that a god exists (or those who aren’t in category #1) is atheist? If so, then atheist is the “vague buzzword” for category #2.
Please provide an illustration of set theory and how it applies to the dichotomy I’ve described above.
So you don’t consider atheist the appropriate term for those who don’t hold the belief that a god exists? If so, what term would you use for those who don’t hold the belief that a god exists?
What would be considered an appropriate term for those who cannot read?
No, I don’t think babies are atheists. I think only people who consider and reject the idea of god merit the term atheist. Being an atheist means that the things you believe are in conflict with the idea of a god, such that god seems implausible to you.
Then what term would you use to describe those who fall into category #2 (or those who don’t hold the belief that a god exists)?