From: metahuman (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 18:54:52 MST
October 20th
[07:08pm] <Lucifer> Why should the definition of atheism be changed?
[07:08pm] <KalGone> lemme show you, lucifer
[07:09pm] <KalGone> ATHEISM:(vl) The doctrine that there is no God. Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence for God and/or that the concept of God is incoherent so its existence is logically impossible.
[07:09pm] <Lucifer> Looks like quite a workable definition
[07:09pm] <KalGone> the guy from positiveatheism that metahuman quoted has some very valid points, namely that a- anything is absence of anything, rather than doctrine that the thing does not exist
[07:09pm] * localroger sees where Kal may be going with this
[07:10pm] <KalGone> did you read the post, lucifer?
[07:10pm] <Lucifer> So atheism should be defined to be just weak atheism?
[07:10pm] <localroger> "Weak" atheism is much more logically defensible than "strong" atheism.
[07:11pm] <KalGone> atheism should be consistent with the definitions of other a- prefix words
[07:11pm] <KalGone> here's a quote:
[07:11pm] <KalGone> An examination of all the words that have been modified with this prefix will show no exceptions to this pattern -- unless, of course, the Anglicans are right after all, and that for this one lonely term, *atheism,* the prefix indicates a doctrine rather than an absence, or, as the Anglican-owned dictionary asserts, the prefix indicates the denial of the existence of the object of the root (Wha...?).
[07:11pm] <localroger> e.g. to not be a theist is not the same as being anti-theist
[07:11pm] <Lucifer> localroger, can you say the same about all weaker stances about anything?
[07:11pm] <KalGone> I am an atheist, but I do not agree with the doctrine that there is no god
[07:12pm] <KalGone> I agree that most gods, as defined, are contradictory or could not exist as we understand existence
[07:12pm] <localroger> Well you can, but then that's one reason I am a Weak atheist myself. I do not think there is sufficient grounds to positively declare that all religious ideas are bullshit.
[07:12pm] <Lucifer> The definition is supposed to just reflect how we use the term in our own discussions
[07:12pm] <KalGone> exactly
[07:13pm] <KalGone> and the way *I* use the term in discussion is not the same as the way it's defined in the lexicon
[07:14pm] <KalGone> i agree fully, roger
[07:14pm] <KalGone> just because the idea comes from a religion, does not mean it's incorrect
[07:14pm] <Lucifer> The definition accurately reflected the way we used the term at one time. This may have changed over the years.
[07:14pm] <KalGone> ;-}
[07:14pm] <KalGone> continuously evolving
[07:16pm] <localroger> Lucifer, I don't think strong atheism has ever been nearly as popular as weak atheism. Maybe this forum was different, but even here I can think of at least 6 or 7 people who would definitely be on the Weak side.
...and then Lucifer involves himself in another conversation... A.D.D.? It seems to happen quite a bit. Either that or my logs are weird.
The point is, Blunderov, that we should change the definition of atheism to reflect our majority views. I'm merely trying to get people to start discussing this issue more in-depthly. I'm throwing something out there. If my definition is wrong, show me what's right because the one that's up there right now is definitely incorrect.
Atheism can be defined simply as "the lack of god-beliefs for whatever reason." It's a very open definition allowing for philosophies to be shaped around it. It's like a fill-in-the-blank definition. Atheists vary just like people do and not all atheists, obviously, would agree with my definition.
---- This message was posted by metahuman to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29566> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 18:55:32 MST