niunian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> To suppose the author of the definition
>> "simply imagines that by rejecting other beliefs,
>> he or she would be left with no belief,"
>> sounds much akin to an assertion.
>>
>> It is probably incorrect.
>>
>> It could be incorrect
>> if the author of the definition
>> is simply making an assertion, axiomatically;
>> such that atheism is defined, in the broad sense, means
>> "... the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
>>
>> That would be a building block.
>> A foundation stone. A given.
>> Accepted without question.
>>
>> No imagination necessary.
>>
>> So it is totally wrong.
>> But for the wrong reasons.
>
>Now I think I have finally figured it out. I have been debating with a
>bunch of agnostics about atheist belief.
Why you would want to debate with anyone
about your own personal experiences
and what they mean to you
can be mysterious.
Your biggest difficulties have arisen
due to your choice of words.
You appear to be wanting words,
such as, for instance, God, to mean
whatever you want them to mean.
And you don't appear to appreciate
that a word, such as God, already has
its own meaning in use.
It has its own inertia.
To say God is the devil
is to say a very strange thing.
Yet that is what you have said.
To say there is only one God,
except that the God of the Bible
is the devil, can be a strange thing
for somebody to say.
And yet, that is what you have said.
You also are debating about apples
in a grove full of orange eaters.
They ask you for scientific evidence
but the only evidence you have is anecdotal.
Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.
You do not appear to understand
nor to appreciate the differences in meaning
between various different terminologies.
> They certain don't believe
>atheism, and they are too shy to declare their own belief which is
>agnosticism, so they just want to denounce atheism to be any kind of belief.
>
>According to dictionary,
A dictionary.
The one you choose to use.
> atheism is clearly a rejection of any god
>belief, but somehow, on the web pages, it's been changed into a lack of
>belief in the existence of god.
A medical dictionary may have definitions
far different from those found in a thesaurus.
People are free to use any dictionary they please.
Whether or not it is of any use
can be determined by what it is used for
and how effective it is in that particular usage.
> Is this some kind of intellectual trick
>to save atheism from the coming judgment day?
Not at all.
It is simply your refusal
to accept that words can have meanings
other than the ones you choose for them to have.
> does it mean the author of
>the definition already knows the existence of God in the back of his or
>her mind?
The author of the definition
has something in mind.
Whether that is the same thing
or something different that is in your mind
can make all the difference in communication.
> I wouldn't know.
Yes.
>At least, it appears atheism is moving away from its traditional
>position which is rejecting any God beliefs.
How traditional that is
might be an interesting topic.
What is the tradition of atheism?
Does atheism have a tradition?
Definitions, opinions, and beliefs
about that topic may very well vary.
> I think it should be a good sign.
Beginning with accepting a definition
can be the beginning of an understanding.
When two people can accept the same definition,
then the groundwork can be laid, upon which
a conversation or discussion can be built.
So far, that has not happened.
At least, not to speak of.
In so many words.