False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Cato]

If you’re going to assert that I have never done something in this thread at least show the common courtesy to actually read all of my posts in this thread. In Post # 25 I directly quoted both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Post # 52 I quoted a letter from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy again. Why would you reference Stanford’s article on Evidence (an article that ironically never references atheism) if you’re not going to accept their definition of atheism?

My apologies, sincerely. You had provided references.

I'll allow you a moment to bask in your glory while I lick my wounds. After, I'll demonstrate why your invocation of Flew's definition of atheism is flawed, in a Wittgensteinian way.[/i]

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah yes, selective reasoning, the true cornerstone of religion.

Yes, I select sound reasoning and reject your fallacious reasoning. I appealed to philosophical sources to define a philosophical term, you appealed to a Biologist, well played.

I'll allow you a moment to bask in your glory while I lick my wounds. After, I'll demonstrate why your invocation of Flew's definition of atheism is flawed, in a Wittgensteinian way.[/i]

I am looking forward to your demonstration (I am done basking), especially considering I am not the one who invoked Flew’s definition of atheism, I disagree with his definition.

[Ryantology]

I wouldn’t, but that’s not the point of this thread.

Then make a new thread. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Because there is no default position on such matters because there’s no neutrality. Additionally, we do not determine what ought to be the philosophical default positon on matters by what newborns believe, that’d be absurd.

I asked you to demonstrate the truth of your initial assertion, not fortify it with another assertion you can't demonstrate.

Please try to keep up, the definition I adhere to is the traditionally accepted definition of the term, and is currently still supported by all encyclopedias of philosophy. You’re accepting a revisionist’s definition that no philosophical reference accepts; you use this definition simply because it’s self-serving and you’re too intellectually lazy to do the necessary groundwork in order to support your own position.

Language evolves. The definition of 'atheist' has evolved. You have no standing upon which to discredit the definition I favor, especially since your chosen definition has fallen into common disuse (and that's all that counts).

Not according to all of the appropriate authorities on the matter, but nice try.

Who decides what is appropriate?

Why do you keep pretending that “a” has anything to do with “ism” (belief)? It modifies “the” (from theos), so atheism is every bit as much of a belief as theism because nothing changes in regards to “ism” in either term; so if theism is a belief then so is atheism.

Prove your assertion.

You really believe that the definition of the term “atheist” is solely up to atheists? Ok, how do you know who the atheists are so we can ask them what the term means?

I'm an atheist. You can ask me.

[Statler Waldorf]

Then make a new thread. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is.

Or you could always just PM me; I am always willing to discuss such matters.

I asked you to demonstrate the truth of your initial assertion, not fortify it with another assertion you can't demonstrate.

Which assertion?

Language evolves. The definition of 'atheist' has evolved.

No it hasn’t, philosophical references still use the traditional definition.

You have no standing upon which to discredit the definition I favor, especially since your chosen definition has fallen into common disuse (and that's all that counts).

It’s fallen into disuse only amongst laymen; but that doesn’t prove anything. Philosophers still only use the definition I adhere to and that’s what matters since it’s a philosophical term.

[quote]Prove your assertion.

Prefixes modify the element, not the suffix (Grammar . an affix placed before a word, base, or another prefix to modify a term's meaning, as by making the term negative, as un- in unkind, by signaling repetition, as re- in reinvent, or by indicating support, as pro- in proabolition. Compatible prefixes can work together, as un- and re- in unrefundable- Webster’s); prefixes are never used to modify the suffix of a word.

I'm an atheist. You can ask me.

How do I know you’re an atheist if I do not know what the definition of “atheist” is until I ask an atheist?