(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: The semantics are a little off, there, as only one of those is an -ism.Not true. But also not really the point, so let's move on.
(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: There are two ways of deriving atheism:
1) atheos (no god) + ism (a belief) = A position that there is no god.
2) a (not) + theism (belief that god exists) = A lack of a position that there is a god.
We can argue semantics and etymology all day long. That's not really the point. The point is a + theism = without a belief in god or gods.
(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: The former is sometimes called hard atheism, and the latter soft atheism. The other words don't really break down as ambiguously as that, precisely because they are not -isms.
"Hard atheism" and "soft atheism" are not my concern here. All you're describing is gnostic atheism versus agnostic atheism. Atheism, however, is a broad definition meaning the absence of a belief in a deity or deities. Atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of a belief. Whatever each personal atheist decides from there on out is up to them.
(March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: It's clear that hard atheism represents a belief.
No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you choose to repeat this. I've edited out the rest of your semantic nonsense because it's beside the point.
Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Or do you accept it as the most accurate version of reality based on what you observe? Would you describe "not jogging" as one of your hobbies?
Stop being silly.
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.