Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Clueless Morgan]

You're making one half of the argument. You're telling me definitions change, which I have already conceded- sure they do.

But it's not necessarily simply because one group of people use the word in a particular way. Heck, just because a bunch of hippies started saying "radical" did not establish a new definition for the term. The original definition remained alongside the newer colloquial use.

You are correct. The slang use of the word "radical" didn't end up changing the definition of the word. No question there.

But as Lemonvariable pointed out, you completely overlooked the fact that the word "gay" has changed definitions, as has the word "queer," both of which have added definitions to their dictionary entries in the past 100 to 150 years, and who knows whether the original definitions will have been supplanted by the new ones in another two or three or four hundred years.

But the problem with you and your kind is that you're not willing to let the original sit alongside yours. You don't even acknowledge the existence of people who take the original definition to be valid. You just steamroll over them and unilaterally install your definition as the one true definition and all others as false.

Explain to me where in my post I am not willing to let the original definition of atheism sit along side "mine."

In fact, explain to me where I defined atheism. Because I didn't. I didn't make a single statement in which I defined atheism and then explicitly excluded the original, Greek definition.

I made the point that definitions change over time and that it might not be appropriate to be so unremittingly wed to the original, purist, Greek definition. I also never said that a word can only ever have one single definition. Gay has two or three, depending on how you subdivide them. Fantastic has at least two, arguably more. Apology has three, including it's original definition of a defense or justification.

So thanks for straw manning me, but the next time you do it make sure I'm not still checking the thread.

So while I DO accept the first half of your argument: That definitions can change- I can't accept the second part- that you can change the meaning of words by force and deny any other definition.

I think that "gay" and "queer" are good examples of words that have experienced forcible definition changes through them being used as derogatory terms for homosexual people. So I don't accept your not accepting the idea that definitions can be changed "by force" - or by a specific group of people. Bigots can be both amazingly creative in the slang they use against those they are bigoted about, and amazingly effective at adding new definitions to to existing words they re-purpose.

And I don't understand where you're getting the idea that I am "denying any other definition" - presumably of atheism - since I never defined atheism in my original post. Perhaps ask me how I define atheism before you go about trashing me for it.