Biblical illiteracy

[Jacob(smooth)]

Its the dictionary. You can opine that the word should mean something different but unfortunately that's what it means. Take it up with the good people at miriam webster, i;m sure they'll take your view very seriously. Many words have meanings which are more than the sum of their parts. Agnostic for example means something quite different to the opposite of gnostic.

Are you suggesting that because it's in the dictionary that the definition is infallible? It was written by people. People can and do make errors. There are text books from 50 years ago that have information that is outdated and incorrect. As we become more educated it is important to update our sources of information. The dictionary is one that could use a little attention in places. There are certainly people who disbelieve in God. They have an active position that a God cannot or does not exist. But that's really more of an Anti-Theist... isn't it? However that is different than someone that simply rejects the notion of God based on a lack of evidence. The state of simply having no belief, which isn't, in and of itself, an act.

I personally feel the definition is antiquated. And reality sort of substantiates that. Much like the bible, saying "It's there so it must be true." doesn't really hold a lot of water.

I'm suggesting that because it's in the dictionary... That's what the definition is. It's not so much that's it's infallible, the dictionary is the tool we use to detect fallacy. It is, simply, what words mean.

I had this argument on a theist forum over the word "abortion". The dictionary says it means "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy," they wanted it to mean the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy as a form of birth control.

Dictionaries are updated. I sympathise that you think that the word should mean something different, but it doesn't.

If I decide that "jizz" Should mean a sort of yellowy green colour it does not make it so.