(July 4, 2014 at 7:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(July 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)rasetsu Wrote: lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (agnostic atheist? weak atheist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is no god (strong atheist)
has belief + has knowledge + there is no god (gnostic atheist)
lacks belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (apostatic theist)
has belief + lacks knowledge + there is a god (weak theist; faith based theism)
has belief + has knowledge + there is a god (strong theist; fundamentalist)
???
It suggests to me, because there are two variables, and a proposition that can be stated in the affirmative or the negative, there are a large range of possible positions. I don't think you can determine what the term atheism means by applying a sort of linguistic calculus, because words aquire meaning through convention, not logic. In the case of the word 'atheism', there are competing conventions. Because lexicographers have traditionally been theists, they've tended to frame the definition in ways that are understandable from the perspective of theism. This is somewhat proscriptive, however since atheist's proper are a minority language group, there's some sense to this. Then there's the sociological approach, that those to whom a term applies have the say in how it is defined; this has led to the "lack of belief" definition, possibly because it is the most inclusive. So you have two separate social conventions for the term, neither is necessarily more right than the other.
I think I agree with most of that. However, as I said on the first page, I don't have a problem with people opting to use different definitions of words (meaning is just usage, after all). But the flip-side of that is that there are consequences in terms of relevance and coherence when one starts changing words to mean something different than what people expect. In other words, I don't think rightness comes into this, but reasonableness and pragmatism do, as I think this lacking belief stuff removes the ability for one to actually give a nuanced position when asked to. If you either have to choose asserting theism is true or not asserting it as true (and yet not calling it false) and still call oneself an atheist or theist (and not strictly an agnostic or ignostic), then where can you go from there? You can't strongly lack belief, by the very definition employed they've made it a bivalent choice, free from degrees.
That's what asking for clarification is for. People are going to use different meanings for the same words all the time. Why be all wrapped about words and let theists do the same as well?
Why not just describe what you actually think and then have them respond accordingly?
