(July 5, 2014 at 4:34 am)Irrational Wrote:(July 4, 2014 at 7:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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?
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the concepts of strong atheism equal to gnostic atheism and weak atheism equal to agnostic atheism?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
