(October 16, 2013 at 8:30 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(October 16, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You don't HAVE to.
You just have to acknowledge that you have to represent things accurately to have a useful conversation.
The following statement:
"We as a whole community of nonbelievers have decided to reevaluate the old definetion [sic] and redefine to something that better..."
simply isn't an accurate reflection of the facts. It's a gross distortion. It never occurred this way.
How is that a inaccurate representation, I mean its not like there was a huge conference or anything, it is just that nearly every atheist you speak to defines it this way
Maybe you genuinely don't see the problem so I will lay it out for you.
1. Can you speak on behalf of the "whole community"? No.
2. When you refer to the "whole community" your statement suggests that nobody in the atheist community disagrees with the definition. Can you know that for certain? No.
3. When you claim the whole community has decided, you must know that deciding something involves deliberation. Can you really say that the whole community deliberated on this decision? No.
4. The "community of nonbelievers" are not just atheists. They include agnostics, deists and even the religiously unaffiliated. Can you speak on behalf of this larger group? No.
5. Technically, I am a part of the "community of nonbelievers". Did your claim represent me in any fashion? No.
I know it looks like I'm being nitpicky here, but you used such a poor choice of wording in your statement that at worst, you can be accused of being a dishonest revisionist.
But I know you didn't intend that. Maybe you just didn't phrase the sentence in the best way, and thus suggested something very different than was actually the case. It's still irresponsible, and I'm still mystified that you don't even get it. Perhaps English is not your first language, in which case, I'll be a lot more understanding.
But I'm not so disappointed in you. I'm more disappointed in the other people here who saw the claim and didn't even bother to correct it. They sat idly by as lies were being told and instead of correcting the statement decided to defend it to score argument points. To me this is ethically questionable character.
Anyway, I'm sure you're tired of discussing this. If you really still don't get it, there's nothing else I can do to help.