> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER
god retains all power at all times
nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will
without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish
god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things
> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability
for example
you can presumably read and type
but that does not mean that you hair can read and type
it does not mean that your feet can read and type
we are like god's fingernails
the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system
the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"
the shapes have a beginning
the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning
> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
another example would be a red ball
would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?
or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"
like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"
> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.
god made the materiel from the only available resource
are you creating your argument to be "muslim specific" or are you constructing a more general argument for "some sort of logically-necessary first-cause" (aka "god") ?
> Please note Pro is yet to define God in a falsifiable manner, this means I cannot prove it wrong as it is not defined how we would prove its existence true and correct.
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
> The semantic angle that you are ignoring is that to 'disbelieve' is to believe in the falseness of something that you would otherwise believe in or be neutral on.
Before someone is confronted with the "good news" of "the virgin birth and subsequent human sacrifice of our lord and savior jesus christ",
they presumably "lack any belief in jesus christ" (they are unconvinced).
If they remain UNCONVICED by the "good news" they have not (necessarily) "gained" a "disbelief".
They simply remain UNCONVINCED.
The funny thing here is that it is CHRISTIANS who actively and categorically "disbelieve" in any and all conceivable gods, EVEN gods they've never heard of (with of course one glaring exception).
Many people who call themselves "atheists" are simply (as of yet) UNCONVINCED (specifically of any gods they've currently considered, but not necessarily categorically rejecting all conceivable gods).
> Con negated with (paraphrasing) 'of course defining their stance that way logically incoherent, that's why they deny despite considering and then deny that they considered.'
So, CON argues that "strong disbelief" is logically incoherent because it is impossible to DISprove all god(s) (because they are presumably unfalsifiable).
AND, CON argues that "a lack of belief" is ALSO logically incoherent because it is impossible to "not consider".
These subjective Christian individuals don't want to be wrong and want to make you think they are correct as they dictate what they think you should believe.
> 3RU7AL: "I have never argued in favor of NOT including both definitions."
> Also 3RU7AL: (defining atheism)" Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is ***not*** an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
I never intended to EXCLUDE people who hold a technically "positive disbelief" because of course it is perfectly fair to ALSO call those people "atheists".
I was emphasizing my point in order to identify my interlocutor's specific objection to the "lack of belief" definition.
My interlocutor was arguing strongly in support of a definition of "atheism" that specifically EXCLUDED "lack of belief".
This particular debate has clarified the disagreement.
Atheism is first and foremost: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is ***not*** exclusively an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
Which makes "semantic change" aka "how people use the word" more important than how the dictionary defines the word.
> What definition of AUTHORITATIVE suggests that dictionaries can't be updated?
If a book is considered AUTHORITATIVE (like the holy scriptures) then it can never be changed (except perhaps by a "higher authority" which would make that book subordinate to that "higher authority" and would make that book no longer "authoritative").
> If we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first, strictest sense, what word should we then use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
I have never argued in favor of NOT including both definitions.
There is no reason to choose one and EXCLUDE the other.
If you really want to know what an individual ATHEIST believes, just ask them.
> Correct. For example, most African-Americans would prefer that the definition only include US decedents of sub-Saharan blacks but any objective usage consistent with similar usages, Franco-American, Polish-American, etc would mean all African immigrants, including North Africans and Afrikaans. Should we change the rules for one interest group or apply the terminology in an objectively consistent fashion? Many Christians would toss out other Christians as we have seen in recent debates. Any objective reading of the theory of Communism suggests that there have been few if any Communists as defined by Marx and Engels (the means of production controlled the people collectively without money, class, or state authority).
Impressive.
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "African-American" ?
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "Christian" ?
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "Communist" ?
> In spite of your 'no' you are explicitly agreeing with me that words should be defined by dictionaries as "the most common usage" and not according to the subjective desires of Double_R as proposed.
You missed the entire point.
Dictionaries are not AUTHORITATIVE.
Dictionaries do not DEFINE words.
They merely collect and catalog the most common definitions of words that are published by professional editors.
>> Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
> and therefore, we could just as easily use the word agnosticism without lack of clarity.
This is false.
Agnosticism is even more problematic since it is a FAITH based belief that the question of god(s) is UNKNOWABLE.
According to PRO's definition "lack of belief" it would be fair to say that infants and dogs and donkeys are "atheists" because they "lack belief in god(s)".
It would not be fair to say that infants and dogs and donkeys "believe the question of god(s) is UNKNOWABLE".
> But if we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first sense, what word should we use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
You're inventing a non-existent "problem".
When someone says "I'm a CHRISTIAN" oh noes, oh my heavens, I don't know what KIND of christian they are, are they a catholic or a protestant or a methodist or a seventh day adventist, how will we ever know????? The world is essentially chaos at this point.
When someone says "I'm an ATHEIST", simply ask them what kind of atheist they are if you're really that interested.
I've encountered some who actually use the term ANTI-Theist to mean a "strong disbelief" if that helps you at all.
> In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
No.
No it is not.
I actually know a few lexicographers and it is very clear to them that their job is to gather a collection of the most common usages of words based on how they are used by professional editors of magazines and newspapers (and of course electronic publications) in any given year.
This is why dictionaries are not exactly the same today as they were in 1828.
> What is the point of this disagreement on essentially vs mostly vs exclusively?
My understanding of the debate is that CON is arguing that "lack of belief" should NEVER be included in any definition of "atheism" (so they can continue to claim that atheists are illogical)
My understanding of the debate is that PRO is arguing that "lack of belief" should be INCLUDED in any definition of "atheism" (as a primary and or essential definition) while NOT necessarily EXCLUDING CON's definition (which is a very commonly held definition by christians and some people who call themselves "atheists")
Would you say, someone who makes the claim "I know for certain there are no gods" is **NOT** AN "ATHEIST" ?
Because that's exactly what TheMorningsStar is claiming your position is.
They are claiming that your debate resolution, if it is interpreted as,
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **EXCLUSIVELY** "a lack of belief in a god"
That exclusivity would disallow anyone who did not claim specifically "a lack of belief in a god" from calling themselves an "atheist".
I do not believe this is your intention because you've already indicated that you believe "a lack of belief" is the minimum required to qualify as an "atheist" the alternative "strong disbelief" does not EXCLUDE someone from being considered an "atheist".
> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER
god retains all power at all times
nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will
without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish
god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things
no event can contradict the will of god
there is no other will
only the will of god
> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability
for example
you can presumably read and type
but that does not mean that you hair can read and type
it does not mean that your feet can read and type
we are like god's fingernails
the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system
> It would mean that God had a beginning.
not necessarily
the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"
the shapes have a beginning
the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning
> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
another example would be a red ball
would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?
or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"
> No. He used his will to make the materiel.
(EITHER) god's will is part of god (OR) god's will is part of something else
god's will is the materiel
also, when god took part of itself and made the cosmos, that was not "subtracting" anything from anything
the total substance and power of god remained constant
the same before
and the same after
try again, with a defensible resolution
perhaps something slightly more narrow in scope
like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"
> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.
god made the materiel from the only available resource
god made the materiel out of god
pieces of god
> What's your POV on Ehyeh's reasoning that God is me and God is everything?
what did god make everything out of ?
before god made everything, what kind of stuff did god see ?
imagine being god
before anything was created
sort of, alone in the non-existent black void
god then decides it wants to make stuff
what does god make everything out of ?
> I do not get this. The universe had a beginning. That is my point
the big bang is still happening
and everything that we experience is part of the big bang
> Most scientists agree on this that 13.4 billion years ago, the big bang occurred etc.
are you part of the big bang ?
> If he made from nothing, all their critiques at atheism are pretty silly if they too believe something can be made from nothing.
"nothing" never has and never will and never can "exist"
and this precludes it from being "made into" anything
> Can a human be a part of God with a humans attributes?
as the sole source of all things
god must necessarily be all things
well, according to spinoza, jesus is part of god, but no more and no less than you or i
> Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
exactly
> general
ok, so you're basically advocating for DEISM
> I am Muslim
are you creating your argument to be "muslim specific" or are you constructing a more general argument for "some sort of logically-necessary first-cause" (aka "god") ?
> "I think like Albert Einstein" that's funny because Albert Einstein did believe in a God, a pantheistic form of God derived from Spinoza.
bingo
> I am am atheist, and it makes no sense to me how religion is such a thing and why many people follow it.
https://youtu.be/8FcW2l-GL74
did you happen to get PRO to explain exactly which specific "god" they believe "must exist" ?
because many "christians" seem to magically become DEISTS when attempting to debate this particular topic
as far as i can tell, there is no oversight of any impeachment trial
therefore no ENFORCABLE STANDARD and more specifically NO AUTHORITY TO WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE MADE
to hypothetically hold the house and or the senate to some "constitutional standard" or any other standard for that matter
they can do as they see fit
GOD = NOUMENON
> Please note Pro is yet to define God in a falsifiable manner, this means I cannot prove it wrong as it is not defined how we would prove its existence true and correct.
bingo
There is no dictionary on earth that defines the word "bigfoot" as in any way equal to "bovine excrement".
And oromagi worships dictionaries.
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
> opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods
> "anti-theism is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed."
And an "active DISbelief" is "opposed" to (technically the opposite of) an "active Belief"
> Then make a forum thread so you can do your sophistry stuff there. I blocked you for a reason and you are only proving me right.
Thanks for the ad hominem attacks and the veiled commands.
Please try to stay on-topic.
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
> That's a funny way to show it; quoting my vote's reasoning.
I'm discussing ideas (with you).
I never even considered your actual vote.
>> An agnostic has absolutely no way of knowing "that all conceivable gods are UNKNOWABLE".
> When Thomas Huxley coined the term in 1869,
So, NOW you want to exclusively appeal to the authority of "author's intent" ?
I thought you were in love with dictionaries ?
agnostic
aɡˈnɒstɪk
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Source: Oxford Languages
https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=agnostic&addon=opensearch
> Are you arguing about my vote or about the debate's topic
I don't care about your vote in the slightest.
> The semantic angle that you are ignoring is that to 'disbelieve' is to believe in the falseness of something that you would otherwise believe in or be neutral on.
"Lack of belief" does not equal "DISbelieve".
"Lack of belief" is the neutral position.
> And what Con argued is that the default is agnostic, not atheist. My vote is justified.
Obviously the default cannot be a BELIEF that "**nothing** is **known** or can be **known** of the existence or nature of God."
Obviously the default cannot be a BELIEF that "**nothing** is **known** or can be **known** of the existence or nature of God."
Obviously the default cannot be a BELIEF that "**nothing** is **known** or can be **known** of the existence or nature of God."
agnostic
aɡˈnɒstɪk
noun
a person who believes that **nothing** is **known** or can be **known** of the existence or nature of God.
Source: Oxford Languages
https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=agnostic&addon=opensearch
Before someone is confronted with the "good news" of "the virgin birth and subsequent human sacrifice of our lord and savior jesus christ",
they presumably "lack any belief in jesus christ" (they are unconvinced).
If they remain UNCONVICED by the "good news" they have not (necessarily) "gained" a "disbelief".
They simply remain UNCONVINCED.
The funny thing here is that it is CHRISTIANS who actively and categorically "disbelieve" in any and all conceivable gods, EVEN gods they've never heard of (with of course one glaring exception).
Many people who call themselves "atheists" are simply (as of yet) UNCONVINCED (specifically of any gods they've currently considered, but not necessarily categorically rejecting all conceivable gods).
I love it.
> Con negated with (paraphrasing) 'of course defining their stance that way logically incoherent, that's why they deny despite considering and then deny that they considered.'
So, CON argues that "strong disbelief" is logically incoherent because it is impossible to DISprove all god(s) (because they are presumably unfalsifiable).
AND, CON argues that "a lack of belief" is ALSO logically incoherent because it is impossible to "not consider".
Wow.
> Should is used in conjunction with a predicate to indicate an instruction or policy recommendation.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Hume's "IS (vs) OUGHT" problem (also known as "Hume's Guillotine")
OUGHT and SHOULD are synonymous.
Also, not for nothing, a recommendation is intrinsically subjective.
Also, not for nothing, an instruction is also intrinsically subjective (relative to the presumed goal).
If you really want a word to address an active belief in the non-existence of any dieties, there is already a term widely used for this: anti-theist.
anti-theist
antɪˈθiːɪst
adjective
opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
noun
a person who is opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Source: Oxford Languages
https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=anti-theist&addon=opensearch
> Agnosticism is the objective conclusion
No.
No it is not.
An agnostic has absolutely no way of knowing "that all conceivable gods are UNKNOWABLE".
The agnostic's claim is provably false.
>> CON: atheists are illogical because you can't disprove all conceivable god(s) (because many of them are "unfalsifiable")
How would you personally re-phrase this claim ?
These subjective Christian individuals don't want to be wrong and want to make you think they are correct as they dictate what they think you should believe.
> 3RU7AL: "I have never argued in favor of NOT including both definitions."
> Also 3RU7AL: (defining atheism)" Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is ***not*** an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
I never intended to EXCLUDE people who hold a technically "positive disbelief" because of course it is perfectly fair to ALSO call those people "atheists".
I was emphasizing my point in order to identify my interlocutor's specific objection to the "lack of belief" definition.
My interlocutor was arguing strongly in support of a definition of "atheism" that specifically EXCLUDED "lack of belief".
This particular debate has clarified the disagreement.
Atheism is first and foremost: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is ***not*** exclusively an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
> By observing and reporting semantic change.
Which makes "semantic change" aka "how people use the word" more important than how the dictionary defines the word.
> What definition of AUTHORITATIVE suggests that dictionaries can't be updated?
If a book is considered AUTHORITATIVE (like the holy scriptures) then it can never be changed (except perhaps by a "higher authority" which would make that book subordinate to that "higher authority" and would make that book no longer "authoritative").
>> (iff) dictionaries ARE considered AUTHORITATIVE (then) the definitions of words can never change
> says who?
LOGIC.
By what mechanism do you believe dictionaries change their definitions ?
> If we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first, strictest sense, what word should we then use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
I have never argued in favor of NOT including both definitions.
There is no reason to choose one and EXCLUDE the other.
If you really want to know what an individual ATHEIST believes, just ask them.
>> "And they change over time."
> Nobody has suggested otherwise.
(iff) dictionaries ARE considered AUTHORITATIVE (then) the definitions of words can never change
> Correct. For example, most African-Americans would prefer that the definition only include US decedents of sub-Saharan blacks but any objective usage consistent with similar usages, Franco-American, Polish-American, etc would mean all African immigrants, including North Africans and Afrikaans. Should we change the rules for one interest group or apply the terminology in an objectively consistent fashion? Many Christians would toss out other Christians as we have seen in recent debates. Any objective reading of the theory of Communism suggests that there have been few if any Communists as defined by Marx and Engels (the means of production controlled the people collectively without money, class, or state authority).
Impressive.
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "African-American" ?
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "Christian" ?
What is the authoritative source you prefer for your definition of "Communist" ?
> In spite of your 'no' you are explicitly agreeing with me that words should be defined by dictionaries as "the most common usage" and not according to the subjective desires of Double_R as proposed.
You missed the entire point.
Dictionaries are not AUTHORITATIVE.
Dictionaries do not DEFINE words.
They merely collect and catalog the most common definitions of words that are published by professional editors.
The listed definitions are not EXHAUSTIVE.
And they change over time.
>> Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
> and therefore, we could just as easily use the word agnosticism without lack of clarity.
This is false.
Agnosticism is even more problematic since it is a FAITH based belief that the question of god(s) is UNKNOWABLE.
According to PRO's definition "lack of belief" it would be fair to say that infants and dogs and donkeys are "atheists" because they "lack belief in god(s)".
It would not be fair to say that infants and dogs and donkeys "believe the question of god(s) is UNKNOWABLE".
> But if we eliminate the use of ATHEISM in the first sense, what word should we use to talk about theories that deny the existence of god altogether?
You're inventing a non-existent "problem".
When someone says "I'm a CHRISTIAN" oh noes, oh my heavens, I don't know what KIND of christian they are, are they a catholic or a protestant or a methodist or a seventh day adventist, how will we ever know????? The world is essentially chaos at this point.
When someone says "I'm an ATHEIST", simply ask them what kind of atheist they are if you're really that interested.
I've encountered some who actually use the term ANTI-Theist to mean a "strong disbelief" if that helps you at all.
> In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries.
No.
No it is not.
I actually know a few lexicographers and it is very clear to them that their job is to gather a collection of the most common usages of words based on how they are used by professional editors of magazines and newspapers (and of course electronic publications) in any given year.
This is why dictionaries are not exactly the same today as they were in 1828.
> Let's disregard Atheist sources as self-interested and so less than objective.
Let's disregard Christian sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Christian".
Let's disregard Communist sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "Communism".
Let's disregard African-American sources as self-interested and so less than objective when considering the definition of "African-American".
> What is the point of this disagreement on essentially vs mostly vs exclusively?
My understanding of the debate is that CON is arguing that "lack of belief" should NEVER be included in any definition of "atheism" (so they can continue to claim that atheists are illogical)
My understanding of the debate is that PRO is arguing that "lack of belief" should be INCLUDED in any definition of "atheism" (as a primary and or essential definition) while NOT necessarily EXCLUDING CON's definition (which is a very commonly held definition by christians and some people who call themselves "atheists")
Would you say, someone who makes the claim "I know for certain there are no gods" is **NOT** AN "ATHEIST" ?
Because that's exactly what TheMorningsStar is claiming your position is.
They are claiming that your debate resolution, if it is interpreted as,
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **EXCLUSIVELY** "a lack of belief in a god"
That exclusivity would disallow anyone who did not claim specifically "a lack of belief in a god" from calling themselves an "atheist".
I do not believe this is your intention because you've already indicated that you believe "a lack of belief" is the minimum required to qualify as an "atheist" the alternative "strong disbelief" does not EXCLUDE someone from being considered an "atheist".