logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-29 10:34:04 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2003

  Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed  (Read 3424 times)
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #15 on: 2003-11-20 21:25:34 »
Reply with quote

Err... what is a common English word for someone who is fully convinced
that there is no god (whatever that means) whatsoever? Is there any such
word?




____________________________________________________________________
http://www.freemail.gr - δωρεάν υπηρεσία ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου.
http://www.freemail.gr - free email service for the Greek-speaking.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #16 on: 2003-11-20 21:49:30 »
Reply with quote

[rhino]
Err... what is a common English word for someone who is fully convinced
that there is no god (whatever that means) whatsoever? Is there any such
word?

[metahuman]
I don't think there is a single word. {"Strong" atheist} more accurately fits that definition.
Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #17 on: 2003-11-20 22:27:37 »
Reply with quote

[rhino]
Err... what is a common English word for someone who is fully convinced that there is no god (whatever that means) whatsoever? Is there any such word?

[metahuman]
I don't think there is a single word. {"Strong" atheist} more accurately fits that definition.

[rhino]
Hmm.. { "Strong" atheist }...  A kind of an atheist?
Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #18 on: 2003-11-21 01:03:52 »
Reply with quote

[rhino]
Hmm.. { "Strong" atheist }...  A kind of an atheist?

[metahuman]
atheism: without god-beliefs for whatever reason

Yes. With the simple definition of atheism there are many types of atheists (e.g., Buddhistic atheism). I suppose "strong" and "weak" basically describe the level of certainty. We've gone over this before and I'm reasonably sure you know the difference. What's your question?
Report to moderator   Logged
Ant
Neophyte
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #19 on: 2003-11-21 03:36:29 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Ant
Neophyte
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #20 on: 2003-11-21 04:11:30 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2003-11-21 11:01:51 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #21 on: 2003-11-21 08:16:44 »
Reply with quote

So...?

The American Heritage dictionary defines atheism as immorality. Dictionaries are not infallible. Commoners assume that dictionaries are the end-all to what words mean, but really, dictionaries are merely a suggestive resource for increasing the effectivity of an already barraging communication tool: language. In most cases, dictionaries also increase the confusion.

------------------

A. Merriam-Webster
anti-Semitism:
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

B. American Heritage
anti-Semitism:
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

C. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
anti-Semitism:
Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews

D. Princeton's WordNet
anti-Semitism:
the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people

E. Wordsmyth.net
anti-Semitism:
1. prejudiced against or hostile toward Jews.
2. of an action, remark, or the like, caused by or displaying anti-Jewish prejudice.


[ COMPARE ]


A. Merriam-Webster
Semite:
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

B. American Heritage
Semite:
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

C. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Semite:
One belonging to the Semitic race. [Logically fallacious definition]

D. Princeton's WordNet
Semite:
a member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and N Africa

E. Wordsmyth.net
Semite:
1. a member of any of several peoples of southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs and, formerly, Phoenicians and Assyrians.
2. one considered to be descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah in the Old Testament.

------------------

Only Dictionary C gets the definition of "anti-Semitism" half-right. The others are obviously wrong. Dictionaries A-E get the definition of "Semite" right, but Dictionary B opines its religious and political leanings through definitions. Keep in mind that most colleges buy American Heritage dictionaries for library and bookstore use... unfortunately.
Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #22 on: 2003-11-21 08:59:10 »
Reply with quote

Furthermore, Ant:

[Ant]
These are equally clear that atheism is "a very positive belief in the 
nonexistence of God". Not uncertainty.

[metahuman]
The form of atheism that serves the CoV best is "weak" atheism (aka. (a)gnosticism, (a)gnostic atheism). Thus, the lexicon definition should be changed to the definition of "weak" atheism which is simply "the lack of god-beliefs for whatever reason." "Strong" atheism is the positive belief that gods do not exist. That's the problem with defining atheism as a positive word. Read the first post in this thread where I quote Cliff Walker, editor of Positive Atheism (www.positiveatheism.org) and more of a credible source of information on atheism than you. By Latin roots, atheism is the "lack of" not the "inclusion of." Your definition is inclusive and thus wrong.

[Ant]
There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's 
been called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!

[metahuman]
Wrong. There is such a thing as "weak" atheism. To say there is not is very ignorant. Atheism is an idea and if you think you have a case to claim that the idea of "weak" atheism does not exist when it has already been elaborated on then you should not involve yourself in any discussion except the drunk mumblings of old men at an isolated tavern in some desolate area in Wales.

Right. "Weak" atheism is agnosticism with a reason. Agnosticism is not "weak" atheism. Agnostic atheism is "weak" atheism. Agnosticism is gnosticism. To say you are "an agnostic" is to essentially admit you're undereducated and that you cannot compose a complete sentence. "Agnostic" like all other -ic words is a decriptor or what is more commonly known as an adjective.

"I am agnostic" is correct since you would be applying the adjective to your concept of self.
"I am an agnostic" is incorrect since the adjective does not have a noun to attach itself.

[Ant]
The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is 
unknown and probably unknowable.

This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended 
in line with (agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as 
God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not 
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of 
God or a god"

[metahuman]
From this I presume you are agnostic and find atheism distasteful. It seems you have trouble accepting that agnosticism and "weak" atheism are the same thing. Aside from that, I am against the use of the word "doctrine" as the term implies belief or belief system, and as noted by Hermit, all beliefs are essentially irrational. "Weak" atheism is not irrational as atheism is simply the "lack of god-beliefs for whatever reason." Despite the usage of the term "doctrine", the definition of agnosticism is correct and would not require further elaboration if the term "doctrine" were replaced with some form of acceptance.

On the otherhand, your definition has a hole. It takes on a positive role. As it is clear, agnosticism and "weak" atheism are very similar. This would make agnosticism an exclusive term. If you are agnostic, then you do not hold god-beliefs, however, for the reason that substantial and credible evidence does not exist for the case for the existence or non-existence of gods. Agnostic atheists typically justify their position by claiming that the concept of "God" or gods is illogical.

[Ant]
So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?

No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic 
meaning of agnosticism.

[metahuman]
Yes, the definition of athiesm worldwide (not just in the Virian Lexicon) should be changed. Your assertion is incorrect as there is only one real definition of agnosticism and one real definition of atheism. Therefore, the meaning of agnosticism is not idiomatic. However, the Virian Lexicon as well as all Virian documents are idiomatic. [For those who don't know, idiomatic essentially means "selected to suit the interests of a particular group or individual."]

Agnosticism and atheism are minutely distinct thus different.

1. Agnosticism is the lack of god-beliefs for the basic reason that the agnostic atheist is not convinced of the non-existence or existence of gods or of a god.

2. Atheism is the lack of god-beliefs for any reason.

The true definition of atheism encompasses what is known as agnosticism.

[Ant]
I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a 
doctrine. You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...". 
Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of 
God is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be 
many other reasons...

[metahuman]
ATHEISM: the lack of god-beliefs for any reason.

AGNOSTICISM: the lack of god-beliefs for a particular reason esp. a reason regarding possibilities. Also known as "weak" atheism or agnostic atheism.

Obviously, atheism is broadly defined. This is characteristic of the open-mindedness of all atheists including those who positively state that gods do not exist. How so? Unfortunately, the following is a generalization but it is true for the majority of atheists: atheists are more rational than theists for the reason that atheists, if confronted by gods or a god, will recognize that the existence of god or of a god is reality. Theists, however, are typically more arrogant regarding faith. Theists are used to believing without evidence. So whether or not evidence of the existence of gods or of a god can be presented, faith will drive them.

Report to moderator   Logged
Kalkor
Magister
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.91
Rate Kalkor



Kneading the swollen donkey...
kalkorius kalkorius
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #23 on: 2003-11-21 10:45:02 »
Reply with quote

[Ant]
<snip>
There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's been
called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!

The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown
and probably unknowable.

This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended in
line with [MW]:
(agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
{Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/}

So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?

No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic meaning
of agnosticism.

But maybe in the second sentence... ?

I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a doctrine.
You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...". Another possible
reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God is unnecessary or
at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be many other reasons...

Regards,
Ant

[Kalkor]
As you point out, there are many reasons people can be atheist. Not all of
them are rational, such as:
"Atheists may believe that..."

Some are more rational, like:
Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God
is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex).

Some are downright foot stomping closed-minded:
"The doctrine that there is no God.

However, regardless of the reason they are atheist, all of them have a LACK
of belief in a god.

Wordsmyth suggests:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=theist&matchty
pe=exact
Definition 1. belief in the existence of one God that created the world and
is known through revelation. (Cf. deism.)
Definition 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. (Cf. atheism.)

And for Gnostic:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=gnostic&matcht
ype=exact
Definition 1. of, pertaining to, or having knowledge, esp. spiritual
understanding.
Definition 2. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Gnosticism or
its adherents.

A characteristic of Gnosticism?
Definition 1. an early Christian religious movement whose adherents believed
in salvation through gnosis, in the evil nature of the material world, and
in the incorporeality of Jesus Christ, and that was condemned as a heresy by
the Church Fathers.

Now, I try as hard as I can everyday to remain consistent, concise and
precise with my communication. I guess you could say it's an internal
belief. In order to avoid being hypocritical, I must in my speech and
writing adhere as strongly as I can to the beliefs I have about consistence,
concision and precision.

To remain consistent, I use the same prefix the same way when feasible.
To remain precise, I use words that most closely match the definition of the
idea I'm communicating.
To remain concise, I use as few words as possible to convey an idea.

However, these do not guarantee effective communication. I've gotta make
sure I use the same set of symbols as the guy I'm talking to. This enforces
the idea of consistency; if I use the same prefix to mean the same thing
there is a better chance that I, when using it in conversation, will be
using it in the same way my recipient does.

So the way I see it, we've got a couple choices. Lemme know if you see
others ;-}
1) Use atheist in a consistent manner with all the other a-prefix words, and
when doubtful about your listeners' definitions, clarify (sacrifice
concision for precision).
2) Use whatever definition of atheist you come up with at the time, and hope
the guy you're talkin to uses the same one.

My vote is for #1 above. And following along with that, I think we should
also change the definition of agnosticism in our lexicon from:
AGNOSTICISM:(vl) The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown and
probably unknowable.

To something that jives with the prefix convention a bit more, like:
"An absence of knowledge, esp. spiritual understanding. Absence of
Gnosticism."

Which I don't think conflicts at all with weak atheism, sounds like the two
of them go hand-in-hand actually.

;-}

Kalkor


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

« Last Edit: 2003-11-21 11:02:20 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #24 on: 2003-11-21 11:08:51 »
Reply with quote

[Kalkor]
Which I don't think conflicts at all with weak atheism, sounds like the two
of them go hand-in-hand actually.

[metahuman]
Note: I use atheism synonymously with "weak" atheism as it should be.

Agnosticism fits in the hand of atheism. ;p

I think I've already elaborated enough on it, but it's a new epiphany for me that there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is the lack of god-beliefs for A reason. Atheism is the lack of god-beliefs for ANY reason. In this way, agnosticism is a more specific type of atheism just like non-theistic Buddhism.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ant
Neophyte
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #25 on: 2003-11-21 11:32:55 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
metahuman
Acolyte
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 4.85
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #26 on: 2003-11-21 14:12:07 »
Reply with quote

[Ant]
I think is futile to try and "create" a definition that is consistent 
with other a- words.

[metahuman]
We're not creating or recreating a definition of atheism. We're simply clarifying the definition that atheists have used for a very long time.

[Ant]
Definitions in English have to reflect idiomatic usage... and idiom 
tends to be (i) inconsistent and (ii) mutable.

[metahuman]
There's no rule that says that. Sorry.

[Ant]
Otherwise you could go mad about people using "disinterested" when they 
mean "uninterested": in common usage, disinterested now means both 
impartial and not interested. Where's the consistency with other dis- 
or un- words?

[metahuman]
So you're suggesting that we should use words inconsistently and mutably merely on the basis that you have a limited vocabulary and understanding of the English language? I may make the case that language esp. the English language is a communication barrier, but the English language is a far cry from being inconsistent and mutable. The problems with the English language is that (i) it must be interpreted (like every spoken and written language) and (ii) terribly complex. The English language is quite similar to what programmers call (or used to call) Spaghetti Code. The English language could be described as consistently complex and constantly misunderstood.

The prefix "dis-" means "not; lack of" or "away; apart." Wordsmyth.net (which is the recommended dictionary aside from the Oxford dictionary) defines "disinterested" correctly. The prefix "un-" means "not" or "back; reverse." Again, the word is defined correctly. In certain contexts, disinterested and uninterested can be used interchangeably. Context is what many people fail to recognize. This seems to be case with you here.

[Ant]
I think the Lexicon should reflect idiomatic usage. If we want to be 
discursive, fine, but that's really annotation not definition.

[metahuman]
The Lexicon is supposed to reflect idiomatic usage, however, the Church of Virus' membership has grown up and become more educated. "Strong" atheism is no longer an applicable position to the Church of Virus, however, "weak" atheism or agnostic atheism is more suitable.

It is not annotatitive to define atheism as simply the "lack of god-beliefs for any reason." That is the definition whether you or the aforementioned incorrect dictionaries agree or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
DrSebby
Archon
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.72
Rate DrSebby



...Oh, you smell of lambs!
18680476 18680476    dr_sebby drsebby
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
« Reply #27 on: 2003-11-21 22:29:46 »
Reply with quote

...Lets see if sebby can clear this up:

by making an issue of discrediting the god idea, the CoV is merely
addressing a very real (and unfortunate) world-wide situation whereby the
very vast majority entertain one imaginary super being or another.  it does
NOT suggest that we are being defensive, or that we have to struggle to
'defend' our position.  it is just a proactive stance on a very existant
mistake within society at large.  to not address it would be irresponsible
and meaningless.



DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".





----Original Message Follows----
From: "Kalkor" <kalkor@kalkor.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:45:02 -0800

[Ant]
<snip>
There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's been
called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!

The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown
and probably unknowable.

This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended in
line with [MW]:
(agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
[Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/[/url]

So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?

No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic meaning
of agnosticism.

But maybe in the second sentence... ?

I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a doctrine.
You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...". Another possible
reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God is unnecessary or
at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be many other reasons...

Regards,
Ant

[Kalkor]
As you point out, there are many reasons people can be atheist. Not all of
them are rational, such as:
"Atheists may believe that..."

Some are more rational, like:
Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God
is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex).

Some are downright foot stomping closed-minded:
"The doctrine that there is no God.

However, regardless of the reason they are atheist, all of them have a LACK
of belief in a god.

Wordsmyth suggests:
[url]http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=theist&matchty

pe=exact
Definition 1. belief in the existence of one God that created the world and
is known through revelation. (Cf. deism.)
Definition 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. (Cf. atheism.)

And for Gnostic:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=gnostic&matcht
ype=exact
Definition 1. of, pertaining to, or having knowledge, esp. spiritual
understanding.
Definition 2. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Gnosticism or
its adherents.

A characteristic of Gnosticism?
Definition 1. an early Christian religious movement whose adherents believed
in salvation through gnosis, in the evil nature of the material world, and
in the incorporeality of Jesus Christ, and that was condemned as a heresy by
the Church Fathers.

Now, I try as hard as I can everyday to remain consistent, concise and
precise with my communication. I guess you could say it's an internal
belief. In order to avoid being hypocritical, I must in my speech and
writing adhere as strongly as I can to the beliefs I have about consistence,
concision and precision.

To remain consistent, I use the same prefix the same way when feasible.
To remain precise, I use words that most closely match the definition of the
idea I'm communicating.
To remain concise, I use as few words as possible to convey an idea.

However, these do not guarantee effective communication. I've gotta make
sure I use the same set of symbols as the guy I'm talking to. This enforces
the idea of consistency; if I use the same prefix to mean the same thing
there is a better chance that I, when using it in conversation, will be
using it in the same way my recipient does.

So the way I see it, we've got a couple choices. Lemme know if you see
others ;-}
1) Use atheist in a consistent manner with all the other a-prefix words, and
when doubtful about your listeners' definitions, clarify (sacrifice
concision for precision).
2) Use whatever definition of atheist you come up with at the time, and hope
the guy you're talkin to uses the same one.

My vote is for #1 above. And following along with that, I think we should
also change the definition of agnosticism in our lexicon from:
AGNOSTICISM:(vl) The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown and
probably unknowable.

To something that jives with the prefix convention a bit more, like:
"An absence of knowledge, esp. spiritual understanding. Absence of
Gnosticism."

Which I don't think conflicts at all with weak atheism, sounds like the two
of them go hand-in-hand actually.

;-}

Kalkor


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

"courage and shuffle the cards..."
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed