28 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvidence is not proof, I've said that repeatedly. So of course evidence of absence just means that something may be absent.
Right, now we're getting somewhere. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence, although it is evidence that something MAY be absent (although this only may, rather than must, be the case).
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, words are tokens. And within the general population there may be a relatively small group that assigns non-standard meanings to the tokens. And individuals within that small group can freely use the tokens amongst themselves and be understood. In dealings with the general population they need to have the wisdom to adjust to the standard meanings. However, some of those individuals will not have enough perspective to understand that assigning non-standard meanings to the tokens doesn't necessarily mean that additional clarity has been added to the subject. The underlying concepts remain the same. Sometimes all that's been accomplished is to assign the underlying concepts to different categories. Some of those individuals will not have enough perspective to understand that assigning non-standard meanings to the tokens does not necessarily make their meanings somehow 'superior' or 'correct'. Some of those individuals will even be arrogant enough to be deluded into thinking that assigning non-standard meanings to the tokens means that they have a deeper understanding of the subject than everyone outside the group or that it makes themselves somehow 'superior'.
What you apparently don't get is that words are just words, they do not instantiate facts. Words can and often are redefined or their definition is refined or specified for use in a specific discussion. A dictionary attempts to give the definition that is as close as possible to the way the word is general used or has been generally used in the past. That ...[text shortened]... ly convey their stand on the subject and also is not specific enough to be useful anyway.
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by PalynkaIndeed. But it is very weak evidence.
Evidence is not proof, I've said that repeatedly. So of course evidence of absence just means that something may be absent.
I'm not trying to criticise you, or your position here, I hope you understand that. I don't base my refutation of Xianity on the absence of evidence for God (except in so far as parsimony dictates), but more on the positive evidence that he doesn't (like pain, suffering and biblical inconsistencies).
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut when the definitions in a dictionary are wrong, their wrong. It's that simple. We explained why the definition was wrong, and you stuck by it anyway.
Yes, words are tokens. And within the general population there may be a relatively small group that assigns non-standard meanings to the tokens. And individuals within that small group can freely use the tokens amongst themselves and be understood. In dealings with the general population they need to have the wisdom to adjust to the standard meanings. How ...[text shortened]... subject than everyone outside the group or that it makes themselves somehow 'superior'.
Stop playing the victim card now, we're royally sick of it.
28 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzJust because the dictionary definition is no longer the 'literal definition' doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong'. If you believe that, you could spend the rest of your life 'correcting' all the 'wrong' words. Good luck with that.
But when the definitions in a dictionary are wrong, their wrong. It's that simple. We explained why the definition was wrong, and you stuck by it anyway.
Stop playing the victim card now, we're royally sick of it.
You guys really need a reality check.
28 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by steponupThe current dictionary meanings seem to break it down like this:
so an atheist doesn't believe in god and an agnostic needs proof. Who or what could supply that thread?
Theist - Those who affirm the existence of God.
Atheist - Those who deny the existence of God.
Agnostic - Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.
From what I can tell, there's a very minor movement that likes to think of 'atheists' as anyone who doesn't affirm the existence of God because that better fits the literal definition - 'without theism'. However the commonly accepted dictionary definition appears to have evolved away from the literal definition over time. So, it's basically just an attempt to move back to the literal definition. The movement back to the literal definition seems to have proven to be problematic for various reasons: definitions of categories, acceptance within both the scientific and general communitiy, etc.
There's a group of individuals who post here that seem to have fully embraced the movement back to the literal definition. They seem to believe that it puts them on the 'cutting edge' and it lends them a feeling of intellectual superiority. They're kind of like a bunch of school girls who believe something is 'important' because 'everyone who's anyone knows that'. Ah, the follies of the exuberance of youth.
It's unfortunate, but that's where we are with this thread. Probably more than you wanted to know 🙂
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you accept that 'without theism' is correct than you have to lump
The current dictionary meanings seem to break it down like this:
Theist - Those who affirm the existence of God.
Atheist - Those who deny the existence of God.
Agnostic - Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.
From what I can tell, there's a very minor movement that likes to think of 'atheists' as anyone who doesn't affirm the ex ...[text shortened]... that's where we are with this thread. Probably more than you wanted to know 🙂
the agnostic and the atheist together, because it no longer matters
that they accept one view over the other, it is what they lack that
matters.
Kelly
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI imagine that it would still be useful at times to make a distinction between 'those who deny' and 'those who neither deny or affirm.' Just as it is useful at times to sub-categorize theists even though it is 'what they [have] that matters.'
If you accept that 'without theism' is correct than you have to lump
the agnostic and the atheist together, because it no longer matters
that they accept one view over the other, it is what they lack that
matters.
Kelly
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by steponupIt's nothing to do with proof. There can never be any.
so an atheist doesn't believe in god and an agnostic needs proof. Who or what could supply that thread?
It's to do with BELIEF.
I don't BELIEVE in God. Therefore I am an atheist.
I do accept that I will never be able to empirically prove that he doesn't exist though.
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, and your apathy is sooooooooo much better.
Just because the dictionary definition is no longer the 'literal definition' doesn't necessarily make it 'wrong'. If you believe that, you could spend the rest of your life 'correcting' all the 'wrong' words. Good luck with that.
You guys really need a reality check.
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"affirm" and "deny" should be "believe in" and "disbelieve in" since no direct empirical evidence exists.
The current dictionary meanings seem to break it down like this:
Theist - Those who affirm the existence of God.
Atheist - Those who deny the existence of God.
Agnostic - Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.
From what I can tell, there's a very minor movement that likes to think of 'atheists' as anyone who doesn't affirm the ex ...[text shortened]... that's where we are with this thread. Probably more than you wanted to know 🙂
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere very well may be a day when the commonly accepted definition of 'atheist' reverts back to it's literal meaning. Evidently, that day has yet to come. Until that day comes, there isn't anything 'wrong', 'foolish', 'incorrect', 'ignorant', etc. with someone using the commonly accepted definition. Now, if you want to state that some have found it useful to revert to the literal meaning in an attempt to re-categorize the subject and that that's your preference, that's fine.
Yes, and your apathy is sooooooooo much better.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt is bloody stupid when your own definition isn't internally consistent, as I showed you all those pages ago....
There very well may be a day when the commonly accepted definition of 'atheist' reverts back to it's literal meaning. Evidently, that day has yet to come. Until that day comes, there isn't anything 'wrong', 'foolish', 'incorrect', 'ignorant', etc. with someone using the commonly accepted definition. Now, if you want to state that some have found it useful ...[text shortened]... attempt to re-categorize the subject and that that's your preference, that's fine.