Garyp88 said:
Hyperspace Fool:
Ok so we are both asserting that we are using the "correct" definition of atheism, and we are both citing the dictionary as evidence yet different dictionaries give differing definitions. So how about the reality of the matter, which is that under certain definitions (i.e the ones I am using) I am correct and under other definitions (i.e the ones you are using) you are correct... but that in reality there is no ultimate "correct" on this particular issue. Words are used to describe something. I, and the majority of people who identify as atheists, use one definition and conversely you, and bunch of mostly non-atheists, use the word with a different definition. In truth, as I've said, I don't really care what other people choose to label me. Call me an agnostic if you want. the word used has no bearing on the reality of the situation, and the reality of the situation is that most of the people who call themselves atheists are, under your use of words, agnostics.
I'm not convinced that me invoking the dictionary in reference to what a word means is an argument from authority, well it is... but it is a legitimate argument from authority as far as I can tell (argument from authority is not always a fallacy). Dictionaries, for the most part, are how we tell what words mean. If you hear a word that you haven't heard before and you wish to know what it means where do you look? An argument from authority is claiming that because some entity says something that makes it necessarily true, but dictionary DEFINE what is true when it comes to words. Feel free to contradict or correct me on this, it is not a subject I have given much thought. To me if we want to know what a word means we look in a dictionary since dictionaries define words. No offense, but I wouldn't personally pay any attention to an American dictionary since I am English. That coupled with the fact that America is a very religious nation and I'm not at all surprised that they would have a different definition of atheist, considering so many American Christian apologists use, dishonestly, in arguments the notion that atheists (or as you would say, agnostics) are asserting a no god hypothesis and therefore have a burden of proof. I use the Oxford English dictionary and I always have. I don't use this dictionary because it fits with my definition of atheist, I use the word atheist because it is the word in that dictionary which describes me. If you really want to argue that an American dictionary is more accurate about the English language than the most respected English dictionary, written in England by English people in England's most respected university, then I'm not sure what to say to you. As I say I don't really think it matters which word is used. I will continue to identify as atheist and you will continue to think I am wrong.
On the subject of gnostic/Gnosticism. I agree that it is not really a useful word to use in the sense I used it (gnostic atheism etc). the only reason I explained those terms to you is because you were using the term agnostic, which has the same root, so it follows that I would explain things using the same terms. You threw in the word agnostic, I explained that there is a difference between agnostic theism/atheism and gnostic theism/atheism. That is the only situation where I would use these terms. I never use the word agnostic unless someone else brings it up. I am quite content with just calling myself atheist, and if someone asks if I think there are definitely no gods I will say "no, I think there could be", at which point they are free to attach the label agnostic to me if they wish.
Plain and simple
Sure and we are kind of splitting hairs, but:
1)
Different dictionaries have different definitions of the same words. The better dictionaries (IMHO) will have most, if not all, of the various definitions and nuances. But in the end, dictionaries are
not actually arbiters of fact in semantic debates. That is why citing a dictionary that agrees with your stance is an
argument to authority and not a proof of the correctness of your point. It is generally a decent reference to establish the terms of a debate, but if there are discrepancies between various dictionaries, the concept is somewhat involved, or the issue is central to the argument... it is wise to find other more detailed sources to quote. Respected books on the subject, encyclopedia entries, even articles by experts are all superior to dictionary entries.
Also, it is always possible to win a debate on the strength of superb logic even if a number of authoritative sources seem to claim a different conclusion. If you can make a sound argument based on impeccable logic that your opponent can not rebut... a simple argument to authority will not suffice to back their position.
2)
UK English vs. American English This comes up from time to time. Where we are actually talking about a significantly different usage of a word (not merely a spelling issue) one simply has to decide which language one is speaking... or which definition makes most sense to you. The audience you are trying to reach makes a big difference I suppose.
I would venture to say the US English is more universal than UK. As much as the Queen's English might be the historical standard... in practice it is actually only a minor dialect. Even within the UK, most people speak slangs and dialects that are not this so-called proper standard. There are probably as many speakers of Cockney in England as there are speakers of Queen's English. In the US, our standard collegiate English is extremely widespread, and is the language that most foreigners are learning at this time. Commonwealth nations aside, the bulk of the English as a Second Language crowd learn US English. Most scientific papers are in US English. In terms of sheer numbers it is clear which is the standard worldwide. Remember that when Chinese, Mexicans, Brazilians, Russians, Israelis etc. learn English, they learn US English. Even former bastions of British colonialism like India are more and more instituting a US oriented study of the language. If you go to English school in Bangalore for instance... you are likely to learn US English and pronunciations.
Whether this is good or bad is another debate. I will simply go where history is leading rather than where it has been. This is clearly US English as the de facto world language.
3)
Gnosticism You can use this term how you like, and I will be able to follow your meaning... but there are pre-existing terminologies for this stuff. If you wanted to write on the subject or understand the writings of the experts in the field, you would do well to divest yourself of terminology that runs counter to academic usage.
Therefore, your idea of gnostic/agnostic atheism and gnostic/agnostic theism, while clear and understandable, is simply
not the usage that is in common parlance. What you are calling gnostic/agnostic atheism is actually positive/negative atheism and plays a major role in the strong vs. weak dichotomy in the term.
4)
Most people who identify themselves as atheists. Somewhat hard to prove either way without conducting a good and thorough poll, but then even if you were correct about this, it has no bearing on what the term actually
means. People
often use words incorrectly and identify with groups to which they don't actually belong.
Therefore, I would say (for purpose of debate)
we stick with what the experts on the subject say about it. In this case... the
vast majority of books on the subject use the strong or narrow definition. This is because the word is more accurate and thus meaningful that way. I am afraid that there is no reason to use the word atheism in a way that it includes all agnostics. The established spectrum of theism is:
ATHEISM <-> agnosticism <-> THEISM
There is no logical reason to abandon the historical understanding of this to adopt your variation... even if it made more sense (which is debatable).
Thus, with agnostics forming a middle group of unsure and unconvinced people... the use of the word
atheism to denote them as well, is counterproductive. It makes far more sense to restrict the term to people who actually do not believe in gods.
In the end, I don't care what you call yourself. I don't really care what
anyone calls themselves. In terms of debates about (a)theism, however... I will stick to the academic definition, the narrow "belief based" version of the word that is used in theology, philosophy, and historical works the overwhelming majority of the time.
I don't really understand why someone who really felt they had "a lack of belief" in deities would care overmuch that they are actually agnostics. The owning of the stance of atheism is a choice... choices are based in belief...
I still hold to my idea that most people who choose to call themselves atheists have not really studied this stuff, but rather identify as atheists because it seems to state their basic
anti-religious feelings. As I have said already, though, it is very possible to be a theist or an agnostic and be anti-religion. I myself am an anti-religion theist.
So we can end this by simply saying you
can call yourself an atheist... meanwhile I, and the professors of this subject, will call you what you actually
are, an
agnostic.
HF
