Well if you use the word 'atheist' as Dawkins, Hitchens and many other popular writers have done all theists would be in that group.
Justin Martyr, pne of the earliest theologians used the same definition and context way back in the 2nd century;
"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess...
I would think 'Doesn't believe in God' to be a more common definition of 'atheism - and less problematic.
But still don't see the point of trying to establish a single 'correct' definition - what is the point? It would not be possible to enforce such a thing, other definitions would remain in...
That is simply a false claim. You have no such study of most atheists to support it. That is what we call a ' completely made up fact'.
Who cares? What authority do they have? None.
Another false claim. People interpret the word in many different ways
People will continue to apply all manner of...
I don't remember when I first heard that particular usage, I think it was from you. It is not a common definition, and I don't think it is as useful or coherrent as many of the other definitions of 'atheism' that are commonly applied.
I don't think it is a very accurate definition of atheism...
You're kidding right?
The opposite is true - the world is a big place, word usages tend to get more diverse over time, they do not resolve into a single universal usage. Why should 'atheism' have a certain meaning just because you say so?
Why can't other people apply whatever usage they think...
Indeed. And perhaps a Japan/Korea/Singapore/China trading block.
I agree with you that activism will play a big role, and I think there are other big structural shifts - like mass manufacturing for example. The economy of scale that led to the success of those great global mega-corporations...
I think capitalism is reaching it's natural limits. The new paradigm will be more based upon information than capital.
The treaty of Westphalia established the system of state supremacy that has stood for 500 years, but the relevance of those territorial boundaries is evaporating. There will be...
☆Exactly. You can't stop them using it, so what is the point of trying to show it is flawed?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying there.
You can't 'defeat' a usage.
All definitions are only useful in the right context. The usages are not flawed just because they are meaningless in a different context. The same goes for all definitions of atheism.
From what I can understand, I think that if they did it would be very different definitions of non-physical entity than one finds in the context of metaphysics or religion.
Sure, I was just exploring the accusation that I was uncivil, I had no intention to be,
But yes, you are 100% correct, I am not interested in the hypothetical as much as, I am in trying to understand somebody elses position.