Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Say Christians who believe the Bible.
belief systems have exclusions
Why would any beliefs active or implicit not be part of a belief system which someone held?
Being "without god" is not necessarily a position. And, "disbelief" includes the "lack of" or being "without" faith. So, "disbelief" is not necessarily a position either. Although, both could be, they aren't necessarily positions. That is my point.
And I think that is equivocation. If you say that a hat is red and I say I disbelieve you. I think it is a statement that the hat is not red.
You could be saying two things. 1) That you are withholding judgment due to lack of evidence, OR 2) that you believe that the hat is not red. But, a more appropriate analogy would be whether a baby on the other side of the world believes that the had is red. Although the baby has absolutely no idea about the color of the hat or whether the hat even exists, the baby would necessarily not hold the belief that the hat is red due to lack of familiarity/knowledge of said hat.
The term "agnosticism" does not (and certainly did not back then) mean lacking belief either way. It has to do with gnosticism. "Agnosticism" is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Like the term "atheism", the meaning of "agnosticism" has changed since its creation. Now, it can also refer to someone who neither believes that God exists or doesn't exist.
As with the term "agnosticism", the meaning of the term "atheism" has changed since its creation. The original meaning of a term does not dictate its meaning now. As you are probably aware, many many english terms have changed dramatically since they were created. Think about the word "***" or "gay" or "nice" or "silly". All of these words have a completely different meaning today than they did originally.
Protagoras was recognized as an atheist during the the second century AD. He was clearly agnostic. He was not recognized as an atheist in his day though. I assume the same word was around therefore atheos clealy included agnostic when it the word was being used. However, the word originally had no such meaning. As it was more frequently used in the godless/odious to the gods context. Either way it was definitely a position. If we want to delve into an analysis we can say that the original meaning did not include the stance of niether believing or disbelieving in gods. As protagoras is the prime example. However, i agree that prior the word atheos did at one point include the definition of agnostic.
Absolutely, words change. That is not the point. It is necessary to discuss the original meaning because that is the reasoning by which you and others have suggested that atheist defined as a person in the state of atheism, is better than atheist defined as a person who believes no god exists. If you are agreeing that the historical use of the word is not important then we can move to which definition is more efficient and productive.
"Efficient and productive"? The word "theist" just describes a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. It doesn't even tell us which god(s). The word "atheist" just tells us that the person is not a theist. Those words don't need to be more "efficient and productive" than that.
Why would you want a word that lends itself to equivocation? I do not think theist lends itself to equivocation here.
What equivocation? If you're not a theist your atheist. Every atheist on the planet is not a theist. Can you guess what the definition of atheist is? A person who is not a theist. It's a given.
Lol, why are you changing the definition again. I thought we had this squared. Now you want to change atheist to a person that is not a theist. That makes little sense. Are you saying that the definition is not a person in the state of or adhering to atheism? Let us work on this honestly.
Lol, I have never changed any definition.
Is something seriously wrong with you? An atheist is any person who's not a theist and I've never said otherwise.
Never said it was.
You are hust taking us back a step. There is no logical reason to define it that way.
There is no logical reason to define an atheist as a person who is not a theist when every person on the planet who says he's an atheist is not a theist? The definition is self-evident.
Nope. That would only entail defining those who claim to be atheists as atheists. The reverse is a logical error. Claiming that all not-a-theists are therefore atheists is bad logic if your reasoning is that all people who claim to be atheists are also not-a-theists.
