PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.
In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.
What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.
So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.
In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...
Person A: "Atheists believe that..."
Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."
The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.
But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:
Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."
Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."
Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.
@PureX
@Nimos
In my thread "Atheism, part 2", Nimos posted a video or two on Critical Thinking, and in one of the videos, it said it was okay to, when evaluating a claim, agree with some parts of it, without necessarily having to agree with the whole entire claim.
What I did manage to agree with about PureX's posts in the thread "Atheism, part 1", though, is that sometimes, there is a bit more to a definition than the Dictionary definition. Why this happens, in my own words, is due to the evolution of language, and how I feel that a lot of Dictionary definitions are a bit rigid, and feel like they're still stuck in the 80's. Even in cases where they still can be fairly helpful in general.
So implementing the idea that "You can agree with some parts of a claim without agreeing with the whole entire claim" of Nimos' video in "Atheism, part 2", I may agree that the definition of Atheist in the Dictionary may be a little lacking, personally, and may need further clarification, I just didn't necessarily agree with the parts of the statements expressed after that.
In addition, one type of conversation which I find a bit difficult to read, goes like this...
Person A: "Atheists believe that..."
Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."
The problem with this style of conversation, in my opinion, is if Person A had a valid point about something most people who are atheists do, Person B may not ever address their point. They're just trying to define what "atheism" might be and in a rigid way, when there might be similarities and difference and additional nuances when talking a particular group of atheists.
But there are contexts where it is useful to say such a thing too, and here's an example:
Person A: "Atheism is a religion, too."
Person B: "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and that's it."
Which may, in my opinion correctly, imply that atheism isn't a religion. In this context, the person is confronting a direct statement, with a direct refutation, and isn't running the risk of creating a straw man.
@PureX
@Nimos
Last edited:
I'm looking it up on Google and only find results for atheism or agnosticism. But I remember someone defining it for me in the past and myself finding the concept of the word on Google. I just can't find that word again! 
