Threads about Theism and what it is

[Quintessence]

My only point to follow this, then, is that it should be expected that communications are going to break down, and that there are going to be problems like the ones we are talking about if there are multiple accepted meanings to words, and everyone who wants to use them has to go to a library or a college-campus first to be sure they are using the term correctly. Does that, at least, make sense?

Not quite what I was driving at. Maybe let's go this direction...

What I think I'd like to see are a couple of simple things:

• An awareness that many words are polysemic - that is, that they have multiple meanings and usages (aka, communication is complicated)
• Respectfulness of others usages of words - that is, instead of criticizing someone for using a word "wrong," aim to understand their usage of words so differences are less of an obstacle to communication

Both of those require checking your assumptions at the door. It's hard, it's a process. It's not something most of us are used to. Myself included much of the time.

I suppose I have to accept that a god needn't be supernatural. If even an anthropomorphic god existed,and presented itself in this world to all of us, I would probably not think of this being as "supernatural," but rather my view of what was naturally occurring would simply expand.

It's up to you to decide what your god-concepts (or lack thereof) are to be. I just like to point out that for some, gods are not supernatural entities. Some Pagans have experiences similar to what you describe here, and it is regarded as a natural (not a supernatural) occurrence. Some of that has to do with the earth-centered roots of the religious movement. All things are viewed as "natural" even of others might label them as "supernatural." And then there's the undercurrent of pantheism that runs through the movement, where gods are not anthropomorphic beings, but the forces of nature themselves (which are personified in mythology as anthropomorphic beings because it makes for a more relatable story for many folks).

In any case, it gets a bit more nuanced than is typically assumed. I mean, the Abrahamic god is hands-down viewed as a "supernatural being," and general English dictionaries reflect that cultural bias. So do many encyclopedias, frankly.

 

[Jumi]

I didn't say there weren't atheists who make the same errors in attributing more characteristics to the word "theist" than are warranted by that words definition. In fact, I have probably done this myself in the past, and have admitted as such in posts within this very thread!

Yes it would be best if such impoliteness were discontinued by theists and atheists. I doubt anyone will feel more convinced when someone says things about you or your beliefs that have no truth to them, regardless of how much anecdotal evidence they feel they have for behavior of theists/atheists or dictionaries they browsed to feel they can generalize it to everyone.

Doesn't make it okay, and doesn't mean any of us should be fine with people continuing to ignore the consensus-accepted meaning of words so that they can twist their use to suit their own agendas.

So we should let consensus dictate the words, even overriding traditional meanings? Interesting, I should probably abandon the traditional language of mystics to please who care nothing about my views about it anyway. Do you realize that atheists make better speakers for the asserted monopoly on the definition of God of major religions than they do themselves?

In the world of computing you get pretty much the same deal if you use Linux based operating system.

One might be tempted to forget that I wish I could forget about the idea of ALL "gods."

Well there is always a way to at least ignore it, by becoming a hermit.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes it would be best if such impoliteness were discontinued by theists and atheists. I doubt anyone will feel more convinced when someone says things about you or your beliefs that have no truth to them, regardless of how much anecdotal evidence they feel they have for behavior of theists/atheists or dictionaries they browsed to feel they can generalize it to everyone.

Nor should we throw all those dictionaries away. They are useful for something, after all.

So we should let consensus dictate the words, even overriding traditional meanings?

You do realize that without some level of consensus we literally have no language to use to communicate with one another? The higher that consensus, the more clear communications remain. You think we should further resort to cant and specific vernacular? Wouldn't we simply end up with more troubles like this one over the words "atheist" and "theist?" There is a level of divergent usage of language that is acceptable, and a level that simply isn't without defining something as an entirely different language.

Interesting, I should probably abandon the traditional language of mystics to please who care nothing about my views about it anyway. Do you realize that atheists make better speakers for the asserted monopoly on the definition of God of major religions than they do themselves?

i would assert that ALL definitions of god are personal ones. And I, personally, argue against the assertions of individuals, for the most part. I also ask questions much of the time before I might debate/attack a particular point I feel that the person I am debating likely believes. God's attributes cannot be verified, period. So that word in particular will ALWAYS be up in the air. People who like using the word should learn to expect it, then maybe they won't get so butt-hurt when their special version of "god" is challenged. You'll never catch me losing sleep over it.

In the world of computing you get pretty much the same deal if you use Linux based operating system.

This is more a difference of language... not merely of vernacular. And it is ironic that you bring up computing at all... where in order to have various users/computers "speaking" to one another you HAVE TO adhere to the specific DICTIONARY of actual commands/WORDS. you can't just make things up as you go along if you hope to do anything worthwhile. Sure, you can make NEW functionality and quasi-"words", but you cannot re-appropriate base parts of the language itself without complete and utter failure to use your altered language with anyone else. Computing analogies will always help my side of the argument more than they will yours.

 

[Augustus]

If we all want to use a term meaningfully, then there should be accepted and unaccepted defining characteristics of that term. And all disputes should probably be taken back to a source of authority on what the word should mean. i.e. a dictionary. At that point, ideas contradicting the dictionary on the meaning of a word should be understood as incorrect the first time they are pointed out, without contest.

How do you account for changes in meaning though?

For atheism, the 'lack of belief' definition didn't appear in dictionaries until the 1980/90s. By your logic it should never have been allowed to evolve beyond explicit rejection of monotheistic God.

The word theist used to mean deist, now it doesn't. Words constantly evolve, that's the nature of language.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How do you account for changes in meaning though?

For atheism, the 'lack of belief' definition didn't appear in dictionaries until the 1980/90s. By your logic it should never have been allowed to evolve beyond explicit rejection of monotheistic God.

The word theist used to mean deist, now it doesn't. Words constantly evolve, that's the nature of language.

Simple... change in consensus! How else?

 

[Augustus]

Simple... change in consensus! How else?

So people are wrong until so many people are wrong that the dictionary has to react, then they all become right?

 

[siti]

So people are wrong until so many people are wrong that the dictionary has to react, then they all become right?

Nailed it! That is exactly right! And its so wrong!

But consensus is really the issue. I tried to get my head around theological worldview taxonomy a while back and failed miserably. I wanted to make it simple so I had -theism indicating a deity that was involved in some way (such as answering prayers, making direct revelations to chosen prophets, miracles etc.) and -deism pointing to a deity that was at some level 'responsible' for the universe or the way the universe is but did not directly involve itself (i.e. no miracles or revelations etc.). Then you can put mono-, poly-, pan-, panen- etc. in front of either but then I hit a snag. If you stick to that, scientific pantheists become pandeists and panendeists become panentheists (if you think about it carefully enough) - and neither my pantheist nor panendeist friends were happy with that. My atheist friends just think they're all theists - because - as somebody pointed out earlier - they're not atheists. And etymologically speaking, I believe both deism and atheism predate theism as words in the English language so there is some merit in that argument. My pandeist friends refused to accept the mislabeled pantheists because they did not necessarily believe the (apparently official) pandeist doctrine that God deliberately and intelligently blew himself to smithereens in order to become the universe and therefore no longer exists as God. The die-hard deists, on the other hand, were quite happy for everyone else to believe whatever they liked and call themselves whatever they liked as long as they didn't call themselves deists and failed to understand why those nasty atheists disagreed with their views so wholeheartedly when they were (as they were after all) atheists not adeists. Deism is of course not a kind of theism - as is often claimed by atheists who seem to desire a comprehensive but simplified theological package deal that they can decide not be. If anything its the other way round - at least according to deists who firmly believe that the existence of an intelligent creator is an overwhelmingly obvious fact that was appreciated by ancient folks and then embellished to become a kind of deism++ which is really what we today call theism.

There - that's cleared it up! Theism is deism++ and definitely not atheism.

 

[dfnj]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

Theism is system of thought designed to provide a context and meaning in ones life. In it's simplest form, deism, it just declares God, or our creator, was the first cause of existence.

Just as much as I am bewildered by theist not having a clue of what atheism actually means, I am just as bewildered by people do not accept the way theists choose to have faith as a substitute for not having evidence for the existence of God.

I am also bewildered by theists who care at all about evolution. An omnipotent God can certainly create the Universe in any amount of time in any particular state. And it's just as bewildering that people cannot grasp the idea of an omnipotent God is not bounded by the laws of physics or logic.

 

[dfnj]

There. Theism is non-atheism and atheism is non-theism.

Surely there's no more room for confusion?

Actually, the way atheists define atheism, the word "atheism" is not the right word for it. It should be non-belief-ism.

 

[Jumi]

Nor should we throw all those dictionaries away. They are useful for something, after all.

Keep that in mind when thinking about your atheism.

You do realize that without some level of consensus we literally have no language to use to communicate with one another? The higher that consensus, the more clear communications remain. You think we should further resort to cant and specific vernacular? Wouldn't we simply end up with more troubles like this one over the words "atheist" and "theist?" There is a level of divergent usage of language that is acceptable, and a level that simply isn't without defining something as an entirely different language.

Well to us who read traditional writings much of the language is clear and established. It doesn't really matter that much if you don't care to understand it. In specialist fields the languages usually aren't what the general populace understand the words to mean.

i would assert that ALL definitions of god are personal ones. And I, personally, argue against the assertions of individuals, for the most part. I also ask questions much of the time before I might debate/attack a particular point I feel that the person I am debating likely believes.

A common assertion for sure, but not a very useful one. Consider the definitions of artificial intelligence or cloud and you might end up with the same idea.

God's attributes cannot be verified, period. So that word in particular will ALWAYS be up in the air. People who like using the word should learn to expect it, then maybe they won't get so butt-hurt when their special version of "god" is challenged. You'll never catch me losing sleep over it.

From your description we see how you've debated things.

This is more a difference of language... not merely of vernacular. And it is ironic that you bring up computing at all... where in order to have various users/computers "speaking" to one another you HAVE TO adhere to the specific DICTIONARY of actual commands/WORDS. you can't just make things up as you go along if you hope to do anything worthwhile.

Well you'd think so, but it isn't as exact in computing as you think. Your view is idealistic, but real hardware and software manufacturers might disagree and not follow the standards or standard definitions. Sure standards are set up, but what if the biggest ones like, Microsoft and Google don't follow them to the letter to promote their own product?

Sure, you can make NEW functionality and quasi-"words", but you cannot re-appropriate base parts of the language itself without complete and utter failure to use your altered language with anyone else. Computing analogies will always help my side of the argument more than they will yours.

Well you're the one, along with the Western Christian dictionary writers who want to assert their views on the subject. Then why don't you back up a step and accept the slightly older and established definitions of atheism instead, since you're a minority having trouble communicating with some theists?

 

[Jumi]

I think the real reason why atheists with anti-theistic motivations want to have God be the one of fundamentalist, literalist and creationists, is because they're easier to attack.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So people are wrong until so many people are wrong that the dictionary has to react, then they all become right?

This is as accurate a description as any of the process, sure.

If some collective of us decide on the meaning of a particular word, and then it starts being used against that meaning, to the point that enough of the original users become exasperated and decide it had better change to accommodate the new usage, then what would you call that process?

So tell me... does it not irk you even THE SLIGHTEST BIT, when someone is using a word COMPLETELY INCORRECTLY in a particular instance and you know it? I mean come on... everyone asks like this is so acceptable. If you have never been annoyed or found it amusing in a "shake your head" kind of way when someone butchers the use of a word, then you are in the minority.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Keep that in mind when thinking about your atheism.

You think I don't? You're the one proclaiming that dictionaries aren't valid sources of information. Or did you not claim that? Are dictionaries valid sources of information? Or would answering that question in the positive make you feel too much like you were making yourself look like you were backpedaling on your position within these forums? Can't have that, now can we?

Well to us who read traditional writings much of the language is clear and established. It doesn't really matter that much if you don't care to understand it. In specialist fields the languages usually aren't what the general populace understand the words to mean.

And you're saying that doesn't confuse the issues surrounding their attempts to share any of the writing with the general populace? Is that what you want to say? It can only ever confuse the communication between groups if they all decide on a different meaning for a word. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PROBLEMS LIKE THIS THEIST/ATHEIST BIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A common assertion for sure, but not a very useful one.

I would say the word itself is not very useful. But then, I would say the entire concept isn't either.

Consider the definitions of artificial intelligence or cloud and you might end up with the same idea.

And you think these are as poorly defined or as abstract as the word "God", do you? I'd be willing to put money on the idea that a study of people's descriptions of "AI" or "cloud" would come back 10 to 20 times as cogent and similar as would that same group's descriptions of "God." If one can even be expected to reliably answer the question "What is God?" in the first place.

From your description we see how you've debated things.

And? What's the implication you're making here?

Well you'd think so, but it isn't as exact in computing as you think. Your view is idealistic, but real hardware and software manufacturers might disagree and not follow the standards or standard definitions. Sure standards are set up, but what if the biggest ones like, Microsoft and Google don't follow them to the letter to promote their own product?

This reply is a complete cop-out. I was talking about the "language" used to communicate with/within the computer itself, and you know it. Not whether Microsoft decides to follow the standards set forth by the W3C when writing its latest crap-log of a browser. I don't need to frame this up for you... you know exactly what you were doing. "Quick! Batten down the hatches! And whatever you do, don't appear to be wrong AT ALL COSTS!" Pfff... good luck with that.

Well you're the one, along with the Western Christian dictionary writers who want to assert their views on the subject. Then why don't you back up a step and accept the slightly older and established definitions of atheism instead, since you're a minority having trouble communicating with some theists?

I'm asserting what now? That my views on a word should be what are considered correct? Or did I site what I felt could be considered an authority... which is wholly disconnected from me? Hmm... which one, which one? This is all so DIFFICULT! And are the older definitions of atheism valid anymore? Is that the way the word is being used now? Is there no one willing to take up the torch and dispel the confusion and spread the word about the contemporary meaning of the word?!? Oh wait... that's what I'm doing.

 

[Jumi]

You think I don't? You're the one proclaiming that dictionaries aren't valid sources of information. Or did you not claim that? Are dictionaries valid sources of information? Or would answering that question in the positive make you feel too much like you were making yourself look like you were backpedaling on your position within these forums? Can't have that, now can we?

An angry question flood, eh?

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Surely this should be enough, right? It's in a dictionary. Well it wasn't enough for me when I was an atheist. Indeed I used the "lack of belief" definition, despite it not appearing in my language dictionary or indeed alot of the English ones. I've even had to defend that from the atheist viewpoint and as a theist I've defended atheist use of that. But I guess you are different since you wouldn't backpedal but accept the lovely definition. Let me ask you a question, is the dictionary enough to dictate the definition of things? Or should we sometimes maybe do a bit more digging and use the dictionary as a starting point.

And you're saying that doesn't confuse the issues surrounding their attempts to share any of the writing with the general populace? Is that what you want to say? It can only ever confuse the communication between groups if they all decide on a different meaning for a word. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PROBLEMS LIKE THIS THEIST/ATHEIST BIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes it's not a very useful debate, so don't get too excited what you may think about other people.

I would say the word itself is not very useful. But then, I would say the entire concept isn't either.

You're not a theist and have no interest in it, so why should it be useful to you?

And you think these are as poorly defined or as abstract as the word "God", do you? I'd be willing to put money on the idea that a study of people's descriptions of "AI" or "cloud" would come back 10 to 20 times as cogent and similar as would that same group's descriptions of "God." If one can even be expected to reliably answer the question "What is God?" in the first place.

10-20 times doesn't matter much. With AI you would get something like a computer doing something intelligently and have segments of people such as programmers use it in wildly different ways than say gamers or regular folk.

And? What's the implication you're making here?

Just an observation that you don't seem to do too well with people who you think would think differently from you, you seem to be into proving my guess right in your post. You don't seem to have much patience with listening or common good will required to have any normal discussion.

This reply is a complete cop-out. I was talking about the "language" used to communicate with/within the computer itself, and you know it.

All right so what I wanted to say, you didn't care about at all, but I should care only about what you wanted to talk about, is that right?

Not whether Microsoft decides to follow the standards set forth by the W3C when writing its latest crap-log of a browser.

You're not good at analogies are you... That's an example yeah, but you could pick devices like GPUs, WLANs or even programming languages.

I don't need to frame this up for you... you know exactly what you were doing. "Quick! Batten down the hatches! And whatever you do, don't appear to be wrong AT ALL COSTS!" Pfff... good luck with that.

Well you certainly seem to know what you're doing deliberately misunderstanding my post, grasping at straws and getting emotional over nothing.

I'm asserting what now? That my views on a word should be what are considered correct? Or did I site what I felt could be considered an authority... which is wholly disconnected from me? Hmm... which one, which one? This is all so DIFFICULT! And are the older definitions of atheism valid anymore? Is that the way the word is being used now? Is there no one willing to take up the torch and dispel the confusion and spread the word about the contemporary meaning of the word?!? Oh wait... that's what I'm doing.

If you don't get that either, forget it. You keep to the English-speaking Christian world and your views will have some meaning.

 

[Augustus]

This is as accurate a description as any of the process, sure.

If some collective of us decide on the meaning of a particular word, and then it starts being used against that meaning, to the point that enough of the original users become exasperated and decide it had better change to accommodate the new usage, then what would you call that process?

But that goes back to why should we use the dictionary as an arbiter of meaning?

When it suits us to redefine something then we should go right ahead, explain why the dictionary is wrong and try to get others on board. But, when others do this we should criticise them for being 'wrong' because they contradict the dictionary.

For me, I wouldn't say meaning is 'wrong' if it functions in a manner that I can understand.

So tell me... does it not irk you even THE SLIGHTEST BIT, when someone is using a word COMPLETELY INCORRECTLY in a particular instance and you know it? I mean come on... everyone asks like this is so acceptable. If you have never been annoyed or found it amusing in a "shake your head" kind of way when someone butchers the use of a word, then you are in the minority.

Well, I think that people who say "could care less" should be shot in the genitals so they can't pollute the world with their offspring, but that's really just a personal foible. I understand exactly what they mean so my objection is really aesthetic.

Outwith irrational personal hates, I generally subscribe to the idea that 'correctness' comes from ability to transmit meaning. If someone is using language in a manner designed to misrepresent then that may be worthy of criticism though.

On RF, I have numerous problems with 'lack of belief atheism', and find a term like 'theism', that doesn't differentiate (mono/poly)theism, deism, pantheism as problematic also. I generally have no problem interpreting their meaning though and tend to think most disagreements on the issue represent genuine differences in thought which are ultimately subjective and are thus intractable. Multiplicity of meaning doesn't cause me any distress in this situation, despite having personal preferences.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An angry question flood, eh?

No answer, eh? I have to wonder why this happens so often. I mean... someone replying to a specific point that contains a question, and simply not answering the question. So very often. Not that it matters, obviously - as I know you would tell me - but I take such as a sign of weakness... therefore if I answer a point at all, and it contains a question, I answer it. Maybe we can try this again... maybe there was simply too much information for you to respond to, and so I will just stop here, respond to nothing else you said and simply pose the question again.

Are dictionaries valid sources of information?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But that goes back to why should we use the dictionary as an arbiter of meaning?

When it suits us to redefine something then we should go right ahead, explain why the dictionary is wrong and try to get others on board. But, when others do this we should criticise them for being 'wrong' because they contradict the dictionary.

Sure, this is fine, I have no problem with words being redefined with a majority who are going to be using the word on board... hence the reasons dictionaries have traditionally been updated throughout history. But when someone adamantly refuses to acknowledge the base definition of a word in favor of adding their own flavors to it, all while the consensus on meaning of said word keeps trying to inform them of their error... and, in fact, may not even recognize that they are using the word at all (and don't even have to - as many of you in this thread are stating also, let's remember), then there is an issue.

Well, I think that people who say "could care less" should be shot in the genitals so they can't pollute the world with their offspring, but that's really just a personal foible. I understand exactly what they mean so my objection is really aesthetic.

Outwith irrational personal hates, I generally subscribe to the idea that 'correctness' comes from ability to transmit meaning. If someone is using language in a manner designed to misrepresent then that may be worthy of criticism though.

And there you go... when the issues taken with use of a word that has a contemporary, agreed-upon meaning go beyond mere aesthetics, then there may be cause for intervention and a defense of that agreed-upon meaning. This is really all I have been trying to say.

 

[Jumi]

No answer, eh? I have to wonder why this happens so often. I mean... someone replying to a specific point that contains a question, and simply not answering the question. So very often. Not that it matters, obviously - as I know you would tell me - but I take such as a sign of weakness... therefore if I answer a point at all, and it contains a question, I answer it. Maybe we can try this again... maybe there was simply too much information for you to respond to, and so I will just stop here, respond to nothing else you said and simply pose the question again.

You can take it as weakness if you smell blood, but you'd be mistaken. We weren't even locked into anything important and you were already trying to go for the kill.

Are dictionaries valid sources of information?

Good question. They're often a decent starting point. Not as good as starting from an encyclopedia and certainly not equal to master's degree on a topic. We can exclaim "Dunning-Kruger effect!" when someone takes the dictionary as word of god, so to speak.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can take it as weakness if you smell blood, but you'd be mistaken. We weren't even locked into anything important and you were already trying to go for the kill.


Good question. They're often a decent starting point. Not as good as starting from an encyclopedia and certainly not equal to master's degree on a topic. We can exclaim "Dunning-Kruger effect!" when someone takes the dictionary as word of god, so to speak.

Fine, then dictionaries are a starting point. But what are we doing when discussing the meaning of words at all if not trying to establish some consensus on the meaning(s)? Isn't that what we're trying to achieve? Or are we trying to achieve something completely different? Are we merely trying to achieve an understanding that words are so malleable that they are sometimes nearly worthless as communications devices? That is, honestly, what it sounds like some of you in this thread are arguing. And if those words are useless, then why not argue to be rid of them altogether?

And "going for the kill?" Please...

I have, even in this thread, admitted that I need to take stock and perhaps change some of my views on things multiple times throughout my history on this site. Based on your recent responses to me here, I doubt you can say the same. Just an observation based on current evidences I have at my disposal, you see. Not that it matters to you. But I am saying it nonetheless.

Also one last thought... what if you couldn't take for granted the 99% of words in your vocabulary that you can (and do) effectively rely on to be assessed according to a consensus-driven, dictionary-worthy definition? What if ALL words were treated like "theist" or "atheist" and rendered all language-based communication virtually useless? My point being, there should be an attempt made at standardizing language (and there is!),and mere acceptance of the fringe cases where this isn't currently the case, or allowing people whatever fanciful definitions they wish to ascribe to words without attempting to get us all "on the same page" isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Jumi]

Fine, then dictionaries are a starting point. But what are we doing when discussing the meaning of words at all if not trying to establish some consensus on the meaning(s)? Isn't that what we're trying to achieve? Or are we trying to achieve something completely different? Are we merely trying to achieve an understanding that words are so malleable that they are sometimes nearly worthless as communications devices? That is, honestly, what it sounds like some of you in this thread are arguing. And if those words are useless, then why not argue to be rid of them altogether?

Well you're right about one thing, they're useless communication devices for you, but for religions they're still running a different version of the dictionary than you are. And me being outside of both religions and antitheism I could care less what to call God, if not for tradition of mystics around the world. We're both rebels to some standard.

We are not a hive mind trying to achieve consensus. Especially with God and gods, there is no real meaning to it(finding consensus). The gods of my ancestors were antropomorphic and legendary presentations of nature, history, human psyche and shamanistic vision. The methodology and meanings of their god-beliefs was wildly different (and I emphasize the wild here) from literary based societies. Even if you and I don't believe those gods, what should we call those them today if not gods?

And "going for the kill?" Please...

I quote: Don't appear to be wrong AT ALL COSTS. Some things you said seemed quite overboard regarding the level of discussion we should be at to be honest, but perhaps that's an American way to talk, not sure. It might be my cultural upbringing based view seeing that as more hostile than in your culture.

I have, even in this thread, admitted that I need to take stock and perhaps change some of my views on things multiple times throughout my history on this site. Based on your recent responses to me here, I doubt you can say the same. Just an observation based on current evidences I have at my disposal, you see. Not that it matters to you. But I am saying it nonetheless.

Well you certainly have your ideas of me. I've reversed many positions I've held since I've registered on this site. Look with new eyes at man you've not seen in a few days.

Also one last thought... what if you couldn't take for granted the 99% of words in your vocabulary that you can (and do) effectively rely on to be assessed according to a consensus-driven, dictionary-worthy definition? What if ALL words were treated like "theist" or "atheist" and rendered all language-based communication virtually useless? My point being, there should be an attempt made at standardizing language (and there is!),and mere acceptance of the fringe cases where this isn't currently the case, or allowing people whatever fanciful definitions they wish to ascribe to words without attempting to get us all "on the same page" isn't going to help anyone.

Say we stay in established definitions in every language and stop our language from developing as well as scratch out any less common but established usages. Now in some places of the world you'd just a man following the doctrine of atheism or someone who rejects or even fights God. Does it feel good?