RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed

From: Dr Sebby (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 2003 - 20:29:46 MST

  • Next message: David Lucifer: "virus: The man with a plan"

    ...Lets see if sebby can clear this up:

    by making an issue of discrediting the god idea, the CoV is merely
    addressing a very real (and unfortunate) world-wide situation whereby the
    very vast majority entertain one imaginary super being or another. it does
    NOT suggest that we are being defensive, or that we have to struggle to
    'defend' our position. it is just a proactive stance on a very existant
    mistake within society at large. to not address it would be irresponsible
    and meaningless.

    DrSebby.
    "Courage...and shuffle the cards".

    ----Original Message Follows----
    From: "Kalkor" <kalkor@kalkor.com>
    Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
    To: <virus@lucifer.com>
    Subject: RE: virus: Re:Lexicon definition of atheism still not changed
    Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:45:02 -0800

    [Ant]
    <snip>
    There's no such thing as weak atheism (or "uncertain atheism"): what's been
    called weak atheism in this thread is really agnositicism!

    The Lexicon definition: The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown
    and probably unknowable.

    This definition is likely too narrow... it could usefully be extended in
    line with [MW]:
    (agnostic) "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
    is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
    believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
    [Miriam-Webster; http://www.m-w.com/]

    So, should the Lexicon definition of atheism be changed?

    No. To do so as suggested would be conflating it with the idiomatic meaning
    of agnosticism.

    But maybe in the second sentence... ?

    I don't think you can be so absolute about the reasons for such a doctrine.
    You should say, maybe, "Atheists may believe that...". Another possible
    reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God is unnecessary or
    at least unnecessarily complex). And there may be many other reasons...

    Regards,
    Ant

    [Kalkor]
    As you point out, there are many reasons people can be atheist. Not all of
    them are rational, such as:
    "Atheists may believe that..."

    Some are more rational, like:
    Another possible reason is Occam's razor (essentially, the existence of God
    is unnecessary or at least unnecessarily complex).

    Some are downright foot stomping closed-minded:
    "The doctrine that there is no God.

    However, regardless of the reason they are atheist, all of them have a LACK
    of belief in a god.

    Wordsmyth suggests:
    http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=theist&matchty
    pe=exact
    Definition 1. belief in the existence of one God that created the world and
    is known through revelation. (Cf. deism.)
    Definition 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. (Cf. atheism.)

    And for Gnostic:
    http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=gnostic&matcht
    ype=exact
    Definition 1. of, pertaining to, or having knowledge, esp. spiritual
    understanding.
    Definition 2. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Gnosticism or
    its adherents.

    A characteristic of Gnosticism?
    Definition 1. an early Christian religious movement whose adherents believed
    in salvation through gnosis, in the evil nature of the material world, and
    in the incorporeality of Jesus Christ, and that was condemned as a heresy by
    the Church Fathers.

    Now, I try as hard as I can everyday to remain consistent, concise and
    precise with my communication. I guess you could say it's an internal
    belief. In order to avoid being hypocritical, I must in my speech and
    writing adhere as strongly as I can to the beliefs I have about consistence,
    concision and precision.

    To remain consistent, I use the same prefix the same way when feasible.
    To remain precise, I use words that most closely match the definition of the
    idea I'm communicating.
    To remain concise, I use as few words as possible to convey an idea.

    However, these do not guarantee effective communication. I've gotta make
    sure I use the same set of symbols as the guy I'm talking to. This enforces
    the idea of consistency; if I use the same prefix to mean the same thing
    there is a better chance that I, when using it in conversation, will be
    using it in the same way my recipient does.

    So the way I see it, we've got a couple choices. Lemme know if you see
    others ;-}
    1) Use atheist in a consistent manner with all the other a-prefix words, and
    when doubtful about your listeners' definitions, clarify (sacrifice
    concision for precision).
    2) Use whatever definition of atheist you come up with at the time, and hope
    the guy you're talkin to uses the same one.

    My vote is for #1 above. And following along with that, I think we should
    also change the definition of agnosticism in our lexicon from:
    AGNOSTICISM:(vl) The doctrine that the existence of God is unknown and
    probably unknowable.

    To something that jives with the prefix convention a bit more, like:
    "An absence of knowledge, esp. spiritual understanding. Absence of
    Gnosticism."

    Which I don't think conflicts at all with weak atheism, sounds like the two
    of them go hand-in-hand actually.

    ;-}

    Kalkor

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to 
    <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 20:29:56 MST