furai47 said:
From those (definitions), I think we can draw that deism not only has a completely different "power structure" for lack of a better term, but also that theism has extra stuff on top of just creating the world and existing in the supernatural as is the case with deism.
I think I?ve preemptively responded to every point you brought up, and will not do so again this time. With your new comments in mind, please reread my previous posts. But I?ll highlight this:
Theism is defined as such: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Notice how the first part is just as I said it was, and the "especially" part or any other more specific definition is specific to Abrahamic monotheism, from which the big three derive? I already discussed how the original, broader meaning can become tied to a more specific meaning for convenience, just as the word ?god? itself has.
furai47 said:
"schnippen schnappen something about x" is my version of saying "snip some words to identify what I'm responding to" and I'm quite fond of it.
Fine, but since I can't read tone of voice over the internet, it makes you sound rather smug and flippant. Just so you know. Substituting " something about X" for my actual words is also very similar to inserting "blah blah blah" which makes you sound even more so.
furai47 said:
The reason the word "evolution" in science circles means change of characteristics over time in a given population is because almost everyone who uses it uses it to mean exactly that.
Irrelevant to my point. Suppose, for instance, that everyone outside high-end science labs thought that evolution meant pokemon-style transformation, and then scoffed at evolutionary biologists on the basis of that understanding. ?What, they think animals just turned into new animals? Preposterous! Why are we teaching this trash in schools?? What would those who understand evolution and its original and/or true meaning do? Would they make a new word to replace the one they lost to the public? Would they try to publically clarify on or reclaim the word ?evolution?? This leads back to the point in my previous post, which I don't think you really addressed.
furai47 said:
Popular votes can still change what the word is used to denote
Since you?re all over the idea that words are defined by popular vote and there?s nothing we can do, I find it odd that you object to Vigor giving his vote. Maybe you objected to the fact that he declared that that?s what the word means full stop, but how many meanings of words do you think changed from people politely suggesting to others to change the way they use the word (not saying that?s never happened mind), and simply saying that that?s what the word meant until it caught on, as Vigor was arguably trying to do?
furai47 said:
1)you think agnosticism does not mean a person is unsure of the existence of a god/gods; which it most certainly can and has done so for anywhere between 2500 and 3000 years now2)you think atheism does not mean a person believes that a god/gods do not exist which again, it most certainly can3)you think you can categorise upwards of 7 billion people into 4 neat boxes when it comes to religious beliefs4)you think it's religious indoctrination that has turned atheism into a "bad word" and not tribalism, something universal to the human species (a minor complaint)
1. It means (at least according to Vigor and my own experiences) someone who does not claim to know the answer to the question of the existence of god. This is very close to the colloquial meaning (that is, simple uncertainty) and of course anyone who is agnostic in the colloquial sense is also agnostic in the etymological sense of the word by necessity (because the etymological sense is broader). But the colloquial definition of agnosticism does not distinguish between knowledge and belief, which I why I think the etymological definition is more useful.
2. To clarify for everyone, it does not NECESSARILY mean that. Of course anyone who believes there is no gods is an atheist, but not all atheists believe there is no god. The point is that people take the word atheism to be a more specific, confident stance then it actually is.
3. I don?t know what Vigor thinks of them, but I would never claim that the four boxes are neat. They?re rough classifications which distinguish between knowledge and belief, which are important distinctions to make.
4. Is religion not a sort of tribe (as is nationalism, sports teams, and everyone who liked the ME3 ending), in the social and psychological sense?
furai47 said:
deriving what words mean in modern times from use in the past is still not particularly smart.
If the categories had been ?certain believer, uncertain believer, certain unbeliever, uncertain unbeliever? would that satisfy you?
You seem to be implying that since we decided that we were, say, and atheist, found out what the etymological roots of the word were, and then changed our position to be loyal to those roots. Untrue. Our stance is a certain stance. As it happens, the word Atheism is not merely associated with those of my stance, but the exact etymological roots of the word mirror our exact stance on the issue. Why, how convenient. Why not use it? Sure seems to be the right word.
What is more, Vigors definitions of words are (roughly) the definitions I've seen used by almost every major atheist figure or atheistic organization, as well as both atheists and theists in academic circles. Again, it is not a mere personal definition. It is the type of classification favored, or at least sometimes used, by ?experts.? Not saying that they can?t be slowly outvoted by the people at large, mind you.
furai47 said:
When today you ask a person if they're religious and they tell you they're agnostic, it might just be because they're using the word to mean "I don't believe in god"; and believe it or not, most any definition will support them on that.
Then they would be both atheist and agnostic. Atheists (or nonbelievers, if you?d prefer) come in varying degrees of certainty(as to believers), and it?s useful to distinguish between the various kinds. The four categories thing does this, whatever label you give them.