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