tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24256429.post8152946223646926012..comments2023-08-27T18:57:59.101+03:00Comments on Notes from the Underground: On AtheismWael Eskandarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17685842195441037505noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24256429.post-80227693347849801442007-03-07T23:45:00.000+02:002007-03-07T23:45:00.000+02:00Dear anonymous,I understand what you mean by those...Dear anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I understand what you mean by those clarifications, and you do have a point, but I was using the words atheism and agnosticism liberally with the meanings that are more generally understood by most people. Plus of course lots of atheists use this definition, not just theist who don't know better.<BR/><BR/>It's true that agnosticism has to do with knowledge, rather than belief but that would make many religious people agnostic. Also if atheism is literal it would make some religions atheist, since they don't believe in a diety.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But we can argue about this all day, it's just definitions and names that are continuously evolving. But to make things clear and understandable, by today's terms, replace atheist with 'strong atheist' and agnostic with 'weak athiest', specially that these terms are relatively modern, adopted by modern atheists. People's understanding of these terms is confused and it wasn't always the case that atheism was defined this way.<BR/><BR/>Also the definition of agnostic was not always as your links have pointed out,it differs from person to person practically rather than philosophically.<BR/><BR/>Finally to make this clear, even if you think my usage of the terms is flawed, the first is someone who doesn't believe in a diety, and the latter is someone who holds no faith, whatever the naming may be.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the clarifications, those links were useful.Wael Eskandarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685842195441037505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24256429.post-87035560874966630302007-03-07T17:40:00.000+02:002007-03-07T17:40:00.000+02:00I'm using the common definition as positive belief...<I>I'm using the common definition as positive belief that deities do not exist, deliberate rejection.</I><BR/><BR/>That's only "common" among <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/defining.htm" REL="nofollow">theists who don't know any better</A>. The definition you cite from Wikipedia is attested in most <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm" REL="nofollow">unabridged, comprehensive dictionaries</A> and has been used by <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/atheists_modern.htm" REL="nofollow">atheists</A> since the <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm" REL="nofollow">mid-18th century</A>. The <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm" REL="nofollow">broad definition of atheism</A> not only best reflects the etymology of the word itself, but it also best describes the diversity of atheists.<BR/><BR/><I>And so, newborn children are atheists by that rationale, while in fact they're agnostic.</I><BR/><BR/>The idea that agnosticism is some sort of "middle ground" between atheism and theism is a popular myth, but it's <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm" REL="nofollow">still a myth</A>. Even if we were to assume the narrow definition of atheism you are using, it's still a definition based on "belief," not knowledge. Belief and knowledge may be related, but the are ultimately separate issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com