Peh said:
JWeinCom said:
You're actually really close to getting my point with the last thing you said. Although, you're a little off.
HIV Negative and HIV positive are direct negations of one another. (Also, those terms are adjectives and not nouns and so they skirt the issue altogether since we always have to attach them to something specific). However, atheist is not a direct negation of theist. Everything that exists either has to be a theist or not a theist. This is a law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.
However, there are things that belong to that category not a theist (a sandwich for instance) that don't fall into the category of atheist. So "not a theist" and "atheist" are not the same thing. Your definition of atheist seems to be the same as not a theist, and that's what I object to.
Is it nitpicky? Well yeah. But I kind of like being nitpicky. I'm interested in semantics and the intricacies of language. I'm an English major with a heavy interest in logic. I also quite like debate. I find conversations on topics like this interesting. If you're not and don't, then by all means don't participate in a conversation about semantics. But I don't appreciate you saying things like "get over it" or implying I have a problem with the label atheist. It implies I'm being unreasonable or wrong, and I don't believe I am. Saying your not interested in semantics just means you're not interested in semantics. It doesn't mean my argument about semantics (which is pretty well supported imho) is wrong.
You have presented a definition of atheist. So have I. Both can be found in legitimate sources. We can choose to use either one. I believe mine is a better definition. I have explained why that is. You have simply insisted that your definition is *the* definition, without explaining why it is more useful. Despite acknowledging that it can apply to things you don't care about when you're talking about atheists.
So it's a simple question. We have two choices of definitions. Why is yours better? This is the question I've been trying to get an answer to.
|
What's the definition of "not a theist"?
What's the definition of "atheist"?
|
The definition of not a theist is not a theist. I don't know how to define it more clearly than that unless I'm given a definition of theist.
If we define theist as a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, then "not a theist" is literally everything that does not fit that definition. A bean bag chair, a light bulb, a pig, a baby, a guitar, a star, a taco, a fabric swatch, a worm, my left foot, the instruction manual for Wario Ware, etc.
Atheist is not a direct logical negation, so it doesn't have such a clear cut definition. Atheist is a label that we are using to define a group. It's up to us to create the label in such a way that it describes the group we want it to describe.
I would say a good definition for atheist would be "one who holds the position of atheism". I would define atheism as "The position that the proposition "a god or gods exist" has not been demonstrated to be true." This definition would I believe include everyone we mean to talk about when we talk about atheism, and would exclude everyone we don't. For example, you acknowledged that we do not really care about babies when we're discussing atheism. So, this definition would exclude them.
I think this is a pretty good definition that accurately conveys what we mean to talk about when talking about when we use the term atheist. Do you have a definition that you feel better conveys what we mean? If so, what is that definition and why?
