Would this be an improvement to the definition of atheist?
Atheist: One who doesn't regard anyone as infallible, or worthy of worship
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
Trying to redefine a term to mean something it doesn't is not an improvement. Sometimes a words meaning is confused by a poorly written definition. When someone is asymptomatic, we don't say they lack a belief in symptoms, when someone is apolitical we don't say they lack a belief in politics, when someone is asexual this doesn't mean they don't believe in sex. Some atheists may understand very well the reality of what gods are and believe gods exist AS psycho-socially constructed absolute authority figures. They understand they exist, but don't personally regard any of them to be worthy of worship, that's what makes them atheist. It would seem simple to categorize theists as those who regard one or more beings as being worthy of worship, and atheists as those who don't regard any beings to be worthy of worship. Not all atheists are SO metaphorically challenged that we don't know what the word god refers to in reality. Theists worship their gods and anti-theists speak up about the worst gods they know of saying "certainly gods such as these aren't worthy of worship". Some atheists aren't philosophically opposed to the worshiping of gods like the anti-theist variety atheists are, and even entertain the possibilty of themselves worshiping a god should they themselves become aware of one they find to be worthy. The term atheist comes from the Greek "a theos", literally "without gods". It is just any person who lacks a belief in deities. End of list. The term cannot be understood without knowing what a god is. One cannot know what a god is, without believing they exist at least in some manner. Side: Yes
1
point
This whole mess is pure sophistry. For starters, the reason you don't say people who are asymptomatic, apolitical, and asexual don't believe in those things is because those root words aren't about belief. A person who is asymptomatic lacks symptoms, just like a person who is an atheist lacks theism. Second, if an person believes a god exists, he or she isn't an atheist BY DEFINITION. Theism doesn't require WORSHIP of said gods- just belief in one or more. And trying to claim that existing only in the minds of believers counts as the existence of a god is so nonsensical as to be dismissed- it's you trying to redefine terms to suit yourself. Third, anti-theists aren't necessarily atheists to start. Many believe in gods and just don't find them worthy of worship- that means they aren't atheist. Fourth, it is nonsensical in the extreme to claim that one cannot be an atheist unless one believes a god exists "in some manner". You are again trying to pretend that imaginary is somehow equivalent to existence. Your false equivocation fallacy- trying to exchange two different meanings of the word "exist" as though they are the same- is obvious to anyone. Side: No
1
point
It's possible to believe in a god or gods without believing any of them are infallible or worthy of worship. Thats what I believe, so what should I call myself since (According to currently popular definitions) I should stop identifying as atheist because I believe gods exist as personality complexes much like what is described in diagnoses of MPD It's also possible to be an atheist who believes a person or people are worthy of worship, if not infallible. So, as I see it, you think it's possible to truly be atheist, while having gods, that you don't refer to as gods, Side: Yes
1
point
It's possible to believe in a god or gods without believing any of them are infallible or worthy of worship. Thats what I believe, so what should I call myself since (According to currently popular definitions) I should stop identifying as atheist because I believe gods exist as personality complexes much like what is described in diagnoses of MPD It's also possible to be an atheist who believes a person or people are worthy of worship, if not infallible. So, as I see it, you think it's possible to truly be atheist, while having gods, that you don't refer to as gods, What should you call yourself? I don't know...how 'bout Steve? And by Steve I mean a person who makes up their own definition for words because I've decided that's what the definition of Steve is. Now let's have a long drawn out debate about dictionary definitions and your right to ignore and reinvent them as you're wont to do. Also, people have been known to worship human beings, so one need not be a theist to do so...unless of course you want to redefine the meaning of the word theist (which you do of course). 0 sec ago Side: Yes
The objection to the popular conception of atheism in this debate, as I understand it, is that atheists may appreciate and believe in the concept of god and thus cannot be defined as being without belief in god. I think there is an obvious distinction to be made between believing that a concept exists and believing that the concept is an actuality. At any rate, the proposed definition of an atheist as "one who doesn't regard anyone as infallible, or worthy of worship" is at least equally fallible if the same logic is applied to it as to the popularly held definition. If an individual appreciates that others view any other person or thing as infallible or worthy of worship they conceive of the concept of that person or things infallibility and worship-worthiness, thus they would similarly believe in that infallibility and worship-worthiness. I think you are splitting semantic hairs to no truly purposeful end here. Side: No
|
