Posted by rpcman on October 06, 1999 at 13:49:20:
In Reply to: Logic? posted by Q on October 06, 1999 at 13:25:35:
: Isn't agnosticism (in it's strong form) self-defeating?
Yes. That is part of the point I'm making. The other is to show that people mean different things when they use the word. I'm agnostic in the "unknowing" sense as well as in Huxley's sense. I'm not agnostic in the sense that I think there is some middle ground between theism and atheism.
: Just curious, why bother to redefine atheism? In every dictonary I've been able to lay hands on, atheism is defined as "The belief that there is no God"(Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, copyright 1992).
Which is one correct definition. However, if you break the word down a-theist is merely anyone who is not-theist and that includes those who merely lack a belief. Websters is wrong, IMO, if they don't include those people.
I've used this analogy before on the board... Something can't be both not green and not not green. It is either one or the other. If agreen was a word then it would include all colors except green. Similarly, when someone doesn't positively assert belief in a god or gods they are not a theist and hence, by default if nothing else, must be an atheist, or, if that word sounds too 'dirty' because of its history, a non-theist. Atheist and non-theist mean exactly the same thing in my book though.