I'm just a lurker
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:08:50 -0500 (00917921330, 20070099985168@unifour.com)
On 1 Feb 99, at 0:35, spark wrote:
> SPARK
> Achilles, I have to disagree with you, when you stated that Till was
> more of an agnostic than an atheist.
Achilles
All right. First, let me dig back through my files and see what I actually
said.
> >Achilles
> >
> >Well, to be fair to Carter, his understanding of the word and mine
> >mesh. The position you take seems eminently reasonable to me, but it is
> >not one I would characterize as "atheist." Agnostic seems to me a
> >better choice to describe that position, since atheist can also be
> >understood as he understood it, and I dare say that most would
> >understand it so.
After I posted that, Till suggested I review the meaning of the word, beginning
with etymology, and I did. I showed the common usage of "atheist" and
"agnostic" to be consistent with the etymology, and then further provided the
dictionary definitions (which in english, unlike french, describe rather than
prescribe usage) which agreed with my (and Jason's) understanding of the words.
If you missed that I can repost it. :')
If Till wants to use "atheist" with the non-standard meaning he ascribes to it,
that's his choice to make. I am no English-snob that will argue the "correct"
meaning of a term - in fact I find those who do to be quite annoying. I would
only suggest that if he, or you, or anyone else, insists on using a word in a
sense which is not consistent with common usage you should keep in mind the
fact that most people will not understand it the way that you mean it, and you
should not be surprised or offended by their misunderstanding.
> Hasn't Till mentioned again and
> again that he lacks the belief in gods? Wouldn't that
> make him an atheist? I have always thought that a person was either a
> theist, someone who believes in a god or gods, or an atheist, someone
> who DOES NOT believe in a god or gods. There is no middle ground.
> Agnosticism can be applied to either, as in 'I am an agnostic theist,'
> or 'I am an agnostic atheist,' right? At least, that is what the
> knowledge I've obtained up to now leads me to believe. George Smith
> says it nicely, in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God": "...
> agnosticism is not an independent position or a middle way between
> theism and atheism, because it classifies according to different
> criteria. Theism and atheism separate those who believe in a god from
> those who do not. Agnosticism separates those who
> believe that reason cannot penetrate the supernatural realm from those
> who defend the capability
> of reason to affirm or deny the truth of theistic belief."
Achilles
I don't think George Smith is the only author to support such a usage of those
words either. I have come across it more than once. My point remains, however,
that the usage you, Till, and Smith prefer is not the common usage of the term.
Open up a dictionary and see what they say. They do not agree with your
definition.
I would not claim anyone has an obligation to let the dictionary rule your
usage of any given word. But if you deliberately choose to use a word to mean
something other than what it means in common usage (reflected by the
dictionary) then you should certainly not be surprised if people misunderstand,
nor imply from their misunderstanding any deficiency on their part. If you
choose to use a word in a non-standard way you should simply accept the fact
that you are going to have to explain what you mean by it, and explain it again
each time you use it in speaking to someone who hasn't heard your explanation
before.
Which seems to me like an awful lot of trouble to go through when there is
another word which carries, in common usage, the exact meaning you desire to
convey.
Regards,
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proven
innocent.
-- Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love