Originally Posted by
AJ Camacho
I've tried to explain it, but the semantic of atheism that myself, Dawkins, Hitchens, (you know the types) etc... place themselves under is not that of a person who believes that there is no God. It is simply the absence of a belief in all gods. You are really just making headway with a strawman here.
It's not strawman it's pointing out that the way the term "Athiest" as it is used by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc is incorrect, the word Agnostic has been around longer then they have and its the word that acually means what their use of "Athiest" is ment to mean, so there was no reason to change the peramiters of the term. The dictionary hasn't changed the meaning yet because there is no reason to. There is already a word in place with that defenition. It wouldn't be strawman, if I was commiting a fallacy it would be the fallicy of equivocation, when you slide between two or more different meanings of a single term or phrase in an arguement withoutmaking it explicit. But my terms haven't changed thay are the same as defined by the dictioary.
Bookmarks