@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Olivier claims we are wrong in our self definitions, although non-hard atheism is understood by many, including some dictionaries. You are free to self define, Olivier, go to it. That is what kolyo asked.
Whhhaaaat?.... Where does that come from? This is a horrible misunderstanding.
I now realize you mentioned the importance of self-titling several times and I didn't pick the clue...
For the record, I don't disagree with anybody's self definition. I never did. If i gave that impression in a post, that was probably my mistake but i never meant to deny the title to anyone who calls him or herself an atheist. Never. That would be downright rude of me or anyone. Many shades are fine with me.
My position all along has been that there are several different meanings for the terms atheist and atheism in use in real life language, not unlike the dictionary definitions provided by others than me upthread. As you said, definitions are written by people too...
I generally agree with most of these 'official' definitions and actually find Thomas' the best...
I was just saying that atheists can have ideological motivations like anybody else, when Beth argued that atheism being pure absence of belief, it could not possibly motivate or be part of anything like an ideology. I believe that this argument is weak, precisely because Atheism CAN, for some people mean something else or more than that.
This semantic storm was confusing and a pure waste of time. This was posted 2 days ago:
Quote:'Atheism' may mean several things to several people. Therefore it's not an ideology. [...] Yet, each individual atheist may have his/her ideology, a personal system of political thought.[...] Nothing wrong with it as long as you don't let your ideology dominate you body and soul. But yes, atheists can have ideological motives just like anybody else.
http://able2know.org/topic/267220-5#post-5885850
Hope this clarifies.