RCAlyra2004:
I wholeheartedly apologize if I gave you the impression I was tell you what to believe, as I was just trying to clarify an ambiguity of language that I thought was causing your misunderstanding.
While I value your opinion, I think that you may be overstepping your boundaries by criticising a dictionary whose sole purpose is to clarify the meanings of words. While you might be very intelligent, I doubt you've spent as much time researching the etymology or meaning behind any word than a company who publishes a dictionary with "over 90,000 entries feature 10,000 new words and senses, 70,000 audio word pronunciations, 900 full-page color illustrations, language notes and word-root appendixes."
Furthermore, Wikipedia, your own source -- while valuable, is hardly a definitive source. I doubt you'll find "Pwn" in the dictionary. Wikipedia, however --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn.
Even so, Wikipedia clarifies our reason for disagreement in the text itself:
Quote:
There are two main forms of atheism:
* Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
* Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.
Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", nonbelief, disbelief or doubt of the existence of deities are forms of atheism. However, many strong atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it is the active "denial of the existence of God or gods". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "weak atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position.
|
So, unfortunately -- we were both incorrect and correct. While the position can be termed weak atheism, it can also be termed agnosticism.
Beyond the semantics of my definition, I return to the grandparent's topic:
I personally believe that strong Atheists and Theists are capable of fanaticism , while Agnostics (weak Atheists) are not. "A fanatic is a person filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause..." (Wikipedia). Because a strong Atheist is commited to the strict non-existance of a God, they cannot be critical of their own beliefs. In critically analyzing strong Atheism, any rational person will admit that they are turning a blind-eye to the possibility of a God or gods. This, in itself, is zealotry and fanaticism. Similarly, a strong Theist turns a blind eye to the possibilty of a non-existance of a God or gods. Agnostics (weak atheists), however, accept both possibilities. This is achieved through being critical of their own beliefs - therefore breaking the above-stated criterion of fanaticism.