No, the study of history is not "undercut" by change in language. The prima facie evidence is that fact that every University in the world uses the history to inform modern understanding and expects all students to demonstrate a mastery of relevant history in their work... but I suppose if you think it is unimportant.... I accept it to the degree that it tells me about who you are and how I might address you in future discussions.

Still, I am interested in VJack's opinion behind his post.

Does this post imply that you now care what I think or just a demonstration that you can copy and paste from Wikipedia? Can you demonstrate an understanding of the Philosophies and Philosophers that are referenced or should I carry on a discussion with contributors of Wikipedia?

Patronizing? The definition for this word is to "treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority"

I am not patronizing Kevinbbg. He offered an unsolicited opinion that demonstrates a lack of intellectual curiosity. That is my interpretation of his curt remark. I offer him no kindness of unkindness, just an observation. I am not claiming superiority, but I do find this remark foolish and unnecessary.

You are free to disagree, but that is my opinion and I stand by it.

You said, "But that was the sole basis you gave for your objection, was it not? "

Fair enough. I did not provide a comprehensive list of possible sources VJack could us to establish the validity of his definition. I would hope, however, he recognize that this is a blog comment, and not a dissertation and he would feel free to provide other sources which I did not mention by name, but were relevant to the formation of his thoughts.

And no, asking for historical sourcing does not vitiate the acknowledgment that language changes. Historical inquiry is not rendered moot just because change occurs.

Ah, the mantra of the uneducated fool. How sad and pathetic when a person is unwilling to open their mind and engage the world outside.

PhillyChief,

I don't recall saying historical usage was the "sole" basis, I just asked for some insight on how VJack came by his definition and to undergird his assertion up with some outside sources. I am sure he has some, but I would like to know what they are.

The definition I proffered was not a "theistic" one as you wrongly assumed. It comes from my study of classical philosophy and the dictionary installed with my Mac was just a convenient source.

Bertrand Russell recognizes a difference between these terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" and also how these terms can change in culture and among people of different educational levels.

He said, "Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

It would seem that you, PhillyChief, are the 'ordinary" man of which Russell speaks and I am finding quite quickly that this the level to which this site is written and audience which it has attracted.

Regarding the change in how terms are used, you are right in observing the obvious--language and word meanings change. In the early first Century, writings from this time show Roman officials referring to Christians as "atheists" because they denied the accepted pantheon of Gods.

As someone who studied philosophy, Russell understood the technical definition of Atheistm, but also understood that those without such education did not understand its Philosophic usage and so he adapted his use for different contexts. Given the two responses so far to my query, I can see the wisdom of Russell's thinking.

To set your mind at ease, I agree the definition of the word "Atheist" varies depending on context (both historical and cultural). This is the very reason I asked VJack for his historical basis for his definition. It is a quite reasonable question. Asking someone to validate their assertion with outside sources is an accepted academic practice in higher education, so maybe that concept is new to you and some others on the forum... I am mot familiar with everyone here, so I cannot say for certain.

Hi, you seem to redefine Atheism as Agnosticism. What is the basis in historical usage for your definition?

In all of the reading I have done, Atheism is the philosophic belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the term that makes no assertion in either direction. Thus on a spectrum we have Theists (YES, there is a god or gods) -- Agnostics (in the middle, on the fence) -- Atheist (NO, there is no god or gods).

A simple source to affirm this definition is my dictionary.

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.
DERIVATIVES
atheist noun
atheistic |ˌāθēˈistik| adjective
atheistical |-ˈistikəl| adjective
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’

agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
adjective
of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
DERIVATIVES
agnosticism |-təˌsizəm| noun
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 1 [not] + gnostic .

So on what basis should I accept your personal definition of Atheism over the accepted usage in the dictionary or in most every philosophy I have read?

If you study child development/psychology, you learn that abstract reasoning is a higher skill than concrete reasoning. The baby using concrete thinking believes his mom "vanishes" when she leaves the room--thus he cries for her return. As the baby matures, he develops the skill of abstract thinking that allow him to recognize the existence of a world outside his crib that exists--even if he cannot see it.

You also seem to confuse agreement with understanding. One party does not have to agree with the other about the basis of "living" to have dialogue, one just has to have the capacity to understand the disagreement and find inroads to communicate past the differences.

Admittedly, it is difficult and not many people posses the skills necessary for such dialogue.

LOL... too funny. I have found that when people start calling names like "moron" before they have any knowledge about the other person it stems from a lack of education. I am not surprised John that you you have had bad experience talking with people who have divergent views--but my guess is that your experience is a reflection of who you are as a person.

I wont engage you any further since your comments to date lack any meaningful insight or intellectual depth--you are welcome to the final response.

Joshua,

I think that is a good list (especially the stuff you borrowed from me :-). Seriously though, I think it expresses on honesty about your goals and a clear basis for your thinking that, for me, is the right beginning to meaningful interfaith (human) conversation.