Atheists & Agnostics
In reply to the discussion: Dishonesty and thoughtlessness in believers. [View all]LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)and its technical use. You are a mathematician correct?
Then you are probably aware of the differences in the definition of the word theory from the common use, as it is used in the natural sciences, and how it is used in mathematics.
This is probably an example of using different words to pin down a more precise definition. Literalist, I am guessing in the case of the OP, refers to someone who not only believes in the bible, but takes every word literally. I am also taking the term modernist as someone who takes more modern views on the world and incorporates those views into their theology by interpreting the bible more figuratively.
This tendency for a common definition to be at odds with a technical definition would also apply to the definition of atheist and agnostic. I would agree with you that if I grabbed a regular person off the street they would probably agree with your definition. They would also, more than likely, define a theory as a guess or a hunch.
On the other hand, the technical definition, which I believe you will find most of the members of this forum agreeing with, is very different. Atheism taken from its etymological roots means lacking or without theism. Thus it means without or lacking theism or a belief in gods. Both the person you describe as an atheist and the one you describe as an agnostic fit this definition. Generally a person who neither believes in any gods or believes there are no gods is called an weak/negative/ or implicit atheist, while one who believes there are no gods is a positive, strong, or explicit atheist.
Depending on the dictionary you choose, you will find that as the definition of the word:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
Now compare oxfords definition with Merriam Websters:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
If you go back to really old dictionaries you will also find them defining us as wicked or immoral persons. Why? This is because old dictionaries were largely written by theists and mainly represented the common definition of the word, while more modern ones use more technically and politically correct definitions.
Also, if you go far enough back you can hit REALLY interesting common definitions of the word. The ancient romans used their word for it to describe anyone who did not acknowledge their pantheon. This means they called the early Christians atheists as well.
Again, I would argue that I and most of us who identify as atheists probably use the technical definition of lack of belief in god(s). For example, here are a couple of links from two of the biggest atheist organizations:
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
Here are some more links on this topic if your interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist14.htm
Now agnosticism etymologically means without knowledge. To put that into its technical definition one that believes that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist or not.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
By this one can be both an agnostic and an atheist or both an agnostic and a theist. Many implicit atheist call themselves agnostic atheists because of this fact.
One other thing to note is that there is a HUGE stigma associated with the word atheist. Some atheist will take advantage of the common misconception of these definitions to avoid the ostracism that comes along with the atheist label. Other atheist actually might buy into the stigma and reject the atheist label entirely because they believe that only bad people/assholes can be atheists.
Many of us are trying to fight this stigma, and as such will object STRONGLY if you describe us using the common definition. I, myself, am an implicit atheist or if you will an agnostic atheist with some explicit atheist leanings. By your definition, you would probably call me a agnostic who leans toward overt disbelief. But I would quickly correct anyone who would try and say I am not an atheist.
Anyway, back on topic, another way of looking at it is to think of gods being your car and belief being your garage. An theist believes his/her car is in his/her garage, an atheist either is not sure or believes their car is not in the garage. A gnostic KNOWS whether his/her car is in the garage, and an agnostic does not know if it is there or not.
Sorry for the long post and 50 million links, but this is a very contentious issue and the subject of many wars in the religion forum.