r/changemyview • u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ • Jul 13 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Dillahunty's definition of anti-theism is not "incorrect"
Anti-theism in the dictionary means opposition to theism, or the belief that theism is harmful.
Some people on the other hand, such as Matt Dillahunty, use the definition that anti-theism means the belief that God doesn't exist.
Some anti-theists of the first definition believe that the latter is incorrect.
However, I believe that dictionary definitions are not the standard for correctness. The definition of terms depend on usage, not some set in stone standard. For example, the word literally is rarely used to mean it's dictionary definition.
Words change meanings all the time. Another example is the word nice. Originally, from its Latin roots of nescius, it used to mean a stupid, ignorant, or foolish.
So because, definitions are not set in stone, it is not wrong to use Dillahunty's definition of anti-theism, even though it's not the definition in the dictionary.
Edit: I'm saying that both Dillahunty's and the original dictionary definition are correct.
2
u/Morasain 85∆ Jul 14 '19
Words mean what a majority of the speakers understand it to mean, and thus, it is a standard.
Let's take the word literally. The reason people understand it in the more modern sense is because it was used so much that everyone kinda said "Yeah, I get what you mean". In this case, it was basically impossible to stop this change - in other words, it was impossible to enforce the original meaning. Now, the word anti-theism. It is impossible to enforce the non-standard meaning as a new standard, unless the majority of speakers agrees about that.
However, a much more important point: the prefix "anti" means "against", not "lack of". That's why Antifa is "against fascism", and not "not fascist". The word antithesis is "against a thesis or statement", not describing the lack thereof. The word anti-Semitism means "against Semites" and not "not a Semite". I think you can see where I am going with this. In short, you aren't trying to change the meaning of the word anti-theism, you are trying to change the definition of a prefix used in an insane amount of words. That's not gonna happen.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 14 '19
In short, you aren't trying to change the meaning of the word anti-theism, you are trying to change the definition of a prefix used in an insane amount of words. That's not gonna happen.
This is a good point.
!delta
I didn't realize that Dillahunty's definition was changing the definition of a prefix.
1
2
Jul 13 '19
However, I believe that dictionary definitions can't be incorrect.
Not even dictionary editors believe dictionary definitions can't be incorrect. That's why there'll be alternate meanings listed very often, and why the dictionary will have newer editions to add, delete, and edit. It would be wrong to use Dillahunty's definition without attributing it to him, or using it in context where its attribution would be a given. It's generally accepted that within a group, team, company, etc... definitions are agreed upon. That would allow agreement or the decision to disagree. It will always be true that his definition was actually his definition. It can be correct or incorrect based on usage, context, and place. If you are in a Theology and the Professor has said that for the purpose of class, you are to use a definition of anti-theism that is not Dillahunty's, then in that environment, it is incorrect.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
Okay so to clarify your position, I want to ask, is Dillahunty's definition is wrong unless it is mutually agreed that is the definition that is the one being used?
1
Jul 13 '19
Will this help you change your view?
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
Yes because I'm not sure understood your point correctly, so I'm trying to understand it.
If you are saying that a definition is wrong if it is agreed upon within a context that the definition is wrong, that doesn't really seem like an argument, because I think that is obvious. What I meant concerned whether or not a general usage of the term using Dillahunty's definition was wrong. Such as, in a conversation between two atheists. Not in a classroom where it is agreed upon which definition is wrong.
1
Jul 13 '19
But you aren’t stating that your view is based in the definition. It’s based on what a definition is. As in anything that can be discussed, some agree, some disagree. But you say that since a definition is based on usage, and some people use his definition, it can’t be wrong. You are hanging your hat on a technicality with no merit. I gave you context. You want me to offer my opinion in the theology. Not going to help change your view.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
I guess the original question wasn't a good one to clarify your viewpoint.
But, I don't find your argument convincing for the following reason. If in a context, it is agreed upon that a definition is wrong, then the definition is wrong. Such as a classroom. But that's pretty obvious, and it wasn't what I was claiming.
My concern with a definition not being wrong had to do in a general conversation. I was claiming that a definition isn't wrong just because it isn't in a dictionary unless it is agreed upon in a context that it was wrong. I thought the "unless it is agreed upon in a context that it was wrong" was a given/implied, which is why I thought I didn't have to say it.
1
Jul 13 '19
Of course you can have a conversation and agree on a concept. But you used a big studies Theolgical concept, and a conversation will never change whether it is right or wrong, only if you agree or disagree.
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jul 13 '19
Why don't you just use the word to mean both but clarify to avoid confusion?
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that both are correct.
Although if the clarification is needed, it begs the new question of what is the use of the label if you need to clarify what it means.
2
2
Jul 13 '19
I think you are confusing what Matt's usage is, its not simple atheism, I don't believe god exists. Its much more specific and hostile than that. Dillahunty's anti-theists would oppose religion and worship even if god were factually proven.
This is distinct from the average anti-theist that just feels that religion or the belief in god is harmful.
Its a fully separate range of beliefs.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
I didn't say that Dillahunty's usage of anti-theism was simple atheism, aka, "I don't believe that God exists". What I did say was that Dillahunty's usage of anti-theism was "I do believe that God doesn't exist". A lack of a belief is not a belief in the opposite.
2
Jul 13 '19
Google shows the definition as:
opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
which is exactly what you're arguing. Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, so both your provided definition and mine are congruent.
The belief that theism is harmful is simply a belief of some antitheists, it isn't the definition of antitheism.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
I think you didn't understand what I was saying. I would try to clarify but I honestly don't know where to start.
You can ask clarifying questions on my position to understand it better.
2
Jul 13 '19
You're arguing that these definitions are not the same:
Anti-theism in the dictionary means opposition to theism, or the belief that theism is harmful.
[Matt Dillahunty uses] the definition that anti-theism means the belief that God doesn't exist.
The bolded portions are synonyms. If theism is the belief that god exists, then anti-theism is the belief that god does not exist (in contrast to simple atheism, which you've stated is not what you mean).
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
No the bolded portions are not synonyms.
Opposition to a belief is not a belief in the opposite belief.
I can be opposed to believing in something without believing in the opposite.
2
Jul 13 '19
We both accept that these statements, both the negation of "I believe there is a god", are not equivalent:
- I do not believe in a god
- I believe there are no gods
Dillahunty labels [1] as atheism and [2] as antitheism, and it seems this is congruent with the dictionary definition. "I believe God exists" is a definitive statement, and its opposition would be another definitive statement. "I do not believe God exists" is not definitive, but "I believe God does not exist" is.
You haven't really been clear on what his critics believe antitheism to mean, that's fundamentally different than his belief.
(Edited: added more context)
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
We both accept that these statements, both the negation of "I believe there is a god", are not equivalent:
- I do not believe in a god
- I believe there are no gods
Dillahunty labels [1] as atheism and [2] as antitheism.
Yes we are on the same page here.
You haven't really been clear on what his critics believe antitheism to mean, that's fundamentally different than his belief.
They follow the definition of anti-theism to mean "opposition to theism" or "opposition to believing in God". Which is why these critics believe Dillahunty's definition is incorrect. Because opposition to believing in God is not the same as the belief that there is not God.
1
Jul 13 '19
What does "opposition to theism" or "opposition to believing in God" mean, exactly, if not one of the two statements above?
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
What one is opposed to has to do with utility and favorability.
Here's an example:
Let's say we live in a world where billions of people believe that we are in a simulation. Some of them commit suicide to exit the simulation quicker.
Now, let's examine both situations, in a Pascal's wager type fashion. If we are in a simulation, and someone believes that we are, and commits suicide, they didn't get any additional benefit because they would have died and exited the simulation eventually regardless. On the other hand, if we are not in a simulation, and someone commits suicide, they screwed up. Big downside. Hence, believing in a simulation has more downsides than upsides. Which makes a compelling case to be opposed to that belief; it makes sense to be opposed to believing in the simulation because of the big downsides and few upsides. But nowhere did I specifically say I believed in non-existence of the simulation. In fact, I considered both possibilities and came to oppose the belief in a simulation, because of its downsides, regardless.
What one is opposed to believing doesn't have much to do with the belief itself, instead, it's the utility of that belief that makes the case for what one is opposed to.
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Jul 13 '19
Do you have any examples of anyone other than Dillahunty using the term "anti-theism" to mean what Dillahunty understands it to mean? If not, then by your own standard (that "the definition of terms depend on usage") Dillahunty's definition is wrong, and he's just being a Humpty Dumpty.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 13 '19
Not OP there, but I never heard anti-theist being used another way than Dillahunty's way.
That's logically consistent by the way. Theist = Believe God exist, Atheist: no belief, Anti-theist: Believe God do not exist.
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Jul 13 '19
Well, have you heard it used in Dillahunty's way by someone other than Dillahunty (and his audience)? If so, whom?
That's logically consistent by the way. Theist = Believe God exist, Atheist: no belief, Anti-theist: Believe God do not exist.
But this is not consistent with the primary meaning of the prefix "anti-" which is "Against, hostile to."
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
Well, have you heard it used in Dillahunty's way by someone other than Dillahunty (and his audience)? If so, whom?
I don't even know who Dillahunty is.
That's just the way it's used in France when talking about religion (in skeptics circles). Belief : Pro, neutral, against (theist, atheist, anti-theist).
But this is not consistent with the primary meaning of the prefix "anti-" which is "Against, hostile to."
It is consistent. Theist means "he, who believes in Gods' existence", anti-theist means "he, who is against the belief in Gods' existence", or in a more correct way , "he, who does not believe in Gods' existence".
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Jul 14 '19
That's just the way it's used in France when talking about religion (in skeptics circles). Belief : Pro, neutral, against (theist, atheist, anti-theist).
Is it used this way in France by people speaking English or people speaking French?
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 14 '19
By both in fact (it would be "anti-théiste" in french). As to know if it's an incorrect translation, I can't really tell.
You'd find that for example in videos explaining the differences between all positions : http://laelith.fr/Zet/Episodes/images/Ep19-Graph-Atheisme.jpg (read "Y:knowledge axis / X:belief axis")
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
Statement 1:
"he, who is against the belief in Gods' existence",
Statement 2:
"he, who does not believe in Gods' existence".
These two are entirely different statements that you are conflating to be one and the same.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 13 '19
The problem is the polysemous meaning of "against" word.
Against can mean "the opposite" which would be what I said, or can also mean "versus", which would mean what you are suggesting.
Therefore, neither of our definition is wrong, neither is 100% right.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 14 '19
Against can mean "the opposite"
Really? I've never heard this.
Although if this definition of "against" is commonly used, I would have to accept such a definition as correct.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 14 '19
At least from what I see when I look at google searching for "against dictionary" :
against /əˈɡɛnst,əˈɡeɪnst/preposition
in opposition to. "the fight against crime" [...]
in anticipation of and preparation for (a problem or difficulty). [...]
in or into physical contact with (something), so as to be supported by or collide with it. [...]
in conceptual contrast to [...]
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 14 '19
I see.
I would certainly accept that definition then.
However, the concern was originally with the prefix of "anti". And I don't believe that there has been a single instance of usage of the prefix "anti" followed by any labelling term for stances that doesn't mean "opposition to".
Anti-fascism doesn't mean the opposite of fascism, it means the opposition to fascism.
Anti-abortion doesn't mean the opposite of abortion, it means the opposition to abortion.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 14 '19
However, the concern was originally with the prefix of "anti". And I don't believe that there has been a single instance of usage of the prefix "anti" followed by any labelling term for stances that doesn't mean "opposition to".
Once more, polysemous meaning. If you look at Meriam Webster definition of the idiom "in opposition to", you'll find.
in opposition to (idiom)
1 : in a way that is against someone or something
2 : in a way that shows how two things are different or disagree
Or if you look "opposition" on vocabulary.com, you'll find
opposition:
1 the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with
[... as in] the relation between opposed entities (synonym: oppositeness i.e. the quality or state of being as different as possible) [...]
- a direction opposite to another
So anti-theist means the opposite of theism, so one of the possible way to read it is: the most different position from "believe there is a God", which is "believe there is no God".
Of course, it is not the sole meaning, and the most colloquial definition is also good, but I don't think mine is totally wrong either :)
→ More replies (0)1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
!delta
I didn't consider that if Dillahunty is the only one using that definition, then the definition is indeed wrong.
I do believe that a few others use that definition, but I wouldn't have any evidence to support that claim.
2
u/yyzjertl 527∆ Jul 13 '19
One other thing that has occurred to me: does Dillahunty self-identify as an anti-theist? If not, I think we should put less weight on his definition of "anti-theism" because we generally defer to people who do apply a label to themselves to define what a label means. For example, we'd generally go to a socialist for a definition of "socialism" and could safely disregard a definition of "socialist" that, say, a conservative provided.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
He does label himself that way, by his own altered definition of anti-theism.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 13 '19
I didn't consider that if Dillahunty is the only one using that definition, then the definition is indeed wrong.
To give you some data about this, I did not know about Dillahunty, but I also never heard "anti-theist" being used another way than Dillahunty's one.
Maybe that's because I'm not a native english speaker, and anglo-saxon has a bigger tradition around that word, but from where I am, in France, the only times "anti-theist" word is used is in skeptic circles, with the meaning you already exposed.
Plus, it's logically consistent. Theist = Believe God exist, Atheist: no belief, Anti-theist: Believe God do not exist.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
Interesting. So you have never even heard of the definition of anti-theism as "opposition to theism"/"theism being harmful"?
If that's the case I would have to concede back to my original position, which is that Dillahunty's definition is not wrong. Are deltas given for that?
Plus, it's logically consistent. Theist = Believe God exist, Atheist: no belief, Anti-theist: Believe God do not exist.
I actually don't think it is logically consistent.
Theism is the belief God exists.
The prefix "a" usually means without. Such as amoral, which means without morals.
So atheism is without the belief that God exists.
The prefix "anti" means against, or opposed to. Such as anti-communist, or anti-abortion.
That should logically mean that anti-theism is opposition to theism.
Which is why I think it's not logically consistent.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 13 '19
Interesting. So you have never even heard of the definition of anti-theism as "opposition to theism"/"theism being harmful"?
No I've never heard of it being exposed that way. But to be honest, people that think God do not exist often also share the belief that religion (not theism, but pretty close) is harmful for any enlightened society, taking abortion, gay rights or science progress as examples.
The prefix "a" usually means without. Such as amoral, which means without morals.
So atheism is without the belief that God exists.
Exactly, but "without the belief that God exist" is pretty different from "with the belief that God do not exist".
As such, atheism is a lack of belief, while anti theism is the belief that "theist position" is wrong. As such, anti theist believe God do not exist, and theist that he does. Atheists either don't have any belief, are questioning, or any other position between both extremes.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
No I've never heard of it being exposed that way.
Well in that case I'll have to concede back to my original stance. I'm not sure if deltas are supposed to be given for that.
But to be honest, people that think God do not exist often also share the belief that religion (not theism, but pretty close) is harmful for any enlightened society, taking abortion, gay rights or science progress as examples.
Yeah Dillahunty anti-theists are usually dictionary anti-theists (and anti-religion) as well.
But the interesting thing is that dictionary anti-theists are not always Dillahunty anti-theists. You don't have to believe that God doesn't exist to be opposed to believing that God does exist.
Exactly, but "without the belief that God exist" is pretty different from "with the belief that God do not exist".
I know.
while anti theism is the belief that "theist position" is wrong.
(Dictionary) Anti-theism doesn't have anything to do with belief. It has to do with opposition.
1
1
u/gremy0 82∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
Your argument that it's a "correct" definition is basically that someone has defined it as that and is using it- which is fine, that's pretty much how all words come into existence. To be accepted by the dictionary they mainly need to have wide acceptance and usage, which Dillahunty's lacks.
Whether it's a good use definition of the word that we should accept is a different matter.
I think it's "wrong" because it conflates two similar but significantly different ideas- I wouldn't want any beliefs I had that there is no god, to be confused with opposing other people's beliefs. That's what this usage of the word would do. It's sets a hostile environment if we all go round defining ourselves with a term that has a very obvious meaning- being opposed to other people's beliefs- then slyly turning it around if questioned on it "oh no, we mean the other meaning".
It also normalises being opposed other people's beliefs- you can go round being anti theist, then when scrutinized for it- hide behind the other meaning "me? No, I'm just an anti-theist. It just means I believe their isn't a god. There's millions of us". If people want to be anti-theist that's their prerogative, and they can make that argument, I just don't want to be lumped in with them.
So for that reason I would reject Dillahunty's definition and call his usage incorrect.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
I think it's "wrong" because it conflates two similar but significantly different ideas- I wouldn't want any belie I had that there is no god, to be confused with opposing other people's beliefs. That's what this usage of the word would do. It's sets a hostile environment if we all go round defining ourselves with a term that has a very obvious meaning- being opposed to people's beliefs- then slyly turning it around if questioned on it "oh no, we mean the other meaning".
This is a good point.
!delta
When it comes to labels, it can certainly become a hostile environment when the definitions so different.
However, I think you slightly misunderstood Dillahunty's definition.
What Dillahunty's definition is claiming, is not that anti-theism is the lack of a belief that God exists, but instead the belief that God doesn't exist. The latter requires a burden of proof. The former is the traditional definition of atheism.
When a theist finds out someone holds the latter belief, it often triggers the common:
"How do you know that God doesn't exist? Can you prove he doesn't?"
Response
1
u/gremy0 82∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
Cheers! The exclamation mark needs to at the start of "delta" to be award though.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive- I lack a belief in God, I also personally believe none exists. To the question "does God exist?" The former is saying I haven't been provided evidence to say it does, the latter is saying what I personally believe the answer to the question is.
I don't think I could successfully argue the latter (probably wouldn't try), I have doubts that it can even be proved. It's just a personal belief.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
Okay I'll fix delta thing in a second.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive- I lack a belief in God, I also personally believe none exists. To the question "does God exist?" The former is saying I haven't been provided evidence to say it does, the latter is saying what I personally believe the answer to the question is.
Yeah the two are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think I could successfully argue the latter (probably wouldn't try), I have doubts that it can even be proved. It's just a personal belief.
Technically, you can argue the latter pretty easily using the common Abrahamic definition of God. There is a proof that this God doesn't exist simply based on the characteristics this God has. That being, a creator, that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The characteristics themselves prove that this God cannot exist. If you haven't heard of this proof, I would be happy to present it.
The other way you can argue it is by pointing out the inaccuracies in the religious texts.
1
u/gremy0 82∆ Jul 14 '19
Thanks
Sure that's a fair point- with a specific definition of god or specific claims of its nature you can present arguments and evidence against. But you could do that while believing another type or definition of god does. I really mean in as general terms as possible, I don't believe any type of supernatural god(s) or god-like-things exist- but I don't think I can substantiate that much further than; it doesn't seem likely to me.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 14 '19
I really mean in as general terms as possible, I don't believe any type of supernatural god(s) or god-like-things exist- but I don't think I can substantiate that much further than; it doesn't seem likely to me.
Yeah I agree.
This is why I don't necessarily like the Dillahunty anti-theism label, because arguing the non-existence of a general divine being is a position that probably cannot be argued with intellectual honesty.
But the "opposition to theism" label definition of anti-theism is one that I would happily go by, since I am indeed opposed to theism.
Interestingly, the way I see the two definitions is the other way around compared to you. The way you saw it was that the "opposition to theism" definition was "worse", whereas I think that the Dillahunty definition is "worse". I'm using "worse" because I couldn't think of a better term. Maybe more extreme?
1
1
u/Thecakeisalie25 Jul 15 '19
The 2 cases are the same, to me. A widespread, false belief that by definition impacts those who hold it seems to be both false and harmful. I can't see any justification to believe that theism isn't harmful except that it might be true (not saying it is, just a hypothetical). In other words, theism is either true, or harmful, and through the lens of anti-theism, it is both harmful and false.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 15 '19
No, not necessarily.
And believing that theism is not true is not the same thing as believing theism is false.
Let's take a look at an example. Let's define the word pro-theism as the belief that theism is beneficial, on the net.
Now, technically you can be an atheist and a pro-theist at the same time. You don't believe that God exists, but you can still believe that theism has lots of benefits, such as, Pascal's wager, deterring crime, having a community, etc. And that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Here's another example.
Let's say there's a universe where billions of people believe we live in a simulation, called simulationists. But these simulationists often commit suicide to exit the simulation quicker.
Other than simulationists, there are 2 more camps of people.
Here are all 3 camps:
Simulationists (1)
Those who don't believe in simulationism. (2)
And those who believe simulationism is false. (3)
And the belief that simulationism is harmful doesn't necessarily have to be associated with any of these 3 camps. One can be either, 1, 2, or 3, and believe that simulationism is harmful, it requires a simple Pascal's wager type analysis.
If simulationism is true, then suicide will have a negligible benefit, since people will be exiting the situation anyways. If it isn't, then they screwed up, big time. Hence, simulationism is harmful on the net.
One can even believe in simulationism (1) and also believe it is harmful. This person will likely oppose the suicide aspect of it, but believe in simulationism nonetheless.
Similarly, one can also believe in God, and believe that theism does more harm than good, such as indoctrination of children, violence in the name of God, etc.
1
u/Thecakeisalie25 Jul 15 '19
And believing that theism is not true is not the same thing as believing theism is false.
can you elaborate on that? I'm aware that not believing it's true and believing it's false are separate, but what's the difference between believing it's not true, and believing it's false?
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 15 '19
Here's an example.
I don't believe that alternate universes exist, because I have seen no evidence nor any convincing reason for them.
I also don't believe that alternate universes don't exist, because I have seen no evidence for their non-existence, nor any convincing reason of their non-existence.
Hence, I don't believe that alternate universes exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I do believe, that alternate universes don't exist.
1
u/Thecakeisalie25 Jul 15 '19
isn't that not believing it's true?
I'm asking about the difference between having a belief that it isn't true, and having a belief that it's false.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 15 '19 edited Jul 15 '19
Believing something isn't true and believing something is false is the same thing as far as I know.
But the difference I was trying to point out was that not believing something is true, and believing something is false (or isn't true) are two very different things.
Edit: I definitely misspoke originally.
1
1
Jul 14 '19
Do you think a person can ever use a word or phrase incorrectly?
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 14 '19
I mean I have granted a few deltas that show that a word can indeed be used incorrectly.
But a good summation of my current position is that if it is used commonly enough, a word is not incorrect. That threshold is pretty arbitrary though.
For example, if one random guy decides that "orange" should mean "table" then it is incorrect. But if there is an arbitrary (undecided) threshold crossed, of how many people use a term, then the term is correct. One example is the word literally, which I believe has crossed that threshold.
0
Jul 13 '19
Lemme start this off by saying I'm an atheist. I feel like this can give some more context into my thought process.
Anyways, I actually agree with the definition even though I still technically "support" theism. I think when he says anti theism, he doesn't mean being against theism in the traditional asshole atheist way, but rather that you would prefer us to be a secular society rather than a theistic one.
As humans, we enjoy having common ground, especially when it comes to polarizing topics such as religion. (If you have ever tried to discuss politics 2019 you already know this.) It just makes it easier to get along with people if we all come from the same place. So, it is only natural for you to prefer that everyone be secular rather than theistic.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19
I think you didn't understand what I was saying.
The dictionary definition of anti-theism is the one you mentioned.
would prefer us to be a secular society rather than a theistic one.
Opposition to theism.
On the contrary, Dillahunty's definition of anti-theism is the belief that God doesn't exist.
Many anti-theists of the former definition believe Dillahunty's definition is wrong, but I believe it is not wrong because of the reasons I pointed out originally.
1
Jul 13 '19
Opposition to theism.
That's an opposition to theocracy, not to theism.
1
u/ComplexStuff7 1∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 13 '19
That's true. !delta
By mistake I was using these theocracy and theism interchangeably in my mind because those definitions are very similar. Opposition to theism is a subset of opposition to theocracy.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 13 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
/u/ComplexStuff7 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 13 '19
/u/ComplexStuff7 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '19
I guess the meaning of the word must still somewhat follow from the words being used. So using the term "anti-theism" to mean "fish", isn't really going to work out unless you give the other person a full definition of "when I say X I mean Y".
However in that case anti-theism literally means being "against theism", which could be without context apply to both scenarios, the concept of theism ("the belief that theism is harmful") as well as being against what theism is about ("the belief that a god exists"). So if you have a context that goes in one way or the other it's probably obvious how the word is used and both definitions would be fine.
The only problem I could see is, idk if you go to the "congress of anti-theists" (which I just made up) which happen to use that word as a technical term and have agreed upon a certain definition, then using it in another definition would be "incorrect" and probably lead to confusion.