(yeagds, I hope I posted this in the right thread this time, heh)
I gotta admit, Chairboy, that my thinking was that atheists
believed that there was no god, and that agnostics just
didn't know.
Yet I also
believe in language, and note the exploitation and manipulation of it regularly.
Meriam Webster gives its definition of "apolitical" as such:
"having no interest or involvement in political affairs.."
And "ahistoric" as "not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition."
It would seem to follow then that "Atheist" would mean not having an interest or concern with "theism" (the belief in the existence of a god or gods).
In other words, Atheism is merely a lack of theism - just like you say.
In fact, I'm not sure what word preceded by "a" constututes not only a lack of belief or interest in one thing, while at the same time being an expression of another belief....
.....except in the sole case of "atheism," for some reason, which Webster calls: " a disbelief in the existence of deity [or] the doctrine that there is no deity."
It's a weird thing.... and disconnected.
I mean, for another example, "amoral" is "being neither moral nor immoral." It's not one way or the other. It's just none of the above.
Yet they say atheism
is one way.
I think MW have it wrong, and please stop banging your head against the wall, because you make perfect sense and you will only end up hurting yourself.
