Of course it is relevant. Atheism can only be sustained by reason, not by the fact that we are born atheists.
Still not relevant.
Every philosopher including comte himself who saw that his original definition, the one the dictionary cites, is wrong.
sorry, no philosopher is the dictator if language. so you can list for anybody you want that says it's wrong but they can't show it to be wrong.
i am not claiming that it is wrong. Merely that it is a definition that has flaws because it was created to suite theists.
it's still common usage. I don't care how you feel about the common people that use it that's how words are defined.
You mistake the fact that you have not heard the idea for being esoteric. It is merely an expanded explenation of atheism nothing more.
well I respected that it's an expanded explanation but it's not common usage. and if you have to go into a dissertation about what the word means you're missing the point of words.
And yet we do have theists who not only believe in the existence of a god but will quite happily tell you they also know what he wants.
do you ever ask them to prove it?
Did you not just make the claim that you are a theist.
I don't understand the reason you're asking me this question so I refuse to answer until you do.
The analogy of santa was to make the point that there is a difference between knowledge of and belief in. Why you brought up the point that you do not believe ion santa was a bit irrelevant but i answered it anyway.
I never mentioned Santa Claus once that's all you so you must have me confused with someone else.
True, we started out on this conversation to discuss the meaning of gnostism which led onto the meaning of atheism and how it is being distorted by some theists.
no again you must have me confused with someone else I never mention gnosticism until you started ranting about it. The only thing I've been discussing is how agnostic people are atheist by definition.
Again, that is a tautology. If you argue the meaning of words then you are arguing semantics.
you're the one that keeps insisting that the dictionaries are wrong. doors that it's some sort of theist conspiracy or some retarded **** like that.
I'm arguing that common usage of words is what we go by. If you want to expand upon the meaning you may do so what do you get to say the meaning that is applied buy the speakers is wrong.
That is exactly my point. You can find many definitions of the word nut in a dictionary. The only means we have of determining the meaning of the word is by context.
your point is flawed. The word nut can't mean anything. It can't mean tree it can't mean car it has a specific set of meanings through context do you remove ambiguity you don't derive meaning through context alone.
Something being esoteric is not in it self a reason to reject the idea.
I didn't reject the idea the only thing you said so far and that I reject is this theist conspiracy to define the word to mean a lack of belief and somehow suggesting who knows what. That's kind of stupid but other than that are you accept that this esoteric meaning is an esoteric mean it's just not a common usage and that's the only thing I'm saying.
To do so is to say you have a closed mind and refuse to accept any new ideas.
to think I'm rejecting anything but your moronic little conspiracy theory is you not paying attention to the conversation, are you trying to make a straw man, are you confusing me with someone else.
Again nothing i have said is new. Nor is anything i have said fail as far as reasoning goes.
I never heard this crap about theists being in charge of what atheism means sounds like snowflaky sjw nonsense, so I'm ridiculing the hell out of that idea because I find it moronic. But that's the only one.
It would seem that your real argument is that you are unwilling to look at anything from a new angle no matter how reasonable it sounds simply because you have never heard it before.
seems you've had your head shoved in the sand for this entire discussion. how can we have talked to this long and you have no clue what my argument is? It's almost like you're not even reading.
My argument has been from the beginning what the meaning of atheist is in common usage because that's how people use the word. If you want to get your panties in a bunch about how that words defined that's okay I told you I would hear your nuance and I did. I haven't told you it was wrong. I haven't rejected anything except for the moronic sjw nonsense.
So the question I have for you is why in the hell are you so narrow-minded and so unwilling to read what other people have to say? It seems you are guilty of what you accused me of.