[002]
RobinZimm
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
-->So, we\'re supposed to let atheists speak for and define themselves, but not when it conflicts with what a \
to:
-->So, we\\\'re supposed to let atheists speak for and define themselves, but not when it conflicts with what a \\\"true atheist\\\" should be?
Right now? My answer is no. But I think the reason for that requires that the section be edited. So: Samadhir, others, what do you think of the following to replace that paragraph?
:: The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition -- but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] Thus, to say an atheist is all those and only those who identify as atheists, while valid from a social perspective, is profoundly unsatisfying even from an etymological viewpoint[[note]]a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".[[/note]], much less a philosophical one.
(Note reads: a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".)
Right now? My answer is no. But I think the reason for that requires that the section be edited. So: Samadhir, others, what do you think of the following to replace that paragraph?
:: The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition -- but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] Thus, to say an atheist is all those and only those who identify as atheists, while valid from a social perspective, is profoundly unsatisfying even from an etymological viewpoint[[note]]a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".[[/note]], much less a philosophical one.
(Note reads: a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
-->So, we\'re supposed to let atheists speak for and define themselves, but not when it conflicts with what a \
to:
-->So, we\\\'re supposed to let atheists speak for and define themselves, but not when it conflicts with what a \\\"true atheist\\\" should be?
Right now? My answer is no. But I think the reason for that requires that the section be edited. So: Samadhir, others, what do you think of the following to replace that paragraph?
:: The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition -- but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] Thus, to say an atheist is all those and only those who identify as atheists, while valid from a social perspective, is profoundly unsatisfying even from an etymological viewpoint[[note]]a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".[[/note]], much less a philosophical one.
Right now? My answer is no. But I think the reason for that requires that the section be edited. So: Samadhir, others, what do you think of the following to replace that paragraph?
:: The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition -- but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] Thus, to say an atheist is all those and only those who identify as atheists, while valid from a social perspective, is profoundly unsatisfying even from an etymological viewpoint[[note]]a = \\\"not\\\", theist = \\\"god-affiliated\\\".[[/note]], much less a philosophical one.
