Ask yourself, "What is the minimum requirement to qualify as atheist?"

Answer: "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

This is all about that ag nostic belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, who are also atheist,

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CC9BDEDEF8Mekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Thu 15 Apr 2004 01:03:46p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length,

asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CC5E6796C1BMekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Tue 13 Apr 2004 12:15:17p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length,
fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CA61512AA3CMekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Wed 31 Mar 2004 07:45:14p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length,

fell

asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069cc56$0$17260$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069afa5$0$18927$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069810a$0$18927$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4068ff78$0$17251$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com>
writes:

"Kosta Atheos" <kosta@nogod.no> wrote in message
news:4K5ac.30394$Vv5.15861

@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com.

..

A reputable dictionary such as The Oxford English

Dictionary,

The

American

Heritage Dictionary http://www.bartleby.com/61/,
or Merriam-

Webster

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm.

Let's go with the American Heritage Dictionary
then,

for

example.

"1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God
or gods."

What would you say is the the difference between
"disbelief"

and

"denial

of"?

They are very similar words.

Disbelief is what negative atheism is, they lack
the belief in

god.

"Disbelief" is not "a lack of belief". Look it up.

The OED says it can be:

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to
refuse credence

to:

a.

a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or
reality of.

Not to believe. That's a lack of belief.

No it's not. Notice how this all appears on the same

numbered

sense

(or

meaning) of the word. A lack of belief is not the same
meaning as

"to

reject the truth or reality of".

I don't see where every usage of "disbelieve" has to
include all those definitions.

This is *one* definition of *one* meaning (or sense) of the

word.

An interpretation of this *one* meaning that generates

multiple

meanings

is

obviously incorrect.

What? Are you saying words can't have multiple meanings?

Words can have multiple meanings. Dictionaries separate these
multiple meanings and number (and/or letter) them for clarity.
Words with

multiple

meanings don't share the same line in dictionaries. This is
very basic knowledge.

But you've quotes definitions like this one:
"1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

That one definition includes four combinations:

Disbelief in the existence of God
Disbelief in the existence of gods
Denial of the existence of God
Denial of the existence of gods

There is only one meaning to this definition. Look up the
meanings

of

"disbelief" and "denial" and find the ones that mean nearly the

exact

same thing. Likewise look up the meanings of "God" and "gods'
and find the ones that mean nearly the exact same thing. The
word

"gods"

can mean "very handsome men". This does not have the same
meaning

as

"God" so it is obviously the wrong meaning to plug into the
definition.

And also look at the last word usage example under this
definition

of

"atheist" in the OED:

Why? Are atheists required to agree with every usage of
the word atheist, particularly by non-atheists?

The OED documents the usage of words through examples. I

don't

think

they

would choose an example sentence that contradicts the

definition,

do

you?

I didn't say it contradicted the definition; it's
a narrower usage than the term requires.

It clearly contradicts your interpretation of the definition.

No, it doesn't. It's not a contradictory use, it's a subset.
Strong atheists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that
only strong atheists are atheists.

If one definition is a subset of another definition (of the same

word)

then it contradicts it.

Ah. So, if dolphins are mammals, then no other animals can be

mammals?

How did you derive that? I certainly said nothing like that.

You said that if one of the definitions of a word does not

the entire range of possible meanings of the word, that the

definition contradicts the wider meaning.

You are paraphrasing what I said and changing the meaning.

Let me explain using your dolphin analogy. Let's say that A = "Any

the various marine cetacean mammals of the family Delphinidae" and B

"any of the various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class
Mammalia". Clearly A is a subset of B.

Let's say that Tom claims that A is the definition of the word
"dolphin" while Harry says that B is the definition of the word
"dolphin". Clearly Tom's definition contradicts Harry's definition.

But you're misunderstanding the purpose of the definition you're

about.

In this case, it's more like Tom explaining what mammals are to Harry

telling him that dolphins are mammals, dogs are mammals,

are mammals, and so on... and Harry (that would be you) making the
objection that the statement that dolphins are mammals contradicts

statement that dogs are mammals.

That's not me at all! Please read what I wrote and do not

paraphrase it.

Ask yourself, "What is the minimum requirement to qualify as atheist?"

Answer: "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html


So just as dogs are mammal and dolphins are mammal, those who deny and
repudiate the irrational religious belief that a magic invisible god
might exist are atheist too, since they also meet the minimum
requirement, an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

What's so hard to understand about this simple fact?

This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of it (theists),
the absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step
further, the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief

a matter of principle (agnostics).

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who

atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

On Thu 15 Apr 2004 05:15:38p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell
asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CC9BDEDEF8Mekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Thu 15 Apr 2004 01:03:46p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length,

fell

asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CC5E6796C1BMekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Tue 13 Apr 2004 12:15:17p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at

length,

fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CA61512AA3CMekkala@199.45.49.11...

On Wed 31 Mar 2004 07:45:14p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length,

fell

asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069cc56$0$17260$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069afa5$0$18927$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4069810a$0$18927$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com>

writes:

"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:4068ff78$0$17251$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com>
writes:

"Kosta Atheos" <kosta@nogod.no> wrote in message
news:4K5ac.30394$Vv5.15861

@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com.

..

A reputable dictionary such as The Oxford

English

Dictionary,

The

American

Heritage Dictionary

http://www.bartleby.com/61/,

or Merriam-

Webster

http://www.m-w.com/home.htm.

Let's go with the American Heritage Dictionary
then,

for

example.

"1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of

God

or gods."

What would you say is the the difference between
"disbelief"

and

"denial

of"?

They are very similar words.

Disbelief is what negative atheism is, they lack
the belief in

god.

"Disbelief" is not "a lack of belief". Look it

up.

The OED says it can be:

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to
refuse credence

to:

a.

a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth

or

reality of.

Not to believe. That's a lack of belief.

No it's not. Notice how this all appears on the same

numbered

sense

(or

meaning) of the word. A lack of belief is not the

same

meaning as

"to

reject the truth or reality of".

I don't see where every usage of "disbelieve" has to
include all those definitions.

This is *one* definition of *one* meaning (or sense) of

the

word.

An interpretation of this *one* meaning that generates

multiple

meanings

is

obviously incorrect.

What? Are you saying words can't have multiple meanings?

Words can have multiple meanings. Dictionaries separate

these

multiple meanings and number (and/or letter) them for

clarity.

Words with

multiple

meanings don't share the same line in dictionaries. This

is

very basic knowledge.

But you've quotes definitions like this one:
"1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or

gods."

That one definition includes four combinations:

Disbelief in the existence of God
Disbelief in the existence of gods
Denial of the existence of God
Denial of the existence of gods

There is only one meaning to this definition. Look up the
meanings

of

"disbelief" and "denial" and find the ones that mean nearly

the

exact

same thing. Likewise look up the meanings of "God" and

"gods'

and find the ones that mean nearly the exact same thing. The
word

"gods"

can mean "very handsome men". This does not have the same
meaning

as

"God" so it is obviously the wrong meaning to plug into the
definition.

And also look at the last word usage example under

this

definition

of

"atheist" in the OED:

Why? Are atheists required to agree with every usage

of

the word atheist, particularly by non-atheists?

The OED documents the usage of words through examples.

I

don't

think

they

would choose an example sentence that contradicts the

definition,

do

you?

I didn't say it contradicted the definition; it's
a narrower usage than the term requires.

It clearly contradicts your interpretation of the

definition.

No, it doesn't. It's not a contradictory use, it's a

subset.

Strong atheists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that
only strong atheists are atheists.

If one definition is a subset of another definition (of the

same

word)

then it contradicts it.

Ah. So, if dolphins are mammals, then no other animals can be

mammals?

How did you derive that? I certainly said nothing like that.

You said that if one of the definitions of a word does not

encompass

the entire range of possible me