UPDATE - 6/5/2017
But what about the 1828 definition of "Athiest"?
Why not stay stuck in the past and use that?
We hear that a lot. Seems to Christians, philosophers, and academia that the definition of the word "Atheist" back then is "clear" and that the meaning of words should be locking in stone and never change.
Our position is that the old definition is only clear to misrepresent the mindset of people who reject the claims that an invisible magic man lives in the clouds. We propose that the verging movement to shift the meaning is an ever growing result of atheists being sick and tired of being misrepresented. We also propose that the new definitions are clearer and more concise.
But, what about the logical implications of chainging the defintion?
Either God exists or God does not exist. There is no third alternative to existing or not existing.
While that is perfectly sound logic, the word "atheist" describes one's state of mind about those alternatives about "God", not the two alternatives themselves. Furthermore, there is a major problem. The word "God" is totally ambiguous. So, it isn't just two alternatives one has to choose from. It is instead a rather large and undefined number of conflicting alternatives.
Some people think "God" is energy. I believe in energy.
Some people think "God" is the one described in the Bible. I believe that God is mythological.
Some people think "God" is love - whatever the hell that means.
Therefore, we have an ambiguous, rather confusing, and totally convoluted wrapper sitting on top of the sound logic of "Either God exists or God does not exist." Not to mention that one can't even get a theist to pin down their definition of "god" in the first place.
If there was only one single, clearly defined concept of God, then we wouldn't have this ambiguous mess.
Therefore, It is much cleaner, more precise, and even grammatically correct to simply say an Athiest is an (A)theist.
Which translates to: I don't believe the claims that theists are making.
Stay tuned to my channel as it appears that there is going to be a roundtable panel discussion on the shift in the definition.
Sounds to me like it is going to get interesting.
What about the modifiers "soft/weak" and "hard/strong" atheism, respectively?
Since an Atheist lacks a belief, then the words weak/strong don't make a distinction.
I have a total lack of belief - but it's weak.
I have a total lack of belief - but it's strong.
The end result of both: I have a total lack of belief.
The term only works with the idea is that Atheists HAVE a positive belief that God does not exist.
My belief that god does not exist is weak.
My belief that god does not exist is strong.
In other words. Those terms have been recognized as just another attempt by Christians to misrepresent Atheists.
That being said - you can readily find atheists that look at the God of the Bible ...
(The one that supposedly created the universe but thinks that the Sun was created after the Earth - and that the Earth is flat - and that what animal are looking at will determine the patterns in their offspring's fur - and that stars are just little lights in the sky that can fall to the earth - and a whole host of other scientific and biological inaccuracies)
... and conclude that THIS god is definitely a figment of the imagination of ancient and scientifically illiterate men.
I.E. are we atheist about the Bible's Main God, any one of the other Gods that the Bible says exist, Zeus, or any theoretical god that has yet to be revealed?
Thanks to Aron Ra for the voiceover on the intro.
For more videos like this one, please support me on patreon. https://patreon.com/user?u=2602662