[QUOTE="greenprince"]
Definitely, formulated by George Hamilton Smith, a, atheist, libertarian author and educator which only wanted to include such individuals because he wanted to make appear as Atheism was growing. No, if someone was a supporter of politics, I would call him/her a fan of politics, not political there's a difference. If someone was not a supporter of politics he/she wouldn't be a apolitical it would imply they are supporting anarchism. Being apolitical means:
1. Having no interest in or association with politics.
2. Having no political relevance or importance.
Not supporting politics in any way which imply that person is a follower of a political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint,
No, if they said they were not a believer of God or any religion for that matter would imply that they would be part of the secular or irreligious group, part of a survey governments use to label one's religious affiliation. It's simpler to say they are irreligious or secular. Then you deconstruct the secular or irreligious group into more specific beliefs which are Agnostics, who do not know if God(s) exists or not, Apatheists, who don't care if God(s) exists and Atheism, was intended since its formation, a belief that rejected the concept of God(s). It's that simple.
It was never a vague term, it was only recently that there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited because there is not point of redefining a group of nonreligious people when already have a word for, it called irreligious or secularism. In fact, In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist from French word, athée was the definition of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.
ShuLordLiuPei
What you seem not to understand is there's a difference is not supporting politics and supporting no politics. If someone does not support politics, they are not interested in politics, and thus apolitical. And anarchy is no goverment, not no politics. So someone who does not support politics would not be an anarchist anyway.And using your all-powerful dictionary, one of the definitions of political is "Interested or active in politics". So, if someone was a supporter of politics and interested in politics, they would be political. And the deinition of apolitical is simply "not politcal".
Agnostic simply means the belief that it's impossible to know. It does not state what a person believes. Thus, someone can be an agnostic and a theist, or an agnostic and anatheist.
Secular means dealing with "worldly" issues, not necessarily lacking in the belief in God. Irreligions means without religion, not without the belief in God. Someone can be both religious and an atheist, such assome groups ofBuddhists. Neither of these terms describe all people who lack the belief in God. However, the term atheist does describe everyone who lacks the belief in God accurately, because it literally means lack of the belief in God.
Atheism has always been the same. Only recently there's beenmisunderstanding andfalse, simple definitions. It comes from the Greek atheos, which means lack of God. A (lack of) + theos (God).
No, there's a huge difference in not supporting politics and not being interested in politics. For example, my friend is pretty apolitical. He isn't interested in politics but is willing to participate in federal elections. He may not be interested but he is still willing to participate, similarly how I am not interested in recycling or volunteering in community services, but I still participate in it. Not supporting politics would imply this person is not supporting politics in any way which imply that person is a follower of a political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint. Again, there is a clear difference.
"All powerful dictionary?" Stop mocking, it isn't contributing to the discussion. Obviously you haven't learned any clear respect for a person that has different opinion. I use official sources to back up claims, get over it.
Agnostic means a denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God. An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one. Or to be more precise the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.
Secular is relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious matters Secular is relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious matter not bound by monastic vows or rules. Irreligious means lacking religious emotions, principles, or practice irreligious where the subject of God was never even discussed, it's destitute of religion; not controlled by religious motives or principles; being ungodly. Thus, being secular or irreligious works perfectly well for Atheists, Agnostics or any other person not following any particular belief in God or religion in general because they are in specific ungodly. No, the Atheism origins of etymology insinuate "lack of belief in God" but in semantics form, it was always a denial or rejection of the concept of God. Again the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist comes from the French word. athée in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Again, etymology does not matter, it's the semantics. The origins of the word do not suffice.
Log in to comment