Back from a short hiatus. Meanwhile, some of you may have been aware that my blog post have been put up at an atheist website (click here); talk about making an impact eh?

Well, I’ve been thinking of what to do about it. After all, its not every other day that you get a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance to personally respond your post. I thought this was quite a privilege, so its only courteous of me to return the favor.

It seems like all the points which was brought up by them was most hinged on the definitions. This goes to highlight the importance of definitions doesn’t it? The definition is the fundamental plateau which the discussion is build upon. Flawed definitions give births to flawed thought process which give rise to flawed conclusions.

Bottom line #1: Definitions must be clear.

Austin Cline ended off by saying:

“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”

After reading his entire rebuttal, all I have to say is:

“Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren’t clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn’t be committed. If we’re going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we’re unlikely to get very far.”

We obviously have a problem here.

A mere wordgame. Yes I know. He thinks his clear about his meanings of his key terms and assumes that I need to readjust mine. Then again, from my perspective, I would suppose that my definitions are precise and accurate and his would need to be adjusted. So who would (or should I say can) be the judge? This means that if we were to engage in discussions or arguments, we would need to fight on their ground with their definitions to prove them wrong, lest we end up firing missiles with wrong coordinates. Gives a whole new dimension to putting yourselves in their shoes yea?

Bottom line #2: Unless we are coming from the same plateau that they are standing at, it is highly unlike they will get what we are saying, and vice versa.

Last but not least, they insisted that my definition was that of the strong atheism, not that of weak atheism, hence it would not stand against the majority atheistic movement. Though I still have my reservations in that, let’s just say that they are right; I failed to disprove weak atheism with the definition of atheism. After all, I just advocated discussions on their plateau; an environment that seems to have constantly changing definitions to suit their argument. Nevertheless, at least seed of doubts have been casting with regards about strong atheism since no one seem to bothered saying anything in defense. Perhaps they are right after all; it is the minority.

Well, strong atheism checked. Weak atheism left. What irony that the “weak” relative seemed to be stronger then the former. Unless of course, the strength of weak atheism is in its weak definitions; it is harder to break a flexible straw then a firm stick.

Advertisements