Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by bsbray11
Agnosticism is not knowing/caring.

And not knowing or caring necessarily means not believing.
Not believing is atheism.
Therefore, you are an atheist.

I've already posted the definitions, and so have other people, but you don't seem to like them.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

dictionary.reference.com...

I don't see anything in those definitions to indicate that the word "agnostic" must automatically mean the same thing as "atheist," and positive disbelief. In fact those definitions say some pretty contradictory things, if you really want to know what the word "means."

If posting a dictionary definition of the word "agnostic" for you is argument to authority, then I'd like to know what authority you have in providing alternative definitions.

A_a_A and I both admit that it would be impossible to claim with entire certainty that an unfalsifiable premise if false, but we see good reason to not accept it. You're also not accepting the claim, which necessarily means you are an atheist.

I don't see "good reason to not accept it," especially when that little word "it" in there is quite a variable itself. As far as "accepting the claim," I didn't reject "it" either, and this also depends even more on what the question itself is.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Theism: Belief in one or more deity
Atheism: Opposite position of theist = no belief in any deity.

So you can prove yourself wrong logically, I will point out your massive logic FAIL!

Theism: belief in one or more deity.
Atheism: "Opposite position of theist" = Not beleiving in any deity.

Not beleiving is not the same of not knowing.

The difference:

"Don't try and convince me I know it is not true"
"Please tell me all about it I don't know the answer"

Would you lomp both of those statements into the same phylosophy? Of course you would not.

Q: "Do you have an opinion on that?"
Answer 1 "Yes I have an opinion - it is not true"
Answer 2 "No I don't have an opinion, I don't know"

Two very diferent phylosophies, even though neither one can be said to beleive in whatever it is. So they can't both carry the same label - atheist.

Do you see it yet?

Also - you pointed something else out earlier I would take issue with:

You said Agnosticism is part of theism - Duh!!!

Gnostic is from the greek gnosis for knowledge.
Theist is from the greek theos which means God.

They are seperate.

reply to post by bsbray11

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

If an agnostic agrees that it is impossible to know whether God exists, then surely you WOULD NOT believe anyone's theory of "GOD" because you understand that it's impossible for then to know.

Also, i think that's incorrect. As an agnostic atheist - I don't say it's impossible to prove that God exists, only that so far it has not been proven, so i have no reason to believe such a positive claim.

What's your response to that?

reply to post by Shamatt


Let's give this another go:

Theist: A person who believes in at least one deity.
Subgroups:
Agnostic theist: A person who believes in at least one deity but freely admits that they cannot substantiate their claim with epistemological certainty. "I believe in a deity"
Gnostic theist: A person who believes in at least one deity and claims to have epistemological certainty on the existence of that which they believe, thus claiming to know that a deity exists. "I believe in at least one deity and I know it(or they) exist/s"


All gnostic theists make the claim of agnostic theists, but they make the further claim to know with epistemological certainty that they are correct.

Atheist: A person who does not believe in any deity.
Subgroups:
Agnostic atheist: A person who does not believe in any deity but freely admits that they cannot maintain epistemological certainty on the issue due to one or more factors. "I do not believe in any deity"
Gnostic atheists: A person who does not believe in any deity and claims to have epistemological certainty that no deity exists. "I do not believe in any deity and I know that no deities exists."

All gnostic atheists make the claim of agnostic atheists, but they make the further claim to know with epistemological certainty that they are correct.

I hope this clears things up...granted, I know others have explained this, so I doubt that it will.

reply to post by bsbray11


Of course I don't like them, they're stupid definitions. If you're going to continue to argue from authority from the dictionary, I'd like you to simply go away. Arguments from authority are fallacious, you have to justify the definition.

Those definitions are useless. Mine actually have justification. You're not actually addressing my points, so you'll just keep tossing out the same ol' crappy definition. I'll just keep enumerating and expanding upon my points until my fingers bleed if you keep doing that...of course, if you actually wish to participate in the discourse, I'll respond to your points.

reply to post by bsbray11


Wow, so ridicule and quote mining. So are you going to say that 'hominids' aren't well defined because they aren't incredibly specific? By your standards we might as well toss out biological classification.

Can you define a hominid for me and tell me how my definition of a tooth fairy is entirely different from that sort of definition?

The definition I gave is equivalent to a genus or family classification in biological terms. It's quite precise in that sentiment. Not all tooth fairies have wings, not all of them are female, etc. I just gave the general common characteristics of all tooth fairies, which is quite scientific if you ask me.

Hell, for that matter I might as well not use 'transition metal' as a description on the periodic table.

I guess I see where the problem is...you use the word scientific, but you're horribly unfamiliar with science.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You're an atheist. You just don't realize it.

This after he repeatedly says "I am agnostic" and explained why.
Again the exaggerated self-opinion of these posts is staggering.

Well, considering that nobody is bothering to actually address my points and they merely repeat the idea that they're agnostics without actually bothering to tackle the points I'm making against that self-description...

And hell, I could keep saying I'm a Jedi or a Norse deity, but that wouldn't make it true. I could even explain why. That wouldn't make my explanation valid.

Also whining about personal attacks is pathetic,

Not as pathetic as making them.

we are attacking your arrogant arguments that defy the dictionary on this subject.

You know, you could just say 'we're attacking your arguments'. Also, why is the dictionary correct? Last time I checked, that which is correct can be independently verified.

I don't say "F=ma is correct because my science book says so!", as I can actually test the idea. I don't say "E=MC^2 is correct because Einstein said so!", I actually can run tests on it too!

Hell, I can even justify why I use certain words the way I do. Of course, simply saying that the dictionary is right because it's the dictionary? That's a fallacious argument. It's a direct logical fallacy, informal to be specific. The argument from authority.

And that isn't off topic as some MOD seems to think, since they deleted my last post.

Well, take it up with the "MOD". You haven't bothered to actually address any of my points on the issue, so I can't see how it actually is on topic. If you'd like to keep attacking my character instead of addressing my points you will continue to be off topic.

Please, explain to me why the usage of the terms I have provided is incorrect. I welcome it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Making up your own terms and repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

You still have not answered any of the issues, foaced any of the queries I bring up. Why not?

Because you can't. You can only repeat yourself. Go on - try it - try and explain away even one of the simplest concepts I have raised. Can you say the following two phylosophies are the same?

I do not beleive in god and nothing you can say will convince me because I know I am right and that is that.
I don't know if there is a god.

Over to you. Try not to use any terms you have made up yourself.

Originally posted by mbartelsm

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mbartelsm

 

I'm saying the dictionary definition (which is based on common usage) is often wrong. I've actually stated that before. Now, until you stop engaging in logical fallacies (like this argument from authority right here), why should I bother responding to you?

You are telling me that the common usage of the word has nothing to do with this discussion? OK, lets culture our minds a bit, according to you, the dictionary, the source of definitions for words, should be ignored because it is based on the common use of words instead of its original definition, which also comes from common use, thus is wrong, right? but as far as I know all words came from common use, because if those words weren't used by people they would have never become known by the population thus "dying". The same applies to the definition, the word culture was originally used for cultivate, but it has evolved because its use evolved, are you telling me the culture isn't "the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization; "the developing drug culture"; "the reason that the agency is doomed to inaction has something to do with the FBI culture"" or "knowledge and values shared by a society"?

edit on 6/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)

I think this got lost in the mail

reply to post by Shamatt

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Making up your own terms and repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

Saying they're made up doesn't mean they're not true. And again, I didn't actually make this up. I've actually found these from my studies in philosophy. You may not be aware, but I'm actually studying philosophy as a minor at university level. These aren't my ideas. Hell, they're even in the God Delusion, so...yeah...

You still have not answered any of the issues, foaced any of the queries I bring up. Why not?

I'll answer them: It's not a matter of opinion. Belief is an action. If you are not in the act of believing, if you are not actively believe, you are not a believer...therefore, you are a nonbeliever, also known as an atheist.

Theism deals with belief, not opinion...oh, and I've already addressed it, I'll even quote myself addressing this with a hypothetical. By the way, nobody actually replied to this:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Let's try to make this clearer...with a story:

 

Freddy is a boy who was taken from his family as part of an experiment. He was taught about the universe, taught about some history, taught about art and many other things. However, he was never taught of any concept of any deity. Nobody explained it to him and he was isolated from any outside influence that might introduce it. He did receive love, kindness, and all the other things a child needs to flourish.


Does Freddy believe in a deity?
No.
Does this make Freddy an atheist?
Yes!
He is an Implicit Agnostic Atheist. He doesn't know about the concept of any deity, thus he cannot believe in any deity. Thus newborn babies are also atheists, they're also a-cowists as they are unaware of what a cow is and thus cannot believe in cows.

Because you can't.

Well, I clearly did.

You can only repeat yourself.

Wow, lobbing accusations against my character. You know, I've tried to be a very nice individual here. I'm not going to be anything but strong in my position, but I'm trying to be generally not a jerk.

Go on - try it - try and explain away even one of the simplest concepts I have raised. Can you say the following two phylosophies are the same?

They're not "phylosophies" (seriously, how did that not get a little red line underneath it in your browser?) as a single position doesn't encompass a philosophy. And again, and here I go. Oh, and this is a straw man by the way...just to let you know. If you'd actually bothered reading my posts, you wouldn't be asking me if these positions are the same.

I'm saying they share a common denominator, lack of belief. If neither case do you believe, therefore you are an atheist in both cases.

To use a South Park example. All gingers are redheads, but some red haired individuals are daywalkers and not gingers.

I do not beleive in god and nothing you can say will convince me because I know I am right and that is that.

Gnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god.

Which leads to a further question: Do you believe there is one?
Now, if you don't believe in one, you're an agnostic atheist.
If you do believe in one (or more), then you're an agnostic theist.

I just explained this distinction. And guess what! You're replying to it!

Over to you. Try not to use any terms you have made up yourself.

You keep lobbing this accusation at me. I didn't. Hell, I wish I had. I was first exposed to it in Dawkins, page 46 of the God Delusion begins a discussion on "The Poverty of Agnosticism". Now, I didn't necessarily agree with everything in the chapter, but I did agree with his (and others) distinction that agnosticism is a modifier to either theism or atheism (or whatever other question is being discussed, you could be agnostic to the idea of fairies but still not believe in them).

Clearly, I didn't write the God Delusion. Unless you think I did. If so, please tell Dawkins to write me a big ol' check, because I'd love to have that sort of cash.

reply to post by mbartelsm


I ignored it because it's a useless point. I want you to address what is wrong with my arguments or at least give me a defense of the common usage. Please, provide a refutation of my points or at the very least a counter-argument in favor of common usage.

You cannot justify common usage in it being common, that would be a logically fallacious argument of argumentum ad populum.

Just like saying "It's in the dictionary" would be an argument from authority.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Hey Madness!

You say you reject argument from authority, yet you say "this idea isn't my own, it is even included in "The God Delusion".

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Theism deals with belief, not opinion...

If you ask me, madness, this seems like more semantic dancing. Nobody in the universe is going to ever say "It is my opinion that God doesn't exist, but I believe in God anyhow". The best test of a logical framework is to see if it is applicable in ALL situations. If it doesn't, then it fails. Belief amounts to the same as opinion. Really, EVERY possible statement a person makes could technically be prefixed with "It is my belief that...". One doesn't need to add it manually and make it mean something separate.

Saying "God exists" and saying "I believe God exists" is essentially the same thing. This is theism.

As for your "thought experiment", the reason that no one has probably talked about it so far is because it's essentially pointless. Such a thing could never really go beyond the idea of "thought" and into reality. Aside from the moral implications of experimenting on the kid, there is also the impossibility of removing the idea of God/gods from the history and art and such things.
BUT, even if we ignored such things, the answer is in no way certain (and never can be, because I hope no one will try such sort of abuse on children): It is just as likely that the kid will start believing in a deity, he may start asking troubling questions like "Why are we here?" (as opposed to "How"), creating a structure with the answers for himself and then the whole thing falls apart- a conclusive result as to what anyone would do in such a situation is in no way provable.


But then we come to the major problem with your argument. See, language is a tool used by people. The more people who use it in a certain way, the more the tool will become like that. At some point people start developing rules (or they rise up on their own through usage), and certain standards are put down.
So if loads of people use words in a particular way, and dictionaries that speak of common usage define it in such a way, and if encyclopaedias (such as wikipedia or Britannica) that cater to common usage, use it in such a way, if english experts put down that certain ways of using the word is okay, then that way of using those words is CORRECT.

You can't claim it is invalid due to "argumentum ad populum" or "argumentum ad verecundiam", because the majority of the people and the experts ARE what create usage of the english language. It's very funny how another poster created a thread with the opposite proposition to this one (maybe just to spite you, but still), and it has atheists arguing that agnostics and atheists are not the same thing!

At the very core of the definitions, atheism CAN certainly mean "not believing in god" or "believing there are no gods" while " agnosticism can certainly mean "It is impossible to make claim either about whether any gods exist or they don't", so an agnostic is not always an atheist, and an atheist is not always an agnostic. This is enough reason to show that "Dear agnostics: You're not always atheists".

I agree that in the structure and form you are using the words, an agnostic would certainly be an atheist, but not everyone shares or accepts your structure and form.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

If an agnostic agrees that it is impossible to know whether God exists, then surely you WOULD NOT believe anyone's theory of "GOD" because you understand that it's impossible for then to know.

You do an excellent job of pointing out one side of a coin, while acting as if the other doesn't exist.

At the same time, I WOULD NOT believe anyone's theory of a lack of deities, because it's also impossible for them to know. Now comes your "I don't believe in the spaghetti monster either", which does nothing to the fact that you still can neither prove nor disprove any gods, including the spaghetti monster, unless you have a very specific physical definition for it that is easily testable. The part that you don't like about this statement, that you argue with? Yes, that is the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Also, i think that's incorrect. As an agnostic atheist - I don't say it's impossible to prove that God exists, only that so far it has not been proven, so i have no reason to believe such a positive claim.

What's your response to that?

I'm not convinced it's physically possible to prove anything that is potentially non-physical, and neither can you disprove that something non-physical may exist. Science is based on what it can physically observe, so if there are things that are not physically observable, then that would be a "blind spot" for science and no, it would not necessarily be provable. It may be, but it doesn't have to be.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Of course I don't like them, they're stupid definitions.

Okay, then if we disagree on the definition of the word "agnostic" in the first place, how can we continue any further? We can't even agree on the same starting place.

For better or worse, one of the facts of words and definitions, is that they can mean whatever people want them to. There are even plenty of words for old ways of looking at things that have since fallen out of style, like aether and bodily humors and etc. All the dictionary points out, is what is more or less understood by any given word, when used in context.

My take on this thread is that you want to point out the fact that agnostics do not automatically believe in any gods. But you want to ignore the fact that they also don't automatically reject them, which is, in my estimation of the word "agnostic," as well as the dictionary's, the defining difference between "agnostic" and "atheist." Putting the two together just implies someone who has a definite disbelief (as opposed to just "not knowing"), and yet would be open to evidence to the contrary.

If you're going to continue to argue from authority from the dictionary, I'd like you to simply go away. Arguments from authority are fallacious, you have to justify the definition.

As I said above, words are what you make of them. If you don't accept the dictionary definition, of course you can make the word "agnostic" mean whatever you like, including that it means the same thing as Christian. If you disagree with me that "agnostic" really means Christian, then you are just arguing from authority and you should just go away.

Those definitions are useless. Mine actually have justification.

Of course your arbitrary definition must have justification, or else your entire thread would be baseless, and that would hurt your pride too much at this point I guess, so it's out of the question. Now you know why we had to prove that Saddam had WMD, whether he actually did or not, and all of that.

reply to post by babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi
You say you reject argument from authority, yet you say "this idea isn't my own, it is even included in "The God Delusion".

I would like to clarify that the inclusion of this idea in "The God Delusion" doesn't strengthen my position in any way, it merely refutes the idea that I'm just pulling this all from my rear end. Hell, Dawkins didn't come up with the idea either. I'm merely stating that this is not an original idea, not that the lack of originality gives it any merit or that the other sources give it any merit.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Theism deals with belief, not opinion...

If you ask me, madness, this seems like more semantic dancing.

Well, I'll agree with you there. I phrased things badly. Opinion can be synonymous with belief. By "It is my opinion" one often states "It is my belief". Point taken.

Saying "God exists" and saying "I believe God exists" is essentially the same thing. This is theism.

However, I'll disagree with this part.

I can believe something exists but say that it maybe exists. "God exists" is a claim of epistemological certainty, "I believe God exists" is a claim of personal belief...now, "God exists and I believe God exists" is a claim of both certainty and belief, but you cannot claim "God exists but I don't believe God exists"...while you can claim "I'm not 100% sure if God exists, but I still believe it does."

As for your "thought experiment", the reason that no one has probably talked about it so far is because it's essentially pointless.

Except that it isn't...

Such a thing could never really go beyond the idea of "thought" and into reality.

Except that it can. There are indigenous peoples in this world that have no conception of deities. There are newborns, they also have no idea of deities. Now, the specific example of a kid being stripped from their parents and raised specifically for this experiment was a radical idea, but the general concept is still there: If someone is, for whatever reason, unaware of the concept of a 'deity' they simply cannot believe in one.

Aside from the moral implications of experimenting on the kid, there is also the impossibility of removing the idea of God/gods from the history and art and such things.

...well, it was an extreme example...which is why it's a thought experiment. And the situation would simply be removing the child from those examples rather than removing those examples. And again, there are peoples on this planet who have no experience with the idea...aside from newborns. All babies are atheists.

BUT, even if we ignored such things, the answer is in no way certain (and never can be, because I hope no one will try such sort of abuse on children): It is just as likely that the kid will start believing in a deity,

How? Where are they getting the idea from?

he may start asking troubling questions like "Why are we here?" (as opposed to "How"),

Well...secular philosophy can answer those questions quite easily.

creating a structure with the answers for himself and then the whole thing falls apart- a conclusive result as to what anyone would do in such a situation is in no way provable.

Except that I'm merely providing an example and not the full experiment. Anyone who is unaware of the concept of a deity is simply unable to believe in such a being. That person is therefore an atheist. People who are undecided as to whether or not they think a deity exists also happen to not believe in one, regardless of whether or not they eventually will. There are therefore atheists (if only for a little while).

But then we come to the major problem with your argument. See, language is a tool used by people.

...I don't like the implication that I'm unaware of this.

The more people who use it in a certain way, the more the tool will become like that. At some point people start developing rules (or they rise up on their own through usage), and certain standards are put down.

Yes, these are called grammar and vocabulary, I'm quite aware of it.

So if loads of people use words in a particular way, and dictionaries that speak of common usage define it in such a way, and if encyclopaedias (such as wikipedia or Britannica) that cater to common usage, use it in such a way, if english experts put down that certain ways of using the word is okay, then that way of using those words is CORRECT.

And yet...that's not true. You're just supporting the argument from authority with the ad populum argument.

You can't claim it is invalid due to "argumentum ad populum" or "argumentum ad verecundiam", because the majority of the people and the experts ARE what create usage of the english language.

And yet the experts often disagree with the dictionary. And in this case I'm arguing that the use of the word 'atheist' as 'one who doesn't believe in a deity' is what the experts are using. If you can show a consensus amongst non-apologist philosophers (because apologists are the worst people to ask for things about what the definition of the term 'atheist' is that is anything other than 'one who does not believe in any deity' then I will yield...but I actually study philosophy and I know that this isn't so.

Daniel Dennet certainly would disagree, and that's just an example of a philosopher. These are philosophical terms. It's just like I wouldn't turn to a dictionary for a definition of evolution, because dictionaries tend to get that term really, really wrong.

It's very funny how another poster created a thread with the opposite proposition to this one (maybe just to spite you, but still), and it has atheists arguing that agnostics and atheists are not the same thing!

Yes, just to spite me. But not all atheists are agnostic...and not all agnostics are atheists. All agnostics can be theists or atheists and atheists can be gnostics (well, claim to be).

At the very core of the definitions, atheism CAN certainly mean "not believing in god" or "believing there are no gods"

Which is why the distinction between 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' atheist comes into play.

while " agnosticism can certainly mean "It is impossible to make claim either about whether any gods exist or they don't"

Yes, but that still doesn't address the issue of belief.

, so an agnostic is not always an atheist, and an atheist is not always an agnostic.

And I've never argued otherwise. I've repeatedly and routinely made the distinction that atheists can be either gnostic or agnostic and that agnostics can be either atheists or theists.

This is enough reason to show that "Dear agnostics: You're not always atheists".

True, but I was referring to the typically non-theistic group who self-identifies as 'agnostic'...but this was handled pages ago. Though it's a big thread, you can miss all sorts of things. Check my earlier posts.

I agree that in the structure and form you are using the words, an agnostic would certainly be an atheist, but not everyone shares or accepts your structure and form.

And nobody has given me a good reason not to accept it.

oops

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm not ignoring that there are agnostic theists. I have stated repeatedly that agnostic can apply to either theists or atheists. You're really not bothering to address the points of this thread or read most of my posts, are you?

Agnostic means a person who doesn't claim epistemological certainty. It can be on any issue. I am agnostic towards invisible, intangible, silent, heatless dragons...I also happen to not believe in their existence. Granted, I could, but I could still say that I am not certain as to whether or not they exist.

reply to post by bsbray11


Hey, I'm being ignored it seems. It is up to the claimant to prove their claims, not up to the skeptic to disprove them. Now, if I make the claim that "It is impossible for X" to exist, then I must prove that it is impossible for X to exist. If someone else makes the claim the X exists and I simply do not accept it as there is no evidence to support it then I am under no compulsion to disprove it. Granted, I must address any evidence provided.

This is where I throw out the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is in no way ridiculous as it was actually used for ridicule of creationism ). I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, even if I know that Bobby Henderson created the idea as a way to satire the Kansas school board decisions regarding evolution and creationism. But...I still don't actually believe it exists. I am under no compulsion to disprove it.

Thus...agnostic atheist. Atheist. Still not believing. No belief in a deity. Not a single deity believed in. However, no claim is being made that deities don't exist, merely that there's no deity for which there is sufficient evidence.

A thousand years ago the claim that the Sun is a giant nuclear reaction which we are in orbit around at insane speeds due to a curvature of space time caused by incredible mass would have been unacceptable...merely because there was no way to support that claim with evidence.

Likewise, deity claims may prove true, however unlikely I think that is. Of course, there's still no evidence for them, even though there would be a million and one ways to prove that one exists.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mbartelsm

 

I ignored it because it's a useless point. I want you to address what is wrong with my arguments or at least give me a defense of the common usage. Please, provide a refutation of my points or at the very least a counter-argument in favor of common usage.

You cannot justify common usage in it being common, that would be a logically fallacious argument of argumentum ad populum.

Just like saying "It's in the dictionary" would be an argument from authority.

Ok, if people use the word agnostic in certain way, they are likely using it the same way when they refer to themselves, "Agnostic" and "Atheist" are just two words behind of which there is a meaning, the meaning depends of the person who uses it. For example, I use the word "agnostic" to refer to persons who are in doubt about the existence of one or more deities and I use the word "atheist" to refer to people who deny the existence of deities. The word itself doesn't matter, what matters is the meaning behind it and the meaning is given by the people and written in the dictionary to make it look more official.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Also, why is the dictionary correct?

Really ?
I mean seriously ?
Do any other posters find this question insanely ludicrous ?

So do we just get to make up our own personal definition of words now, or this case eliminate them from the vernacular if we don't like them ?
It blows my mind that you want argue with dictionary definitions, because they just don't support your personal perspective and philosophical outlook on life.
I have to call you out on this, we all have personal opinions, but trying to redefine words to support our position is very weak. It's the weakest possible way to debate any topic.
Yet you try and turn the table by saying quoting a dictionary is "argument from authority", yet when it comes to modern language when we are in school and learning, what is used ?
My English teachers used that authority, are teachers that teach from authoritative books, such as the dictionary arguing from authority too ?