Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Because you cannot have a can of corn and expect me to approve of putting a label on it that says carrots.

That is not a\n answer. He could still be a Christian in the truest sense of the word.

 

[Sheldon]

Individual definitions? The reason language works is by mutual agreement on the meanings of words.

Hallelujah, someone who grasps the most basic fact about how word definitions are derived; and tellingly you managed it without citing esoteric philosophical journals, while sneering down your nose, and delivering ironically sententious lectures about bias.

My faith in humankind is restored. I once contemplated a career in education, and thought I'd make a passable primary school teacher, and this thread had almost convinced me that was insane hubris.

 

[Sheldon]

Individual definitions? The reason language works is by mutual agreement on the meanings of words.

I'm bowing out at this point... we have run the full gamete and now we are just rehearsing positions.

While ignoring a pertinent point about the derivation of word definitions, that you have consistently misrepresented as biased subjective opinion, how apt.

 

[Sheldon]

With reality as you presume to know it. And the more biased you are in favor of this presumption, the less able you will be to change or adapt that paradigm.

Vapid nonsense, you keep assigning bias based solely on the fact others don't share your beliefs, even though they have almost all stated they treat all claims the same, and set the same standard for belief. Not once have I seen you attempt to demonstrate any objective evidence or justify your belief in any way, quite the opposite. You can't accurately define what the deity you believe in is, you don't even try, you can't offer any evidence and insist those who don't share your belief should be able to tell you what evidence you should have for it.

Indeed since I've been here what you've dedicated nearly all your energy to is the asinine idea that not believing something is a belief. I can only say that I don't believe you.

 

[Sheldon]

Just for fun......
If atheism is "lack of belief"
Is Christianity "lack of non-belief"

If one likes to use tortured double negatives I suppose, but I generally find their use is present only in pure sophistry. I'll tell you what I shan't run to an obscure philosophical tome, I'll consult Google, the second largest online dictionary. Since the definition will represent the commonly understood meaning of the word from a massive demographic.

Christianity
noun

1. the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.

Religion
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Sorry no mention of it being the "lack of non-belief"

Not to worry, apparently a few posters her have asserted you can change these dictionary definitions, but I'm not telling you the secret atheists password though, or showing you the handshake.

 

[Colt]

I haven't read any responses in this thread yet, so this may be a repeat of another post. If so, apologies.

My theory: Religious people have one thing in common, which is a belief in a higher creative and/or responsible power. They're happy to argue about whose concept of said higher power is correct, but never do they dispute with each other that one exists. In terms of a deific entity, there is no question of 'if' with them, only of 'which'.

That's where atheists throw a spanner in the works. We bring up the 'if' question. By every logical definition known to Man, atheism is the absence of religious belief, but theists can't accept that without veering out of their lane. They counter by trying to pretend that lack of belief is somehow simply a different brand of belief despite the obvious fact that no spiritual/religious/superstitious claims are involved. Having squared that circle, they can then happily shoehorn us into the 'which' argument. They already have 1,000 other religions to argue with, so what's the difference if there's now 1,001?

In short, it conveniently takes the 'if' question off the table and puts them back into their 'which' comfort zone.

Atheism is belief, a way of life when you join religious forums to promote it. The real neutral, I don care, just stay off my lawn-Atheists, aren't here. So when Atheist put forth this "we are a special class of non-conformist who require delicate consideration because we are so insightful and unique" on a religious forum, some find that laughable! So you get called out for declaring the special case-ness of your non-belief, belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the so-called absence of evidence, the evidence of absence __________

Yes - of course it is.

 

[Augustus]

So now we're just being asked to "guess?" Is that your big idea here?

I was actually asking you to make an educated guess based on your lifelong dealing with humans of all kinds and empirical observation of their literacy, philosophical inclinations, habits and interests as to whether you think the average person is likely to quibble minor grammatical changes in definitions they don't commonly think or care about.

Would you find it hard to guess whether the average person could differentiate between Gothic and Romanesque architecture for example?

But sure, since we're just going to guess - I would say that the kind of people you're referring to aren't even going around stating that they are atheists in the first place - and may not even make a pronouncement of any kind, one way or the other. They likely don't care enough.

So we agree it is not a normal distinction that people intuitively make:

It's pretty obvious most atheists couldn't give a **** about such academic trivialities. Almost everyone who bothers to make the distinction only do so because they have read/heard other 'active' atheists make the same point which requires exposure to a particular kind of atheist media or interaction with others 'active' atheists.

Okay, and? What happens then? If we recognize and accept that "atheism constitutes a belief" what happens at that point? Does the atheist then being somehow intellectually remiss in requesting evidence for claims being made? I mean c'mon here man... be realistic. It doesn't matter - the ultimate response to the theist is still going to be the same - regardless how anyone wants to characterize atheism. You say "I believe this" I say "Well I don't." That doesn't change. None of the argumentation changes, etc. I honestly don't know why there is all this push to characterize atheism as a belief in some positive direction toward a claim being made. What claim am I making? That God doesn't exist? Is that what I argue Augustus? Why don't you tell me? You seem to know better than I do. Christ.

When you get excitable you invent some very fanciful notions.

Nothing 'happens'. For me, it's just more rational to identify a belief as a belief rather than pretend it is the absence of one as it is rhetorically convenient.

You disagree.

And then what happens? Again... what does this do? how does this make things better or more clear? Do I then have the burden of proof, do you think? Such that I then need to go around disproving the claims of every single theist that walks the Earth with evidence that proves them wrong? Is that what I need to do? Because, to be sure, that also means that every single theist who wants to claim something contrary to another has to go around doing the exact same thing to every other theist/religion except themselves/theirs. This is just dumb.

Again, nothing 'happens', it is a preferred definition of a word. Just as nothing 'happens' when you insist it must be a lack of belief.

There is no burden of proof to believe something. It's just your attitude towards a proposition.

Yeah, it certainly doesn't seem like we have much in common. You seem super duper sympathetic to the theists position. I am not. Most certainly not. I'm willing to admit it, and you can try and shame me out of it, or whatever it is you're doing here. Whatever. Have a fun time trying bub.

Some people have this incredibly irrational notion that it is a 'theist position' to consider that someone clearly expressing a cognitive stance in regard to a proposition is expressing a belief rather than demonstrating a 'lack of belief'.

It is very odd indeed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can't find their website. If I recall we know it's invisible because we can't see it and we know it's pink because we have faith. It was a good visit, all tongue 'n cheek.

Yeah, I figured. I was also just sort of getting my own quasi-joke in there. A bit of satire on the idea of how these things unfold - and that literally anything could be that next unfolding.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was actually asking you to make an educated guess based on your lifelong dealing with humans of all kinds and empirical observation of their literacy, philosophical inclinations, habits and interests as to whether you think the average person is likely to quibble minor grammatical changes in definitions they don't commonly think or care about.

Then no, I don't think they would. But in the end, what you're trying to do is then say that the definition that you want to see be observed is NOT the one that self-reported, self-aware, self-caring atheists would use to describe themselves. Do you see how odd that seems? You want to see the one that only seems to still apply BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE APATHETIC about the definitions in the first place. Doesn't that seem weird to you? It does to me.

So guess what? We self-aware, self-caring atheists are trying, at this very moment, to shift the perception of the word, to move it to where the majority accepts the definition that we want the word to mean when we use the word to represent ourselves. Can you just imagine if the conglomerate of all non-Christians were to be the ones to decide the definition of "Christianity" - and that done specifically to the chagrin of those who self-profess as Christian? There would be outcry of oppression, and tyranny, and people would be pointing to how "The Bible said you'd hate me!!!!! Oh god... *sob* *sob*" But I don't cry - instead I confront you, yell at you, and play around with you and make sure you know I'm not going to sit idly by while you spread bull feces all over the place.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

By the way.......... how certain are you about atheism? Do you have certitude about all this?

Do you seriously not understand how nonsensical this question is? Are you asking how certain I am that I don't believe in God? Because that is literally the only head or tail I can make of your question. And if that is the crux of it, then wow... you must not have read my other posts. Because I am so sure that I do not believe any of the goofball claims of a God or multiple gods... I mean... there isn't even a strong enough word to represent it. Several exclamatory expletives could be in order... but that might detract from the seriousness of the idea that not one iota of my being even contains the hint of belief toward any claim that has ever been presented to me about any god.

However... if you are instead asking "How sure are you that there is no God?" - then I can see why you are one of the votes for "I lie that atheism is a belief." I don't have to believe, positively, that "God does not exist" in order to not believe a claim laid in front of me. And, to be sure, theists do this sort of thing themselves all the freaking time about one another's claims - so it should be entirely familiar to them - disbelieving various claims while not entirely discounting them nor telling their fellow theist that they positively believe that thing NOT to be the case. But as soon as the disbelief goes against gods altogether, they throw their arms up in the air and start screaming like banshees.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism is belief, a way of life when you join religious forums to promote it. The real neutral, I don care, just stay off my lawn-Atheists, aren't here. So when Atheist put forth this "we are a special class of non-conformist who require delicate consideration because we are so insightful and unique" on a religious forum, some find that laughable! So you get called out for declaring the special case-ness of your non-belief, belief.

So theistic anger at atheists having the temerity to investigate religious claims and submit them to critical scrutiny justifies labelling their lack of belief as a belief, in order to avoid the burden of proof theistic belief incurs. I find that absurd sorry. This is a religious debate forum, it's in the title, so debate should be anticipated.

When religions keep their beliefs to themselves, and stop trying to force barbaric and pernicious bronze age Bedouin morality on the world, then I will keep my lack of belief to myself. If someone can publicly voice a belief, then others can comment, get over it.

 

[Sheldon]

But, what is your guess regarding the average atheist (who is average and thus of average literacy, reads little, isn't that philosophically inclined and prefers pop-culture, etc.)

I'd like to see some attempt to demonstrate some objective evidence for these sweeping assertions you keep making.

Do you believe "lack of belief" is an intuitive expression that people who have invested little to no time thinking about would instinctively utilise as being more accurate than 'believe no gods exist'?

Straw man....

Or do you believe they wouldn't really notice a distinction?

That's a belief, and I would have to withhold belief until sufficient objective evidence were demonstrated for it, as of course I do for all claims.

I fully accept I don't know definitively. That doesn't change the fact that my atheism reflects an attitude made in response to the proposition that gods exist, and is thus a belief.

That is your choice of course.

I believe every atheist in this thread shares such a belief, and that it would be impossible for them not to.

You're demonstrably wrong, as I and other atheists have explained unequivocally this is not the case for them, again 23 said so in the poll, and I pointed this out already, and you resorted to a false equivalence fallacy about a poll involving Trump. Have those 23 atheists (I am one) lied then? Or do you really think you know better than them what they think and believe? A rare gift that....

Ultimately, these are subjective preferences and, unlike some in this thread, I do not believe there is a definitively correct way to use language that makes me objectively 'right' and them 'wrong'.

You keep making the misrepresentation of the position, do you know that dictionary definitions reflect common usage? It;s odd you keep making sweeping unevidenced claims about what others think and believe, then ignore reference tools that are complied by taking into account what most people understand a word to mean, and all while misrepresenting that fact as some sort of absolute claim, even after you've been corrected multiple times?

It's odd I extend you, and everyone the courtesy of accepting you know what you think and believe, but you refuse to extend others the same courtesy.

 

[Sheldon]

Oxford Reference seems to be an historical reference. The full Oxford English Dictionary is about as definitive as you can get for English and includes historical and obsolete usages. The link to the older 2nd edition that I gave should work as is (it works in Tor, so disconnected from my login and IP address): atheism. Here is a temporary share link to the current entry (to bypass paywall): atheism.

I've tried to explain multiple times that though not absolutes, dictionary definitions reflect common usage, this fact seems to be being ignored.

So my atheism is a lack or absence of belief, I do not hold a contrary belief that no deity exists, as in it's broadest sense this would be an unfalsifiable claim, and while I have to rationally disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, I also have to remain agnostic about them.

Now does anyone want to call me a liar? Or suggest I don't know what I think or believe? Or that the OED and Meriam Webster's and Google and Wiktionary don't reflect what most people understand words to mean in their definitions?

It doesn't need to be an absolute, nor is anyone claiming it is, but a word definition in a dictionary is a useful reference as it reflects what most people understand the word to mean. Citing esoteric philosophical tomes speaks for itself, how many people read the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy compared to using Google to say check what a word means?

 

[Sheldon]

I was actually asking you to make an educated guess based on your lifelong dealing with humans of all kinds and empirical observation of their literacy, philosophical inclinations, habits and interests as to whether you think the average person is likely to quibble minor grammatical changes in definitions they don't commonly think or care about.

Well I try not to base what I believe on guesses, but if you twisted my arm I'd have to concede that many more people use Google to check what a word means than an obscure philosophical encyclopaedia.

But then again you have asserted I don't know what I think or believe, so apparently your unevidenced sweeping "guesses" about what large demographics think a word means, is somehow more authoritative than 4 of the largest, and one of the oldest dictionaries in the English speaking world.

 

[Augustus]

Put simply, it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

The dictionary tells us how words are being used. But the issue in this thread seems to be about how words should be used. Dictionaries will be little help there.

It's amazing that otherwise intelligent people find this hard to grasp.

The really odd thing is that the 'lack of belief' definition is undeniably a more recent usage and didn't even appear in dictionaries until a few decades ago.

Those who insist that dictionaries define objectively correct usage and that those who use alternative definitions are 'wrong' must also believe that it was 'wrong' to coin that new definition in the first place.

Those who (very naively) think communication is only possible if we have prior agreement on correct usage of words should be against such a flagrant abuse of language that destroys consensus.

They must believe that all of those who promoted and spread the new usage were being churlish and irrational, until the day a small number of lexicographers working for private corporations decided to include the definition in their dictionaries.

Overnight, the churlish and irrational abusers of language became objectively correct and those who used the traditional definition became the churlish and irrational abusers of language.

My claim: The older usage preserves philosophical distinctions that I believe are valuable. The new usage threatens to hide those distinctions and thus seems to me to be regressive and perhaps a bit anti-intellectual. But that's just a preference of mine, and I'm not presenting it as a statement of fact about what atheists supposedly are in their essence. They are a large group of people with a whole variety of self-conceptions, not all of them consistent. 'Atheism' isn't a natural kind.

It is a very awkward and unnatural construction.

It also sometimes lead to vapid argument that as a 'non-position' it cannot have any consequences in conjunction with other beliefs or have any impact on a broader worldview.

But I don't exactly appreciate being called a "liar" for saying that.

It is quite odd to care passionately about the meaning of a single word, yet display absolutely no intellectual curiosity regarding how language is used to transmit meaning in general.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... With reality as you presume to know it. And the more biased you are in favor of this presumption, the less able you will be to change or adapt that paradigm.

For the big/serious stuff I accept the reality that can be shared and corroborated with others. Which one are YOU talking about now? The one where you just get to make up whatever you want and try to tell others they either have to believe YOU about everything or they are "missing out?" Or you hint that they are being intellectually remiss because you feel that you have some "special reality" that goes on inside your mind that they should respect and adhere to? Are you nuts?

Presuming it's crap isn't going to help you resolve those questions and problems.

Man... do you not get that these "problems" literally do not need solving? And even then, especially inefficient at solving them would be some form of what may as well be make believe for all you can actually evidence, detect, demonstrate or relate it to another.

Again, that negative bias doesn't indicate much honest questioning going on. What I don't get is why you waste so much time attacking the beliefs of others for not comporting with your own, and so little time actually considering your own? Even denying that you have any beliefs of your own when clearly, you do, or you wouldn't be so antagonistic toward everyone else's.

Of course I hold beliefs... but I attempt to make sure that ALL of them are built on the reality we experience as a shared thing. What I CAN detect, witness, rationalize to be as true as I can muster, etc. That's one of my core principals. I also told you EXACTLY why I go after everyone who instead relies on whatever makes them feel warm a fuzzy to go on about things... because many of them try their hardest to make sure I do the same, or am shamed or ostracized as a result of refusing. And what I do, specifically, is try to make them understand why it is that they have no valid basis for believing as they do. I try to make them see that every belief they hold onto that contains elements of completely dubious or unknowable nature is part of a double-standard they are employing that does not get used in any other avenue of their lives - and very likely precisely because they would see how ridiculous it would be to do so! And yet they have this weird hold-out to that, and apparently don'[t mind appearing a complete and total hypocrite, and all because... religion.

I really don't understand why you think this is anyone else's responsibility.

Some of the things you say... I mean seriously. You accuse ME of a lack of introspection? Jesus Christ on a crap-stick. If you want to go around accusing me of being intellectually remiss, or even just of "missing out" because I don't listen to the rest of your claims after I realize you have no valid evidence or demonstration to bring to the table, then guess whose responsibility it is to follow-up on and explain WHY I am being intellectually remiss or how I am "missing out" when I reject your utter nonsense crap of a claim? Guess whose responsibility that is PureX.

I don't know where you live, but around here this NEVER happens. No one ever tells me about their theological ideals unless I ask. And I don't ask. So I think you are wildly exaggerating, or you live somewhere very strange.

1. I was approached by a man on the street in my town who walked right up, even though I was walking my massive, stocky labrador-pitbull mix dog, and he didn't know me or the dog - and do you know what he said when my dog made a warning nip at his out-stretched hand? That I should keep a muzzle on my dog because that is according to scripture. A little while later, after I told him outright that I didn't believe in The Bible, he said that I should read and pray, because then I would come to find how vile I truly am.
2. My eldest son, after having just experienced an awkward break-up that he felt was all his fault because he kept withdrawing, and she kept being more and more dismissive, and he didn't know what to do, was apparently secretly having thoughts of suicide at that time, but then got a new girlfriend and then decided to tell us all about how he was feeling during that prior time. Well... my wife, who medicates for anxiety which can lead to depressive moods, decided it would be best if he talked to the doctor about his emotional issues, to see if he had depression, or the doctor thought he needed medicated, etc. This ballooned into the doctor (who is a moron that we no longer visit) thinking that my son was having suicidal thoughts contemporarily, and prescribed that he be taken immediately to have a psychiatric evaluation (likely just trying to cover his own ***, and to not have to deal with it himself any longer). Well, my wife, distraught, simply followed his advice and my son was suddenly "in the system" from within which we could not do anything but follow the prescribed steps. My father-in-law came to pick me up to do a ride-along to the hospital with my wife and son (who were already on the way), and in the car he says to me that "Sometimes God has a way of bringing you to Him." As if it were worth my son's emotional distress (he DID NOT want to go to the hospital, didn't feel he was any sort of risk at the moment, wasn't having suicidal thoughts etc.) and literally pushing him to the brink during that former time to get me to "turn to God." If that's the way God operates, then screw 'im. Heartily... and in an uncomfortable place. (If you exist, God - I hope you are reading).
3. I went along with my wife to a free church cook-out in a park near my home, and there was one teenage boy who, for whatever reason, always sought me out specifically. I had never approached this boy in any interactions I ever had with him. He knew my son, and would begin by talking to my son, but it would always end up that he was then talking to me. I didn't think anything of it, and thought maybe he found it more interesting talking to me or something, I have no idea. Well, it got around in this church that I was a nonbeliever (I wasn't shy or shameful of the fact, obviously - nor did I push it on anyone - off the internet, I honestly try not to make waves unless someone comes at me first), and once his mother and father found this out, they would send little spies over to horn in on the conversation their son was trying to have with me. It was all very obvious and laughable. Honestly, the things we talked about were always video games or comics. Nothing more. I ended up talking to one of the spies once after the people's son was (again, obviously) called away on some errand. And do you know what happened? At the end of the conversation, the woman (spy) said, with all sincerity, and as if it were not some condescending thing: "You know, you're actually a pretty okay guy." WHAT. THE. HELL. I was obviously a no-good, evil troublemaker not 5 minutes ago to this woman, and she was literally shocked that I turned out to be "normal" - "okay" even!

I've got plenty more - a lot of it having to do with actually being in church. And no, I don't live "somewhere strange" - unless you consider Ohio to be some den of random weirdness.

You likely don't encounter these things because YOU BELIEVE. And therefore no one gives you a second thought. You're "in the club" - a non-threat. You get a free pass from scrutiny by those others, etc. Or else... you live somewhere very strange! Hahaha... ahhh... what a joke.

So your mind is absolutely closed. Got it. You are not skeptical, and you are not open to there being any possibility of God's existing. And yet you somehow don't see this as a belief on your part. The belief that you use to negate all others.

I could have easily added "Without a massive crapload of evidence" - but I honestly thought I had covered off on that point already. Multiple times, in fact. But it does seem that you have a rather limited memory.

 

[Augustus]

Can you just imagine if the conglomerate of all non-Christians were to be the ones to decide the definition of "Christianity" - and that done specifically to the chagrin of those who self-profess as Christian? There would be outcry of oppression, and tyranny, and people would be pointing to how "The Bible said you'd hate me!!!!! Oh god... *sob* *sob*" But I don't cry - instead I confront you, yell at you, and play around with you and make sure you know I'm not going to sit idly by while you spread bull feces all over the place.

When one Christian claims another Christian isn't a Christian which Christian is right? Who decides?

Non-Christians have just as much right to decide who they want to view as Christians as Christians do.

They have as much right to decide what they want to view as Christianity as Christians do.

Many atheists frequently make arguments about the impact of Christianity on society, which requires them to make a judgement about what they count as Christianity. Predictably, this usually ends up being Christians doing bad stuff = definitely Christianity, Christians doing good stuff = definitely unconnected to their Christianity

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atheism is belief, a way of life when you join religious forums to promote it. The real neutral, I don care, just stay off my lawn-Atheists, aren't here.

Make no mistake Colter - I am here to crush your theistic hopes and dreams.

So when Atheist put forth this "we are a special class of non-conformist who require delicate consideration because we are so insightful and unique" on a religious forum, some find that laughable!

I'm not special, and I don't consider myself particularly insightful... just realistic. In fact, most of the things I post that harangue theists so much I consider to be simple, plain, ordinary and accessible insights. I am honestly entirely shocked when people haven't thought about the types of things I put forward to them that confound them. When I use the word "obviously" I literally mean that I thought it was 100% obvious.

So you get called out for declaring the special case-ness of your non-belief, belief.

I have no positive prescriptions of what you should believe Colter. All I know is that if you believe in God, you have no realistic/cogent foundational support for that notion. You can't have. And if you did, then that is what you'd bring to the table. Not the crap I have seen you try to make do with so far.

 

[Sheldon]

It's amazing that otherwise intelligent people find this hard to grasp.

What's amazing is you keep asserting straw man fallacies, but do show a post where atheists have claimed words are prescriptive and not descriptive.

The really odd thing is that the 'lack of belief' definition is undeniably a more recent usage and didn't even appear in dictionaries until a few decades ago.

No the really odd things is that you have persistently ignored how dictionaries derived that definition. Like homophobes sulking because they can no longer refer to themselves as feeling gay.

Those who insist that dictionaries define objectively correct usage

Could you quote a post where you think this has been said please? Only I think this is a straw man you've used to misrepresent the actual fact that dictionaries derive definitions from what most people understand the word to mean, or common usage. Though more ironically is you've negated dictionaries altogether and have persistently told atheist what they must think and believe, even after being corrected multiple times? Then you make false accusation they are dealing in absolutes, irony overload.

Those who (very naively) think communication is only possible if we have prior agreement on correct usage of words should be against such a flagrant abuse of language that destroys consensus.

Straw man...

They must believe that all of those who promoted and spread the new usage were being churlish and irrational, until the day a small number of lexicographers working for private corporations decided to include the definition in their dictionaries.

Hahhahahhahahhahahaahha, uh, oh no, irony overload.

Overnight, the churlish and irrational abusers of language became objectively correct and those who used the traditional definition became the churlish and irrational abusers of language.

Will you listen to yourself? Yes when I found out that people had used the word literally flippantly as metaphor for so long its meaning had changed in the dictionary, I was "literally" exploding with rage. I get it, you're just one man, fighting the world to keep language pure. Where this crusade gets a little confusing is when you tell me, and other atheists we can't know our own minds about what we think and DON'T believe.

It also sometimes lead to vapid argument that as a 'non-position'

It does make you wonder why we have words to describe this, like non-belief or unbelief or disbelief or specifically in the case of the lack of theistic belief atheism.

Is amoral a lack or absence of morals still? How about asexual, is that still the lack of sexual attraction to others? Now asymmetry is that still a lack of symmetry.

It is quite odd to care passionately about the meaning of a single word, yet display absolutely no intellectual curiosity regarding how language is used to transmit meaning in general.

Straw man.....