What characteristics do all theists have in common? It's about the same level of futility beyond the most basic thing that defines atheist and theist, as beyond that there is nothing.
That statement is blatantly and factually wrong.
Why futility? It's simple.
There is only one feature common to ALL atheists (and, therefore, definitive): a
lack of belief in god or Gods.
Now, some atheists actively believe there are no gods.
Some are anti-theist.
Some are nihilists.
Some are existentialists.
Some believe in leprechauns.
Some are even Republican.
But "some" doesn't count. A definition is a characteristic possessed by
all members of a group and no others.
Not all atheists arrived to being an atheists through the same paths but they have overlapping core beliefs. Same for theists.
Please name one or two of these core beliefs.
I say atheists have no core beliefs. Atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of a particular belief.
Why even have semantics and proper definitions for objects in the first place?
Because without them we would have no language.
What do you think language is, if not commonly agreed upon definitions and grammatical structures?
What we're really saying is that blue car is faster than that red car. In the end, both are still cars.
????? What does this mean?
This is the proper definition of an atheist from a dictionary:
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
That's actually pretty close, for a dictionary.
Dictionaries record common parlance. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. But, in serious, technical discussion, we abandon common parlance for prescriptive, technical definitions, so everyone's on the same page and not talking past one another.
This is the proper definition of a deity from a dictionary:
"a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion)."
A little circular, don't you think?
The definition of an atheist includes the definition of a deity, specifically, gods.
It's not fancy. It's simple.
Well, yes -- in a way. But an atheist need not ever have been exposed to, or be aware of the concept of deity to be an atheist. N'est-ce pas?
At some point whether it's in a debate, a mathematical equation, or a court litigation, all parties have to unify their logic and speak the same language in order to come to a conclusion.
If all parties are redefining these definitions and logic, then no conclusion can be made. One can personalize their definitions. That's fair, but in regards to communication with others not having all personal context, we should default to a proper universal definition.
Personally, I did not choose to be an atheist. I let the word atheist define me because of it's definition. I am not redefining the word to fit me. I am a "person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Hear hear!