Can you simply be Agnostic?

raah! wrote: »

This pushing of "atheism is just a lack of belief" is definitely not something which is universally accepted as the definition of atheism. If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist". If you're able to speak english, you'll see quite easily the difference between the two statements. There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief". This is not how the word is used today, and infact it was used soley in the "belief of non-existence" sense before people started to be offended by agnostics claiming a firmer epistemological footing.

It's clear that under the "I believe that god does not exist" definition, one can indeed be an agnostic but not an atheist.

The second Law would only be broken by evolving organisms if they could be considered to be closed/isolated systems. They are not unfortunately.

So is it your contention that the only choices are belief in a god or belief in no god? Where does the position of belief just being switched off fit in in your view? The term atheist simply means without god. The problem in the derivation of the term is that it was originally coined it as a pejorative for those who denied the gods. Since those who invented the term took the existence of god as an assumed fact, the whole basis of the definition could be said to be faulty.
I don't know, raah!, if you're a christian or atheist or whatever but I can't understand why people are perfectly happy to differentiate between different branches of Christianity (33000, to be precise) and yet assume that all atheists have a common set of principles or beliefs. There is a big difference between a passive lack of belief and a positive assertion that there are no gods and plenty of people out there who fall into both categories.
As for some specific comments you made:

"There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief"."

I would say that quite a lot of the people here and on other forums use the word atheist in that sense including myself.


"This is not how the word is used today"

You may want to read these before making such a comment:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


"If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist"."

What are you basing that assumption on? The first statement is merely a comment on plausibility. Obviously in situations like the origin of the universe for example, there are many possible explanations. It could have been a spontaneously created universe, a cyclical universe, it could have been created by God, it could have been created by an alien who blew up his apartment trying to make beer etc. In the presence of competing explanations it is necessary to rank them according to the supporting evidence. An atheist would conclude that on the basis of the evidence for individual explanations that it is probable that God did not create the universe. At no point here is there a comment on belief.

dead one wrote: »

Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)

Most tenuous explanation ever.

By your logic, I violate the second law of thermodynamics every time I clean my house.

dead one wrote: »

The hot star in cooler space represents state of available energy. According to law of thermodynamics this available energy is constantly turning into unavailable energy . In other words Entire universe is running out of energy.

What you misunderstand is that the energy of the star reduces but the energy in the universe rises by an equivalent amount (ignoring mass fluctuations). The net energy doesn't change. When equilibrium is reached, then there is a state of unavailable energy in the thermodynamics. This does NOT mean there is no energy.

A simple test for this is to connect two drums together with a hose or pipe. Fill one with water quickly. Over time the, water will fill the other drum too (via the pipe) until the water level is the same in each. At this point equilibrium is reached and no more water will move between the drums. What is important now to understand that this does NOT mean there is no energy. If one drum is lowered, the process will restart.

The same trial can be done by connecting the positives (+ to +) and negative (- to -) of two equal voltage batteries together with an ammeter. You will see no current flow. Connect the respective positive to the negatives and you will (+ to - and + to -).

dead one wrote: »

thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase.

Have you not stated that it decreases?

dead one wrote: »

Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)

Explain crystals then. Jumbled molecules rearrange into incredibly ordered macro structures. Notice the person in this picture:

Geologist Juan Manuel García-Ruiz calls it "the Sistine Chapel of crystals," but Superman could call it home.

A sort of south-of-the-border Fortress of Solitude, Mexico's Cueva de los Cristales (Cave of Crystals) contains some of the world's largest known natural crystals—translucent beams of gypsum as long as 36 feet (11 meters).
From here. All these crystals are are huge ordered lumps of calcium sulfate. By your idea of thermodynamics they shouldn't exist, except they do and not only that, but you can make crystals like these (ok, it takes a while for crystals of that size) of quite a lot of materials, I do so regularly in my lab (a very simple example you can do at home is to take some sea water and boil all the water off it you are left with crystals of salt).

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that I know quite a number of self-described atheists who insist that the term means precisely that. Anyone who lacks a belief in god(s) is, in their view, an atheist. For them, the term embraces both those who affirm that there is no god(s) and those who do not go so far, but simply lack any belief in god(s).

I'm not saying that this is a universally accepted definition; just that it's a reasonably common one, and a perfectly defensible one.

My point is that this shift of the word atheist to mean "lack of belief" has come about for a reason. It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing". Since pretty much every person who posts here falls into the category of "believes god does not exist", it's not difficult to draw this conclusion.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The problem in the derivation of the term is that it was originally coined it as a pejorative for those who denied the gods. Since those who invented the term took the existence of god as an assumed fact, the whole basis of the definition could be said to be faulty.

This is exactly it, the term originally meant "belief that gods do not exist". The shift to "lack of belief" can be viewed in a way similar to the catholic church saying "you can't sign out of the catholic church". It's not linguistically helpful, and destroys the actual distinction between "lack of belief" and "belief in non-existance". Changing the meaning a word so that it is more ambiguous is not a good thing. And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics.

There is a big difference between a passive lack of belief and a positive assertion that there are no gods and plenty of people out there who fall into both categories.

Yes, there is a big difference.

As for some specific comments you made:

"There is no point in pretending that when anyone uses the term atheist they mean "lack of belief"."

I would say that quite a lot of the people here and on other forums use the word atheist in that sense including myself.

And I am saying that you are politically, rather than linguistically motivated. The meaning has been changed, to suit an argument. It has been changed in a way such that this big distinction you mentioned earlier has become blurred.

"This is not how the word is used today"

You may want to read these before making such a comment:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Everything I've said previously applies to any atheist made definition of atheism. The meaning of the word has changed. It originally meant "denying existence". I've given good reasons for why this is not a helpful conceptual change, and why it can be seen as a political act.

"If you actually read this forum, you'll see time and time again "God probably doesn't exist". This is a declaration of "I believe that it does not exist"."

What are you basing that assumption on? The first statement is merely a comment on plausibility. An atheist would conclude that on the basis of the evidence for individual explanations that it is probable that God did not create the universe. At no point here is there a comment on belief.

Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true". Your whole paragraph here just says that "atheists are just affirming the truth of the non-existence of god". You are mistaken in putting those things forward as competing hypotheses, I'm sure you've read some creationists or apologists, who can simply append a god to whatever scientific theory you want to think of. If not "append" then do somethign like "permeat throughout" or "sit outside".

Since there is no well defined probability, to say that god is improbable is a statement of belief.

raah! wrote: »

And I am saying that you are politically, rather than linguistically motivated. The meaning has been changed, to suit an argument. It has been changed in a way such that this big distinction you mentioned earlier has become blurred.

It didn't change so much as become defined to make sense.

raah! wrote: »

Everything I've said previously applies to any atheist made definition of atheism. The meaning of the word has changed. It originally meant "denying existence".

You would do well to read the links posted, Atheist comes from the latin "atheos", which means "without god". At the most basic level, all atheists lack a belief in god. A lot will go further and believe that god does not exist (the difference between implicit and explicit atheism). None deny the existence of god, because such a position, linguistically, presupposes that the existence is fact and that someone is in denial of such a fact or its implications.

dead one wrote: »

It isn't enough that earth is open to Sun, There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity. When energy enters into an open system, it increases its entropy, It won't decrease it's energy. If you look at the system of Earth with your own eyes. Here's what you have to do:
1. If you sleep or sit in sun, you skin will get older
2. If you park car in Sun, Paint job will get bad.
3. That's it!

There is an assumption by evolutionist which is proved wrong by "Second law of thermodynamic. The evolutionist assume There is tendency of nature from disorder to order. The real tendency as pointed by "Second law of thermodynamic is from order to an organization to disorder. Life wasn't evolve it was designed and it is true in case of earth.


The amount of disorder in any closed system increases with increase in time. Things go from order to disorder or from an available energy state to an unavailable energy state. Take example of hot cup of cofee in an insulated room. The coffee cools off. The total amount of energy in room remain same as per first law of thermodynamics. When coffee is hot, due to difference between coffee and air, there available energy. The available energy turn into unavailable energy when coffee cools down. When there is no temperature difference between coffee and air, it shows energy is all in available state. The room and coffee suffered what they call "heat death" because there is no more available energy to work. Second law of thermodynamic gives, the reverse can't happen, because coffee won't hot by itself. Because this would require to turn unavailable energy into available energy
Now take whole universe as "a giant closed system". Resemble stars with cup of coffee. The hot star in cooler space represents state of available energy. According to law of thermodynamics this available energy is constantly turning into unavailable energy . In other words Entire universe is running out of energy. It shows someone has given universe enough energy to function, Like wind - up clock. This is enough proof for existence of God if you believe. All the evolutionary theories seems fake before above argument.


thermodynamics says the total entropy of a system always tend to increase. Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)
There must be an intelligent designer who is designing the complexity of system. That designer can only violate law of thermodynamic who created these laws of physics.

What a load of garbled nonsense. Yet another creationist raising yet another tired argument against evolution. You know dead one, it really would help if you actually attempted to understood science before shamelessy mangling it to suit your warped sense of reality.


"The evolutionist assume There is tendency of nature from disorder to order."

Well I would say we observe such a tendency. There is no need to assume it. You can even see it for yourself.

Before:



After:

[Embedded Image Removed]

"Now take whole universe as "a giant closed system"."

It is incorrect to assume the universe as a closed system for the purposes of a discussion on entropy. The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant. Note the important part of that sentence. The universe does not have a fixed volume. It is in a state of expansion. So any discussion on overall entropy change in the present universe is redundant. The universe is not expected to reach a state of heat death for at least another 10^100 years so there is plenty of scope for entropy to be produced until then.

"The real tendency as pointed by "Second law of thermodynamic is from order to an organization to disorder."

In a word, no. The equating of disorder with entropy is a misconception.
Entropy is not the same as disorder. There have been observed instances of an increase in order corresponding with an increase in entropy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5426/394.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5358/1849.short

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v68/i12/p1090_s1?isAuthorized=no


"Entire universe is running out of energy. It shows someone has given universe enough energy to function, Like wind - up clock. This is enough proof for existence of God if you believe."

It would be really helpful if you didn't start mixing your apples and oranges. Or in this case your first and second laws of thermodynamics. The formation of the universe is not necessarily a violation of the first law as your garbled argument suggests. Since the gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is always negative, it is possible that if we were able to calculate all such energies then they would balance out with the energy of the universe.

"There must be a mechanism which converts that energy into complexity."

There are several. Photosynthesis for example.

"Since evolution represent greater amount of order it violates second laws of thermodynamic (as entropy of a system increase)"

Wrong again. The energy from the sun is used by organisms on earth to account for the increase in order. The local increase in order on earth is offset by a decrease in order within the sun. The overall effect on the universe, even were it to be considered a closed system, is thus zero.

Still, though I don't suppose you're going to take any of these arguments on board. I expect you will do what all other creationists do and stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the same old tired rhetoric. In the end, we're not here to actually convince you of the ridiculousness of your arguments. That would be futile. It is important, however, to counter such bull**** with facts and evidence so that any innocent parties are not drawn in by your tired crap.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"It is a reaction to the agnostics saying "I'm on a firmer epistemic footing"."

"And as I've said before, this was obviously done deliberately as a response to agnostics."

These statements show that you fundamentally misunderstand agnosticism almost as much as atheism. For your benefit you may want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Agnosticism is a commentary on the knowledge or truth of a certain statement. It is not pertinent to a discussion, in this case, on the meaning and change therein of the word atheism.

Do you see how if the meaning of the word "atheism" were restricted to "afrimation of non-existence" then one could "simply be agnostic". Which is actually the title of the thread?

On the contrary it is, linguistically speaking, quite common and very helpful.

In what sense is this helfpul? In terms of describing things?

Atheism is a similar example and is motivated, not by politics as you claim but simply a move from an imposed pejorative to a self-description.

It's actually a less accurate self description. The original pejorative meaning of the term more accurately describes the type of people who would like to see its meaning expanded to included anyone who does not possess belief.

Of course, it could also be argued that the category of semantic change into which atheism falls in generalisation. An example of this would be the latin word platea meaning broad street. Over time, the spelling and pronunciation of the word changed and became place, which can describe more than just a street. It can be argued that the definition of atheism similarly became more expansive, to include different manifestations of the same broad description.

This does not address in anyway that the meaning of the word may have been changed deliberately. To say that it was "to distance from the pejorative" is actually support to the idea that it was changed to suit the purposes of a groupe. I.e. politically motivated.

As I have explained above, the change in meaning of words is a fact of life. It is rarely, if ever, as you are trying to suggest, the result of a conscious action. Language, like all other aspects of culture, evolves.

Well as far as I can see, from reading this forum, it's been a very recent, and rather rapid change, occuring entirely in those arguments where agnosticism has been brought up. Threads like this.

Thank you for that. It's always nice to see an argument from incredulity rephrased in a new way. How things seem and how they are are two very different things.

Would you care to show where an "argument from incredulity" comes anywhere into anythign I've said. All my points have been positive assertions. Based on how I've seen the use of the word change over time.

Saying "This is probabilistically very unlikely" is the same as saying, in normal language "this isn't true".

Nonsense. What I was describing is the ranking of competing hypotheses according to the level of evidence. I used the restricted example of the origin of the universe and I said that it could be concluded that on the strength of the evidence that God is unlikely to have created it. That is in no way commenting on the actual truth of the proposition.
Let me put it another way. If you're going to (intelligently) put a bet on a horse in a race then you examine the form in order to determine which horse will win. On this basis, odds are determined. On the strength of various factors, including form, the horses are ranked on the basis of how likely they are to win the race. So you can say that a horse which is 100-1 is unlikely to win, but that does not equate to saying he won't win. After all Spanish Don, for example, won the 2004 Cambridgeshire Handicap with odds of 100-1.

If you'd like to restrict truth to mean "analytic truth" then go ahead. I drew a distinction between "normal language" and "scientific language" for a reason.

Saying "the entropy of a system is very unlikely to decrease spontaneously" can be viewed on a similar footing to saying "it won't". In this case, making statements about probabilities of which you have no knowledge, can easily be called belief. Horses don't come into it.

raah! wrote: »

We are talking about the evolution of the use of the word. We can all go out and fish out archaic definitinos and etymologies, but if the word is being used differently in our time, then it means something else.

Here now, you said "It [atheist] originally meant "denying existence"." You are wrong, it didn't originally mean that and it never has. You realise its very obvious when you try to strawman and your original post is still there, right?

raah! wrote: »

The point is that the word has been used for a very long time as "believing in non-existence". You can see yourself how the responses to the "atheists believe int higns recently" are divided in the "oh well it's just really really unlikely" to the newer "atheist just means lack of belief".

Even if "atheist just meant lack of belief", everyone on here would still be in the more specific sub category.

How can you say this and not understand the implication? If "believe that god doesn't exist" is a sub category of atheism, then it must have come after the main category was defined, the main category being "a lack of belief in god". Therefore, your notion that atheism originally meant "denied the existence of god" is wrong and isn't even correct now.

raah! wrote: »

Note: According to Peregrinus' post, and fairly common knowledge; The word Agnostic was actually coined in opposition to the word atheist. These cross diagrams reflect only how the meaning of the word atheist has changed (been changed), or at least how people think thomas huxley's conception of it was wrong.

These crosses just show that people who generally aren't atheist or agnostic actually dont understand what the hell they are talking about when they try to tell an atheist or agnostic what they believe. "Common knowledge" has problems with the word theory, so I dont see how much use it is in using it to correct peoples misconceptions of what the words atheist and agnostic actually mean.

raah! wrote: »

Do you see how if the meaning of the word "atheism" were restricted to "afrimation of non-existence" then one could "simply be agnostic".

Yes, I see how that may be the case. But such a shift in definition would be even bigger and more damaging than what you are suggesting has already happened by shifting atheism from belief in no god to lack of belief in god.

raah! wrote: »

In what sense is this helfpul? In terms of describing things?

It is helpful in two ways. First, and more importantly, there is no point in maintaining a meaning for a word when it's original sense is based on a flaw in logic and in fact. The word atheism is rooted in the idea that the existence of God is a self evident fact. This is incorrect. So like many ideas our increased understanding of the world has caused the meaning of this word to change.
Secondly it is helpful because it helps to end a common misconception thrown out by religious people, particularly creationists. This of course, is the "atheism is a religion" argument.

raah! wrote: »

Would you care to show where an "argument from incredulity" comes anywhere into anythign I've said. All my points have been positive assertions. Based on how I've seen the use of the word change over time.

Certainly. Yes, all of your points have been positive assertions. This is not incongruous with such a fallacy. The argument from incredulity is usually presented in two forms, positive and negative.

Positive

It is obvious that P, therefore P must be true.

e.g. Obviously the eye is designed and didn't evolve.

Negative

P is too incredible and therefore must be false.

e.g. I can't see how the eye could have evolved by chance.

In both cases, the arguer draws a conclusion which is arrived at by either wilfully ignoring or being ignorant of evidence which supports the original proposition (the evolution of the eye by natural selection in the case of the example). So far your arguments have displayed just such traits. You have argued that the change in the meaning of the word atheism has been politically motivated without showing any evidence to support your claim and have disregarded the evolution of language as a factor in the etymological drift of the word atheism.
The evolution of language and etymology is a well-studied field and you may want to consider understanding the different factors which influence the change in meaning of a word before making unfounded conclusions about political motivations.

raah! wrote: »

Well as far as I can see, from reading this forum, it's been a very recent, and rather rapid change, occuring entirely in those arguments where agnosticism has been brought up. Threads like this.

You may want to expand your horizons beyond this forum before you start making such conclusions. This forum is just a small portion of the web and reflects current thinking so it is not going to be a good indicator of the etymological change in the word atheism. For the record, the word atheism traces its usage back to the Old French atheisme in c.1570. The beginning of the shift from denying the gods to lack of a belief actually has its roots in the religious intolerance that followed the civil war. Prior to the civil war there were deists, atheists, catholics, protestants and a whole manner of other groups. However, in the reconstructionist atmosphere that followed the war, there began a philosophical merger of sorts between catholics and protestants under the umbrella term of christian. This also coincided with the advent of the debate of social issues such as abortion and divorce. As the christian group began to grow a cultural red queen effect began and the non-god group began to expand to encompass strong atheism as well as weak atheism. Susan Jacoby has a marvellous treatment of the subject in her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.
The point here is that, contrary to your above assertion, the change in meaning of the term atheist, happening as it did over the course of the last five generations or so, is neither particularly recent nor rapid.

raah! wrote: »

Saying "the entropy of a system is very unlikely to decrease spontaneously" can be viewed on a similar footing to saying "it won't".

Similar maybe, but there is a crucial distinction here which you seem to have overlooked. The statement "the entropy of a system is very unlikely to decrease spontaneously" does not exclude the possibility of such an occurrence. The statement "it won't" does. The first is a simple statement of the facts and the second is worthless speculation.

raah! wrote: »

Well, according to most people that was one of the sub categories of meaning. But by "originally" I meant "starting around the start of the new atheist movement, after the coinage of the term agnostic" as I imagine should have been very clear from the context.

Now, it did mean that, several times over the course of the history. It's even something it means from it's basic etymological roots. But all of that is completely irrelevant and I don't think you've gotten the point.

Who are most people? Nothing you have presented here shows that atheist ever meant what you think it meant, you are just making empty assertions based on argumentum ad (imaginary) populum.

raah! wrote: »

Also you probably shouldn't thank the other fellows posts in which he discusses the changes in the meaning of the term occurring naturally if you don't believe any changes have happened at all.

Like I said before, it didn't so much change as become more defined. Besides, even if it did change, it never was and never has meant what you claim it did.

raah! wrote: »

Strawman is not appropriate to describe me changing my own arguments for the better.

Moving the goalposts then? Lying?

raah! wrote: »

Again, I was speaking hypothetically. I said "Even if it was being used as one amongst many other sub categories, it wouldn't matter, it would still be the most appropriate way for atheists to self describe". It is an argument for the change in meaning being deliberate, that to accurately self describe the former term was just fine.

Except it wouldn't be fine, as the term is inaccurate and was never actually used outside of an insult.

raah! wrote: »

The man who coined the term hardly falls into the category of those possessing "common knowledge".

Who coined the term, do we even know? It was first used as an accusation and an insult, an atheist was a godless person. So the poorly thought out term was taken and given proper definition by the people it was being thrown at.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, I see how that may be the case. But such a shift in definition would be even bigger and more damaging than what you are suggesting has already happened by shifting atheism from belief in no god to lack of belief in god.

It would be damaging in that people would be able to say "I'm an agnostic but not an atheist". It would still however describe you and everyone posting on it. It would mean more people are more accurately described.
It is only damaging from the point of view of the interests of atheists who are offended by agnostics claiming firmer epistemological footing. Now I'll go into this again further.

It is helpful in two ways. First, and more importantly, there is no point in maintaining a meaning for a word when it's original sense is based on a flaw in logic and in fact. The word atheism is rooted in the idea that the existence of God is a self evident fact. This is incorrect. So like many ideas our increased understanding of the world has caused the meaning of this word to change.

Actually, that is very much how the word is still used. The word is used in a positive sense (that is, it's used as an assertion of certain ideologies today, rather than simply the lack of certain other oens). There is plenty of evidence that the meaning of the word has not changed "because of our increased understanding of the world". There is a reason that people so often say "I'm an atheist", without prompt. They don't simply mean "I'm not a theist" , they generally mean "I'm a new atheist". That's how the word is used today. That is a fact.


There is no flaw in logic in saying anything whatsoever is self evident. As a statement logic does not even come into it. Logic concerns the validity of statements and the connections between assertions.

Secondly it is helpful because it helps to end a common misconception thrown out by religious people, particularly creationists. This of course, is the "atheism is a religion" argument.

Also, you've completely just agreed with everything you started disagreeing with. You've contradicted yourself ridiculously. This is what I've been saying all along. That the change in the meaing was deliberate as a reaction to certain arguments, and that this deliberate change could be seen by watching the arguments devolop over time. Even if the change was not fully conscious or deliberate, it would still be one which was politically motivated, rather than more linguistically appropriate, which again confirms what I started out saying.

Now, this is obviously a different kind of change to the gradual spelling chagnes that occur in language. They are connected only in that they are a change in meaning. There is ample evidence to suggest that the change in the meaning of the word atheist was done deliberately and consciously, with a view to help arguments. Evidence of this can be seen:

-This post you have just made where you say "it wasn't changed because it was useful for atheists arguments to change it, it was changed because it was useful for atheists to change it". This is what I meant by political. Perhaps you should look the word up.
-This thread, in which the person comes in, with a certain understanding of the word atheist. And people attempt to forcefully change his conception of it, as this is in their interests. A second person comes in and the same thing is done.
-That fellows signature, in which again he is trying to press this new meaning.
-A post made by strobe once where he was drunk. This is an illustration of how the agnostic thing frustrates people. Perhaps Strobe can come in and tell us why he made that post, and perhaps signature person can tell us why he made his signature.

Either way, those were all conscious changes. There is piles and piles of evidence for it. It is reflected historically in the changes in how people self described when the term agnostic was coined. This is in Peregrinus' post. That is what this thread is about by the way.

Certainly. Yes, all of your points have been positive assertions. This is not incongruous with such a fallacy. The argument from incredulity is usually presented in two forms, positive and negative.

Positive

It is obvious that P, therefore P must be true.

e.g. Obviously the eye is designed and didn't evolve.

Negative

P is too incredible and therefore must be false.

e.g. I can't see how the eye could have evolved by chance.

In both cases, the arguer draws a conclusion which is arrived at by either wilfully ignoring or being ignorant of evidence which supports the original proposition (the evolution of the eye by natural selection in the case of the example). So far your arguments have displayed just such traits. You have argued that the change in the meaning of the word atheism has been politically motivated without showing any evidence to support your claim and have disregarded the evolution of language as a factor in the etymological drift of the word atheism.

Most of this is completely superflous. The next part of the post is what I asked for. But you did actually make some arguments at the end there.

Words do not drift etymologically, etymology concerns their origins. I do not ignore the evolution of language, and I gave many examples. I am saying that in the semantic chagnes of words there is often a deliberate change. I have provided far more evidence to support my conception of the chagnes being "political" than you have to suggest that they have been used to more accurately describe. In fact, you just contradicted yourself above there when you tried to say "describing atheists in such a way that they have an advantage in arguments against agnostics is descriptively advantageous". Which is rather funny.

The evolution of language and etymology is a well-studied field and you may want to consider understanding the different factors which influence the change in meaning of a word before making unfounded conclusions about political motivations.

Now, yes, there are different factors, one of which is often deliberate changes. You've provided a very tenuous link, you've essentially said "words change in meaning, look at this example where the spelling of a word has changed over time and it's meaning has changed", "atheism is just the same". Much of your arguments are like this. I said "how is this an argument from incredulity" and you have essentially responded "an argument from incredulity is this, your argument is the same as this" but again you fail to point out in which sense it is an argument from incredulity.

Now, if you'd like to give some actual support as to why the change in the word atheism was one of those natural changes (you've given none by the way, just given definitions from wikipedia), then go ahead.

If you'd like to make the outrageous claim that it's impossible for a group of people to deliberately change the meaning of a word, or how they use it for politcal gain. That is for reasons that suit themselves, political meaning "group power struggles". Or "groups making collective decisions".

You may want to expand your horizons beyond this forum before you start making such conclusions. This forum is just a small portion of the web and reflects current thinking so it is not going to be a good indicator of the etymological change in the word atheism. For the record, the word atheism traces its usage back to the Old French atheisme in c.1570. The beginning of the shift from denying the gods to lack of a belief actually has its roots in the religious intolerance that followed the civil war. Prior to the civil war there were deists, atheists, catholics, protestants and a whole manner of other groups. However, in the reconstructionist atmosphere that followed the war, there began a philosophical merger of sorts between catholics and protestants under the umbrella term of christian. This also coincided with the advent of the debate of social issues such as abortion and divorce. As the christian group began to grow a cultural red queen effect began and the non-god group began to expand to encompass strong atheism as well as weak atheism. Susan Jacoby has a marvellous treatment of the subject in her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

This is actually again a politically motivated change in the meaning of the word, which supports my original post. You could have left the entire rest of your post out and posted this by the way.
Now, while there may have been these changes going on then, they are rather irrelevant the the changes we can easily perceive going on now. If this broad usage came into use then, then it shifted back to the specific usage, and is now, for political reasons similar to those you've shown there. (which by the way, is an argument against your "it's a natural change, just like how the spelling of words change", you've essentially shown yourself and everything that the original example you've given had nothing to do with this change).

The point here is that, contrary to your above assertion, the change in meaning of the term atheist, happening as it did over the course of the last five generations or so, is neither particularly recent nor rapid.

Well that's all very good, but the evidence in the usage clearly suggests another shift.
And this civil war shift was not as clean cut as you put it, becauase this was the same time in which huxley coined the word agnostic, which essentially had the effect of narrowing the definition. It had the effect of causing atheism to be used in the "assertion of non-existence" sense.

But either way, that doesn't really matter, it just ignores modern usage, and is actually just strong evidence to how the meaning of the word has changed in the way I described it and not through the model you originally gave.

As I've said, while you might not want to read what's in this forum, if you'll do, you'll see a deliberate and concentrated campaign to have the meaning of the word atheist fixed on the broad meaning. It does not make sense that they would do this if the other usage was not currently in place.

Similar maybe, but there is a crucial distinction here which you seem to have overlooked. The statement "the entropy of a system is very unlikely to decrease spontaneously" does not exclude the possibility of such an occurrence. The statement "it won't" does. The first is a simple statement of the facts and the second is worthless speculation.

It's not really a worthless speculation, it's merely speaking in pragmatic terms. I can say with 100% certainty that I will never observe a decrease in entropy in my life. I can say with 100% certainty that a statue will not get up and due a jig due to random molecular vibrations.

The point is that, like the change in the meaning of the word, talking of probabilities is just an attempt to hide the actual position held. And that's a position in which the non-existence of a god is espoused. The probability spoken of is not known, any statement regarding this is "worthless speculation".

Just to summarise the situation. I have given evidence that the change has occured due to politcal motivations. This thread and forum is filled with such evidence. Also, your posts regarding the civil war have just supported the kind of politcal change I am talking about. That there have been more shifts, or that the meaning of the word in which people have a politcal interest is not something you can well deny. Which you did at the start.