That's one of the reasons why it is funny.
- Would you care to illustrate on what grounds the definitions you hold are the only correct ones?
- And if possible provide support literature (easier) or write a paragraph or two that demonstrates how your definition is conceptually absolute?
- And on an optional note, could you briefly explain how come most known literatures on the subject are incorrect with their terms but still are widely referred to?
I said before, yours (and KHarvey16 and a few others) concepts are valid and I see no problem in holding them, but they are not standard or absolute or 'correct'. But as you hold it as so, maybe you can propose us why "it should be known".
I approach the meaning of the words theist and atheist in the simplest way I possibly can. I think everyone would agree that a theist is a person who believes in a god or gods.
Then we add the prefix "a":
a- or ( before a vowel ) an- 1
— prefix
not; without;
This gives us atheist. An atheist is any person who is not a theist. As in, a "not a [person who believes in a god or gods]/theist" or "a person without [belief in a god or gods]/theism."
Then people somehow get the idea that instead, atheist means "a person who believes it is impossible for a god to exist." Where does this come from? The structure of the word implies it in no way.
The best answer I can think of is
societal pressures. The reality of the situation is that there's a lot of hostility between theists and atheists because it's such a fundamental disagreement with a large potential impact on a great number of lives. Some people have a strong aversion to this hostility and wanted nothing more than to distance themselves from either side. Though in reality it is impossible to be neither an atheist nor a theist, they proceeded to attempt to create a way to escape this reality. In walks so-called "Agnosticism," the perfect happy land where you don't have to commit to anything and never have to admit whether or not you believe in a god or gods. This preference of classification becomes popular because people see it as a way to dodge any religious argument and somehow wedges itself between theism and atheism. But wait, this is nonsense! By the established definition, anyone claiming not to be a theist instantly becomes an atheist, whether they like it or not. In fact, agnosticism by definition has no affiliation with belief in a deity at all, and is merely a statement of whether you think something is knowable and can be applied to any number of concepts. That's not going to stop the "Agnostics" from outright denying this, because leaving their constructed safe zone is potential social suicide. It's far easier to say things like "I used to be an atheist, but I realized they were all rude and I want nothing to do with them" than it is to admit that they truly do not believe in a god.
Enter personalities with celebrity status such as Sagan or Tyson. Their desire to avoid upsetting anyone is possibly greater than that of anyone else, because there's no benefit to be found in alienating a part of your audience when your goal is to bring science to everyone. It serves no purpose to attempt to explain that atheism alone doesn't claim absolute knowledge against a god or become equivalent to anti-theism, because then they're just going to upset all of the angry theists who have an issue with atheists because their religion teaches them atheism is morally wrong. The path of least resistance is to join the Agnostic group, regardless of whether it is a legitimate position on belief. Then only the tiniest number out of the potential millions of viewers will be upset because calling yourself agnostic is so common at this point that the majority of the population doesn't even realize that it
isn't a legitimate position on belief.
Then you get the masses of people coming into this thread saying things like "totally agree, agnosticism is best, all atheists are annoying" and so forth because of how easily perpetuated the generalizations are when respected members of society adhere to them. By popularizing this false concept of agnosticism, they're effectively changing the definition of atheism primarily for the gain of people who attempt to avoid taking sides or participating in debates or discussions.
Earlier in the thread, someone said Tyson's response is the "let it be" answer. I disagree. The "let it be" answer is
actually saying let it be. It's entirely acceptable not to answer a question for the sake of protecting your image. What's not acceptable is joining a group whose solution to the debate is to turn everyone willing to hold a stance into a stereotype characterized as assholes.
did you just insult yourself?
I'm pretty sure that's what happened.