Alright agnostics. Weak atheism is most likely here to stay. Even if atheism was originally meant to refer to someone who was against God or his existence, well now the term has branched out giving us "weak atheism". In my view, whether or not, atheists did this to include agnostics and even babies into their camps does not change the fact that it is common usage. Sure, we can debate on "common usage" but I think the term is common enough and it's not incoherent so I see no problem with it.
Here's Merriam-Webster on common usage of words...
For Discussion:
1. If 'weak atheism' is here to stay, then how is Agnosticism mutually exclusive to weak atheism?
2. I can understand why some atheists would want agnostics and even babies in their camp (e.g. boosting their numbers and/or make it seem natural or the default), but why would agnostics be against any "atheist" label? Should agnostics be against the atheist label?
Here's Merriam-Webster on common usage of words...
Before a new word can be added to the dictionary, it must have enough citations to show that it is widely used. But having a lot of citations is not enough; in fact, a large number of citations might even make a word more difficult to define, because many citations show too little about the meaning of a word to be helpful. A word may be rejected for entry into a general dictionary if all of its citations come from a single source or if they are all from highly specialized publications that reflect the jargon of experts within a single field.
To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning.
The number and range of citations needed to add a word to the dictionary varies. In rare cases, a word jumps onto the scene and is both instantly prevalent and likely to last, as was the case in the 1980s with AIDS. In such a situation, the editors determine that the word has become firmly established in a relatively short time and should be entered in the dictionary, even though its citations may not span the wide range of years exhibited by other words.
For Discussion:
1. If 'weak atheism' is here to stay, then how is Agnosticism mutually exclusive to weak atheism?
2. I can understand why some atheists would want agnostics and even babies in their camp (e.g. boosting their numbers and/or make it seem natural or the default), but why would agnostics be against any "atheist" label? Should agnostics be against the atheist label?