Semantics

Semantics: The study of the relationship between words and their meanings.

After defining Theists as believers, Agnostics as "neutrals" (most of them), and Atheists as non believers, it will come a time when an atheist will hear that atheism cannot prove it is right with any more certainty than theism can. This post is not about proof.

As with any of these definitions, the focus falls on the belief at any given time, not its proof, or who's right or wrong. What these words describe is the opinion of the one labeling him/herself with any of these terms. Not how or why someone got to label themselves with one.

Let us take this statement: I believe gods do not exist with the same certainty that the sky is blue.
It sounds like an arrogant bold claim. But, the sky may not even have color, and it may be just reflecting radiation that my eyes perceive as being blue, and color becomes an abstract concept that my mind creates... well, and this is when we start playing with words: semantics.
In my experience, semantics has been one of the worst enemies of healthy religious dialog, it allows for interpretation of already ambiguous ideas, and such dilemas should be avoided.

Absolute Conviction vs Certain Conviction

My belief in religious disbelief is a conviction of mine. Not an absolute one, as stated on the very top of this blog. An absolute conviction is unchangeable. Mine is not. My conviction is certain only in the sense that nothing that I have observed or experienced, points in any other direction. It is not an absolute conviction. It is also only certain to me up until now, and probably for a long time to come. 100% of my perceptions, reason, and logical conclusions, point at atheism. If someday new facts and experiences come to light and my logic is challenged and proven wrong, I will change my belief.

But what does it mean to logically conclude? Is this semantics too, and if so, how do we avoid semantic dilemas? Where in Atheism should we stand? We'll see (or try!)...