It depends what ''X'' is.
If ''X'' turned out to be the ability to say you are without "X", or the ability to perceive anything at all, then no.
No, it doesn't depend on what X is, otherwise you are simply committing the fallacy of special pleading.
The implication would be there, and it would create a linguistic paradox that makes the sentence nonsense.
But that does not remove the implication from the term.
Are they offering proof for it in the sentence?
No.
Therefore it is something that they are accepting as true but without further proof.
Thus an assumption.
Why introduce "actually"?
If one is without sight, then why do we need to actualize sight?
???
I have to explain fairly standard English to you again?
Actually - I.e. Corresponding to the truth.
"Actually real" is in contrast to "possibly real" or "thought to be real".
Surely you have come across the word "actually" before???
It does not mean or imply "to actualise" which means to bring about, to make real.
I define the term "atheist" as "without God". Because that is the literal meaning, and because it fits.
It fits because you start with the a priori assumption that God exists.
You therefore use a definition for the word "atheist" that has within it the implication that God exists.
However, it simply does not fit the position of the vast majority of people who self-identify with the term.
The meaning has moved from the original definition, like many words have.
It is insulting, as has been mentioned to you previously, for you to insist upon a definition for a word that others use to self-identify that includes within it a set of assumptions that they themselves simply do not have, and to then argue against them as though they adhere to your definition of their label and not their own definition.
It is insulting and utterly dishonest of you.
Obviously you don't assume God exists. You assume God doesn't exist.
No, Jan, I don't.
Put your strawman down and join the actual discussion, why don't you?
So why do you do it?
Do you really want me to regurgitate the exhaustive list of definitions of the word "without", to show that it has nothing to do with any assumption on my part.
The assumption on your part is in insisting that that definition is the one that is used, that the term atheism only be understood by that definition.
You want to use the word "without" in the definition because it fits your view, your a priori assumption, that God exists.
But the word "atheism" has changed meaning, Jan.
The original meaning no longer applies as it did then.
It now simply means "does not hold the belief that God(s) exists".
Your insistence to the contrary, to use an archaic definition that has within it the implication that God exists, is utterly disrespectful, dishonest, and insulting.
You have been told this again and again,
Yet you persist.
You're wrong, so stop attempting to redefine a word that is already defined.
So many words are redefined over the years, Jan.
You are simply cherry-picking this one because it suits your agenda, suits your worldview.
It is not the current definition, Jan.
All you are doing is committing the etymological fallacy, insisting that the true definition must be its original.
As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage puts it:
"
One thing to remember when you read or hear someone insisting that an English word must have a certain meaning because of its Latin or Greek roots is that these in sisters apply their etymologies very selectively. You will find few of them who object to December being used for the twelfth month, when it's Latin root means 'ten', or to manure being used as a noun meaning 'dung' when it originally was a verb meaning 'to work (land) by hand'. So when you read, for example, that caption must refer to matter above a picture because it comes from Latin capital 'head', keep manure in mind."
In the Oxford Guide to Etymology (2009) it is noted that taking the Greek or Latin definition as an arbiter of usage even in a quite different Language some 2000 years later is an interesting cultural phenomenon.
"
so far as the scientific study of language is concerned, such assertions about the authority of 'etymological meanings' are quite irrelevant; or rather, if they are relevant to anyone, it is to people studying attitudes toward language use, rather than etymologists. It is one of the linguistic facts of life that words change in both form and in meaning."
- Philip Durkin
So, please, for the last time, drop this incessant drivel that you're spouting, and have been spouting across at least two threads.
Atheism does not mean what you want it to mean.
It probably did mean that, 2,000 years ago.
Now it doesn't.
To continue to insist that it should be understood as you want it to be is, as stated, disrespectful, dishonest, and insulting.
The fact that atheism is an ancient position, means the ancient definition is more suitable than these modern, trendy, personalised ones. Which tend to have nothing to do with the fact that God does not exist, as far as you're aware.
See, that's just you applying your personal view on the situation, and wanting to cherry pick the definition that you think applies.
It no longer does.
You are wanting to use a word where the meaning has changed from the one you want to use.
It now simply means, in its broadest sense "does not hold the belief that God(s) exist".
That is the meaning you should start with, not the one you want it to mean.
So God DOES exist, as far as you're aware? Hence you are not without God then. Why didn't you say so?
Once again you fail logic 101.
Because they are usually, obviously true.
No, they are merely not shown to be false.
There is a difference.
But my observation is not based on assumption.
Yes, it is.
It is based on the assumption that your interpretation of what you think you observe corresponds with objective reality.
Your interpretation is informed from the a priori assumption that God exists.
Thus that is the way you interpret your observation.
Where have stated that God exists?
Every time you say that God Is.
Every time you say that is it obvious that God Is etc.
If you believe it is implied in fact of being a theist...
No, I don't.
It is because you have stated "God Is" and "it is obvious to the theist that God Is".
You think calling someone a fool, because they fool themself, is an insult?
Wouldn't it be better to be alerted of one's foolishness, than to allow it to continue?
And yet not moments before you were saying that acceptance or not of God is not a choice.
So not only do you call atheists fools, you do so for not doing something that you don't think they had any control over.
Thus you compound your original insult yet further.