Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Words Matter... but not to some" video.

Well... There is a case about using the dictionary. A dictionary does not define words, it only shows common usages of a word. If people use the dictionary as what define words, that means language can not evolve. I disagree with the common definition of Atheism for example. I find it lacking as it have a heavy bias on religions and beliefs that believe in some kind of God. It will also define Buddhist as a Atheist just because the religion does not have a God. It also means any religion or belief that lack any clearly defined God are atheists by definition. So the vast majority of religions that have ever existed on this planet are simply atheistic as they didn't believe in a God. When we talk about a atheist. We are talking about someone that does not believe in any Gods or religions. This is not agnosticism. Agnosticism is a knowledge question about if you believe we can or can not know if a God really exist. It is because of this reason I reject the common definition and instead define Atheism as: The rejection in believing any religious claim as true. This way. Believers and followers of the WORLD RELIGION of Buddhism can not be called atheism. You can not be a follower of a religion and be a atheist. I understand very well what dictionaries are made for and why it is important for people to understand each other. But we must also be open to that words are not defined in such a way that they can't change over time. If we allow our language to stagnate it is dying. TIK. You are correct in your arguments here. I just have a small problem that it seems you invalidate the very notion of words change over time.
1