About This Word, “Atheist”
I’ve been having intense discussions in several forums (fora) about the “meaning” of the word “atheist”…and thought I would devote a thread to it here in the Philosophy Forum.
First of all…its etymology. The word atheist came into the English language from the Greek through the French:
Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Merriam-Webster Online:
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.)
“Atheist”, it should be noted, was introduced to the English language BEFORE theist…so it could not have been derived the way some atheists want to insist, by “a” (without) + “theist” (a “belief” in a god) = without a “belief” in a god.)
Yes…one characteristic that ALL atheists share in common…is A LACK OF “BELIEF” THAT ANY GODS EXIST. ALL atheists lack a “belief” (in) god…but not everyone lacking that “belief” is an atheist.
It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa.
Some babies, born into theistic families…are indoctrinated to become theists; some, born into atheistic families…are indoctrinated to become atheists. As maturity sets in…each individual makes change, or remains constant, as he/she chooses.
This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic. To usurp the meaning of a word (as atheists have done with the word “atheist”) so as to include people who simply do not want to belong…is inappropriate.
Two final comments:
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time.
Two: SOME dictionaries actually define atheism as “the belief that no gods exist”…so there is not unanimity of opinion on how it IS used.
Any thoughts on this issue from the community?
First of all…its etymology. The word atheist came into the English language from the Greek through the French:
Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Merriam-Webster Online:
Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.)
“Atheist”, it should be noted, was introduced to the English language BEFORE theist…so it could not have been derived the way some atheists want to insist, by “a” (without) + “theist” (a “belief” in a god) = without a “belief” in a god.)
Yes…one characteristic that ALL atheists share in common…is A LACK OF “BELIEF” THAT ANY GODS EXIST. ALL atheists lack a “belief” (in) god…but not everyone lacking that “belief” is an atheist.
It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa.
Some babies, born into theistic families…are indoctrinated to become theists; some, born into atheistic families…are indoctrinated to become atheists. As maturity sets in…each individual makes change, or remains constant, as he/she chooses.
This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic. To usurp the meaning of a word (as atheists have done with the word “atheist”) so as to include people who simply do not want to belong…is inappropriate.
Two final comments:
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time.
Two: SOME dictionaries actually define atheism as “the belief that no gods exist”…so there is not unanimity of opinion on how it IS used.
Any thoughts on this issue from the community?
Comments (437)
You havent demonstrated a very deep understanding of the word, certainly your use of “CLEARLY” Is erroneous here. If it was clear from the epistemology alone you wouldnt need to bring it up. You also fail to justify claims you make, such as that defining atheism as lacking belief in god is an insult to reason and logic. How? Even if you think thats the wrong definition, that doesnt mean its an insult to logic and reason. Anyway, I have some questions if your actually interested in a discussion.
First, you didnt provide a definition of what you think atheism is, so lets hear that.
Also, What is the difference, in your mind, between “being without a god” and “being without a belief in god?”. Im curious to know what being without god would even mean if not being about belief.
Hi Frank!
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but thought that the quoted definition was intriguing. Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion. So, if someone says: Atheism is just another Religion, would they be incorrect?
Such an emotionally charged issue I know. However, the irony for the Atheist is that if emotive phenomena is metaphysical in nature, they need to reconcile the paradoxical nature of their own said emotional belief system from the lack thereof.
Interesting sentence! Interesting way to start a conversation..with what amounts to a gratuitous accusation.
Its etymology does clearly show how it was meant to be understood. To be without a god. And one cannot be "without a god"...unless there are no gods. If there are (something we do not know)...you are with a god no matter what you "believe."
If someone is screwing with the word in order to make it mean something it did not mean...then one would either have to concede the point...or "bring it up."
I choose to bring it up. Don't necessarily "need" to...but I can, and do, choose to.
Since the distortion of what the word means results in someone like me (an agnostic without a "belief in any gods") being included because of the distorted meaning...it is an insult to reason and logic.
If the word means "a belief that there are no gods"...I stay excluded from the group...which is what I want...TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THAT GROUP.
And children and toddlers would also.
And to what end is that not the case?
The dichotomy, according to atheists, is "either one believes at least one god exists" or "one does not believe that at least one god exists." I suggest that (if there must be a dichotomy) it is: "either one believes at least one god exists" or "one believes no gods exist."
Frankly, the issue does not resolve to a dichotomy.
In my case for instance...
...I do not "believe" any gods exist...and...
...I also do not "believe" there are no gods.
One, thank you for sharing that...
...and two, I am very interested in a discussion.
Most people I know who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...lack a "belief" (in) God (lack a "belief that any gods exist.) Almost all of them ALSO "believe" (guess, think, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.
That is what the word "atheist" should be used to describe. Those of us who do not "believe" (guess or suppose) that any gods exist and also do not "believe" (guess or suppose) that at least one does...(which more accurately aligns with a lack of knowing on this scale)...can continue using agnostic as a descriptor without having the "then you are an atheist" nonsense thrown our way.
Think about the difference between "no life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to our Sol"...and "a belief that there is no life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to our Sol"...and that should answer your question.
You are correct. It would. Which is almost certainly the reason that debating atheist decided to change the definition of "atheist." They wanted to avoid that.
No...at least, not in my opinion. Atheism is NOT a religion...but for the most part it IS a "belief system."
Atheists seem to abhor that...so they pretend the only reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor is because the lexicographers demand that they do.
BINGO!
Yep, our work is done here!
LOL
I asked what YOU think atheism means, not anything about atheists you know and how they may or may not describe themselves...or about how you choose to describe them using theistic semantics
I would like a clear, concise definition for atheism from you. Im asking you that because I want to know if I agree with your definition and to keep this from going into the weeds. Please, just give me a short, concise definition without reiterating your problem with some peoples use of the term.
My second question may have been a bit clumsy, so lets just start with my first one. It will be easier to communicate if we keep things short and to the point, dealing with one thing at a time.
:roll:
"Atheist?" One who is committed to second-order (meta) falsifications of first-order (object) 'beliefs about g/G'.
Here's my thoughts.
Over the years, I've seen many pointless debates about the meaning of the term "atheist". For example, I've encountered Christians who insist that to be an "atheist", one must hold the belief:no god(s) exist, and argue that "lack of belief in god" doesn't mean much (they counter: "I'm a theist because I lack belief in God's non-existence"). Their motivation seems to be a desire to argue against a strawman.
I therefore think the the term should be only be used to convey a general, vague sense of a person's position. One should make no specific assumptions about what any self-labelled atheist means. It's fair to assume he probably doesn't think there is a God, in the traditional sense of the term. If you want to know more specifically what he believes, set the label aside and ask.
BTW, as a point of trivia, the Roman empire labelled Christians as "atheist", because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Like disbelief that Santa is real is a belief system?
Like a clean bill of health is a disease?
• absence of theism: newborns, the Pirahã people, some pygmies, ...
• doubt/disbelief in theisms: some pagans, some panpsychists, Hitchens, Russell, ...
An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief."
My personal agnosticism is a true lack of belief:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
Hi JD!
I'm not real clear on the question, other than any proposition or judgment represents some form of belief/system. And in this specific case, the Atheist should be able to parse the existential meaning of:
1. All events must have a cause.
For example, is that a Metaphysical or Phenomelogical statement? And why should the Atheist care?
I agree...hence my feelings that the words "atheist" and "atheism" are useless as descriptors.
Are you saying that there are no gods?
Ya, thats just theistic semantics, calling a lack of belief a belief to draw a false equivalence so they can shift the burden of proof. You aren’t doing that, but you are making the same error.
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons, and/or who are anti-theists and atheists but fail to make the correct distinction between the two. Those people are just one kind of atheist, and there are all kinds of different atheists...what they have in common is a lack of belief in god/gods, thats it. Thats what defines atheism. You want to change the definition because you do not want to be in the same category as people I imagine you find obnoxious about thier atheism.
Anyway, if I lack a belief in god then the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is “no”, correct?
1. someone does not believe p: ¬Bp
2. someone believes not p: B[¬p]
3. someone does not believe not p: ¬B[¬p]
4. someone believes p: Bp
Those are the possibilities in doxastic logic.
2 and 4 contradict (with). 1 and 3 do not contradict (without). 1 and 4, 2 and 3, contradict (with and without). 2 entails 1, and 4 entails 3 (with belief entails without belief in the contrary, and the converse does not hold). Each can be exemplified, they're jointly exhaustive of belief and the proposition, and no two are identical.
Differentiating a couple categories:
The latter is typically of less concern, and epistemically more on par with The Matrix, Bostrom's hypothesis, Zhuangzi's butterfly, M?y? of Indian fame, deus deceptor, dream thought experiments, Kafkaesque silent hidden superbeings, perhaps even solipsism, you name it. (Maybe Spinozism?)
"Whereof one cannot speak ..." and all that?
Seems the term atheism is commonly used about someone technically agnostic towards the latter, and with doubt/disbelief in the former.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I was suggesting that absence of theism and doubt/disbelief therein does not comprise a belief system (any more than disbelief that Santa is real does).
I might be able to speak to some of Frank's concerns there. Much like Einstein taught us, there are many atheists who have a systemic axe to grind, and it shows in their emotive activism. An example of that would be President Reagan's son. He's got "I'm angry" written all over his face.
LOL
...ok.
Check the comment above (doxastic logic).
You may believe (even know) that exactly one of p or its negation holds, B[p ? ¬p], and yet not believe either one of them, ¬Bp ? ¬B[¬p].
Oddly enough perhaps, believers, by implication, also lack beliefs (like agnostics), as they cannot (coherently) harbor belief in the contrary.
Anyway, I guess there's lots more to be said on that stuff, e.g. beliefs are not mere matters of "free choice".
Some etymology sites give slightly different ways of looking at it. And disagree with you.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Atheist
atheist (n.)
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).
Quoting Frank Apisa
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theist
theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.
As they both have the same root there is no need for one to be derived from the other. They were just words created for different purposes.
What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).
My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.
Of course it was always about belief. Wait, unless there are KNOWN god(s) I haven't been told about?
Just because people in the past KNEW there was a god(s), doesn't mean we can't KNOW that their knowledge was actually just belief.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Wait, so someone who lacks belief is a theist? Whatever else we add to "atheist", "not a theist" seems accurate, no?
I guess then we are just arguing whether all non-theists are atheists...so, then we are just arguing whether there is room for a third option (and once we admit a third we should probably admit an infinite spectrum of possibilities). And this will just boil down to semantics and our interpretations of words.
Atheists would leave the agnostics alone if they didn't often sound like theists who are just unsure of which god(s) to believe in :razz:
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'm an atheist insofar as I claim that 'theism is not true'.
And if this claim is warranted (which, at minimum both conceptually & physically, it is), then every theistic g/G is necessarily an empty name - cannot refer (like e.g. five-sided triangles, a fish ice-skating on the sun, the Great Cthulhu, etc).
In other words, I neither "believe" that there exists nor "believe" that there does not exist a g/G; but rather assert that the theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. Thus, "YHWH", "Ahura Mazda", "Shakti", "Zeus", "Quetzalcoatl", "Aten", "Vishnu", "Mithras", "Wotan", "All?h", etc are merely (ritualized) fictions. For atheists like me, theistic-talk is nothing but (occasionally placebo effect-inducing) babytalk, or fetishistic gibberish (e.g. WOO-of-the-gaps); and, in this sense, I follow the via negationis of the apophatic tradition.
First of all, thank you for continuing the conversation, Dingo. Gonna just deal with two things you mentioned here:
One...I do not want to be defined as "an atheist" simply because of a self-serving definition. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. In other fora I am often called a Democrat because many of my positions comport with the positions espoused by Democrats. BUT I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I am a registered Independent.
That is the reason I do not want those descriptors (unnecessarily) assigned to me.
Two...if you lack a belief (in) (any) god(s)...YES, the answer to the question "do you believe in god" is NO.
What is your point with that?
Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking about here. Assume I am stupid...and dumb it down if it is important for me to understand your position.
As I see it...everyone is "agnostic" about the unknown. That is a tautology of sorts. It seems agnostics come in two varieties...those who acknowledge they do not know the unknown...and those who sorta acknowledge it, but go with their guesses.
Okay...the absence of "belief" DOES NOT comprise a "belief" system. I agree totally.
I have the absence of "belief" on this question. I do not guess either way...which really is all a "belief" is.
The people who use the descriptor "atheist" however, seem to make a guess. (Perhaps not all of them, but the vast majority of them.) Those who have not made the guess (have the "belief") avoid using that descriptor.
Thanks for your interest in the discussion, Jorndoe.
Sorry you feel that way, Tim, but thank you for sharing it.
I would call him/her..."a person who 'believes' it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists."
I would not assign a descriptor...unless there is a descriptor that is particular to that. (I can think of none that is.)
Okay.
Since you have specified it to yourself...I would suggest that you use what I said in the preceding paragraph....with the understanding that the descriptor "agnostic" might be appropriate for the greater question of, "Has everything always existed on its own, or was there a initiating force that could reasonably be call "god(s)?"
It is, indeed.
And while I maintain that there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about "that great unknown"...there certainly seems to be enough evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses about the gods of Olympus, Valhalla, and Abraham.
I respectfully disagree.
Babies are very much the perfect agnostics. Not only do they not know...they don't even know they don't know.
As for how they are brought up...
...almost all of the atheists I have known (ALMOST ALL, not all) have been raised to be theists. We learn...and I tend to suppose that those of us who cease being theists are the better for it having been a choice of maturity.
Sounds like part of this was satire. Not sure how much, so I'll just leave it be.
You seem to think their is a dichotomy that breaks down to "either theist or atheist."
That is not the case.
IF THERE MUST BE A DICHOTOMY (I do not think there has to be)...it could just as easily be:
a) Those who make a guess (have a 'belief') in one direction or the other...
b) Those who do not.
Not necessarily.
The totally unnecessary insistence that if one lacks a "belief" in any god...one is an atheist...can be discarded. (It actually makes no sense and should be discarded.)
That is because some atheists are assholes.
I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
One...I am not confused. This is a topic I have discussed with very learned people for decades now.
Two...if you are saying you are an agnostic, but do not want to describe yourself as an agnostic for some reason...fine with me. I support your position.
Three...THERE ARE AGNOSTICS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE TOLD BY INSISTING ATHEISTS THAT BECAUSE THEY LACK A "BELIEF" IN ANY GODS, THEY ARE PERFORCE, ATHEISTS.
I am one of them. Show my position some respect.
I am an asshole and you are CLEARLY a theist. Not even a closet theist, but a full-blown, all-out theist.
There are many wrong things in your post that merely concern meaning and nothing else. I have pointed out many times before in other threads by other closet theists, similar to you, where their mistakes, identical to yours, CLEARLY lie.
I am just fed up with the theists who think every discipline of thought is a religion. I shan't touch your thread, because you will learn nothing from it.
Out of courtesy for you, I will agree that you are an asshole...but I am not a theist of any sort.
Sorry you made that mistake, but considering your immediate concession, I can understand it.
Calm down, GMBA...you are gonna blow a gasket.
I am not a theist...and I suspect many of the people you imagine you schooled are not either.
If you feel I have made any mistakes...name them rather than generically saying I have made mistakes.
Okay...and you must be mistaking me for someone who cares what you are fed up with. That may be our problem here.
You already have...and my guess is you will again.
Whoops...here you are again.
I was correct above.
Anyway...I thank you for your respect of me. I thank you for your respect of my position. I could not care less that you think my intellect sucks. My intellectual achievements are many...and you are just out of control.
Calm down...and try to discuss rather than school. You might be better at the former than the latter.
1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.
2 im asking you that because you are lost in semantics, so I was walking you through the semantics. We can just focus on what the most sensible definition of atheism if you want instead if you like, these are two separate counter-points to your current position.
So I guess they're also not not doctors or the president or cat lovers?
A tabula rasa is by definition atheist. Absence of a belief in God is the same as not believing in God until indoctrination occurs.
So the agnostic too is a form of atheist, because s/he is without a belief in God. She just is not a "positive atheist" who asserts the definitive absence of God.
I've got to leave right now...I have an aunt in intensive care that I have to tend to. But I just read this...and I suggest you get off the condescension. I guarantee I have discussed these issues with people more credentialed and informed than you...and I am not about to have you suppose you are "walking me through any semantics."
Now I'll leave and come back...I hope a bit cooled off. This can be a good discussion if we treat each other as equals...rather than you as a scholar attempting to school me.
Okay ?
Bullshit.
I will go into more detail later.
Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow:
Thats not what Im doing, thats your own sensitivity. I think you are lost in the semantics, and explaining/showing you how is walking you through it, its not meant to be condescending. Its just that I think you are confused, and im just being honest and straightforward.
Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations. Im not impressed by your appeal to other conversations you’ve had and I dont have time for some chip on your shoulder about being treated as an equal. Maybe once you’ve cooled off you will see you’ve overreacted here and the discussion can continue but maybe not...it seems like you have more pressing matters to tend to anyway.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am not an agnostic. If you've read my previous posts and believe I am an agnostic, then you are mistaken - because you, like so many others, conflate meta-statements with object-statements and thereby confuse yourself about "atheism".
I've also discussed "atheism" with philosophers, clergy, well-read laity for decades, Frankie, having precociously become a principled atheist in the late 70s as a consequence of a strict Catholic upbringing & education. If you're an agnostic, good for you. I find it an untenable, incoherent position with respect to any 'theistic g/G', but feel free to demonstrate otherwise, and I'll give your argument all the consideration it's due. But don't whine, Frankie; your confused OP is weak enough.
If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother.
No you are not...you are being condescending...blatantly so. But I have cooled down, so I am going to over-look it and in fact, I offer an apologyfor my outburst. My aunt's illness has got me on edge. She is my last living older relative. (She is not in intensive care, by the way. She is in rehab...93 years old with a fractured hip and an attitude of a honey badger. Not a lot of fun.)
I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities.
Then don't be impressed. If you want to discuss the issue...let's do so. If you want to be condescending to me...take a hike.
I can multi-task with the best of people.
I like describing my position, although sometimes it saves time to use the label, agnostic.
Here is my take on the question of gods:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
Hey, Proof.
I understand that Catholic thing. As an adult (over 60 years ago) I had the pleasure of serving Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Even though I am 6 decades away from that event, I still treasure the moment. It was something that stays with you.
We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me.
Have a great life.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well, Frankie, as you say ...
Quoting Frank Apisa
Ditto. Adieu.
Its the latter. Unwarranted judgements are strong indicators of stupidity, thats my litmus test. If someone has a problem with it it tells me everything I need to know about whose smart and whose not.
Anyway, your responses were about being offended so you have yet to address my actual points, if you care to do so.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yeah...see ya around.
But I gotta congratulate you on the John Paul II thing. That was big. I also served as acolyte to the Primate of England in 1956 or 1957 (can't remember which.) It was a High Mass for American service members. They don't usually allow lay people to serve as acolyte, because it is one of the minor orders.
Great memories...but I am delighted I am relieved of that religion burden.
Name the single one item you want me to comment on...and I will do so.
1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.
And bald is a hair color. :roll:
Good luck, :sweat:
I dispute that.
Who gets to decide what "the proper usage" of the word is?
Atheists?
They have a dog in this fight...and I am not willing to give them that authority over me.
I acknowledge that atheists want to insist that ANYONE who does not "believe" (in) any gods...is an atheist.
I'm telling them to get lost.
I am arguing that it should not be used the way it is being used. Period.
There is no structural background for its use the way they are demanding.
Where does that all come from? What did I possibly say that causes you to think any of that.
My problem with the word is that it is used the way it is used.
I am simply saying I will not allow that definition to require me to be considered an atheist.
I truly do not care if I am the only person on the planet who feels that way.
But I imagine lots of parents would object to the suggestion that their newborns are ATHEISTS by dint of a definition initiated by atheists usage.
Let's stick with this a bit. Hit me as hard as you can on this aspect.
Correct me if I am wrong on this...but didn't you say "adieu" to me in this discussion?
What are you doing here?
:death: :flower:
There is no all-purpose definition. When the desire to communicate is strong enough, people will become flexible and work out definitions acceptable to everyone.
I like that idea, Frank, and agree with it.
But there are atheists INSISTING I am an atheist, despite the fact that I say I am not. They are insisting agnostics, by dint of "definition" are atheists.
I am discussing that complexity here.
I'd like to discuss the bigger picture for a second.
Educated people are more likely to be atheists. I suggest the reason for this is that educated people have been insulated from the harshness of human life. They've been able to avoid the fear and pain experienced by those living on the edge. People who watch one child die after another turn to religion to maintain sanity. Marx referred to it as opium, and he was right. What's often overlooked is that an anesthetic can make the difference between standing soberly at the graveside and being curled up in a ball on the floor. Religion sustains.
So discussions about what to call whom are dust compared to the mighty agent of atheism called penicillin: saver of children. Think about that the next time a positive atheist is annoying you. "You're nothing compared to the stuff we get from bread mold."
But look out at the world: do you see the advantages of healthcare expanding out around the globe, destroying religion in its wake? I don't. I see Medicare getting ready to dry up. I see pharmaceutical companies eyeing the bottom line. I see people drowning in medical debt and thankful to be drowning instead of dead.
This trend is fertilizing the ground for voodoo practitioners and shamans. It will fill the churches with the grieving. The occasional moongazer will say in his heart that there is no god, but atheism as we know it will be gone.
One day.
:snicker:
I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
That Describes two kinds of atheists, two examples of people who lack a belief in god (one because they feel like they have some reason to believe no god exists, the other who lacks belief in god because they find that the more likely). It doesnt cover the ground it needs to in order to be definitive.
Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).
Aside from your aversion to the label, what makes your definition the better one? You havent demonstrated it at all.
I got a nickel on no complaint from the agnostic. But heaven forbid we say, "the way we identify ourselves as atheists would mean that we see agnostics as part of the same club". Why are they so offended?
This is why some atheists assume agnostics are really just theists searching for the right god.
The confused are the last to recognize they're confused though ...
:up:
(For the sake of this discussion, DJ, your analogy works for me. Maybe go a tad slower though so "The Weak Atheist" can catch up.)
But, as the scorpion and the frog, I am slave to my
You wrote, "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."
I suggest that educated people are more likely to be agnostics...and the kind of agnostics that I am attempting to differentiate from people who want to use the descriptor "atheist."
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.
Granted, many choose "atheist."
As an old boss of mine used to say (over and over and over), "Six of one...a dozen of another." Not sure what he was, but he sure as hell was not very educated.
And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?
While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question?
When you say "agnostic" do you mean the view that we don't know now, but we might someday? Or do you mean that this knowledge is forever beyond us?
You have a point there...and I screwed up in what I wrote. I normally write, "A person who uses 'atheist' as a descriptor is almost always a person who 'believes' there are no gods...or who 'believes' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
I screwed up there. (There are examples of me using the proper wording in this thread and in others.)
In any case, I contend that most, PERHAPS ALL, people who CHOOSE to use the descriptor "atheist" do, in fact, either "believe" there are no gods or "believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I apologize for the careless wording, but let's deal with that for right now.
Do you disagree with me on that?[/quote]
So...you are saying that most people who...
1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist
2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist
3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction
and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...
....most of them...
...call themselves atheists rather than agnostics?
I'm not sure if you are just kidding here?
People like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, for instance, got more worked up than I on this issue...pointedly rejected any suggestion that they be identified as atheists...rather than agnostics.
Their positions were the positions best described as agnostic...NOT atheistic.
So is my position.
There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.
It is unknown at this time...may be knowable at some future time.
But I would not hold my breath.
My guess would be...it will never be known.
BUT THAT IS PURELY A BLIND GUESS.
It can be argued that it's unknowable. That's what some people mean by "agnostic." If the speaker doesn't make it clear, you have to ask.
Anything can be argued, Frank.
Right now it is unknown.
Whether it will be knowable or not in the future...is pure speculation.
If there is a GOD...then for certain it CAN BE known in the future. If there is a GOD...AND THE god is a personal GOD and wants to be KNOWN...it could make itself known.
(Gotta wonder, if it does exist, why it hasn't)
No, look up "agnostic." One of the meanings is the view that the existence of divinity is unknowable.
There's an agnostic in the corner gnashing her teeth because you keep misusing her word.
Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??
Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction.
ANYTHING can be argued.
And while I agree that the existence of any divinities is unknowable at the moment...how can anyone see into the future to KNOW that it will not be knowable at some future point?
Most dictionaries "define" agnostic with variation on "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable." "Probably" being the important word.
I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.
So if everyone does not know whether there is a god, then it's a matter of belief.
You can belief there is a god. You can believe there is no god. But you can't believe both at the same time, and you can't believe the negation of either at the same time.
To claim someone is an agnostic, is fine. But to mean NON-commitment with this claim whether they believe or not in a god, is ludicrous. By the law of the excluded middle.
Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them.
You must have some concept of "god" in mind in order to make these statements. What are you referring to?
This question pertains to my position, wherein I think it highly unlikely that a "god of religion" exists. That's fairly specific - it implies an intelligent creator who cares about humans, has interacted with some humans, and provided a life after death. It seems to me the evidence for such a being is quite weak, and therefore there's no good reasons to believe in such a thing. On the other hand, I'm a bit more open to the possibility of a being possessing intentionality and efficacy, that was capable of choosing to make a world of the sort that exists. However, since this being is probably not a god-of-religion, its existence is irrelevant.
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much[/i] CONFUSION
I can't get no relief[/quote]
@DingoJones @ZhouBoTong @god must be atheist @Relativist @jorndoe et al ... point out where my descriptions sans labels (or are they mere definitions?) go wrong.
=====
0. definition: No knowledge (contingently or necessarily)* that g/G or not g/G.
- - - - -
Caveat:
(A) IF g/G is underdetermined (e.g. ultimately mysterious), THEN neither 'knowing' nor 'not knowing' g/G obtains, or makes sense; therefore, (0) is incoherent, and redundant with respect to (1, 2, 3) below.
However, (B) IF g/G is not underdetermined (i.e. sufficiently, or intelligibly, predicated), THEN the predicates attributed to g/G (each Token? ... Type?) entail evidence that can be known (i.e. tested via observation or experiment) directly or indirectly; therefore (0) is self-inconsistent, or nonsense.
- - - - -
1. g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, And Yet belief in (& that?) g/G-Token.
2. weak no-g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, Therefore no belief that g/G-Token.
3. strong no-g/G-ism: No knowledge* that g/G or not g/G, but (a preponderance of) circumstantial evidence inconsistent with - contrary to - g/G, Therefore disbelief that g/G-Token.
4. no-g/G-Type-ism: sine qua non predicates (i.e. their entailments) ascribed to a g/G-Type are falsified (re: caveat B above, applied to Type instead), Therefore every g/G-Token of that g/G-Type is fictional (i.e. an empty name).
(NB: #4 is my position.)
=====
So is the OP's confusion - for charity's sake, ignore his tediously repetitive argumentum ad populum - contagious?
Have I / we caught it too?
Or is the OP really not confused after all?
Why would I do that? Were we having a disagreement over something? If so, lets start with that instead of whatever this is...
1. "god" is not defined
2. How are you defining "knowledge"? The strict philosophical definintion is justifed belief that is true and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing, given the way you distinguish between belief and knowing.
That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds.
Loosely, for the sake of discussion, Popper's / Feyerabend's / Taleb's critical rationalism for hypothetical-deductive conjectures (i.e. explanations, predictions - re: causal algorithms (models)) and Susan Haack's fallibilistic foundherentism for beliefs, or beliefs-formation, (i.e. descriptions, expectations - re: correlational heuristics (data)).
A Mormon could believe the Catholic god doesn't exist, but believe the Mormon god exists. These respective gods have some characteristics in common, but their differences make them unique
.
Quoting 180 Proof
Please just state how you're defining it instead of referencing something else. My biggest issue is that generally, knowledge of x entails belief that x, but you are treating belief and knowledge as two different things.
(pointing out problems with definition)
The claim is false, because this is necessarily true knowledge.
This is certain knowledge that God or Not God. Either God or else Not god must be true; they both can't be false at the same time; therefore the OR connector renders the expression always true.
Ok, but then I get to bet that every person you ask will assume they are of above average intelligence (everyone assumes they are of above average intelligence). So what?
Part of my argument is that for some reason, agnostics side with theists, even though their view is a lot closer to that of an atheist (I still can't see a difference other than the labels they give themselves). When most Christians in America hear "agnostic" they hear "searching for god" (earlier in my philosophical journey...this is actually the reason I stopped calling myself agnostic...later I learned definitions). So of course they will side with agnostics against the atheist....they think the agnostics are one of their people...oh, and they think atheists are Satan's spawn.
Quoting 180 Proof
Whooo...I can feel that. I start to feel confusion any time I argue with an agnostic...or libertarians, but we can ignore that one for now. I always have to go back and re-read my posts to try and find their purpose (it is healthy in that I can find where my wording was problematic...but then I try new words and hit the same wall).
I feel that you and I have very different writing styles...so if neither of us are making any headway (and @DingoJones has put in some serious effort as well), I am not sure this will go anywhere. I sometimes get bored of these arguments...but then a week later they suddenly seem very interesting again (even with a lack of progress).
I agree with your position 4.
I beleive that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven. But god has not given any revelation to humans as to its own nature, qualities, and specifications. Therefore any attribution to that is mere fantasy, or else a lie. Heck we don't know anything about him, and nothing of his attributes. Event his attribute of existence is hidden from us.
Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable.
That is bunk...gratuitous bunk.
The word "atheist" should be used to identify people who want to use it...and I am suggesting that in my experience, the vast majority of people who WANT to use it are people who "believe" there are no gods" or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I do not know of a single person who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...who WANTS to use that descriptor.
I've said that a half dozen times now. What do you want me to do...post it in CAPITAL LETTERS?
Here is part of my agnostic take on the question of the possible existence of gods:
I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS!
We both know that there are people in this world who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.
Are you actually insisting that someone with that sentiment MUST be included in the grouping identified as "atheists?" Do you actually think that makes sense?
Words, Dingo, are meant to communicate ideas and thoughts. Why on Earth would you think it makes sense to use the word "atheist" to communicate that thought...when the word "agnostic" works fine and with some precision to denote not knowing...and not making any guesses in either direction...especially contrived guesses.
One...there is NO WAY that I side with theists over atheists. No reasonable agnostic should...and I doubt very many do. I think that is a false impression you are getting.
Two...if you cannot see the difference between agnostics and atheists (or between agnostics and theists), I am not sure why. I see a stark difference between agnostics and theists...and I see every bit as stark a difference between agnostics and people who want to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.
Three...any Christian in America who supposes I am "searching for god" because I am an agnostic...is doing what people who want to use atheist as a descriptor are doing. They are gratuitously trying to get agnostics to "be on their side." It would improve their intellectual DNA also.
There are people who "believe" that there are no gods or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (They WANT to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.) I am not one of them.
Let me repeat that, because you guys seem to be missing it: I most assuredly am not one of them. And I do not want the word "atheist" to be applied to me simply because atheists are so anxious to have the agnostics be part of them that they have subverted the usage of the word in an attempt to force us to be part.
"Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am"
Gerry Rafferty
Quoting Frank Apisa
No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion.
Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one. Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.
YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.
Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.
The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.
I have made my case for why what I prefer that "atheist" be reserved for people who either "believe" (guess) that there are no gods...or who "believe" (guess) that it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one.
There is absolutely NO REASON WHATEVER for the word atheist to be so encompassing that it must include people (agnostics, babies, toddlers) who do not have those "beliefs."
Now STOP saying that I am not stating my position and not defending it...because I am and have...just as I have done for the last 4+ decades.
If you do not like my position or insist your position is stronger or more rational...fine.
I think my position is much stronger and more rational.
You cannot possibly have done that, because my position is NOT the weaker one. What you have provided it YOUR OPINION that yours is the stronger position. And you have provided your (absolutely incorrect opinion) that I have not furnished or defended my position. Wording is important in these kinds of discussions.)
YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.[/quote]
I have addressed it. Several times now. All you do is to dismiss my comments as not being as strong as yours...and you are not even careful enough to acknowledge that your supposed assessments are nothing but YOUR OPINION.
I have addressed your points. And I never walk away from an argument. I will be here until the sun goes nova on this issue.
I doubt we will resolve it...but if you think you are going to present your opinions and I am going to adopt them as stronger and more reasonable than mine...you are way, way off base.
There is no reason why we cannot have it...and have it reasonably, Dingo.
I am not an atheist...and no reasonable person would listen to my position (which I have stated several times) and suppose that I am...EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO USE THE DESCRIPTOR "ATHEIST" AND WHO WANT TO INSIST THAT I AM ALSO AN ATHEIST BY DINT OF A USAGE CHOICE.
You should be able to say, "I understand that position, Frank...and I agree."
I doubt you will do that.
So...let's continue the discussion.
You have just done exactly what I said you are doing, making assertions with no arguments....and you did that while saying thats not what you are doing.
I do not need to hear your position again. I understand what your position is. At your request, I chose one of the two arguments I made against you. It was to determine which definition (lack of belief, or yours) is the most sensible. I offered reasoning as to why mine was stronger, and yours the weaker. I used an analogy to illustrate further the error you make in your definition. You have not addressed any of it. You just keep repeating (and adding new) assertions, and restating your original reasoning (which doesnt have much to it to start with, but Im trying to be charitable). I have addressed these, and if there is some reason why my arguments are wrong, you need to demonstrate it. Unlike you, who claims its impossible to show your position the weaker of the two because it isn’t (which is an assertion and a circular line of reasoning), I am open to being wrong. I just want to be shown how.
So, once again: address my argument, address my refutation of your argument...and now since you’ve made yet another assertion I would like you to tell me in what way I have failed to address your argument since I do not see how.
1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is. If were less broad, people who do not want to be classified as atheists would not be subjected to the "You are by definition" crap.
2) Just about EVERY person I have known who CHOOSES to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor does so NOT because of a lack of "belief" in a god...but rather because that person either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods.
The word should be saved for them...and the rest of us can choose another word if we feel the need for a descriptor.
3) If you want to be like Trump and claim victories you do not deserve...fine with me. I can laugh at you for doing it as easily as I can laugh at him.
4) Glad you are open to being wrong...because you are. If you think you have stronger arguments for why the word should not be as broad as it is...THAN "it doesn't need to be that broad" and "by being that broad, it requires people who do not want to be identified as atheists to be included"...
...present them.
You have none. I know it. I suspect you know it also.
Ok, so you arent following the discussion. What you just posted was what you posted initially. We arent talking about that right now, but lets walk you through it step by step. Before you go off about being condescended to, thats not what Im doing. From my perspective, you are not getting what Im saying. Going through it step by step will help one of us to understand where they have gone wrong, could be me or it could be you and by going over it we will determine which it is. We do not determine who is correct by who asserts the loudest and hardest, so just stop doing that.
Ok, so you have posited a definition of atheist above. Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?
Your question was: Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?
MY ANSWER: What I offered is not actually a "definition." It is, instead, a set of comments about the word that I thought might elicit some return comments from you.
Didn't produce results, but be that as it may...it does not specifically include people who lack a belief in god.
But that is mostly because I much prefer not to offer anything that relies on the "believe in"** nonsense. I speak more specifically that that horrible usage.** And I would never limit it to a "god"...but rather to gods. The "god" usage, whether capitalized or not...refers to a specific subject.
I did mention people who do not "believe" (in) god...in my text. I suggest their lack of "belief" is almost certainly not the actual reason people who choose to use the descriptor "atheist" make that choice. I suspect the real reason is that the individuals "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."
ASIDE: I do not share that opinion, which is one of the reasons I will not allow the descriptor "atheist" to be applied to me. My insistence on this has NOTHING to do with any feeling about the word you may think I harbor.
**I do on occasion use the "believe in" thingy, but only to save time when speaking with someone with whom I have been deep in conversation on the subject. The "I believe in" construct seems to me to be a convention...and not one I think does justice to serious conversation.
Now...my question for you:
In my set of comments above, I wrote: "1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is."
Do you disagree with that; do you see a "need" for it to be that broad?
Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable?
No.
Please answer my question.
So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point?
Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right.
But as for questions and answers...we are done with you proposing questions to me without first answering my questions.
Please answer my question. If you then want to incorporate your answer into another argument...fine.
But first I want the question answered...and fully, as I answered yours.
Then I will accept another question from you.
(By the way, you have now asked two other questions of me which I have answered. If any other questions come my way before you answer mine, I will require that I get to match those two also. If you do answer my question fully before answering my question, I will let those slide. So...answer the question before asking your next one.)
Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.
Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted.
I don't believe in Tabula Rasa and consider it an archaic theory; with fields such as evolutionary psychology affirming that people just like animals are born with inherent or genetic predispositions, in fact this would seem to be common sense.
In fact, even during the 19th century when Tabula Rasa was most popular, what I consider to be more "serious" fields of speculation, such as the theory of the Common Law as per Oliver Wendall Holmes and other legal theorists, it was more or less known that "passions", or "instincts", play a role in human behavior, not solely rational faculties, so even during it's era of popularity, Tabula Rasa was, in my opinion, always a nonsensical theory.
For example, in the theory of criminal, crimes of "passion", or done in the "heat of the moment", when a person is acting more from impulse or instinct rather than from reason, are less severe than "pre-meditated" crimes, those which are intentionally and methodically planned out while in a fully rational state.
Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.
Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."
I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.
Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.
Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.
Thank you for all that, IBB. And despite my use of "tabula rasa" earlier...I agree with much of what you said. My point earlier was that babies are not atheists simply because they lack a "belief" in a god.
I agree, I've heard contradictory arguments on this one:
1. "All babies are atheist until indoctrinated into religion"
2. Religion is a childish belief which one grows out of?
Doesn't seem that both can be true at the same time.
When one is born, one has no beliefs, therefore one has no belief in God, and so is an atheist.
In early life, one's beliefs are easily influenced by others, so traditional beliefs like in God are easily instilled in one. If such beliefs were not instilled, one would remain an atheist.
As one grows older, one's critical thinking abilities improve, and one begins to investigate the truth on one's own. So someone who had belief in God instilled in them at a young age would grow out of it as they matured and learned that those traditional beliefs were false.
ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but not everyone who lacks a "belief" that any gods exist...
...is an atheist.
Babies are not atheists.
I lack a belief that any gods exist...and I am NOT an atheist.
But that could apply to any belief, which is taught or indoctrinated into at a low-educational level (e.x. elementary school), including beliefs in things, ideas, or concepts we take for granted, such as physics and the natural sciences.
Most people are simply taught them at an average 6th grade reading level, having never studied them at higher levels, or invented said theories themselves.
Babies don't believe in tooth fairies or Santa either.
I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.
Quoting Frank Apisa
A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).
Quoting Frank Apisa
No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.
Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.
I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something.
There is "weak", "soft", or "implicit" atheism which is lack of belief in God.
There is "strong", "hard", or "explicit" atheism which is belief in the lack of God.
The former is just anyone who is not a theist. The latter are a subset of the former. Typical (but not all) agnostics fall within the former but not the latter. You're one of them I take it. I don't care what you identify as, that's what words mean.
I expect this has already been explained to you upthread, which is why I haven't been reading this thread until now. This argument is old and stupid and pointless because people like you aren't interested in productive conversation.
That's true, what's your point?
My point is this would lead to absurdisms; obviously children are indoctrinated to a certain degree, and this isn't considered "wrong or bad" (e.x. most people only have a 6th grade reading level or understanding of things like physics, arithmetic, English, and so on and so forth, much as they are "indoctrinated" into the law of the society they are a part of - a person showing a belief in Newton's physics merely because they were "taught it" isn't on the same level as someone like Newton who discovered or invented the theories himself).
So one can't argue entirely against "indoctrination" here, it would have to do with what is being indoctrinated, or the method or way in which it is being done, or else it would potentially lead to absurdism, epistemological nihilism, or other things of that nature.
In practice, what I see, arguments specifically about "religion" aside, many would rather one simply be "indoctrinated" into the "right-think" rather than think for themselves and come to the "wrong" conclusion, and this is what the bulk of education, at least at the lowest levels, independent of the subject matter is.
Regardless, I wouldn't take this all for granted, I am glad to some extent that I was "indoctrinated" into speaking English as a child, rather than speaking no language at all.
I was explaining how it can both be the case that babies are born atheists, and atheism is something people outgrow. If a false believe is instilled at an impressionable young age, someone will hopefully grow out of it as they mature and investigate their beliefs critically. Nobody is born with any beliefs though, so in that case the babies are born lacking the belief, get it instilled at a young age, and then grow out of it.
If the beliefs instilled at a young age are not false, then they are not so likely to be grown out of, and that's fine.
I'd have to disagree, as this would basically be asserting that there are no universals.
(However, even then it's asserting the idea that "growing out of beliefs" taught as a child is some type of universal).
Much as there's a difference between being taught "the word", as opposed to being the concept which the world refers to; I'd argue that regardless of what the "belief" supposedly is, that if one's level of understanding it is limited to indoctrination or rote memorization, this isn't the same depth of belief and comprehension as one who, for example invented or discovered the theory on their own, even if it's one widely considered to be true.
For example, if you asked a 6th grader to explain any of the finer details of Newton's physics, he would likely not be able to answer, since his learning doesn't extent beyond rote instruction or memorization.
So I wouldn't equate being taught about God, or a specific God, with the deeper thought about the existence of a supreme being to begin with, and I believe that people would still speculate about such a thing even if they hadn't been "taught it".
Much as whoever the first person to come up with the idea of a supreme being was, obviously wasn't "taught it", but came up with it himself and passed it down to others.
Nothing I'm saying is specifically about belief in God, that's just a particular case of the general pattern. Like Artemis said:
Quoting Artemis
I consider this a bad or false equivalency, at least as far as serious philosophical or theological arguments about the nature of god go.
I think that, for example "Santa" or the "Tooth Fairy" is more akin to something from one of Jung's Archetypes, which is a simplistic representational image.
However, most arguments about the nature of God are referring to something abstract; even during the medieval days of the church, the images of God were not said to be "God" himself, but images used to represent God.
So this would be the equivalent of dismissing the idea of alien life on the basis of equating it with belief in Marvin the Martian, or that a person speculating about alien life would assume it would actually look like Marvin the Martian.
This is why most arguments about beliefs in god and what they consisted of to begin with are archaic cultural myths; which falsely reduce it to belief in an simplistic graven image or stereotypical "fairy tale" written on a level for young children, when in reality the actual beliefs, texts, and speculations were much deeper thought and abstraction, contrary to popular myths on the subject and so forth, usually themselves based on ignorance or misinformation, or simple cultural myths about "religion" itself, what it is, and what it consists of, handed down in childhood themselves, not remotely historically, philosophically, or theologically accurate at all.
(Such as most of the nonsense, anti-intellectual cultural myths and fables about Francis Bacon's 17th century scientific method, and the development and overarching cultural significance of the various theories invented and contained within and thereof).
You keep diverting the conversation away from this really simple statement into irrelevant other topics.
If your dispute is just that theism is not a false belief and so not something to be outgrown, just say that.
My argument is simple, the belief may be acquired, but the contents of the belief or what the belief consists of are separate from the belief (or lack thereof itself).
For example, if you were never taught that the Eifel Tower was in Paris, France, would it still be in Paris France?
I would argue yes; arguing otherwise would be akin to solipsism, or the idea that no truth exists unless you "believe" it to be so.
So one couldn't immediately dismiss the legitimacy of a belief simply because it was taught or indoctrinated.
Of course.
Again, you're diverting the topic into something irrelevant.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
I never said one could.
You asked how someone could be born an atheist and still grow out of theism. I answered. The rest of this is you arguing against shadows.
However, one may have also been taught that it was illegal to steal, to 'get them to behave' as well; and as far as the law goes, this is true.
So was it "wrong" to do so, or does the fact that it was taught to 'get one to behave' de-legitimize it itself?
Or if nothing else, this would de-legitimize the notion that a "theist" only does right out of fear of "punishment" by god; since by the same token, one who is an atheist may only do what is right out of "fear of the law", rather than higher moral sentiments.
I'm arguing one could be taught atheism and grow out of it into theism, conversely.
Quoting Pfhorrest
So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.
Too funny for words.
So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.
Okay...I didn't think you would.
But here you are...having the conversation.
It must draw you in more than you think.
In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...
...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.
But I understand the atheists who want agnostics in their numbers.
It would improve the gene pool.
Yes you are. That's what words mean.
You can also be an agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That's because that's not what "theism" means.
You're either a theist or not. Not-theists are atheists.
Babies are not born atheists...even if the atheists of the world are so hard up for greater numbers that they pretend everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist.
And you guys claim that you immersed in logic, reason, and science.
What a joke!
Yes they are.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That's what words mean.
NO...I am not an atheist. And the more I speak with atheists in this forum...the less likely I am to ever want to be considered one.
That was a truly lousy sentence. If you clean it up a bit...I might show you how absurd it is.
We are all agnostics.
But we are not all atheists. I, for instance, am not an atheist.
What does "theism" mean, Pf?
Oh, is that the dichotomy you think exists.
Well I do not.
What about...either you are a theist...or you are not a theist. Some of the people who are not theists use the descriptor atheist...and some use the descriptor agnostic?
That is all "atheist" is...a descriptor that one can use if one chooses...or not, if that is the choice.
But I understand. Atheists want to inflate their numbers with more intelligent people...so they want to take possession of agnostics.
Good luck with that.
Actually, no...they are not.
No...some of us are agnostics. I wouldn't be an atheist on a bet.
You ought really to learn how to write that sentence coherently.
Apparently you don't know what "agnostic" means either. This is fun .
Quoting Frank Apisa
Belief in God (or gods).
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well the principle of bivalence disagrees.
Quoting Frank Apisa
That is literally what I said.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Sure. But how people choose to describe themselves has nothing to do with the actual categories of possibilities. Someone can choose to call themselves a "freethinker" or a "bright" or a "humanist" or a "skeptic" or something else instead, and maybe they are also those things, but if they don't believe in God then they are also atheists.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You're literally arguing against yourself here. You quoted yourself and then argued against it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You really ought to learn how to read.
I pointed out in parenthesis the levels of abstraction to which "knowledge" and "belief" obtain in the (hybrid) epistemology I'm assuming. Explanations and descriptions, respectively - the latter being constituents of, but which neither exhaust nor presuppose, the former. (Antiquated "JTB" is as incoherent to a falsificationist (like me) as "teleology" is useless to evolutionist (also like me.))
EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. tested but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile:
Except that agnostic claims the proposition at issue is undecidable by her (vide Pyrrho, Agrippa, Sextus Empiricus et al): ergo epoché (i.e. a + gnosis).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Agreed.
Quoting god must be atheist
:up:
Good ol' Frankie doing double duty in a Stealers Wheel ... :clap:
No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, not thinking. Your specialty.
No one can reasonably claim I didnt give him every chance to have a reasonable discussion....well, aside from having to try and slow things down and walk him through it but I didnt know how else to talk to someone with the reading comprehension of a toddler except to talk to them like a person with the reading comprehension of a toddler. He didnt even get that!
Lol, thanks. I was sincerely trying.
Yes, yes (I hear you saying) much of philosophy involves definition of terms. But in this case, I submit to all parties that the definitional war has been decided by the general public. The conversations in this thread would be incomprehensible to the average person. If you were to ask the average person on the street to define what an atheist thinks/believes they would most likely say either "That person does not believe in God" or "That person denies that God exists". For agnostic they would most likely say "That person neither believes nor dis-believes in God".
Yes, these are very loose imprecise statements - in fact it seems that we cannot even agree on the definition of the word belief. So I respectfully suggest that people be allowed to choose whatever word best fits their their thinking and then let them give the devilish details. If after hearing the details you feel that a different word would more accurately describe their thinking, then simply say "If someone were to ask me what word to use to label your thinking, I would use a different word. This different word would more accurately describe the details behind your thinking."
I'm trying to understand what you're getting at, so I went back through some of your posts. This one seems relevant:
Quoting 180 Proof
I almost agree with this, except for one caveat: you can't falsify personal experience. If someone believes Jesus Christ is talking to them, and that he is affirming their beliefs, you cannot defeat that person's belief. Setting that aside, I completely agree that belief in a god of religion cannot be (otherwise) warranted....but...
Belief in deism (a generic creator who is the foundation of existence and having some form of intentionality), may be warrantable. I'm not sure, but I am sure defeating it is NOT shooting fish in a barrel.
They are imprecise if you cross two different concepts: to believe and to affirm.
In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists.
It seems simple enough and clear enough.
The mess has been made by certain associations of atheists who claim that they have no beliefs and therefore should not justify their position. This is absurd. Believe it or not, affirm it or not, in a rational debate your position must be reasoned.
Atheism is a name. It's a word that people use to refer to kinds of things: There are people who claim that there is no god. There are people who believe that god exists. There are people who neither affirm nor deny. There are people who do not believe that god exists. The group of non-believers is broader than those who refrain from affirming or denying. These are facts. You have to give them names. It is a matter of mere convenience. They are useful fot communication or not.
If there are different uses, you will have to clarify them.
But the reason you give is not reasonable. You can distinguish the group of agnostics from atheists, as Frank does, within the more general group of unbelievers without problem.
Having been through the academic world: nope. An atheist is just someone who doesn't affirm that god exists. People who deny that god exists are, obviously, a subset of that.
Quoting David Mo
Careful. Under critical rationalism (the correct rationalism, which underlies science), one only needs to justify claims to others, not one's own opinions. To demand that nobody hold a claim without reason is to demand that they accept the contrary claim without reason. To not ask anyone to accept any claims without reasons to back them up is simultaneously to allow anyone to hold any opinion of their own without demanding they present reasons to back it up.
The group of unbelievers includes atheists and agnostics. This is what is said among experts, including the one who coined the term "agnostic": Thomas Huxley. You think that's bad?
Why don't you believe in God? I think you have a reason: there is not any reason to believr in god.
It also implies great mathematical ability, given the amount of births, and types of life.
We do not know how the universe came about. There's lot's of creation going on in the universe, it's probable someone draws the link between creation and how the universe came to exist.
God isn't the most scientific term to describe a higher power/creator, and Christianity is probably not the best way to go about worshipping it.
I'm an Atheist, I rule out God, but I don't rule out higher powers or a creator.
Well...when I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong...so...
...I thought you were an intelligent person, Dingo.
My bad.
I'm not a fan of labels or descriptor in any case, but when an Internet atheist insists that I, and all babies, are atheist by definition...it bugs me.
I attempt to discuss it with as much diligence as possible...and thought things were going fine in my discussion with Dingo, even though he seemed compulsive about calling me stupid. (I am far from stupid.)
And then he went ape-shit...totally lost his cool.
Surprised me. I thought this forum was above that sort of thing.
Oh, well.
Great post, David.
I have been attempting to make the case that the word "atheist" should be confined to people who "believe" (assert/guess both work) that there are no gods...OR who "believe" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
That would leave room for people who do not "believe", guess, assert...in either direction on the question.
My personal take:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
I see that as a reasonable position...and I see no reason to use "atheistic" to describe it.
Dingo, and some of the others here, seems to disagree.
They question my intelligence for thinking as I do.
Except that in academia it's really not that simple:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAgno
Wrong again dummy. You continue to display thoughtless, sloppy thinking. If you thought I was intelligent before, the only thing thats changed is now im insulting you, and dispensing with politeness because you do not deserve it. Neither of those things are indicators of intelligence, so once again you have no basis for what you are saying. You aren’t even smart enough to understand how embarrassed you should be each time you open your stupid mouth to get in the last word because your childish ego compels you to.
See, its not that your stupid, Im not one of those guys that feels good by demeaning others who are less intelligent. No, what provokes me about you is that you are aggressively stupid, arrogantly dumb. If you were just stupid, then I believe you can still be taught, still capable of learning until you might have something interesting to say/contribute, but thats not the case. You are dull, but think your smart, you have a grossly inflated sense of your grasp of logic and reason. You have a chip in your shoulder about being treated as an intelligent person, my guess is due to insecurity. These things make you obnoxious, deserving of ridicule and derisive treatment, and they prevent you from being reached through discourse. These things are whats represented with the expression “having your head up your ass”, but of course your too dim to understand the underlying point in me using that phrase and see only the insult. You really do need to get your head out of your ass, I promise you will notice an immediate improvement in your discourse and ability to understand. A wise man starts with the possibility that they are wrong, they exercise humility.
Plus, you are being dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith. Thats is maybe what most makes you deserving of no respect or civilised treatment. The only thing more pathetic than a dishonest, Disingenuous goon is a dishonest, disingenuous goon whose so dishonest they are even lying to themselves.
Normally im content to let some dummy get in the last word and be done with them but for some reason I have this uncharacteristic idealism that you have a a brain somewhere underneath that thick skull of yours, that its these obnoxious personality traits more than rampant stupidity that prevents you from understanding things my 8 year old has no trouble with. That, and you are best served by being put in your place
“We”?! Holy shit Frank. There is no “we”. Thats just you trying to lend weight to your sad attempt at getting to me by pretending your part of some consensus.
My attitude and tone can be dialled up or dialled back, it can be turned off and turned on. This is not the case with your dullness of mind. Thats a permanent condition, which can only be helped by working on your humility, on your arrogance. You are not smart, accept it so that maybe one day, you might, MIGHT be able to not be accurately assessed as stupid.
Anyway, time to point out your sloppy thinking again. A petulant adolescent and a philosopher are not mutually exclusive, which is how you treated them in context there (not that you are going to understand context but what can you do?). Also, your respect means nothing to me, what a pathetic conceit you have allowed yourself.
Still all triggered, I see. Okay. Some people take longer than others to get their shit together.
Anyway...about my supposed lack of intelligence and reasoning skills:
Back before the Internet, a person who wanted to share an opinion had to write an opinion piece (op ed or letter) to a newspaper or magazine. The competition was fierce, and relatively few pieces were published. Those that were had a real name and city of residence attached.
Certain publications were coveted by those of us who competed for space…The New York Times was always the top prize and Newsweek and Time, were the two most sought-after of the national news magazines.
The submissions had to be thoughtful, logical, and well-constructed. Very few sloppy writers ever made the cut.
I had an op ed sized piece published in the New York Times…an essay that took issue with something A. M. Rosenthal had written. (Abe Rosenthal, portrayed in the Movie The Post, was a very powerful newspaper man…the guy who got the Pentagon Papers published. But I got to debate him on the issue of drugs—in his newspaper—in a piece that was published without so much as a comma being changed.
Newsweek published one of my essays as a MY TURN (an especially sought-after spot) which included a photo and a $1000 honorarium. That also was published exactly as I wrote it.
After the debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, Newsweek and Time Magazines each received over 800 letter submissions. The debate was huge news. Both magazines published letters from me…two different letters.
Reading those pathetic pieces you write and boast about, Dingo, and hearing the derisive comments you have for someone so much your better…is great for my digestion. Laughter does that for the digestive system.
Grow up a bit…then come back and take your medicine. I’ll take it easy on you. I get no pleasure from picking on someone so markedly inferior in writing and reasoning talent.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Intelligence is measured by being published?! Its measured by writing talent?!
You are a fucking moron. You cannot even tell the difference between some accomplishment that brings you pride and intelligence.
And still, unable to resist your childish ego. No matter what I say, no matter the petulant adolescence, you will never be able to ignore me, never be able to resist chiming in with some insecure, irrelevant chest puffing drivel no one cares about. Im providing you with a mirror, take a good look. See if your dim, skulking intellect can self reflect.
Words like "atheist" are usually brought into English by a word-coining author. The 16th - 17th centuries were an active period of word coinage.
Still triggered. Oh, so, so sad.
You really have to get that childish stuff under control, Dingo...unless, of course, you are a child.
In any case, some people might say that one of the measures of "intelligence"...is the ability to act like a grown up...no matter how tight your panties get.
By that measure, you are still rocking the bassinet...while I am tooling in a Lamborghini.
Right now we are not "debating" or "discussing." We are merely dealing with a temper tantrum on the part of Dingo.
I'm just having a bit of fun at his expense.
Acting like a grown up is called maturity. One can be immature, and intelligent. So these people who might say that are wrong.
Another sign of immaturity? Not being able to resist the pull of your childish ego, to always have to get in the last word even to someone whose acting like a petulant adolescent, to someone you think is throwing a tantrum. Pay attention here, I may be acting immature, but you arent. Your childish, egocentric personality is REAL. Look up from your own ass and see your reflection. Just try.
[quote=wikipedia]The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ????? (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity, it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society, those who were forsaken by the gods, or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods.The term denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed.[/quote]
"No commitment to belief in the gods", or in other words, Frankie's position in fact (even though he's incorrigibly misinformed about it):
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well, according to the ancient Greeks, Frankie's doxic noncommital - "lack of belief" in g/G - is ????? (atheos), or in contemporary parlance: atheism. :yikes:
C'mon.
Get control.
Anyway...I'm here for ya. Until the sun goes nova...or I shed this moral veil.
But that is obviously nonsense.
Listen to the atheists on the Internet...and you can easily tell they are, to a person, people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Look...I can understand why they are begging others to be identified as atheists. They are interested in increasing the intelligence level of the atheistic DNA.
Yes, because your childish ego compels you. You think that because I call you childish that switching it back onto me will bother me? The difference, once again silly Frank, is that you ARE a child, you HAVE a childish ego. I can stop at any time, you cant.
Watch.
Hey, Frank, shut your stupid mouth.
There. Nothing worth responding to. But you will. Your ego compels you and you need to deal with that before you can come up with anything meaningful to say on this or any other issue.
They also served who were the butt of somebody else's amusement. Carry on.
For me, "atheism" privately means "rejecting the presentation of the God-concept that I grew up with". It isn't that I believe that god(s) can not exist or do not exist or that they may exist but I don't believe it. It is rather that I reject a particular kind of judgmental, picayune meddling deity. I have room to believe in a more distant deity who may be loving, may be all knowing and all that, but who does not intervene on a regular basis. For conventional Christians that is, of course, a heresy. It amounts to rejecting God altogether, from their perspective.
Why don't you reread that section over again more carefully. The article clearly explains why agnosticism is NOT just a version of theism/atheism, but strictly speaking in a different kind of epistemological category. That is to say, you can be any combination of gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist.
Cats, chairs, and babies are not the sort of entities that can think about the basic concepts necessary for such positions. These are just categories for which they lack the prerequisite skills.
Or, put another way, it's about as useful as asking whether a cat/baby/chair is Republican, patriotic, or a Shakespeare fan.
1. Language changes in accordance to societal definitions of it, you're acting as though definitions are independent of subjective views, and instead rely on their linguistic backgrounds. Weird.
2. If an atheist denotes his/her definition, then use that definition at face value if arguing for religion or getting to the core of their beliefs, or instead create a discussion with the person specifically about where their use of the word atheist is wrong. If you cannot come to a conclusive definition, then the argument is pointless, might be easier for you to just accept their definition.
3. I see quite a bit of arguments from assertion. Especially when defining your own societal rules about what is appropriate use of language or not. Perhaps it's just me, but your viewing of the term as "inappropriate," goes to show that the entire crux of your argument is based on your specific attachment to a negative view of the word, not whether it is a pragmatic use of it or not.
If I'm following correctly, you use the word atheism to refer to any position that does not answer the question of God's existence in the affirmative. I.e., anyone who does not assert some sort of belief and/or knowledge in God is, by definition, an atheist.
You then state that there are many varieties of atheism. I'm aware that there are classification systems to identify different flavors of atheism. Perhaps you stated this somewhere in the back & forth and I missed it (if so, apologies), but what label/classification would you use to identify Frank's position?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Agnostic atheist.
:rofl: Sounds about right to me.
I don't usually rattle people quite as much or as easily as I rattle you.
Thanks, Buddy.
But the moment and atheist tells me that I, by definition, am an atheist...I want to tell that atheist to store the definition where it is unlikely to get sunshine.
Okay?
So...I will continue my sport with him.
Cretin I hadnt used yet, but you just earned it. Only a cretin tries to glom their way into an exchange with someone else and use it to indirectly address...well me in this case.
Also, sport implies a contest. You are no contest. The only thing, ONLY thing you have going on is a skull so thick you dont get tired of being punched in the head.
Do you know the reason you are making short responses now you dishonest stooge? Want me to tell you?
:lol:
Ill be here all week, dont forget to tip your waitress. Lol
Children are predisposed to believe in Santa Claus so I would have to agree with you. Santa Claus is essentially a lower case g god.
Theism: affirmation that god exists.
Atheism: denial that god exists.
Agnosticism: lack of evidence, then refrain of judgment.
By the way, the article has the defect of stopping at philosophically irrelevant and picturesque uses. To devote a few lines to skeptical religion, frankly...
The word atheism meant something else in Greece and Rome: irreligiousness to the gods of the polis. One who believed in a strange god was an atheist. But we're talking about the 21st century.
You are still raging like an out-of-control two year-old!
When you finally hit the "post comment" button do you drop to the floor and kick your heels against the carpet?
You have no idea of how much I am enjoying a guy like you throwing a childish tantrum while calling me the names you have been.
Thanks are due...consider this thanks given.
PRECISELY!
Well, as much as I'm sure you have more knowledge on the matter than the SEP :lol: .....you're still just not reading carefully.
Perhaps a little background info would help: The difference between the positions rests on the philosophical definition of knowledge, JTB, justfied true belief.
The terms a/theist merely denote belief. A/gnosticism denotes to which extent you believe these positions to be justified.
So, the theist says "I believe in such and such God," but his a/gnosticism will determine whether he admits it is just faith-based belief or claims his belief is founded on rational justification.
A/gnosticism is therefore not an expression of belief or lack thereof per se. It is an expression of the conditions of JTB. Two different things.
Your welcome, but the true gift im bestowing upon you is enlightenment, youre just to stupid to realise it. Im calling you names AND dismantling every wrong headed thing you barf onto your keyboard.
For example, despite claiming to be some kind of writer you are unable to articulate any actual humour in your responses. You are not clever, all you do is repeat the same thing (big surprise) about toddlers and tantrums which are two things Ive already said to you! :lol:
(Repeating my own quips back to me, but devoid of the same caliber).
Want another one? You are too engaged with the contents of your own ass to even realise that YOU are the joke, WE are all laughing at you dummy! Wise up.
I repeat, the ONLY thing you have going for you is sheer, stubborn stupidity. Eventually I will get bored of humiliating you, long before anything actually permeates its way past you nigh impenetrable baby mind.
You are like the character Wimp Lo, from the movie Kung Pow. He was purposely trained in martial arts backwards, so he thinks losing is winning. He gets kicked in the face, he gloats about his “face to foot style, howd you like it?” Or gets kicked in the nuts and falls on the ground “my nuts to shin style. I cannot stand, do you surrender?”
Thats you. Too hopelessly soft in the head to to realise when you should beg for mercy.
Youve lost on every front, if you had any shame at all you would shut the fuck up, but you cant, cuz you are just to obtuse.
Quoting David Mo
Read the OP. His trivial 'argument from etymology' only goes back to Middle French; I simply go deeper to Attic Greek to upend his shallow argument. And yours apparently.
A bit of advice in return, Dingo. If you are going to lecture me on my supposed stupidity, best not to have YOUR very first word be "your"...when you mean "you're." That is a truly amateur mistake...although I thank you once again for the laugh it elicited.
I hope you finally get over this juvenile temper tantrum. We still have things to discuss. Despite all your childish insults, I am willing to school you on this issue.
I think God is a poor way to word creator or higher power. It's not, exactly, a dictionary word. It's in the dictionary but it's conflated with religion. It's not the most mature way to deal with intelligent design or other intelligence external to the universe questions. It works, poorly. Lot's of waste discussion emerges.(et a Frank and DingoJones)
The hearts of Christians are in the right place, the minds are not.
Spelling and grammar are not measures of intelligence, they are measures of ones mastery of grammar and spelling. You are an endless bucket of stupid. And, since you have the memory of a goldfish to match the wit of a goldfish ill remind you: I dont kare if I misspel thinggs, it iss a litmmus test to detect pedantik moronz.
I could go back and correct my own posts to 100% correct grammar and spelling. The difference between us is that you are stuck stupid. Not because of your admittingly low levels of comprehension, but because of your grossly misplaced arrogance.
(Quick, point out that I should have typed “admittedly”. Lol, what a joke)
Whoa whoa whoa fella...HE is flinging shit. I on the other hand am flinging barrages of highly polished turds. Highly accurate, somehow sharp and deadly, polished, turds.
Anyway, I agree with you. There should be a distinction between god (which one?!) and a first cause, higher power etc, and if course there is (I just used the separate terms for some of them.) but people dont seem to pay much attention to them.
There is a lot of wasted discussion anytime people start referencing the dictionary in a conversation. Its an appeal to authority really, and its contentious. Its much better to reference how each participant is using the term, and addressing the differences to move forward with the understanding of what each person actually means.
Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I started one.
I didn't think that thread should've been deleted, it was pretty obvious that it was just a metaphor which compared sin to diseases (it was not saying "people with diseases are evil", or something absurd which Banno claimed it did).
Gentlemen (at least I assume you both identify as male, apologies if I got that wrong :smile: )
Based on your posts you both appear to be reasonably intelligent articulate people. What we have here is a disagreement over how to define the word atheist. Now I'm sort of a kumbaya person, so let me attempt to resolve this peacefully. Let me address you individually.
To @Frank Apisa:
You're an agnostic no matter what Dingo says. Dingo is using the word atheist in the context of a very arcane classification system used by some philosophers to distinguish between various systems of thought regarding religion. Not only that, but I believe there are other arcane classification systems under which you would be agnostic. And no one outside a minuscule insular group of people would ever understand any of this.
I can relate to this on a personal level. I consider myself to be some variation of Ignostic. I have had conversations with folks on the forum who consider this to be a variation of atheism - if I recollect being an Ignostic means I'm a Weak Atheist. My response was that this is tarring me with too braod a brush and that the average person would not understand it.
So if someone on someone on some obscure discussion group prefers to label you as an atheist, big deal. Simply say you disagree and wave your agnostic freak flag on high.
To: @DingoJones::
I understand what you're saying. Your desire to be precise is admirable - please accept this as a sincere complement. The problem I have (and I believe Frank's as well) - is that the word atheist has a very clear (and different) meaning to, umm, 99.99999. . .% of the world's population: it means that you actively deny the existence of God (or any Gods). I'm a plain language guy and your usage contradicts the plain language meaning of the word.
I respectfully suggest that if you used the word non-theist instead of atheist, our differences would disappear.
If you disagree - and if Frank stubbornly insists on calling himself Agnostic? So what? You can continue to lobby for your definitions. Who knows? If you can win, say, 1% of the world's population over to your definitions, maybe I'll change my mind. :smile:
Well I didnt say Frank wasnt agnostic. He is. He is also an atheist.
Non-theist = atheist. There is no distinction between the two, save semantics necessitated by theist arguments that try and create a false equivalence between theism and atheism being beliefs.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I hold no particular loyalty to definitions, im happy to go with whats most sensible if its presented to me. Also, I dont care if 99.9999999% (whered you pull that number out if?) of people are getting it wrong. I care about what the best, most reasonable usage. If 99.99999% of people thought the earth was flat, Id still maintain its roundness (spherical, for Pedantic Frank) because thats the best, most reasonable position to hold.
Frank is cut off though. Like that guy needs any more cognitive impairment.
*takes a bow*
I DO realise its a bit silly to argue over definitions, but when people do so through the filter of their belief or agenda it forces a response.
The confusion on this point is from certain theists, the ones that do not argue honestly and try and play little word games to inoculate their beliefs against basic reason. That comes from my anti-theism though, not my atheism.
When Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869, his purpose was explicitly clear - he wanted a way to make explicit the difference in his thinking from atheism.
Your analogy to the world being round vs. flat looks to me to be a category error - as this is a statement about the physical universe which can be empirically verified. Definitions of words are ultimately arrived at via consensus - and can change over time. It appears that you and others are either trying to broaden the definition of atheism to incorporate agnosticism - OR - perhaps you are saying that Huxley's definition was somehow flawed and that - even working within the framework of his original definition - agnosticism is a type of atheism. As I've explained I think this is a mistake, since
(a) it goes against the commonly accepted usage of the words - in particular the definition of agnostic has broadened over time to mean being non-commital about something; and
(b) there are some simple alternatives which - at least to my plain language thinking - work equally well.
As to where I got 99.999 . . . %? I did a seat of the pants estimate. To start off with, how many people in the world study philosophy at this level? Difficult to say precisely, but we can make some educated guesses. I'm in the US. The American Philosophical Association website says they have "over 10,000 members". Let's say 10K. Likely there are theologians who also dabble in this stuff. Let's double that to 20K. Then there are students who are currently studying philosophy who may be familiar with this debate. Add another 20K. So now we have 40K people in the US who would follow this conversation and have an opinion - they might agree with you or not. So say 50% agree with your definitions and 50K don't. Back to 20K people in the US who would both understand this conversation and agree with you. To make the math easy I'll bump that up to 30K. Next there are 300M people in the US. So that means 1 in 10,000 Americans would understand this discussion and agree with you. So that's 99.999. I'm assuming this would extend world wide.
But maybe I'm wrong. It happens on a regular basis - just ask my wife. . .
So here's what you could do. Take a random poll of people in the street. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic or Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say Agnostic. You might then try a similar survey and add one more option into the mix. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic, Atheist, or Agnostic Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say "What the heck is an Agnostic Atheist?" :smile:
I've think I've said all I can say on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you want it.
Oh...ok. Thats too bad, almost seemed like this was the beginning of a discussion. Take care...
Really? Someone being wrong on the Internet forces you to respond, even though you realize all along that you are being silly? That's pretty sad, not being able to exercise your agency and do what you think is right because of some idiot.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
For the SEofPh article the main sense of atheism is not a belief, but an affirmation or proposition:
"Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” "
Agnosticism is not a complement to atheism, but a contrary position:
"But it was Huxley’s application of this principle to theistic and atheistic belief that ultimately had the greatest influence on the meaning of the term. He argued that, since neither of those beliefs is adequately supported by evidence, we ought to suspend judgment on the issue of whether or not there is a God."
I'm sorry to say: The confusion doesn't come from the names. Neither does it come from theists. It comes from the definition of atheism in terms of beliefs.
If you define the atheist as one who denies that God exists and the agnostic as one who neither denies nor affirms, the confusion is over.
Furthermore, this is the most common use among experts.
Two reasons to adopt this terminology.
Is there proof of the existence of God?
Can I believe in something without proof?
Names are a secondary problem. Only of convenience.
Those who affirm the existence of god. (theists)
Those who don't affirm the existence of god. (soft atheists)
Those who deny the existence of god (hard atheists), a subset of the previous group.
And orthogonal to all of those (for 3x3=9 groups total):
Those who think they know whether god exists. (gnostics)
Those who don't think they know whether god exists. (soft agnostics)
Those who think it can't be known whether god exists. (hard agnostics), a subset of the previous group.
Your classification is confusing. Besides, I'm not interested because you include beliefs. Beliefs are subjective. I'm interested in propositions. What do you call a person who neither claims nor denies that God exists? I don't see it on your list. But it's a very relevant concept since it was coined by Th. Huxley.
My classification is simpler:
They claim that God exists = theists
Non-theists:
Deny that God exists =atheists
Neither deny nor affirm= agnostics
Is "neither denying nor affirming" a proposition? It seems to me that it "proposes" nothing at all.
Poor little Dingo. Still in his tantrum.
You've got to learn how to control that. Same day you will be an adult...and people will be less forgiving of that sort of thing.
Obviously, this discussion between Dingo and I has gotten out of hand. I've been relatively respectful towards him, but he has informed me that I am not worthy of respect and he intends show me as much contempt as possible.
Fine.
As for the descriptors, I am more than willing to let my "take" speak for itself...and much prefer to use it rather than the descriptor "agnostic."
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
Obviously it is an agnostic one, so I do use "agnostic" as a shortcut.
The English language is arguably the most comprehensive in the world. ONLY atheists seem to think that there is no room for the distance between opinions on "There is a God" to "There are no gods." Atheists want to insist on a zero-sum dichotomy...either theist or atheist. Frankly, I have never known a person who chooses to use "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
My contention all along has been that insisting that EVERYONE (including babies and toddlers) who does not have a "belief" that at least one god exists MUST be deemed an atheist...is much less logical than confining that word to people who fit those two descriptions...and allowing babies to be babies, toddlers to be toddlers, and agnostics to be agnostics.
The convention that everyone who is not a theist has to be an atheist (a convention only atheists seem to insist upon) should go the way of the dinosaurs.
As for Dingo's way over-the-top Internet temper tantrum...that should be over by now, but..........
I can hardly wait to get back to grade 4 class and write an essay "what I read in my Mid-Winter Break".
Modern Love (of Wisdom)
Here's a word. About beliefs.
Get it from roots, define it ad hoc.
Nobody bends. Nobody gives.
You want to win? Out of luck.
The word grows, the word lives
And all of us care, 'coz we do give a fuck.
I am an atheist, and you described my feelings perfectly, except it's not that I insist on a zero-sum thing, which is only coincidental, although very true.
I agree wholeheartedly with your definition and derivation of agnosticism.
But I further offer why I think someone is either a believer or not a believer in god.
Your description of agnosticism is right on. Everyone is an agnost. WE DON'T KNOW if god exists or not. This is true. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or is delusional.
As an atheist, I am also an agnost, as I don't know. It is only a foolish atheist who claims god is impossible to exist. And it is only a foolish theist who claims it is impossible to have the world without a god in it.
So I say we are all agnostic.
But we are not both atheists and theists. Therefore we are each not (not theist) and (not atheist).
Therefore we must be either one, or the other.
I use the law of the excluded middle, not the theory of zero-sum game.
Those who claim they are ambivalent about their beliefs in god, I don't believe. It is fine to know you can see that you can't justify your belief, but you can't both beleive and not believe in a god at the same time and at the same respect.
Therefore I reject that anyone is agnostic in the common speech sense of the word. Everyone is an agnostic if you consiter a gnost a person who knows; but nobody is an agnostic who claims to be undecided in his belief about god.
Granted, I am an atheist. But if we consider possible states of reality, it seems to me there are only ever two options. X is the case, or X isn't the case. I can say "I don't know", but that's a statement about myself, not about X.
It is perhaps important to note that while we commonly admit to not knowing this or that, we don't usually describe ourselves as agnostic. We just admit that whatever position we hold is not based on a lot of information.
This may be irksome to you, but to atheists (at least for me) the most irksome opinion is a theist's who says that atheism is just another, different religion.
NO. Religions involve gods, and atheism does not. That's the most basic difference, and that separates the two enough so as to make atheism not a religion.
Both religions and atheism are FAITHS; they are both belief systems. Perhaps this is what gives a rise to the fallacy of equivocation for the religious, when they declare atheism is just another relgion, as to a religious person faith or belief is inseparable from a faith in, or a belief in, the existence of god.
It doesnt force me to respond, and I do not respond in reaction to him being wrong. I CHOOSE to respond because he is an obnoxious asshat.
Here, Ill demonstrate by choosing not to respond to him. Something he isnt capable of. As I pointed out to him, thats the difference. He’s stuck with his childishness.
That IS wonderful gift he has, GMBA. I wish I had it, but I don't. I was composing a response to both your earlier posts, but found the damn thing was running too long.
Gotta go tend to my aunt right now, but I'll be back this afternoon to give as short a response as I can fashion. My thanks to both of you for putting so much thought and effort into this discussion.
Sorry, but you're just not reading carefully:
"No doubt both senses of “agnosticism”, the psychological and the epistemological, will continue to be used both inside and outside of philosophy. Hopefully, context will help to disambiguate. In the remainder of this entry, however, the term “agnosticism” will be used in its epistemological sense. This makes a huge difference to the issue of justification. Consider, for example, this passage written by the agnostic, Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85):
I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic.
It is one thing to ask whether Kenny’s inability to find arguments that convince him of God’s existence or non-existence justifies him personally in suspending judgment about the existence of God. It is quite another to ask whether this inability (or anything else) would justify his believing that no one (or at least no one who is sufficiently intelligent and well-informed) has a justified belief about God’s existence.
If agnosticism (in one sense of the word) is the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, then it might be useful to use the term “gnosticism” to refer to the contradictory of that position, that is, to the position that either theism or atheism is known. That view would, of course, come in two flavors: theistic gnosticism—the view that theism is known (and hence atheism is not)—and atheistic gnosticism—the view that atheism is known (and hence theism is not)."
And since you were the one to claim that in academia atheist/agnostic/theist are used merely in what the SEP calls the "psychological" sense, you are wrong.
I disagree, the confusion is about the terms. Atheism is about belief, ones position on a specific belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, what one thinks about what can be known. That whats taught by the experts, if by experts you mean philosophical academia.
A person can be an atheist for a number of reasons, there are different kinds/forms of atheism. What they all have in common, what therefore is most definitive of atheism, is a lack of belief in god/gods.
Bingo, Dingo!
Quoting god must be atheist
You certainly are entitled to agree with Dingo on this...but the thrust is wrong, no matter any technicalities of today's usage of the word "atheist."
In any case, the word should ONLY be applied to those who wish to use it as a descriptor...not to people who object. (The word "liberal" has that same quality.)
Further, in a language like English, that has such an enormous vocabulary that it has a word for almost everything...the notion that perspectives on the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" should be so confining that everyone's position on it MUST be classified either as "atheistic" or "theistic"...is an absurdity. We easily can devise words to differentiate between, for instance, "I 'believe' there are no gods"; "I 'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than..."; "I don't 'believe' there are no gods and I don't 'believe' there are any gods and I don't 'believe' that one is more likely than the other."
They are discrete positions...and each deserves the respect of a descriptor for those who want descriptors.
There is no way I will be defined as an atheist simply because atheists are determined to demand that anyone who lacks a "belief" in any gods must accept that designation.
By the way, the notion that non-theist is the same as "atheist" is so self-serving and gratuitous to the atheistic perspective...I cringe at having to dispute it. I am, most assuredly, a non-theist. BUT I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
Positioning on the question is broad...running from "There is a God" to "There are no gods." There are nuances and subtleties that come into play. The earlier argument here was that simply ignoring those nuances and subtleties MAKES MORE SENSE than recognizing that they exist and are important to the people espousing them...is beyond reason.
Thank you for considering my position on this.
Please consider this a response to your post also, Echarmion.
Quoting Echarmion
It is not.
If you want to exclude all talk about beliefs, knowledge, etc, and just talk about the possible facts of the matter, then there are only two options:
God exists.
God does not exist.
If you want to talk about someone who's not sure which of those is true, then you're talking about beliefs and knowledge toward those propositions. Let's call those propositions G and ~G, and the belief function B(). We can then have:
B(G)
~B(G)
B(~G)
~B(~G)
The first of those is theism, belief in the existence of God.
The second is soft atheism, non-belief in the existence of God, what you're calling "non-theism".
The third is hard atheism, belief in the non-existence of God, what you're insisting is the only atheism, which is a subset of the second.
So far as I'm aware nobody cares to talk about or name the last one, non-belief in the non-existence of God.
Agnosticism is something else entirely: it's claims about knowledge. Which then requires another dimension, as I described before.
Quoting David Mo
That would be a kind of soft atheist. Probably also at least a soft agnostic, maybe even a hard agnostic too.
How about NOT CALLING THEM ANYTHING. Why not let each individual decide what, if any, descriptor they want to use?
If a person describes him/herself thusly, "I do not claim that any gods exist; I do not claim that no gods exist; I have no beliefs in either direction; and I make no guesses in either direction"...
...why not let that stand on its own?
And if the person wants to use a descriptor of agnostic, why not let that be okay?
Or if the person wants to use a descriptor of atheist, why not let that be okay?
Why the hell are so many atheists insisting that because one element in that description indicates a lack of "belief" in any gods...THAT PERSON MUST BE DESIGNATED AN ATHEIST?
How can anyone say that makes more sense than simply letting everyone make a designation choice for him/herself?
Sorry, I'm not using a psychological concept of agnosticism, but an epistemological one.
I don't think Anthony Kenny is a philosopher very representative of today's academic world. Anyway, his concept of agnosticism seems similar to the one I use: neither theism nor atheism, abstention.
Says you. The Stanford encyclopedia article we saw says otherwise. So does The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article. These two are academic online references.
"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist. On the other hand, atheism is the view that God does not exist". (http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/).
I want to talk about knowledge (of God). The only way to do so is through the propositions that enunciate it: I affirm or I deny. Or I abstain. Do you know an alternative to these three? I do not.
Your vocabulary has a serious problem: you don't know how to call a long list of philosophers who call themselves agnostics and defend abstention from judgment. Starting with the one who invented the term: Thomas Huxley. It's a serious flaw..
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
...my guess is 999 would say "that is a purely agnostic position."
Almost nobody but debating Internet atheists think that position is that of an atheist.
So I am not sure why you think your way of thinking would be more amenable to effective communications.
(Hint: It wouldn't!)
EVERYONE is an agnostic.
Some of us acknowledge it.
1. He's the person quoted in a peer-reviewed article by an actual academic published in a well-respected philosophical encyclopedia through a verified academic institution... so... not sure on which basis you dismiss him so easily.
2. I directly quoted to you the part that explained the epistemological difference. If you can't understand that, plus my explanation, plus Dingo's, plus Pfhorrest's.... I guess maybe you just don't want to understand it.
To be clear, I don't really care which definitions you personally want to use. I think it's fine to use terms in any idiosyncratic way one pleases as long as sufficient clarification is present as to what one means. However, you're the one who claimed:
"In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists.
It seems simple enough and clear enough."
A simplistic and one-sided representation of a very nuanced field with many differentiated uses of the same or similar words for very precise purposes.....
Anywho, I've proven that it's not so "simple" and that the "academic world" is not, in fact, of one, homogeneous mind about the matter. There's really no room left to debate, so I'm going to rest my case from here on out.
Absolutely correct, David.
Here are two quotes from Albert Einstein:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
Here is some information from Stephen Hawking:
In his book on Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III, writes:
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.
Here's some information on Carl Sagan:
In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
[QUOTE=x-ray vision;12116948]You were given explanations over and over again. Everything you're asking has been answered and in depth. Calling them rationalizations doesn't take away from this. There's no reason to ask others to rehash the explanations for you all over again.[/QUOTE]
If you want to consider rationalizations "explanations"...do so. Allow me the freedom to consider rationalizations "rationalizations."
I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:
“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”
Said another way: Just because it looks like an elephant and is dancing…does not mean it is an elephant dancing.
Now who's telling people what they really are?
Someone who thinks they know that God does or doesn't exist is not an agnostic. Hard agnostics (who think knowledge about God is impossible) may think all such claims to knowledge are wrong, but nevertheless it's the claim to knowledge or lack thereof that makes someone agnostic or not.
EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC.
NOBODY KNOWS IF ANY GODS EXIST OR NOT.
SOME PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT...SOME PEOPLE DO NOT.
BUT EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC.
Uh-oh, all-caps, so you know he must be right. :joke:
Thats one article, and maybe its on the cutting edge of philosophy and represents some shift in all of academia but I have my doubts. When you take philosophy at the university level (incidentally, one of my philosophy profs graduated from Stanford) they teach definitions and epistemology with a little more depth than what your reference does.
At the very least, there would be contention about that way of defining terms that way.
What's the important difference?
Quoting Frank Apisa
"Atheist" and "theist" are categories. That they gloss over subtleties is kinda the point. Saying someone falls into a category is not the same as saying their position is the same as everyone else's.
No Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. believe in the deity Zeus or Jupiter etc. Not believing in gods is atheism. Ergo, all Christians, Jews, Muslims, are atheists.
Absolutely nobody believes in all the believed gods. We are all atheists.
(I did not come up with this. It's common knowledge.)
Non-theist describes anyone who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist.
Atheist, no matter how much people who use the term as a descriptor, are people who also "'believe' that there are no gods" or who "'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
I agree. But that does not contradict anything I wrote.
It's not that I don't want to understand you, it's just that I don't get it. The only words you quote from Kenny are these:
"I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic."
I fully subscribe to the meaning of agnostic here. Why do you think otherwise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
You'd have to as Thomas Huxley that.
But for me...it allows a person who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist...to differentiate him/herself from others of that same sentiment, but who "believe" that no gods exist or who "believe" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
They are simply people who do not "believe" those gods exist. Atheist is a descriptor used by people who "believe" no gods exist...or who "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
One of those points that I would rather not speak for everyone, but it sounds correct. However, it does not change what I have said.
It is a common assumption...and one that I make also.
Why not?
If lacking belief in gods is the only necessary and sufficient quality to be considered an atheist, how can someone lack belief in god(s) and NOT be an atheist?
Quoting David Mo
Those are not the only words I quoted from the entry. I really really cannot chew your food for you. You're just going to have to figure it out on your own at this point.
:roll: If you have to disingenuously cherry-pick quotes, at least quote what the subjects themselves have actually said or wrote. Re: Not a bona fide "agnostic" in your trinity, if only, because each man has warrant - compelling reasons, circumstantial evidence - not "proof" (which applies only to theorems, not states of affairs) to dissent from, or reject, theism:
Albert Einstein, d. 1955
[ i ]
He's an acosmist (colloquially a pantheist) because "the harmony of all that exists" - his, like Spinoza's, conception of divinity - corresponds to the fundamental laws of nature, and not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) theistic g/G.
[ ii ]
He rejects (a) JCI theistic deity: (weak) atheist.
[ iii ]
He implicitly equivocates "agnostic" with weak atheist.
[ iv ]
Weak atheist.
[ v ]
Weak atheist. Like Spinoza, an acosmist; and therefore not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) g/G.
i. cable to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)
ii. The World As I See It (1935)
iii. letter to Guy Raner, Jr. (1949)
iii. archives (1954)
v. William Miller, Life Magazine (1954)
Carl Sagan, d. 1996
[ a ]
Pantheist (at mininum); and not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) theistic g/G.
[ b ]
Definitely a pantheist.
a. U.S. News & World Report, vol. 111 (1991)
b. Cosmos (1980)
Stephen Hawking, d. 2018
[ 6 ]
Pantheist. ("Impersonal God" =/= theistic g/G.)
[ 7 ]
Definitely not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) theistic g/G. A rhetorically pantheistic scientific materialist (or "positivist" as he claims elsewhere).
6. Reason Magazine (2002)
7. "Curiosity", The Discovery Channel (2011)
Nicely fact checked sir.
I second Dingo. Bravo.
It is not a question here of chewing concepts but of digesting them. I'm afraid you have a digestive problem with the concepts of metaphysical, psychological and epistemological. Why do you think I defend a psychological concept of agnosticism? Let's see if you can answer or avoid the answer.
I don't think Wikipedia is a model of academic knowledge.
The problem we are discussing is not whether Einstein or Sagan were pantheists but how they used the concepts of atheism and agnosticism.
Frank gave a good sample of scientists who considered atheism as denial that God exists and agnosticism as abstaining from judgment. You have provided only a partial quote from Wiki. It is clear where the scales are tipped.
The variety of philosophical positions is infinite. This is a problem for the inexperienced: they give all of them the same importance. A good encyclopedia article provides guidance: it points out the main trend and notes some secondary ones. The SEPh article at least marks the main one, but you don't seem to have noticed it.
Very easy.
All one has to do is to tell the truth...as I am doing...by just saying, "I am NOT an atheist."
Yeah...just ignore the gratuitous usage based definition that atheists have contrived...and refuse to be labelled that way.
There is no reason in the world why "a lack of 'belief' in gods"should be considered "the only necessary and sufficient quality" to be considered an atheist. In fact, it isn't!
Two other "qualities" come easily to my mind; two "qualities" that EVERY person I have ever known or know of...appears to possess:
One...EVERY person I have ever known or know of who chooses to use the descriptor "atheist" uses it because that person WANTS TO. They choose to uses it. It is their choice to use it.
Two, EVERY person I have ever known or know of chooses to do so because he/she either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does.
I do not meet either of those other necessities. I do NOT choose to use it or have it used of me...and I do NOT "believe" there are no gods nor that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
I am not an atheist.
Thank you, David.
It is easy for people like Dingo to suggest I am stupid because of my position on this issue. I suspect it is much more difficult to argue that people like Einstein and Sagan were stupid because they viewed the descriptors "atheist" and "agnostic" the way I am arguing here...rather than the way people like Dingo and Artemis are.
Like I said, I'm not arguing about your particular position, but about your statement that: "In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists."
But keep fighting the windmills, Don Quixote.
Im telling you whats taught in the institutions of learning dedicated to the subject matter, the result of long history of academics debate and study. You are welcome to reject that as definitive of the subject matter, and embrace whatever other source you like but you are factually incorrect about whats actually consensus in academia. This is a problem of the uneducated, they lack the knowledge of what's important in academics.
As has been pointed out to you, you can have a valid opinion that ISNT based on academia, Im not making an appeal to academic authority here. You are wrong about whats being taught in academia though, unless you are referencing specifically theist academia. (Which you didnt).
You accused me of giving support to a psychologist definition. Now you don't seem willing to maintain that. I don't understand your game. Maybe you're not clear what the author calls "psychologism."
...why can't you realize that people like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were just ignorant people who just did not understand what is important in academics.
Here in the forum you have got world-class geniuses informing you of what those ignorant pissants were not able to grasp.
I don't think it's very serious to start a discussion about our respective academic grades. I think the sources that have been cited on both sides are expressive enough.
There are many people on the Internet who feel threatened if they are called agnostic rather than atheist. As if names have power over ideas. I don't mind being called by a name or another as long as they respect what I say.
Thats not what Im doing. Im not saying im right because Im more educated than you, I dont know what education you might have, or from where. If you have actual experience in philosophical academia, you should reference that instead of the article.
You made a claim about consensus in academia, and referenced that article. I made a counter claim to that view, and referenced actual academic consensus. Yes, Im basing that off of my own experience but Im not trying to cite credentials or make an appeal to authority.
On one hand we have actual experience of philosophical academia, and in the other we have the results of a google search. Can you make a case as to why the latter should hold more weight?
Keep it up, Quixote.
I can defend everything I have written. And with intelligent people, there usually is no need to do so. They get what I am saying...and understand it is reasonable.
Why should 'a belief in gods' be considered the only necessary and sufficient quality to be considered a theist?
I'm not asking to imply an argument from etymology, but rather to point out that words are assigned meaning according to whim and use; they're not objective and discrete categories that necessarily or consistently order messy human ideas and beliefs.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Whether or not we're choosing our own labels is not too relevant (and if it is, then we're just discussing semantics).
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'm a self-labeled atheist who does not have a belief either way in the existence or non existence of all possible gods. I am a borderline theological non-cognitivist; I don't think most statements that include the word "god" are fully coherent. If I am being picky, I will state my full position as follows: I lack belief in any and all possible god or god(s).
Quoting Frank Apisa
Who is calling you an atheist? It's supposed to be a word that helps introduce a theological position, not an insult hurled at others.
Your objection comes from your own interpretation of all atheism as necessarily hard atheism. It's just not the case. You're free to point to agnosticism to introduce your own position, but keep in mind that there is a philosophical meaning of the term which you might be obfuscating in doing so.
The practical reason why atheism should be simply "lacks belief in god(s)" is because it is the tidiest pairing with the word theist, and describes the most non-theists in practice (and to a theist, what is a non-theist but a god-denying atheist?). In this sense, it simple means "not a theist". Hard atheism is not actually the most common form (I've explored this specific question quite a bit in the past during similar discussions). Only about 5-10% of atheists are willing to foolishly stand up and make the hard positive claim that no god(s) exist. Some will happily argue that Yaweh/Jehova/Jesus certainly are not existent gods, but then we're defining atheism with respect to specific theologies. (I'm a a hard a-Christian, but I'm not a hard a-Deist).
Unless you believe in god(s), you're some kind of atheist in my book. A soft one by the sounds of it. You're also at least a weak agnostic because (I'm assuming) you believe that we presently do not have evidence pertaining to god or god(s) with which to take a position.
Belief is not something whimsical and fairy-tale, belief is a real function. It's like a hypothesis, or guess.
Someone asks you, do you think God exists? You say I believe not so. You may not say that but it is applicable.
No babies aren't intrinsically atheistic. If Atheism is correct, there should be no God question. Saying no to God is good, but conflating that "no" to a now permenant position is stupid.
Me: I said no and I mean no.
You; I said no, but I don't really mean no. I mean yes but by saying no. Don't believe me? Who cares, belief is for fools.
So when physicists create and explore hypotheses - guesses - they accept and believe them?
I thought they proceeded to try and falsify them... Luckily, all possible gods cannot be falsified; it's a non-scientific claim to make...
Quoting Qwex
How dare I fence-sit...
How dare I?
Quoting Qwex
Atheism isn't correct or incorrect, it merely a rejection of belief. We can say babies aren't atheists because they have no rejection capacity, and I'm fine with that.
Quoting Qwex
Right. Believing that you have knowledge about some kind of god is foolish...
Oh, you are a psychologist...working from afar.
You're not going to charge me, right?
Who ever woulda thunk it?
Anytime now would be good a time to start. :sweat:
No, if you offer a compelling reason to adopt non-academic terminology. It can happen.
"Non-theist" fulfills the same function and has an additional advantage: it does not interfere with the academic and traditional meanings of atheism and agnosticism. I think this is a very good reason to respect them.
I have been offering good, compelling arguments right along. You apparently refuse to acknowledge that...for some reason. I am sure it is a good reason for you...something that makes you feel better about yourself.
In any case, a rehashing for the slow learner group:
A large part of why I do not accept the atheistic mantra of “You are an atheist if you lack a ‘belief’ (in) God" is because it is a contrived statement. Essentially, it is saying that everyone is forced, by lexicographers and convention to be defined as an atheist if that is the situation. You are not allowed to choose "agnostic" and live with that alone...convention, alone, DEMANDS that you are an atheist.
C’mon. Most of the atheists with whom I am dealing just in this thread have more spine than that! Well, maybe not you, Proof. But most.
The reason most (probably ALL) of those who CHOOSE to use the word “atheist” as a descriptor…is that he/she “believes” that there are no gods…or he/she supposes that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I DON’T.
So why does anyone think it is reasonable to insist that those of us who do not “believe” that there are no gods…AND WHO DO NOT think it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one…should have the descriptor “atheist” imposed upon us?
Why are there some atheists who insist we are forced to accept it?
Why are there some atheist who insist that all babies are born atheists…rather than that all babies are born neither theistic, atheistic nor agnostic?
Why does anyone suppose the former is a more logical way to deal with the word…than the latter?
Why do those insistent atheists not just allow people who want to identify as atheists…do so; those who want to identify as agnostics…do so; and those who do not want a designation at all...do so...
… without the imposition of the “atheist” designation?
Why?
But if other people mean by "atheist" someone who doesn't believe God exists (not "who believes God doesn't exist"), and your view falls under that umbrella, then you're also an atheist in that sense of the word. You don't have to identify yourself as one, but you don't get to tell other people (who don't believe God exists, but also don't believe God doesn't exist -- like you) that they aren't really atheists; and if they're really atheists, and you believe the same thing as them, then you are too, in that sense of the word, even if you don't want to call yourself that.
I appreciate your sentiments, Phorrest...and I understand why you feel that way.
Mostly this is NOT a problem. But on the Internet it does become one.
I can tell you this...I have MANY friends in my non-cyber life who are atheists. They make no bones about it...and clearly and publicly declare themselves to be ATHEISTS. (We do not hide this stuff here in New Jersey.)
Anyway, I have never had one of them insist that I am an atheist also by virtue of the fact that I do not believe any gods exist. They know I identify as an agnostic...and they accept that. Never once outside of the Internet have I ever had an atheist insist that ANYONE who does not have a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist.
In fact, on those occasions where I have spoken with atheistic friends on the issue...they have been skeptical of my mention of people who do. "C'mon," they say, "if you say you are NOT an atheist, but an agnostid, why would anyone challenge that?" And when I tell them that some people are so wedded to that notion that they insist that "some say that babies and toddlers are all atheists" they just shut the conversation off...usually with a "well, you are just talking to assholes then,"
So...I am discussing it...here on the Internet where it happens. I thought I was doing so in a reasonable way...maybe with a jab here and there, but not being nasty or insulting.
A labels herself "1", which she describes as Belief That g/G.
B labels himself "2", which he describes as No Belief That g/G.
C labels herself "3", which she describes as Belief That No g/G; this, however, also implies No Belief That g/G.
D* labels himself "4", which he describes as A Claim That g/G-Type Is Falsified; this, however, also implies Belief That No g/G-Token Which Belongs To g/G-Type ... which also implies No Belief That g/G.
E labels herself "5", which she describes as Belief That All-Is-G (or All-In-G); this, however, also implies No Belief That g/G.
F[rankie] labels himself "6", which he describes as neither Belief That g/G nor Belief That No g/G nor No Belief That g/G;
in effect, however, this is indistinguishable from, or consistent with, No Belief That g/G -----> if the 'theoretical' difference of "6" & "2" is not a 'distinction without a practical (i.e. pragmatic, or existential) difference', such a difference has, or differences have, not yet been demonstrated by F[rankie] or any other "6".
:sweat: - shhhh don't tell him that ...
Caveat: Everyone is entitled to call oneself whatever strikes one's fancy but no one is entitled to whatever presuppositions or implications one's self-descriptions necessitate. (Words, in fact, don't mean whatever the hell one arbitrarily says they mean, Humpty.)
The question now being debated here is whether it makes more sense for the word "atheist" to be used the way some atheists want it to be used...or to be used in the way I, and many other agnostics, prefer (which, in our opinion, makes a lot more sense.)
The way atheists want to use it FORCES people who do not want to use it as an identifier...and people for whom it should NOT be used...to have it applied to them.
The way we am suggesting....that problem does not apply.
I, most assuredly, am NOT AN ATHEIST. I am an agnostic...BUT NOT AN ATHEIST, even though some of the debating atheists in this forum seem to insist I am. The babies in this world ARE NOT atheists, even though some of the debating atheists in this forum seem to insist they are.
Albert Einstein insisted he was an agnostic...NOT AN ATHEIST.
Stephen Hawking insisted he was an agnostic, but vehemently insisted that he was NOT AN ATHEIST.
Carl Sagan insisted he was an agnostic...but INSISTED he was not an atheist.
Would you take that same demeaning tone with them?
The atheist's case is made of mush...especially as you present it, 180.
Apparently you call yourself an atheist. My guess is that YOU "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Are you saying I am wrong about that?
Not only saying so, I've easily demonstrated you're wrong several times already on this thread. And just for kicks, Frankie! But your only reply's always the same assertion without argument to the contrary that clumsily evades any direct, critical engagement with my, @DingoJones' or others' arguments; from the OP on your whiny special pleading, and tantrum foot-stomping, doesn't make what you say so no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
Call yourself an "agnostic". Or a Klingon. Or Napoleon Bonaparte. You're not an "atheist". Gotcha! Because you're not philosophizing, Frankie, are you? No, you're just bloviating like those other 'net trolls you keep complaining about. Labels, as I've said, in themselves don't matter, but the concepts they indicate - what concepts precisely describe, their presuppositions & implications - do matter philosophically.
Not to you though. And that's why you're the piñata du jure, Frank, because you're uncritical, uninformed, without intellectual - minimal scholarly - scruple, and incorrigible. So here we all are playing Pin The Tail On The "Agnostic" instead of dialectically and critically examining, for example, a genealogy of the concept, its uses misuses or abuses, and the ways in which it differs from other related concepts. Instead we're just Rodeo Clowning bulls___ like your OP, etc. :joke: :party: :clap:
All those words in answer to my question...and with no answer.
Here is my question again:
[i][b]Apparently you call yourself an atheist. My guess is that YOU "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Are you saying I am wrong about that?[/b][/i]
I've dismissed all that attempt at distraction above...and will wait for you to give that question some thought, if your anger allows you to be capable of thought.
No. I prefer Freethinker ... or anti-theist.
You guess wrong, Frankie, because either you've not read what I've written on this thread or you can't understand what I've written or both.
Not even wrong. Again.
As wrong, Frankie, as claiming you're (also) not a 'weak atheist'. :razz:
Its amazing how low his reading comprehension is. You answered his question in the first line of your response, but it just doesnt sink in.
I am not "wrong", young man, that I am not an atheist...whether of the weak-headed type or the rock-headed variety.
My guess about you apparently was wrong as regard to what you call yourself...but what can I say about a person who insists I am an atheist...and who also insists he is not!
He did NOT answer my question in the first line of his response...
...and my reading comprehension and writing skills are way above average. Obviously a great deal higher than yours, as you displayed with this latest post of yours.
:lol:
Quoting Frank Apisa
A "very stable genius", huh? :ok: :rofl:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting DingoJones
Quoting Frank Apisa
...
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting 180 Proof
...
Quoting Frank Apisa
:confused:
Quoting Frank Apisa
:100:
Thank you for putting in the effort on that one.
No problem. It is one of the things I supposed about you that I see is correct.
I'm still having fun with you and your echo, so do continue.
In my experience, most people do not know the proper definition of "agnostic" and used it mean "atheist", while understanding "atheist" as "anti-theist". Lots of confusion.
Usages of words change. If someone defines their view of atheism as, "without a belief in God," that seems consistent with one of the term's common usages.
Quoting Frank Apisa
There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.
I suppose that coining the word atheism is useful so as not to have to repeat "person who does not believe in the existence of God" or "person who believes that God does not exist". These are very long expressions. If belief in fairies were as common as belief in gods we would surely have a term similar to "fairist" and "a-fairist". It is a matter of usefulness.
That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea.
The problem with your analysis is that atheist does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' in a god) = without a 'belief' in a god. Atheism came into the English language BEFORE theism. It cannot have that meaning...and for most of its existence, DIDN'T. Atheism, until the mid to late 20th century meant "a belief that there are no gods" or "a denial that there are any gods."
Atheists of the mid-20th century decided they did not want to be saddled with a burden of proof for their "beliefs"...and decided to change the meaning of the word.
Its use does not derive from its "usefulness" as you outline it. It derives from the usefulness of people who use the word to be absolved from having to defend a position that cannot logically be defended.
Please see my comment above.
That said, could you link to some source for the etymology of atheist. I can only find etymologies that have word as coming from a + theist, without theism.
Such as....
where the original meaning might not even clarify a belief or lack of one.
OK I found someone arguing your point of view, just now in this edited version.
https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/the-etymology-of-atheism/
but even granting this...it seems like the greek conception of the idea was ambiguous, so who gets the authority?
And then motivations are not a good argument, to me, for why, once a word is established, we should change its meaning to meet some earlier period in history.
And further, the whole thing seems like a turf fight over nothing. Let people use it as they want to. Theists who follow your etymology can use it their way and so can those atheists who use it your way, and they exist also. And others can use it in the other way that fits common usage and dictionary definitions.
None of this provides evidence related to the existence of God. There are people who simply do not believe in God and neither believe God does not exist nor are they anti-theist. And they are not agnostics either.
Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations.
There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods.
My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."
I've never heard an argument that effectively disputes that.
Do you have one? If so, let's discuss it.
I have no idea how to measure the usefulness. I'm a theist. In most instances in my life it does not matter to me the way the other person is using and the general category of does not believe in God satisfies my interests. In philosophical discussions I don't think I have ever found the other person's position ambiguous, since they tend to be asserting something from their position. If we restrict the word atheist to those who assert there is no God or gods, then we need another word. Some people use the phrase strong atheist, or negative vs. positive. I haven't noticed one problem over the years. Honestly I feel like the animosity between atheists and theists gets played out over this word
and it would be much more honest to just deal with the real source of the animosity. Now would it be better if we had one word for the negative atheism and one word for the positive atheism and what would that word be? I don't know. It feels to me like Dad and Mom are arguing over a sock left on the floor when one of them has been having an affair and the other one demeans the other one all the time. So, we can all focus on the sock on the floor or we can focus in different threads on the real issues of difference and we can ask for clarification in those very specific situations where further clarification is needed or wanted. And then
what would happen with this new word being out there? I don't know.
I see language riddled with words that cover a few meanings and humans tend to deal with that with phrases or asking for clarification. I wouldn't fight an attempt to change the language, but I think it is better approached not by immediately telling those with the other use that they are wrong, but ruather by appealing to them with a more effective system. I oppose the telling them they are wrong on the grounds that they are not, but also in practical terms. It sure will not increase the chances of changing anyone's mind. If you really want to start what you consider a better use of language, then I would suggest approaching it as, hey, I think it might be in all our interests to have clear unambigous, single word terms for these things. If you want to have pyrrhic victory, by all means try convincing them they are being wrong and following manipulative poor etymologists from the past. You can view what happens in the thread as you calling them out on what they did wrong, but I truly doubt it will lead to a change in the language. Nor should it, I would say. If you have a better schema, with I would think a new term included, this would, it seems to me, serve everyone. Of course, deciding to fix language is very hard, but it does happen sometimes.
theist - which religion, pantheism, polytheism, panentheism...I can't tell you the number of times I have had to clarity that my theism is not the one the other person is arguing against, or had to point out that they are saying belief in God entails and then what follows is only applicable to Christianity or Abrahamism.
empiricism - there is not just one
metaphysics - this means different things to many people, but generally works as a category in a forum
mind - the conscious mind, the entire mind, an entity that is not the brain in substance dualisms
Materialism - Marxist, the synonym for physicalism, and then which kind therein
Buddhism - which one
Hinduism - which one
Holism - what kind
Dualism - which one
Consciousness -
I could make a much much larger list. These are generally dealt with either via adding an adjective (elminative materialism) or by people asking for clarification, etc. And while these can be charged issues, very little is as charged as the atheist/theist debate, so people just tend to linguistically tweak away any ambiguities, just as we do in everyday life where we have to use and the words that have several different meanings.
If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist."
There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist."
Fact is, I DO lack the belief that any gods exist...but I am NOT an atheist.
I also lack the belief that no gods exist...but I am NOT a theist.
Here is my take on the issue:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
I consider that to be a logical, reasonable, intelligent position to take on the issue. There is no logical reason whatever for that to be considered an atheistic position. If the atheists of the world were to adopt that position...I WOULD PROUDLY DECLARE MYSELF TO BE AN ATHEIST. I have nothing against the word...but I do not want it applied to me considering my stated position.
So...if you have any comments on that, Coben, I'd love to hear them. Thank you for discussing the issue with me.
Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.
As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable.
Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...
... practical atheist. :smirk:
If that is what the person using it means...and what the person hearing it accepts...then it is a more economical use in conversation.
But for many...perhaps most of the world except for Internet atheists...use of the word "atheist" denotes and implies a denial that any gods exist.
It is not "more economical" if it misleads.
Quoting CeleRate
If the word "atheist" were used to denote a person who denies the existence of any gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...no modification would be necessary....and that would be more useful. Not doing so...is less useful.
And it allows the reasonable refusal of people with my take to have the word erroneously applied to them...to not have to go through all this crap whenever atheists start that insistence.
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. For those who perfer not to u ses it...they can simply explain their position each time.
I agree!
I walk like an agnostic...I talk (or quack) like an agnostic...so I AM AN AGNOSTIC.
Every person I know who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor in any form and with any modification...DOES either deny the existence of any gods...or DOES "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Why do you think it appropriate that I be included in that group just because they insist?
This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic.
I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.
I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented.
If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:
Is this an agnostic position?
Is this an atheistic position?
...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second.
Not sure of where you are going with your comments...or why you are going there...but do continue. I thank you for discussing the topic with me.
Okay...we are 5 x 5 here.
But that does not address the fact that I, and many (perhaps MOST) agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.
Will you address that?
I reply based on my current understanding of the words gnostic and theist, but I have no general objection to others using the terms in other specified ways. I also have no insistence that an interlocutor define the term as I do. I accept that people use the term atheism to mean that they believe God does not exist. If that's how the person is using the term, then I'd ask if the person has evidence to support the claim that a God does not exist.
I, however, remain unconvinced by the evidence or arguments that I've heard, so that is how I use the term atheist. As I lack sufficient knowledge about the theistic claim, I might describe my position as an agnostic atheist.
To take a contrasting position, I could be an agnostic theist and say that, although I don't know, I believe that there is a God.
I think the best one can do is to say, "This is what I mean when I use this term". You can always reject a person's use of a given word, but it may be an equivocation.
If the person said, "I think the baby is without a belief in God," probably neither the person in support of the proposition nor the one against it could disprove the other's argument. However, given what's known about language development and reasoning, I would suspect that the null hypothesis would be that an infant has no more of an opinion on God than it does for determining if socialism is better than capitalism.
My position is clear.
You seem to be agreeing with it...but making sure you do not specifically say, "I agree."
Whatever is causing that...you are entitled to it.
Fair enough. Resist. There are some who would say that atheist agnostic is possible. But I think that agnostic has a particular meaning, generally around the potential for positive knowledge of God. So, to me it is a fairly precise term (not completely, since some people use it to mean they are not sure, but still, in general in philosophy forums it means what I am guessing you mean by it). I see no reason for you to be placed in a category you think does not fit, especially given what you take atheist to mean.
:clap:
:monkey:
I don't think it would be 99%, but probably high. However, it reminds of a riddle we used as kids:
What is the capitol of Kentucky, Louisville (pronounced Lew-iss-ville) or Louisville (pronounced Lew-ee-ville)?
Almost everyone says #2 (Lew-ee-ville). Unfortunately, the right answer is Frankfort.
If that is the main reason, it is absurd. Sooner or later the atheist/agnostic - that is, the one who simply declares not to believe in God - will be forced to argue his position and define himself as a "gnostic atheist" or "atheist agnostic. Unless he chooses not to enter the debate, in which case he need not define himself in any way. So, I don't know why he participates in debates like this with such passionate manners.
The choice is so irrational that I suppose other psychological reasons are hidden.
My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof". These are pseudo-problems.
I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. I don't have to label it, I can just state it. I don't care if people call my position atheistic or agnostic or agnostic atheist. I only care that I've communicated my position.
Would I like to see the language we use to be more rich and better defined? Sure. But it's not the case. So I just speak plainly.
What do you mean?
a) God (very) probably doesn't exist.
b) You can't tell if God exists or not.
c) The existence of God is a pseudo-problem.
Thank you.
Sorry, I attributed your comment to someone else earlier. The word can mean without belief in theism. But this forces the issue that there are those with theistic beliefs.
There are people that believe in telekinesis, ghosts, and clairvoyance, but the word a-paranormalist does not exist. There are no a-fairyists, no a-SantaClausists, a-extraterrestrialists, etc even though there are large populations of believers and non-believers for each of these beliefs.
For instance, when Newton came up with gravity, his theory was incomplete and couldn't deal with more than two objects. He invoked God to explain this gap in knowledge. Later on, someone else solved it with perturbation theory.
People also used to think divine forces were responsible for the Heavens above. But when scientists starting explaining what we see in the sky with physical laws, God was then moved to another gap in knowledge and said to have engineered this system.
In the theory of evolution, some people explain gaps in knowledge with what is called guided evolution, wherein God fills in the gaps, such as he did with Newton.
Even if you explain every single aspect of evolution, someone can just say God engineered evolution itself (I belive this is called theistic evolution). No matter how much you explain, someone can just say "God did it". That's why unfalsifiable claims are not accepted as science. You can always just make something up that no one can disprove.
There are three properties of a scientific theory that are often mentioned.
Unfalsifiable or unverifiable? If you were presented with sufficient evidence of a "creator agent" then that agent's non-existence would have been falsified. However, you might take the position that we currently have no investigatory methods that allow us to investigate things that exist outside space/time, outside the known universe, or which are metaphysical. Then, you might claim that the phenomenon is unverifiable.
What more is there then, "The evidence has not convinced me"? If you aren't convinced by my claim that there is a 6 foot tall, invisible, untouchable, white rabbit that visits me each day, do you have the burden to discredit my claim? Ok, then I would like you to refer to the rabbit as Harry as I don't think you can prove his non-existence. Also, Harry is very sensitive about people not believing in him.
Great. YOU do not care.
I DO!
I care when someone tells me (and insists, that I AM AN ATHEIST...simply because of a definition which came into being because of an error...and with which I do not agree.
So...I challenge it.
English is such a diverse language...it should easily have a word for those who "suppose there are no gods" / or "suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...
...and another for those who do not make those suppositions.
Haha, I am sorry you are so upset about it? That must suck.
Personally, I am all for everyone learning a constructed language as an international language, instead of choosing a natural language. There is a ton of issue with the language we speak, this is just one tiny thing in an ocean of problems.
I'm not sure how to interpret your claim in the context of your use of "possibility". Do you mean anything is possible, so therefore, a creator agent is possible? Are you thinking that there is a greater-than-chance probability for the existence of a creator? Can your claim be demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified (i.e., verifiable)?
I'm afraid you haven't responded to the threefold alternative I raised. Could you do it now, please?
There are some words for all this: mythology, pseudoscience or magic thinking. If they're meant to be something philosophical, metaphysical is their category. It depends on the nuances. There's probably no common word because those nuances exist. Some specialties have their category: sectarians, ufologists, astrologers, parapsychologists, fortune tellers or magicians. There are even some neologisms like terraplanists. It depends on the diffusion that they have had. We are not going to invent a category for every nutcase who invents a mosquito cult. And those who don't believe in these things are usually called skeptics, rationalists or scientists, depending on the case.
So I find it quite normal that there is words for believers, theists, atheists or agnostics.
Sounds like a good reason to me. You passed the buck to the theist. It's his turn. Although he may ask you if you know many arguments about the existence of God. Then you can ask him to enlighten you. And the debate is on. But you didn't hide behind the excuse that you didn't believe in anything to keep your mouth shut. You did right.
Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? If so, then do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? Or, do you have different reasons?
When it comes to contingent truths, I accept claims that can be falsified but are supported by evidence. For example, if I was working on a murder case and the evidence pointed to Bob Joe as the killer, then I would accept that. But if Bob Joe told me The Devil used his magic powers to frame him, I wouldn't accept that. Can I disprove it? No, but he cannot prove it, and so I have no reason to believe it.
Quoting CeleRate
No, because it cannot be proved/disproved, so I have no reason to accept/deny it.
Quoting CeleRate
No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely.
How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"?
When talking about a god as a creator of the universe, it's very far removed from us and there just really isn't much information to go by.
But when people start talking to supernatural beings or doing their will, it's closer to home, and we have information available to us.
We already know there have been hundreds or thousands of these types of beliefs throughout history. And they contradict each other, which means at least most of them are wrong.
On top of that, we can apply Occam's Razor and better explain it as delusions if they're hearing voices. If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons.
There are competing explanations that have more evidence/support and so I choose them.
Do you consider yourself an atheist?
Quoting Malice
Yes. When we discovered this about our tendencies we learned to say correlation is not causation.
It's a term I identified more with when I was younger. I like to think of myself as an explorer. But I do consider myself an atheist in terms of not being convinced there is a god, especially a personal god.
Thank you.
Your position is similar to Thomas Huxley's, who coined the word "agnosticism" to refer to it. According to him, there was no word for it in his day. It's a kind of skepticism.
Of course, you can call yourself whatever you like.
A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. The next question would be “what kind of theist are you?” To which the answer would be be “Christian”, and of course “what kind of Christian?” And so on.
Quoting Coben
Resist what? Why? These are just categories that ease communication. You are a human...why dont you resist that label? Its the same thing.
So too with the word “atheist”, its a broad label that describes someone who lacks a belief in god. The next questions would be “what kind of atheist?” To which the answer might be any number of sub categories such as anti-theist or agnostic. Someone may fall under the broad “atheist” and none of the sub categories and thats fine too, just like a theist who believes in god but nothing much more than that wouldnt fall under the christian or Jewish sub categories.
If you do not want to be under a certain category, there must be a reason why you do not belong there...its not enough to just not agree with other people in that category about other things (for example, not wanting to be called an “atheist” because of all the angry, disrespectful, religion trashing atheists one has met.)
Quoting Coben
Thank you.
I've tried explaining that to Dingo...but it became obvious that his user name was not an accident, and was probably a corruption of something similar.
That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. (Although, it might mean it doesnt fully describe them). If a Christian thinks that they are not a theist, that's a failure of understanding on their part.
Quoting Coben
You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him.
I agree, but that's not the problem. If the term's going to be descriptive, it will have to apply to people according to the term's definitive traits. According to Frank Apisa's preferred defition, I'm an agnostic, but not an atheist. I'm fine with that. From around age 15 to age 35, I used that definition myself. I'm a little rusty with the term used like this, but i'm sure I can adapt. The point is, though, that I have to adapt and he doesn't. If we want to use the term as a descriptive lable, we can't both use the terms as we'd naturally be inclined to. Someone has to give.
Now, if we were talking about a particular topic, that wouldn't be problem. Adapting is easy, because I have a context to tailor my non-native usage of the word to. The term is the topic, though. Refusing the label outright is getting in the way of the topic. A descriptive label may be more useful for some people than others, and that's worth exploring. But if it's a win-lose debate about which term is more "rational", I'm not interested. Language isn't a formal system like maths, anyway.
nothing
to
do
with
what
you
keep
bringing up.
I never said.....Quoting DingoJonesI know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me.Quoting DingoJonesThe label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting.
I don't think so. Language is not a machine. Quoting DawnstormYeah, that's where I've been disagreeing with Mr. Apisa, and in part because of that, I think he can define himself in a way he feels is most clear. And he wants to use the term agnostic, which sure seems correct. If he doesn't want to be called an atheist, well, jeez there must be something more important to fight against. A man who uses an accurate term to describe himself, rather than a term that might be misleading, because there are certainly people out there who use the term, and no incorrectly (also) to mean people who believe there is no God. Many use it to mean that one simply lacks a belief in God. Dictionaries often include both. I think he should label himself as he likes
and
we
lose
nothing.
No one, not a single atheist or theist or tree loses anything if he calls himself an agnostic.
It seems to me that the real fight is somewhere else and it is all getting jammed through this keyhole.
No, I think that the confusion is in how I interjected. I wasnt arguing against Frank with you as a proxy, I just picked up on what you said in your other conversation and was interested in discussing it with you.
Quoting Coben
Ya, and they’d be wrong, like I said...
Quoting Coben
Ok, it just didnt seem like it from what you said. You said the label was wrong in that context after all so I dont feel like I was making a terrible error. Anyway, ok, understood.
Quoting Coben
Agnostic and atheist are not the same thing, the former is a position in relation to belief in god and the latter is a position about knowledge of god. So it makes no sense to say one is more accurate than the other.
Anyway, if you arent interested then you arent interested. Enjoy the rest of your day, or night depending on where you are.
Language definitely isn't a machine. But if I use the definition of atheism that says "no belief in God," than having no believe in God is sufficient to be an atheist (aside: I don't think it's very useful to extend the term to include babies; "no believe in God" is incomplete - it's "capable of beliefe, but no belief in God"). So when I'm saying I'm an atheist under that definition, then I'm implying he's one, too, under that definition. I'm not insisting he use this definition. But if he's insisting that he's not an atheist period, I just don't know how to respond to that. Basically, I would have to grant him the right to use his definition, while he doesn't pay me the same courtsey. I can't call myself an atheist.
When we're talking every-day pragrmatics, how is this fair?
Agnostic and atheist are not things. They're words.
Atheist is a word with a long journey behind and some different meanings. In modern times, when Voltaire, d'Holbach and others were opposed to religion it was understood as the denial of the existence of God. Anyone who claimed that "God does not exist" was an atheist. And this is the dominant sense among experts today.
Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley as an alternative to theism and atheism (in the traditional sense). He said that neither theism nor atheism have conclusive evidence, therefore the rational position is abstention. He defined his position as a form of skepticism.
As you can see, the use of these words was not based on belief or knowledge, but on the main proposition of both ideologies: Yes, no, abstention.
To designate someone who does not believe in gods, always existed the words unbeliever or non-believer. To designate one who denies that God exists because he has any reason to do so, there is no special word because it is understood that the vast majority of atheists (in the academic sense of the word) think they have reason to be so. An atheist irrationalist is almost nonexistent.
Then there is a question that I always asked and no one has answered until today:
The words atheist and agnostic have always been used traditionally and in the academic world. They have precise meanings. Here is my question:
Why do we need to change them?
I am waiting for your answer.
"Rusty"? Why?
Or, another issue is getting played out underneath and it's better, I think that the discussion shift to that one.
You can see my post where I challenged his approach to others here.....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688
And his response, here....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688
The ideal situation is that we all agree on what the terms mean, but right now that is not on the table. The next best is we respect each other's self-labeling and perhaps argue in favor of more specific and clear definitions.
My message would be the same to you: as long as you have a self-label that is reasonable given current usage, keep using it and resist someone telling you to use another. And if it reaches a deadlock, I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change.
The "solution" you mentioned is the one I use...I describe my position rather than rely on a descriptor. This argument has just come up because some people in this forum are INSISTING that I...all other agnostics...and all babies and toddlers...
...must accept the descriptor ATHEIST, because some dictionaries describe it that way.
Here is the description I use for my personal agnosticism. No reasonable person would ever consider it to be an atheistic position:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
But since they are insisting...I am insisting back.
The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief)
Thats not even a difficult question to answer for anyone whose studied the arguments in academia. One is free to not use the academic usage of course but if the academic usage is what we are talking about then what Ive said on the subject is accurate.
Another thing in play here is the discussion that led to all of this. (You can read about it early in the thread.)
The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”…
a) EVERYONE who lacks a “belief” that any gods exist (including agnostics, newborn babies, toddlers, and people who not only lack a “belief” that any gods exist, but who also lack a “belief” that no gods exist…or...
b) Just people who lack a “belief” that gods exist AND who either assert that no gods exist…or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists.
As far as I am concerned, option “b” wins that one hands down. Using “b” makes the word MUCH more functional…and allows people who do not assert that no gods exist or that it is more likely that no gods exist…to be relieved of having that designation applied to them.
That seems a reasonable topic for a Philosophy forum. Unfortunately, when they realized they were about to be blown out of the water in that argument…the EVERYONE people abandoned ship.
Among experts, whether academic or not, the terms atheist and agnostic are still used in their usual meanings: to affirm that God does not exist and to refrain from affirming or denying. It is among non-experts that the change has been popularized - especially on the Internet-, but I don't know why. Certain "linguistic games" of theists are mentioned, but it never is explained what they are. What "semantic games" do you mean? Can you explain this point?
Well Im not getting my information from the internet, but from a university degree. Ive attended academia and learned from philosophy professors. Im just relaying what I learned there. Like I said, what weight that holds is your prerogative. Im not making an appeal to academic authority, just relating what it says on the matter.
The semantic game im referring to in a nutshell:
Theist “do you believe in god”
Atheist “no”
Theist “so you dont think god exists, right?
Atheist “right”
Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith”
Atheist “oh, I see what you did there. No, I lack a belief in god, lacking belief in something isn't itself a believe.”
Christian apologists used the semantics of the words thinking, knowing, believing etc to create a false equivalence between atheism and theism. Thats how the usage evolved, as part of the ongoing debate in academia.
Obviously there is more to it, hard and soft atheism, hard and soft agnosticism, and many different arguments on all sides, but thats the gist of that particular reference I made.
I haven't used the "theist->agnostic->atheist" partition in years (I'd guess around 15 years, but I don't remember exactly), and I'm a creature of habit. There were some transition hiccups, but I don't remember them that well either.
Quoting Coben
That's not the problem, really. I don't much like conflict. I've typed up replies I chose not to post pretty much since the beginning of this thread, because I was dissatisfied with them. A discussion I don't engage in can't reach a deadlock. It's more a matter of feeling like contributing but finding no opening. I'm aware it's really a personal problem of mine. But under such conditions letting it go also feels wrong. Disrespectful? Patronising? I don't know. Something in this direction.
I replied to your post because I found it easier to open up the thread for me, but pretty much immediately after replying I felt it was maybe a bit impolite to talk about Frank Apisa rather than to him. I sometimes think I worry too much.
Quoting Frank Apisa
See, I find this terribly confusing. If I use the grid-based definition (a)theist/(a)gnostic, then of course you are an atheist under that definition. I'm aware you reject that definition, and that's fine with me. But you seem to be so vehemently against being called an atheist, that it's nearly impossible to even posit that definition. If that's the case, though, why make such a thread?
The grid-based approach is a different discriptor attached to the same label. You're being labeled an atheist, not described as one the way you understand the term, and I'm fairly sure you understand that. So if, beyond rejecting the label, you reject the underlying descriptor - then you invalidate any opposing point of view from the get go, and conversation is impossible.
So:
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, this is an agnostic position, because it's about knowledge. I doubt anyone would disagree. However, the grid-based approach doesn't see agnosticism and atheism as mutually exclusive, so at this point people who use the grid-based approach don't have enough information to label you an atheist. You're definitely an agnostic, though.
It's when you add:
Quoting Frank Apisa
that we can start to make a guess. One of the reasons I do remember why I made the switch from the three-category to the four-category (grid-based) approach is that quite a few of the Roman Catholics around me also subscribe to the position that they don't know whether or not God exists. But they react differently to this: it's that lack of knowledge, they tell me, that gives meaning to their faith. Under the three-category model, they'd be theists, because they believe in God. The four-category (grid-based) approach accomodates for these similarities with the categories itself, though: agnostic atheists and agnostic theists have something in common.
Of course, there's a trade-off: "atheist" is no longer a label for a positive belief. To get that back, you add subdivisions like "hard atheist". But there's no reason I couldn't do the equivalent under the three-category model, by subdividing theists. Which you choose will depend partly on what you're used to talking about more.
So:
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'm not that interested in the "more sensible" part, but the "more useful" part depends on the person and context. I personally made the switch from the three-category definition to the grid-based model, simple because I like variable based grids. You can simply expand them by adding another variable should one become relevant, for example. I like them. They fit the way I think, and so I expand less energy thinking. That's what makes them useful.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Is this a debate? If so, I'll abandon ship, too.
I am fine with your preferred definition. A long time ago I tried to think of terminology that would capture more of the beliefs on this matter.
Gnostic Theist
Believes you CAN know and it does exist.
Gnostic Atheist
Believes you CAN know and it does NOT exist.
Agnostic
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced.
Agnostic Theist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's likely or has faith.
Agnostic Atheist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's unlikely or has faith.
Undecided
Not sure if you can know.
Without Belief
Does not have a belief (e.g. newborn baby).
This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other.
The "atheist" in your example allows for cheating by defining it in terms of belief rather than propositions. If you say, "I neither affirm nor deny that God exists," you disable the trap from the beginning.
In any case, it is a very harmless trap. Your "atheist" ends with it in a single sentence.
In conclusion: I see no reason to change the academic and traditional meanings of atheist and agnostic.
I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know.
Additional information:
(Draper, Paul, "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ )
Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53).
This is not a reason.
Well then, let it not be said that I use the terms in a way that favors theism. That is a provocation to the debate, isn't it? And besides, it's not true. As I just demonstrated above.
You said the debate on the meaning of "atheism" was not relevant.
I was explaining to you why I'm discussing this issue. That is, because the main reason given for discussing this issue is that the traditional meaning of "atheism" - which I support - favours theism.
And I maintain that "it," that is, this reason, is not true.
It was an explanation of my position on the interest of discussing this issue.
I hope that my answer is now clear.
That MISTAKE is the entire reason for the controversy...a reason you seem willing to simply disregard, Dawn.
(a) theist, resulting in a meaning of "without a belief in any gods" IS A MISTAKE. It never happened. It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge."
I am NOT an atheist under any reasonable definition of "atheist" and neither are any babies or toddlers.
Mostly this doesn't come up outside of Internet discussions, because most people not intent on pretending they are not doing "believing" (a pretense apparently necessary to atheistic life on the Internet)...realize the significant difference between "agnosticism" and "atheism" has to do with "belief"...NOT with knowledge.
Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." The former fancy themselves "atheists"...the latter prefer "agnostic atheist." But the function of the "atheist" is to inform of a "belief" or guess that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no gods....which, of course, is merely a blind guess in the opposite direction from theists who blindly guess in the opposite direction.
The true agnostic does not share that "belief."
I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other. Im not trying to get people to use an academic definition, Im relaying what that definition is. You disagree that academia uses the word that way. I mean, i learned that in an academic setting, and from professors who attended a range of universities including Stanford and Oxford, and by both theist and atheist scholars both. Its possible Ive been misinformed but Im pretty doubtful.
Quoting David Mo
The only people who I know in academia who do not, are Christian apologists.
Quoting David Mo
He did define it that way, and wrote about it but he does not represent all of academia. Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing.
Im not sure what to tell you, googling and referencing an encyclopaedia of philosophy is not a substitute for a formal education. Flew was one of the philosophers we studied, and your reference material doesnt tell you the whole story, as Im talking about the centuries of argumentation that resulted in the current academic definitions. Your single point references do not move me, Im sorry to say.
Again, Im not particularly attached to the academic definition, im not a dogmatic person enslaved to what experts say and am open to discussing different ways of defining atheism but if you want to know what the generally accepted definition of atheism is in academia, Ive given you the answer. (As far as I know, which of course you are free to dismiss as me being misinformed, or lying or whatever you like.)
Did I? What did I say it was not relevant to? or that it was not relevant to whom? I did make a very specific suggestion to a person when he or she (not sure) finds him or herself in a very specific situation. A very specific possible version of a discussion of the meaning of these terms with certain demands. At least, that's what I was doing in what you quoted in your first post to me.Quoting David MoSomewhat.
This is funny. How do you deal with other prefixes like "anti"? Is antimicrobial ok, or just microbial?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I hadn't heard this claim before. I didn't find reference to it either. Do you have a reference?
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's odd to me that you rail against the idea that people would label you incorrectly, and then in the same thread insist that your definition be applied to how someone else would self-identify. Don't you think this is somewhat hypocritical? Why not just inform someone how you plan to use a word with multiple known usages so you can have a meaningful conversation?
"Anti" has a specific meaning. The letter "a" at the beginning of a word does not. Agreed? Or do you think "agreed" means being without "greed?"
Quoting CeleRate
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=atheis
[b]atheist (n.)
1570s,[/b] "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theist
theist (n.)1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.
Quoting CeleRate
Sorry you find it odd.
But I am NOT insisting that they use that descriptor. I MUCH prefer that people set out their take in words...rather than using a descriptor...and have said so many times here.
There is no hypocrisy on my part at all.
What is the matter with you? Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth?
I DO INFORM PEOPLE. I have set out my agnosticism several times already. Here it is again for the slow learners who want to suggest that I do what I have been doing regularly:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b][/i]
THAT...is not the take of an atheist. It is the take of an agnostic.
Such an angry little man you are. I'm asking questions and challenging your positions to test their validity. If you can't handle skeptical criticism of your ideas, then you probably shouldn't be in a philosophy forum.
You are NOT doing that. You essentially accused me of being a hypocrite for doing something that I did NOT do...
...and then you suggested a course of action to correct what you perceived to be my errors THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.
So get off your nonsense that you are merely asking questions and challenging positions to test validity...IF YOU HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION.
I have been participating in Internet fora since the late 1990's...and know how to handle criticism. But I do expect at least a modicum of diligence from someone presuming to criticize.
Yes, I'm perfectly willing to disregard this "mistake". First, and foremost, I'm willing to disregard this "mistake" because etymology isn't destiny. I'm willing to use the word atheist this way, because a lot of people use the word this way, and because I like it.
Whether or not this is an actual honest mistake, or whether it's a series of little mistakes, or a politically motivated deliberate re-interpretation, or whatever else might have led to the current usage doesn't matter much to me at this point.
But apart from this, I'm really not sure how you think language works, or what etymology does. When
you're saying this in a follow-up post:
Quoting Frank Apisa
I just don't know how you can say this. Anti- is a prefix with a determined meaning, and a- is also a prefix with a determined meaning (although there's more than one "a-"; from the etymology site you're linking to).
Of course, a word-initial "a" isn't always a prefix. It's not in "aardvark", to use your example in my reply to me. The a- in atheist and the a- in agnostic are the same prefix.
"Agreed" very obviously has nothing to do with greed, since the uninflected verb form is "agree". The a- is definitely a prefix, though. Etymologically a variant of "ad" as the etymology site tells me.
The part of grammar that deals with wordformation is morphology. It's important to understand morphology if you're going to do etymology.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism".
It didn't happen when the word was coint. Something happened later, or nobody would be using it like that now. You can call it a "mistake" if you like, but we'd have to go through the history of the word to see what really happened. Langauge is, has been, and will be messy.
Once again, if you're going to argue from etymology you should demonstrate a better sense of morphology. "a-bate" is the same prefix as "a-gree", and not the same prefix as "atheist". "Bate" doesn't exist, I think, as a standalone English verb, but it does survive in phrases like "with bated breath". The "a-" in "abridge" is the same "a-" again, as in "abate", and "agree". But "bridge" (romanic) in "abridge" is unrelated to the noun bridge (germanic). The a in "aardvark" isn't a prefix at all.
The more you talk about etymology, the less persuasive you actually become.
YES...it means with a god...NOT without a 'BELIEF" in a god.
That is my point.
Some atheists here are saying I must be classified as an ATHEIST, because i lack A BELIEF IN A GOD.
How many ways can that be brought to your attention.
Quoting Dawnstorm
The "it never happened" refers to the contention that the word atheist happened by someone prefixing a "a" to the word "theist."
THAT NEVER HAPPENED. The word atheist was a part of the English language BEFORE the word theist.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Then leave the conversation if you think I am not up to the job...or if I am annoying you with my advocacy.
Anyone actually listening to what I am saying about the entire situation sees my point completely. I am not an atheist by dint of that preposterous, unnecessary "definition"...and neither is any baby, infant, or toddler.
If you cannot see that, the deficiency is in you...not in my arguments or presentation.
Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ?????) -
(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???
(indicate those reasons which apply)
It has been argued that consensus among experts on the meaning of "atheism" is not unanimous . Antony Flew is the only exception of the consensus that I know. I have shown that this is not exact. Other exceptions come from secondary sources or outside the academic world.
Experts criterion on an issue should be respected if you have not any reason to don't do so. No reason has been argued here... or elsewhere, in my opinion.
Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it. I take it that we’re done here?
Many of the matters I hold dear...ARE part of many religions. "Live and let live" is a diredct function of "Do unto others..."...and I hold that thought in high regard.
But if the question "Are there any gods or do no gods exist?" is proposed to me, my answer is a resounding, "I have no goddam idea whatsoever."
That often is expressed in a more moderate tone by inserting my take on the matter:
[i][b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b][/i]
Good point. It's also been asserted elsewhere on this thread that there are no credible uses of the word atheism if not used as an active claim (i.e., proposition). Interestingly, it was Flew who suggested that the term could be defined as a psychological state. I've also seen several Oxford debates and Oxford-style debates in which the person taking the position on atheism did so on the basis of a psychological state, or from a position of skepticism and empiricism.
One of the positions from several atheist's was that, epistemologically, the atheist was in a position without sufficient knowledge to assert atheism as a proposition. Those individuals, therefore, defined their agnosticism in matter of degree.
While there still were ontological, teleological, cosmological etc propositions that were argued (for and against), arguments generally leaned toward how to establish justified true belief.
In the end, the interlocutors couldn't proceed with the debate until each defined their terms.
Bottom line…I personally have never met a person who uses the word atheist as a descriptor (or part of a descriptor) who does not either “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that there are no gods…or “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Granted, my outreach may be too limited, although I have discussed and debated this topic for over two decades on the Internet…and for about two decades earlier in letters/op ed pieces in newspapers.
Is there anyone here who uses “atheist” as a descriptor or part of a descriptor…who falls outside of that parameter? I’d love to discuss the issue with anyone who does.
Anyway, if it actually is the case that one must have one of those two qualifiers to feel comfortable with being designated an atheist, perhaps atheists and agnostics together should alter usage so that the dictionaries can feel comfortable changing what they have to say on the word.
Well defining terms is always a good place to start, especially when there is serious contention on those terms.
Personally, Im happy to go with whatever definitions for the sake of discussion. Im arguing here because people are specifically referencing academic usage, and its pretty clear what that is imo.
Agreed.
The only proper way to do that, though, is to do it honestly.
A question that should be asked of every person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor is: Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
I suspect that damn near EVERY person using "atheist" as a descriptor...would answer that in the affirmative. And I suspect that damn near EVERY person using "atheist" as a descriptor uses it BECAUSE of that "yes" rather than merely because they lack a "belief in any gods."
That latter description of the word...holds very little water.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.
Every atheist lacks a "belief" that any gods exist...but NOT every person lacking that "belief" is an atheist.
Not sure why that is so uncomfortable for atheists to discuss with an agnostic like me..but, I've met this resistance before...and just feel a form of pity for the people so wedded to their notion of the word that they refuse to truly discuss it.
Clarifying questions are great.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It may be true. It seems irrelevant if you've gone through the step of clarifying what the other party means, but okay.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Okay. You don't call yourself an atheist. What is the contention? Other people describe your position as that of an atheist? If you say, "well, you use that term, but I don't think it appropriately represents my position". What else is there to do? Sticks and stones will break my bones?
You raised a point that the etymology of the word atheist differed from some of the current usage with respect to lack of belief. Some people responded by pointing out that usages change over time. That premise is either true or false. Is it true that word usages change over time?
The movie Back to the Future made fun of this point when Marty Mcfly called serious matters, "heavy", and Doc responded with, "Is there a problem with Earth's gravitational pull in the future? Why is everything so heavy?"
I did answer your question. Perhaps you did not like my answer. Discuss it with me. I am more than willing.
Thank you for this response, CeleRate.
I'm going to respond in a following post, but for here, I'd like to share a joke (apparently you've heard it, but some others may have not. I'm sure they will understand the reason I'm sharing it here. (Blatantly stolen joke!)
A new monk arrives at a monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books.
So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."
So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. He is gone for hours...and finally some of the other monks get worried and go down to look for him. They find him...head down in his hands, sobbing.
"What is wrong?" they ask.
"My God," says the Head Monk, "they left the "r" out. The word was supposed to be "celebrate."
More than that. My contention is that I am NOT an atheist.
Quoting CeleRate
I am saying that any unbiased assessment of what it takes for a person to self-describe as an "atheist" must include the notion of "a 'belief' that no gods exist" or "a 'belief' that it is more likely that no gods exist than at least one does."
That is not just being petty...it is being efficient with the language.
A definition of "atheist" as "a person who 'believes' (guesses, supposes, estimates) that no gods exist' or "who 'believes' (guesses, supposes, estimates) it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...simply makes more sense. It relieves the need for agnostics to be included and for babies, infants and toddlers to be included. And it does not harm atheists in any way...because it is accurate. I still suggest for debate purposes that most (probably all) people who use the word as a descriptor...do either 'believe' no gods exist or 'believe' it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
Quoting CeleRate
Absolutely! Word usages do change. In fact, it should be apparent that I am advocating for such a change in the interests of greater clarity greater conciseness. It appears that the current usage (NOT UNIVERSAL) is a product of Internet atheists wanting to insist that they do not have "beliefs" in the opposite direction from theists...when in fact, it is obvious they do.
I don't.
There are people who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
I am not one of those people. It seems to me that ONLY those people want to be described as atheists...and ONLY those people actually use the word as a descriptor.
Please...let's discuss this in greater depth.
That's me. Or at leat that's my self-perception; I'm not sure you'd agree.
I definitely think that "God exists," and "God doesn't exist," have the same epistemological status. They're both undecidable in my world-view, because I don't know how to order things in a way for the concept to make sense. There are simplistic concepts of God that I do believe don't exist (e.g. old man with a beard in the sky), but neither do most theists, so these simplistic concepts don't count.
Pondering the question of God is a bit like trying to run a piece of software that won't run on my OS on a shoddily written emulator. The functions the programs fulfills are either not very important to me, or I have programs that actually work fine on my OS (not without the occasional bug) that do it for me. The only reason I'm bothering with the program at all, because many people say it's a must have and keep asking me what I think of it. What I think of it is that it's a nuisance, because the emulator sucks, and I'd rather not bother with it at all, when I have workable alternatives.
My daily life experience back when I self-identified as an agnostic was that it was still easier to call myself an atheist, because not everyone the term "agnostic". The question I used to encounter most is "Do you believe in God," to which a yes/no answer was usually a sufficient answer. The line isn't just a question about the existance of God; if you grow up in a Catholic household and go to church on Sunday, you're intimately familiar with the Apostle's Creed ("I believe in God, the Father almighty..."), and at least that sort of contextualises the question. It's a question about faith, not about whether you believe a proposition. In context, I can talk about why I don't really fit in. It's a social question.
Most of the time I used the term "atheist" (while calling myself an agnostic in a more technical context), it was in a really banal context. ("Oh, it's nearly time for church. You coming?" - "Nah, I'm an atheist." - "Gotcha. See you later." -- I wouldn't have been giving them information here. They're fine with a nonbeliever coming along, but by emphasising that I'm an atheist, I'm telling them nothing's changed)
To me the question "Do you believe in God," loses all meaning when I take it out of its social, lived context. And in isolation "Does God exist?" is even worse, because then you'll have to take into account the possibility that people - being fallible - are mistaken about His attributes, and once you go down that rabbit hole nothing remains to make a proposition about. You have to wait until understand the concept enough before you can even start to ponder it. At this point, I'm not holding my breath. But conversion experiences do happen, so who knows?
For me, the word "God" derives its meaning entirely from its lived social context. And as such, I found the grid-based approach makes it easier for me to organise the social environment, for example, because there are theists who share my sense of the unknowability of God, but are somehow able to endow mystery with metaphysical significance, something I fail to do. Basically, I don't know what it's like to believe in God.
Personally, I've never seen an argument for God that's convincing, and I've never seen an argument against God that's convincing. The ontological argument sounds silly, the problem of evil isn't a problem, etc. Now, I'm basically a relativist. We create our worldviews as we live in the world. So if I grew up with my worldview, but at some point my concept of God just stopped growing along with it, it's no surprise that all the God-concepts I can muster are childish. Basically, when the ontological argument looks silly to me, it's just a symptom of the underlying underveloped concept.
This sort of relativism is not without its problems though. Crucially, it's very hard to figure out how much about the differences in worldviews is down to personality differences, how much to personal experience/history, and how much to semantics and usage.
The difference between "atheist/agnostic" in different usages is pretty transparent to me. I can translate between the concepts, but since I've been using the grid-based approach for around 15 years, now, I'm biased towards this one - by habit. The difference between "God exists," and "God doesn't exist," is semantically opaque to me, though the logical structure suggests they're opposites. And at this point I have to remember that all the meaning I can assign comes from the terms social context. I'd expect for a theist the difference between "God exists," and "God doesn't exist," is clear as day, and they may suspect at this point I'm just bullshitting around. I'm not. This sort of stuff really does go on in my head.
If you need to understand how this world would change if a God existed to be an agnostic, then I can't be an agnostic. And if you have to understand what it is that doesn't exist when you say "God doesn't exist," I can't be an atheist. There are a lot of questions like these, and none of them mean much to me. A binary like "believes in God/doesn't believe in God" is about social behaviour, which is observable, and easy to understand. Thus it's more useful as a comparative, social term to me.
So if I have to choose between "God exists," and "God doesn't exist," I'll definitely choose the latter, though I'd rather not choose. This is not an expression of likelihood, though; it's that if I said the former in the context of my day-to-day life people will have expectations about my behaviour that won't pan out. I don't go to church, I don't pray, the "Word of God" carries no weight with me, etc. As a proposition, "God doesn't exist," is simply more compatible behaviour. None of this says anything about what I actually do believe, except what you can glean from what I have to deal with, and how I deal with it.
I worry that this amounts mostly to meaningless babble, but I'm not sure I can do better.
I doubt there are gods. I think it's more likely an overactive theory of mind.
'Theory of mind' could help explain belief in God
I agree. The arbitrariness of geography and social group as practical determinants of one's world view is astonishing.
Quoting Dawnstorm
How about if someone says "unicorns don't exist". Would one be unable to not believe in unicorns if one understood (maybe even imagining renditions seen) what is meant by the question? Or, is there a different point I missed?
Quoting Dawnstorm
I think I understood what you meant by the two propositions having the same epistemological status. However, I'm not sure I understand what distinction you were alluding to in the comparison of the two propositions "God exists," and "God doesn't exist". Thanks
I'm not sure what you're not sure of.
If my tone is dismissive, it is not my intention. Maybe my English sounds dry because it's not good. I am sorry, in any case.
I don't see why it's any easier. On the contrary. Thomas Huxley invented the term agnostic because he was tired of being mistaken for an atheist. He had to continually clarify that he had no proof that God doesn't exist. So he invented the term agnostic to make it clear that he also had no proof that God exists, so he abstained. I don't understand why it is easier to go back to the confusion that occurs when, being an agnostic in Huxley's sense, one calls oneself an atheist. In fact, the myriad of websites that get tangled up with this term are produced by not distinguishing between what they call an atheist and what others understand.
Where is the easiness?
In this paragraph, I was using the "atheist" definition that says you need to believe that God doesn't exist. If I don't know what "God" is supposed to be, I can believe neither that he exists, nor that he does not exists. This means that I mean the standard for "does not believe God exists," but I do not meet the standards for "believes that God exists." There are higher standards for believing a negative statement than there are for not believing the corresponding positive statement.
But there are complications here; the short version is I understand the concept of unicorns well enough to believe it very likely that unicorns don't exist. I cannot say the same for God. But what's the difference?
First something obvious: Do I believe sparrows exist? Yes, I do. I've seen sparrows before I even learned to speak. I can point at the bird and ask, "What is this?" It's a thing-first concept.
But if you tell me about the platypus, I might be skeptical. Does such a creature really exist? It's a word-first concept. You describe the creature, and it sounds really unlikely. Maybe you've tried to sell me on drop bears in the past and laughed at me when I was gullible? It's a word-first concept for me, but there's a hierarchy of ever more convincing evidence: pictures, videos, seeing the real thing in a zoo.
A unicorn is word-first concept, too, for me, but the word's cultural status is "mythical creature" rather than "animal", and that complicates things. The unicorn sounds unlikely, but maybe it's not impossible. I might believe it exists, the way a crypto-zoologists would: somewhere out there is an animal that fits the description more or less closely. Maybe it's a hidden species? Maybe it's an occasional mutation of a known species? But if we're sufficiently influenced by myths or fiction to think of it as "magical" in some form (say, it's not really a unicorn, if it's horn doesn't have healing powers), then a real life horned horse simply won't count as a unicorn. But the concept is still understandable. I'd have to say that it's unlikely a unicorn exists to begin with if we expect an animal, but exponentially more unlikely if we actually expect a magical creature.
Things complicate even more if the myth in question is alive and well in the culture you operate in. A word-first concept believed on faith has dubious evidence requirement. Once you reach the level of the Christian God, you have an entity where nearly everything in existence can count as evidence, simply because you have faith. I don't think that people relax their requirements for evidence; it may be just that different sorts of entities require different sorts of evidence. But if I don't understand what sort of entity God is supposed to be, I'm not sure how to look at the world to find evidence. I can dismiss the concept as making no sense (which is what people do when they parody the concept of God with "invisible pink unicorns"), but I can't "believe that God doesn't exist". The concept never reaches a high enough epistemic level within the confines of my world view. Cultural practise is important here, because I know people who believe in God, but who are neither gullible nor idiots.
Quoting CeleRate
That's without a doubt the hardest concept to explain, not the least because I haven't actually worked this out myself. It's more a hunch than anything, and it ties in with the above: what counts as evidence for God, and how do you have to look at the world to see those... things? as evidence. To what extent, am I just using language differently from someone else? Does God have a clearly demarked reference in the real world (as a unicorn would have were it to exist)? At some point in the process I abstract so much that I suspect the difference between existance and non-existence might disappear you it were possible to compare worldviews directly (it isn't; world views other than your own are only available via interpretation through the lense of your own, and how much - if anything - of human worldviews are human universals isn't clear.)
I've never come to clear understanding on this myself, so I'm really struggling to put intution into words.
I'm being difficult in this thread, mostly because it's about the term's meaning. I'm stating my preference, but what I'm actually advocating is to know and accept all the definitions out there, at least passively, when hearing or reading.
Quoting DawnstormQuoting Dawnstorm
Do these terms mean that you have observed the stimulus prior to its description, or, you heard its description prior to your observation, respectively?
If the order is the distinction, I'm still unsure how that would be the critical variable. Wouldn't the extraordinariness of a claim be more pertinent?
Quoting Dawnstorm
Maybe it would help me to understand the epistemology you use to develop an understanding of things contained in the universe, and what is meant by level.
Quoting Dawnstorm
One's world-view is ultimately what a given individual believes is understood. But people's worldviews can undergo conversions. For example, Muslims can become Christians and vice versa. Christians can become atheists and vice versa. I've heard testimonies of fundamentalists who are now apostates that make claims that God does not exist. People use the justifications they learn, but I suspect, are also making decisions, at times, that are inconsistent with one's own world-view, and at other times, without any consideration to it.
With respect to possible universals, it's a challenge for me to think of any; especially when we find differences even with the people with whom we mostly agree.
Quoting Dawnstorm
I think this has been helpful. Thanks
One of the things I "got" there, though, was a predisposition toward "There probably are no gods"...which is a perfectly fine take to have on the REALITY. Fact is, either there is at least one god...or there are none. So the hard atheist and the hard theist have at least a 50% chance of being correct. And the use of "atheist" as a descriptor for someone with that disposition MAKES SENSE.
Describing my position as an agnostic one, though, simply because of that one single element (lack of a 'belief" in any gods) makes as little sense as depicting it as a theist position because of the element (I lack a "belief" that there are no gods.
The agnostic has a 100% chance of being correct in what he/she is saying, but a ZERO chance of being correct about the "correct answer" to the question, "Is there at least one god or are there no gods?"
My quest to make the semantic distinction more abrupt (for want of a better word) has to do with a war, of sorts, against the negative forces of religion in a society such as ours. (MIND YOU...religion also have very positive aspects, so I am NOT saying that all of religion is a negative for society.)
More about that aspect as my thesis continues.
Precisely. And Huxley's "need to clarify" was occasioned by the fact that back then (and through all of history) the term atheist meant...someone who denies the existence of God (gods).
The notion of atheist meaning "lacking a 'BELIEF' in any gods" is a recent invention of debating atheists, who wanted to disassociate themselves from any hint of having "beliefs."
I'd like to press this line of reasoning a bit to see if there are conditions where you would differ. Is a 50% chance of being correct true of any theistic claim? Would that then mean that the chances are 50/50 for the existence of Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Shiva, Amaterasu, etc?
What would be the reasoning to reject a person's claim of committing an evil act because the devil made him do it? Could you reject such a claim if it is just as likely to be true as untrue?
Finally, should we then treat non-theistic claims of the existence of ghosts, spirits, or other metaphysical phenomena as just as likely to exist as not exist?
I'd have to hear each claim...and then comment on it...rather than as an over-all contention.
I'll stick with the "hard atheist" and "hard theist" suggestion I made. And I will stick with the "AT LEAST..." part of my comment. It was made for a reason.
If any question has an either YES or NO being...then either YES is correct or NO is correct. (Schrodinger's cat notwithstanding) If the question, for instance is, "Is there a $10 bill in this (unopened) envelope or not?"...the answer is either YES or NO. It cannot be both. To then ask, "Well then are you asserting that there cannot be three single dollar bills in the envelope, makes no sense. That, in a sense, is what you are doing here.
There may be gods (or a god)...or there may be no gods. What they are or what their characteristics are...is a different question entirely. Not ready to handle that question yet.
Whether there is an evil spirit or are evil spirits that can impact on human activity...is an unknown. I do not make guesses about the unknown. Of course one "could" reject such a claim...but if this were pure debate based on logic...it would be a very difficult case to make. Attempt it if you want: Set up the P1 and P2 that logically leads to a C of: Therefore there are no evil spirits that can influence what any human does.
Absolutely! Why not?
Are you supposing that humans (Homo sapiens) at our stage of evolution are able to know everything about what does and what does not exist in the REALITY of existence?
I am not.
There may be things around us in dimensional form that humans cannot discern at all. Human senses may NOT be the end-all thing we like to suppose they are.
A couple of comments. One, the claim of a $10 bill in an envelope can be investigated. The claim could then be "proven" true or false. Two, the claim regarding the bill is a mundane claim. The evidence confirming or disconfirming would be ordinary.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I agree. I don't know how to inductively or deductively establish the truth for the presence or absence of a deity.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I have no issue claiming ignorance on any topic. But if ignorance about the specifics, or even the fact that we can't know anything with certainty, means that we can't know anything, or can't make reasonable inferences with respect to probability, then it seems like we have to throw our hands up and say that there's no good reason to have an opinion about any unsubstantiated claim.
I don't think it has to be all or nothing.
For anyone following this conversation, here is the question:
[b][i]Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ?????) -
(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???
(indicate those reasons which apply)[/i][/b]
It is a jumble...makes unwarranted assumptions with which I am not comfortable...and suggests I answer whatever free option question is being proposed in a format the questioner devises.
Anyway...180...I will definitely enjoy the rest of my day. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day also.
Whatever it is, the "claim" shares one thing in common with the claim that either there is at least one god or there are no gods...and that "thing in common" is that it can either be YES or NO. (once again, Shrodinger's cat aside.)
Neither do I...which is the reason I answered your question, "What would be the reasoning to reject a person's claim of committing an evil act because the devil made him do it? Could you reject such a claim if it is just as likely to be true as untrue?'...the way I did.
It cannot be logically answered. It can be answered in the "mundane" as you called it...or at least a reasonable guess can be made in the mundane. But we are above that here in this discussion...or at least, I hope we are.
I don't think it has to be all or nothing.[/quote]
I am not suggesting that we claim ignorance on everything. I understand the difficulty in proving anything, but we can certainly agree on things like, "I am sitting at my keyboard at the moment typing these words."
But your comment raises the question of: "Can we make a reasonable, inferential, logical probability estimate of whether at least one god exists or if no gods exist?"
My answer is a resounding NO...we cannot. Over the years I have read hundreds of attempts to show why it is MUCH more likely that at least one god exists rather than that none exist...
...and hundreds of attempts to show why it is MUCH more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists.
AND THEY ALL USE THE SAME EVIDENCE.
I say neither probability estimate is based on anything but a pre-existing bias one way or the other.
You?
How so? In what ways?
Such as?
Thanks.
Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ?????) -
(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???
You are asking me if I am "GODLESS" because of some reason...without even establishing that I am GODLESS.
What in hell does that mean?
What does "GODLESS" mean?
I am an agnostic. I have no idea if I am godless or not. If there is at least one god...I sure as hell am not godless...and neither is anyone else. IF at least one god exists, NONE OF US leads a godless life. IF there are no gods, I am leading a godless life BECAUSE there are no gods.
Now...I looked beyond that jumbled, poorly conceived, poorly executed mess and answered the question I supposed you were trying (unsuccessfully) to ask...and answered it fully and truthfully.
Where do you want to go with it from here?
I am totally willing to answer any question you ask...providing you do not tell me I must answer it only with answers you provide...and if you do not make unnecessary, assumptions about how I do or do not live my life.
And the ending of the first part of your "question" is Greek to me.
To you???
If bias is the difference between the estimated value and the actual value, then one party would be biased against what is true and the other would have no bias. I'm probably one of the unbiased ones ;-)
Preexisting bias...is bias that precedes the argument made in either direction.
If you are disagreeing with what I said, we can discuss it.
My intent is to establish whether or not you claim or agree that you are GODLESS - as I'd parenthetically spoon-fed (and then quoted by) you:
IN OTHER WORDS, Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ...?
Mmmm yummy yummy, Frankie ... quit spitting-out my yummy spoonfuls! :yum:
In the original post the Greek word is linked to a wiki article which defines the word and its historical usage from antiquity to the present; and is synonymous with GODLESS. If you really want to know what I mean, follow the link for ?????. :eyes:
:roll:
Well since I asked a Yes or No question, "yes or no" are the only answers relevant to the question; what's listed are not "answers" but suggested reasons for your answer, including an open undefined option for any other reason or reasons for the answer, quite the contrary, that you're refusing to give. :sweat:
And you fucked it up. That is NOT what your question asked. Read it with comprehension. Or better yet, get some school kid to read it for you and explain how to repair it.
In any case, I got the gist of what you mangled...and answered it.
Don't even know what that would look like. What I don't do...is go to church or worry about the dictates of any gods. I simply acknowledge that gods might exist. If any of them are like that savage god of the Bible...I am in a shit load of trouble.
Work some fava beans into that bullshit...and see what it gets you.
Yes, I noticed. The rest was just jumbled bullshit.
I am discussing this with you...not with the writer of an article who is not discussing it with me.
Okay?
If you want to ask me a question...ask it...and I will answer. Don't provide your answers and get pissed when I do not use them.
And if you learned how to write, you would see that your "question" is not what you seem to think it was.
Yes, Godless - ?????; no reason given. My work's done here. :victory:
Thanks, Frankie. :rofl:
If there is a god (one of two mutually exclusive possibilities) I am NOT godless...and neither are you.
If you want to think "your work" is done here...no problem. Have a good life. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
Let's say you present yourself as an atheist as a tactic to keep the flies off. But you present yourself as an agnostic when you're in the mood to discuss the subject. There are strange flies in your country. In mine they are not so easily frightened off. Declaring yourself an atheist is the easiest way to get bitten by flies.
Yes.
Quoting CeleRate
It's a framing issue. When you see a thing and part of its aspects surprise you, you'll want to integrate it into your worldview. It changes via direct experience. If you learn about a concept via a word, then you assume the word is meaningful, and you'll try to figure out what it means. You'll first have to try to figure out what the word means, because it's possible that the "thing" is already part of your worldview, but the other person uses an unfamiliar word and sets different accents. If that's the case, you'll have a oh-you-mean-X type of experience. Basically, an unfamiliar word and a description that doesn't trigger recognition doesn't necessarily introduce you to new concept. It might introduce you to an unfamiliar perspective on a known concept. That is: you get knew information about the person you're speaking to via a familar concept (but only if you figure out that they're referring to a familiar concept).
But if you're really introduced to a new concept, you'll not be "naive" about the concept when you encounter the thing in the wild. From the get go, your take on that thing will be influenced by the perspective of the person who introduced you to the concept. Part of the world-view integrational work has already been done. The more abstract the concept, the more pronounced the effect is.
At some level of abstraction the concept itself might actually be an interpretative mold to organise several disparate perceptions and/or feelings into a "comparative matrix". I think words like "love" and "justice" fall into this category. Anything that's culturally specific you usually learn about during childhood, a time when you're still consolidating new concepts into a world view. A lot of these things feel very basic later in life, but you actually absorb them early on by imitation, trial and error. When there's a concept you feel is vital to others, you might be motivated to actively seek out clues. A series of Is-this-it? experiences until you're satisfied. If you fail to acquire too many culturally specific abstracts, you're going to have find other ways to deal with it. I didn't acquire the God concept properly, I think, because I sort of tagged with make-belief, like the Easter Bunny, who supposedly coloured and hid Easter eggs (it was clear to me that bunnies can't hold brushes, and all those pictures were cartoons, that my parents were smart enough to know this, too, yet they'd never admit that they were responsible - I thought God was a similar sort of game; I remember the surprise when I found they were actually serious about that).
One important question about word-first concepts is this: how do we satisfy ourselves that this thing or this constellation of things corresponds to this concept? (Conversion experiences should be interesting.)
Quoting CeleRate
Sadly, that's a mostly intuitive process, and I'm not so sure how to describe this myself. I'm not even quite sure what I mean by level. When I look at the word "God", then I'm trying to figure out what that could mean in a way that would make sense within the confines of my world view. Since I have functional world view that does fine without the concept, this is difficult. So it's mostly an exercise in taking another persons perspective. But the God-concept is opaque.
Unicorns, for example, are comparatively easy. There physical objects, for example. There can be things that look like unicorns, and they then either are Unicorns or not. I don't need complete information. For example, I don't need to know the gestetation period of unicorns, unless if that were the easiest feature with which to distinguish them form mere single-horned horses.
Basically, I'd need some way to check for evidence of God, or some sort of perspective that allows me to interpret stuff that's there as evidence for God. I've developed the unsystematic intuition that if you have faith in God, everything is potential evidence, and if you don't nothing is. And that's a bit of a road block. I don't think there's a specific direction my God concept has to... concretise?... before I can really tackle the question of existance.
That's precisely the area where I confuse myself the most, though, so I doubt I can explain myself very well here.
Quoting CeleRate
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, here, but I think the bulk of one's worldview is unconcious, and it's less a finished product, and more an ongoing progress. Crises will lead to restructurings, and things like epiphanies may not be as sudden as they seem to your conscious self (on account of a sudden trigger). I think I may be using the term a little more broadly than you do in this paragraph (and also a little less precisely as a consequence). There's nothing I disagree with here, though.
Hm, maybe. It's entirely practical, though. I definitively behave as if there are no gods. Now, I'm a rather cautious person, and I even have a tendency towards anxiety. I'm fairly sure if I were, in the back of my mind, considering the possibility that there are gods, I'd be worrying about that, and it would be a hindrance in making decisions. What if I angered a god? Things like that. I have no such worries, so it'd be probably more a pre-disposition towards "There are no gods," without the probably. Which would be even further down the atheist road, under the three-category-model.
My position, though, is better described that the hard atheist and hard theist have a 0 % chance to be correct, because their respective claims aren't meaningful enough to trigger correctness conditions. Both claims can be disregarded. (This implies that an agnostic who believes that either the hard atheist or the hard theist is correct, would also have 0 % chance to be correct.)
This is further complicated by the fact that I'm a relativist, though. I can only say this some degree of confidence within the confines of my own worldview. I strongly suspect that theists at least do attach some sort of meaning to the proposition, but I since all my perspective-taking exercises in that direction have failed, I can't behave as if. In a sense, this makes my atheism mostly performative, with no content.
Quoting David Mo
I'm Austrian. Upper Austria to be precise. It's a very secular life around here. You won't even talk about religion at all until you know each other a bit better (or the context warrants it; e.g. you're talking about news). I'm pretty lucky in that respect. Pretty much the only people trying to convert me are Jehova's Witnesses.
While I agree that concept formation probably more easily develops thing-first (attending to stimulus features like wavelength, size, and topography), than word-first (descriptions lacking physical form) the essence of concepts is generalization within classes and discrimination between classes.
A young child will use the word "doggy" in the presence of an animal. The parent will say, "no, that's a spider". Through many examples and non-examples, the child will say "doggy" when in the presence of a an organism that shares enough of the necessary phenotypes to be called a dog that the child's verbal community would confirm for the child that her labeling of the organism conformed with the requisite features. The errors will get closer to the margins (e.g., calling a wolf a doggy).
We do, however, do something similar when discussing concepts without specific stimulus features. What is love? What is disgust? What is diffidence? How do these terms become concepts? I love chocolate. I love dogs. I love warm spring days.
Our communities evaluate our use of concepts and we begin to self-evaluate. What are ghosts? An object moves for no apparent reason and someone says a ghost moved it. We ask what is meant and the person expounds. In the end we don't know if we're referring the same stimulus conditions that another person is when talking about ghosts, but we still draw conclusions about the claim of the existence of ghosts; just as we do about Pegasus, leprechauns, or Slenderman.
Some people argue that you are not justified in taking a position about a topic you can neither confirm nor deny, but maybe it's better to say I will begin believing in the claim when there IS sufficient evidence. Until then, the position of holding out hope of confirming possible existences for things premised on extraordinary claims (as some do) does not seem rational (IMHO).
Quoting Dawnstorm
I feel similarly. But does this mean that you have formed an opinion one way or the other?
Quoting Dawnstorm
I think so too. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Not sure what kind of rationalizations you are using to arrive at that point,..or why you are using them, Dawn, but it seems contrived to me.
THE REALITY is that their either IS at least one god...or there are none.
That is just the way things are. If you flip a coin and designated the heads side a guess of "There is at least one god" and the tails side a guess of "There are no gods"...
...one guess will be correct.
But, if you want to suppose someone saying that either "yes" or "no" is correct for a "yes or no" question...go with it.
Try that on this question: Are there any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol? Pose it as a question of "Do you guess that..." if you choose.
That's not what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that my hunch is that it's possible to be fooled by the grammatical structure of sentence. Just because you can formulate a yes/no question for gods' existance doesn't mean that this formulation is a valid treatment of the concept of God.
For what it's worth, I do think I'm overshooting my mark by treating all god concepts the same. Even translation is difficult. A monotheistic God is rather different from the Greek lot, and they're both pretty different from Shintoist Kami. I'm shaky on this all, because I'm generally not bothered by any of this in my daily life.
I mean what about:
Does the Mellow-winged Staggerthwart exist? (Can you answer the question with yes/no, before figuring out what this is supposed to be? I just arranged random words, here. There's no meaning to it.)
Or self-referential: Does existence exist?
Not all sentences of a certain structure are necessarily valid representations of... well, anything meaningful. It's an empty phrase that traps people in an uresolvable conflict and sorts them into two sides, where emotional intensity is substituted for content. The divinity aspect allows people on either side to shift goal-posts at will. People can be umpires in the game, but they can't do anything about the goalpost shifting, because it's in the rules.
Goalpost shifting is easily possible about nearby aliens, too, but it's not in the rules. I realise that the burden of proof, here, is on me, and since it's just a hunch (with ever-decreasing certainty about different God concepts), I don't quite know how to do this or if I can at all.
I'll get back to you later...or in the interests of my relationship here...tomorrow.
Thanks for the reply.
Forcing the point on me, I revise (or, better, yet qualify) my contention that 'atheism is not a belief' by reformulating it so: atheism is a negating BELIEF ABOUT theism and (therefore) also a lack of BELIEF IN theistic g/G's.
Unlike you, Frank, I do not conflate 'belief that' and 'belief in' - the latter being an avowal of 'faith', which is not a truth-claim (like singing or feeling pain), whereas the former is a referring statement that is a truth-claim. Atheism, as I understand and have lived it since my teens, consists in BOTH distinct modes of belief; thus, I agree that "babies and toddlers" (or dogs and cats and trees) cannot be atheists.
And, yes, we atheists do have a 'burden of proof' to demonstrate the truth-value of our BELIEF ABOUT theism's falsity or incoherence - a position which I've maintained for at least two decades or more with which, in my experience, most (even some strong / positive) "atheists" vehemently disagree - which is why I prefer anti-theist (second only to freethinker) to any other degree of "atheist" in recent years.
:cool:
I've so far dismissed your subjective avowal of "agnosticism" without a line-by-line examination, or deconstruction; I'll correct that oversight here ...
[b]"I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;"[/b]
(1) Since you refer only to "gods" and do not classify "gods" by any properties which differentiate them from non-gods, thus failing to define any parameters by which the "gods" mentioned could possibly be searched for and you/we can "suspect", as you say, anything about their existence ..., this statement SAYS NOTHING more intelligible than a similar statement referring to &÷#@$% instead of "gods".
"I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST"
(2) Same as (1).
"... that gods are needed to explain existence;"
(3) Agreed insofar as "gods" is so conceptually underdetermined as to be unintelligible and indistinct from &÷#@$% or any mystery X. Questions are only begged by mysteries not answered by them; explanations are propositional and therefore answer questions; attempting to explain anything (e.g. "existence") with a mystery (e.g "god"), however, merely substitutes a more general unexplained circumstance for a particular unexplained circumstance. Yeah, whether or not "existence" needs to be explained, "gods" i.e. &÷#@$% cannot explain anything.
"I do not see enough unambiguous evidence"
(4a) How much would be "enough"?
(4b) If, as pointed out above in (1, 3), "gods" is not "unambiguous", how can you possibly recognize what would count as "evidence" of any kind?
upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
(5) A "guess" about &÷#@$% cannot ever be "meaningful" unless you think through what exactly is the object of your concern. As per (1), 'knowing or not knowing' cannot be intelligibly applied to anything so nebulously general and lacking definite properties, or attributions, as "gods" - on this basis alone (4b), it makes as much sense for you to identify yourself as an "agnostic about gods", Frank, as it would to identify yourself (a) "Wizard of OZ"
...so I don't.
(5) Yeah, you "don't guess either way" about ... &÷#@$%; so, you're "agnostic" about &÷#@$% aka "gods".
Atheists will always claim you as one of theirs/ours, Frank, unless you specify exactly what it is you claim not know either exists or doesn't exist. You have to think that through past an objection like mine in (1) at the very least. Clearly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about because all you're talking about is &÷#@$% ... :sweat:
I agree with the part of your post that indicates that atheists want to claim me...and all agnostics. It would markedly improve atheistic DNA...so I don't really blame them. I never have.
I merely point out that I am NOT an atheist.
And I further point out that since EVERY atheist I've ever known or known about...DOES believe (guess) that there are no gods...or DOES believe (guess) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...that element should be part of the definition of "atheist"...which would eliminate me (and many, but not all, others who designate themselves to be agnostics)...making the word a more useful one.
The rest of what you wrote is bullshit...and I suspect you know that.
But thanks for sharing it.
"Bullshit"? This from a man who can't "guess" whether or not (because he doesn't "know") &÷#@$% :rofl:
Anytime, Frank. You're welcome!