Oh really? The guy who was doing it to annoy people? - Edit 1
Before modification by nossy at 07/03/2012 10:18:13 PM
Nice. I stand by my statement that most people don't think you're uncivil, but you're certainly bordering on rudeness here.
Ironically, you've just stolen my point. If everyone but you knows exactly what they mean when they say "atheist," who is correct? You're giving a huge range to "agnostic" and no space to the real people who truly don't believe in a god, but realize that that isn't a factually supportable position. Imo, you're determined to stick to a pinpointed definition of atheist, at the detriment of an easily applicable definition of agnostic. I think the truth is that we're talking about Agnostic Atheists, rather than an Atheist Agnostics (former term exists and works, latter not so much).
I'm not sure I'm going to read all of this - I said what I meant the first time.
Why talk about anything? Because it's a conversation. Did you not even read what I said? I believe, and I know what I think, but I cannot claim that God is a provable fact, unless I want to lie. Our feelings on the matter are not Facts. I am still able to call myself a Christian, am I not?
Completely regardless of my explanation, when real people talk to each other, they will often make statements to concede that there are other viewpoints. Not that they espouse them or even think they make sense.
You know. For yourself. Can you prove it? (that's rhetorical, in case you're not sure.)
Yes, they most certainly can. However, I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I'm talking about lack of proof. There is a difference. You can feel as sure as you like, but you still have no proof. You have been given your Faith, but atheists have not; as such, you cannot treat the two "beliefs" as similar. The structure is completely different.
Maybe it's because I have a scientific background, but I find myself fully capable of being able to believe what I do and to admit that I cannot ever know for sure. I can feel confident in my belief, but I know I cannot prove God's existence to anyone else. Why would I refuse to admit that?
Are you saying that atheists make your life more difficult?
Because they exist and you have to talk to them? Why do you care what they think?
If so, I guess I can see why this is such a big deal for you. I do not have that problem. I don't care what anyone else thinks, but I do feel I have a duty to accept that they are allowed to think it. And I most certainly do feel that I am being false if I refuse to admit that I cannot prove this to anyone else. The entire concept feels like I'd be trying to force it to be a Truth, rather than simply having the faith to believe it (and realizing that not everyone has that).
Again, not talking about reasonable doubt. I suspect you're injecting your own personal religious path into this conversation.
Sounds like Agnostic Atheist to me, not Agnostic. Why allow the term "atheist" to exist at all, if no one fits? But it does exist, and, imo, we have to allow people to fall under that description w/o trying to pretend that there are people who have Faith that God doesn't exist. That concept is so absolutely backwards, and I reject it utterly. That type of belief is a gift, not a universal concept.
But it's ok to instead make "agnosticism" needlessly broad and confusing? If it means everything, it doesn't mean anything.
Three things. 1) we once thought it meant "wickedness," so I'm not so sure this particular written definition is any more helpful to your case. 2) "disbelief" is not equal to "belief that something doesn't exist!" 3) "doctrine" is a completely confusing addition. There isn't a specific set of laws that defines this, especially not one coming down from on high. It seems that the main argument we have is that you keep trying to force Atheism into the same type of box as Christianity, and it just doesn't fit. Christian faith is a Gift that is given. Atheism is not, so the same certainty simply cannot exist unless one decides to refuse any other viewpoints.
I have never said no definition exists. I have said that allowing it to fit no one is pointless. That is not the way it is being used in modern terms, just as "wickedness" is no longer a main component of the def.
All I'm saying is that you might want to try listening to some of them when they talk to you, rather than to pretend that everyone fits perfectly into what you've described above.
What it has meant for centuries? You mean like "ungodliness and wickedness?" Btw, didn't several of those centuries include "atheist" being used against early Christians? And when exactly was the term "agnostic" created, again? Definitions never change, eh?
That is the problem with Humpty Dumpty and everyone else defining "glory" to mean whatever suits them at the moment: We get two agnostics and Christians deadlocked over what "atheism" even means. If each uses the same terms to mean fundamentally different things, how can we communicate at all? This is why metaphysics spends as much time defining terms as geometry does defining axioms: Because BOTH are defining axioms, must to establish logical coherence.
Ironically, you've just stolen my point. If everyone but you knows exactly what they mean when they say "atheist," who is correct? You're giving a huge range to "agnostic" and no space to the real people who truly don't believe in a god, but realize that that isn't a factually supportable position. Imo, you're determined to stick to a pinpointed definition of atheist, at the detriment of an easily applicable definition of agnostic. I think the truth is that we're talking about Agnostic Atheists, rather than an Atheist Agnostics (former term exists and works, latter not so much).
I'm not sure I'm going to read all of this - I said what I meant the first time.
Is that you're taking his comment too far. I might be wrong, but it seems that Tim (and people like him) are saying that, first and foremost, they do not believe there is a God of any sort (atheism). Conversationally conceding that one can't know everything is NOT agnosticism - it's much closer to me as a Christian saying that I believe A, but I'm willing to review and potentially accept B if reasonable enough new information should ever appear. Would you try to claim that means I am not currently a Christian? We think we're right, but you know we cannot know that we're 100% correct any more than an Atheist can.
If belief is so strong it is effectively certainty, why qualify it, conversationally or otherwise?
Why talk about anything? Because it's a conversation. Did you not even read what I said? I believe, and I know what I think, but I cannot claim that God is a provable fact, unless I want to lie. Our feelings on the matter are not Facts. I am still able to call myself a Christian, am I not?
Completely regardless of my explanation, when real people talk to each other, they will often make statements to concede that there are other viewpoints. Not that they espouse them or even think they make sense.
I know we are either correct or I am insane, because having been in Gods Presence makes my belief undeniable. I no more doubt His existence or admit the possibility of countervailing evidence than I do yours or mine. He has more corroborating witness testimony than either of us, and I have never palpably, almost tangibly, felt your presence (I take your existence on faith though. 
) My personal dogma (which I know is only that) is that absolute degree of belief is required, the difference between mere belief and a leap of FAITH. Perhaps only I and those like me require that, to banish the last bit of reasonable doubt preventing us from committing.
) My personal dogma (which I know is only that) is that absolute degree of belief is required, the difference between mere belief and a leap of FAITH. Perhaps only I and those like me require that, to banish the last bit of reasonable doubt preventing us from committing.You know. For yourself. Can you prove it? (that's rhetorical, in case you're not sure.)
The thing is, commitment and reasonable doubt do not coexist very harmoniously.
Yes, they most certainly can. However, I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I'm talking about lack of proof. There is a difference. You can feel as sure as you like, but you still have no proof. You have been given your Faith, but atheists have not; as such, you cannot treat the two "beliefs" as similar. The structure is completely different.
Maybe it's because I have a scientific background, but I find myself fully capable of being able to believe what I do and to admit that I cannot ever know for sure. I can feel confident in my belief, but I know I cannot prove God's existence to anyone else. Why would I refuse to admit that?
I do not want to get off on a Christian theological tangent, but compare Abraham demanding proof of God in Genesis 15 with his unquestioning obedience in Genesis 22, or Peter striding across the Galilee to meet Jesus only to sink when his faith faltered. The difference between belief and faith is critical, because people do not accept martyrdom rather than recant what they believe PROBABLY true. It is one of myriad reasons I took Pauls admonition against being "unequally yoked with unbelievers" very much to heart. The challenges facing Christians with non-Christian theists or agnostics are great enough, but with atheists they are compounded by many more (particularly when children are involved.)
Are you saying that atheists make your life more difficult?
Because they exist and you have to talk to them? Why do you care what they think?If so, I guess I can see why this is such a big deal for you. I do not have that problem. I don't care what anyone else thinks, but I do feel I have a duty to accept that they are allowed to think it. And I most certainly do feel that I am being false if I refuse to admit that I cannot prove this to anyone else. The entire concept feels like I'd be trying to force it to be a Truth, rather than simply having the faith to believe it (and realizing that not everyone has that).
I try not to appoint myself an arbiter of faith, but just believing yet entertaining reasonable doubt was not enough for me, personally, because Christianity demands a level of uncompromising commitment to God no less than Christs. I would not define the orthodoxy of your faith or anyones; I try to keep things on the terms of maintaining Christian fellowship with those who live by core Christian doctrine and respond appropriately when deviations from it are brought to their attention. Sorry if that is sidestepping the question, but it goes beyond mere dictionary definitions to matters of morality and godliness that are above my pay grade.
Again, not talking about reasonable doubt. I suspect you're injecting your own personal religious path into this conversation.
You're describing a situation in which (to qualify as Atheist) any person MUST state that any/all new information is irrelevant - that God does not exist, no matter what. How many real people are willing to be so smug in their statements?
Um, have you ever heard of Richard Dawkins? I am reliably informed he is a real person. Wikipedia cites pp. 50, 51 of The God Delusion defining "atheism" in the exact same strictly absolute way I use it here. Just to be clear on that:
Richard Dawkins defines himself as a "de facto atheist" but TECHNICALLY "agnostic," solely because his belief is non-absolute.
Sounds like Agnostic Atheist to me, not Agnostic. Why allow the term "atheist" to exist at all, if no one fits? But it does exist, and, imo, we have to allow people to fall under that description w/o trying to pretend that there are people who have Faith that God doesn't exist. That concept is so absolutely backwards, and I reject it utterly. That type of belief is a gift, not a universal concept.
Since you seem to know so many more interesting people than I do, I'm sure you'll know some who perfectly fit that description, but as I've tried to point out previously, you have to leave room in definitions for real people. I think the burden is on you to call your definition something more like "fringe, fundamentalist atheism."
That room exists: It is called "agnosticism." That is where the gray scale lies, not in active declarations (that is to say, POSITIVE declarations; framing the issue as "positive" vs. "negative" atheism is rather tipping ones hand.)
But it's ok to instead make "agnosticism" needlessly broad and confusing? If it means everything, it doesn't mean anything.
As in the other discussion, yes, people who unequivocally declare no deities exist manifestly exist; that is the whole basis for complicating atheism by distinguishing between "positive" and "negative" forms. I see no need to pick fights with them since they eagerly and adeptly that initiative, but DK created this thread in reference to them. Also as in the other discussion, I have already cited two authoritative philosophical dictionaries that currently define atheism in that way, and have no reason to think either refers to any hypothetical as yet undiscovered atheists. Perhaps you would prefer the Merriam-Webster Dictionarys definition:
athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Three things. 1) we once thought it meant "wickedness," so I'm not so sure this particular written definition is any more helpful to your case. 2) "disbelief" is not equal to "belief that something doesn't exist!" 3) "doctrine" is a completely confusing addition. There isn't a specific set of laws that defines this, especially not one coming down from on high. It seems that the main argument we have is that you keep trying to force Atheism into the same type of box as Christianity, and it just doesn't fit. Christian faith is a Gift that is given. Atheism is not, so the same certainty simply cannot exist unless one decides to refuse any other viewpoints.
If there is a qualifier, a "probably," "maybe" or even "beyond reasonable doubt" please point it out to me. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
I have never said no definition exists. I have said that allowing it to fit no one is pointless. That is not the way it is being used in modern terms, just as "wickedness" is no longer a main component of the def.
The burden of proof is very much NOT on me to vindicate current dictionaries, philosophical encyclopedias, DKs usage or that of every human being prior to about two years after my birth and nearly all of those born since. The burden of proof is on anyone and everyone insisting the definition universally accepted for at least two centuries and generally accepted even now be rejected in favor of how a tiny fraction of humanity have described themselves for the past thirty years. Anyone may call themselves anything they like, but if they use a term with a well established, documented and widely understood meaning the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why their new arbitrary definition should displace the existing one.
All I'm saying is that you might want to try listening to some of them when they talk to you, rather than to pretend that everyone fits perfectly into what you've described above.
Sorry this ran so long, and I am not trying to be obstinate, but the bottom line is a tiny group cannot just decide "we have redefined this word to mean us instead of what it has meant for centuries." I am sorry a rational undogmatic case for atheism is so impossible, but it is neither my fault nor that of dictionaries, encyclopedias or the general public.
What it has meant for centuries? You mean like "ungodliness and wickedness?" Btw, didn't several of those centuries include "atheist" being used against early Christians? And when exactly was the term "agnostic" created, again? Definitions never change, eh?