Gurdur

Agnostics are �ber-pedantic atheists.

Atheists are �ber-Puritan agnostics.

Rusting Car Bumper

Actually its not that useful in that he is wrong.

Definitions are decided by usage and atheists do in fact say Atheism means "a lack of belief in God." However, Drange says, "This is a departure from the most common use of the word 'atheist' in ordinary language, which is in itself an important reason to avoid it."

However all one need to do to see that the "lack of belief" definition is in wide usage is to go to Google (either newsgroups or the web) and search for "lack of belief in god" and note that its connected with atheism by those calling themselves atheists thousands of times.

DC

Starboy

DC, I guess it depends on whose usage you consider common or authoritative. In this particular case the fact that a specific definition is in wide use by Christians who as a group do represent the majority and thus have the most common definition doesn�t matter. Since Christians do not claim to be atheists I would think that the definition as provided by most of those that call themselves atheists should carry a great deal more weight then those that do not.

Starboy

Rusting Car Bumper

Precisely. This is why "lack of belief" is a better and more representitive definition.

DC

Rational BAC

I think agnosticism gets a bad rap. Most atheists say that there is no such thing. There are weak atheists and strong atheists etc. Great for an intellectual discussion on a forum like this one.

But on a day to day practical basis, using the term agnosticism does work very well.----------at least as far as most people are concerned that one might talk to or to whom you can give an easily understandable position that a layman would understand and even might personally relate to.

Whatever the technically and dictionary correct definition of agnosticism is--------------Most people take it to mean simply------ "I dunno"----------and most everyone can relate to that one. In that sense of "I dunno" I think most everyone has been an agnostic at some time in their lives.

And even the most confirmed atheist will admit that, in the final analysis----------he just don't know for certain.


Rightly or wrongly, saying that you are an atheist does tend to raise red flags for many people. If you are an activist atheist, then that is what you probably want--confrontation, argumental discussion. If you just want to be left alone---it does not work very well at all.

seebs

Except that it is often not what people meant by the word, especially in materials predating atheist activism. You should know, and be aware of, all the likely definitions. Interpreting something using a weak definition when a strong definition was intended is an error too!

seebs

Okay, oldest in English usage... Earlier usages were different, and a lot of these words don't translate directly.

Starboy

All that points out seebs is that usage changes over time. If atheists want to define themselves as lacking beliefs in god(s) and most start seeing it that way and tell everyone else then that's what it will be. Gay used to have a very different meaning not that long ago, but if homosexuals want to be known as gay then who am I to argue with them.

Starboy

Rusting Car Bumper

I think these are assertions for which you have little evidence.

Actually I'd argue that it probably leads people astray. I would arge that using agnostic is one of the small pieces which leads people against atheists.

Most people think of agnosticism is a half way point between atheism and theism when in fact its just a form of atheism in almost all cases.

So what you've done is pick something that "works" but in fact it works because it probably hides your real position.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

but I'll guess you aren't in a state of "I dunno." You are probably in a state of saying "I reject all claims of theism as I've seen them presented." That is hardly "I dunno." This is in fact atheism.

so? This type of analysis is a category mistake and picks out god belief as a seperate category when in fact atheists position regarding god is no different than *HOW* anyone else (theist or atheist) approaches things we don't believe in.

Do you know for certain that there literally isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Do you know for certain there aren't leprecauns? Are you sure a black cat isn't really bad luck? Maybe Santa really does deliver toys to boys and girls on Christmas Eve?

Of course we say "I don't believe in leprecauns" or "I don't think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" and so forth for via the EXACT same reasoning process we say "I don't believe in god(s)"? Nobody ever says, "How dogmatic of you! You could be wrong! You should adopt a position that ackowledges that you don't ultimately know whether there are leprecauns!"

We don't feel some need to invent an "I don't know for sure" so called middle ground for these. Why then do we need to invent one for god?

We invent one because of the need for conscious or unconscious social acceptance or to avoid making waves. If this is true then we have picked agnostic not because something of its content is more precise or accurate. We pick it out of social reasons conscious or unconscious.

No. In fact that is what I don't want. You can't stop the raising of the raising of red flags by hiding behind terminology.

Anyone who has read any of my posts or seen me speak publicly on atheism knows I am not at all interested in "confrontation, argumental discussion". Part of doing that is not to hide behind monikers which give people wrong impressions such as agnostic.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

The point is that it has really always been "lack of belief in gods." The "doesn't believe in god" is not really any different. "Lack of belief" merely changes the wording to make this epistimilogical understand open when in fact it was always there anyway.

As per my previous post, when we say we don't believe in something it usually implicitly includes an understanding that we could be wrong (that indeed someone may actually show me a pink unicorn).

DC