Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wiploc · 12-10-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmax2976

A synopsis of the arguments he makes:

1. It goes against the usage found in "ordinary" language, or the most common usage is that of the denial of the existence of God.

Drange would reject this argument himself if we applied it to any other word. Does he really favor throwing out all secondary definitions? No.

Quote:

2. It would be "perverse" to label infants as atheists.

Babies are obviously atheists.

Quote:

3. Etymologically, atheism could mean the view that there is "no god" if "a" means "no" rather than "without".

This is refuted by Drange's first argument. Words mean what people mean by them, not what they "ought" to mean based on etymologic.

Quote:

4. Most dictionaries refer to atheists as those who deny the existence of God

Most dictionaries also refer to atheists as those who disbelieve.

Quote:

5. It is desirable for terms to be mutually exclusive

Right, that's why atheist is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge.

crc

LyricalReckoner · 12-11-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmax2976

- It's unclear why mutual exclusivity between atheism and agnosticism is "desirable".

My guess is this: if you did a survey in a shopping mall or a grocery store or a movie theatre or on main street, you'd find that most people think of atheists as people who don't believe in God. If you asked about the fine difference between not believing in God and believing in no God, most people would be finished with their contribution to the survey and move on. If you asked them about agnosticism, many would draw a blank.

starling · 12-11-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmax2976

- It's unclear why mutual exclusivity between atheism and agnosticism is "desirable".

Well this at least I can answer. There is a very good reason why mutual exclusivity between atheism and agnosticism is desirable. If they are not mutually exclusive, then you can't be agnostic and not atheist, nor can you be an atheist and not agnostic. Basically the problem is this: claiming the two terms are not mutually exclusive is equivalent to claiming that atheists don't know what they're talking about. And believe me, some do know what they're talking about.

Bobinius · 12-12-2005, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starling

Well this at least I can answer. There is a very good reason why mutual exclusivity between atheism and agnosticism is desirable. If they are not mutually exclusive, then you can't be agnostic and not atheist, nor can you be an atheist and not agnostic. Basically the problem is this: claiming the two terms are not mutually exclusive is equivalent to claiming that atheists don't know what they're talking about. And believe me, some do know what they're talking about.

I think you meant that if they are not mutually exclusive you can be agnostic and atheist or theist in the same time.

Saying that an atheist is also agnostic in respect to that God concept does not mean that he does not know what he is talking about. It merely says that he does not believe that God exists, but also affirms that it is impossible to know that for sure. Just like I don't believe that there is a dwarf on Pluto, but I can't know that unless I verify it.

The position of 'not knowing what you are talking about' describes non-cognitivism. It affirms that 'God exists' is a non-sense, and it isn't a proposition.

Malintent · 12-13-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves" actually predates atheism, being first attested in about 1571 (the phrase Italian atheoi is recorded as early as 1568). Atheist in the sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from athée, "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, with theism and deism following in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700 due to the influence of atheism. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.

just a fyi

trendkill · 12-13-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmax2976

And those terms don't mean the same thing either. Sorry Trend, you're confusing me.

Sure they do. Or at least, there's a great deal of overlap.

Quote:

If you could, that would work. But then it follows that there must be something wrong with his arguments as well.

Well, they're irrelevant. I'd say that's a problem.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.