Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Eudaimonist · 05-06-2002, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jlowder:
Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it?

This confusion over definitions is one reason that I call myself a non-theist outside of secularist circles. If someone asks me to define non-theist, I provide the standard definition for weak atheist.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 05-06-2002, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jlowder:


Vixstile, from a historical perspective, your message is 100% correct. But I don't think your definitions match the way the words are used today. The question I'm asking is this: why defend a non-standard definition of a word when there are more important things worth arguing about?

I would agree with this. The way the words are used in the English language today when someone claims they are agnostic it implies they are taking the position 'I don't know if God exists'.
When someone claims they are athiest they are usually taking the position "I know God does not exist." While the proper logical definition of these terms may mean one thing they are certainly used differently.

To be most accurate an agnostic would have to say 'I am God agnostic' for agnosticism (as it is defined) does not claim lack of knowledge on any particular subject.

Frankly I don't know why they just don't define everything relative to the statement 'God exists':
Those who say 'God exists' is false are athiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is true are thiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is unknowable are agnostics.

This would make it much more clear, less ambiguous and would cut network traffic on infidels by 50%.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Pomp · 05-06-2002, 01:07 PM

I see your point, Jeffrey, but I have to disagree.

Politically and socially, it's a losing battle if we allow theists to define the terms by which we identify ourselves. The fact is that many of us who would be agnostics in common parlance self-identify as atheists. I don't see surrendering our right to self-identify as such as a meaningful step in winning recognition for the validity of the atheist stance.

Further, "agnostic," as it used by the public, outside the nontheist community, generally implies a wishy-washy uncertainty. I don't see it furthering our ends to divide ourselves into the "radical" atheists and the nonthreatening wishy-washy agnostics. Atheism is threatening to the public. It is, in many ways, the last great Western taboo. We all want more respect for atheists, and we aren't going to get that by calling ourselves agnostics in public and hiding that nasty word, "atheism," safely in the closet. Rather, IMO, we need to encourage our own variant of "We're here! We're queer!"

Finally, one of our major goals ought to be to educate the public regarding what, exactly, we do believe, or not believe, as the case may be. We can either point out misunderstandings when and where they occur or else we can, as you suggest, let those misunderstandings become truth , and redefine ourselves in accordance with them.

I'm sorry if I come off a bit ranty. I'm in a foul mood.

Oh, also, I don't really think this is an "Existence of God(s)" topic, but I'm not sure where to send it. Any suggestions? MRD maybe?

Jayhawker Soule · 05-06-2002, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
JLowder, you may or may not be right about how the majority of the population defines 'atheism' (frankly, I don't see how you can make a claim one way or the other),

I don't know how he can make such a claim either, but I find it remarkable that anyone would doubt it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
... but even if you're right, most atheists in the US are likely to be [strongly] atheistic (using your preferred definition) only toward the Christian God-concept

I would be greatly surprised if that were shown to be true. I suspect that most atheist (weak, strong, positive, negative, red, green, ...) are atheists because they reject the viability of supernatural explanations -- at least I hope so.

Philosoft · 05-06-2002, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
I don't know how he can make such a claim either, but I find it remarkable that anyone would doubt it.

Really? I would hope even the mildest skeptic would recognize his claim is hardly a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

I would be greatly surprised if that were shown to be true. I suspect that most atheist (weak, strong, positive, negative, red, green, ...) are atheists because they reject the viability of supernatural explanations -- at least I hope so.

I reject the supernatural entirely on epistemic grounds, but I would imagine the skeptical atheist who does not do as I do would have to claim ignorance of some god-concepts they are certain to be unfamiliar with.

Kvalhion · 05-06-2002, 01:50 PM

How many trolls have come onto the board and incorrectly asserted that atheism is the denial of the existence of God, then went on to make other illogical and invalid analogies based upon the original invalid assertion?

In other words, accepting the position that atheists deny the existence of God would simply give fuel to irrational theists who believe they can use this to formulate reasons why we deny the existence of God, and usually spin it around to some rediculous argument like we really believe in God but hate him.

I see no benefit whatsoever to give in to public misconceptions of atheism. The problem is theirs, not ours. If they cannot learn the proper context of the word atheist, how can we reasonably expect to move the discussion onwards with any level of coherency?

The whole point of a logical argument is a solid foundation upon which it is built. Defining all atheists as denying a God's existence is not a solid foundation upon which to build arguments.

not a theist · 05-06-2002, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:

Frankly I don't know why they just don't define everything relative to the statement 'God exists':
Those who say 'God exists' is false are athiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is true are thiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is unknowable are agnostics.

Where does that leave someone like me who doesn't know but thinks that it is knowable?

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]

Vorkosigan · 05-06-2002, 02:00 PM

Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it? The meaning of words can change over time, so why not just adopt strong atheism as the definition of atheism?

We shouldn't do that because the majority of people DO NOT define atheism that way. Here is a view of several dictionaries:

Webster's Online

Main Entry: athe�ism
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

American Heritage

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality

Infoplease.com Dictionary

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Cambridge International Dictionary

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

PlainEnglish Dictionary

Atheist (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

The Catholic Encyclopedia
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm</a>gives an extremely nuanced and detailed discussion of atheism.

Here's a part of it:

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.
Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

It seems that the distinction between weak and strong atheism as atheists use them here is a valid and existing one, and assertions to the contrary are flying in the face of the reality of actual usage as defined by the dictionaries here. I don't feel like posting the dozens of largely identical definitions I looked up....

More dictionaries available <a href="http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/afen.cgi" target="_blank">here</a>

Vorkosigan

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Theli · 05-06-2002, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
The original definition of agnosticism had little to do with god belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, knowledge of any kind, not just theistic.

A=without or lacking
(A)gnoticism=without or lacking knowledge

A=without or lacking
(A)theism=without or lacking theistic belief

You can be both an atheist as well as agonistic at the same time, they don't conflict in any way

I would also like to add; The definitions of words mite change frequently, but syntax doesn't. The definition of theist is the same as it has always was. Slapping an A in front of a word still means "without or lack of" what ever that word is

I'm glad to see someone who holds the excact same definitions as I.
I usually go with the syntax aswell. The A- prefix does negate the sufix "theism". Meaning "lack of".

Quote:

Vixstile, from a historical perspective, your message is 100% correct. But I don't think your definitions match the way the words are used today.

Those definitions are usually made by christians who doesn't know the first thing about atheism.

jlowder...

Quote:

Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it?

I doubt that the majoritys definition of atheism is objective. Many think that all atheists flat-out denies all possible godexplainations. Many also think that atheists are immoral... that shows what majority knows.

Jayhawker Soule · 05-06-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
It seems that the distinction between weak and strong atheism as atheists use them here is a valid and existing one, and assertions to the contrary are flying in the face of the reality of actual usage as defined by the dictionaries here. I don't feel like posting the dozens of largely identical definitions I looked up ...

So, Hank, do ya believe the Pats'll make it to the Super Bowl again?

Nah -- never did. I don't hold a "Pats'll make it to the Super Bowl belief." Of course, that don't mean that I'm saying that the Pat's won't make it to the Super Bowl. I sure ain't sayin that I don't know. I simply don't hold a "Pats'll make it" belief.

Me, neither. By the way, do you believe it's likely to rain tomorrow?

No. I don't have an "it's likely to rain tomorrow" belief. Now, don't take me wrong. That obviously doesn't mean that I ...

Curiouser and curiouser ...

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

05-06-2002, 02:00 PM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it? The meaning of words can change over time, so why not just adopt strong atheism as the definition of atheism? We shouldn't do that because the majority of people DO NOT define atheism that way. Here is a view of several dictionaries: Webster's Online Main Entry: athe�ism Date: 1546 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity Dictionary.com 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality. American Heritage 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality Infoplease.com Dictionary 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Cambridge International Dictionary someone who believes that God or gods do not exist PlainEnglish Dictionary Atheist (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. The Catholic Encyclopedia <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm</a>gives an extremely nuanced and detailed discussion of atheism. Here's a part of it: Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship. Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning. The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world. It seems that the distinction between weak and strong atheism as atheists use them here is a valid and existing one, and assertions to the contrary are flying in the face of the reality of actual usage as defined by the dictionaries here. I don't feel like posting the dozens of largely identical definitions I looked up.... More dictionaries available <a href="http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/afen.cgi" target="_blank">here</a> Vorkosigan [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

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

05-06-2002, 01:07 PM	#13
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	I see your point, Jeffrey, but I have to disagree. Politically and socially, it's a losing battle if we allow theists to define the terms by which we identify ourselves. The fact is that many of us who would be agnostics in common parlance self-identify as atheists. I don't see surrendering our right to self-identify as such as a meaningful step in winning recognition for the validity of the atheist stance. Further, "agnostic," as it used by the public, outside the nontheist community, generally implies a wishy-washy uncertainty. I don't see it furthering our ends to divide ourselves into the "radical" atheists and the nonthreatening wishy-washy agnostics. Atheism is threatening to the public. It is, in many ways, the last great Western taboo. We all want more respect for atheists, and we aren't going to get that by calling ourselves agnostics in public and hiding that nasty word, "atheism," safely in the closet. Rather, IMO, we need to encourage our own variant of "We're here! We're queer!" Finally, one of our major goals ought to be to educate the public regarding what, exactly, we do believe, or not believe, as the case may be. We can either point out misunderstandings when and where they occur or else we can, as you suggest, let those misunderstandings become truth , and redefine ourselves in accordance with them. I'm sorry if I come off a bit ranty. I'm in a foul mood. Oh, also, I don't really think this is an "Existence of God(s)" topic, but I'm not sure where to send it. Any suggestions? MRD maybe?

05-06-2002, 01:50 PM	#16
Kvalhion Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Southern CA Posts: 441	How many trolls have come onto the board and incorrectly asserted that atheism is the denial of the existence of God, then went on to make other illogical and invalid analogies based upon the original invalid assertion? In other words, accepting the position that atheists deny the existence of God would simply give fuel to irrational theists who believe they can use this to formulate reasons why we deny the existence of God, and usually spin it around to some rediculous argument like we really believe in God but hate him. I see no benefit whatsoever to give in to public misconceptions of atheism. The problem is theirs, not ours. If they cannot learn the proper context of the word atheist, how can we reasonably expect to move the discussion onwards with any level of coherency? The whole point of a logical argument is a solid foundation upon which it is built. Defining all atheists as denying a God's existence is not a solid foundation upon which to build arguments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.