re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists? - Page 4

MarkCorrigan · 3rd February 2023, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.
.

Because it's stupid.

I am neither a stamp collector, nor a non stamp collector.
I am neither white, nor non white.
I am neither human, nor am I not human.
See what I mean?

If you believe in god, irrespective of how strongly you hold the belief or what specific form said belief takes you are a theist. If you do not believe in god you are an atheist.

Leumas · 3rd February 2023, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

....
I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.

I do not.

Well... that explains a lot of the fallacies in your posts.... foremost of which is not reading posts before assuming an imagined strawman in them.... thanks for clarifying that.

Do you know what -(1) + -(-1) equals???

When you figure it out... that is how much logic there is in your above ... and previous... posts.

QED!!!

Myriad · 3rd February 2023, 02:19 PM

Like it or not, the concepts that form the atheist-theist-gnostic-agnostic space are fundamentally based on beliefs.

I'm one of a tiny minority that regards beliefs an incidental aspect of religion, rather than the be-all and end-all. This contradicts basic tenets of many major established religions (see for instance John 11: 24-25) so the standard view is understandable, but it was not always so. It appears for instance that the Roman pagans didn't really care what the early Christians did or didn't believe, as long as they participated in the mandatory ritual sacrifices to the state gods, an essentially political act. (Of course the Christians didn't want to, because of what they believed). Given that few people act as if they truly believe much of what they profess to believe, and it becomes clear that belief alone gives at best an incomplete picture of how people interact with religious narratives.

Ask adults why they put up pictures or statues of Santa Claus at Christmastime, of course they won't say it's because they believe Santa Claus exists. If pressed for an explanation some will say it's for children's amusement, some will say it's just a tradition for them, some might even say they believe in something that Santa Claus "represents." Religious narratives and practices can persist for a long time on those things alone. And future archaeologists who dug up our shopping malls would conclude with some certainty that we do all "believe" in Santa Claus (and Iron Man and Darth Vader).

The problem is, one can't drag terminology defined around belief into intellectual territory that downplays the significance of belief, without causing confusion. In their own mind someone might prefer to think "I'm not a theist because I believe that God is a completely natural universal intelligence that pervades the universe rather than a magic bearded guy on a throne who issues commandments, but I'm also not an atheist because I participate in worship services and find benefit in them," but that's actually misusing both terms as they're currently defined. It's also an understandable reaction to other equally wrong usages one might be challenged with by others, such as: "I've seen you in Church so you're not really an atheist;" or "You don't believe in Jesus so you're an atheist." But all those wrongs don't add up to a right; they just generate confusion.

What you can do is reject the belief questions:

"Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?"

"I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful."

But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.

Leumas · 3rd February 2023, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

...
they will get the same response from me as they would from the scarecrow.

Well said... you are perfectly correct indeed.... because the scarecrow does not and cannot read posts either.

Just in closing.... are you agnostic about fairy-godmothers too? Why not? And why the Special Pleading for a deadbeat absentee sky daddy?

LarryS · 3rd February 2023, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

What you can do is reject the belief questions:

"Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?"

"I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful."

But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.

Likewise, I don't ask folks wether they believe in God, nor do answer this question when asked.
Firstly, anybody can believe (or not believe) anything, it doesn't take any wit, intelligence or commitment to believe in God (or General Theory of Relativity).
Secondly, if there happens to be a God, and its possible to have a relationship with God, this relationship won't be based upon believing in God yes or no. That's not how reality works - relationships in reality are based on honest qualities\quantities - ie my relationship with gravity is based on mass not belief.
If I were a religious folk (believer) I'd view beliefs as descriptions of a goal. and not the goal itself.

Leumas · 3rd February 2023, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by LarryS

Originally Posted by Myriad

What you can do is reject the belief questions:

"Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?"

"I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful."

But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.

Likewise, I don't ask folks wether they believe in God, nor do answer this question when asked.
Firstly, anybody can believe (or not believe) anything, it doesn't take any wit, intelligence or commitment to believe in God (or General Theory of Relativity).
Secondly, if there happens to be a God, and its possible to have a relationship with God, this relationship won't be based upon believing in God yes or no. That's not how reality works - relationships in reality are based on honest qualities\quantities - ie my relationship with gravity is based on mass not belief.
If I were a religious folk (believer) I'd view beliefs as descriptions of a goal. and not the goal itself.

Almost all "god" thumpers... and the ones who are not sure how much thumping to do... for their version of the delusions that have been devised by humanity all along the annals of human perfidy and gullibility, are 100% sure that all the other delusions of all other humans, whether contemporary or throughout history... are fakes.

Only their version is the real one... or if they are not 100% sure about their inculcated and indoctrinated version... they are more than sure the others are 100% fake.

Ask anyone of the self-proclaimed agnostics whether they are agnostic about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira... they will give you a chortle or a snigger... no matter how agnostic they claim to be... even if they follow it with a "yes" just so that they do not expose the extent of hypocrisy and special pleading they are fallaciously engaging in.

"An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

smartcooky · 4th February 2023, 12:39 AM

Looking at the direction this thread has taken, I thought this might be relevant... Sir Humphrey Appleby explaining the Church of England to the Prime Minister....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(I have always found the program this excerpt is taken from to contain large elements of truth!)
.
.

Lithrael · 4th February 2023, 07:36 AM

Shockingly relevant to the thread:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxeT8-0gb...abUSsEJ9mV8_Ap

Leumas · 4th February 2023, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Looking at the direction this thread has taken, I thought this might be relevant... Sir Humphrey Appleby explaining the Church of England to the Prime Minister....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUSTKisEgTo

Thanks for that clip...🙏🙏👏👏👌👌

Perfect fit...

Originally Posted by smartcooky

(I have always found the program this excerpt is taken from to contain large elements of truth!)

Yes... both the "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" series were superb TV.

Excellent clip... thanks so much.

"The Queen is very essential for the Anglican Church... God... well ... he is an optional extra"

Leumas · 4th February 2023, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Shockingly relevant to the thread:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxeT8-0gb...abUSsEJ9mV8_Ap

Yes... very relevant.

Navigator · 4th February 2023, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

What you can do is reject the belief questions:

"Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?"

"I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful."

But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.

Atheism appears to have built into the current definition, an acceptance rather than a rejection of belief questions.

The fact that atheism includes the word 'theism' this would suggest that the very label has already established atheism as something which accepts the belief questions, even before we get to the widely accepted definition of atheism.

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. By its nature, atheism involves taking a stance on belief questions about the existence of a god or gods, as it is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. This can be seen as accepting the belief question, as the word atheism suggests that it is a response to theism.

HansMustermann · 5th February 2023, 01:36 AM

Maybe. But deducing anything from word pieces is beyond nonsensical. Sweetmeats aren't meat, and sweetbread isn't bread. A parkway is not where you park. A fanboy isn't necessarily a kid. A seahorse isn't a horse. A WW2 wolfpack didn't actually consist of wolves. Etc.

Wudang · 5th February 2023, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

What you can do is reject the belief questions:

"Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?"

"I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful."

But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.

Not quite a perfect fit but : https://apatheticagnostic.com/
Motto "We don't know and we don't care."

Wudang · 5th February 2023, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods.

Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti".

smartcooky · 5th February 2023, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism

Wrong!

the prefix "a" in this case means "non" or "without" NOT "opposed to" or "against". Other examples...

amoral
atypical
achromatic
asexual

Someone like me, who opposes theism is called an anti-theist

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

The definition of atheism simply states that it is the lack of belief in gods, and does not make any mention of the sentience or capability of the individual holding that belief. This has led to the interpretation that the definition could apply to non-sentient entities or beings, including babies. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be necessary to clarify the definition to specify that it only applies to sentient beings capable of holding beliefs.

Is the word "amoral" problematic because it implies that rocks are without morality? How about "apolitical"? Rocks definitely don't have political leanings. How are we going to avoid the confusion of people misconstruing "apolitical" as including rocks and salamanders?

Quote:

The current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues.

A source of confusion and debate for whom? Most of us seem to understand perfectly well that it refers to a person who doesn't believe in gods. What is so hard about that?

Quote:

The definition only addresses the lack of belief in gods or deities, but not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of belief.

And the definition of "apolitical" only addresses the lack of political opinions of a person, not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of politics.

Quote:

The definition does not account for the range of beliefs and perspectives that individuals may hold within the broad category of atheism, such as agnosticism, humanism, or antitheism.

Just like "apolitical" doesn't tell us whether someone is simply uninterested in politics, or has a seething hatred for all things political.

Gee, if only we had more words available to us to discuss the complexities of why someone doesn't believe in gods - words that would further clarify the epistemology of individual atheistic positions. It's so limiting to have so few words within language, and therefore be forced to rely on a single word to carry so much nuance and complexity. If only there were some means of graphically conveying a number of connected thoughts - a sort of para graphic arrangement of multiple words. Then we couldn't delve deeper into the varieties of, say, atheism by clarifying subcategories within that generic definition using a variety of words.

Quote:

The definition does not clearly distinguish between the lack of belief in gods or deities and the lack of belief in other supernatural or paranormal claims, such as ghosts, spirits, or UFO's.

Yes, it does. The word "theos" doesn't mean "any sort of woo belief from UFOs to fairies to gods". It just means "gods".

Quote:

The definition does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which atheism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept.

"Apolitical" does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which apoliticism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept.

I'm going to stop here. All you're doing is trying to construct a straw man that you can impose on atheists by complaining that the generic term "atheism", which describes the lack of a certain set of beliefs, doesn't imply what you are trying to force on atheists regarding the "cultural, historical or social" basis of their atheism. You're desperately trying to lump all atheists into a single category that is congruent with the straw man that you want to defeat. You want "atheist" to specifically define what you want it to mean for your own convenience. But no one here is going to agree to any definition beyond "someone who lacks belief in gods". You aren't going to describe all the details of various kinds of atheism with one word. You're going to have to recognize that there are many subtypes of atheism, and that most of them bear no resemblance to the straw man you defeated in your head prior to starting this thread.

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Atheism appears to have built into the current definition, an acceptance rather than a rejection of belief questions.

The fact that atheism includes the word 'theism' this would suggest that the very label has already established atheism as something which accepts the belief questions, even before we get to the widely accepted definition of atheism.

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. By its nature, atheism involves taking a stance on belief questions about the existence of a god or gods, as it is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. This can be seen as accepting the belief question, as the word atheism suggests that it is a response to theism.

What a huge, steaming pile of sophistry! What are you going to name it?

As others have already noted, the prefix a- doesn't mean "opposed to", it means "not" or "without". If someone says he's apolitical, it doesn't automatically mean that he's against politics. And amusingly enough, most followers of Abrahamic religions are actually antitheistic to every god other than YHWH.

It's so clear that you're just clumsily trying to turn this into a "you're just an atheist because you hate God" argument.

Navigator · 5th February 2023, 01:45 PM

Quote:

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Wrong!

No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong.

Quote:

the prefix "a" in this case means "non" or "without" NOT "opposed to" or "against". Other examples...

amoral
atypical
achromatic
asexual

Even this is also correct. Neither of us are incorrect.

Quote:

Someone like me, who opposes theism is called an anti-theist

Correct. There was no need for you to write that your position was "anti-theist atheist" in order for the reader to clearly understand your position.

While "absent" and "lacking" have similar meanings, they are not exactly the same. "Absent" often connotes physical absence, while "lacking" often connotes a deficiency or absence of a quality or attribute. When used to describe belief in gods, both words can effectively convey the idea that someone does not have such a belief, but "lacking" may carry a stronger connotation of deficiency or absence of a quality.

If we are both correct, this would suggest that the definition of atheism requires adjusting.

Thus to clarify, if the definition of atheism was expanded to read along the lines of "Lacking belief and/or absence of belief in gods" this should help lessen any confusion with the position.

Navigator · 5th February 2023, 01:52 PM

Quote:

The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti".

That being the case, we could understand why Antitheism is a stand alone position, rather than a sub-category of a-theism.

Now we can examine why it is or is not necessary to treat Agnosticism as if it were a sub-category of A-theism...

It is unnecessary to call oneself an "Agnostic Atheist."

Agnosticism and atheism are separate positions, although they are often discussed in relation to each other. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of gods cannot be known or is unknowable, while atheism is the lack of belief in gods. One can be an agnostic without being an atheist, and one can be an atheist without being an agnostic. Calling oneself an "Agnostic Atheist" is a redundancy, as agnosticism and atheism address different questions about belief in gods.

Navigator · 5th February 2023, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Maybe. But deducing anything from word pieces is beyond nonsensical. Sweetmeats aren't meat, and sweetbread isn't bread. A parkway is not where you park. A fanboy isn't necessarily a kid. A seahorse isn't a horse. A WW2 wolfpack didn't actually consist of wolves. Etc.

Yes, you are correct. Words can be misleading and their meanings can evolve over time, making it important to consider context and usage rather than relying solely on etymology. This is particularly true for complex concepts like atheism and agnosticism, which involve personal beliefs and attitudes. It's also worth noting that words can have multiple meanings and interpretations, and that etymology can provide useful background information but is not always determinative of a word's current definition and usage.

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong.

You mean your personal definition, that you made up to fit your own rhetorical needs. You can call your writing desk a raven all you want, but don't think anyone else is obligated to do the same.

Quote:

Even this is also correct. Neither of us are incorrect.

But you are attempting to redefine atheism as "opposed to" or "against", so you are wrong. Someone can be an atheist and an antitheist at the same time, but not all atheists are antitheistic. In fact, someone could be a theist and an antitheist at the same time, as long as they both believe in and oppose at least one god. The prefix "a-" has never formally meant "opposed to" or "against". Like I said, someone can be apolitical simply because they find politics uninteresting. It doesn't necessarily follow that they hate politics and anyone associated with it.

Quote:

Correct. There was no need for you to write that your position was "anti-theist atheist" in order for the reader to clearly understand your position.

Actually, there was a need if his intent was to clarify his position beyond "having no belief in gods", just like saying "I'm an apolitical revolutionary anarchist" distinguishes one from an apolitical person who simply finds politics boring, but doesn't object to others finding it interesting.

Quote:

While "absent" and "lacking" have similar meanings, they are not exactly the same. "Absent" often connotes physical absence, while "lacking" often connotes a deficiency or absence of a quality or attribute. When used to describe belief in gods, both words can effectively convey the idea that someone does not have such a belief, but "lacking" may carry a stronger connotation of deficiency or absence of a quality.

This is more ******** sophistry and I'm calling you on it.

Quote:

If we are both correct, this would suggest that the definition of atheism requires adjusting.

But you're not correct, and you don't get to "win" by telling atheist what they believe.

Thus to clarify, if the definition of atheism was expanded to read along the lines of "Lacking belief and/or absence of belief in gods" this should help lessen any confusion with the position.[/quote]
Can you stop equivocating and just get to the point where you use semantic games to imply that atheism is officially defined as a "deficiency"?

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Words can be misleading...

Especially when someone tries to redefine them to mean something that others don't intend in order to misrepresent their position regarding some issue.

Leumas · 5th February 2023, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Yes, you are correct. Words can be misleading and their meanings can evolve over time, making it important to consider context and usage rather than relying solely on etymology. This is particularly true for complex concepts like atheism and agnosticism

It is only "complex" for ones who want to obfuscate and befuddle and inveigle and beguile...

For the ones who can fathom sociology and anthropology and biology and chemistry and economics and politics and psychology... and... foremost of all... history... it is a as simple as this

"An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Originally Posted by Navigator

, which involve personal beliefs and attitudes. ....

Well.... let me demonstrate how simple it is... ask the below questions to anyone you know are agnostics.... and observe what rationalizations they might finagle.

What is their personal belief... are they agnostics about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira???

Are they agnostic about Leprechauns and Elves and Fairy God Mothers????

If they are... then ... ah... well...

If not... then ask one more question... why the special pleading for the absentee deadbeat sky daddy they were inculcated and indoctrinated and acculturated and brainwashed into believing???

.

junkshop · 5th February 2023, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Is the word "amoral" problematic because it implies that rocks are without morality? How about "apolitical"? Rocks definitely don't have political leanings. How are we going to avoid the confusion of people misconstruing "apolitical" as including rocks and salamanders?...

Note that the OP also has a thread running wherein they argue that the planet Earth may be sentient.

Rocks with opinions about stuff is not that much of a stretch from there.

Steve · 5th February 2023, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by junkshop

Note that the OP also has a thread running wherein they argue that the planet Earth may be sentient.

Rocks with opinions about stuff is not that much of a stretch from there.

Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods?

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods?

Who's to say? But they do tend to vote for conservative candidates.

Leumas · 5th February 2023, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Who's to say? But they do tend to vote for conservative candidates.

No... no.... rocks ... even ones at the bottom of cesspools... are infinitely less sordid and less imbecilic and less wretched than Republican voters and Christian Nationalists and other such scum.

Jack by the hedge · 5th February 2023, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods?

They think they're really gneiss.

sackett · 5th February 2023, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

They think they're really gneiss.

Ban this man.

Steve · 5th February 2023, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

Ban this man.

Seconded!

Leumas · 5th February 2023, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

Ban this man.

Originally Posted by Steve

Seconded!

... I hope... really hope... that you guys are just joking about this...

Foster Zygote · 5th February 2023, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

They think they're really gneiss.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

smartcooky · 5th February 2023, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong.

Yes, you are! Completely, utterly wrong!

There is NO definition of "atheist" from any credible source in which the word defines a person who opposes theism. An atheist is ever and always someone who does not believe that gods exist - and if you manage to find a source that says otherwise, it is wrong too.

The correct term for what YOU are calling atheism, is antitheism

The Oxford English Dictionary

Atheist: A person who does not believe that God or gods exist

Antitheist: A person who is opposed to belief in the existence of a god

smartcooky · 5th February 2023, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

They think they're really gneiss.

No schist!!

HansMustermann · 5th February 2023, 11:29 PM

Also for whoever it wasn't clear, both antitheism and the polar opposite faith-in-faith argument don't really have anything to do with believing in a god per se, nor with an 'argument from ignorance' or anything. Both deal with the (supposed) benefits or disadvantages of said belief, rather than whether gods actually exist. It's yet another orthogonal axis.

Leumas · 5th February 2023, 11:42 PM

The last few words uttered by Hitchens are of immense relevance to this thread.... especially in 2023

"We have to grow up out of this stuff you know" -- Christopher Hitchens

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Wudang · 6th February 2023, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less."

Gulliver Foyle · 6th February 2023, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti".

And "anti" does not mean opposed to. For example the Greek island Antikytheia is not the enemy of the Greek island Kytheria, it's just the next island over.

Navigator · 6th February 2023, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Someone like me, who opposes theism is called an anti-theist

Quote:

Correct. There was no need for you to write that your position was "anti-theist atheist" in order for the reader to clearly understand your position.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There is NO definition of "atheist" from any credible source in which the word defines a person who opposes theism. An atheist is ever and always someone who does not believe that gods exist - and if you manage to find a source that says otherwise, it is wrong too.

I have using the definition of atheism as "lacking belief in gods". Many think that this is the correct definition and I have seen folk who refer to themselves as atheist, use that definition. Are you saying that definition is incorrect?

Quote:

The correct term for what YOU are calling atheism, is antitheism

Nope. Clearly I have been saying that antitheism and agnosticism should be recognized as stand-alone positions, rather than subsets of atheism.

Quote:

The Oxford English Dictionary

Atheist: A person who does not believe that God or gods exist

Antitheist: A person who is opposed to belief in the existence of a god

The Oxford English Dictionary

Agnostic: A person who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not

Three distinct stand-alone positions.

Mashuna · 6th February 2023, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Three distinct stand-alone positions.

Have you been introduced to Venn diagrams? They would be useful in this situation, I think.

3rd February 2023, 11:24 AM	#121
MarkCorrigan ¡No pasarán! Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Слава Україні Posts: 11,475	Originally Posted by Navigator I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that. . Because it's stupid. I am neither a stamp collector, nor a non stamp collector. I am neither white, nor non white. I am neither human, nor am I not human. See what I mean? If you believe in god, irrespective of how strongly you hold the belief or what specific form said belief takes you are a theist. If you do not believe in god you are an atheist.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara

3rd February 2023, 12:02 PM	#122
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Navigator .... I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that. I do not. Well... that explains a lot of the fallacies in your posts.... foremost of which is not reading posts before assuming an imagined strawman in them.... thanks for clarifying that. Do you know what -(1) + -(-1) equals??? When you figure it out... that is how much logic there is in your above ... and previous... posts. QED!!!
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

3rd February 2023, 02:19 PM	#123
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 20,004	Like it or not, the concepts that form the atheist-theist-gnostic-agnostic space are fundamentally based on beliefs. I'm one of a tiny minority that regards beliefs an incidental aspect of religion, rather than the be-all and end-all. This contradicts basic tenets of many major established religions (see for instance John 11: 24-25) so the standard view is understandable, but it was not always so. It appears for instance that the Roman pagans didn't really care what the early Christians did or didn't believe, as long as they participated in the mandatory ritual sacrifices to the state gods, an essentially political act. (Of course the Christians didn't want to, because of what they believed). Given that few people act as if they truly believe much of what they profess to believe, and it becomes clear that belief alone gives at best an incomplete picture of how people interact with religious narratives. Ask adults why they put up pictures or statues of Santa Claus at Christmastime, of course they won't say it's because they believe Santa Claus exists. If pressed for an explanation some will say it's for children's amusement, some will say it's just a tradition for them, some might even say they believe in something that Santa Claus "represents." Religious narratives and practices can persist for a long time on those things alone. And future archaeologists who dug up our shopping malls would conclude with some certainty that we do all "believe" in Santa Claus (and Iron Man and Darth Vader). The problem is, one can't drag terminology defined around belief into intellectual territory that downplays the significance of belief, without causing confusion. In their own mind someone might prefer to think "I'm not a theist because I believe that God is a completely natural universal intelligence that pervades the universe rather than a magic bearded guy on a throne who issues commandments, but I'm also not an atheist because I participate in worship services and find benefit in them," but that's actually misusing both terms as they're currently defined. It's also an understandable reaction to other equally wrong usages one might be challenged with by others, such as: "I've seen you in Church so you're not really an atheist;" or "You don't believe in Jesus so you're an atheist." But all those wrongs don't add up to a right; they just generate confusion. What you can do is reject the belief questions: "Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?" "I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful." But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

3rd February 2023, 05:45 PM	#124
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Navigator ... they will get the same response from me as they would from the scarecrow. Well said... you are perfectly correct indeed.... because the scarecrow does not and cannot read posts either. Just in closing.... are you agnostic about fairy-godmothers too? Why not? And why the Special Pleading for a deadbeat absentee sky daddy?
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Last edited by Leumas; 3rd February 2023 at 06:05 PM.

3rd February 2023, 08:22 PM	#125
LarryS Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,346	Originally Posted by Myriad What you can do is reject the belief questions: "Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?" "I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful." But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up. Likewise, I don't ask folks wether they believe in God, nor do answer this question when asked. Firstly, anybody can believe (or not believe) anything, it doesn't take any wit, intelligence or commitment to believe in God (or General Theory of Relativity). Secondly, if there happens to be a God, and its possible to have a relationship with God, this relationship won't be based upon believing in God yes or no. That's not how reality works - relationships in reality are based on honest qualities\quantities - ie my relationship with gravity is based on mass not belief. If I were a religious folk (believer) I'd view beliefs as descriptions of a goal. and not the goal itself.
LarryS Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,346

3rd February 2023, 09:32 PM	#126
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by LarryS Originally Posted by Myriad What you can do is reject the belief questions: "Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?" "I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful." But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up. Likewise, I don't ask folks wether they believe in God, nor do answer this question when asked. Firstly, anybody can believe (or not believe) anything, it doesn't take any wit, intelligence or commitment to believe in God (or General Theory of Relativity). Secondly, if there happens to be a God, and its possible to have a relationship with God, this relationship won't be based upon believing in God yes or no. That's not how reality works - relationships in reality are based on honest qualities\quantities - ie my relationship with gravity is based on mass not belief. If I were a religious folk (believer) I'd view beliefs as descriptions of a goal. and not the goal itself. Almost all "god" thumpers... and the ones who are not sure how much thumping to do... for their version of the delusions that have been devised by humanity all along the annals of human perfidy and gullibility, are 100% sure that all the other delusions of all other humans, whether contemporary or throughout history... are fakes. Only their version is the real one... or if they are not 100% sure about their inculcated and indoctrinated version... they are more than sure the others are 100% fake. Ask anyone of the self-proclaimed agnostics whether they are agnostic about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira... they will give you a chortle or a snigger... no matter how agnostic they claim to be... even if they follow it with a "yes" just so that they do not expose the extent of hypocrisy and special pleading they are fallaciously engaging in. "An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Last edited by Leumas; 3rd February 2023 at 09:33 PM.

4th February 2023, 07:36 AM	#128
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,461	Shockingly relevant to the thread: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxeT8-0gb...abUSsEJ9mV8_Ap
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,461

4th February 2023, 01:53 PM	#129
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by smartcooky Looking at the direction this thread has taken, I thought this might be relevant... Sir Humphrey Appleby explaining the Church of England to the Prime Minister.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUSTKisEgTo Thanks for that clip...🙏🙏👏👏👌👌 Perfect fit... Originally Posted by smartcooky (I have always found the program this excerpt is taken from to contain large elements of truth!) Yes... both the "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" series were superb TV. Excellent clip... thanks so much. "The Queen is very essential for the Anglican Church... God... well ... he is an optional extra"
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Last edited by Leumas; 4th February 2023 at 01:58 PM.

4th February 2023, 01:55 PM	#130
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Lithrael Shockingly relevant to the thread: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxeT8-0gb...abUSsEJ9mV8_Ap Yes... very relevant.
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

4th February 2023, 07:13 PM	#131
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	Originally Posted by Myriad What you can do is reject the belief questions: "Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?" "I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful." But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up. Atheism appears to have built into the current definition, an acceptance rather than a rejection of belief questions. The fact that atheism includes the word 'theism' this would suggest that the very label has already established atheism as something which accepts the belief questions, even before we get to the widely accepted definition of atheism. The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. By its nature, atheism involves taking a stance on belief questions about the existence of a god or gods, as it is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. This can be seen as accepting the belief question, as the word atheism suggests that it is a response to theism.
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	__________________ Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator Atheism is not skepticism Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

5th February 2023, 01:36 AM	#132
HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 21,526	Maybe. But deducing anything from word pieces is beyond nonsensical. Sweetmeats aren't meat, and sweetbread isn't bread. A parkway is not where you park. A fanboy isn't necessarily a kid. A seahorse isn't a horse. A WW2 wolfpack didn't actually consist of wolves. Etc.
	__________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

5th February 2023, 04:03 AM	#133
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 15,323	Originally Posted by Myriad What you can do is reject the belief questions: "Do you believe in a god or gods? And why or why not?" "I don't take a position on those questions because I don't regard questions of belief as meaningful." But as far as I know, that answer doesn't currently have a name. That's not what agnosticism is. It's not what antitheism is. It's not what any currently known variety of neutralism is. It's not what nontheism is. It's not what ignosticism is. If you know a name for it, let me know. Otherwise you're welcome to make one up. Not quite a perfect fit but : https://apatheticagnostic.com/ Motto "We don't know and we don't care."
	__________________ "Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

5th February 2023, 04:07 AM	#134
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 15,323	Originally Posted by Navigator The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti".
	__________________ "Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

5th February 2023, 04:44 AM	#135
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by Navigator The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism Wrong! the prefix "a" in this case means "non" or "without" NOT "opposed to" or "against". Other examples... amoral atypical achromatic asexual Someone like me, who opposes theism is called an anti-theist
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

5th February 2023, 08:32 AM	#136
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 20,510	Originally Posted by Navigator The definition of atheism simply states that it is the lack of belief in gods, and does not make any mention of the sentience or capability of the individual holding that belief. This has led to the interpretation that the definition could apply to non-sentient entities or beings, including babies. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be necessary to clarify the definition to specify that it only applies to sentient beings capable of holding beliefs. Is the word "amoral" problematic because it implies that rocks are without morality? How about "apolitical"? Rocks definitely don't have political leanings. How are we going to avoid the confusion of people misconstruing "apolitical" as including rocks and salamanders? Quote: The current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues. A source of confusion and debate for whom? Most of us seem to understand perfectly well that it refers to a person who doesn't believe in gods. What is so hard about that? Quote: The definition only addresses the lack of belief in gods or deities, but not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of belief. And the definition of "apolitical" only addresses the lack of political opinions of a person, not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of politics. Quote: The definition does not account for the range of beliefs and perspectives that individuals may hold within the broad category of atheism, such as agnosticism, humanism, or antitheism. Just like "apolitical" doesn't tell us whether someone is simply uninterested in politics, or has a seething hatred for all things political. Gee, if only we had more words available to us to discuss the complexities of why someone doesn't believe in gods - words that would further clarify the epistemology of individual atheistic positions. It's so limiting to have so few words within language, and therefore be forced to rely on a single word to carry so much nuance and complexity. If only there were some means of graphically conveying a number of connected thoughts - a sort of para graphic arrangement of multiple words. Then we couldn't delve deeper into the varieties of, say, atheism by clarifying subcategories within that generic definition using a variety of words. Quote: The definition does not clearly distinguish between the lack of belief in gods or deities and the lack of belief in other supernatural or paranormal claims, such as ghosts, spirits, or UFO's. Yes, it does. The word "theos" doesn't mean "any sort of woo belief from UFOs to fairies to gods". It just means "gods". Quote: The definition does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which atheism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept. "Apolitical" does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which apoliticism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept. I'm going to stop here. All you're doing is trying to construct a straw man that you can impose on atheists by complaining that the generic term "atheism", which describes the lack of a certain set of beliefs, doesn't imply what you are trying to force on atheists regarding the "cultural, historical or social" basis of their atheism. You're desperately trying to lump all atheists into a single category that is congruent with the straw man that you want to defeat. You want "atheist" to specifically define what you want it to mean for your own convenience. But no one here is going to agree to any definition beyond "someone who lacks belief in gods". You aren't going to describe all the details of various kinds of atheism with one word. You're going to have to recognize that there are many subtypes of atheism, and that most of them bear no resemblance to the straw man you defeated in your head prior to starting this thread.
	__________________ Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

5th February 2023, 08:42 AM	#137
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 20,510	Originally Posted by Navigator Atheism appears to have built into the current definition, an acceptance rather than a rejection of belief questions. The fact that atheism includes the word 'theism' this would suggest that the very label has already established atheism as something which accepts the belief questions, even before we get to the widely accepted definition of atheism. The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. By its nature, atheism involves taking a stance on belief questions about the existence of a god or gods, as it is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. This can be seen as accepting the belief question, as the word atheism suggests that it is a response to theism. What a huge, steaming pile of sophistry! What are you going to name it? As others have already noted, the prefix a- doesn't mean "opposed to", it means "not" or "without". If someone says he's apolitical, it doesn't automatically mean that he's against politics. And amusingly enough, most followers of Abrahamic religions are actually antitheistic to every god other than YHWH. It's so clear that you're just clumsily trying to turn this into a "you're just an atheist because you hate God" argument.
	__________________ Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

5th February 2023, 01:45 PM	#138
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	Quote: The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism Originally Posted by smartcooky Wrong! No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong. Quote: the prefix "a" in this case means "non" or "without" NOT "opposed to" or "against". Other examples... amoral atypical achromatic asexual Even this is also correct. Neither of us are incorrect. Quote: Someone like me, who opposes theism is called an anti-theist Correct. There was no need for you to write that your position was "anti-theist atheist" in order for the reader to clearly understand your position. While "absent" and "lacking" have similar meanings, they are not exactly the same. "Absent" often connotes physical absence, while "lacking" often connotes a deficiency or absence of a quality or attribute. When used to describe belief in gods, both words can effectively convey the idea that someone does not have such a belief, but "lacking" may carry a stronger connotation of deficiency or absence of a quality. If we are both correct, this would suggest that the definition of atheism requires adjusting. Thus to clarify, if the definition of atheism was expanded to read along the lines of "Lacking belief and/or absence of belief in gods" this should help lessen any confusion with the position.
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	__________________ Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator Atheism is not skepticism Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

5th February 2023, 01:52 PM	#139
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	Quote: The etymology of the word "atheism" implies that it is in opposition to theism, which is the belief in a god or gods. Originally Posted by Wudang Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti". That being the case, we could understand why Antitheism is a stand alone position, rather than a sub-category of a-theism. Now we can examine why it is or is not necessary to treat Agnosticism as if it were a sub-category of A-theism... It is unnecessary to call oneself an "Agnostic Atheist." Agnosticism and atheism are separate positions, although they are often discussed in relation to each other. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of gods cannot be known or is unknowable, while atheism is the lack of belief in gods. One can be an agnostic without being an atheist, and one can be an atheist without being an agnostic. Calling oneself an "Agnostic Atheist" is a redundancy, as agnosticism and atheism address different questions about belief in gods.
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	__________________ Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator Atheism is not skepticism Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

5th February 2023, 01:54 PM	#140
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Maybe. But deducing anything from word pieces is beyond nonsensical. Sweetmeats aren't meat, and sweetbread isn't bread. A parkway is not where you park. A fanboy isn't necessarily a kid. A seahorse isn't a horse. A WW2 wolfpack didn't actually consist of wolves. Etc. Yes, you are correct. Words can be misleading and their meanings can evolve over time, making it important to consider context and usage rather than relying solely on etymology. This is particularly true for complex concepts like atheism and agnosticism, which involve personal beliefs and attitudes. It's also worth noting that words can have multiple meanings and interpretations, and that etymology can provide useful background information but is not always determinative of a word's current definition and usage.
Navigator Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,808	__________________ Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator Atheism is not skepticism Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

5th February 2023, 02:24 PM	#141
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 20,510	Originally Posted by Navigator No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong. You mean your personal definition, that you made up to fit your own rhetorical needs. You can call your writing desk a raven all you want, but don't think anyone else is obligated to do the same. Quote: Even this is also correct. Neither of us are incorrect. But you are attempting to redefine atheism as "opposed to" or "against", so you are wrong. Someone can be an atheist and an antitheist at the same time, but not all atheists are antitheistic. In fact, someone could be a theist and an antitheist at the same time, as long as they both believe in and oppose at least one god. The prefix "a-" has never formally meant "opposed to" or "against". Like I said, someone can be apolitical simply because they find politics uninteresting. It doesn't necessarily follow that they hate politics and anyone associated with it. Quote: Correct. There was no need for you to write that your position was "anti-theist atheist" in order for the reader to clearly understand your position. Actually, there was a need if his intent was to clarify his position beyond "having no belief in gods", just like saying "I'm an apolitical revolutionary anarchist" distinguishes one from an apolitical person who simply finds politics boring, but doesn't object to others finding it interesting. Quote: While "absent" and "lacking" have similar meanings, they are not exactly the same. "Absent" often connotes physical absence, while "lacking" often connotes a deficiency or absence of a quality or attribute. When used to describe belief in gods, both words can effectively convey the idea that someone does not have such a belief, but "lacking" may carry a stronger connotation of deficiency or absence of a quality. This is more ******** sophistry and I'm calling you on it. Quote: If we are both correct, this would suggest that the definition of atheism requires adjusting. But you're not correct, and you don't get to "win" by telling atheist what they believe. Thus to clarify, if the definition of atheism was expanded to read along the lines of "Lacking belief and/or absence of belief in gods" this should help lessen any confusion with the position.[/quote] Can you stop equivocating and just get to the point where you use semantic games to imply that atheism is officially defined as a "deficiency"?
	__________________ Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

5th February 2023, 02:28 PM	#142
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 20,510	Originally Posted by Navigator Words can be misleading... Especially when someone tries to redefine them to mean something that others don't intend in order to misrepresent their position regarding some issue.
	__________________ Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

5th February 2023, 02:29 PM	#143
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Navigator Yes, you are correct. Words can be misleading and their meanings can evolve over time, making it important to consider context and usage rather than relying solely on etymology. This is particularly true for complex concepts like atheism and agnosticism It is only "complex" for ones who want to obfuscate and befuddle and inveigle and beguile... For the ones who can fathom sociology and anthropology and biology and chemistry and economics and politics and psychology... and... foremost of all... history... it is a as simple as this "An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins Originally Posted by Navigator , which involve personal beliefs and attitudes. .... Well.... let me demonstrate how simple it is... ask the below questions to anyone you know are agnostics.... and observe what rationalizations they might finagle. What is their personal belief... are they agnostics about Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu or Altjira??? Are they agnostic about Leprechauns and Elves and Fairy God Mothers???? If they are... then ... ah... well... If not... then ask one more question... why the special pleading for the absentee deadbeat sky daddy they were inculcated and indoctrinated and acculturated and brainwashed into believing??? .
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Last edited by Leumas; 5th February 2023 at 02:41 PM.

5th February 2023, 03:40 PM	#144
junkshop Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: in the kitchen Posts: 1,536	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Is the word "amoral" problematic because it implies that rocks are without morality? How about "apolitical"? Rocks definitely don't have political leanings. How are we going to avoid the confusion of people misconstruing "apolitical" as including rocks and salamanders?... Note that the OP also has a thread running wherein they argue that the planet Earth may be sentient. Rocks with opinions about stuff is not that much of a stretch from there.
	__________________ Hobbyist receipt-keeper and fake cockney Dick Van Dyke cosplayer.

5th February 2023, 03:52 PM	#145
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,215	Originally Posted by junkshop Note that the OP also has a thread running wherein they argue that the planet Earth may be sentient. Rocks with opinions about stuff is not that much of a stretch from there. Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods?
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

5th February 2023, 04:09 PM	#146
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 20,510	Originally Posted by Steve Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods? Who's to say? But they do tend to vote for conservative candidates.
	__________________ Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

5th February 2023, 04:17 PM	#147
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Who's to say? But they do tend to vote for conservative candidates. No... no.... rocks ... even ones at the bottom of cesspools... are infinitely less sordid and less imbecilic and less wretched than Republican voters and Christian Nationalists and other such scum.
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

5th February 2023, 04:48 PM	#148
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 14,429	Originally Posted by Steve Has the OP told us what the rocks think about gods? They think they're really gneiss.

5th February 2023, 04:50 PM	#149
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 8,315	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge They think they're really gneiss. Ban this man.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

5th February 2023, 04:54 PM	#150
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,215	Originally Posted by sackett Ban this man. Seconded!
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

5th February 2023, 05:41 PM	#151
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by sackett Ban this man. Originally Posted by Steve Seconded! ... I hope... really hope... that you guys are just joking about this...
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 7,010	__________________ Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

5th February 2023, 08:27 PM	#153
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by Navigator No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong. Yes, you are! Completely, utterly wrong! There is NO definition of "atheist" from any credible source in which the word defines a person who opposes theism. An atheist is ever and always someone who does not believe that gods exist - and if you manage to find a source that says otherwise, it is wrong too. The correct term for what YOU are calling atheism, is antitheism The Oxford English Dictionary Atheist: A person who does not believe that God or gods exist Antitheist: A person who is opposed to belief in the existence of a god
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

5th February 2023, 08:28 PM	#154
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge They think they're really gneiss. No schist!!
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

5th February 2023, 11:29 PM	#155
HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 21,526	Also for whoever it wasn't clear, both antitheism and the polar opposite faith-in-faith argument don't really have anything to do with believing in a god per se, nor with an 'argument from ignorance' or anything. Both deal with the (supposed) benefits or disadvantages of said belief, rather than whether gods actually exist. It's yet another orthogonal axis.
	__________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

6th February 2023, 02:45 AM	#157
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 15,323	Originally Posted by Navigator No. Given the present definition of atheism. I am not wrong. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less."
	__________________ "Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

6th February 2023, 03:14 AM	#158
Gulliver Foyle Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cork baaaiii Posts: 1,320	Originally Posted by Wudang Simply wrong. The "a" prefix denotes "without" not "anti". And "anti" does not mean opposed to. For example the Greek island Antikytheia is not the enemy of the Greek island Kytheria, it's just the next island over.