Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:25:54 GMT
What is the updated definition of atheism nowadays? One who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Put it this way : if somebody says to you "Do you believe god exists?" and you truthfully answer "Yes", you are a theist. If you truthfully answer with anything else, you are an atheist.No. I can say "I don't know" and that makes me an agnostic. I refuse to be classified as an atheist, in case i get fried in hell for denying Divine Grace and Providence
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:31:09 GMT
The way one can be both is by not understanding the conventional definitions of the two terms.
Agnosticism is the view that knowledge as to whether gods exist is not possible in principle for some set of reasons.
Atheism is of course the view that gods do not exist.
It's incoherent to be an atheist who holds that knowledge as to whether gods exist is not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:35:59 GMT
What is the updated definition of atheism nowadays? One who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Put it this way : if somebody says to you "Do you believe god exists?" and you truthfully answer "Yes", you are a theist. If you truthfully answer with anything else, you are an atheist. Atheists who have considered the question are limited to those who answer "No."
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:38:32 GMT
In Greek "a" is the "negation prefix."
A-theists are negating theism. They're negating belief in god(s). They're saying "There is no god" rather than "There is a god."
A-gnostics are negating knowledge (about gods). They're saying "There is no knowledge about god" rather than "there is knowledge about god."
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:40:03 GMT
One who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Put it this way : if somebody says to you "Do you believe god exists?" and you truthfully answer "Yes", you are a theist. If you truthfully answer with anything else, you are an atheist.No. I can say "I don't know" and that makes me an agnostic. I refuse to be classified as an atheist, in case i get fried in hell for denying Divine Grace and ProvidenceI don't think God would let you off on a semantic technicality. Besides, there's no reason to think that God is concerned with you believing in him over anything else, like being a morally good person, or whether or not you like ducks. Maybe hell is reserved for the duck haters out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:40:22 GMT
One who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Put it this way : if somebody says to you "Do you believe god exists?" and you truthfully answer "Yes", you are a theist. If you truthfully answer with anything else, you are an atheist.No. I can say "I don't know" and that makes me an agnostic. If you say "you don't know" then you're saying one of two things, neither of them good. Either you're saying "I don't know if god exists or not". In which case you're demonstrating some basic linguistic incomprehension, since the question wasn't about what you knew but what you believe. Or you're saying you don't know if you believe in god or not, in which case... well, it makes you look like lack basic self awareness. But then at least your persona would be a well chosen one, so there's that. A man with no hair can refuse to be classified as bald if he likes. It really doesn't alter the fact that he is, in reality, bald. He's just not being honest about it. What makes you think you'd be fried in hell for that? Maybe you'll be fried in hell for refusing to be honest about yourself instead.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:42:18 GMT
In Greek "a" is the "negation prefix." A-theists are negating theism. They're negating belief in god(s). They're saying "There is no god" rather than "There is a god." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacyIn any case, denying a belief in theism does not necessitate claiming that theism is necessarily false. That's not how beliefs work. I can reject theism and think it's probably false without declaring that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:43:53 GMT
In Greek "a" is the "negation prefix." A-theists are negating theism. They're negating belief in god(s). They're saying "There is no god" rather than "There is a god." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacyIn any case, denying a belief in theism does not necessitate claiming that theism is necessarily false. That's not how beliefs work. I can reject theism and think it's probably false without declaring that it is. If you think that "there's probably not a god" you're not an atheist, except in newspeak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:44:07 GMT
No. I can say "I don't know" and that makes me an agnostic. I refuse to be classified as an atheist, in case i get fried in hell for denying Divine Grace and ProvidenceI don't think God would let you off on a semantic technicality. Besides, there's no reason to think that God is concerned with you believing in him over anything else, like being a morally good person, or whether or not you like ducks. Maybe hell is reserved for the duck haters out there. If there is judgment day, i would at least be able to say "I didn't deny you! You showed me no concrete proof. You never met me and talked to me like you did with Moses"
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:45:29 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacyIn any case, denying a belief in theism does not necessitate claiming that theism is necessarily false. That's not how beliefs work. I can reject theism and think it's probably false without declaring that it is. If you think that "there's probably not a god" you're not an atheist, except in newspeak. See here: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/87513/thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:45:34 GMT
No. I can say "I don't know" and that makes me an agnostic. If you say "you don't know" then you're saying one of two things, neither of them good. Either you're saying "I don't know if god exists or not". In which case you're demonstrating some basic linguistic incomprehension, since the question wasn't about what you knew but what you believe. Or you're saying you don't know if you believe in god or not, in which case... well, it makes you look like lack basic self awareness. But then at least your persona would be a well chosen one, so there's that. A man with no hair can refuse to be classified as bald if he likes. It really doesn't alter the fact that he is, in reality, bald. He's just not being honest about it. What makes you think you'd be fried in hell for that? Maybe you'll be fried in hell for refusing to be honest about yourself instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:48:38 GMT
I think people are trying to change definitions and adding their own twists to the established terms. Case in point, terms like genderqueer and other nonsense in gender definition. Suddenly we have agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, theist atheists, nontheist atheists, softcore atheists, hardcore atheists, nihilist atheists, and million other terms that no one cares about
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:49:19 GMT
I don't think God would let you off on a semantic technicality. Besides, there's no reason to think that God is concerned with you believing in him over anything else, like being a morally good person, or whether or not you like ducks. Maybe hell is reserved for the duck haters out there. If there is judgment day, i would at least be able to say "I didn't deny you! You showed me no concrete proof. You never met me and talked to me like you did with Moses" But again, you have no reason to think he'd care about you denying him over any other possible concern. The notion that he would is just one of the many baseless claims out there that some religions make; many more don't make them. So why choose THAT to be concerned about over, say, what Buddhists say you should be concerned about? If God exists and I met him/her/it in the afterlife, I'd just calmly explained why/how I arrived at the belief I did. It's not my fault if God chose not to offer any unambiguous evidence and, in fact, to any stringent rationalist, chose to make it look as if they probably didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:49:56 GMT
That's fine, but Trump wanted to know how someone could be an "agnostic atheist." In my view, as I explained above, the only way someone can be an "agnostic atheist" is via not understanding the conventional (educated) definitions of the terms. Well, or by wanting to blur the conventional educated senses for some ulterior motive. Given that, I don't think that anyone calling themselves an "agnostic atheist" is helping anyone have any idea just what it is that they believe.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:52:33 GMT
I think people are trying to change definitions and adding their own twists to the established terms. Dictionaries are documents of usage, not dictators of meaning. Words/definitions inevitably change over time. This is a fact to anyone who's ever bothered to look up etymologies before, or studied old literature. That's why I said that arguing over definitions is stupid. Just care about what people believe, not what label to give them. If meanings/terms change it's often because societies and cultures change and language reflects that. Frankly, the "old" definitions of atheism/theism/agnostic are extremely limited and limiting to the range of what people actually believe.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:54:34 GMT
I think people are trying to change definitions and adding their own twists to the established terms. Case in point, terms like genderqueer and other nonsense in gender definition. Suddenly we have agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, theist atheists, nontheist atheists, softcore atheists, hardcore atheists, nihilist atheists, and million other terms that no one cares about Yeah, there does seem to be some parallel there with the tens of supposed gender designations there are now. I can see Eva's point of the important thing being understanding someone's beliefs (or dispositions or whatever). But the combinations of terms folks are coming up with move us further away from understanding what their beliefs or dispositions are.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:54:51 GMT
...the only way someone can be an "agnostic atheist" is via not understanding the conventional (educated) definitions of the terms. The meanings of words change over time and often hold numerous meanings at the same time. It's not acting "educated" to pretend as if they don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:55:46 GMT
If there is judgment day, i would at least be able to say "I didn't deny you! You showed me no concrete proof. You never met me and talked to me like you did with Moses" But again, you have no reason to think he'd care about you denying him over any other possible concern. The notion that he would is just one of the many baseless claims out there that some religions make; many more don't make them. So why choose THAT to be concerned about over, say, what Buddhists say you should be concerned about? If God exists and I met him/her/it in the afterlife, I'd just calmly explained why/how I arrived at the belief I did. It's not my fault if God chose not to offer any unambiguous evidence and, in fact, to any stringent rationalist, chose to make it look as if they probably didn't exist. What reasons do you have to think that he would not care? I think he would care about our good and bad deeds along with our faith.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 19:57:30 GMT
I think people are trying to change definitions and adding their own twists to the established terms. Case in point, terms like genderqueer and other nonsense in gender definition. Suddenly we have agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, theist atheists, nontheist atheists, softcore atheists, hardcore atheists, nihilist atheists, and million other terms that no one cares about But the combinations of terms folks are coming up with move us further away from understanding what their beliefs or dispositions are. Think of it like this: if I say I'm an "atheist" all that really tells you is I don't believe in God. If I say I'm an "agnostic atheist," you'd probably take that to mean that I don't believe in God, but I'm not certain that he doesn't exist. I don't know how you can claim that this hasn't moved your understanding of my belief forward. Now, it's still somewhat ambiguous because it doesn't tell you HOW sure I am, which is one reason I like Dawkins's probability scale posted above. We could be much more precise by eliminating the terms and just telling each other of how sure of God's (non-)existence we are.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:57:57 GMT
"I'm a plumber accountant project manager mechanic chemist"
|
|