Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 19:58:54 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. I agree with you but i still don't think atheist and agnostic people are the same. The argument that knowledge of god and belief in god makes one a theist otherwise he is an atheist is wrong IMO. I understand that there are changing definitions, and for now i am sticking to being a simple agnostic person.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 19:59:37 GMT
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. If you change "agnostic" to refer to "I'm not certain," then we've lost the term for "knowledge is not possible." Do we invent a new term for the view that knowledge about it isn't possible, then, or maybe call those folks "agnostic agnostic atheist agnostics" or something?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:00:09 GMT
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. I have no reasons that he would care about anything beyond my imagination and anthropomorphism (IE, projecting human concerns onto God). There's just as much evidence that he cares about duck haters than that he cares about faith and/or good deeds. There's really not even any evidence that he cares about us at all. When you're not making claims based on evidence or observation, you're only limited by your imagination, and I can imagine a God concerned with anything or with nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:01:48 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 Some people are even trying to deny the established terms in order to promote their own agenda. Amazing, really.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:02:16 GMT
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. If you change "agnostic" to refer to "I'm not certain," then we've lost the term for "knowledge is not possible." Do we invent a new term for the view that knowledge about it isn't possible, then, or maybe call those folks "agnostic agnostic atheist agnostics" or something? Again, the meaning of words change over time. I think the most common definition of "agnostic," the one most people mean when it's used, is someone who's not sure, not necessarily someone who claims knowledge of God is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:04:14 GMT
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. I agree with you but i still don't think atheist and agnostic people are the same. The argument that knowledge of god and belief in god makes one a theist otherwise he is an atheist is wrong IMO. I understand that there are changing definitions, and for now i am sticking to being a simple agnostic person. I wouldn't say they're same. It would really depend on what the person using the terms meant by them. Someone who identified as "agnostic" would probably just mean they weren't sure about God's existence. Someone who identified as "agnostic atheist" would probably mean they weren't sure about God's existence but were leaning towards disbelief. So it still just really comes down to what an individual actually thinks. The words are just (imperfect and often ambiguous) guides in communicating that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 20:05:17 GMT
If you change "agnostic" to refer to "I'm not certain," then we've lost the term for "knowledge is not possible." Do we invent a new term for the view that knowledge about it isn't possible, then, or maybe call those folks "agnostic agnostic atheist agnostics" or something? Again, the meaning of words change over time. I think the most common definition of "agnostic," the one most people mean when it's used, is someone who's not sure, not necessarily someone who claims knowledge of God is impossible. I wasn't asking you the question I asked rhetorically. What do you suggest we do for Huxley's idea, which was the conventional educated usage of the term "agnostic" for a long time. Invent a new term simply because a bunch of average Joes liked the term better for "I'm not certain"? (And also, would you suggest that we do the same for a term like "velocity," since the average Joe usage, which doesn't include direction, is far more common?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:13:18 GMT
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. I have no reasons that he would care about anything beyond my imagination and anthropomorphism (IE, projecting human concerns onto God). There's just as much evidence that he cares about duck haters than that he cares about faith and/or good deeds. There's really not even any evidence that he cares about us at all. When you're not making claims based on evidence or observation, you're only limited by your imagination, and I can imagine a God concerned with anything or with nothing. You are basing your premise on the assumption that religion is man made and it is from your atheist POV. What theists believe is that one of their religion is directly from god, and interestingly most of the religions require you to believe in their creator(s). I think there is something universal about having belief in god(s). People cite religions such as buddhism to prove that you can be an atheist and still follow a path, but even among there is no general consensus www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.htmlI guess if you say that God doesn't care if you believe in him or not. Then you would also presume that God doesn't care if you were good or evil, and there is no justice in this universe or the next one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:15:24 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 Some people are even trying to deny the established terms in order to promote their own agenda. Amazing, really. grammarist.com/usage/agnostic-atheist/I didn't create that site. Nor this one www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:16:19 GMT
Again, the meaning of words change over time. I think the most common definition of "agnostic," the one most people mean when it's used, is someone who's not sure, not necessarily someone who claims knowledge of God is impossible. I wasn't asking you the question I asked rhetorically. What do you suggest we do for Huxley's idea, which was the conventional educated usage of the term "agnostic" for a long time. Invent a new term simply because a bunch of average Joes liked the term better for "I'm not certain"? (And also, would you suggest that we do the same for a term like "velocity," since the average Joe usage, which doesn't include direction, is far more common?) Necessity is the mother of invention, so if there arises a need for the term to be used in that way then either someone will invent a new one or will use the old one and then probably have to clarify that's what they mean by it. Again, words do frequently carry the burden of multiple meanings, so it's not as if you can't have two different ones. You can often tell which someone means by the context of the discussion. If the discussion is about the historical and foundational knowledge of religion, or about science in which velocity is a factor, then you can reasonably infer they're using the older/scientific meanings of those words; while if you read them being used here, they're probably the more colloquial meanings. At least, I'd assume the colloquial meanings unless it became clear someone meant the older/technical meanings. Look, I do this all the time with a word like "rational" or "reason." I've (informally) studied rationality for years so I have a very robust understanding of what exactly is and isn't rationality. Yet when most people use the term I'm aware they probably have a very vague and fuzzy notion of these things perhaps formed in part by their sloppy usage on TV and elsewhere in life. So when they use the term I'm going to assume they mean the colloquial one rather than the robust technical one, and if I see the need to correct them somewhere along the way then I'll do that. But this whole mentality of turning words--which are really just communication signals--into battlegrounds is beyond silly and is contra the entire point of discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:16:22 GMT
I agree with you but i still don't think atheist and agnostic people are the same. The argument that knowledge of god and belief in god makes one a theist otherwise he is an atheist is wrong IMO. I understand that there are changing definitions, and for now i am sticking to being a simple agnostic person. I wouldn't say they're same. It would really depend on what the person using the terms meant by them. Someone who identified as "agnostic" would probably just mean they weren't sure about God's existence. Someone who identified as "agnostic atheist" would probably mean they weren't sure about God's existence but were leaning towards disbelief. So it still just really comes down to what an individual actually thinks. The words are just (imperfect and often ambiguous) guides in communicating that. I agree with you on everything there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:21:13 GMT
I didn't accuse you of starting it. You're just joining in with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:22:21 GMT
I didn't accuse you of starting it. You're just joining in with it. Thank God. I thought i was being witch hunted by atheists here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:23:59 GMT
I didn't accuse you of starting it. You're just joining in with it. Thank God. I thought i was being witch hunted by atheists here. Well that depends. Do you weigh the same as a duck?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:26:10 GMT
I have no reasons that he would care about anything beyond my imagination and anthropomorphism (IE, projecting human concerns onto God). There's just as much evidence that he cares about duck haters than that he cares about faith and/or good deeds. There's really not even any evidence that he cares about us at all. When you're not making claims based on evidence or observation, you're only limited by your imagination, and I can imagine a God concerned with anything or with nothing. You are basing your premise on the assumption that religion is man made and it is from your atheist POV. Firstly, some religions are certainly man-made unless you hold the position that all religions are correct even when they have completely contradicting views. Secondly, what I said wasn't based on that assumption. Even if God exists, there's no evidence that any religion has hit on the accurate vision of what God is or what God cares about. All they have are claims about it. Since we can't ask God directly in a completely unambiguous way (ie, in a way that rules out you aren't just talking to the voices in your head), all you can do is take their word for it; or even invent your own religion and make your own claims. I brought up Buddhism not as an example of a definitively atheist religion, but merely as a religion whose concerns are different than most Western religions. The link you posted verified this: "if you’re Buddhist... the end of suffering is more important than God." and that's all I meant, that it was a religion in which reaching heaven/nirvana wasn't about believing/disbelieving in God. That's just one example. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions out there making all kinds of different claims about what God is or cares about or what man should do in order to attain heaven/nirvana/paradise/whatever. I see no reason of being dishonest about your beliefs because you think God cares about such things. That just sounds like Belief in Belief: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:34:44 GMT
You are basing your premise on the assumption that religion is man made and it is from your atheist POV. Firstly, some religions are certainly man-made unless you hold the position that all religions are correct even when they have completely contradicting views. Secondly, what I said wasn't based on that assumption. Even if God exists, there's no evidence that any religion has hit on the accurate vision of what God is or what God cares about. All they have are claims about it. Since we can't ask God directly in a completely unambiguous way (ie, in a way that rules out you aren't just talking to the voices in your head), all you can do is take their word for it; or even invent your own religion and make your own claims. I brought up Buddhism not as an example of a definitively atheist religion, but merely as a religion whose concerns are different than most Western religions. The link you posted verified this: "if you’re Buddhist... the end of suffering is more important than God." and that's all I meant, that it was a religion in which reaching heaven/nirvana wasn't about believing/disbelieving in God. That's just one example. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions out there making all kinds of different claims about what God is or cares about or what man should do in order to attain heaven/nirvana/paradise/whatever. I see no reason of being dishonest about your beliefs because you think God cares about such things. That just sounds like Belief in Belief: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_beliefI admire your knowledge and your code of conduct is exemplary, unlike some people here. I love that rationalwiki site and i will spend lots of time reading up stuff there if possible.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 20:38:44 GMT
Firstly, some religions are certainly man-made unless you hold the position that all religions are correct even when they have completely contradicting views. Secondly, what I said wasn't based on that assumption. Even if God exists, there's no evidence that any religion has hit on the accurate vision of what God is or what God cares about. All they have are claims about it. Since we can't ask God directly in a completely unambiguous way (ie, in a way that rules out you aren't just talking to the voices in your head), all you can do is take their word for it; or even invent your own religion and make your own claims. I brought up Buddhism not as an example of a definitively atheist religion, but merely as a religion whose concerns are different than most Western religions. The link you posted verified this: "if you’re Buddhist... the end of suffering is more important than God." and that's all I meant, that it was a religion in which reaching heaven/nirvana wasn't about believing/disbelieving in God. That's just one example. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions out there making all kinds of different claims about what God is or cares about or what man should do in order to attain heaven/nirvana/paradise/whatever. I see no reason of being dishonest about your beliefs because you think God cares about such things. That just sounds like Belief in Belief: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_beliefI admire your knowledge and your code of conduct is exemplary, unlike some people here. I love that rationalwiki site and i will spend lots of time reading up stuff there if possible. Another good article on the idea of "belief in belief" is here: lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:39:49 GMT
I admire your knowledge and your code of conduct is exemplary, unlike some people here. I love that rationalwiki site and i will spend lots of time reading up stuff there if possible. Another good article on the idea of "belief in belief" is here: lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ Thanks
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 5, 2017 21:15:31 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." JD I thought you believed there is no correct definitions?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 21:24:34 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." JD I thought you believed there is no correct definitions? I didn't say anything about correct definitions above.
|
|