|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 3:09:33 GMT
I merely gave one example of what it can mean. Just so that's clear.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 3:11:19 GMT
I merely gave one example of what it can mean. Just so that's clear. I don't know why you find that funny. So many in this thread seem positively appalled by the ridiculously common notion that words/terms mean slightly different things to different people.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 3:21:56 GMT
Just so that's clear. I don't know why you find that funny. So many in this thread seem positively appalled by the ridiculously common notion that words/terms mean slightly different things to different people. I'm only going to repeat this 50 times. I have not "ignored" the numerous colorful descriptions people might make. I have not under appreciated them. I understand better than you how they can be useful in communication. I'm just saying they are not "the" definition. They are not "any" definition at all if only one person subscribes to them. Even if 15 people had the same "definition" it wouldn't be much of one and you should respect the rest of the 510 million people who speak English.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 3:36:06 GMT
I don't know why you find that funny. So many in this thread seem positively appalled by the ridiculously common notion that words/terms mean slightly different things to different people. I'm just saying they are not "the" definition. Who. Cares. Do you think words change meaning over time by everyone in the world unanimously and simultaneously agreeing on the change, or do you think it probably starts out with small communities that spread over time? It isn't even as if you've polled the entire English speaking world and asked what they think the meaning of "agnostic atheist" is to begin with. You're just guessing based on your own limited experience.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2017 3:48:12 GMT
I'm just saying they are not "the" definition. Who. Cares. Do you think words change meaning over time by everyone in the world unanimously and simultaneously agreeing on the change, or do you think it probably starts out with small communities that spread over time? It isn't even as if you've polled the entire English speaking world and asked what they think the meaning of "agnostic atheist" is to begin with. You're just guessing based on your own limited experience. I have explained that you have no standard. Your "definition" cannot spread without a standard. Get a standard and good luck to you. My "limited" experience includes the facts that you continue to ignore. Get any labels you want. Call them winken, blinken and nod, I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 16:12:06 GMT
Who. Cares. Do you think words change meaning over time by everyone in the world unanimously and simultaneously agreeing on the change, or do you think it probably starts out with small communities that spread over time? It isn't even as if you've polled the entire English speaking world and asked what they think the meaning of "agnostic atheist" is to begin with. You're just guessing based on your own limited experience. I have explained that you have no standard. Your "definition" cannot spread without a standard. Get a standard and good luck to you. My "limited" experience includes the facts that you continue to ignore. Get any labels you want. Call them winken, blinken and nod, I don't care. This post basically boils down to "I admit I don't have a clue how language works and will continue to play the ostrich by sticking my head in the sand and believing that meanings are decided by world-wide committees." Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 7, 2017 16:21:47 GMT
We could take a Behaviorist approach: how would we expect an agnostic atheist to live her life differently than some other kind of atheist?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 16:33:16 GMT
We could take a Behaviorist approach: how would we expect an agnostic atheist to live her life differently than some other kind of atheist? I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 7, 2017 16:41:43 GMT
The amount of effort that is constantly argued over this semantic always astounds me.
I've heard of Gods, I don't believe in them. Call me whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 7, 2017 16:45:39 GMT
We could take a Behaviorist approach: how would we expect an agnostic atheist to live her life differently than some other kind of atheist? I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture. I wouldn't expect any behavioral difference either. But if "agnostic atheist" means anything there should be some be some detectable quality in someone that is labeled as such. Otherwise, why would anyone care about these words. I suppose that is your point!
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 16:53:43 GMT
I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture. I wouldn't expect any behavioral difference either. But if "agnostic atheist" means anything there should be some be some detectable quality in someone that is labeled as such. Otherwise, why would anyone care about these words. I suppose that is your point! On a board that primarily deals with what people believe (not really how they act), I'd say having words to accurately represent that belief is a concern.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 7, 2017 17:08:03 GMT
I wouldn't expect any behavioral difference either. But if "agnostic atheist" means anything there should be some be some detectable quality in someone that is labeled as such. Otherwise, why would anyone care about these words. I suppose that is your point! On a board that primarily deals with what people believe (not really how they act), I'd say having words to accurately represent that belief is a concern. Fair enough. So much for Behaviorist Christianity, atheism, or other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2017 17:10:55 GMT
I don't believe that gods exist, but I do not know whether they do or not. Therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. This isn't complicated. That's only how you identify yourself. It is not how others identify you. Plenty of others identify him that way too. In fact everyone who knows the meaning of those words does. Me included. Your refusal to use the correct definition of words is well known.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 7, 2017 17:11:58 GMT
You cant be both. Youre either one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 7, 2017 22:51:17 GMT
I read the first page, saw that there were a zillion more pages, jumped to the end and saw the same misunderstandings being rehashed.
Typically an atheist does NOT say there isn't a god. Generally, an atheist says, based on current evidence (or lack thereof), that he/she does not believe that there is a god. If legitimate proof of a god should arise tomorrow, an honest person would have no other choice but to believe. (So theism/atheism is a matter of belief).
Typically an agnostic says, I don't know if god exists or not. (Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge).
If you tell me that Bill Gates gave you $1M in cash and you anonymously donated it to your favorite charity, I would not believe you, but I wouldn't know for sure that the situation didn't happen.
You can be a gnostic-theist, gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, or agnostic-atheist.
I'm sure this has been stated numerous times on the numerous pages of this post.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 8, 2017 0:40:51 GMT
So on what logical basis are you rejecting my claim to be an agnostic atheist? I'm only going to repeat this 50 times. There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours. It might make sense to claim an intermediate point between two categories. That was what Eva Yojimbo took as the meaning, however even that still fails because there are no standards that describe which is a 6% atheist and which is a 44% percent atheist, therefore to the rest of us you are just an atheist whether it's 6%, 60% or 99%. There are also no standards of "gnosis" as I have repeated almost 50 times already. "There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours." Well it obviously discounts the former. IT could be either of the latter two, but so could simply "atheist" The addition of "agnostic" neither clarifies or obfuscates the meaning. You're basically just talking bollocks now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 2:07:52 GMT
You cant be both. Youre either one or the other. Yeah you can. I manage it effortlessly.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 8, 2017 7:31:47 GMT
You cant be both. Youre either one or the other. Yeah you can. I manage it effortlessly. Effortlessly indecisive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 12:18:12 GMT
Not at all. I am completely certain that I lack any belief in a god. And I am completely certain that I have no knowledge of a god.
Nothing indecisive about it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 8, 2017 13:01:02 GMT
I'm only going to repeat this 50 times. There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours. It might make sense to claim an intermediate point between two categories. That was what Eva Yojimbo took as the meaning, however even that still fails because there are no standards that describe which is a 6% atheist and which is a 44% percent atheist, therefore to the rest of us you are just an atheist whether it's 6%, 60% or 99%. There are also no standards of "gnosis" as I have repeated almost 50 times already. "There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours." Well it obviously discounts the former. IT could be either of the latter two, but so could simply "atheist" The addition of "agnostic" neither clarifies or obfuscates the meaning. You're basically just talking bollocks now. There are two different types of writing. News writing is distinctive from other writing in significant ways. When writing what is not the news you are encouraged to depend primarily on things from your own personal experience. You can create more interesting stories with more elaborate plots with more believable cohesion. News writing, especially political news writing, necessarily has considerably less regard for the individual outlook or individual worldview. It is more important to align with a common understanding, to fit events into that understanding. It is unusual for news writing to involve new definitions of anything although both types of writing can explore new terms. New terms require a clear standard. They cannot become widely used without identifying details the general public can recognize. Although writing that is not the news might introduce new words, that is generally not the goal. The goal is usually to develop more detailed characters.
|
|