agnostic vs. atheist

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?

According to my (Chambers) dictionary, only those who hold oopsies or daisies sacred would, I suppose, consider it "blasphemy" (another word on the way to the scrapheap due to an implied theistic content).

Choose the vernacular you wish for these toe stubbing situations, let it be free of g-words...

Originally posted by whodey
Then by my definition there are no true atheists?

There probably are some just as there are true theists. It is possible to believe even irrational things. You for example are probably 100% sure that God exists (I am just guessing here so correct me if I am wrong) but you do not have proof, just enough evidence to convince you to a certain percentage, the rest is irrational belief. There are however lots of theists who have doubts (even a 0.00000001% doubt) and they would more properly be called agnostic by your definition.

It is for this reason that Richard Dawkins in his book suggests that anyone who is say over 90% sure that there is no God should be called athiest and anyone who is over 90% sure that there is a God should be called theist and everyone in between is agnostic. (I dont have the book with me so I dont know if that was the exact percentages but I am sure you get the idea).

Originally posted by whodey
Then by my definition there are no true atheists?

If I told you I find the word "God" utterly meaningless, would you label me an atheist?

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
If I told you I find the word "God" utterly meaningless, would you label me an atheist?

I would label you a rather ignorant person. Surely you have at least looked up its meaning in the dictionary and also know what most people mean by it when they use it? In fact you would hardly be taking part in this discussion if you didn't have at least some idea of its meaning.
Or am I misunderstanding you altogether? Are you asking about people who simply have never heard the concept at all such as young children or people brought up where such concepts are not common?

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
If I told you I find the word "God" utterly meaningless, would you label me an atheist?

I believe the term is "God-phobic". But I think that is for another discussion altogether.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would label you a rather ignorant person. Surely you have at least looked up its meaning in the dictionary and also know what most people mean by it when they use it? In fact you would hardly be taking part in this discussion if you didn't have at least some idea of its meaning.
Or am I misunderstanding you altogether? Are you asking about people who s ...[text shortened]... concept at all such as young children or people brought up where such concepts are not common?

I hope you are misunderstanding me...

If I rephrased:

"After a lifetime of searching, discussion, questioning, even to the extent that I understand other people's ideas when they use the word, I can assign no personal meaning or relevance to the word so that it is utterly meaningless to me."

This may be different to someone who has never been exposed to those ideas.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
"After a lifetime of searching, discussion, questioning, even to the extent that I understand other people's ideas when they use the word, I can assign no personal meaning or relevance to the word so that it is utterly meaningless to me."

I think I get it now. You know perfectly well what pink unicorns are but do not have any particular interest in them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I get it now. You know perfectly well what pink unicorns are but do not have any particular interest in them.

Not only does he not have an interest in them, he does not so much as want to hear the word pink unicorn!! It is more of an aversion than a lack of interest.

Originally posted by whodey
Not only does he not have an interest in them, he does not so much as want to hear the word pink unicorn!!

Fairly close.

I would contend that pink unicorns have no existence outside the words used to express them. Therefore the consistent A-pinkunicorn-ist position is to describe reality in words that do not have any obvious, hidden or implied pinkunicornist meanings, rather than assume the language of the pinkunicornist and apply a series of negatives to it.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
Fairly close.

I would contend that pink unicorns have no existence outside the words used to express them. Therefore the consistent A-pinkunicorn-ist position is to describe reality in words that do not have any obvious, hidden or implied pinkunicornist meanings, rather than assume the language of the pinkunicornist and apply a series of negatives to it.

Although I fully understand your aversion to being called an A-pinkunicorn-ist, I disagree with your stance that the words pink unicorn hold no meaning or that they do not affect you even when a bunch of pink unicornists burn down your house.
Although we all agree that pink unicorns do not exist and that anyone who believe they will be regarded as a lunatic by all of us, if enough people start believing that they do exist then rather than simply sending all believers to an insane asylum we should consider investigating why they believe it. (lead in the drinking water maybe?)

Originally posted by whodey
My definition of an atheist is someone who thinks they are 100% sure that God does not exist. Conversly, an agnostic is not 100% sure.

Depending upon what "God" is, I would often be an agnostic under your definition.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
According to my (Chambers) dictionary, only those who hold oopsies or daisies sacred would, I suppose, consider it "blasphemy" (another word on the way to the scrapheap due to an implied theistic content).

Choose the vernacular you wish for these toe stubbing situations, let it be free of g-words...

...another word on the way to the scrapheap due to an implied theistic content...

I find myself coming to that decision more and more...

BTW, I am scrapping “bedrock” (as an unfortunate choice) in favor of “conscious but pre-conceptual existential experience.” 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Which is better?

I had a girlfriend once who was decidedly atheist (due to her mother dying at a young age). The very idea of God was so absurd to her, there was no question you were "losing it" if you even considered the possibility that a God (in any form) might exist. It's difficult to explain. A godless universe was such a perfectly accepted fact in her household, that the subject itself (God) wasn't even taboo. Other peoples' belief in God were treated sympathetically, as tragic, rather than with the slightest consideration. God was an illusion concocted by and for neurotic humans in order to comfort and control the masses. Period. Unquestioningly so. For her and her family the universe was empty and devoid of meaning, nothing more significant than a senselessly curling fractal, or the artless branching of embryonic ice. Her mother used to be a Christian, and was so on her death bed, but after she died, my girlfriend's father and her two sisters all became atheists absolutely. They were all incredibly intelligent people, and I think their intelligence coupled with the emotional aspect of losing the matriarch of their family, really sealed the deal as far as atheism goes. With such people, yes, you could broach the subject, but you could never press them to admit that God might exist; they would disengage from you long before you managed to get that far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Although I fully understand your aversion to being called an A-pinkunicorn-ist, I disagree with your stance that the words pink unicorn hold no meaning or that they do not affect you even when a bunch of pink unicornists burn down your house.
Although we all agree that pink unicorns do not exist and that anyone who believe they will be regarded as a luna ...[text shortened]... asylum we should consider investigating why they believe it. (lead in the drinking water maybe?)

Actually, I don't agree with many of the assumptions in your post.
I do not see a link between being a Theist and a lunatic per se.

I also do not agree that human culture is coming from a general position of atheism with a few deviating Theists but very much the other way around.
Our language and culture is dripping with reference to God. Our language describes our reality and it is my contention that a consistent atheist approach is to say

1. God exists only in language (ie the word does not refer to anything real)
2. The only way to get rid of God is to remove the word and all related words.

I suspect that 2. is only achieveable amongst atheists at present, but if a groundswell develops it will be possible to live in a society where there are no implied references to God in words such as blaspheme, creation et al. Even Epiphanehas girlfriend's family have found this difficult, if indeed it bothered them at all.

I also think that there is a perfectly reasonable atheist position which says

Notwithstanding the non existence of God:-

1. The word personalises the highest ideals for humanity, social cohesion and so on.
2. Religious practice, tradition and ritual has a purpose, deeply embedded in our culture, and is not really about sustaining irrational beliefs in the mythology at all.
3. Performing these rituals, reinforcing a moral code or providing a vehicle for charitable works, is not inconsistent with the non existentence of God, in fact, I am being more honest by unpicking it all from the mythology.

Thus it is quite possible for an atheist to sit in (some) churches quite unhypocritically, alongside people who hold almost the opposite beliefs. I have met British Quakers for example, who hold such views...Quaker humanism/universalism it's called.

I think my view is a that the second position above is part of a transition phase, where people in traditional faith systems see something useful there, but question the underlying mythology. I see the work cited in Epiphanehas "Space and Spirit" thread as another example of this trend, although he sees it as biblically sound, and as usual is explaining why in a well thought out fashion.

My posts have nothing to do with phobias or aversions. I am just saying to express an atheist reality using the language of theism is inconsistent.

I am not an expert on linguistic philosophy more of an occasional lay reader, but most writers, Theists and Atheists alike, recognise the power of language.

Originally posted by vistesd
BTW, I am scrapping “bedrock” (as an unfortunate choice) in favor of “conscious but pre-conceptual existential experience.” 😉

A-ha! 😀