Originally posted by SquelchbelchHere is your problem. And it is a problem common to all self-proclaimed agnostics:
Chambers also gives the principle definitions of:
Theist = the belief in the existence of God
Atheism as = the belief that there is no God
Agnostic = someone who believes that one can know only about material things and so believes that nothing can be known about the existence of God
I belong to the third category, not the second.
You see the theists on one side loudly proclaiming the positive knowledge claim that god exists. You see on the other side the atheists loudly proclaiming the positive knowledge claim that god does not exist. And you imagine the agnostics sitting smugly in the center loudly proclaiming their moral superiority for all the world to hear.
The problem is that this view is totally and utterly false.
There is only one claim in play, which is that of the theists. The theists are claiming that their claim for god is true and that it should be believed. The atheists are merely observing that the theist has not lived up to his burden of proof, that there is absolutely nothing to support their claim, and that by default it cannot be believed. Atheism is not an opposiing knowledge claim. It is the neutral starting ground from which theistic knowledge claims must be evaluated.
Originally posted by rwingettIt's impossible to have a discussion on this matter because you define Atheism & Agnosticism differently to how I have always defined them (& as seem to Chambers & Collins) which means we have no frame of reference.
DavidC is correct, you are dogmatically clinging to your pre-conceived notion of what atheism means. Until you can widen your scope of research beyond the narrow confines of your home dictionary, I'm afraid there's little I can do for you.
Please let me know when you publish your own dictionary which displaces these bastions of grammar. We can then have a meaningful debate.
Originally posted by NordlysOn the contrary. My notion is one that was reached only after years of extensive research. Squelchbelch's notion is the product of a single dictionary definition. Because I vigorously defend my position does not mean it's dogmatic.
And you equally dogmatically cling to your pre-conceived notion of what atheism means.
Originally posted by rwingettOk.
Here is your problem. And it is a problem common to all self-proclaimed agnostics:
You see the theists on one side loudly proclaiming the positive knowledge claim that god exists. You see on the other side the atheists loudly proclaiming the positive knowledge claim that god does not exist. And you imagine the agnostics sitting smugly in the center loudl ...[text shortened]... claim. It is the neutral starting ground from which theistic knowledge claims must be evaluated.
Here's as far as I'll go.
I maaaaaaaaaaaay be a weak Atheist as I think you are, as defined here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
But this is really splitting hairs & it's far more accessible for me & others around me to define my views as Agnostic.
Does this make sense to you?
Originally posted by rwingettIt's just a definition. Squelchbelch's definition seems to be a lot more common, at least it's the one I encountered in school, in discussions with others and in books. Of course that doesn't mean it's the one correct definition, but it means that if you talk about atheism, many people will think you are talking about the definition Squelchbelch is using. I think both definitions have their advantages, and both can be argued for linguistically. I don't care much which one you use, as long as it's clear which one is used. What I don't like is when people come and say that their definition is the only correct one.
On the contrary. My notion is one that was reached only after years of extensive research. Squelchbelch's notion is the product of a single dictionary definition. Because I vigorously defend my position does not mean it's dogmatic.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchYes. Perfect sense. Weak atheist is fine with me. Another term that is commonly used for the same thing is 'agnostic atheist.' So in the future when someone asks you what kind of atheist you are, you can say, "oh, an agnostic atheist, of course."
Ok.
Here's as far as I'll go.
I maaaaaaaaaaaay be a weak Atheist as I think you are, as defined here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
But this is really splitting hairs & it's far more accessible for me & others around me to define my views as Agnostic.
Does this make sense to you?
I notice that you got your reference from the agnostic/atheist site at about.com. My wife is a moderator on their forums. You should take a look sometime (at the forum, not my wife).
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysOf course Squelchbelch's definition is a lot more common. How many times have I gone through this identical series of posts on this forum? At least a dozen, I'd wager. But of course, as you point out, it doesn't make his definition the correct one. But to tell you the truth, the only part I really care about is to dispel the supposed notion that all atheists are making dogmatic knowledge claims about the non-existence of god. He can define agnosticism however he likes, but please refrain from painting all atheists with that broad brush. It just ain't so.
It's just a definition. Squelchbelch's definition seems to be a lot more common, at least it's the one I encountered in school, in discussions with others and in books. Of course that doesn't mean it's the one correct definition, but it means that if you talk about atheism, many people will think you are talking about the definition Squelchbelch is using. I I don't like is when people come and say that their definition is the only correct one.
edit: And as you can see, this series of posts has prompted Squelchbelch to search beyond his dictionary and stumble upon the term 'weak atheist.' So it has paid dividends already.
Originally posted by rwingettBecause I vigorously defend my position does not mean it's dogmatic.
On the contrary. My notion is one that was reached only after years of extensive research. Squelchbelch's notion is the product of a single dictionary definition. Because I vigorously defend my position does not mean it's dogmatic.
I agree. The fact that you defend your position doesn't make you dogmatic, per se, but rather it is the manner in which you defend your position which renders the label appropriate. To wit:
dogmatic:
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
I'd say that nicely sums up your position.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince when did the correct definition of a word, or concept, become an unprovable principle?
[b]Because I vigorously defend my position does not mean it's dogmatic.
I agree. The fact that you defend your position doesn't make you dogmatic, per se, but rather it is the manner in which you defend your position which renders the label appropriate. To wit:
dogmatic:
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
I'd say that nicely sums up your position.[/b]
Originally posted by shavixmirNot at all.
Let's settle this once and for all. Agnostics are the same sort of folk as the types that say: "Well, you know... maybe the holocaust deniers are right. Maybe they're not. You know? I'll just say it could go either way."
And there you have it. They're scum.
There's plenty of proof of the holocaust.
When you grow up you'll find that most aspects of life have a grey area.
Very little is black & white.
If only life were as simplistic as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHoh, that's rich. From anyone OTHER than you, it might be funny/sad. This way, it just seems...I dunno...like you might be headed for the Eigth Circle of Inferno. I'm just sayin', is all.
dogmatic:
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
I'd say that nicely sums up your position.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThat's the point! Atheism has nothing to offer. It's a negative. It give one no hope. It is therefore an illusion.
Under your worldview, about 2/3 of all people are going to suffer eternally.
Now [b]that's a true 'drag'.[/b]
Eternal life, on the other hand, is a positive. It has meaning. It is therefore very real indeed.