Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing inherently wrong with changing definitions, as long as all are agreed on the new definition (or at least know what it is in a given context) so as to avoid miscommunication.

[b]please read my post quoting bertrand russell's view on atheism/agnosticism...
My understanding of "atheist" is "not having a positive belief in God". In th ...[text shortened]... m very sure he isn't there, yet I cannot prove it (also equivalent to a form of atheism).[/b]

Surely if a person can change the perceived definition of a word "as long as all are agreed" is definitely a nonsense given that their purpose is to describe a specific object/state/condition/philosophy etc. If someone wants to describe something else they need to come up a word for that new object/state/condition/philosophy etc other wise the thing that was originally being described would cease to exist, obviously on this type of forum we are concerned with intellectual/philosophical and metaphysical concepts. You can argue against the veracity of those concepts but you cannot just 'abbra cadabbra' them away as if by magic.

Originally posted by divegeester
How many atheists are there here who were at one time 'Christian' or brought up in a 'Christian environment'?

Any other transition is of interest too...

I transitioned from fundamentalist to... well, whatever it is I could be called at this point.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Surely if a person can change the perceived definition of a word "as long as all are agreed" is definitely a nonsense given that their purpose is to describe a specific object/state/condition/philosophy etc. If someone wants to describe something else they need to come up a word for that new object/state/condition/philosophy etc other wise the thing that w ...[text shortened]... he veracity of those concepts but you cannot just 'abbra cadabbra' them away as if by magic.

If someone wants to describe something else they need to come up a word for that new object/state/condition/philosophy etc other wise the thing that was originally being described would cease to exist, obviously on this type of forum we are concerned with intellectual/philosophical and metaphysical concepts.

The semantic relationship between theist and atheist has been compared to the one between numismatist and anumismatist. People who do not collect coins exist, despite not having an accepted dictionary a-word describing them.

But there is no anumismatists.org like there is a http://www.atheists.org/. I suppose if they are agreeable to the use of that word, I won't complain. But I'm not a member. Maybe that should be the distinction -- membership in an organization. Subscriber, even. Kinda like RHP? 🙂

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Surely if a person can change the perceived definition of a word "as long as all are agreed" is definitely a nonsense given that their purpose is to describe a specific object/state/condition/philosophy etc. If someone wants to describe something else they need to come up a word for that new object/state/condition/philosophy etc other wise the thing that w ...[text shortened]... he veracity of those concepts but you cannot just 'abbra cadabbra' them away as if by magic.

What nonsense. Words are just labels. They do not in themselves tell us anything about the object / concept they refer to. They can be changed as much as we like as long was we agree on the definitions. And no, if you change a word, its referent does not magically disappear. We are not required to always invent new words. Old words can be reused. And no, I do not want to abracadabra any concepts away.
I know what I mean when I call myself an atheist. If you want to understand me when I use the word, you must read my definition, not yours. And no, you cannot dictate what my definition is, nor what I mean when I use the word.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnostic ...[text shortened]...

I think you might be an evangelical athiest but I.m an agnostic so I cant be absolutely sure.

There are theists in the world. That much is for certain. And everyone who is not a theist is, by definition, an atheist. End of story. 'Agnostics' are simply people who have bought in to the lie that atheists claim to 'know' that god does not exist. It doesn't matter how unknowable you think any hypothetical gods may be. If you do not believe in them, for whatever reason, then you are not a theist, and therefore you are an atheist. You can qualify your atheism as 'agnostic atheism' if you live in fear of being lumped in with the 'hard atheist' bogeymen, but you're really wasting my time.

Originally posted by shorbock
What is nonsense is to decide to change the meaning of words because you decide so.

please read my post quoting bertrand russell's view on atheism/agnosticism...

I have no interest in your post. Atheism means to be without theism (a=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). It therefore automatically follows that everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. It matters not a whit what you, Bertrand Russell, or anyone else thinks.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have no interest in your post. Atheism means to be without theism (a=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). It therefore automatically follows that everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. It matters not a whit what you, Bertrand Russell, or anyone else thinks.

i have no doubt that you know better than bertrand russell, and i apologize for having disturbed your highness.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have no interest in your post. Atheism means to be without theism (a=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). It therefore automatically follows that everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. It matters not a whit what you, Bertrand Russell, or anyone else thinks.

it seems to me that russel recognized this concept and called himself an "agnostic" for philosophical discussions and an atheist as a general description.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
my mother was a catholic. she'd had bad experiences with nuns at her catholic school (mainly cruelty and violence) which put her off the church, but she was always a believer. my dad was protestant but never really went to church. ive always been an atheist that knows he should be an agnostic.

Then, there is hope for you yet !

Originally posted by twhitehead
What nonsense. Words are just labels. They do not in themselves tell us anything about the object / concept they refer to. They can be changed as much as we like as long was we agree on the definitions. And no, if you change a word, its referent does not magically disappear. We are not required to always invent new words. Old words can be reused. And no, ...[text shortened]... ot yours. And no, you cannot dictate what my definition is, nor what I mean when I use the word.

But what if the majority of us decide to cange the definition of athiest; surely you will have to call your concept something else I am simply saying that it would be simpler to label the revised concept of athiest something else from the start.
Dont get me wrong me my crew used to enjoy making up secret languages but we were only about 13 at the time.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are theists in the world. That much is for certain. And everyone who is not a theist is, by definition, an atheist. End of story. 'Agnostics' are simply people who have bought in to the lie that atheists claim to 'know' that god does not exist. It doesn't matter how unknowable you think any hypothetical gods may be. If you do not believe in them, for ...[text shortened]... f being lumped in with the 'hard atheist' bogeymen, but you're really wasting my time.

This is really interesting that athiests as well as thiests are both agressively opposed to agnostism. perhaps it opens complications and distractions that they find too unwieldy; you and your thiest pals can burble your incoherrent our way or the highway nonsense till your blue in the face us agnostics will keep searching whilst the two armed camps keep fighting over the same old ground.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
This is really interesting that athiests as well as thiests are both agressively opposed to agnostism. perhaps it opens complications and distractions that they find too unwieldy; you and your thiest pals can burble your incoherrent our way or the highway nonsense till your blue in the face us agnostics will keep searching whilst the two armed camps keep fighting over the same old ground.

The complication I have seen come up, is the notion that "I don't know" implies "It is possible" that deity exists.

Edit: I have seen this false implication drawn by both theists and atheists.

It does not imply that. Nor does it imply "It is not possible that deity exists." (Edit: Of course. It has no ontological implications, it is an epistemic statement about one's own mental state.)

Originally posted by kevcvs57
This is really interesting that athiests as well as thiests are both agressively opposed to agnostism. perhaps it opens complications and distractions that they find too unwieldy; you and your thiest pals can burble your incoherrent our way or the highway nonsense till your blue in the face us agnostics will keep searching whilst the two armed camps keep fighting over the same old ground.

Are you a theist? No? Then you're an atheist. Get used to it.

Originally posted by JS357
The complication I have seen come up, is the notion that "I don't know" implies "It is possible" that deity exists.

Edit: I have seen this false implication drawn by both theists and atheists.

It does not imply that. Nor does it imply "It is not possible that deity exists." (Edit: Of course. It has no ontological implications, it is an epistemic statement about one's own mental state.)

It is quite possible that a deity exists. There's no way to know. But as theists have consistently failed to demonstrate their case, it must be assumed that there are no deities.

Atheism is not a position in opposition to theism. It is the neutral starting ground from which theistic claims must be evaluated. If one finds the claim persuasive, then one becomes a theist. If one finds the claim lacking, the one remains an atheist. Atheism does not in any way necessitate the stance that theistic claims are false. It is only the observation that they are unworthy of belief and therefore should be provisionally treated as though they were false.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is quite possible that a deity exists. There's no way to know. But as theists have consistently failed to demonstrate their case, it must be assumed that there are no deities.

Atheism is not a position in opposition to theism. It is the neutral starting ground from which theistic claims must be evaluated. If one finds the claim persuasi ...[text shortened]... orthy of belief and therefore should be provisionally treated as though they were false.

I would disagree that the unconditional statement, "It is quite possible that a deity exists" should be accepted as true. It may be that you do not mean this statement unconditionally.

There is at least one condition I think is needed. It is to define the rules by which the statement would be accepted. For example, a rule could be that any purported beings whose existence does not entail logical possibility. will be accepted as possibly existent. This rule by itself might require theists to accept a large menagerie of possible gods, in order to get their god on the list.

I would not accept "I (or we, or you) do not know a deity does not exist" as sufficient reason to accept the statement that it possibly exists. Of course I would also not automatically conclude its existence is impossible, from such a statement.

In your statement "But as theists have consistently failed to demonstrate their case, it must be assumed that there are no deities" the rule seems to be something like, "If someone consistently fails to demonstrate their case, their case can be assumed to be false; and theists have consistently failed to demonstrate their case." I wonder about that rule. It seems like a number of mathematical conjectures have failed to be proved, over many years, but mathematicians do not hold this as sufficient reason to assume them false. But the mathematicians have an advantage in that no one is badgering them about the issue. 🙂 Their lesson for us is to say, "We'll await publication of the alleged proof."