Agnosticism is Dishonesty

[Aught3]

Imo, Irkun you've misinterpreted the OEDs definition.

Here's their definition for atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods
And for atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods

A disbelief is not the same as a denial of the existence of gods, as you posted it is an inability or refusal to accept. If we take disbelief in the first sense we have atheism as an inability to accept the existence of gods. Sounds right to me.

Additionally, if you look back to the 18th century, when the term was first used as a positive label, in the writings of the irreligious you will find that atheism is always used to mean lacking a belief in gods and not an active denial in their existence. Ex: Baron d'Holbach "All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God."



Btw, let's keep things reasonable. There is no need to insult each other.

 

[lrkun]

Imo, Irkun you've misinterpreted the OEDs definition.

Here's their definition for atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods
And for atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods

A disbelief is not the same as a denial of the existence of gods, as you posted it is an inability or refusal to accept. If we take disbelief in the first sense we have atheism as an inability to accept the existence of gods. Sounds right to me.

Additionally, if you look back to the 18th century, when the term was first used as a positive label, in the writings of the irreligious you will find that atheism is always used to mean lacking a belief in gods and not an active denial in their existence. Ex: Baron d'Holbach "All children are atheists -- they have no idea of God."

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief -inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:


scenario 1
a. inability to accept that something is true
b. inability to accept the something is real

inability - the state of being unable to do something

unable - lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something


scenario 2
a. refusal to accept that something is true
b. refusal to accept that something is real

refusal - an act of refusing to do something

refusing - indicate or show that one is not willing to do something


-oOo-


Sorry man, if it were only the first sense, but there is also the scenario of the second sense. The first is correct, the second is correct. :lol:


With respect to your quote about the 18th century. You do realize that words change their meanings over time. The current definition with respect to the dictionary is what is accepted as of now.


Definitions are alive. <-- figure of speech.


-oOo-


If people keep using their desired definitions of what an atheist is or atheism, I'm sure that someday, the dictionary will change their own. It does update every 10 years.


-oOo-


I agree 100% there is no need to insult each other.


-oOo-


What is your view with respect to the thread starters position on agnosticism?

 

[Aught3]

atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief -inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:


scenario 1
a. inability to accept that something is true
b. inability to accept the something is real

inability - the state of being unable to do something

unable - lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something


scenario 2
a. refusal to accept that something is true
b. refusal to accept that something is real

refusal - an act of refusing to do something

refusing - indicate or show that one is not willing to do something


-oOo-


Sorry man, if it were only the first sense, but there is also the scenario of the second sense. The first is correct, the second is correct. :lol:

I have no problem with the second sense of disbelief either. A refusal to accept the existence of gods also sounds correct, I just took the first sense so I didn't have to repeat myself. Neither of these are denials of gods or beliefs that gods do not exist, they are an inability or refusal to take the positive belief stance that gods do exist.

And I agree that definitions do change, the historical argument is just another to add to our growing list that shows our definition of atheism is the right one

Also you didn't respond to the OED definition of atheist which clearly supports my position. So by my calculus we've got dictionary definiton, usage amongst atheists, historical precedent, and etymology. That's a pretty compelling case, wouldn't you say?

What is your view with respect to the thread starters position on agnosticism?

Well according to you agnosticism is defined as: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Additionally, "there is also the scenario of the second sense. The first is correct, the second is correct. :lol:" So I guess the OP is right and agnostics are asserting, without justification, that nothing is knowable about God.

 

[lrkun]

I have no problem with the second sense of disbelief either. A refusal to accept the existence of gods also sounds correct, I just took the first sense so I didn't have to repeat myself. Neither of these are denials of gods or beliefs that gods do not exist, they are an inability or refusal to take the positive belief stance that gods do exist.

And I agree that definitions do change, the historical argument is just another to add to our growing list that shows our definition of atheism is the right one

Also you didn't respond to the OED definition of atheist which clearly supports my position. So by my calculus we've got dictionary definiton, usage amongst atheists, historical precedent, and etymology. That's a pretty compelling case, wouldn't you say?

The latter is denial. The definitions I posted are from OED also. It means rejection of the existence of god is likewise an atheist's stance, which supports my position.

In a way, atheism supports two views. 1. inability 2. refusal. You adhere to the first, but not to the second which rejects the existence of god.

Well according to you agnosticism is defined as: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Additionally, "there is also the scenario of the second sense. The first is correct, the second is correct. :lol:" So I guess the OP is right and agnostics are asserting, without justification, that nothing is knowable about God.

So agnosticism is dishonest according to you.

agnosticism - likewise has two scenarios. 1. nothing is known 2. nothing can be known. The first scenario is something that I agree with. The second one, I find distasteful or dishonest.

-oOo-

Of course, this something one has to keep in mind when dealing with things like this, which I think applies to me as well as anybody else who reads this thread or any of the topics in this forum.

No evidence is powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is emotionally distasteful. , Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[Fictionarious]

There are no "real" or "permanent" definitions. There are only individually relevant meanings. Even (especially) dictionaries understand this. Their authors understand that they are incomplete compilations of meanings always in flux, always in need of updates, revisions and new editions.
Give up on crusading in defense of pre-formed meanings that are so clear and internally consistent with the rest of your conceptual system that they beg to be preached about or replicated in the minds of others. Just speak plainly. Use words, but don't let yourself be used by them. Mean something in your thoughts, and speak your meaning; don't care how they will be, have been, or should be abbreviated. Then listen to the responses of your audience (every audience, every time you choose to speak), and infer whether the words you have selected to convey your meaning are doing so accurately. If they are not, do not use them as bludgeons. Do not attempt to change your audience to be in accord with your words, change your words to be in accord with your audience.

These are the thoughts that occurred to me as I read the posts in this thread.

 

[Aught3]

The latter is denial. The definitions I posted are from OED also. It means rejection of the existence of god is likewise an atheist's stance, which supports my position.

In a way, atheism supports two views. 1. inability 2. refusal. You adhere to the first, but not to the second which rejects the existence of god.

The OED is not saying atheism is a refusal of gods (which doesn't quite make sense) but a refusal to accept the existence of gods. The distinction is subtle but important. Also I agree with Fictionarious, words do change their meanings it's only important to be clear in your communication. Still, I enjoy the discussion so bully to him! :lol:

I'm not sure I would call agnosticism dishonest, I just think it's a softly-softly way of calling oneself an atheist. Or it's a way of saying gods are unknowable and I don't know how those kind of agnostics know that.

No evidence is powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is emotionally distasteful. , Theodosius Dobzhansky

A quote that is four words too long. I find I am quite disappointed he said this considering his famous quote about evolution. I've certainly had my mind changed by evidence even when the conclusion was emotionally distasteful and I'm sure many others can testify to the same end. I do accept there are some people who will put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to the evidence, but I would hope not to be engaged in discussion with such a person.

 

[lrkun]

There are no "real" or "permanent" definitions. There are only individually relevant meanings. Even (especially) dictionaries understand this. Their authors understand that they are incomplete compilations of meanings always in flux, always in need of updates, revisions and new editions.
Give up on crusading in defense of pre-formed meanings that are so clear and internally consistent with the rest of your conceptual system that they beg to be preached about or replicated in the minds of others. Just speak plainly. Use words, but don't let yourself be used by them. Mean something in your thoughts, and speak your meaning; don't care how they will be, have been, or should be abbreviated. Then listen to the responses of your audience (every audience, every time you choose to speak), and infer whether the words you have selected to convey your meaning are doing so accurately. If they are not, do not use them as bludgeons. Do not attempt to change your audience to be in accord with your words, change your words to be in accord with your audience.

These are the thoughts that occurred to me as I read the posts in this thread.

You know, you've persuaded me to see things differently with this reply. It's a very meaningful post. Thanks.

 

[lrkun]

The latter is denial. The definitions I posted are from OED also. It means rejection of the existence of god is likewise an atheist's stance, which supports my position.

In a way, atheism supports two views. 1. inability 2. refusal. You adhere to the first, but not to the second which rejects the existence of god.

The OED is not saying atheism is a refusal of gods (which doesn't quite make sense) but a refusal to accept the existence of gods. The distinction is subtle but important. Also I agree with Fictionarious, words do change their meanings it's only important to be clear in your communication. Still, I enjoy the discussion so bully to him! :lol:

I'm not sure I would call agnosticism dishonest, I just think it's a softly-softly way of calling oneself an atheist. Or it's a way of saying gods are unknowable and I don't know how those kind of agnostics know that.

No evidence is powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is emotionally distasteful. , Theodosius Dobzhansky

A quote that is four words too long. I find I am quite disappointed he said this considering his famous quote about evolution. I've certainly had my mind changed by evidence even when the conclusion was emotionally distasteful and I'm sure many others can testify to the same end. I do accept there are some people who will put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to the evidence, but I would hope not to be engaged in discussion with such a person.

1. I can respect that.

2. TD thinks that people are unwilling to believe the evidence, because it's emotionally distasteful. Ex. Creationists: Your origin, a man made in the image of GOD or monkey?

 

[theatheistguy]

1. I don't agree with you, but I can respect your opinion.

This is not a response to the question, "What arguments have they given you for their definitions?" perhaps you could answer it.

2. Your position is correct if we use your definition as the standard. However, I use the dictionary, because I don't wish to confuse people with respect to the definition of how it is used in general.

You don't have to confuse people, just clarify what you mean, but the fact is that beyond 'it says so in my book (the dictionary)', which sounds scarily similar to the religious, there is no basis for the definitions you're using.

3. I prefer to choose a side when there is evidence. If there is none, I don't decide, I don't say that god exists or he does not exists, I prefer I don't know. Therefore when no evidence is presented the scale does not tilt in favor of the left or the right.

a. Claim - god exists
b. Claim - god does not exist
c. Claim - I don't know whether god exists or not.

a. gnosticism
b. anti-gnosticism
c. agnosticism

Theism, and anti-theism are effectively ways of saying 'I place my bet in this corner' and this tends to be based on experience or wishes. Atheism however is a way of saying that you're not placing a bet in any corner as you don't hold a belief either way, this is usually because you don't know. As said before, I'm an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist - I don't know if there is a deity, I don't have a belief in one, but due to the lack of evidence for one and the amount of evidence supporting natural origins, I cannot see there being a need for one.

Atheism and agnosticism are neutral positions.

 

[Fictionarious]

You know, you've persuaded me to see things differently with this reply. It's a very meaningful post. Thanks.

You're certainly welcome, I had only recently persuaded myself as well.

 

[lrkun]

1. I don't agree with you, but I can respect your opinion.

This is not a response to the question, "What arguments have they given you for their definitions?" perhaps you could answer it.

2. Your position is correct if we use your definition as the standard. However, I use the dictionary, because I don't wish to confuse people with respect to the definition of how it is used in general.

You don't have to confuse people, just clarify what you mean, but the fact is that beyond 'it says so in my book (the dictionary)', which sounds scarily similar to the religious, there is no basis for the definitions you're using.

3. I prefer to choose a side when there is evidence. If there is none, I don't decide, I don't say that god exists or he does not exists, I prefer I don't know. Therefore when no evidence is presented the scale does not tilt in favor of the left or the right.

a. Claim - god exists
b. Claim - god does not exist
c. Claim - I don't know whether god exists or not.

a. gnosticism
b. anti-gnosticism
c. agnosticism

Theism, and anti-theism are effectively ways of saying 'I place my bet in this corner' and this tends to be based on experience or wishes. Atheism however is a way of saying that you're not placing a bet in any corner as you don't hold a belief either way, this is usually because you don't know. As said before, I'm an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist - I don't know if there is a deity, I don't have a belief in one, but due to the lack of evidence for one and the amount of evidence supporting natural origins, I cannot see there being a need for one.

Atheism and agnosticism are neutral positions.

1. I don't get this question. The dictionary's purpose is to list words in an alphabetical order and provide for it's meaning and/or examples. Reading the words within the dictionary, one learns what the words mean. Having read it's accepted meaning, has persuaded me to use it.

2. I don't have to confuse people? I think you misunderstand, I strive for clarity. I use the generally accepted definition rather than my own opinion on the matter, because if I define what an atheist is, you will certainly disagree with me. ex. An atheist to me is someone who makes fun of a creationist for the hell of it.

3. Familiarize yourself with the scientific method. You'll understand what I mean when you do. Experiment and observation. The best analogy I can think of is the scale.

 

[Jotto999]

If someone says they are simply "agnostic" rather than atheist or theist, I usually ask them if they believe in the existence of something equivalent to god but that they have more reasons to disbelieve (Ex. my imaginary childhood friend, unicorns, fairies). "Equivalent" meaning the same amount of evidence to support it's existence (none).

They often say they do not believe in the other imaginary things. They are atheist toward those things. But somehow, they can't make the jump toward deciding that they do not believe in some other, more popular imaginary and implausible thing like god.

They must be biased, maybe just too afraid of social pressure to have their own point of view on the subject. What they usually don't know is that they already disbelieve in lots of things that aren't plausible but that don't have all the social baggage.

For this reason, when someone tells me they are "agnostic" and nothing else, I tend to associate it with an intellectual inability to think outside of social pressure.

 

[lrkun]

If someone says they are simply "agnostic" rather than atheist or theist, I usually ask them if they believe in the existence of something equivalent to god but that they have more reasons to disbelieve (Ex. my imaginary childhood friend, unicorns, fairies). "Equivalent" meaning the same amount of evidence to support it's existence (none).

They often say they do not believe in the other imaginary things. They are atheist toward those things. But somehow, they can't make the jump toward deciding that they do not believe in some other, more popular imaginary thing like god.

They must be biased, maybe just too afraid of social pressure to have their own point of view on the subject. What they usually don't know is that they already disbelieve in lots of things that aren't plausible but that don't have all the social baggage.

For this reason, when someone tells me they are "agnostic" and nothing else, I tend to associate it with an intellectual inability to think outside of social pressure.

I think agnostics are the smart ones. They get to think about this sort of thing and stop before they actually making a conclusion without evidence. We have contrary opinions. :lol:

Given the dictionary definition of what an agnostic is. He's either the smartest or the dumbest.

Smart in the sense of the first case where he or she does not know if there is a god because there is no evidence to support it's existence or disprove it's existence.

Dumb in a sense of the second case where he or she has closed his or her mind despite evidence in favor of god's existence or lack there of.

 

[Jotto999]

[I think agnostics are the smart ones. They get to think about this sort of thing and stop before they actually making a conclusion without evidence. We have contrary opinions. :lol:

You consider disbelief in something that lacks evidence to be a conclusion that requires evidence? How?

By the way...do you believe in the existence of fairies?

 

[lrkun]

[I think agnostics are the smart ones. They get to think about this sort of thing and stop before they actually making a conclusion without evidence. We have contrary opinions. :lol:

You consider disbelief in something that lacks evidence to be a conclusion that requires evidence? How?

I don't understand your question. I don't consider disbelief in something that lacks evidence to be a conclusion that requires evidence. What I mean to say is that one cannot make a conclusion from lack of evidence. Maybe that's what you're asking me to explain. If so, here is my reason.

Imagine the scale as a tool to decide the position of whether or not a god exists.

Absence evidence, the scale is at the neutral position. That is the position of which no claim has been made regarding a god exists or doesn't.

Now if there is evidence in favor of god, the scale tilts in favor of that position. Let's assume such is to the right.

Now if there is evidence in favor that god does not exist, the scale tilts in favor of that position. Let's assume such is to the left.

Well do we have evidence that god exists or does not exists?

If none, then the scale is at the default position, that means one cannot claim that it exists or that it does not exist..

 

[Jotto999]

If we are using the Christian god as an example, then the left tray is so full the scale is trying to do a cartwheel. Actually, any god as described by any religion that I know of have their scales trying to do cartwheels from having such inconsistent, contradictory, fallacious, and scientifically impossible properties.

Perhaps the god that deists believe in could have no items in either tray.

But to use this scale requires knowing what the thing is. To water down the definition of god enough to no longer have anything in the left tray of the scale seems to mean making the definition extremely vague and useless - such that we don't know what it is anymore, and thus inapplicable to the scale, IMO.

Besides, even if you find a definition of god where there is nothing in either tray of the scale, you still are lacking the assertion that the subject exists, and thus are by some definition atheistic towards it.

 

[lrkun]

If we are using the Christian god as an example, then the left tray is so full the scale is trying to do a cartwheel. Actually, any god as described by any religion that I know of have their scales trying to do cartwheels from having such inconsistent, contradictory, fallacious, and scientifically impossible properties.

Perhaps the god that deists believe in could have no items in either tray.

But to use this scale requires knowing what the thing is. To water down the definition of god enough to no longer have anything in the left tray of the scale seems to mean making the definition extremely vague and useless - such that we don't know what it is anymore, and thus inapplicable to the scale, IMO.

Congratulations, you just described what an agnostic believes in. I knew you could do it.

 

[Jotto999]

Congratulations, you just described what an agnostic believes in. I knew you could do it.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that agnostics only apply their indecisiveness toward the deistic god?

 

[lrkun]

Congratulations, you just described what an agnostic believes in. I knew you could do it.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that agnostics only apply their indecisiveness toward the deistic god?

I based my opinion on the dictionary definition of the term Agnostic. To be specific, the one with respect to the existence of god/s.

 

[Jotto999]

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

Indeed, the definition only makes sense about a very vague definition of god where nothing is known about it and conclusions cannot be drawn. But how can you apply a scale used to weigh evidence when we don't know what the object is?

Such a scale can be used for things that I know what they are, like the action of tooth brushing and it's benefits. But how can you use this scale if you don't know what it is you are weighing? Isn't that contradictory?