I was recently in a discussion (VC) with someone around the topics of theism/atheism. Well, actually I was in a group chat and then said person decided to contact me directly to school my ass and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
The conversation, or rather - heated argument - quickly descended into a chaotic scrap over definitions, reminiscent of a recent thread here. Participants will know which thread I'm referring to.
His line of questioning being:
Q - Do you believe things based on evidence?
A - Yes
Q - Are you an atheist?
A - Yes
Q - What evidence do you have that you're an atheist?
A - I'm telling you I'm an atheist, unless you;re a mind reader then you are obliged to accept this
Q - So you lied, you said you believe things based on evidence and you have no evidence that you're an atheist
A - Atheist is defined as lack of / absent of / don't have a belief in any Gods (we'd already established I was using a normative definition of God)
Q - But you can't provide evidence of that
A - (rapidly losing patience at this point) Other than studying my behaviour over a long period of time, I don't know what evidence you'd expect to be offered, and even if you did that it still wouldn't be conclusive - move on.
Q - Do you know God doesn't exist
A - Not for certain, I'm agnostic. I don't claim absolute knowledge of anything really, but I don't want to get into solipsism because it's unfalsifiable and pointless
Q - So you're not an atheist?
A - I'm both, they aren't mutually exclusive
Q - So do you think there are agnostic theists?
A - Yes, I've met many such people. They believe but don't claim to know
Q - So they aren't theists then?
A - Yes, dopey, they are
Q - What about gnostic theists?
A - What about them? They believe AND they claim to know. I don't know if they really know, but I can't tell the difference between a theist that really does know and one that just claims they know.
At which point he brings out the S.E.P....
Not interested. At this point he's talking about something 99% of people aren't talking about when they use these terms and I'm not interested in mental gymnastics. The definitions I use are commonplace and hardly ever a problem, even when they are a little clarification seems to overcome that and they will go along with the definitions as they are reasonable and seem to cover everything that needs to be covered on this specific topic.
Anyone else been caught up in fudge like this? It's not the first time it's happened, but it's fairly rare for me.
The conversation, or rather - heated argument - quickly descended into a chaotic scrap over definitions, reminiscent of a recent thread here. Participants will know which thread I'm referring to.
His line of questioning being:
Q - Do you believe things based on evidence?
A - Yes
Q - Are you an atheist?
A - Yes
Q - What evidence do you have that you're an atheist?
A - I'm telling you I'm an atheist, unless you;re a mind reader then you are obliged to accept this
Q - So you lied, you said you believe things based on evidence and you have no evidence that you're an atheist
A - Atheist is defined as lack of / absent of / don't have a belief in any Gods (we'd already established I was using a normative definition of God)
Q - But you can't provide evidence of that
A - (rapidly losing patience at this point) Other than studying my behaviour over a long period of time, I don't know what evidence you'd expect to be offered, and even if you did that it still wouldn't be conclusive - move on.
Q - Do you know God doesn't exist
A - Not for certain, I'm agnostic. I don't claim absolute knowledge of anything really, but I don't want to get into solipsism because it's unfalsifiable and pointless
Q - So you're not an atheist?
A - I'm both, they aren't mutually exclusive
Q - So do you think there are agnostic theists?
A - Yes, I've met many such people. They believe but don't claim to know
Q - So they aren't theists then?
A - Yes, dopey, they are
Q - What about gnostic theists?
A - What about them? They believe AND they claim to know. I don't know if they really know, but I can't tell the difference between a theist that really does know and one that just claims they know.
At which point he brings out the S.E.P....
Not interested. At this point he's talking about something 99% of people aren't talking about when they use these terms and I'm not interested in mental gymnastics. The definitions I use are commonplace and hardly ever a problem, even when they are a little clarification seems to overcome that and they will go along with the definitions as they are reasonable and seem to cover everything that needs to be covered on this specific topic.
Anyone else been caught up in fudge like this? It's not the first time it's happened, but it's fairly rare for me.