• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Why I'm Technically an Agnostic but Prefer to Identify as an Atheist

Glossophile

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Glossophile"/>
This is just a slightly edited version of a post I made on the Atheist Discussion forum (formerly the Thinking Atheist Forum), but since I don't know yet how much overlap there is in membership between that forum and this one, and also in the interests of helping to stoke the flames of activity in this recently revived gem of a site, I thought it might be worth sharing here. I'll admit I'm also just eager to get some feedback and share ideas, so please do join the conversation if you find it interesting!

While the word "agnostic" can be used with respect to any proposition, its default connotation is firmly specific to the proposition that at least one god exists. That is to say, in the absence of any context or explicit clarification implying otherwise, "agnosticism" is automatically assumed to be a position regarding the god claim. In isolation, any other meaning of the term demands at least one modifier (e.g. "ghost agnostic" or "agnostic about Bigfoot"). The predominance and default status of the specifically god-related usage is especially strong among laymen, while it may be somewhat weaker among professional philosophers and/or amateur philosophy enthusiasts.

Nevertheless, this trend generally holds even in academia, and certainly among the general population, there are many who either (1) aren't even aware that "agnostic(ism)" can have any other meanings that don't address theism or (2) at best think of the occasional use of the term in reference to any other claim as a spontaneous analogy rather than an established usage.

Furthermore, the distinction between "agnosticism" and "(hard/positive) atheism" is commonly made even in situations when it's not really relevant. Of course, it's perfectly understandable that one would want the extra clarity when debating with a theist, for instance. However, many seem to insist on self-identifying as "agnostic" even when they're merely answering a one-off question (e.g. as on a census survey) or conversing with fellow non-believers who are very unlikely to misunderstand or misrepresent their position. Even in such contexts, many such people will promptly correct you if you call them "atheists," despite the distinction being of little or no consequence within the particular discourse.

Now, the question is this. What other unproven entity has inspired the coinage of a special word like "agnostic(ism)," of which the clearly dominant and thus default usage is uniquely specific to the entity in question? For example, let's coin the word "anepistemism" and say it's mainly used to describe the suspension of judgment on the claim that ghosts exist. Of course, it can be used to describe such a stance on other claims, but at least without any context or other clarification to the contrary, it's all about ghosts.

Unless you were, for example, debating with a paranormal investigator, would you ever feel compelled to say anything like this?

"Oh, no, no. You see, I'm an anepistemist. I don't make the definite claim that the ghost proposition is false. I just see no reason to accept it as true. So I suspend judgment."

In a clear majority of contexts, I suspect you would be perfectly happy to say something like, "I don't believe in ghosts," and leave it at that. Even if you actually were in a debate with a ghost believer or otherwise felt the need to be exceptionally clear, it would probably suffice to define your position thoroughly at the onset and then proceed with that definition in mind. I doubt that you would find it so critical to encapsulate your stance in special word like "anepistemist," and even if you did offer such an encapsulation, I doubt even more that you would feel the need to use it in more mundane circumstances where the extra nuance is superfluous.

In fact, I would argue that, in many and perhaps even most circumstances, you might even be so bold and/or casual as to say, "There's no such things as ghosts," even though you're probably not necessarily making the definite negative claim that a literal reading of such a statement would suggest. Ask yourself this. In a general and informal setting, at least, if you made a superficially gnostic statement like that, would you consider, "Well, prove that they don't exist then," to be a valid counter-argument? If not, I submit to you that the reason is because you don't consider yourself to have assumed the burden of proof that would in fact arise if you had meant your declaration literally. This implies that there's an unspoken epistemic caveat by which such utterances are understood to be ultimately agnostic in nature despite how they appear on the surface. This implicit caveat applies so broadly to virtually everything, however, that it's only worth making explicit in very particular and often lofty contexts. Otherwise, it's redundant to constantly be spelling it out.

If you accept this hypothesis, then even many non-theists seem to suddenly lose the ability and/or inclination to infer the implicit agnosticism in a superficially gnostic declaration of non-existence, whenever the topic happens to be a deity. They seem instead to be more literal in their interpretation than they usually would be with respect to any other entity, which motivates them to be exceptionally careful via phrasings like, "There's no good reason to think that a god exists."

In any case, the general public seems to treat the term "agnostic(ism)," and by extension the theistic claim(s) that it addresses, quite differently. Its scope of usage and default god-related connotation commonly extends into areas where it would hardly even occur to a non-believer in ghosts to invoke the analogous label "anepistemist." Nor do non-believers in fairies routinely split hairs between those who believe they definitely don't exist and "insapists" who are merely suspending judgment on the matter.

A common rejoinder is to say that belief in fairies or even ghosts is not nearly as popular or as influential as belief in gods, and that alone justifies the special terminological treatment given to theistic claims. This seems to me little more than an ad populum argument. Of course, in order to technically qualify as such, it would have to propose that the popularity of theism makes it true, not merely deserving of extra-careful nuance in labeling one's stance on the matter. Still, I think this response to the special pleading charge fails for a very similar reason, in that it doesn't address the actual content of the belief, which should rise or fall on its own merits. I don't care how popular or influential theism is. What does the proposition or set of propositions itself bring to the table which should so uniquely warrant the widespread and rather constant reminder of the distinction that the word "agnostic(ism)" aims to capture? That's what I want to know. So far, I already have my suspicions as to the answer: absolutely nothing.

This is why I am leery of the very term "agnostic(ism)," or at least its popular usage in contexts where the extra nuance it offers is superfluous. Attempts to justify it have been well-referenced and articulate, and ultimately, they may yet be right. Personally, however, I still cannot help but wonder if at least some such defenses are ad hoc rationalizations for a pedestal of presumption that's been grandfathered into theism by centuries of being taken for granted. Maybe it's so thoroughly ingrained by tradition that it's hard to recognize the resulting bias even within oneself.

Not even ghosts, in which a considerable proportion of the US population actually believes, have earned this sort of routine distinction between belief in their non-existence and the mere lack of belief in their existence. Such a distinction can and sometimes should be articulated, of course, but no one has yet felt the need for an actual term like "anepistemism." But change the topic to a deity, and the picture abruptly changes, with many people indeed arguing for the importance of the analogous label "agnosticism." Furthermore, ghost belief at least comes close to matching theism in its antiquity as well as its popularity, so even if we grant that sheer age and strength in numbers makes the crucial difference, that argument weakens substantially when we realize that ghosts are treated much less like gods than one might expect.

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the only as-yet-unproven being for which there is an appellation like "agnostic(ism)" is a god. At least the word's current breadth of usage, if not its very coinage, looks suspiciously to me like just another symptom of the ingrained rhetorical privilege that comes with theism having been such an overwhelming cultural default for so long. Even among those who have consciously rejected it, many may still subconsciously view theism as subject to a skewed baseline, such that its negation and even the mere withholding of judgment is treated with unique delicacy that manifests itself in exceptionally careful terminology. This special treatment of the various stances on the existence of a deity, however, implies that the god hypothesis itself is somehow special, a status which I don't think is warranted by the actual content of the belief. I have my doubts that it's a net benefit for non-believers to keep making that unspoken concession as widely as many do.

Perhaps now is a good time to take a brief digression into the notion that allowing "atheism" to encompass what has traditionally been called "agnosticism" would render rocks and any other inanimate objects technically "atheists." There are three reasons why this argument fails in my view: the last three letters of both "atheist" and "theist." In virtually all instances, the suffix '-ist' implies a person, or at least a conscious being. The whole "rock atheist" argument rests on the presupposition that the definition of "atheist" does not include personhood. This presupposition does not appear to have any firm grounding in how the word is actually used, since even among those who use the stricter definition of "atheism," few would likely contest a definition like this.

atheist (n.) = person who believes that no god exists

The first two words of the narrower definition needn't change in order to accommodate what is almost always meant with the broader definition.

atheist (n.) = person who lacks belief in any god

And again, this is almost always what is meant by those who advocate the looser definition of the word. In terms of set theory, the shared '-ist' suffix relegates the meanings of both "atheist" and "theist" to the superset of all persons (or conscious beings). The word "theist" refers to the subset of persons who believe in a god, while in its broader definition, "atheist" refers to the complement (i.e. what remains of the superset after the "theist" subset has been subtracted).

As this exploration draws to a close, it may be useful to take stock of what I am and am not saying.

I am not denying the point(s) made by Steve McRae or anyone else who argues that a definition of "atheism" which subsumes what has traditionally been called "agnosticism" is incorrect or at least philosophically illiterate. The evidence from academia seems clearly on their side.

I am not arguing that the term "agnostic(ism)" is completely useless or meaningless. In certain contexts, especially in debate or discussion with theists, a reasonable pragmatic case can be made for its use, mainly since it inhibits burden-of-proof-shifting.

I am contesting the notion that the movement to redefine "atheism" as subsuming the agnostic position is purely political in nature. I believe that there is, for lack of a better word, a rhetorical dimension to it. It's not just about inflating the demographic strength of the "atheist" category. It's arguably also about knocking theism further down from its cultural pedestal and onto a more level playing field.

I am saying that the use of "agnostic" as a general label, to be invoked even in contexts where "atheist" would suffice, makes an implicit concession to theists (i.e. that the god claim is on a level of its own) that I'm not sure we should be making so routinely if at all. While "atheism" is, for the time being, defined strictly and correctly as belief in the definite non-existence of a deity, my aim is to question whether this should be the case going forward.

The mere "lack of belief" definition may be more logically consistent or at least fairer, in that it helps to rob theism of the rhetorical head-start that it's had for centuries. If we really want theism to sink or swim purely on the merits of the claim itself, then perhaps those who identify as "agnostic" by default should start calling themselves "atheists" more often. Perhaps "atheism" should in fact be redefined in the way that so many activists are now using it, even if at present, the traditional definition remains more technically correct.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
This is why I am leery of the very term "agnostic(ism)," or at least its popular usage in contexts where the extra nuance it offers is superfluous. Attempts to justify it have been well-referenced and articulate, and ultimately, they may yet be right. Personally, however, I still cannot help but wonder if at least some such defenses are ad hoc rationalizations for a pedestal of presumption that's been grandfathered into theism by centuries of being taken for granted. Maybe it's so thoroughly ingrained by tradition that it's hard to recognize the resulting bias even within oneself.

You hit the nail on the head with this. This whole discussion comes up because of the status deities have in our culture. It rests on an argument from antiquity (which you also later point out should, yet is not, used for ghosts) and gives deities more credence then ghosts and fairies. Everyone needs to highlight this hypocrisy when having discussions about the terms agnostic and atheist.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
How are we defining agnosticism, atheism and theism here?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Interesting, as I would consider myself the opposite: technically atheist, but if I were pushed to label my beliefs for easy consumption, I'd call myself agnostic.

Interestingly, for many of the same reasons you point to: to me, atheism is the idea founded on and intrinsically related to theism and the traditional, culturally handed down concept which may be accepted (theism) or rejected (atheism) - but then the rejection is constrained within the context of the cultural baggage.

Terms like ignosticism, non-cognitivism, post-theism etc. all seem aware of this problem, but then seek to define themselves in relation to the problem rather than in respect to what they actually believe, so all such phrases are relative to the form of theism they reject.

For me, agnosticism is a much wider umbrella than just being about gods: rather it's a default position to hold on any proposed phenomena prior to being presented with convincing evidence. It basically says: I am not in the position to know. Someone then may furnish me with information, and that position may change to accommodate that information.

I don't know, have no evidence, and no means of acquiring information about the proposed class of entities known as 'gods'. Unless some information is made available to me, there's little point in me caring either way as nothing suggests that this knowledge has any purchase or impact on the world. - that, to me, is the space in which agnosticism resides. However, with respect to particulars - the Christian God for example - I am quite specifically gnostic: I know through facts, evidence, and reason that the Christian God does not exist.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I'd say that gnosticism refers to one's, 'knowledge' and theism to ones, 'belief/position' in a god/gods/deity.

Agnostic (in relation to God) is to not know if/that God exists. So a theist can hold this position if s/he believes strongly but by faith/conviction and not evidence. Atheism could be a positive or a negative claim. To claim that no God exists (justifying an assertion to support it) or to be unbelieving based on a lack of evidence (just like someone else's non-belief in fairies etc.) and so not asserting that it is not so, but neutral, awaiting/open to being convinced or evidence.

"I know through facts, evidence, and reason that the Christian God does not exist. "

Wow. Looking forward to being enlightened. It's worth its own post on a platform. I've heard many a person make exactly the same claim but with the absence of the word, 'not'.

It is obviously not possible to have both, totally contradictory terms, so one is lying, mistaken, misinformed or wrong. The requirement is to present the facts and evidence and reasoning. The latter two can be open to change or interpretation and can be subjective. The first (facts) can apply to both positions, so I think this is more of an assertion/belief than knowledge and to go further is semantics which can be countered of which all sides can be found guilty. But I look forward, in all seriousness, if you are willing, to try.

I am trying to think of facts which can lead to KNOWING that a specific God does not exist, because I'd like to also use it/them. I can only imagine that one would raise issues like the morals/stories or inerrancy of the Bible or the impossibility of a perfect God or His record, but I can see so many obstacles or challenges that could counter such things.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
"I know through facts, evidence, and reason that the Christian God does not exist. "

Wow. Looking forward to being enlightened. It's worth its own post on a platform. I've heard many a person make exactly the same claim but with the absence of the word, 'not'.

And in context, there's a world of difference between the two positions regardless of the single negation.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Maybe this can be done later or saved for a rainy day. I think there are quite a few who are brave enough to assert this (on both sides, for and against) but I don't think I could justify or defend such a strong statement (to know the absence of). Like believers' statements, in spite of such knowledge claims, the farthest I could go is to be as certain as one can be about something without proof or certain knowledge. And we must beware that we do not overstep any claim that our opponent is criticised for also doing.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Maybe this can be done later or saved for a rainy day. I think there are quite a few who are brave enough to assert this (on both sides, for and against) but I don't think I could justify or defend such a strong statement (to know the absence of).

Oh, well I could - and that's why I said it. It's not a lazy generalization I just tossed out but is something I arrived at through years of relevant study (i.e. history and anthropology) and through being raised Christian and engaging deeply with competent and cautious Christian thinkers.


Like believers' statements, in spite of such knowledge claims, the farthest I could go is to be as certain as one can be about something without proof or certain knowledge. And we must beware that we do not overstep any claim that our opponent is criticised for also doing.

You do you then. Meanwhile, as I said, while I cannot hope to deny the existence of an entire category of beings beyond mortal ken, I am very comfortable and confident emphatically denying the existence of the Christian God on the grounds that it simply cannot exist - it's a paradox, it's self-defeating, it runs counter to evidence and logic, and the only way to resolve the conundrum is to posit its absence.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
"Hope I am niot derailing the OP."


Maybe this can be done later or saved for a rainy day. I think there are quite a few who are brave enough to assert this (on both sides, for and against) but I don't think I could justify or defend such a strong statement (to know the absence of).

Oh, well I could - and that's why I said it. It's not a lazy generalization I just tossed out but is something I arrived at through years of relevant study (i.e. history and anthropology) and through being raised Christian and engaging deeply with competent and cautious Christian thinkers.

“This sounds like a good thread topic.


It is interesting that you consider the, ‘challenge’ of the Christian God resulted from years of study and intellectual discussion. This implies that there is at least a strong argument for both sides. And there are of course many who will testify to many years of being atheists and becoming a Christian and concluding quite the opposite.



But I’ve rarely heard of anyone on either side making the claim that they reached enlightenment and could prove it.”








BrachioPEP said:

Like believers' statements, in spite of such knowledge claims, the farthest I could go is to be as certain as one can be about something without proof or certain knowledge. And we must beware that we do not overstep any claim that our opponent is criticised for also doing.

You do you then. Meanwhile, as I said, while I cannot hope to deny the existence of an entire category of beings beyond mortal ken, I am very comfortable and confident emphatically denying the existence of the Christian God on the grounds that it simply cannot exist - it's a paradox, it's self-defeating, it runs counter to evidence and logic, and the only way to resolve the conundrum is to posit its absence.



“You seem to then totally back down then, and assert no more than I do. You can no longer prove it, but cannot even merely deny it:“

while I cannot hope to deny the existence of an entire category of beings beyond mortal ken, I am very comfortable and confident emphatically denying the existence of the Christian God…

And as you are aware, to make an assertion or positive claim, you must demonstrate it. I read below your grounds (framework/scaffold):“

on the grounds that it simply cannot exist - it's a paradox, it's self-defeating, it runs counter to evidence and logic, and the only way to resolve the conundrum is to posit its absence.

“Now, what will you fill it with and could there possibly be a rebuttal from anywhere? I suspect so:

By what means can we conclude whether you achieve your goal or not? Claims, facts, obviousnesses, logic, proofs etc. seem to sit happily on one side or the other, but rarely on both, when in dispute. Which is odd for many such terms, as fact, logic, proof etc.”
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Edit: gahhh the lack of quote tags is causing difficulties in responding to posts... I've had to rewrite this twice because of it...



It is interesting that you consider the, ‘challenge’ of the Christian God resulted from years of study and intellectual discussion. This implies that there is at least a strong argument for both sides.

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find where I suggested I consider the 'challenge' of the Christian God anywhere.

In terms of implication, rather, it implies in my case that I was raised Christian and therefore had these ideas inculcated into me long prior to having the tools or knowledge to question them.


And there are of course many who will testify to many years of being atheists and becoming a Christian and concluding quite the opposite.

I'm sorry but I am not sure what that's got to do with anything. I didn't say I was a Christian and then became an atheist. I said that while I would never maintain a position that strongly denied the possibility of the entire category of possible entities we'd term 'deities' because that knowledge is not within my ability to attain (i.e. agnosticism), that I would however be comfortable in outright denying the existence of the Christian God because that is a particular set of claims that can be tested, corroborated, or shown false.



But I’ve rarely heard of anyone on either side making the claim that they reached enlightenment and could prove it.”

And have you heard that in this thread?



“You seem to then totally back down then, and assert no more than I do. You can no longer prove it, but cannot even merely deny it:“

Unfortunately, you seem to have mixed up the chronology of exchange considering that I had already written this in the 4th post of this thread before you'd even replied:

Sparhafoc said:
I don't know, have no evidence, and no means of acquiring information about the proposed class of entities known as 'gods'. Unless some information is made available to me, there's little point in me caring either way as nothing suggests that this knowledge has any purchase or impact on the world. - that, to me, is the space in which agnosticism resides. However, with respect to particulars - the Christian God for example - I am quite specifically gnostic: I know through facts, evidence, and reason that the Christian God does not exist.

So I am not quite sure why you are characterizing this as me 'backing down' when I already made this quite clear before you'd even responded to this thread.


And as you are aware, to make an assertion or positive claim, you must demonstrate it. I read below your grounds (framework/scaffold):“

I am indeed aware of such a requirement in a debate scenario.




“Now, what will you fill it with and could there possibly be a rebuttal from anywhere? I suspect so:

*scratches head in puzzlement*

I am at a bit of a loss here: how is someone going to rebut my comfort in denying the existence of the Christian God?


By what means can we conclude whether you achieve your goal or not?

Who is 'we' and what has it got to do with them?

What goal?

Who is judging, why are they judging, and what exactly are they meant to be judging?

Are you suggesting that other people can judge whether I am truly comfortable and confident in denying the existence of the Christian God? How would they go about doing so? Surely, by asking me? Considering I've already said that I am comfortable and confident in denying the existence of the Christian God - isn't that sufficient for you to believe me or do you think I am misleading you and that secretly I believe in YHWH?
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Glossophile"/>
Well, this thread escalated quickly (or maybe it just feels that way because I haven't checked in for a while)! Let's see if I can at least catch up with a couple of key points.

I'd say that gnosticism refers to one's, 'knowledge' and theism to ones, 'belief/position' in a god/gods/deity.

Not so long ago, I would've wholeheartedly agreed, but now, I'm not so sure. This is precisely the paradigm that Steve McRae rails against, and while I would never claim that his (or anyone else's) word is gospel, so to speak, I am inclined to at least take his skepticism seriously, as I consider him more philosophically literate than me. Also, on my own part, I suspect that the whole association of (a)gnostic(ism) with a dimension of knowledge, entirely separate from and perhaps orthogonal to a dimension of belief, tends to assume a definition of knowledge so stringent as to render us unjustified in claiming to know anything at all, beyond perhaps our own existence. Yet to define "know(ledge)" in this way would be to sacrifice utility on the altar of pedantry.

I cannot hope to deny the existence of an entire category of beings beyond mortal ken, I am very comfortable and confident emphatically denying the existence of the Christian God on the grounds that it simply cannot exist - it's a paradox, it's self-defeating, it runs counter to evidence and logic, and the only way to resolve the conundrum is to posit its absence.

Indeed. I'm in the same proverbial boat. While I cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a being which has all the defining attributes of what we would most broadly call a deity, I am much more confident in claiming that the specific god posited by the Abrahamic faiths definitely does not exist, simply because he cannot exist for the reason you just gave. He's a paradox, a married bachelor of sorts. The one that I like to use is the problem that arises whenever you try to attribute both omnipotence and omniscience to the same entity. Can Yahweh ever change his mind? If he can, then he is not omniscient, because a change of mind is unforeseen by definition, so he cannot foresee his own decisions with enough certainty to say he really knows them. However, if he can foresee his own decisions with sufficient certainty to be called knowledge, as omniscience would entail, then that precludes him from ever changing his mind, which means that there is at least one thing (which mere mortals do all the time, no less) that he cannot do, and he is therefore not omnipotent.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Indeed. I'm in the same proverbial boat. While I cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a being which has all the defining attributes of what we would most broadly call a deity, I am much more confident in claiming that the specific god posited by the Abrahamic faiths definitely does not exist, simply because he cannot exist for the reason you just gave. He's a paradox, a married bachelor of sorts. The one that I like to use is the problem that arises whenever you try to attribute both omnipotence and omniscience to the same entity. Can Yahweh ever change his mind? If he can, then he is not omniscient, because a change of mind is unforeseen by definition, so he cannot foresee his own decisions with enough certainty to say he really knows them. However, if he can foresee his own decisions with sufficient certainty to be called knowledge, as omniscience would entail, then that precludes him from ever changing his mind, which means that there is at least one thing (which mere mortals do all the time, no less) that he cannot do, and he is therefore not omnipotent.

Hi Glossophile - just to note that the above reply was actually to my post, and not to BrachioPEP - the quote tags have been a bit tricky to maintain in this thread, so no problem.

However, you are indeed expressing some of the same kind of fundamental problems with the ontological descriptions of the Christian God that I was referring to. The Christian narrative is rife with internal oxymorons from the god's purported characteristics through to even the most banal events. The Old Testament is a wonderful resource to understand the minds and capabilities of the ancient Israelites, but as a supposedly divinely inspired text or text originating in the divine, it's wholly lacking in credibility.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
This is precisely the paradigm that Steve McRae rails against, and while I would never claim that his (or anyone else's) word is gospel, so to speak, I am inclined to at least take his skepticism seriously, as I consider him more philosophically literate than me.

I've never heard of him and can't seem to find anything about this chap or any publications by him.

With respect to agnosticism, I think it's worth reading what Thomas Henry Huxley - the person who first coined the term - wrote about it. For him, agnosticism was part and parcel of scientific/philosophical reasoning and a methodological description rather than a specific position.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Well, not great... I mean at least he recognizes that its absurd to consider rocks atheist, whereas I have actually had (drawn-out) exchanges with otherwise rationally capable atheists who do in fact claim that babies, animals, and inanimate objects are atheist... but why is it not equally absurd to consider rocks agnostic?

Why do people struggle to understand the concept of category mistakes?

But anyway, I guess that's why I couldn't find him - I was assuming he was a published philosopher rather than just some dude on YT.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I think this thread could be of real use and many a debate could have been prevented if terms were agreed.

There is a similar (and justified) argument about what a, 'species' is in biology. It is because different people use words or terms or definitions in different ways that cause problems to arise. Sometimes this can be very important. If there were a legal equivalent, it might be used as a loophole to escape justice.

So, one can either self define one's interpretation and argue consistently from that, or a mutually agreed definition could be negotiated upon and that used as the framework for discussion.

It is often disputed whether the word, 'Atheism/ist' is a neutral, negative or affirmative word which then determines whether it requirtes a burden of proof.

As for listening to the attached video, the problem seemed to be (for all sides) that terms like agnostiocism or atheism (like moraility) are used by sentient beings. Like there is no morality without life (or before a certain level of primate, if one accepts the term, 'morality'), there is no belief or knowledge without a certain level or type of intelligence, so I wasn't sure why rocks might or could have or hold such a position or why one would bother to argue against it and not just reject the plausibility of the premise. What is a toilet roll's position/stance on...?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
BrachioPEP said:
There is a similar (and justified) argument about what a, 'species' is in biology. It is because different people use words or terms or definitions in different ways that cause problems to arise.

I wouldn't quite characterize this as an argument, nor as being analogous to the points you raise in the remainder of your post. Different concepts of species contain specific and well defined remits and offer utility to different fields.

For example, the most widely used (meaning across different fields) concept of species is the Biological Species concept defined by Ernst Mayr something like 70 years ago:

Mayr said:
groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups

The reason this is most widely used across different fields is because it's the most useful way of delineating species, but of course, it doesn't and can't always work, but no one is confused or in disagreement over that. The most obvious limit to its remit comes from the fact that there are an awful lot of species which don't engage in sexual reproduction, and thus cannot be defined as an interbreeding population.

But I don't think anyone's arguing about it, or saying that the definition is wrong - just that it's incomplete, which everyone necessarily acknowledges is true.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I personally prefer Mayr’s definition. Even if you tweak it, (e.g. to add geographically (and other) different populations) it only causes further potential confusion or problems, so it’s pretty good as it is. Creationists do try to misuse the many definition types of species with their own failure to define kinds or baramins. This simply (and usually deliberately) misunderstands why there are different definitions and fails to answer the problem/lack of kind boundaries. Also, ‘kinds’ are a God defined term with tangible, scientifically testable boundaries (if such exist). A species is merely a man-made word to help us imagine or present life for our understanding, as are other terms in classification.

But a working definition of terms (for atheism, agnosticism and others I have suggested are good working frameworks that two people of opposing views can come together on and not be talking about different interpretations. I really dislike debates or the like, where people are trying to look good or score points whilst not actually addressing the issue. I want to clearly see the point in question well defined and have it broken down by both/all sides so that I can then make my own conclusions based on the single, mutually agreed issue and not each other’s personal slant.
 
Back
Top