Anachronous Rex
New Member
I like this, so here we go:
Anyone else find the word games that get played over this issue tiresome?
Anyone else find the word games that get played over this issue tiresome?
-
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
ZOMGits take on labels
- Thread starter Anachronous Rex
- Start date
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Word games tiresome? Depends on the context, but yeah. What's tiresome is where discussions get derailed over language, whatever that language is. If the people having the discussion are more or less on the same page, getting into a side-discussion about some minor point can destroy the bigger discussion for everyone.
_ Already seen it.
Oh, for goodness sakes. Yes. It is true that Gnosticism and Agnosticism are distinctly different debates altogether than the debate about the truth of theism/antitheism. These terms are NOT interchangeable, so the criticism seems fair and valid. I don't like quibbling over semantics myself, but this is important! You could be an "Agnostic-Theist", without contradiction, and likewise (as mentioned in the linked video) an "Agnostic Atheist". Because Agnosticism is part of an independent class of positions compatible with belief, or non-belief.
In the video itself, she states the definition of Agnosticism that I adhere to as accurate, but then later on in that very same video, she seems to suggest that agnosticism means the "I don't know" position. This is not the case. (A)gnosticism only concerns knowledge, as the likes of Qualia Soup and Theramin Trees have been keen to point out to us. But I cannot see much reason why this should be any point of contention, or something to argue over.
Personally, I too fit into the affirmative anti-theist camp, along with the likes of Stenger and Meyers et al. I am among the adherents of the so-called "Strong Atheist" position, as I've said before.
ZOMGitsCriss seems to approach this position somewhat in this video.
Oh, for goodness sakes. Yes. It is true that Gnosticism and Agnosticism are distinctly different debates altogether than the debate about the truth of theism/antitheism. These terms are NOT interchangeable, so the criticism seems fair and valid. I don't like quibbling over semantics myself, but this is important! You could be an "Agnostic-Theist", without contradiction, and likewise (as mentioned in the linked video) an "Agnostic Atheist". Because Agnosticism is part of an independent class of positions compatible with belief, or non-belief.
In the video itself, she states the definition of Agnosticism that I adhere to as accurate, but then later on in that very same video, she seems to suggest that agnosticism means the "I don't know" position. This is not the case. (A)gnosticism only concerns knowledge, as the likes of Qualia Soup and Theramin Trees have been keen to point out to us. But I cannot see much reason why this should be any point of contention, or something to argue over.
Personally, I too fit into the affirmative anti-theist camp, along with the likes of Stenger and Meyers et al. I am among the adherents of the so-called "Strong Atheist" position, as I've said before.
ZOMGitsCriss seems to approach this position somewhat in this video.Your Funny Uncle
New Member
There's also this follow-up:
Personally I think it's fine to argue either way, but if you are going to argue about who is what, then you need to define the terms at the start of the conversation. There are clearly various definitions that you can use for atheism and agnosticism, and if you're going to have a discussion, you need to agree on what they are or you just talk past each other. Neither argument here is logically inconsistent, it just depends on the starting definitions you choose.
Personally I think it's fine to argue either way, but if you are going to argue about who is what, then you need to define the terms at the start of the conversation. There are clearly various definitions that you can use for atheism and agnosticism, and if you're going to have a discussion, you need to agree on what they are or you just talk past each other. Neither argument here is logically inconsistent, it just depends on the starting definitions you choose.
Dean said:
Could someone help me solidify this train of thought? Seriously, maybe I lack perspective and I cannot understand within my own realm of reasoning how that works out without contradiction.
Yes, I realize it's a bit ironic to ask about a "theistic" stance in a room full of atheists......and yes it has been a reeeeeeealy long time since I last posted.
televator
An Agnostic Theist would therefore be a person who, while they believe that a god exists, also believe that either nothing is known or can be known about the ultimate nature of that God or gods. It sounds strange, but it's a real view for sure, though I'm not entirely sure if it's a rationally defensible one. Then again, is anything in religion rationally defensible??? But I've even met Christians who seem to fit this criterion. So yes, one can be a theist who believes that the ultimate nature of that god(s) cannot be known, with no contradiction. This would class them as both Agnostic and Theist.
I don't understand why semantic games exist about this at all. Seems perfectly unambiguous.
It's been almost 50 days since your last posting here, though there hasn't been a spectacular amount of activity here anyhow. So, hope to see you around.
Agnosticism concerns the knowability or the lack thereof, while theism and a-theism concern the being's existence or nonexistence. An Agnostic is someone who believes that either nothing IS known, or that nothing even can be known, of the existence or nature of a proposed phenomenon, e.g. God or gods.televator said:
An Agnostic Theist would therefore be a person who, while they believe that a god exists, also believe that either nothing is known or can be known about the ultimate nature of that God or gods. It sounds strange, but it's a real view for sure, though I'm not entirely sure if it's a rationally defensible one. Then again, is anything in religion rationally defensible??? But I've even met Christians who seem to fit this criterion. So yes, one can be a theist who believes that the ultimate nature of that god(s) cannot be known, with no contradiction. This would class them as both Agnostic and Theist.
I don't understand why semantic games exist about this at all. Seems perfectly unambiguous.
Indeed! Welcome back, televator.televator said:
It's been almost 50 days since your last posting here, though there hasn't been a spectacular amount of activity here anyhow. So, hope to see you around. Dean said:Agnosticism concerns the knowability or the lack thereof, while theism and a-theism concern the being's existence or nonexistence. An Agnostic is someone who believes that either nothing IS known, or that nothing even can be known, of the existence or nature of a proposed phenomenon, e.g. God or gods.
That's a cumbersome stance at best. At worst I'd say they seem to be making a special reservation... I mean if nothing can be known about a god being, what do they have to say about establishing existence and their foundation as a theist? Why believe in something that can't be known to exist in the first place? See that does sound a bit contradictory to me....Bah! All the same as all the other problems with regular theistic rationality I suppose, and I guess that segues nicely into the dilemma of belief Vs knowledge (Moar semantics!!!).
Dean said:Indeed! Welcome back, televator.
That's an eternity in internet time.
Thanks for the good welcome back. I missed this place. My mind feels right on these forums.