25 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThis 'stance' to which you refer is predicated on only allowing a black/white view of the situation. It reminds me of those who have a "either you're fer us or agin us" mentality. In reality, there will be those who choose not to take sides for whatever reason. You seemingly don't allow for that position.
It's nothing to do with that. If there's not enough evidence to support a change in stance, you remain in the stance you were in to begin with, that seems pretty simple to me.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf you don't know whether god exists or not, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist (without theism). therefore agnostics are atheists. They only feel the need for the term 'agnosticism' because they have been falsely led to believe that atheism entails the active 'belief' in the non-existence of god.
I don't see agnostics as people who "kinda" believe in God. I see agnostics as people who don't know whether God exists or not.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettI still don't agree with you, but after all, it is just a term.
If you don't know whether god exists or not, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist (without theism). therefore agnostics are atheists. They only feel the need for the term 'agnosticism' because they have been falsely led to believe that atheism entails the active 'belief' in the non-existence of god.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettI've looked in several dictionaries and they ALL indicate that "atheism entails the active 'belief' in the non-existence of god". English is an evolving language which appears to have moved beyond its original meaning. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to hang on to it.
If you don't know whether god exists or not, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist (without theism). therefore agnostics are atheists. They only feel the need for the term 'agnosticism' because they have been falsely led to believe that atheism entails the active 'belief' in the non-existence of god.
25 Jun 07
1 edit
To all who may be interested,
I highly endorse Starrman's notional framework regarding belief.
I have been trying to convince RWillis for years that he is notionally confused on this matter, and that his various claims are not self-consistent. But I simply grow weary of trying to correct him every time he parades out his "atheism is not a belief" or "I act as if God does not exist, because I think that is the more likely case, but I don't believe God does not exist" sort of claims, because he always very stubbornly maintains, as if he were dogmatically committed to his view, that that's his position and he's sticking with it.
Dr. S
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have no interest in what your dictionaries say, or what the popular conception of the word is. The word 'atheism' literally means being without theism, or lacking a belief in god. Anything that goes beyond that is an unwarranted slander which has been given a false credence with the passage of time. I will continue to stick with the literal definition of the word.
I've looked in several dictionaries and they ALL indicate that "atheism entails the active 'belief' in the non-existence of god". English is an evolving language which appears to have moved beyond its original meaning. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to hang on to it.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettlol. Sometimes change is difficult to accept. If it's limited to this, I guess there's no harm in it.
I have no interest in what your dictionaries say, or what the popular conception of the word is. The word 'atheism' literally means being without theism, or lacking a belief in god. Anything that goes beyond that is an unwarranted slander which has been given a false credence with the passage of time. I will continue to stick with the literal definition of the word.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfIt didn't seem to fit in at all to the discussion that I was having with rwingett. Try reading his post and mine. If your post fits in with that, then I'll need you to explain how. I've re-read those posts and quite frankly, I don't get it.
No, what makes you think that? 😕
25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanStrong agnosticism - This is the silliest of all, to positively assert that we cannot know god or claim that there is an exact 50-50 spilt on credence for or against is either on the grounds of laziness, or triviality. If you're a strong agnostic, then accepting an explicit position of indecision instead of an implicit position of denial is just poor epistemology. Face it, you're an atheist in an apathetic mood.
Okay, there seems to be a lot of disagreement about the terms and about the implications of those terms, so I'll just lay my personal view down, it is largely based on a Bayesian view of belief probability. I'll state right away, that the definitions provided in dictionaries are those of generic wordsmiths, lexicographers and linguists not of philosophers, gnostics, they need to work their heads out or just leave the discussion.
I’m not enough a skeptic ala Sextus Empiricus to argue this. I’ll just comment that he (and skeptics of the Pyrrhonic school) were not intellectually lazy—quite the contrary—and that their arguments are sufficiently deep such that metaphysical skepticism (of either this or the Descartian variety) is the position that all epistemologies have to overcome. [cf. Michael Williams, Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001] Such skepticism is neither trivial nor lazy—nor I think intellectually cowardly.
Sextus can be a fun read.
The Sextian position of god is that the arguments are equipollent, such that one can neither believe nor refuse to believe, and the question remains in tension. Pyrrhonic skeptics make the claim generally that such metaphysical claims are indeterminable if you look deep enough. It seems to be a pretty thoroughgoing metaphysical skepticism (in which the skeptic is one who keeps the inquiry open—as opposed to one who simply doubts).
This seemed to me to fit the case of strong agnosticism of the second kind. If such an “I don’t know” is best labeled weak atheism, that’s fine with me. It’s not my position anyway. With regard to a god who is an extra-natural being of some sort (ala conventional western theism), I think that (1) sufficient coherency problems in defining such a god; (2) such countervailing arguments as the argument from evil; (3) occam's razor; and (4) twhithead's unicorn in the refrigerator, and continual absence of acceptable evidence—all enable me to justify a position of ~G with regard to such a god. I have argued all of these from my non-dualist stance. (Has anyone else noticed how repetitive this has all become?)
I use the “G-word” to refer either somebody else’s conception of god, in context; or because it is still used in non-dualistic expressions—which in a strict sense are non-theistic (hell, even the Stoics used theos in a way that was non-theistic in the modern sense, equating it with logos, pneuma and physis). Rwingett occasionally gets me to think about dropping the word altogether, but there doesn’t seem to be any way round it.
____________________________________
With all that said, still a good post, Starr.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm trying to explain why atheism doesn't neccasarily have to make a claim.
It didn't seem to fit in at all to the discussion that I was having with rwingett. Try reading his post and mine. If your post fits in with that, then I'll need you to explain how. I've re-read those posts and quite frankly, I don't get it.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingett🙂 Yea right
I have no interest in what your dictionaries say, or what the popular conception of the word is. The word 'atheism' literally means being without theism, or lacking a belief in god. Anything that goes beyond that is an unwarranted slander which has been given a false credence with the passage of time. I will continue to stick with the literal definition of the word.
Kelly