like batman, like anonymous, a cause may become more than just a man but a symbol, a symbol, an ideal, a code of conduct, a patriotic hymn, the solution for a perfect heart and perfect soldier, a comedian's mind(watchmen reference).
words the innate power of language for freedom.
FINAL WEAPON
http://www.sysdesign.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html
1984
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It would be a very difficult uphill battle if you played it by "da rules" and didn't just (as my Epistemology professor does whenever he ridicules a silly form of epistemology) point, wink, and say "justified"
Fractal science, cellular automata, lisp language, analysis of alice in wonderland(through the looking glass) as a mathematical proof of hilbert's dream, godel's theorem does not make it impossible that is an error in logic due to problems with mathematical abstraction of logic or so I claim.
And know that if it is the truth no mathematic community will be able to slay it, at best they can hide their heads in the sand. For truth destroys edifices of lies, and all of mathematics is put to test in table, with poker face, for one more time.
Originally posted by Digi
We've had label discussion, no need to do so now. But this is ridiculous. If Dawkins isn't an atheist, there's about 2 people in the entire world who actually are.
You'd be hard pressed to get Dawkin's himself to say he is the atheist type that we were speaking of, earlier.
He says that he is technically agnostic, "only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
I believe that's a 4 on your scale which is technically agnostic. inimalist is the only reasonable person I know that is not technically agnostic but is definitely atheist.
I will bastardize a saying and indicate that we are all born agnostic, not atheistic or theistic.
Also...
En Sabah Nur X is one weird non sequitur poster. He seems like Czarina in how unrelated his posts are to the content he or she quotes.
Back on the subject...
I have been reading up on some of Russell's works and I ran across this quote:
"I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence."
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/agnostic.htm
I think such a position would be true of many atheists and agnostics. That does NOT mean it would be equated with "God", per se, but it is a very large step in the right direction. I find a kindred in Russell's words. Not sure why his ideas make me feel a bit better. Faith DOES bother me. Yes, I have read and quite thoroughly understand the Chrisian, Jewish, and Islamic apologetics for "faith". They are actually quite convincing and well-formed. They just don't do it for me all the time.
As an agnostic theist, Russell's statements are things that bode well with me. I have trouble with faith more than anything. Faith really pisses me off. Was I born at the wrong time? Maybe. It would be REALLY nice to get bitten by those snakes that were sure death and then all I had to do was look at a statue and I got better. The faith is looking at the statue and the result is a sure knowledge. That was Moses and his time... If I were born then with the bereft Jews, my metaphysical misgivings would be much easier to deal with.
I assume, of course, that such stories are at least partially true. The parting of the Red Sea? Dude...that'd be a very easy way to convince me. Imagine watching that shit go down with you own eyes...
Well my me and me, we've been at it through the web from calling 911 to fukushima and armaggedon at meggiddo
End of days, End of World, Apocalypse, twelve days, nine hours, ten seconds, 1 day to celebrate princess zelda's 25th anniversary
haters gonna hate, hate juice flows through us just the same as love juice.
My skill in language is as good in the computer as outside it, I may code at hyperspeed translating directly from natural language to machine code or even arbitrary assembly. I've exceeded fictional god lain iwakura's skills at lisp(not a mean feat, and probably off panel, like that celestial that was taken down off panel, and the internet wide permaban from all networks, death resurrection feat, no one saw it happening).
Words compel me they fascinate me, they are the keys towards freedom of the mind.
Towards a higher state
Originally posted by dadudemon
You'd be hard pressed to get Dawkin's himself to say he is the atheist type that we were speaking of, earlier.He says that he is technically agnostic, "only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
That's kind of the point though, isn't it? On my scale, all but the most extreme began with "I don't know, but I believe..." and at least two of those were still very much atheistic. He's just doing his due diligence to the subjective and limited nature of our existence.
Again, if you say Dawkins isn't an atheist, you're stripping it of its societal meaning to make it essentially pointless as a modifier. I don't care how technical you want to be, it's a ridiculous stance.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also...En Sabah Nur X is one weird non sequitur poster. He seems like Czarina in how unrelated his posts are to the content he or she quotes.
Ha, yup. I had to stop paying attention to his posts at one point, there was rarely any point to the discussion.
Originally posted by Digi
That's kind of the point though, isn't it? On my scale, all but the most extreme began with "I don't know, but I believe..." and at least two of those were still very much atheistic. He's just doing his due diligence to the subjective and limited nature of our existence.Again, if you say Dawkins isn't an atheist, you're stripping it of its societal meaning to make it essentially pointless as a modifier. I don't care how technical you want to be, it's a ridiculous stance.
I disagree, obviously. If we/you are going to use labels, use them correctly. There's nothing "technical" about it: those are the actual definitions.
I'm an agnostic. You're an agnostic. Dawkins is an Agnostic. Examples of actual atheists: inimalist and Teller.
Like I said, people love their labels.
Originally posted by Digi
Ha, yup. I had to stop paying attention to his posts at one point, there was rarely any point to the discussion.
It hurts! 🙁
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, obviously. If we/you are going to use labels, use them correctly. There's nothing "technical" about it: those are the actual definitions.I'm an agnostic. You're an agnostic. Dawkins is an Agnostic. Examples of actual atheists: inimalist and Teller.
Like I said, people love their labels.
It has nothing to do with love of labels. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. this statement:
"I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God."
...is emphatically NOT agnostic. Agnosticism is ambivalence, a true neutral position. Agnosticism would stop at "I don't know for sure."
Your ideas here seem incompatible with how any of these terms are used, ever. Dawkins is the figurehead for the atheist movement. I am an atheist. Teller said that what he was, was "beyond atheism," implying that a less severe version of his beliefs were still atheistic.
To say that the only atheists are the Tellers and inamilists is to marginalize everyone who associates with the word, the movement, or has to feel the consequences of the social stigma of atheism.
But I guess we're all just wrong about what we are, the vast amount of literature written by the world's foremost atheists is wrong about how to apply the label, and you're right. 🙄
And I know you don't actually mean it as a slight, or an indictment of the atheist culture or movement. But in taking such a dogmatic approach to the word, you're ignoring the unavoidably large amount of societal precedent that disagrees with you.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm an agnostic. You're an agnostic. Dawkins is an Agnostic. Examples of actual atheists: inimalist and Teller.
isn't that sort of like saying the only Christians are ultra-orthodox evangelicals?
Like, the main difference between how Digi and I define ourselves has to do with our approaches to epistemology rather than differences in theology. In terms of how we would describe our atheism, it is nearly identical; I simply question if there is any functional difference between knowing and believing.
Also, if we are going by self-identity, I don't consider myself an atheist, the same way I don't consider myself an anti-racist or non-dragon-believer. I think the term, atheism, is itself terribly problematic and would gladly have nothing to do with it... So it is probably hard to label me as a quintessential example of what an atheist is.
Disagreeing with a label's existence doesn't mean you don't fall into the category. Unless you have a category that depends on self identification (ie "people who call themselves atheists"😉 self identification doesn't matter. You are a perfect example of a non-dragon-believer no matter how silly that identification is or how unimportant it is to your sense of self.
IMO "labels" are only a problem when the word itself gains independent meaning. Athiest is a good example of that, it holds strong connotations and unspoken assumptions for a lot of people. Race is another one like that. Theist is a usable label but Christian has largely ceased to be in America. Apple is also a good label, I expect that if I request an apple I will be understood.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Disagreeing with a label's existence doesn't mean you don't fall into the category.
sure, but it is a fundamentally meaningless category in the first place. It is a label of exclusion rather than a description of anything. Like, at the very least, saying I fall in the category of people who don't believe in God says nothing about what my thoughts on God are save that I don't think one exists.
I suppose it is technically correct that I'm an atheist, but I am also of the population of things not coloured green, not made of metal and not bacteria.
The reason atheism might be seen to be more informative is simply a reflection of religion and our society, not of the label having any purpose or relevance.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you have a category that depends on self identification (ie "people who call themselves atheists"😉 self identification doesn't matter. You are a perfect example of a non-dragon-believer no matter how silly that identification is or how unimportant it is to your sense of self.
I think dealing with religion, or any type of personal label really, is intrinsically tied to self identification. Maybe not if you are simply making a list of behaviours or beliefs that you then classify as being of one thing or another, but that might fundamentally be a different type of label than what I meant.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IMO "labels" are only a problem when the word itself gains independent meaning. Athiest is a good example of that, it holds strong connotations and unspoken assumptions for a lot of people. Race is another one like that. Theist is a usable label but Christian has largely ceased to be in America. Apple is also a good label, I expect that if I request an apple I will be understood.
sure, but I'm not arguing that we deconstruct the way all things are classified because of some inherent subjectivity or any po-mo solipsism. I'm just saying I don't like or identify with the term "atheist" in a fairly ardent way.
Calling me an exemplar of "true atheist" is only relevant if you suppose there is a thing that is "true atheism" outside of humans who define and practice it. Similar to how fundamentalists would argue that there are only "true faiths" and even people who identify with a faith yet practice it in a different way are excluded. DDM's statement essentially rejected from the group of "atheists" people who self-identify with the group and included myself, who wants nothing to do with atheism.
idk, I get your point, but I think when it comes to ideological labels, self-identification is hugely important. Ideological identities don't exist in the abstract, only in the behaviours of the people who identify with them.
Anyway, atheist rally. On principle I kind of dislike the idea of an atheist movement, but I can see the need for it. Not unlike the need for various other rights movements. The persecution and hatred may not run as deep (though in some cases, it may), but it doesn't mean that there isn't a discrepancy in how the groups are viewed or treated.
More exposure may be the answer, so long as it's not accompanied by things like political policy proposals or marketable branding.
Originally posted by inimalist
Ideological identities don't exist in the abstract, only in the behaviours of the people who identify with them.
I like how you put this.
Originally posted by inimalist
isn't that sort of like saying the only Christians are ultra-orthodox evangelicals?
No. Now you're drawing an arbitrary line that does not run parallel to the point you're trying to make.
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, the main difference between how Digi and I define ourselves has to do with our approaches to epistemology rather than differences in theology. In terms of how we would describe our atheism, it is nearly identical; I simply question if there is any functional difference between knowing and believing.
Well...not really. The actual difference is that Digi still holds that some form of God CAN exist but he doesn't know because he requires tangible evidence.
This is literally an agnostic approach.
The difference between that and Teller and you is you both say things like, "I know God doesn't exist."
There is a difference between the two and it is a significant difference.
You're the only person I know of that is trying to make there be a difference, in centuries, between "I know for sure X" and "I don't know for sure but I believe X".
Originally posted by inimalist
Also, if we are going by self-identity, I don't consider myself an atheist, the same way I don't consider myself an anti-racist or non-dragon-believer. I think the term, atheism, is itself terribly problematic and would gladly have nothing to do with it...
Same argument Teller made.
Contrast your argument with an agnostic one (like mine), such as myself or even how Dawkins put it: I do not say I do not believe Thor, Odin, Kirshna, Ala, etc. I hold that they very well could exist. Same thing with invisible pink dragons or fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Originally posted by inimalist
So it is probably hard to label me as a quintessential example of what an atheist is.
No, it is very easy, actually, to label you as such.
Originally posted by Digi
It has nothing to do with love of labels. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. this statement:
"I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God."
...is emphatically NOT agnostic. Agnosticism is ambivalence, a true neutral position. Agnosticism would stop at "I don't know for sure."Your ideas here seem incompatible with how any of these terms are used, ever. Dawkins is the figurehead for the atheist movement. I am an atheist. Teller said that what he was, was "beyond atheism," implying that a less severe version of his beliefs were still atheistic.
To say that the only atheists are the Tellers and inamilists is to marginalize everyone who associates with the word, the movement, or has to feel the consequences of the social stigma of atheism.
But I guess we're all just wrong about what we are, the vast amount of literature written by the world's foremost atheists is wrong about how to apply the label, and you're right. 🙄
And I know you don't actually mean it as a slight, or an indictment of the atheist culture or movement. But in taking such a dogmatic approach to the word, you're ignoring the unavoidably large amount of societal precedent that disagrees with you.
No, you're wrong: "I don't know for sure" is agnostic. Any amenities you add are superfluous and do not change that fact.
You're making a difference that does not exist. Again, labels. You, for some reason, find more comfort in calling yourself and atheist. Cool. I really don't care.
But you're agnostic. 😐
Read the rest of your post: you are making a logical fallacy. You are making argumentum ad populum as your argument. That's why it fails. Just because many people, who are actually agnostic, claim to be atheist, does not mean they are actually atheist. The staunch atheist type we have been describing are very few and far between: they are a rare breed.
Also, that vast literature you referred to is why you're wrong and why the vast number of people are wrong: they are using the labels in the wrong way.
Why does it offend you so to know you're actually agnostic and that the millions of people that say they are atheist are actually agnostic, as well? Why should it be offensive? Only a closed-minded fool would be as arrogant and stupid enough to sweepingly rule out an infinite number of possibilities. The pretentiousness, alone, is quite silly. They think themselves omniscient or something. This is why, by your own words, I would be hard pressed to find a self-professed atheist actually claim to have a omniscient knowledge of the multiverse and then conclude "dude...there is no God in any form, man."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Disagreeing with a label's existence doesn't mean you don't fall into the category. Unless you have a category that depends on self identification (ie "people who call themselves atheists"😉 self identification doesn't matter. You are a perfect example of a non-dragon-believer no matter how silly that identification is or how unimportant it is to your sense of self.IMO "labels" are only a problem when the word itself gains independent meaning. Athiest is a good example of that, it holds strong connotations and unspoken assumptions for a lot of people. Race is another one like that. Theist is a usable label but Christian has largely ceased to be in America. Apple is also a good label, I expect that if I request an apple I will be understood.
Well said.
They are just labels. I do not see what the big deal is.
Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose it is technically correct that I'm an atheist, but I am also of the population of things not coloured green, not made of metal and not bacteria.The reason atheism might be seen to be more informative is simply a reflection of religion and our society, not of the label having any purpose or relevance.
I have to say I think these are contradictory. Context (environment and society) must define the labels we use or they won't make any sense. If 90% of the objects in the world are green then, contextually, non-green is a useful category.
Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe not if you are simply making a list of behaviours or beliefs that you then classify as being of one thing or another, but that might fundamentally be a different type of label than what I meant.
Yeah, that's closer to what I was talking about. Labels as practical constructions.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm just saying I don't like or identify with the term "atheist" in a fairly ardent way.
Why? (Not to start a debate or anything, I'm just curious)
Originally posted by inimalist
Calling me an exemplar of "true atheist" is only relevant if you suppose there is a thing that is "true atheism" outside of humans who define and practice it. Similar to how fundamentalists would argue that there are only "true faiths" and even people who identify with a faith yet practice it in a different way are excluded. DDM's statement essentially rejected from the group of "atheists" people who self-identify with the group and included myself, who wants nothing to do with atheism.
Fair enough. I would construct that more along the lines of "DDM's label is wrong" more than "atheism shouldn't be a label".
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're wrong: "I don't know for sure" is agnostic. Any amenities you add are superfluous and do not change that fact.You're making a difference that does not exist. Again, labels. You, for some reason, find more comfort in calling yourself and atheist. Cool. I really don't care.
But you're agnostic. 😐
Read the rest of your post: you are making a logical fallacy. You are making argumentum ad populum as your argument. That's why it fails. Just because many people, who are actually agnostic, claim to be atheist, does not mean they are actually atheist. The staunch atheist type we have been describing are very few and far between: they are a rare breed.
Also, that vast literature you referred to is why you're wrong and why the vast number of people are wrong: they are using the labels in the wrong way.
Here's the problem. This strips all descriptive power from religious terminology. It also generalizes too many different types of belief systems into the same basket for the sake of a technicality. Please don't tell me that you'd say that a devout but not fundamentalist Catholic and Richard Dawkins are equivalent, or even close to equivalent, in their approach to religion, and should be described with the same word or term. It's absurd.
So I guess my point is, I don't give a flying poo what technical argument you want to make...if it has no bearing whatsoever on how the terms are actually used in the world by the people believing in various systems, then the argument is worthless to me. Essentially, this:
Originally posted by inimalist
Ideological identities don't exist in the abstract, only in the behaviours of the people who identify with them.
.....
And I also think, if we're being technical, "I lack a belief in any god" is indeed different than "I don't know" but doesn't enter Teller territory. Beliefs inform behavior, responses, mentality, etc. Those two beliefs will manifest differently in a person's thoughts and actions, so yes, they're different. I can't see your point as being anything but overly general.
But the biggest point is my first one. If you can't apply your argument to anything practical, to me it's just intellectual masturbation. So like, even if I just decided you were 100% right, I'd end up ignoring it anyway because there's literally no real-world application of "guys, we're actually all agnostic, so, ya know, cut it out." Because really, someone being persecuted for not believing in God has a problem that's directly related to being an atheist, regardless of whether or not you think they are, and the question of their response and society's response to that atheism is about a billion times more important than what we think the exact label should be.
I consider "labels" to be largely personal and subjective though, because I'm more concerned with the sociological implications of them than linguistic ones, which is likely where we disagree on a basic level. I'd happily concede your point if we could just accept it in the future and talk about atheists in a colloquial sense instead of this academic, semantic nonsense we always get into.
Originally posted by Digi
Here's the problem. This strips all descriptive power from religious terminology.
You consider that a problem but the actual problem, imo, is thinking the descriptive power is lost. We still have our adjectives and various pseudo-philosophical labels of degrees.
Originally posted by Digi
It also generalizes too many different types of belief systems into the same basket for the sake of a technicality.
Only to you but a philosophy student would understand just fine.
Your average layman isn't going to know the philosophical histories associated with these labels.
Originally posted by Digi
Please don't tell me that you'd say that a devout but not fundamentalist Catholic and Richard Dawkins are equivalent, or even close to equivalent, in their approach to religion, and should be described with the same word or term. It's absurd.
Deal: I won't (I expect you to hold me to that as I do forget). But I COULD take the douchy path and say things like, "human" or "mammal" just to be right. 😛
However: I think you're confusing the following of doctrine with philosophy which makes your comparison not a decent parallel.
Originally posted by Digi
So I guess my point is, I don't give a flying poo what technical argument you want to make...if it has no bearing whatsoever on how the terms are actually used in the world by the people believing in various systems, then the argument is worthless to me. Essentially, this:
I disagree with every point you made, here. I'll go down what you said, in order, to avoid confusion:
1. You do care and you're quite adamant about it because you care so deeply about it (that is NOT a bad thing). I already told you it is no big deal: they are just labels. Water under the bridge. I had a problem with considering myself agnostic, at first, but I rolled with it the more I studied philosophy.
2. It is not a technical argument: it is a literal argument. The term "atheist" as been usurped by a swathe of ignorance these last few decades. That's not a "technicality" that's just ignorance. With every movement, there is ignorance. Your side is just getting what all other belief systems have been plagued since the beginning of modern man. I am sure you cringe at the old and tired "atheistic" arguments the same as I do against the old and tired "theistic" arguments. In your defense, you DO know that there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism. You're not really the problem: it is the movement.
3. It has a direct bearing on how people use the terms. Most atheists are not atheists: they are agnostic. It is important to indicate that difference because the difference is intellectually huge: do I put myself down as the same-closed minded and stubborn position as a Christian or Islamic extremist or do I keep and open-mind academically, scientifically, and philosophically? Don't you think that's a giant difference?
4. The argument is not worthless to you, even in the slightest. It is important else you argue it? To me, like in point 3, it is just as important to you as me refusing something like "theist" or "gnostic theist": those are rather insulting philosophical labels. I will say that even modern theistic philosophers are really just agnostics. These labels are damn important to everyone except the apatheists (lol..see what I did thar?).
Originally posted by Digi
And I also think, if we're being technical, "I lack a belief in any god" is indeed different than "I don't know" but doesn't enter Teller territory. Beliefs inform behavior, responses, mentality, etc. Those two beliefs will manifest differently in a person's thoughts and actions, so yes, they're different. I can't see your point as being anything but overly general.
No, that's essentially Teller's position. His crux was "you bring the evidence of such a God before I even consider it." Teller only thinks his position is super-atheistic but his position is essentially old-school agnostic: not even kidding. 😐 He can dress it up with strong language all he wants but the moment he said to bring him evidence before he considers it is the moment he stepped right into "agnosticism" as defined by the man who coined the term: Huxley.
Yeah, lacking any belief in any God is atheistic, quite easily.
Originally posted by Digi
But the biggest point is my first one. If you can't apply your argument to anything practical, to me it's just intellectual masturbation.
Not really. It's philosophical accuracy which is where all these labels sprang up from, to begin with. It is not even a "technicality". If you answered the question on your philosophy exam the way you're wanting to use the labels, you'd get them wrong. "Mr. Mark, please re-read the section over agnosticism if you wish to remain in this course."
Originally posted by Digi
So like, even if I just decided you were 100% right, I'd end up ignoring it anyway because there's literally no real-world application of "guys, we're actually all agnostic, so, ya know, cut it out."
That's what you SHOULD say, actually. One thing that is common among self-professed atheists is a bit more of reason than the "fundies": I know this because I argue with them. What's so hard about pointing out a massive flaw in the concurrent atheistic movement? NOTHING! 😄 That's the beauty of it. Do it!
However, as another pointed out (I believe it was SC), people don't like being told that they actually are something else when it comes to their beliefs...even "atheists" are no exceptions: we're all humans.
Originally posted by Digi
Because really, someone being persecuted for not believing in God has a problem that's directly related to being an atheist, regardless of whether or not you think they are, and the question of their response and society's response to that atheism is about a billion times more important than what we think the exact label should be.
Not really. Even surveys lump in Atheists with Agnostics. Hell, I don't think most people even know the difference between "atheism, agnosticism, and theism".
One of the most famous philosophical agnostics (Russell) would be labeled as an atheist but today's standards (including yourself). That's not even funny or interesting: that's intellectual rape at best and just appalling (considering it comes from those claiming to be atheists) at worst.
Originally posted by Digi
I consider "labels" to be largely personal and subjective though, because I'm more concerned with the sociological implications of them than linguistic ones,
And this is where we agree...except it is not "linguistic" it would be the following: intellectual, academic, and accurate. Not linguistic.
Originally posted by Digi
which is likely where we disagree on a basic level. I'd happily concede your point if we could just accept it in the future and talk about atheists in a colloquial sense instead of this academic, semantic nonsense we always get into.
But that's the entire point of this. If someone who says they are "atheist", if "hard-pressed" (your words, not mine, which is why they are in quotes) will actually indicate they they are philosophically agnostic, then they are not atheists....they are agnostics. Why is that a big deal? Do you really think the Christian Fundie is going to be any less of a douche to you because you say you're an agnostic? 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
Even surveys lump in Atheists with Agnostics.
The good ones don't. It's why we know that when they do lump them together, we can call them on it with some justification.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's essentially Teller's position. His crux was "you bring the evidence of such a God before I even consider it." Teller only thinks his position is super-atheistic but his position is essentially old-school agnostic: not even kidding. 😐 He can dress it up with strong language all he wants but the moment he said to bring him evidence before he considers it is the moment he stepped right into "agnosticism" as defined by the man who coined the term: Huxley.Yeah, lacking any belief in any God is atheistic, quite easily.
But that's my position, not Teller's. And most atheists. His is more hardline than "I lack a belief in any god." We're not talking about "I am ambivalent toward any god" or "I don't know." I'm talking about "I don't believe in any god" or "I lack belief in any god." This is the position of most atheists.
Or if you want to remain technical, we have to preface every statement about anything, ever, with "we can't know for sure" because of our subjective experiences, which would make the entire world agnostics by your definition. That's literally the only reason I include such language in any of my descriptions, not because I believe it should affect a label.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But that's the entire point of this. If someone who says they are "atheist", if "hard-pressed" (your words, not mine, which is why they are in quotes) will actually indicate they they are philosophically agnostic, then they are not atheists....they are agnostics. Why is that a big deal? Do you really think the Christian Fundie is going to be any less of a douche to you because you say you're an agnostic? 😆
Actually, yeah, I think they'll be a lot less aggressive if I were agnostic. I once told a particularly vehement apologist who confronted me that I was agnostic in a technical sense so he'd back down, even though it was just a lie. And he did back down.
I just get annoyed because I've run into countless people who think atheism is "I know there is no God," which is somewhat indefensible as a position imo. But "I believe there is no god" is defensible, and is the position of most atheists, and represents a dramatic shift from an agnostic stance.
Originally posted by Digi
Actually, yeah, I think they'll be a lot less aggressive if I were agnostic. I once told a particularly vehement apologist who confronted me that I was agnostic in a technical sense so he'd back down, even though it was just a lie. And he did back down.
My experience has been the opposite: they generally get more aggressive when you say agnostic because it is more intellectually irritating because...basically...agnosticsm is the most "correct" position one could take and it extremely difficult to argue against (you can always bust out the "faith" argument to prove that they themselves are agnostics...which is AWESOMELY hilarious to do). Also, it seems to "encourage" them to try and convince you to stop being a "fence sitter" so they get more aggressive.
Check this out:
When a religious person comes knocking on my door and asks if I would donate for a cause to their church or help pay for their mission, I tell them "no thanks: I'm an atheist."
That turns them away and shuts them right up. 🙂
I can try the "I'm agnostic" next time. I'll see what that does.
Question: Do you get people like that at your door, very often?
Originally posted by Digi
I just get annoyed because I've run into countless people who think atheism is "I know there is no God," which is somewhat indefensible as a position imo.
See...I do not think we are all the different: I feel the same way. But I would say the gnostic atheists are very few and far between.
Originally posted by Digi
But "I believe there is no god" is defensible, and is the position of most atheists, and represents a dramatic shift from an agnostic stance.
No, that is not the actual stance.
The actual stance is this:
"I can't know for sure..."
Any other amenities you add are unnecessary to the actual label.
In fact, under agnosticism would be several categories including: agnostic atheism.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_agnosticism.html#Types
Edit - That link is awesome. It has links to all sorts of goodies that I was talking about. I think I found something I will add to my favorites. 😄