Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wouldn't that make those people Agnostics though?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, evangelical atheists would be a sub-set of atheists just as particle physicists are a sub-set of physicists. I was just having a discussion about this in the GDF, when you refer to a group as a whole you can't pretend everyone should know you're talking about a small part of that group. We're not mindreaders.
I don't know I mentioned evangelical athiests a long time ago, you don't need to mind read, so I don't know where thats coming from. It's not just them its Richard Dawkins and co as well. Not sure if you would consider Dawkins to be a blatant evangelical athiest.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not really. Agnosticism means that you don't know if God exists or not. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic christian... knowing and believing are two different things.
I have a feeling this is not as clear cut as you're making it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not really. Agnosticism means that you don't know if God exists or not. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic christian... knowing and believing are two different things.
Knowing is just believing that you are right. They're linked.
We used to know that pluto was a planet.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Knowing is just believing that you are right. They're linked.We used to know that pluto was a planet.
Not in this case. Knowing is being used to mean "have knowledge about" and believing is being used to mean "accept as true".
Thus, in simplest possible terms, a Christian agnostic says "I do not know if god is real, but I believe he is." and the atheist agnostic says "I do not know if god is real, but I do not believe he is."
Both will have elaborate justifications for their positions.
I don't get why everyone (or, at least the non-atheists) obsess so much with how to categorize people who don't believe in god? what is wrong with letting people choose the affiliations they wish to have?
and no, I'm not an agnostic. if you have a definition of agnosticism that includes myself, you are wrong
Originally posted by King Kandy
You're the one trying to say that all atheists are really agnostics, and i'm the one oversimplifying things?
Nope thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying is that athiests play semantics with defintion of what an athiest is. People overcomplicate shit and sometimes it's for tactical reasons.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't get why everyone (or, at least the non-atheists) obsess so much with how to categorize people who don't believe in god? what is wrong with letting people choose the affiliations they wish to have?and no, I'm not an agnostic. if you have a definition of agnosticism that includes myself, you are wrong
Who is that post to?
Well, it's hard to classify yourself if you think deeper on it and are not affiliated with any sort of organization you gave your defining power over to.
I think many atheists are at hard skeptics, and as such they easily fit a broad definition of agnosticism.
I am not sure what inimalist is going for, perhaps he has a very strict definition of agnosticism, something along the lines "Believing that the existence of God is ultimately unknowable or does not matter", which is fair enough really, but in common usage agnosticism often means not being absolutely certain about God(s) either way, and that fits many people, though perhaps it is a somewhat useless label then.
Originally posted by Deadline
Nope thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying is that athiests play semantics with defintion of what an athiest is. People overcomplicate shit and sometimes it's for tactical reasons.
Originally posted by Deadline
Nope thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying is that athiests play semantics with defintion of what an athiest is. People overcomplicate shit and sometimes it's for tactical reasons.
You gonna give us some examples, or speak in vague terms? Certain people of any belief system will have a very specific definition of what they think they are. But yeah, as Kandy was saying, "doesn't have a belief in God" is sufficient for the vast, vast majority of atheists.
I say I'm an atheist when I feel like shocking people though. I usually get a laugh out of it. Not sure if that's tactical or not, but it's sure as hell not playign semantics.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Knowing is just believing that you are right. They're linked.We used to know that pluto was a planet.
Sorry, but it is not.
Originally posted by Deadline
I'm saying that athiests play semantics with defintion of what an athiest is. People overcomplicate shit and sometimes it's for tactical reasons.
No, only non-atheists, even those who say they are but still feel a twitch of discomfort when confronted by the likes of those who do subscribe to a theology that dicates their thoughts for them, complicate the perspective. Tactical arguing in pretty much only indulged in by theists. The tactical PMs must have become a menage in the last few days, because every single person who debates atheists do so from the faulty perspective that there is some mission involved in not believing in god. Furthering an argument is a whole world away from trying to convert people. Perhaps some members don't understand that, but that tends to be the default position of people who also can not wrap their minds around the straight forward and honest position of the true atheist.
Originally posted by Digi
You gonna give us some examples, or speak in vague terms? Certain people of any belief system will have a very specific definition of what they think they are. But yeah, as Kandy was saying, "doesn't have a belief in God" is sufficient for the vast, vast majority of atheists.I say I'm an atheist when I feel like shocking people though. I usually get a laugh out of it. Not sure if that's tactical or not, but it's sure as hell not playign semantics.
But, see, you can't even begin to make some people understand that. It doesn't matter which denomination, sect, religion, self-help fad, etc. to which they subscribe. I'm not interested in shocking people, but pretending that their religious choice is any different from my descision not to subscribe only gives them some measure of leverage over those of us who do not subscribe. What's worse, is that for the vast vast majority of the supposedly religious, the practice of that religion is pretty much confined to acceptance through public subscription. No semantics. It's a black and white issue.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I just gave you a straight definition and you said it was "too cut and dry". Do you want complicated, or do you want simple? I can give you a very complicated definition if you want, but I think "don't have a belief in God" should be enough.
I honestly not really bothered about what your defintion is, it's your intention. I can't conclusively prove what your intentions only you know it.
Originally posted by Digi
You gonna give us some examples, or speak in vague terms? Certain people of any belief system will have a very specific definition of what they think they are. But yeah, as Kandy was saying, "doesn't have a belief in God" is sufficient for the vast, vast majority of atheists.
I gave an example.
Originally posted by DeadlineWell for starters theres the argument that Athiests don't really have a disbelief in god they just don't have any trust in it etc.
Originally posted by Digi
I say I'm an atheist when I feel like shocking people though. I usually get a laugh out of it. Not sure if that's tactical or not, but it's sure as hell not playign semantics.
No that isn't.
Originally posted by skekUng
No, only non-atheists, even those who say they are but still feel a twitch of discomfort when confronted by the likes of those who do subscribe to a theology that dicates their thoughts for them, complicate the perspective. Tactical arguing in pretty much only indulged in by theists. The tactical PMs must have become a menage in the last few days, because every single person who debates atheists do so from the faulty perspective that there is some mission involved in not believing in god. Furthering an argument is a whole world away from trying to convert people. Perhaps some members don't understand that, but that tends to be the default position of people who also can not wrap their minds around the straight forward and honest position of the true atheist.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about, posts like this.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How does a post that makes no attempt to define atheism prove your claim that atheists like to redefine atheism when it suits them?
It doesn't. I'm not going to elaborate because I don't want a flame war. I should address these issues at some point but for now I'm out.