Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Definition of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

13

Comments

  • #62
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I have a fairly strict definition of what a Christian is, but I certainly don't assume that someone saying 'I am a christian', uses this definition. This is exactly why I don't get pre-conceptions when people use such terms.

    But you are narrowing the definition to exclude people, such as myself.

    Atheist meaning simply someone who isn't a theist encompasses everyone who uses the term, whether it is someone like me or someone proclaiming they know for certain that no gods exist.


  • #63
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    On a side note, I love these regular thread where a theist drops in and says "no you can't hold this reasonable and logical position, you have to hold this other irrational position that's the polar opposite of mine because then it's easier for me to argue against you and dismiss you!!!"


  • #64
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    The 'a' part of a-theism means without. Ie. acardiac mean without a heart, alalia means not having the ability to speak. Atheism means not being theistic, which also covers Jimi's 3rd case whether he likes it or not.


  • #65
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    On a side note, I love these regular thread where a theist drops in and says "no you can't hold this reasonable and logical position, you have to hold this other irrational position that's the polar opposite of mine because then it's easier for me to argue against you and dismiss you!!!"

    LOL, I really couldn't give a sh!te how you want to define it. It lends no weight to any arguement I might be having. Its simply an expressing of an opinion about a words definition, strongly, on a slow day in work.

    Seeking backslaps from others though reeks of intellectual insecurity. Do you really think there was a need for your rather witless post?


  • #66
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    waaay too much thinking in this thread, you might as well believe in turning water to wine


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    LOL, I really couldn't give a sh!te how you want to define it. It lends no weight to any arguement I might be having. Its simply an expressing of an opinion about a words definition, strongly, on a slow day in work.

    Seeking backslaps from others though reeks of intellectual insecurity. Do you really think there was a need for your rather witless post?

    Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread


  • #68
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Lads, lets not get personal here, eh?

    It's Friday, go have a pint.


  • #69
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread

    to-give-a-pat-on-the-back-t13471.jpg


  • #70
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    iUseVi wrote: »
    The 'a' part of a-theism means without. Ie. acardiac mean without a heart, alalia means not having the ability to speak. Atheism means not being theistic, which also covers Jimi's 3rd case whether he likes it or not.

    Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?

    Dades said it simply earlier.

    I don't see some pedantic grammatical nit-picking as reason enough to have to redefine what is in realty a simple term.

    Mr Theist, you believe in god(s) - I don't. Now fupp off with your pointless wordplay!


  • #71
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread

    Maybe you should stop your silly whimsical 'I find it funny how theists INSERT JIBE HERE...', if you don't wish to be called up on it. You pulled that sh!te with Jackass all the time too. Whats the feckin point??


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?
    [/I]

    I know exactly what you mean, I really do. But there is a growing proportion of the population ,people such as Ickle who never rejected belief in an explicit manner.

    This growing section of the population has grown up without religion, some might even reach teenage years before they ever go to a church or religious place or they hear religious viewpoints. These people are atheists but they haven't rejected religion but purely never had it.

    When you say "linguistic intention" you think it means and what your friends and colleagues use it to mean. But I don't think that works anymore because not everyone starts as religious these days. Its not how I use it, and its not how many others use it.


  • #73
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?
    what you're basically saying there is that our definition is correct but people have been strawmanning it for a long time so we should just keep the straw man. The definition of atheism given by our regular theist visitors is invariably an irrational, incoherent, faith based mess so I don't particularly want to use that definition to describe my position, since it's not my position. If you want to keep your understanding of the word you'd probably be better off thinking of us as agnostics since your understanding of agnosticism would be a lot closer to our position than your understanding of atheism


  • #74
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Maybe you should stop your silly whimsical 'I find it funny how theists INSERT JIBE HERE...', if you don't wish to be called up on it. You pulled that sh!te with Jackass all the time too. Whats the feckin point??
    I have no problem with being "pulled up" on anything but what you did was insult me. What I was doing was making a point that every few days a new believer comes in here, tells us we're defining atheism wrong and that we should define it their way. And their way is always as the opposite of theism, another type of faith that's vulnerable to all the same arguments that atheists use against theists. And if you don't want to be called up on that you should either accept that our definition is perfectly valid and is actually closer to the literal meaning of the word than yours or just think of us as agnostics


  • #75
    eoin5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Actually I think I can see Jimis point a bit now.

    Just thinking about the yorkie description, if you've never eaten a yorkie you might say that you dont know if you like them or not, but youd be wrong. In fact you know that you currently dont like them as youve never tried one. What you actually mean is that you dont know wether you will like them or not, its a tense error.

    So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

    dis·like (ds-lk)
    tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
    To regard with distaste or aversion.
    n.
    An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

    An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

    A word has its own power in a language and shifts and changes, a bit like how mince pies came to have no mince. To even give the opposite of a yes or no question (as it is in both the yorkie and theism questions) its own word gives it freedom to wander across meanings.

    What I'm saying is because the meaning of words cant be controlled and their meanings wander it creates a middle ground for words that might have had none originally.

    The solution I propose, now bear with me (O here we go... :rolleyes:), is to scrap the word atheist and just use other negitaves like non-theist or whatever, and when each one looses its meaning we pick a new one, leaving much less room for a middle ground that has no right to exist.


  • #76
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I am agnostic, and my personal definition is that one cannot claim to know whether the unknown (or not yet evidentially demonstrated) can exist or not.

    Hope that helps.


  • #77
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    eoin5 wrote: »
    What I'm saying is because the meaning of words cant be controlled and their meanings wander it creates a middle ground for words that might have had none originally.

    The solution I propose, now bear with me (O here we go... :rolleyes:), is to scrap the word atheist and just use other negitaves like non-theist or whatever, and when each one looses its meaning we pick a new one, leaving much less room for a middle ground that has no right to exist.

    We'll end up calling ourselves flippity floppity floops :pac: (if you get the reference)


  • #78
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    eoin5 wrote: »
    So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

    dis·like (ds-lk)
    tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
    To regard with distaste or aversion.
    n.
    An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

    An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

    An extremely simple and effective presentation of my rambles. Cheers Eoin.


  • #79
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    JimiTime wrote: »
    An extremely simple and effective presentation of my rambles. Cheers Eoin.

    Distaste, to not like.
    Atasteisim, to not have taste, bland.


  • #80
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    We'll end up calling ourselves flippity floppity floops :pac: (if you get the reference)

    I think I know what you are saying, sir.:P


  • #81
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    eoin5 wrote: »
    So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

    dis·like (ds-lk)
    tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
    To regard with distaste or aversion.
    n.
    An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

    An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

    One problem though. Nothing personal Jimi, but the yorkie analogy is crap. :P

    You can't dislike a yorkie if you've never heard of it, you can't say you like or dislike it since both these states require knowledge of yorkie bars.

    However, you can disbelieve in something, such as a god without ever hearing about a god. Until just now I'd never heard of Whappadoodles, which are fairies that live in mobile phone and translate speech into radio signals and vica versa. However I never believed in them, but my default was implicit non-belief, NOT explicit non-belief. Explicit non-belief would require knowledge of Whappadoodles. Implicit belief is a non-sequitur. Therefore I think the default state of someone with no knowledge of a proposition to be non-belief.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'.

    Then I'm confused as to why they would deliberately use a prefix which means without. Why not anti-theist? Or contratheist? Or Countertheist? Detheist? Negtheist? Refuttheist? Oppotheist? Or any number of alternatives that mean actively against or denying theism rather than a choose a word that it's patently obvious - and known to mean - without? :confused:


  • #83
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Zillah wrote: »
    You're making one claim with singular and one claim with plural, so I'm not sure how to respond clearly without simply repeating myself.

    Can you explain what exactly you're getting at?

    (I know the thread's probably moved on by now, but I missed this.)


    Okay, I phrased that badly. I agree with you that the statements I don't believe in X and I don't have belief in X are identical, but I've never seen anyone make a distinction between them.

    I have seen a distinction made between the statements I don't believe in X and I believe X doesn't exist. I wondered if this was what you meant to say here.

    Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition, and simply lacking belief.


  • #84
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition, and simply lacking belief.
    Don't get that one myself. What's the difference between an active belief and a belief? :confused:


  • #85
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Dades wrote: »
    Don't get that one myself. What's the difference between an active belief and a belief? :confused:

    Lack of belief.

    Let's say I claim I have a pet tiger.

    Broadly speaking, there are three main positions you can take:


    1. Belief - 'Wow, you have a tiger? That's like, awesome dude.'

    2. Lack of belief - 'I can't say for sure if you do or don't have a tiger so I'll suspend my judgement until I see some evidence.' (I realise this is generally called agnosticism.)

    3. Disbelief - 'You don't have a tiger. You're talking crap.'


    Don't think I can explain it much better than that. Really though, it's just boring ol' semantics.


  • #86
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    2. Lack of belief - 'I can't say for sure if you do or don't have a tiger so I'll suspend my judgement until I see some evidence.' (I realise this is generally called agnosticism.)

    3. Disbelief - 'You don't have a tiger. You're talking crap.'
    But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.


  • #87
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Dades wrote: »
    But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.

    Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe. I might say "maybe there there is a tiger". You are talking 1s and 0s I think 0.5 is just as valid and possible for humans to hold in their minds.


  • #88
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe. I might say "maybe there there is a tiger". You are talking 1s and 0s I think 0.5 is just as valid and possible for humans to hold in their minds.

    (I just realised that 'disbelief' mightn't have been the best word to use in my last post. What I meant by it was 'belief that X is false')


    This is what I'm getting at.

    To use the tiger example again, anyone who doesn't fall into the category of 'belief' is in the category of 'lack of belief' (IMO anyway), but you can then go one step further and believe the opposite. I guess you could say that the difference between believing the negative proposition and not believing the positive one is that to believe X isn't true, you have to believe the claim is false or the claimant is lying. Hence making it a belief in itself.

    Dades wrote:
    But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.

    Not really. In scenario one, the statement 'You have a tiger' is seen as true. In scenario two, neither 'You have a tiger' or 'You are tigerless' are seen as true, but this doesn't automatically imply that they're seen as false. In scenario three, the statement 'You have no tiger' is seen as true.


  • #89
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    (I just realised that 'disbelief' mightn't have been the best word to use in my last post. What I meant by it was 'belief that X is false')


    This is kind of what I'm getting at.

    To use the tiger example again, anyone who doesn't fall into the category of 'belief' is in the category of 'lack of belief' (IMO anyway), but you can then go one step further and believe the opposite. I guess you could say that the difference between believing the negative proposition and not believing the positive one is that to believe X isn't true, you have to believe the claim is false or the claimant is lying. Hence making it a belief in itself.

    Am I making any sense?

    I think you are making sense but I think I still disagree...;)

    "Hence making it a belief in itself" Don't get this step, you already said you thought believing the negative and disbelieving the positive are different, they don't share any quality apart from non-belief. I don't see how you jump from a shared non-belief to making it a belief.


  • #90
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    iUseVi wrote: »
    I think you are making sense but I think I still disagree...;)

    "Hence making it a belief in itself" Don't get this step, you already said you thought believing the negative and disbelieving the positive are different, they don't share any quality apart from non-belief. I don't see how you jump from a shared non-belief to making it a belief.

    Dammit, I thought I could get away with a sneaky edit there.

    I clarified my point a little in the last post. I think I was agreeing with you though :pac:.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    Daftendirekt wrote: »

    Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition,

    This is a common issue with most religious - atheist debates, by discussing the bible or JC you are actually giving credence to their nonsense.
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    and simply lacking belief.

    I have no belief. I cannot understand how someone can put so much faith in nothing.


Advertisement