Outside of exactly what I'm doing right now, I tend to prefer being in the questioning role rather than the expounding-on-my-worldview role.
That isn't always the neutral ground that it might sound like.
I should hope not. It's a debating position I like to take because it puts me in control, and puts the focus on the other party's views rather than my own.
It's a conversational position I like to take because it lets the other person be the talker, and I like to listen. And judge. :-P
I don't think you can be 100% certain about much in life. And God is not one of them.
Also "God" being an open concept would only increase your chances of encountering it.
It is in fact so open that I have encountered it, and do believe in it. Did you know that are brands of pantheism so milquetoast that "God" is functionally a synonym for "reality" or "the world" with no concrete additions to what's normally understood by those terms?
Of course, I have also encountered opinions to the effect that it doesn't count, because it's too different from pop-christianity, but as a cultured european, I've encountered too much diversity in concepts of gods, spirits and ghosts to think that's a valid criterion.
Related but opposite, there are also brands of gods with internal inconsistencies too severe to exist.
Edit: There's a sort of "possibility by association" at work when we say "you can't know this thing X because you can't know this thing Y", where X and Y are too different to support eachother.
"A god, any god" means too little to be more than a red herring.
People can get pretty desperate when it comes to pretending that they totally, totally have relevance in the universe - that they aren't just short-lived apes living on a short-lived planet.
"The universe is my bro! We are like this! We took a selfie together!"
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
While I understand what you mean, 'agnosticism' simply isn't the right term; it literally means, 'without knowledge' (in that sense, essentially everyone is 'agnostic', given that not absolutely everything about the universe is yet known).
It's not an 'attempt for control' - it's a desire to have the language be understandable. If I call myself a Young Earth Creationist, for example, and then both:
a) Tell people that I don't actually believe in a Young Earth
b) Get offended when people tell me that I'm probably not a Young Earth Creationist
...Well, then I'm probably being a silly goose, and / or deliberately just antagonizing whatever audience I have.
Are these labels helpful? Do you use them in everyday life? Why is this so much harder to agree on them than in other debates?
I'm not approached on the topic often enough to use any of those terms in everyday life.
I find that someone saying, "I'm [x denomination]" tends to mean that they identify with that position for real world networking & benefits (financial connections via the church, buddies they have in church, someone they want to fuck that they saw in church), and they get frothy at the mouth at anything which they perceive as a threat to that pot of honey, and this can (and often does) include simple semantics. In that sense, while I find it useful to hear about someone's religious denomination, it's mostly for the same reason I find it useful to know their brand loyalties, corporate culture associations, national identity, political identity, etc. The deity concept itself is just window dressing.
I don't really agree that it's really much harder to agree on religious terms than any other terms where large issues of personal identity are at play.
That's one meaning of agnostic, but the one I used is (a) really common in dictionaries, wikis etc, showing that some people do use it that way, and (b) (much more importantly than boring old dictionaries) what people are often trying to say when they say they're agnostic.
That's descriptivism mixed with manners - accepting what people are trying to tell you about themselves.
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
While I understand what you mean, 'agnosticism' simply isn't the right term; it literally means, 'without knowledge' (in that sense, essentially everyone is 'agnostic', given that not absolutely everything about the universe is yet known).
It's not an 'attempt for control' - it's a desire to have the language be understandable. If I call myself a Young Earth Creationist, for example, and then both:
a) Tell people that I don't actually believe in a Young Earth
b) Get offended when people tell me that I'm probably not a Young Earth Creationist
...Well, then I'm probably being a silly goose, and / or deliberately just antagonizing whatever audience I have.
Are these labels helpful? Do you use them in everyday life? Why is this so much harder to agree on them than in other debates?
I'm not approached on the topic often enough to use any of those terms in everyday life.
I find that someone saying, "I'm [x denomination]" tends to mean that they identify with that position for real world networking & benefits (financial connections via the church, buddies they have in church, someone they want to fuck that they saw in church), and they get frothy at the mouth at anything which they perceive as a threat to that pot of honey, and this can (and often does) include simple semantics. In that sense, while I find it useful to hear about someone's religious denomination, it's mostly for the same reason I find it useful to know their brand loyalties, corporate culture associations, national identity, political identity, etc. The deity concept itself is just window dressing.
I don't really agree that it's really much harder to agree on religious terms than any other terms where large issues of personal identity are at play.
That's one meaning of agnostic, but the one I used is (a) really common in dictionaries, wikis etc, showing that some people do use it that way, and (b) (much more importantly than boring old dictionaries) what people are often trying to say when they say they're agnostic.
That's descriptivism mixed with manners - accepting what people are trying to tell you about themselves.
Have you said which definitions you are using. I couldn't find them, sorry if I missed them.
Why do you feel that the definition you use better describes your beliefs?
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
How do you feel that that better describes someone than as a weak atheist?
Obviously taking for granted that no one is making anyone call themselves anything.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, I'm just asking question not Just Asking Questions tm
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
How do you feel that that better describes someone than as a week atheist?
Obviously taking for granted that no one is making anyone call themselves anything.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, I'm just asking question not Just Asking Questions tm
The problem with is its a nonsense term which we've somehow managed to bring into common parlance without considering it's ramifications. I mean really read that dictionary definition - it's the equivalent of declaring a "square circle". You can put those words into technically valid sentences, but it means nothing.
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
How do you feel that that better describes someone than as a week atheist?
Obviously taking for granted that no one is making anyone call themselves anything.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, I'm just asking question not Just Asking Questions tm
The problem with is its a nonsense term which we've somehow managed to bring into common parlance without considering it's ramifications. I mean really read that dictionary definition - it's the equivalent of declaring a "square circle". You can put those words into technically valid sentences, but it means nothing.
I think 'weak atheism' (which usually means, "I don't believe in God, but I don't want to be rude like that Dawkins guy, who told people it was a terrible idea to import creationism into the high school science curriculum. How dare he!") is very useful - if what you're aiming for is chilling effect.
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
How do you feel that that better describes someone than as a week atheist?
Obviously taking for granted that no one is making anyone call themselves anything.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, I'm just asking question not Just Asking Questions tm
The problem with is its a nonsense term which we've somehow managed to bring into common parlance without considering it's ramifications. I mean really read that dictionary definition - it's the equivalent of declaring a "square circle". You can put those words into technically valid sentences, but it means nothing.
I think 'weak atheism' (which usually means, "I don't believe in God, but I don't want to be rude like that Dawkins guy, who told people it was a terrible idea to import creationism into the high school science curriculum. How dare he!") is very useful - if what you're aiming for is chilling effect.
At the RationalSkepticism forum there's some person who carries around a definition of atheism "rigorously defined" which implies quite a bit more than simply not believing in gods.
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
At the RationalSkepticism forum there's some person who carries around a definition of atheism "rigorously defined" which implies quite a bit more than simply not believing in gods.
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god or gods, it is not a claim to knowledge that there are no god or gods. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are positions on whether or not it is possible to know, not actual beliefs themselves.
I had a letter published in the Irish Times on Wednesday the 22 of August 2012 about labels of belief (and particularly non belief) in response to an opinion piece which basically argued 'I call myself an agnostic because atheists are big meanies' (Theo Dorgan - August 18th, 2012).
Sir, – Theo Dorgan makes a common mistake (Opinion, August 18th).
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on whether it is possible to know if there is a god or gods. Theism and atheism are the belief, or lack thereof, in a god or gods. It is possible to be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Mr Dorgan would appear to be an agnostic atheist, however much effort he has put into convincing himself otherwise. Many people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists, but some can be agnostic theists. It is this double use that undermines the utility of the term.
Most self-described atheists are also agnostic- atheists, and are not the ideologues Mr Dorgan would like to portray them as. It is hard to be dogmatic without a dogma. Likewise, many who believe in a god or gods will readily admit they cannot know for certain. Mr Dorgan would do better to direct his ire towards anti-theists, who are actively against religious belief. An anti-theist could be agnostic or gnostic atheist and it is well worth pointing out that there are no lack of theists who disagree with religious organisations on one matter or another or may have a distaste for organised religion.
Or as this picture puts it:
[/img]
The long and short of it is that calling yourself an Agnostic isn't making a particularly clear statement about your beliefs - nor does calling yourself an Atheist imply a claim to absolute certainty or hostility to religious belief.
I don't think its possible to be 100% sure one way or the other about the existence of God.
You can say you are, but to me your just kidding yourself.
Sure you can. Because what is God? Is it Allah, Yahweh? Is is it "Oneness with the Universe"? Is it a being of great power? The Go'auld?
I can be absolutely certain I'll never meet a concept so ill-defined as "God".
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
I don't think you can be 100% certain about much in life. And God is not one of them.
Also "God" being an open concept would only increase your chances of encountering it.
It is in fact so open that I have encountered it, and do believe in it. Did you know that are brands of pantheism so milquetoast that "God" is functionally a synonym for "reality" or "the world" with no concrete additions to what's normally understood by those terms?
Of course, I have also encountered opinions to the effect that it doesn't count, because it's too different from pop-christianity, but as a cultured european, I've encountered too much diversity in concepts of gods, spirits and ghosts to think that's a valid criterion.
Related but opposite, there are also brands of gods with internal inconsistencies too severe to exist.
Edit: There's a sort of "possibility by association" at work when we say "you can't know this thing X because you can't know this thing Y", where X and Y are too different to support eachother.
"A god, any god" means too little to be more than a red herring.
People can get pretty desperate when it comes to pretending that they totally, totally have relevance in the universe - that they aren't just short-lived apes living on a short-lived planet.
"The universe is my bro! We are like this! We took a selfie together!"
Or, it could be that with life so rare in the universe and life being the only way in which the universe can consciously observe and change itself means that we are in fact the only part of the universe of any major importance. Either we are so rare as to be worthless or we are so rare as to be the most important part. There's whole branches of philosophy bent towards that debate.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god or gods, it is not a claim to knowledge that there are no god or gods. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are positions on whether or not it is possible to know, not actual beliefs themselves.
I had a letter published in the Irish Times on Wednesday the 22 of August 2012 about labels of belief (and particularly non belief) in response to an opinion piece which basically argued 'I call myself an agnostic because atheists are big meanies' (Theo Dorgan - August 18th, 2012).
Sir, – Theo Dorgan makes a common mistake (Opinion, August 18th).
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on whether it is possible to know if there is a god or gods. Theism and atheism are the belief, or lack thereof, in a god or gods. It is possible to be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Mr Dorgan would appear to be an agnostic atheist, however much effort he has put into convincing himself otherwise. Many people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists, but some can be agnostic theists. It is this double use that undermines the utility of the term.
Most self-described atheists are also agnostic- atheists, and are not the ideologues Mr Dorgan would like to portray them as. It is hard to be dogmatic without a dogma. Likewise, many who believe in a god or gods will readily admit they cannot know for certain. Mr Dorgan would do better to direct his ire towards anti-theists, who are actively against religious belief. An anti-theist could be agnostic or gnostic atheist and it is well worth pointing out that there are no lack of theists who disagree with religious organisations on one matter or another or may have a distaste for organised religion.
Or as this picture puts it:
[/img]
The long and short of it is that calling yourself an Agnostic isn't making a particularly clear statement about your beliefs - nor does calling yourself an Atheist imply a claim to absolute certainty or hostility to religious belief.
I don't think its possible to be 100% sure one way or the other about the existence of God.
You can say you are, but to me your just kidding yourself.
Sure you can. Because what is God? Is it Allah, Yahweh? Is is it "Oneness with the Universe"? Is it a being of great power? The Go'auld?
I can be absolutely certain I'll never meet a concept so ill-defined as "God".
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
"Chemical" as used by certain types of hippie and economic predators of hippies is an empty buzzword.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
At the RationalSkepticism forum there's some person who carries around a definition of atheism "rigorously defined" which implies quite a bit more than simply not believing in gods.
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
Let's take the definition of atheism that I consider to be operational in my case, and which I exhort others to adopt on the basis that it is conceived within a rigorous framework. Namely, a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported blind supernaturalist assertions. Under that definition, I would still be an atheist even if evidence of the existence of a magic deity type entity landed in my lap, because I would still continue not to accept supernaturalist assertions uncritically. As for the question of whether I considered a magic entity to exist, then that would change the moment substantive evidence for such an entity materialised. But I'd still be an atheist, in the sense of not regarding blind assertions about magic entities as constituting established fact just because supernaturalists say so. My status as a person who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to me would not change, and at bottom, an atheist is simply someone who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to him by supernaturalists. But then rigorous thinking isn't something one sees much of in supernaturalist apologetics.
At the RationalSkepticism forum there's some person who carries around a definition of atheism "rigorously defined" which implies quite a bit more than simply not believing in gods.
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
Let's take the definition of atheism that I consider to be operational in my case, and which I exhort others to adopt on the basis that it is conceived within a rigorous framework. Namely, a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported blind supernaturalist assertions. Under that definition, I would still be an atheist even if evidence of the existence of a magic deity type entity landed in my lap, because I would still continue not to accept supernaturalist assertions uncritically. As for the question of whether I considered a magic entity to exist, then that would change the moment substantive evidence for such an entity materialised. But I'd still be an atheist, in the sense of not regarding blind assertions about magic entities as constituting established fact just because supernaturalists say so. My status as a person who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to me would not change, and at bottom, an atheist is simply someone who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to him by supernaturalists. But then rigorous thinking isn't something one sees much of in supernaturalist apologetics.
So, it's a more vitriolic version of religious skepticism?
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Interesting, so you are using weak atheist as more description of the combativeness of the person than as their claims.
I use it like in the op where a weak atheist simply rejects the claim of a god without making the claim that there isn't a god. Hitchens for example uses that position in the debates I have seen and he can be quite combative indeed.
What Loren posted is a pretty excellent example of a person politicizing the term atheist to mean some type of broader, empiricist or physicalist viewpoint instead of a more simple statement of not believing in theism.
At the RationalSkepticism forum there's some person who carries around a definition of atheism "rigorously defined" which implies quite a bit more than simply not believing in gods.
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
Let's take the definition of atheism that I consider to be operational in my case, and which I exhort others to adopt on the basis that it is conceived within a rigorous framework. Namely, a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported blind supernaturalist assertions. Under that definition, I would still be an atheist even if evidence of the existence of a magic deity type entity landed in my lap, because I would still continue not to accept supernaturalist assertions uncritically. As for the question of whether I considered a magic entity to exist, then that would change the moment substantive evidence for such an entity materialised. But I'd still be an atheist, in the sense of not regarding blind assertions about magic entities as constituting established fact just because supernaturalists say so. My status as a person who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to me would not change, and at bottom, an atheist is simply someone who doesn't roll over and accept gullibly every piece of shit fed to him by supernaturalists. But then rigorous thinking isn't something one sees much of in supernaturalist apologetics.
That seems like a strange definition because a lot of fundamentalist Christians would put themselves in that category.
One of the most common narratives of apologetics is that the person was an atheist but was so overwhelmed by the evidence that they had to except Christianity but still disbelieve other claims of the supernatural.
Oxygen, at least at room-temperature, isn't normally visible. So it's true that you can't see with your eyes alone that there isn't any large amount of chemical in a space. But if the relevant chemical is copper, you can expect to see it with your own eyes. "Any chemical" may not be useful in context.
Yeah, the socio-political composition of that board has a lot of people deferring to Cali there. It strikes me as people finding a license to be condescending and dismissive.
Meehhhh... I always read weak atheist as one who does not believe in god, strong atheist as one who believes god does not exist, and agnostic as one who believes it is not possible to know if god exists or not.
Any of these, and plenty of theists, can condemn or seek to appease those who would attempt to force their religious beliefs on school children or create laws based upon them.
I believe god doesn't exist. I believe it is impossible to prove that god exists or not. I believe the teaching of a prophet named Jesus Christ are largely correct as interpreted by the Christian Society of Friends. I believe religion should not shape governmental policy or a society's morality.
So, *shug*, I am an agnostic, [strong] atheist, quaker, secularist.
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
"Chemical" as used by certain types of hippie and economic predators of hippies is an empty buzzword.
Well, not even. People will say "Chemicals are bad," or "We want food without chemicals," or "Chemical plant," and they're not talking about nothing, but neither are they using the dictionary definition of chemical.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that we toss away the term "god", but it's really not clear to me that there is much consensus on what one must believe to be considered religious/atheist/whatever the fuck is in between.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
"Chemical" as used by certain types of hippie and economic predators of hippies is an empty buzzword.
Well, not even. People will say "Chemicals are bad," or "We want food without chemicals," or "Chemical plant," and they're not talking about nothing, but neither are they using the dictionary definition of chemical.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that we toss away the term "god", but it's really not clear to me that there is much consensus on what one must believe to be considered religious/atheist/whatever the fuck is in between.
Why would there be a consensus? We're talking about a discussion that has been happening since pre-history in multiple cultures viewing both sides in very different ways. Socratic religious skepticism is different from Western Atheism and both are very different from Atheism in China or India. At the same time the theism of those respective areas are incredibly diverse and more varied than their counterpart in the discussion.
The conversation keeps veering towards the most simplistic and limited viewpoint (IE only what we ourselves have encountered) while trying to hold true over viewpoints that we cannot even imagine (those viewpoints of everyone else).
Look, I get that as human beings we love binary choices and simple labels, but you can't reasonably impose simple structure on complex reasoning and experience.
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
"Chemical" as used by certain types of hippie and economic predators of hippies is an empty buzzword.
Well, not even. People will say "Chemicals are bad," or "We want food without chemicals," or "Chemical plant," and they're not talking about nothing, but neither are they using the dictionary definition of chemical.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that we toss away the term "god", but it's really not clear to me that there is much consensus on what one must believe to be considered religious/atheist/whatever the fuck is in between.
There is one well defined thing you need to not believe to be considered an atheist. existence of a god (or gods).
Ofcourse, the definition of what might be considered a god is so vague you can be functionally no different from an atheist, while still believing in something you choose to call god (god is love, god is the universe, god is whatever caused big bang).
Problem is not there not being a well defined meanings for atheist and theist, the problem is there not being a well defined meaning for god.
Also peoples dislike of being labelled an atheist for whatever reasons (some good, some bad, some just silly).
What's there to worry about? If there's nothing, there's nothing. What makes you so anxious, specifically?
This is such a robotic response I can't believe it's real.
Being anxious about something you have no control over is a waste of energy.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
If the conversation is never had in the public, it will be way, way too late by the time anything terrible is found floating through a courtroom (See: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes).
The idea that you can just step up from out of the aether and prevent an indoctrinated body of people from creating a theocratic apparatus is ridiculously naive.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
Do you know, I had what I thought was an Interesting Discussion about this with a (now former) friend of mine.
Basically, the context is that there was apparently some measure of Hullabaloo (ie. schoolyard gossip) about the nature of this person's relationship with someone who used to attend the uni I'm at. The person in question maintained that it was a Romantic Relationship, while everyone else seemed to feel it was one-sided and not reciprocal. I talked to this person at some length about it, and he made it clear that regardless of what anyone else said, what he experienced was a romantic connection, and so it doesn't matter what anyone else might think.
I basically tried to explain my thoughts to him by using a related-but-different hypothetical. I could, hypothetically, start telling people some random girl is my girlfriend, or some random guy is my boyfriend... but this wouldn't per se make it so, based on the conventional definition of those terms.
He responded by saying that his definition of a romantic relationship just didn't fit that conventional definition, and if people misunderstood when he used the word "boyfriend," that it was their own fault. I replied that when you choose to use certain words, with very specific meanings, that you can mean whatever you want by them... but you also can't be surprised or upset when people tell you that they understand those words to signify something completely different from what you're trying to communicate.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
You're asking a lot of people who eschew their right of religious assembly
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
What can be gained is insight, your ideas get challenged so you can define them and learn any faults you missed and have an interesting conversation with somebody. That said, you don't need to gain anything from a discussion or argument like this to this.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
These are contradictory statements. It's true that it's difficult to change people's mind on subjects when they're in the opposite corner in the conversation but it can educate third parties watching/reading the conversation and sometimes you can get them to open their mind to new ideas. What's wrong with standing up for your political agenda in conversations? Politics in embedded in the fabric of society, with religion tied into it. People talk about politics everywhere, so why are you ok with that but not religion?
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Do you talk about religious issues with people you aren't related to? Since she is your mother I can understand why you'd rather not do so to avoid creating ideological divisions that can hurt her feelings and vice versa.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
That's a good reason for these discussions to take place. Politics and religion do cross-over with each other.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
People talk about stupid shit all the time so why not discuss important topics relating to organized religion, faith, deities, souls etc? Those are fascinating subjects to talk about whether you believe in them or don't.
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
Do you know, I had what I thought was an Interesting Discussion about this with a (now former) friend of mine.
Basically, the context is that there was apparently some measure of Hullabaloo (ie. schoolyard gossip) about the nature of this person's relationship with someone who used to attend the uni I'm at. The person in question maintained that it was a Romantic Relationship, while everyone else seemed to feel it was one-sided and not reciprocal. I talked to this person at some length about it, and he made it clear that regardless of what anyone else said, what he experienced was a romantic connection, and so it doesn't matter what anyone else might think.
I basically tried to explain my thoughts to him by using a related-but-different hypothetical. I could, hypothetically, start telling people some random girl is my girlfriend, or some random guy is my boyfriend... but this wouldn't per se make it so, based on the conventional definition of those terms.
He responded by saying that his definition of a romantic relationship just didn't fit that conventional definition, and if people misunderstood when he used the word "boyfriend," that it was their own fault. I replied that when you choose to use certain words, with very specific meanings, that you can mean whatever you want by them... but you also can't be surprised or upset when people tell you that they understand those words to signify something completely different from what you're trying to communicate.
I don't think that's analogous. Of course, sometimes people use words strangely, or with their own special definition that nobody shares, or just lie, as I mentioned before.
In this situation I'm arguing for a conventional definition, that it's quite normal to respect people's self-definition, and that people can express a belief system that may well be irrational, but that you have to take that belief system on when involved in discourse with them, as opposed to attacking rational belief system that you hold they believe but they actually do not.
As far as I can see, some others are arguing for unconventional definitions mostly because they want a good excuse to give those sloppy agnostics what for, or because they just haven't had much experience of speaking to agnostics.
I don't like analogies much, but try this one:
I'm a socialist. For some people a socialist means a communist, someone who doesn't believe in democracy. For most people it means someone who works within democracy and loves governments like Sweden's - called a social democrat (or running dog crypto-capitalist) by those who believe socialism=communism. Now, we can argue about the conventional definitions, and which is predominant, all we want. I may be mistaken that the predominant English-language usage is mine. An American may well differ, and a European English-speaker agree with me. There is room for debate there.
BUT if we are talking about politics, and I clearly explain what I think, and you spend all your time telling me I hate democracy and love Stalin, you're just being deliberately obtuse. That's what telling an agnostic they're actually an atheist is. Being deliberately difficult and obtuse, either because you despise religion or you are a prescriptivist obsessed with etymology over usage.
And there's no excuse for being deliberately obtuse just to win arguments.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
If the conversation is never had in the public, it will be way, way too late by the time anything terrible is found floating through a courtroom (See: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes).
The idea that you can just step up from out of the aether and prevent an indoctrinated body of people from creating a theocratic apparatus is ridiculously naive.
Because somehow, being needlessly hostile at all times is incredibly important to the fight to make sure that theocrats don't introduce regressive policy? Please. Can you refrain from slinging accusations of naivety at people? You do this fairly consistently whenever someone doesn't agree with the tenacity with which you fling yourself at your pet issues, Ender, and I find it tiresome. This isn't a command, merely a request for some measure of civility.
Everything isn't a fight. Every conversation is not an opportunity for attack. There is, I think, room for being able to tolerate a person being wrong about something without needing to confrontational with them about it so long as they're being wrong in a way that ultimately isn't really having a measurable negative effect on people. This is a consequentialist ethical view, I suppose, that ultimately is viewing their beliefs by way of the consequences of their beliefs and if the end results of those beliefs don't end up harming themselves or others I don't especially care.
The point I was trying to make was, being thus, I don't see the value in most cases in those conversations. I don't talk about religion with my family, co-workers, friends, etc. in most circumstances. In fact, on the internet is one of the few places I do talk about religion and even then it's generally in extremely oblique and general terms. The exception to that is where religion foists itself upon law and politics and policy and suchlike. That's an area I am opinionated on, something I will argue with people about, something I will fight about. This idea that you seem to have, that you cannot have opposition to one aspect without picking a fight with people otherwise is sort of troubling to me. It seems to imply this cynical idea that unless I'm constantly frothing at every Christian I meet about the regressive elements of political American Evangelical Christianity, that I will then be powerless to stand in the way of such people if they to implement theocratic policy. That... that doesn't strike me as quite right.
Posts
I should hope not. It's a debating position I like to take because it puts me in control, and puts the focus on the other party's views rather than my own.
It's a conversational position I like to take because it lets the other person be the talker, and I like to listen. And judge. :-P
People can get pretty desperate when it comes to pretending that they totally, totally have relevance in the universe - that they aren't just short-lived apes living on a short-lived planet.
"The universe is my bro! We are like this! We took a selfie together!"
That's one meaning of agnostic, but the one I used is (a) really common in dictionaries, wikis etc, showing that some people do use it that way, and (b) (much more importantly than boring old dictionaries) what people are often trying to say when they say they're agnostic.
That's descriptivism mixed with manners - accepting what people are trying to tell you about themselves.
Have you said which definitions you are using. I couldn't find them, sorry if I missed them.
Why do you feel that the definition you use better describes your beliefs?
The definition I was referring to was a very conventional one of something similar to the oxford dictionary one of:
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But mostly I am interested in what people are trying to express when they describe themselves. If someone says they're an agnostic, I'm not going to start talking about Gnosticism or one of the other definitions instead of communicating.
Obviously taking for granted that no one is making anyone call themselves anything.
Also, in case it wasn't clear, I'm just asking question not Just Asking Questions tm
The problem with is its a nonsense term which we've somehow managed to bring into common parlance without considering it's ramifications. I mean really read that dictionary definition - it's the equivalent of declaring a "square circle". You can put those words into technically valid sentences, but it means nothing.
I think 'weak atheism' (which usually means, "I don't believe in God, but I don't want to be rude like that Dawkins guy, who told people it was a terrible idea to import creationism into the high school science curriculum. How dare he!") is very useful - if what you're aiming for is chilling effect.
Care to elaborate?
That place suffers from a lot of insider jargon creep. Unless new people are incredibly deferential about how words are used, it tends to end poorly.
What is it?
That's a limitation of language, not a limitation of the idea.
Strictly speaking God is simply a term Western Christian society uses to define any divine being, but it's not the term used by individual religions.
You're using it as a proper noun, which it shouldn't be at all, anyways. There are actual names of god in Christian religions inherited from Judaic practices, but they are also completely dropped in favor of using a singular term.
God is not a name, it's a title. If we wanted to get really pedantic Jesus Christ isn't a name either. It's a combination of two titles. The greek titles lesus and Christos, both of which were added after the fact during translation.
Anyways, saying that "god" is an ill defined term because it's used as a blanket noun describing a whole range of other subjects is like tossing away the word "chemical" because it does the same.
Or, it could be that with life so rare in the universe and life being the only way in which the universe can consciously observe and change itself means that we are in fact the only part of the universe of any major importance. Either we are so rare as to be worthless or we are so rare as to be the most important part. There's whole branches of philosophy bent towards that debate.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
"Chemical" as used by certain types of hippie and economic predators of hippies is an empty buzzword.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
I use it like in the op where a weak atheist simply rejects the claim of a god without making the claim that there isn't a god. Hitchens for example uses that position in the debates I have seen and he can be quite combative indeed.
Find that kind of thing annoying, personally.
One of the most common narratives of apologetics is that the person was an atheist but was so overwhelmed by the evidence that they had to except Christianity but still disbelieve other claims of the supernatural.
The politics of language is interesting.
Any of these, and plenty of theists, can condemn or seek to appease those who would attempt to force their religious beliefs on school children or create laws based upon them.
I believe god doesn't exist. I believe it is impossible to prove that god exists or not. I believe the teaching of a prophet named Jesus Christ are largely correct as interpreted by the Christian Society of Friends. I believe religion should not shape governmental policy or a society's morality.
So, *shug*, I am an agnostic, [strong] atheist, quaker, secularist.
Well, not even. People will say "Chemicals are bad," or "We want food without chemicals," or "Chemical plant," and they're not talking about nothing, but neither are they using the dictionary definition of chemical.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that we toss away the term "god", but it's really not clear to me that there is much consensus on what one must believe to be considered religious/atheist/whatever the fuck is in between.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
This is such a robotic response I can't believe it's real.
Why would there be a consensus? We're talking about a discussion that has been happening since pre-history in multiple cultures viewing both sides in very different ways. Socratic religious skepticism is different from Western Atheism and both are very different from Atheism in China or India. At the same time the theism of those respective areas are incredibly diverse and more varied than their counterpart in the discussion.
The conversation keeps veering towards the most simplistic and limited viewpoint (IE only what we ourselves have encountered) while trying to hold true over viewpoints that we cannot even imagine (those viewpoints of everyone else).
Look, I get that as human beings we love binary choices and simple labels, but you can't reasonably impose simple structure on complex reasoning and experience.
There is one well defined thing you need to not believe to be considered an atheist. existence of a god (or gods).
Ofcourse, the definition of what might be considered a god is so vague you can be functionally no different from an atheist, while still believing in something you choose to call god (god is love, god is the universe, god is whatever caused big bang).
Problem is not there not being a well defined meanings for atheist and theist, the problem is there not being a well defined meaning for god.
Also peoples dislike of being labelled an atheist for whatever reasons (some good, some bad, some just silly).
Being anxious about something you have no control over is a waste of energy.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
These creatures known as humans do not always abide by the laws of cold, hard logic and exhibit "emotion", an often unhelpful trait.
If the conversation is never had in the public, it will be way, way too late by the time anything terrible is found floating through a courtroom (See: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes).
The idea that you can just step up from out of the aether and prevent an indoctrinated body of people from creating a theocratic apparatus is ridiculously naive.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
Do you know, I had what I thought was an Interesting Discussion about this with a (now former) friend of mine.
Basically, the context is that there was apparently some measure of Hullabaloo (ie. schoolyard gossip) about the nature of this person's relationship with someone who used to attend the uni I'm at. The person in question maintained that it was a Romantic Relationship, while everyone else seemed to feel it was one-sided and not reciprocal. I talked to this person at some length about it, and he made it clear that regardless of what anyone else said, what he experienced was a romantic connection, and so it doesn't matter what anyone else might think.
I basically tried to explain my thoughts to him by using a related-but-different hypothetical. I could, hypothetically, start telling people some random girl is my girlfriend, or some random guy is my boyfriend... but this wouldn't per se make it so, based on the conventional definition of those terms.
He responded by saying that his definition of a romantic relationship just didn't fit that conventional definition, and if people misunderstood when he used the word "boyfriend," that it was their own fault. I replied that when you choose to use certain words, with very specific meanings, that you can mean whatever you want by them... but you also can't be surprised or upset when people tell you that they understand those words to signify something completely different from what you're trying to communicate.
You're asking a lot of people who eschew their right of religious assembly
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What can be gained is insight, your ideas get challenged so you can define them and learn any faults you missed and have an interesting conversation with somebody. That said, you don't need to gain anything from a discussion or argument like this to this.
These are contradictory statements. It's true that it's difficult to change people's mind on subjects when they're in the opposite corner in the conversation but it can educate third parties watching/reading the conversation and sometimes you can get them to open their mind to new ideas. What's wrong with standing up for your political agenda in conversations? Politics in embedded in the fabric of society, with religion tied into it. People talk about politics everywhere, so why are you ok with that but not religion?
Do you talk about religious issues with people you aren't related to? Since she is your mother I can understand why you'd rather not do so to avoid creating ideological divisions that can hurt her feelings and vice versa.
That's a good reason for these discussions to take place. Politics and religion do cross-over with each other.
People talk about stupid shit all the time so why not discuss important topics relating to organized religion, faith, deities, souls etc? Those are fascinating subjects to talk about whether you believe in them or don't.
I don't think that's analogous. Of course, sometimes people use words strangely, or with their own special definition that nobody shares, or just lie, as I mentioned before.
In this situation I'm arguing for a conventional definition, that it's quite normal to respect people's self-definition, and that people can express a belief system that may well be irrational, but that you have to take that belief system on when involved in discourse with them, as opposed to attacking rational belief system that you hold they believe but they actually do not.
As far as I can see, some others are arguing for unconventional definitions mostly because they want a good excuse to give those sloppy agnostics what for, or because they just haven't had much experience of speaking to agnostics.
I don't like analogies much, but try this one:
I'm a socialist. For some people a socialist means a communist, someone who doesn't believe in democracy. For most people it means someone who works within democracy and loves governments like Sweden's - called a social democrat (or running dog crypto-capitalist) by those who believe socialism=communism. Now, we can argue about the conventional definitions, and which is predominant, all we want. I may be mistaken that the predominant English-language usage is mine. An American may well differ, and a European English-speaker agree with me. There is room for debate there.
BUT if we are talking about politics, and I clearly explain what I think, and you spend all your time telling me I hate democracy and love Stalin, you're just being deliberately obtuse. That's what telling an agnostic they're actually an atheist is. Being deliberately difficult and obtuse, either because you despise religion or you are a prescriptivist obsessed with etymology over usage.
And there's no excuse for being deliberately obtuse just to win arguments.
Because somehow, being needlessly hostile at all times is incredibly important to the fight to make sure that theocrats don't introduce regressive policy? Please. Can you refrain from slinging accusations of naivety at people? You do this fairly consistently whenever someone doesn't agree with the tenacity with which you fling yourself at your pet issues, Ender, and I find it tiresome. This isn't a command, merely a request for some measure of civility.
Everything isn't a fight. Every conversation is not an opportunity for attack. There is, I think, room for being able to tolerate a person being wrong about something without needing to confrontational with them about it so long as they're being wrong in a way that ultimately isn't really having a measurable negative effect on people. This is a consequentialist ethical view, I suppose, that ultimately is viewing their beliefs by way of the consequences of their beliefs and if the end results of those beliefs don't end up harming themselves or others I don't especially care.
The point I was trying to make was, being thus, I don't see the value in most cases in those conversations. I don't talk about religion with my family, co-workers, friends, etc. in most circumstances. In fact, on the internet is one of the few places I do talk about religion and even then it's generally in extremely oblique and general terms. The exception to that is where religion foists itself upon law and politics and policy and suchlike. That's an area I am opinionated on, something I will argue with people about, something I will fight about. This idea that you seem to have, that you cannot have opposition to one aspect without picking a fight with people otherwise is sort of troubling to me. It seems to imply this cynical idea that unless I'm constantly frothing at every Christian I meet about the regressive elements of political American Evangelical Christianity, that I will then be powerless to stand in the way of such people if they to implement theocratic policy. That... that doesn't strike me as quite right.