I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position — Frank Apisa
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"? — CeleRate
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa
There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?
— CeleRate
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.
I suppose that coining the word atheism is useful so as not to have to repeat "person who does not believe in the existence of God" or "person who believes that God does not exist". These are very long expressions. If belief in fairies were as common as belief in gods we would surely have a term similar to "fairist" and "a-fairist". It is a matter of usefulness. — David Mo
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time.
— Frank Apisa
That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea. — Coben
where the original meaning might not even clarify a belief or lack of one.In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods".
As I said, there are many words that have several meanings and require further clarification in some situations. Atheist works fine in a great deal of contexts, even if we do not know if the person denies the existence of gods or simply lacks a belief. This is language it is a floppy, ambiguous thing and even the grammar stakes paradigmatic claims without proof.Okay...but what if I use the word one way and someone else uses it another way. Do we put its "proper" use up to a vote next election? — Frank Apisa
If one needs to know, ask. If one wants to clarify, clarify. I don't see how claiming that the atheists are using the word wrong resolves the conflict. Does that approach seem to be getting converts to your preferred usage?Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations. — Frank Apisa
First of all, there is a difference between suggesting that we change the meaning with a supporting why we should change it, and telling people they are wrong to use it the way they are, when in fact they are following current usage. I have already said that I think that is fine. This is different from telling people their use is wrong because really dictionaries are wrong and current use, generally, is wrong due to etymology. Language changes and current use is not wrong. So, now moving on to the next issue is it better to use it the way you would like.My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa
There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods. — Frank Apisa
My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa
Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic.
Here is my take on the issue:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't. — Frank Apisa
Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.
As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation. — CeleRate
I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable. — CeleRate
Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...
... practical atheist. :smirk: — 180 Proof
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. — Frank Apisa
CeleRate
3
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
— Frank Apisa
This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic. — CeleRate
4
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine.
— Frank Apisa
I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.
I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented. — CeleRate
Is this an agnostic position?
Is this an atheistic position? — Frank Apisa
agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.
Will you address that? — Frank Apisa
Fair enough. Resist. There are some who would say that atheist agnostic is possible. But I think that agnostic has a particular meaning, generally around the potential for positive knowledge of God. So, to me it is a fairly precise term (not completely, since some people use it to mean they are not sure, but still, in general in philosophy forums it means what I am guessing you mean by it). I see no reason for you to be placed in a category you think does not fit, especially given what you take atheist to mean.There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist." — Frank Apisa
:clap:Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...
... practical atheist.
— 180 Proof
I agree! — Frank Apisa
:monkey:I walk like an agnostic...I talk (or quack) like an agnostic...so I AM AN AGNOSTIC.
If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:
Is this an agnostic position?
Is this an atheistic position?
...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second. — Frank Apisa
Atheists of the mid-20th century decided they did not want to be saddled with a burden of proof for their "beliefs"...and decided to change the meaning of the word.
Its use does not derive from its "usefulness" as you outline it. It derives from the usefulness of people who use the word to be absolved from having to defend a position that cannot logically be defended. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.