I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. — David Mo
I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable — Malice
My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof" — David Mo
Malice
6
It's linguistic evolution. How words are pronounced, spelled, and defined change over time. It's why we speak so many different languages. Words do not have intrinsic meaning.
I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. I don't have to label it, I can just state it. I don't care if people call my position atheistic or agnostic or agnostic atheist. I only care that I've communicated my position.
Would I like to see the langua — Malice
When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiate it from "unfalsifiable"? — Malice
There are some words for all this: mythology, pseudoscience or magic thinking. If they're meant to be something philosophical, metaphysical is their category. It depends on the nuances. There's probably no common word because those nuances exist. Some specialties have their category: sectarians, ufologists, astrologers, parapsychologists, fortune tellers or magicians. There are even some neologisms like terraplanists. It depends on the diffusion that they have had. We are not going to invent a category for every nutcase who invents a mosquito cult. And those who don't believe in these things are usually called skeptics, rationalists or scientists, depending on the case.There are people that believe in telekinesis, ghosts, and clairvoyance, but the word a-paranormalist does not exist. There are no a-fairyists, no a-SantaClausists, a-extraterrestrialists, etc even though there are large populations of believers and non-believers for each of these beliefs. — CeleRate
What more is there then, "The evidence has not convinced me"? — CeleRate
I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists. — Malice
Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? — CeleRate
Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? — CeleRate
do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? — CeleRate
do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that?
— CeleRate
No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely. — Malice
How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"? — CeleRate
If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. — Malice
The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons. — Malice
Thank you.It would be (b) then. It makes more sense to me to just say unfalsifiable since it cannot be demonstrated whether or not a creator of some sort lurks out there somewhere. — Malice
I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast.If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa
I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist.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
I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast. — Coben
I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist. — Coben
I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind.A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. — DingoJones
He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred.Resist what? Why? — DingoJones
He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben
I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind. — Coben
He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben
I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. — Coben
Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me thatThat doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones
Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. But either way itIf I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa
I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me.That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones
The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting.You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him. — DingoJones
I don't think so. Language is not a machine.Someone has to give. — Dawnstorm
Yeah, that's where I've been disagreeing with Mr. Apisa, and in part because of that, I think he can define himself in a way he feels is most clear. And he wants to use the term agnostic, which sure seems correct. If he doesn't want to be called an atheist, well, jeez there must be something more important to fight against. A man who uses an accurate term to describe himself, rather than a term that might be misleading, because there are certainly people out there who use the term, and no incorrectly (also) to mean people who believe there is no God. Many use it to mean that one simply lacks a belief in God. Dictionaries often include both. I think he should label himself as he likesBut if it's a win-lose debate about which term is more "rational", I'm not interested. Language isn't a formal system like maths, anyway. — Dawnstorm
You're welcome. If you look at his next response to me, he keeps mis-contexting my responses and misinterpreting them.Thank you. — Frank Apisa
Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me that — Coben
Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. — Coben
I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me. — Coben
The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting. — Coben
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.