TheMadFool
4.8k
Resignation!"
— Frank Apisa


Do you mean that your aunt wishes to end her life because of resignation? What do you mean by that? Was it the suffering that brought on this state of her mind or was it something else?

How does resignation differ from suffering-induced compulsion to end one's own life? — TheMadFool

By "resignation" I meant to convey the notion of "being resigned to pain or death"...and she seems to be choosing death.

That side of my family has always been the glass-half-empty side. My Mother was probably the only one who did not indulge in woe-is-me thinking 24/7.

I hope my aunt can pull herself together, but I also realize that life will not be easy for someone in their 90's who will be at very least marginally impaired for walking. We oldsters don't repair very easily.

..."these are very loose imprecise statements..."
↪EriģcH
They are imprecise if you cross two different concepts: to believe and to affirm.
In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists.
It seems simple enough and clear enough.

The mess has been made by certain associations of atheists who claim that they have no beliefs and therefore should not justify their position. This is absurd. Believe it or not, affirm it or not, in a rational debate your position must be reasoned. — David Mo

Great post, David.

I have been attempting to make the case that the word "atheist" should be confined to people who "believe" (assert/guess both work) that there are no gods...OR who "believe" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

That would leave room for people who do not "believe", guess, assert...in either direction on the question.

My personal take:

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.

I see that as a reasonable position...and I see no reason to use "atheistic" to describe it.

Dingo, and some of the others here, seems to disagree.

They question my intelligence for thinking as I do.

Good points, Eric.

I'm not a fan of labels or descriptor in any case, but when an Internet atheist insists that I, and all babies, are atheist by definition...it bugs me.

I attempt to discuss it with as much diligence as possible...and thought things were going fine in my discussion with Dingo, even though he seemed compulsive about calling me stupid. (I am far from stupid.)

And then he went ape-shit...totally lost his cool.

Surprised me. I thought this forum was above that sort of thing.

Oh, well.

DingoJones
1.4k
So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.
— Frank Apisa

No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.
— Frank Apisa

Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.

Okay...I didn't think you would.
— Frank Apisa

Yes, not thinking. Your specialty. — DingoJones

Well...when I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong...so...

...I thought you were an intelligent person, Dingo.

My bad.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
Babies are not born atheists...
— Frank Apisa

Yes they are. — Pfhorrest

Actually, no...they are not.

everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist
— Frank Apisa

No...some of us are agnostics. I wouldn't be an atheist on a bet.

That's what words mean.

You ought really to learn how to write that sentence coherently.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...
— Frank Apisa

Yes you are. — Pfhorrest

NO...I am not an atheist. And the more I speak with atheists in this forum...the less likely I am to ever want to be considered one.

That's what words mean.

That was a truly lousy sentence. If you clean it up a bit...I might show you how absurd it is.

You can also be an agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive.

We are all agnostics.

But we are not all atheists. I, for instance, am not an atheist.

...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.
— Frank Apisa

That's because that's not what "theism" means.

What does "theism" mean, Pf?

You're either a theist or not. Not-theists are atheists.

Oh, is that the dichotomy you think exists.

Well I do not.

What about...either you are a theist...or you are not a theist. Some of the people who are not theists use the descriptor atheist...and some use the descriptor agnostic?

That is all "atheist" is...a descriptor that one can use if one chooses...or not, if that is the choice.

But I understand. Atheists want to inflate their numbers with more intelligent people...so they want to take possession of agnostics.

Good luck with that.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
↪IvoryBlackBishop I wasn't arguing against "indoctrination". I didn't even use that word.

I was explaining how it can both be the case that babies are born atheists, and atheism is something people outgrow. If a false believe is instilled at an impressionable young age, someone will hopefully grow out of it as they mature and investigate their beliefs critically. Nobody is born with any beliefs though, so in that case the babies are born lacking the belief, get it instilled at a young age, and then grow out of it.

If the beliefs instilled at a young age are not false, then they are not so likely to be grown out of, and that's fine. — Pfhorrest

Babies are not born atheists...even if the atheists of the world are so hard up for greater numbers that they pretend everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist.

And you guys claim that you immersed in logic, reason, and science.

What a joke!

↪Frank Apisa I'm not having this conversation again, it's dumb and you're just factually wrong.

There is "weak", "soft", or "implicit" atheism which is lack of belief in God.

There is "strong", "hard", or "explicit" atheism which is belief in the lack of God.

The former is just anyone who is not a theist. The latter are a subset of the former. Typical (but not all) agnostics fall within the former but not the latter. You're one of them I take it. I don't care what you identify as, that's what words mean.

I expect this has already been explained to you upthread, which is why I haven't been reading this thread until now. This argument is old and stupid and pointless because people like you aren't interested in productive conversation. — Pfhorrest

But here you are...having the conversation.

It must draw you in more than you think.

In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...

...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.

But I understand the atheists who want agnostics in their numbers.

It would improve the gene pool.

DingoJones
1.4k
Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.
— Frank Apisa

I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."
— Frank Apisa

Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.
— Frank Apisa

A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.
— Frank Apisa

The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.
— Frank Apisa

No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.

Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something. — DingoJones

So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.

Too funny for words.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.

Okay...I didn't think you would.

ALL atheists lack a "belief" that any gods exist...but not everyone who lacks a "belief" that any gods exist...

...is an atheist.

Babies are not atheists.

I lack a belief that any gods exist...and I am NOT an atheist.

↪Frank Apisa
I don't believe in Tabula Rasa and consider it an archaic theory; with fields such as evolutionary psychology affirming that people just like animals are born with inherent or genetic predispositions, in fact this would seem to be common sense.

In fact, even during the 19th century when Tabula Rasa was most popular, what I consider to be more "serious" fields of speculation, such as the theory of the Common Law as per Oliver Wendall Holmes and other legal theorists, it was more or less known that "passions", or "instincts", play a role in human behavior, not solely rational faculties, so even during it's era of popularity, Tabula Rasa was, in my opinion, always a nonsensical theory.

For example, in the theory of criminal, crimes of "passion", or done in the "heat of the moment", when a person is acting more from impulse or instinct rather than from reason, are less severe than "pre-meditated" crimes, those which are intentionally and methodically planned out while in a fully rational — IvoryBlackBishop

Thank you for all that, IBB. And despite my use of "tabula rasa" earlier...I agree with much of what you said. My point earlier was that babies are not atheists simply because they lack a "belief" in a god.

Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.

Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted. — DingoJones

Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.

So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point? — DingoJones

Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right.

But as for questions and answers...we are done with you proposing questions to me without first answering my questions.

Please answer my question. If you then want to incorporate your answer into another argument...fine.

But first I want the question answered...and fully, as I answered yours.

Then I will accept another question from you.

(By the way, you have now asked two other questions of me which I have answered. If any other questions come my way before you answer mine, I will require that I get to match those two also. If you do answer my question fully before answering my question, I will let those slide. So...answer the question before asking your next one.)

↪Frank Apisa

Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable? — DingoJones

No.

Please answer my question.

Okay, but we are not going to make this an interrogation of me. You are not Socrates; I am not open to the Socratic method or a prosedutorial method. I answer it thoroughly...then I get to ask a question.

Your question was: Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?

MY ANSWER: What I offered is not actually a "definition." It is, instead, a set of comments about the word that I thought might elicit some return comments from you.

Didn't produce results, but be that as it may...it does not specifically include people who lack a belief in god.

But that is mostly because I much prefer not to offer anything that relies on the "believe in"** nonsense. I speak more specifically that that horrible usage.** And I would never limit it to a "god"...but rather to gods. The "god" usage, whether capitalized or not...refers to a specific subject.

I did mention people who do not "believe" (in) god...in my text. I suggest their lack of "belief" is almost certainly not the actual reason people who choose to use the descriptor "atheist" make that choice. I suspect the real reason is that the individuals "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

ASIDE: I do not share that opinion, which is one of the reasons I will not allow the descriptor "atheist" to be applied to me. My insistence on this has NOTHING to do with any feeling about the word you may think I harbor.


**I do on occasion use the "believe in" thingy, but only to save time when speaking with someone with whom I have been deep in conversation on the subject. The "I believe in" construct seems to me to be a convention...and not one I think does justice to serious conversation.

Now...my question for you:

In my set of comments above, I wrote: "1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is."

Do you disagree with that; do you see a "need" for it to be that broad?

My arguments are:

1) There is no need for the word "atheist" to be as broad as it is. If were less broad, people who do not want to be classified as atheists would not be subjected to the "You are by definition" crap.

2) Just about EVERY person I have known who CHOOSES to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor does so NOT because of a lack of "belief" in a god...but rather because that person either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods.

The word should be saved for them...and the rest of us can choose another word if we feel the need for a descriptor.

3) If you want to be like Trump and claim victories you do not deserve...fine with me. I can laugh at you for doing it as easily as I can laugh at him.

4) Glad you are open to being wrong...because you are. If you think you have stronger arguments for why the word should not be as broad as it is...THAN "it doesn't need to be that broad" and "by being that broad, it requires people who do not want to be identified as atheists to be included"...

...present them.

You have none. I know it. I suspect you know it also.

Hey, MadFool.

(Back from the blackness of someone who has given up on life...and just wants to die.)

As far as suicide is concerned, I agree in part with your initial comment, "...which is generally associated with unhappiness..."

However, there is a component I really did not see covered in your discourse.

"Resignation!"

There are times when people come to a position where "the end" is in obvious sight...but "pain" (as you mentioned) is such an extreme part of the "until the end comes"...that a quick finish is the hedonistic thing to do. (Yeah, that seems like a stretch, but I suspect it is not.)

My aunt, for instance, knows that death is near. She will not cooperate with the rehab people, even to the point of sitting up...or doing the most basic of exercises, like wiggling toes or fingers.

She wants death to come as quickly as possible...and if possible, in her own home. (Hers IS the result of unhappiness.)

I'm going to try to arrange that. She has a 24/7 care-giver that is on leave since she entered the rehab clinic. I'm going to see if we can simply move her back home, bring back the care giver...and let the end game play out there. (Medicine administration may be an impediment, but I think we can work our way through that.)

My aunt is not a hedonist, but I certain come very close to qualifying. I'm a very lucky guy...and most of what I want does not involve having big bucks (which I do not!)...and if I ever get to the state where my aunt is...I will want to die quickly. And my "hedonism" will play a big part in that.

Is my point clear?

No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion. — DingoJones

I have made my case for why what I prefer that "atheist" be reserved for people who either "believe" (guess) that there are no gods...or who "believe" (guess) that it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one.

There is absolutely NO REASON WHATEVER for the word atheist to be so encompassing that it must include people (agnostics, babies, toddlers) who do not have those "beliefs."

Now STOP saying that I am not stating my position and not defending it...because I am and have...just as I have done for the last 4+ decades.

If you do not like my position or insist your position is stronger or more rational...fine.

I think my position is much stronger and more rational.

Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one.

You cannot possibly have done that, because my position is NOT the weaker one. What you have provided it YOUR OPINION that yours is the stronger position. And you have provided your (absolutely incorrect opinion) that I have not furnished or defended my position. Wording is important in these kinds of discussions.)

Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.

YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.[/quote]

I have addressed it. Several times now. All you do is to dismiss my comments as not being as strong as yours...and you are not even careful enough to acknowledge that your supposed assessments are nothing but YOUR OPINION.

Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.

I have addressed your points. And I never walk away from an argument. I will be here until the sun goes nova on this issue.

I doubt we will resolve it...but if you think you are going to present your opinions and I am going to adopt them as stronger and more reasonable than mine...you are way, way off base.

The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.

There is no reason why we cannot have it...and have it reasonably, Dingo.

I am not an atheist...and no reasonable person would listen to my position (which I have stated several times) and suppose that I am...EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO USE THE DESCRIPTOR "ATHEIST" AND WHO WANT TO INSIST THAT I AM ALSO AN ATHEIST BY DINT OF A USAGE CHOICE.

You should be able to say, "I understand that position, Frank...and I agree."

I doubt you will do that.

So...let's continue the discussion.

I'll get back to you on this. Gotta go see my aunt in rehab. She is not cooperating enough with the staff to even sit up in bed. She's 93 and broke her hip in a fall last week. The only words she seems willing to speak are, "I want to die. Please let me die. I do not want this pain."

It is not a pleasant visit...and because of rehab regs, it will be short. (I may go back tonight.)

Just thought the mention was worthwhile, considering your question.

FOR ME...(I'm 83)...I am delighted with life and happen to be especially lucky. Things just seem to break right for me most of the time. But when it is obvious things are over...especially if living in pain and a loss of dignity, I intend to cancel my own ticket, so to speak. I'll more than likely do it the way so many do...stop eating.

I see it as a reasonable thing to do.

You are reasoning in the conditional subjunctive (although not writing in it)...and anything derived from the conditional subjunctive is itself conditional.

In a sense, it can be true and not faulty.

That is almost what logic is about.

There is an "understood" (the conditional) element:

(IF) a = b...

...and (IF) b = c...

...then a = c.

Hedonism, especially the "pleasure seeking" part of it...is so essential to human survival...that without it, there would be no human life. In fact, it appears that without it (pleasure seeking)...there would be no animal life at all.

Not sure if that was what you were trying to say (your thesis got a bit convoluted)...but if it was, I agree with you.

I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.
— Frank Apisa

Ok, but then I get to bet that every person you ask will assume they are of above average intelligence (everyone assumes they are of above average intelligence). So what?

Part of my argument is that for some reason, agnostics side with theists, even though their view is a lot closer to that of an atheist (I still can't see a difference other than the labels they give themselves). When most Christians in America hear "agnostic" they hear "searching for god" (earlier in my philosophical journey...this is actually the reason I stopped calling myself agnostic...later I learned definitions). So of course they will side with agnostics against the atheist....they think the agnostics are one of their people...oh, and they think atheists are Satan's spawn. — ZhouBoTong

One...there is NO WAY that I side with theists over atheists. No reasonable agnostic should...and I doubt very many do. I think that is a false impression you are getting.

Two...if you cannot see the difference between agnostics and atheists (or between agnostics and theists), I am not sure why. I see a stark difference between agnostics and theists...and I see every bit as stark a difference between agnostics and people who want to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.

Three...any Christian in America who supposes I am "searching for god" because I am an agnostic...is doing what people who want to use atheist as a descriptor are doing. They are gratuitously trying to get agnostics to "be on their side." It would improve their intellectual DNA also.

There are people who "believe" that there are no gods or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (They WANT to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.) I am not one of them.

Let me repeat that, because you guys seem to be missing it: I most assuredly am not one of them. And I do not want the word "atheist" to be applied to me simply because atheists are so anxious to have the agnostics be part of them that they have subverted the usage of the word in an attempt to force us to be part.

↪Frank Apisa

Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them. — DingoJones

Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable.

That is bunk...gratuitous bunk.

The word "atheist" should be used to identify people who want to use it...and I am suggesting that in my experience, the vast majority of people who WANT to use it are people who "believe" there are no gods" or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I do not know of a single person who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...who WANTS to use that descriptor.

I've said that a half dozen times now. What do you want me to do...post it in CAPITAL LETTERS?

Here is part of my agnostic take on the question of the possible existence of gods:

I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS!

We both know that there are people in this world who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

Are you actually insisting that someone with that sentiment MUST be included in the grouping identified as "atheists?" Do you actually think that makes sense?


Words, Dingo, are meant to communicate ideas and thoughts. Why on Earth would you think it makes sense to use the word "atheist" to communicate that thought...when the word "agnostic" works fine and with some precision to denote not knowing...and not making any guesses in either direction...especially contrived guesses.

1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...
— Frank Apisa

Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??

Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction. — ZhouBoTong

I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.

Anything can be argued, Frank.
— Frank Apisa

No, look up "agnostic." One of the meanings is the view that the existence of divinity is unknowable.

There's an agnostic in the corner gnashing her teeth because you keep misusing her word.
15 minutes ago — frank

ANYTHING can be argued.

And while I agree that the existence of any divinities is unknowable at the moment...how can anyone see into the future to KNOW that it will not be knowable at some future point?

Most dictionaries "define" agnostic with variation on "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable." "Probably" being the important word.

There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.
— Frank Apisa

It can be argued that it's unknowable. That's what some people mean by "agnostic." If the speaker doesn't make it clear, you have to ask. — frank

Anything can be argued, Frank.

Right now it is unknown.

Whether it will be knowable or not in the future...is pure speculation.

If there is a GOD...then for certain it CAN BE known in the future. If there is a GOD...AND THE god is a personal GOD and wants to be KNOWN...it could make itself known.

(Gotta wonder, if it does exist, why it hasn't)

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.
— Frank Apisa

When you say "agnostic" do you mean the view that we don't know now, but we might someday? Or do you mean that this knowledge is forever beyond us? — frank

There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.

It is unknown at this time...may be knowable at some future time.

But I would not hold my breath.

My guess would be...it will never be known.

BUT THAT IS PURELY A BLIND GUESS.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
— Frank Apisa

And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?

While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question? — ZhouBoTong

So...you are saying that most people who...

1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...

....most of them...

...call themselves atheists rather than agnostics?

I'm not sure if you are just kidding here?

People like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, for instance, got more worked up than I on this issue...pointedly rejected any suggestion that they be identified as atheists...rather than agnostics.

Their positions were the positions best described as agnostic...NOT atheistic.

So is my position.

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa

↪Frank Apisa

I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — DingoJones

You have a point there...and I screwed up in what I wrote. I normally write, "A person who uses 'atheist' as a descriptor is almost always a person who 'believes' there are no gods...or who 'believes' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I screwed up there. (There are examples of me using the proper wording in this thread and in others.)

In any case, I contend that most, PERHAPS ALL, people who CHOOSE to use the descriptor "atheist" do, in fact, either "believe" there are no gods or "believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I apologize for the careless wording, but let's deal with that for right now.

Do you disagree with me on that?[/quote]

I agree with enough of what you say to simply say, "I agree."

But, as the scorpion and the frog, I am slave to my

You wrote, "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

I suggest that educated people are more likely to be agnostics...and the kind of agnostics that I am attempting to differentiate from people who want to use the descriptor "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.

Granted, many choose "atheist."

As an old boss of mine used to say (over and over and over), "Six of one...a dozen of another." Not sure what he was, but he sure as hell was not very educated.

But I imagine lots of parents would object to the suggestion that their newborns are ATHEISTS by dint of a definition initiated by atheists usage.

Let's stick with this a bit. Hit me as hard as you can on this aspect.
— Frank Apisa

There is no all-purpose definition. When the desire to communicate is strong enough, people will become flexible and work out definitions acceptable to everyone. — frank

I like that idea, Frank, and agree with it.

But there are atheists INSISTING I am an atheist, despite the fact that I say I am not. They are insisting agnostics, by dint of "definition" are atheists.

I am discussing that complexity here.

Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief."
— Frank Apisa
And bald is a hair color. :roll:

Good luck, ↪DingoJones :sweat: — 180 Proof

Correct me if I am wrong on this...but didn't you say "adieu" to me in this discussion?

What are you doing here?

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. — DingoJones

I dispute that.

Who gets to decide what "the proper usage" of the word is?

Atheists?

They have a dog in this fight...and I am not willing to give them that authority over me.

I acknowledge that atheists want to insist that ANYONE who does not "believe" (in) any gods...is an atheist.

I'm telling them to get lost.

I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine.

I am arguing that it should not be used the way it is being used. Period.

There is no structural background for its use the way they are demanding.

We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

Where does that all come from? What did I possibly say that causes you to think any of that.

My problem with the word is that it is used the way it is used.

I am simply saying I will not allow that definition to require me to be considered an atheist.

I truly do not care if I am the only person on the planet who feels that way.

But I imagine lots of parents would object to the suggestion that their newborns are ATHEISTS by dint of a definition initiated by atheists usage.

Let's stick with this a bit. Hit me as hard as you can on this aspect.

I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities.
— Frank Apisa

Its the latter. Unwarranted judgements are strong indicators of stupidity, thats my litmus test. If someone has a problem with it it tells me everything I need to know about whose smart and whose not.

Anyway, your responses were about being offended so you have yet to address my actual points, if you care to do so. — DingoJones

Name the single one item you want me to comment on...and I will do so.

You're right about that: it does stay with you. 1979, St. Patrick's Cathedral - I served mass with John-Paul II on his first visit to NYC as Pope.

We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me.
— Frank Apisa
Well, Frankie, as you say ...

If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother.
— Frank Apisa
Ditto. Adieu. — 180 Proof

Yeah...see ya around.

But I gotta congratulate you on the John Paul II thing. That was big. I also served as acolyte to the Primate of England in 1956 or 1957 (can't remember which.) It was a High Mass for American service members. They don't usually allow lay people to serve as acolyte, because it is one of the minor orders.

Great memories...but I am delighted I am relieved of that religion burden.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

One...I am not confused. This is a topic I have discussed with very learned people for decades now.

Two...if you are saying you are an agnostic ...
— Frank Apisa
I am not an agnostic. If you've read my previous posts and believe I am an agnostic, then you are mistaken - because you, like so many others, conflate meta-statements with object-statements and thereby confuse yourself about "atheism".

I've also discussed "atheism" with philosophers, clergy, well-read laity for decades, Frankie, having precociously become a principled atheist in the late 70s as a consequence of a strict Catholic upbringing & education. If you're an agnostic, good for you. I find it an untenable, incoherent position with respect to any 'theistic g/G', but feel free to demonstrate otherwise, and I'll give your argument all the consideration it's due. But don't whine, Frankie; your confused OP is weak enough. — 180 Proof

Hey, Proof.

I understand that Catholic thing. As an adult (over 60 years ago) I had the pleasure of serving Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Even though I am 6 decades away from that event, I still treasure the moment. It was something that stays with you.

We'll not discuss anything, though. Your entire tone is repugnant to me.

Have a great life.

↪Frank Apisa If I am asked to check a box, where the choices are a list of religions and "atheist", I check "atheist". On a philosophy forum, I describe my position - which often results in getting more detailed than I gave you. And that's really my point: labels tell you very little, particularly among those of us who are not theists. Different people mean different things by the term - it can be defined narrowly, or broadly, and it's a waste of time to argue for one definition vs another. It's just a word. — Relativist

I like describing my position, although sometimes it saves time to use the label, agnostic.

Here is my take on the question of gods:

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

Thats not what Im doing, thats your own sensitivity. I think you are lost in the semantics, and explaining/showing you how is walking you through it, its not meant to be condescending. Its just that I think you are confused, and im just being honest and straightforward. — DingoJones

No you are not...you are being condescending...blatantly so. But I have cooled down, so I am going to over-look it and in fact, I offer an apologyfor my outburst. My aunt's illness has got me on edge. She is my last living older relative. (She is not in intensive care, by the way. She is in rehab...93 years old with a fractured hip and an attitude of a honey badger. Not a lot of fun.)

Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations.

I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities.

Im not impressed by your appeal to other conversations you’ve had and I dont have time for some chip on your shoulder about being treated as an equal.

Then don't be impressed. If you want to discuss the issue...let's do so. If you want to be condescending to me...take a hike.

Maybe once you’ve cooled off you will see you’ve overreacted here and the discussion can continue but maybe not...it seems like you have more pressing matters to tend to anyway.

I can multi-task with the best of people.

Bullshit.

I will go into more detail later.
— Frank Apisa

Don't bother if you're going to be vulgar :brow: — Artemis

If you are going to be thin-skinned...I won't bother.

It is a preposterous presumption to suppose that a new born baby is an atheist….just as it would be an absurdity to suppose a new born is a theist. Newborns are blank slates as far as “gods” are concerned…each a tabula rasa
— Frank Apisa

So I guess they're also not not doctors or the president or cat lovers?

A tabula rasa is by definition atheist. Absence of a belief in God is the same as not believing in God until indoctrination occurs.

So the agnostic too is a form of atheist, because s/he is without a belief in God. She just is not a "positive atheist" who asserts the definitive absence of God. — Artemis

Bullshit.

I will go into more detail later.