"Atheist"--the term itself

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And why does a-gnostic exactly, without a doubt, only translate to "Lack of knowledge in God or gods"?

It doesn't mean that, actually, but we can say that "agnostic" has a precise meaning. This is because the term was coined relatively recently by one specific person (T.H. Huxley) who spelled out explicitly and in great detail exactly what his new word meant.

 

[Ouroboros]

It doesn't mean that, actually, but we can say that "agnostic" has a precise meaning. This is because the term was coined relatively recently by one specific person (T.H. Huxley) who spelled out explicitly and in great detail exactly what his new word meant.

Agnostic means person with no knowledge. There's nothing in the word suggesting it's about God or gods.

 

[prometheus11]

Agnostic means person with no knowledge. There's nothing in the word suggesting it's about God or gods.

No.

Gnosis: knowledge of spiritual mysteries. (This may or may not involve a "God")

The agnostic does not claim to KNOW spiritual things. (But agnostics CAN believe in spiritual things and/or gods).

It's why agnosticism is completely different from atheism despite guffaws and handwavings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agnostic means person with no knowledge. There's nothing in the word suggesting it's about God or gods.

Have you ever actually read how Huxley defined the term?

Here you go:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

The term "agnostic" was meant to contrast it to "Gnostic" in the religious sense. It applies to gods, but also applies more broadly as a philosophy that can be used in all areas of life. It's fairly close to how "skeptic" is used today.

 

[Willamena]

Being sober isn't the normal, default state?!?!?

No. It's a condition, therefore not default.

 

[leibowde84]

No. It's a condition, therefore not default.

Why can't a condition be the default? What about the "human condition" that is so often referred to?

 

[prometheus11]

No. It's a condition, therefore not default.

Conditions can be default. Consider a recliner and its default condition/position. I'm sure there are better examples.

 

[Ouroboros]

Have you ever actually read how Huxley defined the term?

Here you go:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

The term "agnostic" was meant to contrast it to "Gnostic" in the religious sense. It applies to gods, but also applies more broadly as a philosophy that can be used in all areas of life. It's fairly close to how "skeptic" is used today.

Yes, if you go by the definitions given to the word beyond what the root words themselves describe. As I understand it, gnosis is the nominative case of the word for "Knowledge" in Greek. Nothing more. Nothing less. In religious and spiritual sense, and even in philosophy, it means things more than just "knowledge". This is why we can't go to the root words only to understand the meaning of a word, but have to look at the usage, dictionary, and such. The same goes for "atheist". It's not enough to just look at the word and extract some exact meaning of the word from its root words, but it has to be looked at from the usage and dictionaries, both contemporary and historically.

 

[ThirtyThree]

That's one way to admit you won't show where my statements were wrong, I guess.

Gnosis deals with spiritual knowledge. Some people claim to have spiritual knowledge: Gnostics.

Theism deals with belief in a god.

I don't claim to have any spiritual knowledge, so I'm agnostic.

On a related, but separate issue, I don't believe in any gods at this time. So I'm an atheist.

Not all women are mothers, and not all agnostics are atheists.

Agnostic also referred once to the nature of God being unknowable.

 

[Mister Emu]

The term is problematic for many reasons (I assume we will get into those reasons, here), but it shouldn't be.

The term refers to a state of "notness," similar to the term "sober." It's the natural, an affected state. The default.

That is an interesting assumption, one that I'm not sure is founded.

 

[leibowde84]

Agnostic also referred once to the nature of God being unknowable.

I believe this is the most accurate definition of the term.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the case of the word "atheist", arguing that it means active disbelief means burdening the term with a two-tier mindset when it comes to gods.

Nonsense. See, also, here.

 

[prometheus11]

Nonsense. See, also, here.

No worries. Your opponent can just use your tactic and dismiss your posts/reasoning with a single word.

 

[prometheus11]

That is an interesting assumption, one that I'm not sure is founded.

Did you understand the analogy with the word "sober?" It's the "not impaired" default. Same thing with atheism. Just like the default is not stamp collecting. The default is not the hobby of stamp collecting.

 

[prometheus11]

Agnostic also referred once to the nature of God being unknowable.

Yes. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Wow.

 

[Willamena]

Conditions can be default. Consider a recliner and its default condition/position. I'm sure there are better examples.

A recliner has a default because it has a number of different states that it can be in. Not so of humans. Atheism is reserved until the clear contrast is made, when a person has learned about this "god" thing. Atheism comes into the picture when "god"-thing creates alternatives.

 

[Mister Emu]

Did you understand the analogy with the word "sober?"

Yes. As I said, your position is on shaky foundation.

 

[prometheus11]

A recliner has a default because it has a number of different states that it can be in. Not so of humans. Atheism is reserved until the clear contrast is made, when a person has learned about this "god" thing. Atheism comes into the picture when "god"-thing creates alternatives.

Depends on which definition of atheism you consider most accurate. If, like most atheists and a beak down of the root word, prefix, and suffix imply, it is "without..god...belief," then it's the default position because you have to learn about god(s) in order to consider and believe in them. Babies, with no concept of God, lack belief in him.

 

[prometheus11]

Yes. As I said, your position is on shaky foundation.

By declaration? What's wrong with the analogy? Why is it shaky? What do you propose? Why so cryptic?

 

[Willamena]

Depends on which definition of atheism you consider most accurate. If, like most atheists and a beak down of the root word, prefix, and suffix imply, it is "without..god...belief," then it's the default position because you have to learn about god(s) in order to consider and believe in them. Babies, with no concept of God, lack belief in him.

If you think atheism is a default you're saying people can be born believing in "god." I disagree.