Shifting more towards atheism

[Augustus]

can you post the site please

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is the definitive record of the English language, featuring 600,000 words, 3 million quotations, and over 1,000 years of English.

www.oed.com

The site is paywalled, I have access from my work so not sure how much you will be able to see.

 

[PureX]

Isn’t it just easier to say there are atheists and agnostics?

It's all about maintaining the kangaroo court. If the atheist declares his position (no gods exist) he can be cross examined. But he's trying to play the judge. Not be a defendant. So he has to pretend he has no position, and keep the theist in the defendant's box, so he can keep playing the judge. And the prosecutor, and the jury.

 

[Kenny]

Oxford English Dictionary

The OED is the definitive record of the English language, featuring 600,000 words, 3 million quotations, and over 1,000 years of English.

www.oed.com

The site is paywalled, I have access from my work so not sure how much you will be able to see.

Please note:

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

So, they are ever changing the word. I will hold to the more traditional etymology.

 

[Augustus]

So, they are ever changing the word. I will hold to the more traditional etymology.

Etymology is traditional by definition, it is the origin and history of word meanings. The one I gave matches the one you gave.

That definition is a more traditional one anyway, and the OED is generally considered the most authoritative dictionary of the English language.

All dictionaries are updated as usage changes though. You yourself use a modern definition. You don’t, for example, call other Christians atheists for belonging to the wrong sect or for not matching your expectations of piety.

It’s older usage generally reflects impiety or incorrect religious beliefs rather than a modern style rejection of the idea of the existence of gods.

By your logic you support changing the meaning of the word, you just want to arbitrarily choose where that process stops.

But the main takeaway is that all this is beside the point as none of the definitions you gave remotely support your claim that atheism must entail absolute certainty rather than simple belief.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

There are many things that are out of reach however that does not mean it does not exist.
Your assuming we only have 1 dimension that is inhabited.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is absurd is that we are talking about is God - unless you think He is an alien.

Actually, no. We are talking about claims in general and what it means (and implies) if we don't believe them.
Wheter the claim is about god, aliens, leprechauns, guilt in a murder case, ... makes no difference to what it means and / or implies to not believe it.

In my example, the analogy is not god vs aliens. It's about claims in general, and what it means to not believe them.

If that is what you want to believe.

It's the only thing I can conclude.

Isn’t it just easier to say there are atheists and agnostics?

They are not mutually exclusive.

You can be an agnostic atheist and you can be an agnostic theist.

It's also easier to just speak about a quadrilateral instead of a square, a trapezium, a parallelogram , a rectangle...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's all about maintaining the kangaroo court.

No. It's about being accurate.

If the atheist declares his position (no gods exist) he can be cross examined.

My atheist position is that I am not convinced of the claims of theism. Period.
Definition 1 in the dictionary of the word "atheism".

But he's trying to play the judge. Not be a defendant.

No. Just responding to the claim of theism. That is all.

So he has to pretend he has no position, and keep the theist in the defendant's box, so he can keep playing the judge. And the prosecutor, and the jury.

I do have a position. That position is the position of being unconvinced of the claim of theism.

The theist claims a god exists. He brings his case.
If I were a jury, I would rule god "not guilty" of existing due to insufficient evidence.
That is my position.

You don't like it. We get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, they are ever changing the word. I will hold to the more traditional etymology.

Ok, so will I, for all words (just to be consistent, you know...)

So next time you say something is awesome, I will assume you mean it is actually dreadful and bad.

 

[F1fan]

Intuitive judgement is still judgement.

A person knowing what a truck is, and that they aren't invisible, isn't making any sort of judgment. A person claiming otherwise is dead wrong.

The process of comprehension still requires thought, even if minimal cognitive effort.

No dispute. Of course anyone making claims have to be comprehensible. Those who speak nonsense, like claiming invisible trucks, aren't being rational or comprehensible. It doesn't take much brain power to recognize the error.

Thought and judgement are ultimately a kind of neural activity that can be roughly seen to happen on fMRI.

True. There's even work on being able to recognize brain patterns when certain ideas are thought.

You comprehending a statement about invisible trucks would show up the same way as other thoughts and judgements deemed false would.

Only in the sense that certain parts of the brain activate to process language.

Something that is colloquially a “no brainer” doesn’t make it literally one.

Like this comment?

 

[F1fan]

A-theism is the belief that there is no God, plain and simple.

No, this is what many theists try to do in a way to force the burden of proof on atheists.

Which I addressed. If an atheist says “There is no God”, then they have the burden of proof. Failing to meet that burden, ends the discussion right there.

See, you admit IF atheists say this. I don't see many do this. I certainly don't.

On a side note, we can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. I can look at what we see and conclude there must be a God and another person can look at the same evidence and say there isn’t.

We see believers offer biased and tortured arguments that make many assumptions about evidence. The fatal flaw in all claims and argumenst is the heavy reliance on assumptions. For example we see many creationists insist it's impossible for the building blocks of life to form naturally, so they assume there must have been a creator. No, it is natural and plausible for organic chemicals to form from inorganic chemicals, and there is no evidence of any creator. Nature is more likely than supernature.

And atheists claim “There is no God”, to which I disagree

Above you say IF they claim this, but now you are asserting they do it. No they don't.

The funny thing is why do you push the burden of proof when you believers can't meet it for your claims of a God existing?

To each their own. If you want to postulate that there is no God, prove it.

We aren't. We are responding to you, and other believers' claims, that some sort of God exists. You prove it. We have heard the claims and the evidence is terrible. Why should critical thinkers decide that any god exists?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is absurd is that we are talking about is God - unless you think He is an alien.

There is at present no objective verifiable evidence for Gods or aliens. That is the subject of the thread.

If that is what you want to believe.

Dodging the statement of what other people post.

Isn’t it just easier to say there are atheists and agnostics?

Apparently it is easier for you to stereotype atheist, narrowly define atheist belief based on your agenda, and denigrate by association atheists,

 

[shunyadragon]

It's all about maintaining the kangaroo court. If the atheist declares his position (no gods exist) he can be cross examined. But he's trying to play the judge. Not be a defendant. So he has to pretend he has no position, and keep the theist in the defendant's box, so he can keep playing the judge. And the prosecutor, and the jury.

Projection, projection and more projection

 

[Kenny]

There is at present no objective verifiable evidence for Gods or aliens. That is the subject of the thread.

“Objective” is a “subjective” position iin this case.

Apparently it is easier for you to stereotype atheist, narrowly define atheist belief based on your agenda, and denigrate by association atheists,

I’m not asking people to believe as I do. Just presenting my viewpoint.

 

[shunyadragon]

“Objective” is a “subjective” position n this case.

Subjective positions is the case of theist, atheist and agnostic beliefs and their variations.

I’m not asking people to believe as I do. Just presenting my viewpoint.

You have mostly been projecting your limited biased perspective on the variable atheist beliefs.

 

[Alien826]

You have a very peculiar way of using words. You seem, somehow, to be putting a wall up around your notion of what "belief" means. The reasons for it remain completely opaque to me.

A "proposition" is "a statement that expresses a judgment or opinion." In what way, exactly, are judgments and opinions so very different from beliefs? Whether I believe the bus will be along in 5 minutes, or I'm of the opinion that it will be here in 5, really are quite the same thing, in the end.

Wikipedia defines atheism as:

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."​

It is all of those things, depending on the atheist. So who are you to try and redefine it for the rest of us. You do not speak for me -- nor for my beliefs, unbeliefs, opinions or judgments. My atheism means what I SAY IT MEANS TO ME.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

 

[Alien826]

Intuitive judgement is still judgement.

The process of comprehension still requires thought, even if minimal cognitive effort.

Thought and judgement are ultimately a kind of neural activity that can be roughly seen to happen on fMRI.

You comprehending a statement about invisible trucks would show up the same way as other thoughts and judgements deemed false would.

Something that is colloquially a “no brainer” doesn’t make it literally one.

I had the same thought.

I would say the mental process goes something like: I scan the sentence (about the invisible truck) to determine its meaning. I hit the word "invisible" and that triggers a definition that includes "invisible is non existent" and then my judgment becomes "the claim is false".

There is so much information presented to us all the time that we store pre-processed answers to a lot of things, so we don't have to actually evaluate them again. That doesn't mean that at some time we didn't think enough about "invisible' to decide that it is not possible.

 

[Heyo]

Isn’t it just easier to say there are atheists and agnostics?

Nope.
Then people will think that there is only one definition of "agnostic" (the modern or colloquial one).

As much as you like to have only the "traditional" (philosophical) definition of Atheism, you dismiss the "traditional" (philosophical) definition of Agnosticism.
Atheism and Agnosticism are philosophical positions that have a burden to defend themselves.
Both colloquial meanings have been reduced to mere inner states.

I get why you prefer to limit Atheism to the philosophical position, but not doing the same for Agnosticism is inconsistent.

 

[Kenny]

Nope.
Then people will think that there is only one definition of "agnostic" (the modern or colloquial one).

As much as you like to have only the "traditional" (philosophical) definition of Atheism, you dismiss the "traditional" (philosophical) definition of Agnosticism.
Atheism and Agnosticism are philosophical positions that have a burden to defend themselves.
Both colloquial meanings have been reduced to mere inner states.

I get why you prefer to limit Atheism to the philosophical position, but not doing the same for Agnosticism is inconsistent.

You are absolutely right:

agnostic (n.)​

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnōstos "(to be) known" (from PIE root *gno- "to know"). The coinage is sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was a reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). The adjective also is from 1870.

So what would you call a person who doesn’t know whether a God exists or not since atheism doesn’t cover it?

 

[Heyo]

You are absolutely right:

agnostic (n.)​

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnōstos "(to be) known" (from PIE root *gno- "to know"). The coinage is sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was a reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). The adjective also is from 1870.

So what would you call a person who doesn’t know whether a God exists or not since atheism doesn’t cover it?

I accept that there are philosophical and colloquial meanings. I usually write the former with a capital "A".

Thus, I can call a person like you describe an agnostic and myself an Agnostic.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are absolutely right:

agnostic (n.)​

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnōstos "(to be) known" (from PIE root *gno- "to know"). The coinage is sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was a reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). The adjective also is from 1870.

So what would you call a person who doesn’t know whether a God exists or not since atheism doesn’t cover it?

An 1870 definition os mot adequate, nor actually how it is used today.You perpetually make reference to outdated stuff. As with "atheism" I prefer you acknowledge the reality of a range of possible beliefs that may be called agnosticism. I prefer not to put people in convenient little boxes of "belief" or "peg them" as some like to do as @2ndpillar.
.

Agnostics today do not often refer to absolutes such as "First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Though some may. I may add even another possible category like Apathetic agnosticism. I have experienced. Some are indifferent as to whether Gods or other Deities exist

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Qualifying agnosticism​

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (e.g. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three corners").[28]

Types​

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.

A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[29][30][31]Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", "hopeful" or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available.

A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[29][30][31]

Apathetic agnosticismThe view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."[32][33][34].