Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist vs Agnostic
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 16 of 111 (189482)
03-01-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dan Carroll
03-01-2005 2:02 PM


Dan Carroll writes:
God is a non-issue. People have presented a concept called "God" to me. They can't tell me what it is, what it looks like, where it is, or how it did what it's supposed to have done, but they do say it exists.
Well, you have done the same thing with your concept of atheism. (i.e. can't tell me what it is). You say it is a non issue, but that does not preclude you from providing your definition since you reject the definitions presented in the OP.
Here, let's try it this way, pretend you are editing the American Heritage Dictionary, fill in the following blank:
ATHEISM:___________________________________________

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 2:02 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 2:41 PM Monk has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 111 (189483)
03-01-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Monk
03-01-2005 2:05 PM


quote:
Would it be true to say that you have not yet come to know of the existence of God?
I believe that that would be misleading since it implies that there is a God that I could come to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 2:05 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 18 of 111 (189485)
03-01-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by 1.61803
03-01-2005 2:15 PM


1.61803 writes:
2. Atheist= those who do not think there is a god
3. Agnostic=those who are undecided.
Ahh, but you are using a different definition for agnostics other than presented in the OP. Is that what this board calls 'moving the goal posts'?
P.S. That's an old photo of my little monkey, she's actually 5 years old now, but I always liked that photo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by 1.61803, posted 03-01-2005 2:15 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-01-2005 2:39 PM Monk has replied
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 03-01-2005 2:43 PM Monk has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 111 (189487)
03-01-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Monk
03-01-2005 2:30 PM


Ahh, but you are using a different definition for agnostics other than presented in the OP. Is that what this board calls 'moving the goal posts'?
I think what folk have been telling you is that the definitions you used in the OP simply are not correct. Remember, a Dictionary does not define the meaning of a word. Rather it is a historical document that records the common usage of words. It is not at all unusual to have a word that is commonly missused, and as such, that misuse will be reflected in dictionary.
If limited to the definitions in the OP, it appears that many of the respondents would not be Aethists, but something else.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 2:30 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:05 PM jar has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 111 (189488)
03-01-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Monk
03-01-2005 2:15 PM


Well, you have done the same thing with your concept of atheism. (i.e. can't tell me what it is).
I told you exactly what it is for me. Several times.
If you choose not to listen, that's your business.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 2:15 PM Monk has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 21 of 111 (189489)
03-01-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Monk
03-01-2005 2:30 PM


agnostic "one who doubts the possibility of God.....etc..."
IMO is a bad definition. Agnostics do not doubt anything, they simply withold judgement on the grounds of incomplete data.
Yes according to the definition in your original post anyone who doubts the possibility of God would sound like an atheist. But I am moving the goal post to include in my opinion a better definition of agnostic. One who witholds judgement pending further evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 2:30 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 22 of 111 (189490)
03-01-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
03-01-2005 2:01 PM


That's unfortunate but figuratively true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 2:01 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 3:06 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 23 of 111 (189494)
03-01-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
03-01-2005 2:39 PM


jar writes:
I think what folk have been telling you is that the definitions you used in the OP simply are not correct. Remember, a Dictionary does not define the meaning of a word. Rather it is a historical document that records the common usage of words. It is not at all unusual to have a word that is commonly missused, and as such, that misuse will be reflected in dictionary.
Huhh? A dictionary does not define the meaning of a word? Then what does? Is there other documented sources that can be mutually accepted by all parties which provides the meaning of words? If not, then we are all free to interpret the meaning of words ourselves. This then leads to neither side offering coherent arguments. Am I being coherent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-01-2005 2:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 3:14 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 26 by jar, posted 03-01-2005 3:18 PM Monk has replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 3:27 PM Monk has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 111 (189495)
03-01-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Monk
03-01-2005 2:47 PM


Here is how my atheism came about.
1) I realized that I was god everytime I prayed.
2) I realized that the existence of god is as vague as the existence of an immaterial pink unicorn.
3) I realized that as long as the immaterial pink unicorn remains non-existent, god will remain non-existent.
My stance in atheism is simple. Show me that an immaterial pink unicorn exist somewhere and I will consider the possibility of the existence of god. In the mean time, it can remain non-existent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 2:47 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:25 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 111 (189496)
03-01-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Monk
03-01-2005 3:05 PM


Am I being coherent?
...nah. Way too easy.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:05 PM Monk has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 111 (189497)
03-01-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Monk
03-01-2005 3:05 PM


Huhh? A dictionary does not define the meaning of a word?
Absolutely correct. As I said, a dictionary is a historical document. It simply records how a word WAS used. It's not as though the folk that publish the Funk&Wagnall make decisions about what something should mean. They do not. They don't even arbitrate.
The way a dictionary is compiled is that folk go through volumes and volumes of sources, pull out every time a word in used and the context. The one that occurs most often is the first definition posted, the others follow.
But what folk here have been telling you is that they consider themselves as Atheists but do not fit the definition that you provided. Since a Map is not the territory, the definition is not the thing defined, they are the ultimate authority, not the dictionary.
If someone says they are and atheist but that they don't fit your definition, it is your definition and the dictionary that are wrong.

The Definition is not the object being Defined!
The Map is not the Territory!

This message has been edited by jar, 03-01-2005 14:19 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:05 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:31 PM jar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 111 (189498)
03-01-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
03-01-2005 11:40 AM


My question is: Why don't all atheist consider themselves agnostic?
My question for agnostics is: Since you're presumably pretty negative about the existence of fairies, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other fairy tales, why do you make an exception for God?
As it turns out, there are some kinds of God you can be pretty certain don't exist. The only God you can't disprove is the do-nothing God that's specifically trying to hide from humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 11:40 AM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 03-01-2005 3:30 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 4:13 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 54 by Ooook!, posted 03-02-2005 7:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 28 of 111 (189499)
03-01-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by coffee_addict
03-01-2005 3:06 PM


Resurrected Hector writes:
1) I realized that I was god everytime I prayed.
2) I realized that the existence of god is as vague as the existence of an immaterial pink unicorn.
3) I realized that as long as the immaterial pink unicorn remains non-existent, god will remain non-existent.
Wait a minute, in 2) you say 'the existence of God is vague' and in 3) you say 'God will remain non-existent.' Just because something is vague does not mean it does not exist.
I know, I know, games with words but I couldn't resist. FYI, the immaterial pink unicorns are what the angels ride on. ---just kidding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 3:06 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 111 (189500)
03-01-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Monk
03-01-2005 3:05 PM


A dictionary does not define the meaning of a word? Then what does?
The community that speaks that language. Dictionaries do not define words; they merely describe them. That's why different dictionaries all have different definitions for the same words.
This then leads to neither side offering coherent arguments.
Unless we're able to come to some kind of agreement about what words mean, that's exactly what happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 3:05 PM Monk has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 111 (189502)
03-01-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
03-01-2005 3:19 PM


No exception is made. Bigfoot is not god, fairies are not god. The Loch Ness monster is not god. You personally may lump God in with "fairy tales". But again that shows the difference between an atheist verses agnostic. Agnostics do not disbelieve god exist. They do not believe god exist. They are content to say they do not know. Atheist on the other hand take a stance on the issue and say: THERE IS NO GOD. Then again I could be wrong altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 3:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 3:34 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 33 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2005 3:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024