onewheeldave

Yes. I was referring to the bit at 1:20 where he says 'of course there is no God', which obviously goes well beyond the scope of atheism being merely 'an absense of belief' and instead, makes the positive claim that there is no God. (Which, according to 645, makes him a "gnostic atheist")

I know 'you know he got it wrong which is why you're calling him a gnostic atheist': I've not said otherwise I was simply pointing it out as an example of a sceptic who, like most of the general public, consider atheism to mean "belief that God does not exist".

No I'm not. I've said that sceptics are sometimes verbally violent. You've taken 'violence' to be at the same level as that displayed by fundamentalist religious ranting nutters Verbal violence can be quite mild, taking the form of, for example, needless counter-productive insults and goading, of the variety used by some sceptics.

I'm truly confused I stand by my above statement- what do you see as being wrong with it?

I join you in condemning that video- it's a sick individual with sick views, and I sincerely hope he, and others like him, never get close to being in such a position, that they can fullfil their sick wishes. I've not, at any point claimed that I've seen/heard a rationalist sceptic using similar "verbal violence".

Then we must agree to differ on this. IMO, sceptics and rationalists, when debating/discussing in public, should aspire to, and, as far as possible, acheive, a higher standard, and, should never resort to pointless insults and goading. They are trying to educate people into a better way of thinking about things, so, they should set an example. There's no place for critisising others for using, for example, emotive language, or strawmen, and then proceeding to use such things for their own arguments. The same goes for insults and goading.

No, he said 'atheist' not 'gnostic atheist': by your terms, he got it just plain wrong.

But I'm not committing a fallacy. All I've said is that many dictionaries define atheism in a different way than you do, and, in terms of the common usage of the word, most of the public also define it in a different way to you. I also pointed out that, in the video you linked to, that speaker (a sceptic) also used the definition you oppose. So, I'd suggest that if you have good reason, why all those should, instead, stick to your definition, you've got some convincing to do (not to me, I've made my own mind up, but to everyone else who uses the word to mean other than what you do). By the way, the reason I consider the definition to be valid, isn't, as you accuse me of, any kind of appeal to common practice, but, because, words are the kind of entities which, by the nature of language, have meanings which are determined, in part, by their usage.

Presumably one of the things he gets, in your opinion, glaringly wrong, is his understanding of 'atheism' to mean 'there is no God' (@1:20) That aside, cheers for the link, just watched it, he makes some good points, and, it's good to see a sceptic who is open to some of the positive aspects within religion/belief.

That's not relevant when it comes to word definitions and 'common usage' though. I'd say spot on, but each of those claims has an objective reality- they're either mathematical facts, or facts about the physical world. Words, and how we use them, are entirely human creations, and, like it or not, a lot of what makes a modern language, is down to common usage. And, often, that common usage is contrary to etymology, or, even logic. Much of a words meaning, it's 'correctness', is down to the way it is actually used. Common usage can, and often does, 'trump' etymology.

???How can that be. You previously said atheism was simply an absense of belief, how can there be a doctrine. I can see how an atheist, as a person, could have other doctrines, just as an atheist could be a 'black atheist', or a 'male atheist', but, when it comes to their actual atheism, surely that must be free of any doctrine?

Around 50% of dictionary defintions disagree though. And, if you ask around amongst the general public, in my experience, the majority go for option 2. Hence my mention of 'common usage' when it comes to the term. However, that particular debate has been done to death, and, to now, this thread has been refreshingly clear of it, so, I'm very happy if we agree to disagree (or agree that their are differenent opinions on it) and cease to talk about it, as, the other issues we're discussing are, to me anyway, much more interesting.

What's to help? I've made it quite clear that, IMO, those who claim to be sceptics/rationalists have a higher standard by which to conduct their debates with non-sceptics/rationalists- there's no excuse for them using counter-productive and deliberately insulting language. Do you disagree?

In general, I don't go out of my way to watch videos from the sceptical movement, precisely because, to me, the speakers all too often, come across as egotistical, superior, arrogant, and, insulting towards believers. However, I would recommend this video highly- the speaker is by astronomer and atheist Dr. Phillip Cary who is President of the James Randi Educational Foundation as well as creator of the online blog "Bad Astronomy," I'd recommend it to both atheists/sceptics, and also to believers who've come to the conclusion that too many atheists/sceptics, are of the type that some refer to as 'militant'. As a rationalist and sceptic myself, I've come to despair of the clumsy efforts of the modern sceptical movement, post Dawkins, to spread what should be a positive message. IMO, their approach has actually had the opposite effect to that intended i.e. it's driven many people away from either an understanding, or, an appreciation of, atheism, rationality and scepticism. So to see a prominent member of the sceptical movement pointing out that talking down to, or insulting, believers, is counter productive, is, to me, inspiring. These days I dissasociate myself from atheists/sceptics, as, when it comes to discussions, I'm frequently appalled by their approach, their inexcusable misuses of 'rationality', the way they talk down to believers etc: generally, in thise discussions, I find I feel myself having more in common with the believers, than the sceptics! I wish the kind of attitude displayed by the speaker in this video, were more evident amongst the sceptical movement, then maybe I could once again feel more able to be an advocate of scepticism/rationality.

Yes, you're right- the use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language is prevalent amongst all demographics. However, sceptics and rationalists, IMO, should be way, way above the use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language, because, they are the ambassadoors for the use of rationality, for intelligent discussion, for discussion which effectively gets their points across. We expect no better than insults and verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher: rationalists and sceptics should be showing a better way.

I wouldn't want to make 'offence' illegal, for the reasons you give- it's goes against freedom of speech and, it can be heavily misused. However, that doesn't stop it being highly counter-productive in debate, on atheism or any other subject, to insult the person you're trying to communicate with, when there are plenty of non-offence causing/neutral terms to use instead. And, unfortunatly, IMO, use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language, seems to be prevalent amongst some sceptics when they talk (down) to believers.

True. I did mention though, that I wasn't doing so, as I considered it pointless

OK. I think I can agree that you've got a logically consistent POV there. Strictly speaking, no atheist can be militant, because, you consider 'militant' to mean aggressive behaviour or speech in support of a doctrine. And, atheism as you see it* is empty of doctrine, therefore an essential component of militancy is missing. Would you agree, however, that the above only holds as long as a particular 'atheist' is truly atheist in the above sense of being without doctrine? If for example, a person who thought of themselves as 'atheist', yet attached some form of doctrine to it, for example- you would have to hold that they were either, not a true atheist, or, were confused as to what atheism means? (* the asterix is there simply because, as you and I both know, there are, in common usage, 2 definitions of 'atheism'. We've spoke about this before and, you consider the 2nd to be totally invalid (i.e. atheist as someone who believes there isn't a God), whereas I, due to my respect for 'common usage' don't consider it invalid. I only mention it to be precise- in general I'm happy to work with the strictly logical/emtymological meaning that you use).

I commend you on that- it's the kind of goading that, IMO, does wind up some believers, who then react by thinking of the atheist as 'militant' or insulitng. I don't think you should be called a militant atheist for that, as long as, as you say, you've been polite and non-insulting. Bear in mind though, that a lot of those atheists in the pro-active sceptical movement, aren't so polite, and, when talking with believers, do engage in counter productive behaviour, ranging from the general condescention (talking down to people as if they are of low intelligence, as we've seen on this very thread), to use of terms they know full well are provocative ('sky-pixies', Xtians etc), to outright insults (e.g. all believers are, by definition, irrataional). Fortunately, there is a growing awareness in the sceptical movement, that those ways of speaking/behaving are somewhat pointless and counter-productive, as, when it comes to communicating with believers and trying to get across what atheism/scepticism is really about, you really need to be involved in a genuine communication, which, is impossible, if the other person has walked away feeling insulted and infuriated.

I'll point out that I've not accused you of being a militant atheist Given your position then, that an atheist can't possibly be militant, as atheism is devoid of doctrines/tenets: rather, it can only be the person, or, their actions that can ever be militant: then how do you account for the situation in which religous believer 'a', is a militant believer (i.e. they expound their religious doctrine in a militant fashion), while believer 'b', is not a militant believer (because they expound their doctrine in a non-militant fashion)? Assuming they both share the same actual religious beliefs/doctrines, then, that militancy, just as for atheism, can't be an aspect of the religious belief/doctrine (because, then both believers would be militant) so must be merely a characteristic of 'a' (or of 'a's personality/actions). Which makes sense, however, it would seem to be a problem for any athiests who use the phrase 'religious militant'.

OK. But you maintain that it's impossible for anyone to be militant about atheism?

And, just so we're clear, how would the stamp collector be militant about gardening? How exactly would his approach be different to, say, someone not being militant about gardening?

645, I've still not had the answer to this- I know you posted a link to something else you'd said, but I did explain in my post (no.185) why it didn't clear things up. Any chance you could give the straightforward answer that, if what you're saying is rationally consistent, will be consise and easy to provide?

Depends very much on what you mean by 'correctness'? What document do we have to check to find out if a word is 'correct'? Now, all I said was that 'innit' apears in the OED; and, I'd add that it's most definitly acheived 'common usage' status, innit?

Originally Posted by janie48 View Post Just in case anyone thinks i was making it up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html