Waldo Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But most atheists don't go round telling identifying with 'atheist', as roots correctly says it's akin to identifying with the label 'homosapien'. I do agree with most of your post, but not everyone who uses labels identify with them. When you use language do you identify with the language used or employ it for a purpose? I have come across many, many people who are so attached to not being attached to labels that they are more attached to them than your average 'clingy' Jo. I'm not having a go at anyone. Just pointing out the propensity we have to self-identify as some label or other, and then feel no further investigation or change is possible. I suspect this is what the poster who I replied to, was alluding to (something along the lines of pick a label, then your skuppered). Lol. Totally, people can build up a self-identity on the idea that they're not limited by any particular self-identity. People is tricksy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Eh? I haven't confused atheism with anything. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.In fact it is you who appears to be getting a bit confused. Then what is someone who simply doesn't have a belief in a God or gods? Atheism is absence of belief in gods Religion is the belief in, & the worship of a God or Gods. No it isn't, that's theism Therefore if you do not believe in a God you can not be religious. Of course you can RootsBooster. The word agnostic is self explanatory, at least it is if you can be bothered to check it. Agnostic = a person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists. I know full well what agnostic means, you have got it right. Your problem is that you think agnosticism is some middle ground between theism and atheism when it's not. No further explanation is required. I am saying I don't know. Any additional viewpoint is therefore merely idle speculation. You seem to be confusing belief with knowledge, one of my posts from another thread may help... An agnostic thinks/believes that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of any gods. There is a common misconception that agnosticism is some kind of neutral ground between theism and atheism. It isn't though, gnosticism/agnosticism runs parallel to theism/atheism, it doesn't take the place of them. Examples- -Somebody believes their God exists (theist) but also admits they don't know if there really is a God (agnostic) -Somebody is without belief in any gods (atheist) and also admits that they don't know if any gods exist (agnostic) -Somebody believes in their God (theist) and is sure that their God exists and is the "true" god (gnostic) -Somebody is without belief in any gods (atheist) and is also sure that there are no gods (gnostic) Belief is something you either have or you don't have. A belief is a conviction, something of which you are convinced and accept, therefore you would know if you believed in something. Therefore if someone says they aren't sure if they believe in God, or are undecided, then they are not convinced and do not actually have a belief. By definition they are an agnostic atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Really? your on a wind up aren't you? How in Gods name ( see what i did there?) is there any difference between not having a belief in somethings existence & not believing something exists? Atheists do not believe there is a God end of explanation. Agnostics don't know & have the good sense to admit they don't KNOW. I do not speculate one way or the other, it is of no consequence. Theists believe in a God or Gods. Not sure whether Budhists believe in a God or not, don't know enough about them, but as they appear to belief in a life after death they are religious. So if you follow that religion maybe you don't believe in God. All religions defy logic in my opinion so a belief in life after death but no explanation as to how it was all created in the first place is, I suppose, no dafter than the other beliefs man has invented to try & overcome the fear of death. Not interested into getting into a discussion on semantics. The definitions I gave in my previous post are correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 An atheist believes there is no God, A theist believes there is a creator, God or Gods,an agnostic believes the existence of a God or Gods cannot be proven & therefore they 'don't know' either way. This is not Alice in Wonderland, none of you are Humpty Dumpty, words do not mean 'what you choose them to mean'. The above explanations of the words under discussion are accurate dictionary definitions of their meaning. Let's look at your accurate dictionary definitions. These are all from Oxford dictionaries online. atheism disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods[/Quote] So even just using one dictionary you get the wider meaning of the word - lack of belief - in Gods. So either your dictionary is wrong by saying atheism means someone who believes there is no God or we have to accept that there may be more than one meaning for certain words. The difficulty is that here we're trying to have a discussion and you're limiting the value of that discussion by refusing to acknowledge the wider understanding of the words used. Philosophically lack of belief is the widest possible meaning for the word atheist - the term anti theist accurately describes the narrower (and more limited) definition of the word. An agnostic can not know whether God exists but still believe one does, so an agnostic Theist is very possible. Let's go onto religion, from the same dictionary as the above. religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods[/Quote] So far matches what you say, but then, from the same source remember Buddhism a widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama in NE India in the 5th century bc[/Quote] A widespread Asian religion, it then goes on to say Buddhism has no god[/Quote] but I thought the same dictionary described religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods[/Quote] This is the problem with using strict definitions of words with no philosophical understanding of there context, you get bogged down in contradiction because words are merely symbols, they have no truth in and of themselves, they are a device used for a purpose. In short; An atheist doesn't believe there is no God, A theist believes there is a God, or Gods (it doesn't have to be a creator), an agnostic believes the existence of a God or Gods cannot be proven & therefore they 'don't know' either way but they may still believe that there is or isn't one and a religious person, very definately doesn't have to believe in God. Oh and by the way, The above explanations of the words under discussion are accurate dictionary definitions of their meaning[/Quote] ---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 20:07 ---------- Really? your on a wind up aren't you? How in Gods name ( see what i did there?) is there any difference between not having a belief in somethings existence & not believing something exists? Atheists do not believe there is a God end of explanation. Agnostics don't know & have the good sense to admit they don't KNOW. I do not speculate one way or the other, it is of no consequence. Theists believe in a God or Gods. Not sure whether Budhists believe in a God or not, don't know enough about them, but as they appear to belief in a life after death they are religious. So if you follow that religion maybe you don't believe in God. All religions defy logic in my opinion so a belief in life after death but no explanation as to how it was all created in the first place is, I suppose, no dafter than the other beliefs man has invented to try & overcome the fear of death. Not interested into getting into a discussion on semantics. The definitions I gave in my previous post are correct The bold bit, you're already contradicting yourself, you previously stated that religious people have to believe in a God. May I suggest you give up while you're absolutely miles behind? ---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 20:08 ---------- I'm not having a go at anyone. Just pointing out the propensity we have to self-identify as some label or other, and then feel no further investigation or change is possible. I suspect this is what the poster who I replied to, was alluding to (something along the lines of pick a label, then your skuppered). Lol. Totally, people can build up a self-identity on the idea that they're not limited by any particular self-identity. People is tricksy! Indeed people are tricksy, especially when it comes to fooling themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Did you bother to look up the definition of Lack? You really must contact Richard Dawkins urgently because he describes himself as an Atheist & I heard one of his talks & I got the clear impression that he definitely does not believe in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Really? your on a wind up aren't you? How in Gods name ( see what i did there?) is there any difference between not having a belief in somethings existence & not believing something exists? There is no difference, you've just said the same thing twice Atheists do not believe there is a God end of explanation. Correct but that's different to what you said earlier.... An atheist believes there is no God You're currently in the same position I was in a few years ago, when I (wrongly) claimed I wasn't an atheist. I, like you, didn't understand the difference between not believing in gods (which is an absence of belief) and believing that there are no gods (which is an active belief). I thought atheism was a negative thing, I thought that because I neither believe in gods or believe that there are NO gods, I was agnostic. After taking on board explanations of atheism, theism and agnosticism, and looking into it for myself, I realised I am and always have been an agnostic atheist, which is what you sound like. Agnostics don't know & have the good sense to admit they don't KNOW. I do not speculate one way or the other, it is of no consequence. Theists believe in a God or Gods. Again, you're confusing belief with knowledge, see my last post on the subject ---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 20:17 ---------- Did you bother to look up the definition of Lack? You really must contact Richard Dawkins urgently because he describes himself as an Atheist & I heard one of his talks & I got the clear impression that he definitely does not believe in God. That would make him a "gnostic atheist" -Somebody is without belief in any gods (atheist) and is also sure that there are no gods (gnostic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Did you bother to look up the definition of Lack? You really must contact Richard Dawkins urgently because he describes himself as an Atheist & I heard one of his talks & I got the clear impression that he definitely does not believe in God. Yes and he also has the disclaimer God 'probably' doesn't exist, which according to your own definition an agnostic believes the existence of a God or Gods cannot be proven & therefore they 'don't know' either way[/Quote] makes him quite clearly an agnostic. So would you say he's an agnostic atheist? Why don't you refute my posts instead of ignoring them and throwing new arguments at me? I can bat them back forever and a day but it would be nice if you actually commented on the points I'm making in the form of a discussion rather than desperately clinging at straws. ---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 20:28 ---------- That would make him a "gnostic atheist" Ok so Dawkins is an Agnostic Gnostic Atheist No wonder mjw47 is so confused listening to his talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Ok so Dawkins is an Agnostic Gnostic Atheist No wonder mjw47 is so confused listening to his talks. I was illustrating which "label" would be given to Dawkins if mjw47's interpretation of him was correct... Did you bother to look up the definition of Lack? You really must contact Richard Dawkins urgently because he describes himself as an Atheist & I heard one of his talks & I got the clear impression that he definitely does not believe in God. That would make him a "gnostic atheist" In actual fact, as you said, Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as he has stated it himself before. ---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 20:54 ---------- Agree with this too... No anti Theism is the belief that God does't exist (although (Roots, for you too) some anti Theists are against the philosophical idea of God without making the actual claim that there is no God). I'd already said it here, but I could have made it clearer... Actually Rich, that's exacty what an anti-theist is, someone who holds the belief that there are no gods and/or is against theism. The prefix "anti" means to oppose, so holding an opposing belief (that there are no gods) to theism would be anti-theism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I was illustrating which "label" would be given to Dawkins if mjw47's interpretation of him was correct...[/Quote] Sorry Roots, I knew what you were doing, I was merely highlighting the contradiction of mjw47's position if Dawkins own position was taken into account. Agree with this too... I'd already said it here, but I could have made it clearer... Ah yes, sorry I missed the subtlety, thank you for highlighting it, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Have either of you two considered contacting the council of Cardinals & asking them to reopen the debate on how many Angels can sit on the head of a pin? Because I've got to tell you it sounds like something that would be right down your streets. My definitions were also taken from the Oxford Dictionary, only, being an old guy I use a book, remember them? Those definitions are fine by me & I have no interest in dissecting them further. I am neither an atheist agnostic, nor a theist agnostic, 'not knowing' means precisely that. There is no need to deviate one way or the other. Whilst, as I have already stated, I have no interest in further discussion on semantics, I do have an interest in the Buddhist belief in the creation of the Universe & life itself. As I previously said it's not something I know much about & if you are aware of their beliefs in how it all started please enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.