Fed up of non believers

[Lockjaw]

For heavens sake we're not talking about his judgement as to the meaning of life, we're talking about his considered opinion on the descriptions to explain, as simply as possible, the positions taken by the various viewpoints involved.

 

'Though reliable authorities are correct - more often than laypersons.'

 

No S**t Sherlock, are they really?

 

Now, whilst I know logic is not a particular strong point of yours, lets try and introduce it shall we.

 

Taking into consideration Occum's Razor,who do you think is most likely to be correct in defining beliefs, a man who has spent his lifetime working in the field in question and is in possession of relevant degrees, or alternatively a bunch of argumentative numpties on Sheffield Forum?

 

I admit it's a bit of a tough one, but having given it due consideration I'm leaning slightly toward the man who actually knows what he's talking about.

 

Morning mjw.

 

What did the person who "invented" the word consider it's meaning to be?

[mjw47]

Why did you abandon the dictionary definition of atheism and go with someone's opinion instead?

 

Are you being obtuse for a giggle or is that the way your mind works. Where did I say that I had abandoned the dictionary definition?

 

They are both relevant and do not contradict each other. It's simply that the Professors is more informative and adds a little more detail.

 

OED ' A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

Professor Rowe ' an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities.'

 

The definitions support each other.

 

I don't believe or disbelieve in the existence of deities precisely because I don't believe we will ever get to know whether God exists. I also do not know if he doesn't.

 

That we will never know may of course turn out to be wrong.

 

And that is why agnosticism is also a belief.

 

As much as I think it is true I actually have no way of being certain so it's a belief.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 10:57 ----------

 

Morning mjw.

 

What did the person who "invented" the word consider it's meaning to be?

 

And a good morning to you Lockjaw.

 

Well the word was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley an English biologist in 1869 His definition was : 'One who professes that the existence of a first cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known.'

 

The reference to first cause would cover both God and Science.

 

Why do you ask?

Edited March 3, 2014 by mjw47

[RootsBooster]

Why did you abandon the dictionary definition of atheism and go with someone's opinion instead?

 

Are you being obtuse for a giggle or is that the way your mind works. Where did I say that I had abandoned the dictionary definition?

 

They are both relevant and do not contradict each other. It's simply that the Professors is more informative and adds a little more detail.

 

OED ' A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

Professor Rowe ' an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities.'

 

The definitions support each other.

Read my post again

[janie48]

 

Labels are a way of communicating identities, qualities, traits and descriptions without having to go into a full description about something

The problem with that kind of labelling though, is that people get lumped into categories, when they may, or may not share the same traits and qualities. Stereotyping people can often produce misunderstandings.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[mjw47]

Read my post again

 

Shows how much attention I'm beginning to pay to you lot.

 

Did I? As far as I'm aware I'm still happy with OED 'The belief that God does not exist.'

 

From the Greek 'a' without + theos God.

 

 

 

Also Professor Rowe's 'A theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve respectively.'

 

Don't see any contradiction personally, if you disregard the existence of something and don't believe it has a bearing on your life then you are without it.

 

As I don't really have any interest in either atheism or theism believing them to be unproven guesses I don't really concern myself with what the definitions of them are believed to be.

 

Unlike certain other posters on here I would accept your word if you claimed to be either one or the other.

 

Should you then wish to go into further detail as to what your particular belief entailed I would also take your word for it.

 

Obviously, if you were either of the above I wouldn't agree with your sentiments, but as I make no claim to know the answer I would respect your right to believe whatever you wish.

Edited March 3, 2014 by mjw47

[milquetoast1]

The problem with that kind of labelling though, is that people get lumped into categories, when they may, or may not share the same traits and qualities. Stereotyping people can often produce misunderstandings.

 

The only stereotyping here is the attempt to paint atheists as dogmatic in their denial of god, with the addition of other prejudices.

 

Atheists simply lack belief in god, and some of them might be dogmatic and irritating. Theists simply believe in god, and some of them might be dogmatic and irritating ... etc.

[janie48]

The only stereotyping here is the attempt to paint atheists as dogmatic in their denial of god, with the addition of other prejudices.

 

Atheists simply lack belief in god, and some of them might be dogmatic and irritating. Theists simply believe in god, and some of them might be dogmatic and irritating ... etc.

Who has done that? and where have you perceived prejudices?

 

Totally agree with your final comments.

[milquetoast1]

Who has done that? and where have you perceived prejudices?

 

Totally agree with your final comments.

 

I'm pleased that you agree with my final comment, but you are the poster who most frequently refers to dogmatic atheists or angry atheists, and atheist values.

 

You even started an "angry atheists rant thread".

 

There are no atheist values, just as there are no theist values, but if you insist there are then that is the hook by which one can hang prejudices.

[Lockjaw]

 

 

 

And a good morning to you Lockjaw.

 

Well the word was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley an English biologist in 1869 His definition was : 'One who professes that the existence of a first cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known.'

 

The reference to first cause would cover both God and Science.

 

Why do you ask?

 

Because, if we are going to use somebody's learned opinion as a basis for the meaning of a word, it would make sense to use that of the person who came up with said word, surely. In this case, we are lucky that we are able to identify that person and quote him.

 

Interestingly, his opinion of the meaning of the word he invented differs somewhat from that of the mighty Professor Rowe who appears to have added a bit of his own.

 

So, which one's opinion should we assume to be the "correct" one?

[Ryedo40]

As I don't really have any interest in either atheism or theism believing them to be unproven guesses I don't really concern myself with what the definitions of them are believed to be.

 

Atheism isn't a guess. If you imagined a brick wall in front of you, you'd have no knowledge or awareness of what is beyond that brick wall(you'd be agnostic). So whatever is beyond that brick wall wouldn't exist to you. You'd have no experience of it. Its existence would be absent from your mind; you'd lack belief in whatever exists beyond the wall(atheist.)

 

If somebody came along and said a dragon with pink feathers lives beyond the wall, you'd assess the evidence they provide. If that evidence is lacking, or it turns out that person just has a belief, feeling or faith that a dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall, you'd have no good reason believe that person's claim and you'd still be no wiser as to what exists beyond the wall. You'd still be an agnostic atheist.

 

And by the way, all you are doing with the Prof thing is making an appeal to authority. I could do the same: Professor A.C Grayling for instance views the agnostic stance as irrational.