-
03-13-2014, 10:17 AM
#151
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by Kblaze8855
And if you dont know either way you are....what?
You really pretend that option does not exist? That everyone either believes or doesnt?
What...these people dont exist or does admitting they dont know mean they dont believe....because you say so....when they themselves arent sure?
Dude.
This is so simple.
Atheist means you are not an affirmative believer in god/s. It means you don't have an active belief. You are not on the positive side of belief. Within the category of atheism, there is antitheism, which is rejecting the idea of god, and there is agnosticism which means you are without surety either way.
Think of it this way: If I said "I have no money." You can't tell from that statement whether my account has a zero balance, or is overdrawn/in debt. All it tells you is that I don't have a positive balance. There are still further specific possibilities to my situation, all you did was rule out one particular possibility.
That is all the word atheism implies. That you are not committed to the idea of God. Maybe you are neutral, maybe you reject it. To determine that you would need more specific terminology. Again, it's like "I have no money." Maybe you're flat in between positive and negative, or maybe you're negative. It's just the absence of a positive position.
-
03-13-2014, 10:18 AM
#152
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by Take Your Lumps
He prefers not to be constrained to a label, so by default he chooses "agnostic" since it carries no particular connotations and doesn't make people think they know everything there is to know about you before they even have a conversation with you.
But really...this is all just semantics. NDT doesn't "believe" in gods for the same reason that most atheists don't; he hasn't seen any good observable evidence yet to support that belief.
Exactly. He avoids the word because it has social baggage. Not because it doesn't describe his position.
-
03-13-2014, 10:25 AM
#153
Titles are overrated
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Oh so you are fighting over wording that means nothing at all to the issues being discussed? A dictionary argument not one on ideals/beliefs or anything the words themselves are involved in. Well then...carry on.
-
03-13-2014, 10:32 AM
#154
NBA sixth man of the year
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
Second, I don't agree that atheism should also include the properties of agnosticism... it's primary role and definition is in direct contrast to theism.
Atheism doesn't include the properties of agnosticism in its own definition, agnosticism just describes the type of atheist (OR theist) you are. If you are a person that doesn't hold a belief then you are an atheist. If you don't hold the belief because you either don't know anything about it or because you don't think there is enough evidence to back up the claim itself then you are an agnostic atheist. Again it just describes the your position as one based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. You seem so resistant to the concept of atheism being one that can be in neutral territory. It is still in contrast with theism but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with it. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to go around shouting there is no God and theists are wrong. It just means you aren't a theist at that point in time.
-
03-13-2014, 10:37 AM
#155
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by Take Your Lumps
You could just watch the man talk about it himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
He prefers not to be constrained to a label, so by default he chooses "agnostic" since it carries no particular connotations and doesn't make people think they know everything there is to know about you before they even have a conversation with you.
But really...this is all just semantics. NDT doesn't "believe" in gods for the same reason that most atheists don't; he hasn't seen any good observable evidence yet to support that belief.
This entire debate started because I posted that same link, and yes I said earlier this is just a semantics debate but IMO it is important enough to talk about because clearly there is a divide on how people view the word "atheist". There is the way me and NDT view it, and there is the way Miller and Dresta view it. (the wrong way IMO)
-
03-13-2014, 10:41 AM
#156
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by miller-time
Atheism doesn't include the properties of agnosticism in its own definition, agnosticism just describes the type of atheist (OR theist) you are. If you are a person that doesn't hold a belief then you are an atheist. If you don't hold the belief because you either don't know anything about it or because you don't think there is enough evidence to back up the claim itself then you are an agnostic atheist. Again it just describes the your position as one based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. You seem so resistant to the concept of atheism being one that can be in neutral territory. It is still in contrast with theism but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with it. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to go around shouting there is no God and theists are wrong. It just means you aren't a theist at that point in time.
Your problem is that you think holding no knowledge defaults to atheist... that is wrong though it is completely possible, and common, to be directly in the middle on this and JUST be agnostic
Both atheist and theist are making a claim, agnostic makes no claims which is why NDT chooses that label, as a scientist he makes no claims without evidence. Can you at least understand that view?
-
03-13-2014, 10:50 AM
#157
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Again, this is how myself and NDT view the spectrum, theist and atheist are in direct contrast to each other, like the definition states. And in the center you have pure agnostism, which is neither atheist nor theist
I understand that your definition of the word atheist includes the center area, but mine does not. We can keep going back and forth on this but I don't think either of us will budge.
-
03-13-2014, 11:05 AM
#158
NBA sixth man of the year
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
Your problem is that you think holding no knowledge defaults to atheist... that is wrong though it is completely possible, and common, to be directly in the middle on this and JUST be agnostic
Both atheist and theist are making a claim, agnostic makes no claims which is why NDT chooses that label, as a scientist he makes no claims without evidence. Can you at least understand that view?
No it is not a claim. What do you think the prefix a in atheist means? It simply means without. If you have no knowledge of a concept then by default you can not have a belief in it. If you have no belief in God then you are an atheist by definition. Agnostic atheist is the middle ground you are talking about. You keep rejecting the word atheist because you think it always is combatively opposed to theist. NDT discusses why he doesn't want to be labeled an atheist. It has nothing to do with his actual position and everything to do with the words social baggage and his disinterest to be involved in atheist social movements. He even states that there is overlap between the categories but calling himself just agnostic because it "separates me from the conduct of atheists." He isn't talking about the technical definitions of the words but rather the social ramifications of labels.
-
03-13-2014, 11:17 AM
#159
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
The base definition for atheist is a rejection of dieties, and a contrast to "theism"
We are really going in circles, but NDT days atheists are ACTIVE (they have a claim)... agnostics are not
He dislikes it when atheists claim him, and I am also annoyed at atheist claiming middle ground people who are completely open to both sides...
-
03-13-2014, 11:35 AM
#160
NBA sixth man of the year
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
The base definition for atheist is a rejection of dieties, and a contrast to "theism"
We are really going in circles
We are because you aren't accepting that there is more than one definition for atheism. It does not only cover positive rejection, it can also be absence with no actual claim being made. In that sense it doesn't mean you aren't open to to the possibility of other ideas it just means you haven't actively accepted one yet. Agnostic atheist is the middle ground. It is holding a position that is not theistic yet doesn't make a claim about the existence of God one way or another. Just because you are holding on to the idea that atheism is only a positive position (an active rejection) in respect to the concept of God doesn't make it so. I can understand why Neil doesn't want to be labeled an atheist but why are you so resistant to the term under its the second definition? It isn't a dirty word. It isn't a close minded position. It is contrasted to theism because it is not theism, not because it rejects theism.
-
03-13-2014, 12:21 PM
#161
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by miller-time
We are because you aren't accepting that there is more than one definition for atheism. It does not only cover positive rejection, it can also be absence with no actual claim being made. In that sense it doesn't mean you aren't open to to the possibility of other ideas it just means you haven't actively accepted one yet.[COLOR="Red"] Agnostic atheist is the middle ground.[/COLOR] It is holding a position that is not theistic yet doesn't make a claim about the existence of God one way or another. Just because you are holding on to the idea that atheism is only a positive position (an active rejection) in respect to the concept of God doesn't make it so. I can understand why Neil doesn't want to be labeled an atheist but why are you so resistant to the term under its the second definition? It isn't a dirty word. It isn't a close minded position. It is contrasted to theism because it is not theism, not because it rejects theism.
you're correct I do not accept that...and neither does NDT..."pure agnostic" is the middle ground to us
I am resistant to it because you have atheists running around claiming middle ground people as their own who are totally and completely open to either side.
The better question IMO is why are you so resistant to just labeling people "agnostic" when that definition is a MUCH better fit for them than "atheist"?
-
03-13-2014, 12:26 PM
#162
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by Kblaze8855
Oh so you are fighting over wording that means nothing at all to the issues being discussed? A dictionary argument not one on ideals/beliefs or anything the words themselves are involved in.
Yes.
-
03-13-2014, 12:47 PM
#163
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by The Macho Man
tiddy how many times have you gotten into this argument about what the word atheist means?
a handful of times...this isn't the first I know
I've been trying to agree to disagree, but really I do feel like it is a debate worth having (which is why NDT felt the need to address it also)...there are conflicting opinions out there on the definition of this word and it is unfortunate imo.
-
03-13-2014, 12:53 PM
#164
It is what it is
-
03-13-2014, 12:56 PM
#165
the Sho Kosugi of ISH
Re: New Cosmos series on cosmology/astronomy/life
Originally Posted by The Macho Man
How is it important though? If people are mislabeling their beliefs one way or another how is it a big deal?
because, like in NDT's case, you have atheists out there claiming him in their camp when the truth is he is neutral in the debate...he doesn't want to be defined as an atheist or a theist, he wants to be defined as an agnostic
Atheists want to claim the agnostic camp as well as the camp who believes there is no higher power...that is not how it should be IMO
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|