Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2012, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 08:42 PM by Thomas.)
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
Just grow a pair and take the next step.
Atheism is not about a sure bet. It's about the obvious conclusion.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thomas's post
20-03-2012, 04:05 PM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
Hey, Free.

Quote:"Atheist's without balls".

I gotta admit, I find this insulting (not attacking you, or Colbert, just being honest). My position comes from a rational, informed and considered position and should be respected as such. I refuse to lie down and be mocked and told I have no value simply because we make an easy target for comedians. I used to make fun of retards, but I got over it. People need to get over this. But this sort of insult makes sense to me when all of this is viewed as a binary issue; a notion I don't subscribe to. It's very George W Bush, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Unfortunately life is more complex than a shirts vs skins basketball game.

It struck me in my contemplations that perhaps I have a slightly different view of things; a lateral advantage if you will. I am half black and half white. When people say that I have to be all of one or all of the other I chuckle quietly and say, no I don't. I'm 100% me and if that makes things difficult for people, that's their issue.

Quote:Essentially asserting uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Yeah. See I don't recognise this definition and neither does Huxley. I have full faith, and I feel confident that Huxley did as well, in science. I have no problem saying that gravity attracts massive objects to one another because that's been demonstrated countless times. But hey, people like the Agnostic/Gnostic dichotomy. I understand it but reject it.

Quote:If one asserts their uncertainty about a god or gods then that same person should also take this view of all other fairy tales until they can be proven false.

I haven't rejected a lot of things, I simply don't pretend that anything is certain unless it's been demonstrated. That, to me, seems perfectly rational. It just so happens that in the case of God, neither side is demonstrated, in fact, it's all one indemonstrable pile of conundrum. So until someone can demonstrate that their hypothesis is correct (which I believe in this particular case is impossible) I reserve my judgement. Again, perfectly rational and in fact, the core of Huxley's point.

Santa Clause and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are different cases. There is very clear and widely available historical documentation of their fictionalisation. They are characters, that much is clear.

I gotta admit, that sort of rebuttal, "Are you Agnostic about Zeus and centaurs and pixies too," gets thrown at me a lot. That makes sense to me because the hegemonic view is that the falsehood of these beliefs is self-evident; what Saul would call received wisdom. But that's a hegemonic position, not a scientific one. My only response is, I am an Agnostic. I reserve my judgement about those myths that have as of yet not been demonstrated to be either true or false. That is the point of Agnosticism. It's attractive to simply glom onto whatever idea just "feels" right. But Huxley was protesting not just Theists, but scientists who just decided arbitrarily to accept things as true that had no evidence. Huxley wanted everyone to realise that when it comes to truth and particularly to shitting on other people's truths, short cuts are never acceptable. We either have evidence or we don't. End of story.

The idea of the default position was introduced in this thread. I accept the argument if the definition of Atheist is anything that is not Theist. We are all born not-Theists, not-butt wipers, not-English speakers, not-ABBA fans and if we're truly fortunate, we'll die not-ABBA fans too Cool But if Atheist means disbelief in God, then that most certainly is not a default position, that's a learned position. In that case, Agnosticism is the default position (pwn). Anyhoo, the default position argument rubs me the wrong way. Something about the frame I can't put my finger on irks me.

If I believe that I created the universe through the power of my consciousness, that makes me an Atheist... but that ain't no default position.

Hey, Clyde.

Quote:Ghost can believe what he chooses about the about the agnostic term. It has taken multiple meanings over time beyond the coining of Huxley.

Thank you. Straight up.

Quote:Weak Atheism= I don't believe in a deity.
Strong Atheist= I believe there are no deities.

This, for me, is the core of all of the terminological confusion. Weak Atheism, as defined, is the catch-all not-Theist that everyone is talking about. It makes no claims of anything and is simply the absence of a belief. It is, as people say, the default position (but so is the inability to speak and wipe one's arse, but hey, I'm just being bitter Cool ). But Strong Atheism, as defined, is without doubt, absolutely not the same catch-all category. It very clearly makes a claim. It is incontrovertibly a learned position, not the so-called blanc-tableau default position. Furthermore, there are many people, myself included, who no longer correspond to this definition. I have never and likely will never claim that I believe there are no deities. This, for me, is why people get so bloody confused. The same term, Atheist, is used interchangeably to describe a people who make zero assertions and a people who very clearly make assertions. I think the terminology is flawed but it exists. This is why I say if Atheism means not-Theist, I certainly am one and if it means belief there are no God(s) then I certainly am not one; and if I'm neither a Theist nor an Atheist, then I must be, by definition, something else.

Hey, Stevil.

Historically, Deists were viewed as separate from both Theists and Atheists but wound up folded into the same category as Theists; which really doesn't make sense because Deists don't believe in "Theos", the belief in which is the very thing that defines Theists. But, for me, what all of this illustrates is the politicisation of definitions.

Hey, Thomas.

My balls hang quite comfortably, thank you very much Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
20-03-2012, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2012 05:12 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
Damn. Here I am 35 years later still trying to work out whether I'm a nihilist, an existentialist, or a solipsist and you young'uns have already moved on to the advanced class.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 08:29 PM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
I see agnostic as a better term than atheist.
As god, in the usual perception, is a man made phenomenon we can deny the bulk of such. Conversely some hard line atheists beleve that current science proves the non existence of god. I don't buy this because even the greatness of science is limited to the very essence of human nature; it cannot decree beyond its innate accrued capabilities one way or the other.

My preferred position is that of saspian. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 10:30 PM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
(19-03-2012 06:46 AM)Ghost Wrote:  And I quite clearly suggested an alternative way to get to the meaning of words. Discourse. But you dismissed it. And for the last time, I have not said that reference books have zero value; that's a strawman argument. I have said that they have limitation, that definitions come about through discourse, that definitions are ideological, that concealing that discourse is hegemony and that attempting to limit further discourse and the meaning of words is a matter of power. Finally, of course dictionaries have bias. I'll just leave that one at that.

I have made an assertion. The difference between your post and mine is that I have made the equally loud assertion that I understand and accept the existence of your point of view. So don't talk that jive about me discouraging argument.

Of course I'm going to attack a strawman if you keep moving your position every time I try to clarify it. Of course definitions come about through discourse, but that's not mutually exclusive or incompatible with them being written down in a place that we can reference them. And you haven't made a case for definitions being ideological or for dictionaries being biased... you're just asserting it again, as if the repetition makes it true.

What about my argument is different from yours? You say that you "accept" the existence of my point of view, and by "difference" you imply that I don't accept yours... by disagreeing with you? Again, what makes that different from your argument?

I called it a rant because it fits the definition. I'd cite a dictionary again, but why bother? Apparently through just saying it's a rant (through discourse) it must be true. And because it's "ideological", it must be impossible to correct me or call me wrong because we must be discussing opinions rather than facts.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 06:29 AM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
Hey, Starcrash.

I have not moved my opinion so get off your horse. Dictionaries are not the end of the discussion. That's all I'm saying. They are a reference, not some anointed oracle. They have very clear limitations and conversations should not end because someone says, "oh yeah, well the dictionary says..." because, as Saul says, "...rather scholastic conventions can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology."

As for me not making a case for definition as ideology, you've got to be joking. I have made a case for definitions as ideology, thank you very much, and so has Saul; and for that matter so has Hall, and Carey, and Althusser and DeCerteau and Plato and Ang and De Lauretis and Foucault and others I am sure. So if you want to ignore it, feel free. I'm not repeating myself for you any further. And no, I didn't make a case for dictionaries being biased. That's why I said I'd just leave it at that, ie, I didn't want to get into it. I'd explain things but you'd just alternately say that I hadn't, that I was ranting and that I was saying something I'm not.

Anyhoo, I see no further value in discussing this with you, so respond however you like. I'll do my best to ignore you. You've made it clear that you don't think I have anything to offer (or that I have in fact offered anything to date) so so long and thanks for all the fish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 09:06 AM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
(21-03-2012 06:29 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

I have not moved my opinion so get off your horse. Dictionaries are not the end of the discussion. That's all I'm saying. They are a reference, not some anointed oracle. They have very clear limitations and conversations should not end because someone says, "oh yeah, well the dictionary says..." because, as Saul says, "...rather scholastic conventions can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology."

As for me not making a case for definition as ideology, you've got to be joking. I have made a case for definitions as ideology, thank you very much, and so has Saul; and for that matter so has Hall, and Carey, and Althusser and DeCerteau and Plato and Ang and De Lauretis and Foucault and others I am sure. So if you want to ignore it, feel free. I'm not repeating myself for you any further. And no, I didn't make a case for dictionaries being biased. That's why I said I'd just leave it at that, ie, I didn't want to get into it. I'd explain things but you'd just alternately say that I hadn't, that I was ranting and that I was saying something I'm not.

Anyhoo, I see no further value in discussing this with you, so respond however you like. I'll do my best to ignore you. You've made it clear that you don't think I have anything to offer (or that I have in fact offered anything to date) so so long and thanks for all the fish.

If it fits the dictionary definition, however, it is the correct word choice.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 06:08 PM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
(21-03-2012 09:06 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(21-03-2012 06:29 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

I have not moved my opinion so get off your horse. Dictionaries are not the end of the discussion. That's all I'm saying. They are a reference, not some anointed oracle. They have very clear limitations and conversations should not end because someone says, "oh yeah, well the dictionary says..." because, as Saul says, "...rather scholastic conventions can lock us into assumptions of inevitability and give comfort to received wisdom. A definition then becomes a crutch for certainty and ideology."

As for me not making a case for definition as ideology, you've got to be joking. I have made a case for definitions as ideology, thank you very much, and so has Saul; and for that matter so has Hall, and Carey, and Althusser and DeCerteau and Plato and Ang and De Lauretis and Foucault and others I am sure. So if you want to ignore it, feel free. I'm not repeating myself for you any further. And no, I didn't make a case for dictionaries being biased. That's why I said I'd just leave it at that, ie, I didn't want to get into it. I'd explain things but you'd just alternately say that I hadn't, that I was ranting and that I was saying something I'm not.

Anyhoo, I see no further value in discussing this with you, so respond however you like. I'll do my best to ignore you. You've made it clear that you don't think I have anything to offer (or that I have in fact offered anything to date) so so long and thanks for all the fish.

If it fits the dictionary definition, however, it is the correct word choice.
While being helpfull dictionary definitions are no panaceas in any sense of the word.

Indeed, definitions can lock us into stereotyped ways of perceiving reality.
Words can become multi edged swords when used dogmatically and especially where ambiguity and nefarious desires to manipulate are exercised.

Even where logic is utilized to untangle long sentential statements there is still the problem of fudgy logic.
In professional logic truth tables and a system known as trees are used;even here, we are still limited by language and all its inherent problems.

Quite obviou
sly we need language to learn, communicate, develop etc but it should not be seen as the sole arbiter of engaging in life. We need to remembe that emotion and varying degrees of "knowing" were the precursors to language and these areas should not be entirely fobbed off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: Am I Atheist or Agnostic?
One can argue the implications behind the usage of the word. However, the word choice is correct.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: