[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[downbeatplumb]

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

Joe is an agnostic, because he as expressed no preference.

---

Point is, you cant pigeonhole any label.

No, the point is that the definitions are inaccurate, because there is no reliable knowledge classification system to correctly pigeonhole the terms (labels, descriptions) with the succinctly differing definitions. As it is, cultures are allowed to shift the definitions; and for some reason, atheist, believe that is acceptable; except in the case of definition of atheism and theism.

I see you don't understand what the words agnostic and atheist actually mean.

You are in good company. David Mitchell argues the same, and he is wrong.

[Belacqua]

I see you don't understand what the words agnostic and atheist actually mean.

You are in good company. 

Unfortunately, the way natural language works is: a word means what lots of people use it to mean. 

If a significant percentage of people use it to mean "uncommitted," then that's one of the word's meanings. The dictionary can give more than one meaning, and in that case if we want to be clear we have to say something like "I mean agnostic in the sense of ____." Inconvenient but necessary. 

In such cases we can't really say someone is wrong; only that we wish the word was used differently. I dislike it when people use the word "secular" to mean merely "non-religious," but I can't stop anybody. Within certain circles, especially ones that operate like echo chambers, specific definitions may be demanded, but newcomers can't know that. 

Merriam Webster gives both definitions of "agnostic." David Mitchell is using it according to one of the definitions given.

Definition of agnostic (Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

political agnostics
agnostic adjective

Definition of agnostic (Entry 2 of 2)

1 : of, relating to, or being an agnostic : involving or characterized by agnosticism
2 : NONCOMMITTAL, UNDOGMATIC

[The Architect Of Fate]

Which doesn't refute his point

[Mr.wizard]

I see you don't understand what the words agnostic and atheist actually mean.

You are in good company. 

Unfortunately, the way natural language works is: a word means what lots of people use it to mean. 

If a significant percentage of people use it to mean "uncommitted," then that's one of the word's meanings. The dictionary can give more than one meaning, and in that case if we want to be clear we have to say something like "I mean agnostic in the sense of ____." Inconvenient but necessary. 

In such cases we can't really say someone is wrong; only that we wish the word was used differently. I dislike it when people use the word "secular" to mean merely "non-religious," but I can't stop anybody. Within certain circles, especially ones that operate like echo chambers, specific definitions may be demanded, but newcomers can't know that. 

Merriam Webster gives both definitions of "agnostic." David Mitchell is using it according to one of the definitions given.

Definition of agnostic (Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

political agnostics
agnostic adjective

Definition of agnostic (Entry 2 of 2)

1 : of, relating to, or being an agnostic : involving or characterized by agnosticism
2 : NONCOMMITTAL, UNDOGMATIC

You gave him a definition of what he just said, and then the idiot who used it wrong gave it kudos.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

So, an agnostic has to be aware of the possible options, and reserve opinion; where as, an atheist does not have to be aware of any options???

It's just getting absurd how you are bending descriptions and not considering the possibility that you need a full list of the related terms, and they all have to be reviewed and classified to assure that all aspects of the possible relationships are accounted for.

That is what science would do - and you are no where near doing that.

[Belacqua]

You gave him a definition of what he just said, and then the idiot who used it wrong gave it kudos.

As far as I can tell, Prof. Lunaphiles wants to use the second definition given by Merriam Webster, while downbeatplum wants to use the first. 

Both are standard English usage.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So, an agnostic has to be aware of the possible options, and reserve opinion; where as, an atheist does not have to be aware of any options???

He didn't say that 

It's just getting absurd how you are bending descriptions and not considering the possibility that you need a full list of the related terms, and they all have to be reviewed and classified to assure that all aspects of the possible relationships are accounted for

Accept he has not bent anything and your objection is rubbish 

That is what science would do - and you are no where near doing that

Because this isn't science

[Belacqua]

So, an agnostic has to be aware of the possible options, and reserve opinion; where as, an atheist does not have to be aware of any options???

Some people here are adamant in their Lackism. For them, anything that lacks belief in God is atheist, including inanimate objects which are incapable of belief in anything. I think this is not helpful.

It's just getting absurd how you are bending descriptions and not considering the possibility that you need a full list of the related terms, and they all have to be reviewed and classified to assure that all aspects of the possible relationships are accounted for.

I agree that if we want to improve our understanding, and even perhaps come to some sort of agreement, agreeing on definitions would be useful. It is clarifying to see how people use the words differently. 

That is what science would do - and you are no where near doing that.

Granted, scientists need precise definitions in their work. Philosophers work to clarify our word usage as well, though they have to admit that natural language can't be as precise as math.

I think we could all improve our understanding of these issues if we were less interested in insulting and overwhelming everyone who disagrees even a little.

[The Grand Nudger]

Joe has no belief in gods, nor does he believe that arguments for gods are fallacious. He hasn’t rejected these arguments because he hasn’t HEARD of these arguments.

It is therefore possible that atheism is just the lack of a specific belief, no?

Boru

Joe is an agnostic, because he as expressed no preference.

This is how prof intends to use the term.  Rather than an atheist, which joe is by definition, prof would have him be an agnostic - as though a person couldn't be an agnostic atheist, like the vast majority of atheists.  

People who have no belief in god, but think that the answer to the question of gods existence might be unknowable or who simply don't want to commit to either claim regardless of the fact that they, personally, do not believe. These are not the boards pet definitions, and prof is not making some error in multiple usage. Prof believes that the definitions for these terms need to be replaced with his own, as he's mentioned in this thread and others on more than one occasion.

It's really not hard at all, and there's nothing wrong with the terms or their definitions.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Some people here are adamant in their Lackism. For them, anything that lacks belief in God is atheist, including inanimate objects which are incapable of belief in anything. I think this is not helpful.

It's helpful and valid .This isn't complicated 

I agree that if we want to improve our understanding, and even perhaps come to some sort of agreement, agreeing on definitions would be useful. It is clarifying to see how people use the words differently. 

No need 

I think we could all improve our understanding of these issues if we were less interested in insulting and overwhelming everyone who disagrees even a littl

Cry use a river