Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Mister Agenda]

Are you even listening? If people mean something by a particular term, it makes no sense to say they're using the wrong term. Words are used to convey concepts, it's no use to question the word if it's clear what concept they're referring to.

Yet here you are, in a community where nearly everyone but you accepts a particular defintion of the word 'atheist' telling us we're using it wrong, and your best argument is how sure you are that a vast majority of people in other places use it differently. You don't accept that our usage appearing in dictionaries is evidence of its validity, despite dictionaries being based on how words are used. You show no ability to process the defintion of the word 'disbelief', continuing to think it's some kind of proof that atheists must believe the opposite of theists. Are you drunk?

This is just the nature of language. I can use the word "red" to refer to what we'd ordinarily call "blue", and the only real problem with that is that I'm not using the word people expect, because meaning in language is just usage. You're being a language essentialist, which is basically in contradiction with, well, the entire field of linguistics.

So, in your opinion, we're doing something similar to using the word 'red' to mean 'blue'. I disagree, but when participating in a community where that is the case, exactly who is being the 'word essentialist', them or the person lecturing them about how they should say 'blue' instead of 'red'?

This has nothing to do with intellectual honesty, this has to do with what people usually mean with these words.

Then you really ought to bring some evidence that you are correct about that, shouldn't you?

Clearly I don't mind either, or I wouldn't continue posting.

Although I'm a little frustrated at the moment, this reminds me to mention that it's unusual for me to disagree with you and I consider you a fine contributor.

This isn't about educating them. It's about actually responding to what they're asking.

You're making a claim about what 'they' are REALLY asking. I don't believe you are correct, and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind on that count. You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow self-evident. It isn't.

Guess what? Agnostic (or if you prefer, 'weak') theists are also a thing. They don't claim to know God exists but believe anyway. Are you going to deny that they're theists?

That's silly. You do realize that words change over time, don't you?

If irony could kill....

It doesn't matter that French Catholics supposedly invented the word (I say supposedly, since I don't actually know), as words change because they have no essential meaning.

So I'm hearing you say you don't believe French Catholics DIDN'T invent the word....

To say that words have an essential meaning is to basically say that the fields of linguistics and etymology are bogus.

The only person who seems to be maintaining that the meaning of the word atheist can only possibly be one particular sense of one defintion is you. The term 'atheist' doesn't mean what it used to. It is no longer a synonym for 'wicked', for instance. 'One who denies God' is fading fast and becoming archaic, but that's the one to which you seem to be chained. And there is also the consideration that a minority group has some right to a say in how it is labeled and defined, and we clearly have majority agreement amongst ourselves on this matter. Keep lecturing us on how we should redefine ourselves to suit your sensibilities.

You do realize this is accepted by basically all linguists, right?

Can you cite one linguist that claims the only correct sense of 'atheist' is 'someone who believes no gods exist'?

All I said was that atheism's 'meaning' is the position that no gods exist because that's how the word is predominantly used.

That continues to be your unsupported claim. It's a punk argument, and you SHOULD be able to do better.

It has not morphed into anything, EXCEPT among atheists.

We don't believe you. That is an assertion, not an argument, and not evidence. You should know better.

If you don't care about the "polls", then you don't care about what people actually mean.

Not believing your claim is not another way of saying 'don't care about what people actually mean'. Clearly, you haven't the slightest care for what WE mean.

And that is what I've been driving home here.

What you've provided no support for would be the more accurate thing to say here.

People aren't asking you if you simply lack belief in god when they ask you if you're an atheist.

That is correct. They are asking if I believe in any God. I don't, so the correct answer is atheist. There is no reason to suppose this is a trick question, and they only want to hear 'atheist' if you hold it to be true that no god of any sort exists. I take them at their word. 'Do you believe in God?' does not require the gritty details of how exactly you don't believe. Yes or no is perfectly fine.

They're asking why (if you do) believe no gods exist, or probably don't exist.

You think it's a 'why' question, despite not being formulated as one. I don't. And 'atheist' in no way indicates why I might believe no gods exist or probably don't exist. After asking if I'm an atheist, even if I were a strong atheist, they would still have to ask me 'why are you an atheist?' to find that out.

So even if you just ignore that you're equivocating on what people mean, you're not even answering their question.

Accepting your defintion, answering 'yes, I'm an atheist' STILL doesn't answer the question you think they're REALLY asking.

I'm not uniquely positioned, nor have claimed to be. The reason I think that atheists do that for this purpose is because whenever they get into a discussion about the existence of gods online, they ALWAYS start off by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so they don't have the burden of proof.

How did you eliminate the possibilty that we say that because we think it is the correct definition, and many strong atheists agree with it because they acknowledge that weak atheists are also atheists?

If the two weren't linked in terms of motivations, they wouldn't make the argument that way so routinely.

The way that rabbit populations must be linked to the height of hemlines in dresses and skirts? They wouldn't rise or fall together if one wasn't causing the other, eh?

Here's an alternate explanation: people who learn to make a habit of skeptical analysis also learn to be cautious in the claims they make. They hesitate to claim knowledge, for instance, that things that are unfalsifiable are, in fact, false. Their skepticism frequently leads them to conclude that belief in any god or God is not reasonably justified, but also that believing no god or God exists is also not reasonably justified. They actually hold a position where they do not, in point of simple fact, hold the burden of proof. They may be prepared to argue that gods are unlikely, or that particular versions of a god don't exist because they are self-contradictory or contrary to physical evidence; but acknowledge that the only argument against, say, the God of deism or Ra is that there isn't any good evidence in favor of their existence. We don't believe in any god or God, but you deny we are atheists. There oughta be a word for someone who denies that people who don't believe in God are atheists.

An undefined term? God or atheism? What word are you talking about?

The term 'God' comes readily to mind. You are the only person here with a definition of 'atheist' that differs from our usage, and you've defined what it is in your opinon, and we have defined what it is in our opinion.

I'm sorry, but those are contrary to one another. If you disbelieve because you think the theists' claims are absurd, that's why you disbelieve.

Which is just another way of saying 'that's why you don't believe'. There is no meaningful difference between saying you don't believe something and saying you disbelieve it.

And again, like Simon you're making an argument that contradicts your position. You say that atheism is just a lack of belief, right? If that is the case, then atheism DOES exist prior to theists making claims about gods, because everyone would be an atheist under your definition. The only thhing is that no one would be spelling that out. This is another reason why this argument about this "lacktheism" atheism is that it makes absurd notions like this what one must accept if they are to be consistent.

I addressed this elsewhere too, and I will do everyone the courtesy of not repeating my reasoning here.

I usually like QS' videos, but he's doing exactly what I said atheists are doing: changing the definition of what people most often mean by words and then reordering the conversation around that redefinition, and then saying that those who hold to the redefined version of the word don't have the burden of proof.

And you are still doing what I accuse you of: asserting all that shit about redefinition and 'what people most often mean' without lifting a finger to back up your contention. There's a reason why certain people want the defintion of atheism to be one that holds the burden of proof, and it's so they can shift the burden of proof inappropriately. I don't think you are one of those 'certain people'. I am mystified as to why you think the burden of proof should be with those who don't believe the postitive claims theists make. It's not evading the burden of proof to assign it correctly to those claiming they have knowledge of something existing. If most theists were agnostic theists, which they logically should be, we could avoid most useless disagreements about God's existence all together,

"I think some sort of god or God exists, but I know I can't provide evidence or proof that I'm right." "Huh. I DON'T think any sort of god or God exists, but I know I can't provide evidence or proof that I'm right." "Huh. So, what did you think about that recent local sports event?"

---

Not to be silly, but if I believe there are no god(s), then what am I? I thought I was consider just an atheist and nothing more.

You're an atheist. Someone who holds the position that there are no god(s) is considered a strong or postitive (or perhaps gnostic) atheist. Someone whose position is merely that they don't believe in any god(s) is a weak atheist. The weak atheist definition is considered the more inclusive one, since both weak and strong atheists don't believe in god(s), and some maintain it is the 'more correct' defintion for that reason. MFM seems to think the more inclusive definition is some kind of dodge so agnostics can count themselves in the atheist camp.