Agnostic: a pointless term?

[wiploc]

No-one calls themselves gnostic, apart from the Gnostics, ie the religion of Gnosticism.

When it comes to the standard Christian god, I am a gnostic strong atheist.

Really, so you know with certainty? Lets hear an argument vindicating such assuredness then.

Changing the subject? Even if you didn't agree that the PoE (problem of evil) proves the nonexistence of a god who would prevent all evil if he had the power, and who has the power, but who doesn't prevent all evil, it remains the case that many of us are certain that particular gods don't exist.

And many of those of us who are thus certain self-identify as gnostics.

The word isn't very old, it was first used by Thomas Huxley in 1869 colloquially to describe his position on God - that there was for him inadequate data to form an opinion. This is the real meaning of agnosticism and you shouldn't get caught up relying on etymology to translate meaning.

Who's people?

If you don't know what people are, you need to be in a more simple level of debate.

and which people get to define the 'real' meaning?

Words mean what people mean by them. If any large group of people agree on a meaning, then that is a meaning.

Most people use what I call the "old nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics include everyone else.

That gives us what is called a "normalized database": Everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into more than one category.

That is the meaning, and there is no good reason to change it, other than social engineering as it attempts to fool every neutral into associating themselves with atheism

That is a meaning. It is one meaning. It is not the only meaning.

I'm not trying to change a meaning. (Actually, you are, trying to get people to change back to the old nomenclature).

I don't like (yes, that's litotes) you fictionalizing our motivation for preferring the new nomenclature. I take offense. Feel free to tell us about your own motives, but don't invent ours.

The second most common usage is what I call the "new nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists include everyone else.

... you are just cynically trying to make everyone associate with atheism by default.

If you continue lying about me, I will quit giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, number 2 is only used by atheists ... who don't know the real definitions

What would make your definitions more real than ours? Many people use ours, and the dictionaries acknowledge them. What's left?

There are no grounds for these definitions.

What would you accept as grounds aside from common usage and dictionary support?

You won't find a dictionary prior to the last 10-15 years with any kind of "lack of belief" definition,

I doubt that I've looked it up in fifteen years. When I did look it up, I went first to Websters Unabridged and Oxford English Dictionary, second edition. I did find some little pocket or desk sized dictionaries that agree with you, but no big ones.

and even today such resources are vastly outnumbered by more accurate ones.

What makes your definition "more accurate" than a definition in common usage and recognized by dictionaries?

Same is the case with 'agnostic' which was never the literal antithesis of the word 'gnostic'. It was originally and always traditionally used in matters pertaining to belief in God.

Your use of "never" and "always" is either figurative or in error.

Theists believe gods exist. Atheists are those who don't happen to have that belief. That's perfectly clear, not nonsense at all.

No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism.

If common usage and the authority of dictionaries doesn't ground a definition, what does?

Atheists believe there is no God,

So you keep saying. But you can't justify that claim with anything other than dictionaries and common usage and irrelevant misrepresentations of history.

agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.

Again, if you restrict that label to that subcategory, then you'll need other labels for the other agnostics.

It is currently one of the two most common meanings. I suspect that among self-identified atheists, at least in America, it is the most common meaning. Your claim that it has never been the meaning is fantastical, wishful thinking.

Only for the reason that the wrong definition has been fed to a generation of young, impressionable kids

So you concede my claim that this is common usage. I don't see what that leaves you.

as they react against 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, with no real grounding or knowledge of the history of religion, and with no prior familiarity with the terminology. Again, show me a dictionary older than 10-15 years with this definition. What we're seeing is social engineering capitalizing on the terrorist events of recent years.

It's been a lot more than fifteen years since this usage started. This is the first time I've heard the claim that 9/11 and the definition of "atheist" were somehow related. Frankly, I don't see the claim as plausible.

Perhaps that is the point of the terrorists events? ...

Atheists blew up the towers so they'd be able to change a definition? That's crazy talk.

I've spoken with a linguist who disagrees. I've looked in dictionaries that disagree. I think your claim is hokum.

But, if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. The current meaning of words depends entirely by what people mean by them now.

Give an argument then.

- According to common usage, "atheist" can refer to anyone who is not a theist. It is a synonym for "non-theist."

You base your own argument on common usage (paraphrase: "Nobody has ever used the word that way") so you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

- According to large, old, venerated-for-over-fifteen-years dictionaries, I am right and you are wrong.

Again, because you use the authority of dictionaries yourself, you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

Those are my arguments. I understand that there are also arguments based on history and etymology, but I regard those as largely irrelevant. "Inflammable" used to mean that something wouldn't burn, but now it means that it will. "Deist" used to mean theist, and "theist" used to mean deist. History puts no shackles on the current usage of other words, why should it rule over the meaning of this one?

The essence of your historical argument is misrepresentation, but even if you were right, I would reject the historical argument as irrelevant to current usage.

Show me a historical definition supporting your claim. Show me a reason to believe you. If we define a word by whatever we think people mean, we're in hot water, dogface.

You make it hard for me to take you seriously.


.

[robvalue]

Christians also behave like atheists most of the time. Part of their brain knows that actually God isn't going to make sure cars don't hit them if they run into the street without looking.

[YGninja]

---

Really, so you know with certainty? Lets hear an argument vindicating such assuredness then.

Changing the subject? Even if you didn't agree that the PoE (problem of evil) proves the nonexistence of a god who would prevent all evil if he had the power, and who has the power, but who doesn't prevent all evil, it remains the case that many of us are certain that particular gods don't exist.

And many of those of us who are thus certain self-identify as gnostics.

Who's people?

If you don't know what people are, you need to be in a more simple level of debate.

and which people get to define the 'real' meaning?

Words mean what people mean by them. If any large group of people agree on a meaning, then that is a meaning.

That is the meaning, and there is no good reason to change it, other than social engineering as it attempts to fool every neutral into associating themselves with atheism

That is a meaning. It is one meaning. It is not the only meaning.

I'm not trying to change a meaning. (Actually, you are, trying to get people to change back to the old nomenclature).

I don't like (yes, that's litotes) you fictionalizing our motivation for preferring the new nomenclature. I take offense. Feel free to tell us about your own motives, but don't invent ours.

... you are just cynically trying to make everyone associate with atheism by default.

If you continue lying about me, I will quit giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, number 2 is only used by atheists ... who don't know the real definitions

What would make your definitions more real than ours? Many people use ours, and the dictionaries acknowledge them. What's left?

There are no grounds for these definitions.

What would you accept as grounds aside from common usage and dictionary support?

You won't find a dictionary prior to the last 10-15 years with any kind of "lack of belief" definition,

I doubt that I've looked it up in fifteen years. When I did look it up, I went first to Websters Unabridged and Oxford English Dictionary, second edition. I did find some little pocket or desk sized dictionaries that agree with you, but no big ones.

and even today such resources are vastly outnumbered by more accurate ones.

What makes your definition "more accurate" than a definition in common usage and recognized by dictionaries?

Same is the case with 'agnostic' which was never the literal antithesis of the word 'gnostic'. It was originally and always traditionally used in matters pertaining to belief in God.

Your use of "never" and "always" is either figurative or in error.

No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism.

If common usage and the authority of dictionaries doesn't ground a definition, what does?

Atheists believe there is no God,

So you keep saying. But you can't justify that claim with anything other than dictionaries and common usage and irrelevant misrepresentations of history.

agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.

Again, if you restrict that label to that subcategory, then you'll need other labels for the other agnostics.

Only for the reason that the wrong definition has been fed to a generation of young, impressionable kids

So you concede my claim that this is common usage. I don't see what that leaves you.

as they react against 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, with no real grounding or knowledge of the history of religion, and with no prior familiarity with the terminology. Again, show me a dictionary older than 10-15 years with this definition. What we're seeing is social engineering capitalizing on the terrorist events of recent years.

It's been a lot more than fifteen years since this usage started. This is the first time I've heard the claim that 9/11 and the definition of "atheist" were somehow related. Frankly, I don't see the claim as plausible.

Perhaps that is the point of the terrorists events? ...

Atheists blew up the towers so they'd be able to change a definition? That's crazy talk.

Give an argument then.

- According to common usage, "atheist" can refer to anyone who is not a theist. It is a synonym for "non-theist."

You base your own argument on common usage (paraphrase: "Nobody has ever used the word that way") so you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

- According to large, old, venerated-for-over-fifteen-years dictionaries, I am right and you are wrong.

Again, because you use the authority of dictionaries yourself, you are estopped from denying the power of this argument.

Those are my arguments. I understand that there are also arguments based on history and etymology, but I regard those as largely irrelevant. "Inflammable" used to mean that something wouldn't burn, but now it means that it will. "Deist" used to mean theist, and "theist" used to mean deist. History puts no shackles on the current usage of other words, why should it rule over the meaning of this one?

The essence of your historical argument is misrepresentation, but even if you were right, I would reject the historical argument as irrelevant to current usage.

Show me a historical definition supporting your claim. Show me a reason to believe you. If we define a word by whatever we think people mean, we're in hot water, dogface.

You make it hard for me to take you seriously.


.

---

Are you going to complete your rebuttal or is this it? I noticed you seem to have pretended many of my arguments never existed, and even then ones you did respond to, you didn't quote in full. Does that help you to misrepresent, play dumb, or just make it hard for anyone to track the conversation so they can't see how inadequate your responses are? The most notable absentee is your response to the origin of your false definition of atheism, its invention and intended function.

[wiploc]

Does that help you to misrepresent, play dumb or something?

We're done here.


.

[veoli]

At the moment i'm agnostic in the sense that I can't know for certain weather a God exists or not - but an atheist in the sense that I lack the belief there is one.

[ManMachine]

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

MM

Agreed. I'm also happy to acknowledge that any hunch I may communicate regarding the existence of god, is not up to my highest standards of knowledge claims. I may exclaim that there is no way I get dealt a straight flush in the next hand of poker, but I realize there actually is a very, very small chance it will happen. Nonetheless I'm folding my shitty starting cards without a worry.

The situation with god claims is much, much worse than for being dealt a straight flush. With the latter, we all understand what a straight flush will look like, and its probability is not zero. If anyone ever turns one over, we'd all recognize it. No one knows what a god would look like, and there is little or no agreement between those few who do claim to know. I'm fine with dismissing god claims without careful examination. However that doesn't mean I believe no gods exist, and I know full well I have no argument for their non-existence. I just carry on as if that were true as a practical matter as I have better things to do, no expectation of that a good case for god's existence will ever be found, and no interest.

And that's as good as any answer can get.

It's simply a matter of what we prefer to think and how we justify that thinking. If we can recognise that it is important to others how they think then it becomes a matter of how we decide on whether or not we are going to respect other people's opinions. One thing is for certain we need to draw a line at some point otherwise or the cognitive framework around these concepts becomes indistinct and our ideologies irrelevant.

I propose that agnosticism is important because it helps to maintain a cognitive structure around this particular ideological issue, without which we would not be having this discussion.

MM

[wiploc]

I have a question: I'm agnostic about many things, and so is my Beagle, Victor.

Christopher Hitchens said, "owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are god."

But would victor be classified as an agnostic atheist? I mean, he does lack a belief in God. How about my sock? Is it atheist?

The sock question is easier, so I'll start there. Agnostics and atheists are people. We don't say that an agnostic is anything that doesn't know whether gods exist; rather, it is anyone who doesn't know whether gods exist.

The dog is a harder case. Consider Jehovah: If Jehovah existed, and knew everything, then Jehovah would know that Jehovah existed. In which case, Jehovah would be a gnostic theist, right? So you have to be a person to be a theist (or atheist or agnostic) but you don't have to be a human person. (Chick Fil A may be a legal person, but that is not relevant to this discussion.)

Do you consider Victor to be a person? If not, that disposes of this issue. Socks and rocks are neither atheists nor agnostics.

If you do consider Victor to be a person, but don't want to think of him as an agnostic or atheist, then you can go with the dictionary definitions that exclude "implicit atheists." That is, in order to be an athiest, you have to consider the possibility that there is a god but come away unpersuaded.

Let's go to dictionary.com to see how that works:

An atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

"Denies" and "disbelieves" are going to be the key points, then, so let's look them up.

Deny: "1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true." "2. To refuse to agree or accede to."

There are other definitions, but, in the first batch of definitions at dictionary.com, these seem to be the relevant ones. Therefore, has your dog ever said that he doesn't believe in god? If not, you are, as far as this definition goes, off the hook when it comes to the charge of owning a religiously eccentric dog.

Let's consider the word "disbelieve," then. The first definition of "disbelieve" is "to have no belief in." Despite the Christopher Hitchens quote above, I'm willing to stipulate that Victor passes that test. Victor is not a theist, therefore he is an atheist according to dictionary.com---if victor is a person.

Which is not where I wanted to come out. I believe Victor is a person, but I wouldn't call him an atheist. Given that I don't think you have to be human to be an atheist (Jehovah would be a theist if he existed) how do I resolve this discrepancy?

I'll say that you can't be an atheist unless you could be a theist. That is, if you can't contemplate the possibility that gods exist, then you fall outside the realm of theists/atheists and gnostics/agnostics.

The thing that galls me is that none of these fine variations on disbelief amount to squat in the real world. Regarding how he or she carries on with his or her life, a non-believer is a non-believer. Our morals, our political stances, our philosophies are not changed the slightest by it. Whether we are strong-atheist or traditional agnostic, we carry on as if God does not exist. No practical difference.

And there, it seems to me, is a motive that some of us have for preferring the new nomenclature: If there is no practical difference in these various groups, let's include them all under a single name. Therefore, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.


.

[Whateverist]

Agreed. I'm also happy to acknowledge that any hunch I may communicate regarding the existence of god, is not up to my highest standards of knowledge claims. I may exclaim that there is no way I get dealt a straight flush in the next hand of poker, but I realize there actually is a very, very small chance it will happen. Nonetheless I'm folding my shitty starting cards without a worry.

The situation with god claims is much, much worse than for being dealt a straight flush. With the latter, we all understand what a straight flush will look like, and its probability is not zero. If anyone ever turns one over, we'd all recognize it. No one knows what a god would look like, and there is little or no agreement between those few who do claim to know. I'm fine with dismissing god claims without careful examination. However that doesn't mean I believe no gods exist, and I know full well I have no argument for their non-existence. I just carry on as if that were true as a practical matter as I have better things to do, no expectation of that a good case for god's existence will ever be found, and no interest.

Practical strong-atheism. This is the same thing Christians do with every other God concept out there.

Assuming you mean to characterize my position as "practical strong-atheism", that tells me more about you than it does about me. Now at least I know what you mean by those words.

I don't describe my position that way. Perhaps you should concentrate on describing your own position and leave it to others to do the same. It is, after all, the only position you are qualified to speak on.

The thing that galls me is that none of these fine variations on disbelief amount to squat in the real world. Regarding how he or she carries on with his or her life, a non-believer is a non-believer. Our morals, our political stances, our philosophies are not changed the slightest by it. Whether we are strong-atheist or traditional agnostic, we carry on as if God does not exist. No practical difference.

They don't amount to squat given your level of discernment and ear for nuance. That much I believe. You must be kind of new to atheism. You still talk in the black/white, absolute terms of a true believer. It can take a while for that to fade.

[Pizza]

First off, I think arguments over definitions are silly. Words like atheist and agnostic have never been clearly and unambiguously. Arguments over who counts as atheists or agnostics are mere verbal disputes and are pointless wankery. I love that word: wankery. Teeheeheh.

ManMachine post sparked my interest.

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy meaning there is nothing wrong with the form of the argument and there are always exceptions to the rule of thumb. If you have good reasons to think there would be evidence for something, you look, and don't find it then it's okay to go with a low unlikelihood. If someone claims, "there's an plain old elephant in the room," and I don't see one then I'm calling shenanigans.
I think most people asserting gods do not exist are just going with the null hypothesis and an informal application of occam's razor. Really I don't see a point in splitting hairs on words like "know." All "strong atheists" (I hate this term by the way) are saying is that the likelihood is low.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

It really boils down to what you mean by 'leap of faith.' I'm guessing you mean the following: "leap of faith, an act or instance of accepting or trusting in something that cannot readily be seen or proved." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l...of%20faith

I don't have a problem with this. Since we have to just go along with axioms and other times have to pick arbitrary stopping points so not to get dragged into a bottomless pit of arguments.

[AFTT47]

The thing that galls me is that none of these fine variations on disbelief amount to squat in the real world. Regarding how he or she carries on with his or her life, a non-believer is a non-believer. Our morals, our political stances, our philosophies are not changed the slightest by it. Whether we are strong-atheist or traditional agnostic, we carry on as if God does not exist. No practical difference.

They don't amount to squat given your level of discernment and ear for nuance. That much I believe. You must be kind of new to atheism. You still talk in the black/white, absolute terms of a true believer. It can take a while for that to fade.

You've got to be kidding me. I'm 55 years old and have been an atheist at least since I was 12. I am most definitely NOT new to atheism.

I'm speaking in black and white? That's exactly what I am arguing against! Reread the thread! I've been saying all along that people's beliefs have a near infinite nuance - which is why labels are inaccurate and of little use.

I think you misunderstand what I have been saying. I'm not claiming that all non-believers are the same - only that they have the same foundation of the assumption of a godless universe. Each individual has their own philosophical, moral and political beliefs. I maintain that you cannot use the flavor of non-belief to predict a person's stance on those issues. A traditional agnostic is as likely to be a liberal democrat as is a strong-atheist. I reject any attempt to pigeonhole us regarding practical issues based on our individual flavor of non-belief.