Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Why use atheist at all? If someone was to ask me on the street if I believed in God, I would answer with, "I hold that the case for the existence of a god is underwhelming and not definitive." This likely to undercut the negative connotations and baggage most Christians and etc bring to the word.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(February 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Why use atheist at all? If someone was to ask me on the street if I believed in God, I would answer with, "I hold that the case for the existence of a god is underwhelming and not definitive." This likely to undercut the negative connotations and baggage most Christians and etc bring to the word.
Sure, and that' fine if you want to say that. But again, in a discussion about these topics I at least like to have some terms upon whose definitions we can agree, because they're helpful shortcuts.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:38 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm by robvalue.)
It's like if someone says to me "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" I don't answer. It's a bad question.
Do you believe in God equates to, "Do you believe in something that it's impossible to know anything about?"
It's broken.
All this goes to show the importance of agreeing definitions with whoever you are discussing with. As long as you both agree what a word means, then it's cool. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm
The original definition of atheism was that it was denial of God's existence. Sometimes people refer to atheists as that definition.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm
(February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, you know what's coming 
You can be ignostic, and just dismiss the question entirely as meaningless. It's drivel and doesn't even deserve an answer until it makes sense and is falsifiable.
Because then I would have to defend the Logical positivists' theory of language.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm
Right. Well if both people in a debate agree to that definition, then things are fine.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2015 at 3:46 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(February 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The original definition of atheism was that it was denial of God's existence. Sometimes people refer to atheists as that definition.
Yeah, and 'bimbo' used to mean 'small male child'. Words change over time, and we're trying to discuss definitions
today.
And..when/where was the 'original' definition of atheism 'denying that god exists'?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism
February 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm
(February 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: (February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, you know what's coming
You can be ignostic, and just dismiss the question entirely as meaningless. It's drivel and doesn't even deserve an answer until it makes sense and is falsifiable.
Because then I would have to defend the Logical positivists' theory of language.
P.S. I don't think logical positivism is true. I'm okay with there being meaningful untestable claims like "multiverses exist."
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
