[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Mr.wizard]

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.

Definition 2 is used generally for political agnosticism, but even if you wanted to use the second definition it wouldn't change anything. If you are presented with the question "do you believe in god?" if the answer is anything but yes, then you don't currently believe.

[Belacqua]

I think there may be an ideological motivation to the view that bicycles and lizards should be called atheist.

Some people here seem to think that there is a natural and normal way to see the world, and religion is added over this as some kind of distorting overlay. If people weren't indoctrinated, we would all see the world as a good scientist does.

I don't think this is correct. Babies are born without beliefs, then they learn explanations for how the world works. They can learn religious explanations, or they can learn scientific ones. Or a mixture. Or they can learn one and later change. Both are taught, and we use the word "indoctrinated" for the one we disapprove of, and "taught" for the one we prefer.

Calling bicycles and lizards, and all the vast reaches of space where no people are, "atheist" reinforces this interpretation that the natural default condition of the universe is atheism. But it doesn't tell us what really happens in people's minds.

---

If you are presented with the question "do you believe in god?" if the answer is anything but yes, then you don't currently believe.

That's true. 

And what people call this position, "atheist" or "agnostic," differs. Different people use different words. 

We can't command usage.

[The Architect Of Fate]

think there may be an ideological motivation to the view that bicycles and lizards should be called atheist.

Their isn't 

Some people here seem to think that there is a natural and normal way to see the world, and religion is added over this as some kind of distorting overlay. If people weren't indoctrinated, we would all see the world as a good scientist does.

Nope 

I don't think this is correct. Babies are born without beliefs, then they learn explanations for how the world works. They can learn religious explanations, or they can learn scientific ones. Or a mixture. Or they can learn one and later change. Both are taught, and we use the word "indoctrinated" for the one we disapprove of, and "taught" for the one we prefer.

Nope

Calling bicycles and lizards, and all the vast reaches of space where no people are, "atheist" reinforces this interpretation that the natural default condition of the universe is atheism. But it doesn't tell us what really happens in people's minds.

We have never argued that

Just more evidence your atheism is a facade

[Mr.wizard]

I think there may be an ideological motivation to the view that bicycles and lizards should be called atheist.

Some people here seem to think that there is a natural and normal way to see the world, and religion is added over this as some kind of distorting overlay. If people weren't indoctrinated, we would all see the world as a good scientist does.

I don't think this is correct. Babies are born without beliefs, then they learn explanations for how the world works. They can learn religious explanations, or they can learn scientific ones. Or a mixture. Or they can learn one and later change. Both are taught, and we use the word "indoctrinated" for the one we disapprove of, and "taught" for the one we prefer.

Calling bicycles and lizards, and all the vast reaches of space where no people are, "atheist" reinforces this interpretation that the natural default condition of the universe is atheism. But it doesn't tell us what really happens in people's minds.

---

If you are presented with the question "do you believe in god?" if the answer is anything but yes, then you don't currently believe.

That's true. 

And what people call this position, "atheist" or "agnostic," differs. Different people use different words. 

We can't command usage.

Then suggesting that agnosticism is being used as a non committal position would be incorrect. If you have answered anything but yes I believe then you have committed to non belief.

[Belacqua]

I think there may be an ideological motivation to the view that bicycles and lizards should be called atheist.

Some people here seem to think that there is a natural and normal way to see the world, and religion is added over this as some kind of distorting overlay. If people weren't indoctrinated, we would all see the world as a good scientist does.

I don't think this is correct. Babies are born without beliefs, then they learn explanations for how the world works. They can learn religious explanations, or they can learn scientific ones. Or a mixture. Or they can learn one and later change. Both are taught, and we use the word "indoctrinated" for the one we disapprove of, and "taught" for the one we prefer.

Calling bicycles and lizards, and all the vast reaches of space where no people are, "atheist" reinforces this interpretation that the natural default condition of the universe is atheism. But it doesn't tell us what really happens in people's minds.

---

That's true. 

And what people call this position, "atheist" or "agnostic," differs. Different people use different words. 

We can't command usage.

Then suggesting that agnosticism is being used as a non committal position would be incorrect. If you have answered anything but yes I believe then you have committed to non belief.

And many people who lack belief describe this as agnosticism. It's how many people use the word, whether we like it or not.

I guess you could write to David Mitchell's editors at the Guardian and tell them they don't know how language works. See how far that will get you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, as has been pointed out multiple times to you and to prof, the majority of atheists are agnostics. It's not an either/or scenario. Not for theists, or deists, or supernaturalists either.

It's the simple difference between what we believe, and what we know. If someone asked you what you had for dinner, and you answered "tuesday!" would you spend this much time arguing to those people that you totally did-too answer their question? The same is true of the question of whether or not a person believes in god.

They either do or they don't, regardless of whether they think that they know a god exists or doesn't, or doubt that the question -of whether god exists- is answerable.

The only interest you appear to have in this discussion is the maintenance of a doa argument that amounts to the claim that I and others like me simply don't exist. That the vast majority of everyone..believer and non believer alike, simply can't exist.

[Mr.wizard]

Then suggesting that agnosticism is being used as a non committal position would be incorrect. If you have answered anything but yes I believe then you have committed to non belief.

And many people who lack belief describe this as agnosticism. It's how many people use the word, whether we like it or not.

I guess you could write to David Mitchell's editors at the Guardian and tell them they don't know how language works. See how far that will get you.

Now your just being dishonest, because you just said that he wanted to use the definition of being non-committal to an opinion.

[Belacqua]

And many people who lack belief describe this as agnosticism. It's how many people use the word, whether we like it or not.

I guess you could write to David Mitchell's editors at the Guardian and tell them they don't know how language works. See how far that will get you.

Now your just being dishonest, because you just said that he wanted to use the definition of being non-committal to an opinion.

I am not being dishonest, though I may have misunderstood. 

Some people use the word "agnostic" to mean without commitment to a belief or opinion, including not having made up one's mind about religious claims. Merriam Webster seems to allow this usage.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Seriously this isn't difficult to understand

Atheist - One who lacks belief in theistic claim  .I doesn't matte through ignorance or a lack of compulsion .Agnosticism regards knowledge one can not accept god claims and not claim knowledge on whether or not god exists .

The fact a thread needed to be made about this is sad

[Mr.wizard]

Now your just being dishonest, because you just said that he wanted to use the definition of being non-committal to an opinion.

I am not being dishonest, though I may have misunderstood. 

Some people use the word "agnostic" to mean without commitment to a belief or opinion, including not having made up one's mind about religious claims. Merriam Webster seems to allow this usage.

Let's try a different angle, what do you think of an agnostic theist?