1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by lewisnotmiller, Jun 10, 2015.

  1. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,701
    Ratings:
    +3,241
    Clarity is also gained by using a broader term to frame the debate in the correct context, and the use of subsets within those broader terms for the sake of clarification. I've seen this done in countless debates, and it works fine. It's no different to using "Christian" in a broad sense, and specifying "latter-day saint" as a subset of Christian.

    Except that it frames the debate inaccurately by proposing the debate as being between two belief systems separated by a space of neutrality, rather than by correctly addressing the issue as those who accept a claim vs. those who do not. It would be the same as petitioning courts to change the possible verdicts to "guilty" or "innocent". There is a reason why the null hypothesis (not guilty until demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, as I like to put it) is useful for debate.

    But it also comes at no cost if you simply use a broader term which you can then divide into sub-sections of belief. People have no issue doing this with all the various religious beliefs, sects and doctrines.
     
  2. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    I do not know what to do with this. I can't agree that it would never be meaningless, nor could I say it would ever be meaningful. Maybe it would be meaningful when considering teenagers or artificial intelligence. I also still don't think you got his full point. He said that standards that would both include and exclude the same thing are unnecessarily confusing. He was not saying that because it would include plants we no longer could make coherent comments. He was intentionally using a subtle absurdity to point out a subtle absurdity.

    Actually only two terms matter in this context. Do you have faith in X or lack faith in X. The rest is simply window dressing.

    It is in the best interest of clear debate. If you said your were an atheist using broad definitions I would either potentially assume you had a positive belief in a negative, or lacked belief in a positive, and would require more questioning and explaining if that was relevant. Using my definition your self applied label would require no additional information to understand your position. BTW Latin is not the objective basis for anything. By definition anything based in an opinion is subjective. I am discussing which subjective system would be most efficient.


    I am now at 26 posts in 2 hours (52 including my responses) and must take a break.
     
  3. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +5,435
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    I think it is far clearer to use clarifying terms like "strong-atheist" or "weak-atheist" to express these points rather than just lumping
    Saying that I don't believe is certainly not the same as saying I don't know. This is easily seen by the fact that many who believe something do not necessarily know it to be true. If they did know, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge.
     
  4. Monk Of Reason

    Monk Of Reason ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,509
    Ratings:
    +1,230
    Religion:
    Pragmatic
    I am talking about how atheism does in fact cover inanimate objects, babies and plants. This is true. It is "technically" true but it isn't worth debating. But it is the nature of a definition that requires the "lacking" of something. It is still just as meaningful. I don't see how it would defacto into something meaningless.
    True. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with claims of knowledge. They deal specifically with the claim of how one comes upon their belief. Do you believe it because you have "felt" or "heard" god directly speaking to your soul esoterically? That is what this deals with.
    Theism and Atheism deals with the belief in a god. Either you believe in god (theist) or you don't have this belief in god (atheist). Uncessarilly changing all of the definitions to simply remove atheism from the list of practical positions is a bit of a harsh change. Hardly appropriate.
    You have simply broadened the definition of agnosticism and made it even more vague than the broad definition of atheism. You have done nothing to clarify it. Unless you wanted to specify that someone was a Gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. Both of those work as additional qualifiers that make things easier to understand and classify one's position.
     
  5. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    No I do not see contradicting Latin as a huge problem. Rome was never an objective standard of anything and more often than not a tyrannical and quasi-insane culture.

    This is the problem, under your definitions if you claim to be an atheist I have to ask even more questions to know whether you made a claim to knowledge or ignorance. Under my definitions I do not.

    Both standards are equally subjective and no more right than the other but mine does create more clarity and less work, a triumph of the lazy.
     
  6. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    How on earth would I go about not believing my brother existed on his last birthday? I can see how you can believe a thing you are not certain of, I do not get the reverse.
     
  7. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    It can get very confusing from my end, because many atheists actually have a belief that no God's exist. I would respond in a completely different way to a person who was not persuaded that X exists and a person who claimed X did not exist.

    However that maybe what you guys are objecting to. You want to be labeled an atheist, but you do not want to be thought to be making a claim to knowledge. It is like having the status without the burden. I do not see the desirability of being labeled an atheist instead of agnostic but at least I can see what the objection might be. IOW maybe I understand the objection but I still don't know why it is objectionable.


    However unlike theism I see no need for it given atheism. It makes a huge difference which God you believe in, but it does not make much of a difference given a lack of faith in any God.


    That proves my point. The way these terms are defined in "authoritative" sources (apparently even within the same one, I have to ask a whole other series of questions to find out what your world view actually is, but under my definitions (which are no more subjective than any other) I would not have to. IOW what is the objection to your self describing yourself "under my system" as an agnostic (or even under the first definition at the link I supplied). There would be gain, I would instantly know you are not making a claim to faith that X does not exist and so would avoid having to ask further questions or wrongly saddle you with a burden to prove it. What is the cost?
     
  8. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +5,435
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Although the Roman Empire spread Latin initially, I don't think it is relevant what kind of culture they advocated. The ONLY CONNECTION between the Roman Empire and this discussion is that their common language was the root of the language we have today. We are talking about the English language, which came from latin, but it is in no way dependent on the Roman Empire or its ideals. So, I would have to say that your mention of the Roman culture is irrelevant to this discussion. And, while I would say that even latin is not the objective standard for any language today, the rules concerning prefixes and what they indicate about a term most certainly are an objective standard which work to strengthen your stated purpose. You claim to promote clarity, yet you are fine with abandoning basic linguistic rules. Doing this does not only effect terms having to do with belief, it would confuse the entire language. Prefixes are a necessary way to organize an extremely convoluded language. Can you really honestly claim that abandoning linguistic rules such as this would not cause more confusion, wreaking havoc on the limited clarity present in the English language?

    To your next point, I fail to see any lack of clarity. I think that you are creating futher confusion by erroneously making a general term fit your purpose. If someone claims to be an atheist, those that make the assumption that they actively hold a belief that God does not exist or, worse yet, cannot exist are in error. It is necessary to ask further questions, if you are asking about what a person actively believes. In other words, you are making a false assumption and asking the wrong question. It creates absolutely no more confusion apart from those who hold an incorrect definition of the term. The same goes for theism. The reasson why subcategories like agnosticism, deism, polytheism, monotheism, strong-atheism, etc. exist is so that when someone claims to adhere to one of these, we know what they believe. If you expect to get this information from a general term like "atheism" or "theism", that is your fault alone, for you are expecting an unreasonable amount from a general term. It is in no way added confusion, but, on the contrary, provides added clarity.
     
  9. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +5,435
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Most atheists do not hold an active belief that God does not exist. They merely lack an active belief that God does exist. So, if you are making assumptions about active beliefs based solely on the identifying term, "atheist", that is your own fault. You are reading something into a term that is not accurate ... in esssence, putting words into the mouth of the speaker. Atheism does have a very specific meaning. So, when someone says "I am an atheist", you can only reasonably assume that they lack a belief in the existence of any gods.
     
  10. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,092
    Ratings:
    +5,435
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    Here is problem with this. We can't have a meeting with every person who speaks english to come to a determination of what "atheism" and "theism" SHOULD mean. It is unreasonable to think that we could even attempt such a feat. That is why it is for your own benefit to go with the generally accepted (most inclusive) meanings of these general terms rather than making assumptions that may or may not be correct. In other words, not making assumptions will provide more clarity to conversations such as these.
     
  11. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Is everyone on vacation today? This is 37 responses so far. I had to use a fire extinguisher on my keyboard.
     
  12. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Tell you what. I could agree with you if every time a person labeled themselves with the broad label they also included the subset.
    However what always happens is only the broad term is given and no matter which subset I assume, it turns it to be some other subset, or a special subset of the subset. In the end it simply resembles a moving target or effort at burden shifting.

    Usually if I cannot remember I look at a persons Religion and it is ambiguous. Look at mine. Mine is emphatic and you know exactly what I defend.

    Not unless the person is so wedded to the label that they will not part with it even if it saddles them with a burden their actual believes do not have. For example if you are not beholden to have any certain label would you not fit into one of the categories I gave and be willing to adopt it's burden.


    That is the problem. Take you for example. You have nothing in your religion title where as I have the exact subset I will operate from. To put your comments into context (at times) I either have to ask you a set of questions, or assume something only to be told at some sticking point that you actually belong to another subgroup of faction like Dawkins 6 categories or something similar. Many times knowing your world view changes the context of your comments quite a lot. If you hold labels so dear why don't you have any under your avatar. I have no reason to think so specifically in your case but I imagine it is quite attractive to have no goal posts up front so you may plant them wherever is convenient at the moment for some.
     
  13. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    Religion of Buddha as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the present Scripture of Buddhism or by Buddhists) .
    Religion of Krishna as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the present Vedas or by Hindus).
    Religion of Zoroaster as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the present Scripture of Zoroastrians ).
    Religion of Moses as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the present Torah of Judaism or by Jews).
    Religion of Jesus as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the present Gospels of Christianity or by Christians).
    Religion of Socrates as revealed on him by G-d in its origin (not as depicted by the books written after him. ) .
    Religion of Muhammad as revealed on him by G-d in its origin in Quran (not as depicted by different denominations of Muslims).
    Etc., etc., etc.

    Regards
     
  14. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    If one ignores the reality or truth and does not struggle appropriately to acquire it one would remain ignorant and if persisted one' ignorance will increase.
    Is it wrong? Please
    Regards
     
  15. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    If science does not claim that it would; why overburden it?
    Regards
     
  16. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    I endorse you here.
    Regards
     
  17. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    I had come to see the irony in spending half a day typing posts in an attempt to save time in the future. If you will refer to #92 you will find my response to the same question you asked.

    That is not the context where the problem is. If someone has the label of atheist there is no possible way for me to know whether they deny God or merely lack belief. In some cases that can make big differences in burdens and contexts. If I am lucky enough to have them to have filled in their religious title I have to then ask additional question to understand their world view. This would not be the case using my methodology. Not every included their religious stance, and very few include the subcategories. If they did then there would be no need for my method. BTW I am proud to see that both you and I did include detailed stances in our religious titles, though even with the details yours still through me off for a while.


    I did not say that to not believe, is to know it is untrue. I said to know is to believe. I do not know how to not believe what I know.
     
  18. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    I don't think there was/is/would be ever even one person who is at # 7 on the above scale.
    Am I right?
    If there are some I would like to discuss it with them.
    Regards
     
    #98 paarsurrey, Jun 12, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  19. Marisa

    Marisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    Messages:
    2,925
    Ratings:
    +1,481
    Religion:
    No thank you.
    Why don't you ask atheists? I know of a few.
     
  20. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    Please give there names. I would request them to come forward, if it is not personal, and if they like to.
    Regards
     
Loading...