Religion question?

[estebanrey]

OK, I think I can finally win the semantics battle. Firstly let me state my position....

"I believe an atheist is anyone that doesn't actively believe in a God. In short, anyone that answers anything but 'yes' to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?'.

That includes anyone that has no knowledge or concept of a god like babies, animals ect"

Here is my argument (as a linguist Castiel should like it)......

The prefix "a" or "an" on a word means....

Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of; not

Source: http://wordinfo.info/units/view/2838/page:1/ip:1

When you look at another other words with the prefix of 'a' it means 'without' or 'lack of' and NOT 'a rejection of'.

For example.....

abacterial (adjective)
Free of bacteria; without bacteria: "The wound had been cleaned and was now considered an abacterial injury."

The rejection of bacteria is called 'antibacterial'.

asexual (adjective)
1. Without any sexual gestures, feelings, or associations: "His friend placed her hand on his shoulder in a friendly, asexual manner."

Being asexual doesn't mean you actively object to sexuality.

atypical

A descriptive term for that which is not usual or normal: "They had an atypically leisurely work day just before the holidays."

Not usual. Not a rejection of normality.

Suitably, I can even use the word 'agnostic' which literally means 'without knowledge'. Thus I would argue the word 'atheist' literally means 'not a theist' or 'without theism'.

Hence it is binary. Anyone that is without God, either through rejection or ignorance is atheist.

As elmarko has said many times, theism and atheism concern belief, agnosticism concerns knowledge. Not knowing if a god exists or having no knowledge of a god in the first place is different to considering the possibility/probability of a god existing. To quote Penn Jillette, "They are simply two different issues."

Being atheist (without an positive belief in god) and being agnostic (not having knowledge on whether a god or gods is possible) are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Amnesia]

i bet its such a joy to be around you....you spend weeks arguing about the letter A

 

[RDM]

You could also say religion is responsible for otherwise bad people doing good things.

You can't if you are also arguing that religion doesn't make people do bad things. You can't just claim the good and reject the bad things.

 

[Angilion]

Just because something is on Wikipedia doesn't stop it being rubbish, that first example is Atheism, the second is Agnosticism. I don't know if this is an American corruption of English thing or what but the is no Atheism light, either you believe that the are no gods or you are not an Atheist.

The corruption is yours, not wikipedia's or American. The meaning of agnosticism is very clear and it's not what you think it is. The word is recent enough for the origin of it to be well documented and perfectly clear. You and others like you have corrupted the meaning. Wikipedia is correct in this case.

There is no reason for everyone to change the meaning of the words 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' to suit you. The existing meanings are adequate and cover all possible positions. Your redefinitions of them would leave some positions without a word to describe them.

 

[Angilion]

I care for truth.

Then why are you religious? Religion substitutes faith for truth - if you are sure something is true because you've been told to believe it, then you can't be looking for truth.

Your use of the term "evolutionist" is a good example, plus your related reference to evolution as a belief. You don't refer to, for example, mavity as a belief. You don't refer to people as "gravitationists" or "gravists". You deny the existence of evolution, an easily observed natural process that humans have been using as a tool for more than 10,000 years, because of your faith. That is an example of you substituting faith for truth.

You do not care for truth. You care for faith, regardless of the cost to truth. You have no care for truth.

 

[Castiel]

Here is my argument (as a linguist Castiel should like it).......

Its a shame that Koine Greek doesn't work quite like that as far as privatives go....the prefix 'a' can alter its meaning subtly depending on both the context and the construction of the passage in which it is contained. For example....Atheist can mean several subtly different positions dependent upon the way the word it used in the passage...it can mean 'without God'....'Godless'....'UnGodly'...'Abandoned by God'...and most importantly for this debate 'Denial of God' with the latter being also dependent on the position that God exists and the subject denies God specifically, or the position that God doesn't exist and the subject denies that existence. Originally the word atheos was used exclusively to refer to impiety, or an irreverence, disrespect for God(s) and later was used in reference to broader terms (asebes, atheotes), particularly as a pejorative between differing religious adherents. The problem that we have with attributing these to the English usage is however dependent on the actual derivation of the word Atheist in English is not directly from the term atheos, but from the French Atheisme, which has a narrower definitive meaning, 'One who denies or disbelieves in God'...similarly when, in the 18th Century, people first began to use the term to describe themselves (prior to this it was simply an insult used against someone, no one would call themselves one) it specifically meant 'disbelief in the Abrahamic God' it did not expand in to the realms of all forms of deity until later. The word is not derived from Theist, in fact Theist is immediately derived from Atheist (as in Theist came after Atheist)...which is what people seem to forget or do not know....the root is transliterated as Theos (God, Godlike, of God, Associated with God, Godly, Divinely and various other related, depending on construction etc meanings).

And that is really what Atheist means in its most basic form....disbelief in or denial of God.....everything else is dependent on the context and content of what the individual or group is putting forward.

It is an active position, which is why I disagree with elmarko with its attribution in the implicit sense..(there is no consensus on Smiths definitions, quite the contrary, it is subject to consistent intense debate amongst philosophers and linguists) and also why Agnostic doesn't have to be applied to a theist or atheist position, as long as an agnostic doesn't actively believe or disbelieve in God (as in a defined neutral position) then they are not atheist (or theist) by default. The term is not mutually exclusive, but it is also not automatically inclusive either..it depends on the stated position of the individual or the position in which they associate their opinion.

 

[Jason2]

Ah, science -- the great evil. Spend billions sending man to the moon yet let millions of humans starve. We have the supplies to wipe out poverty yet greed has held us back.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Ah, science -- the great evil. Spend billions sending man to the moon yet let millions of humans starve. We have the supplies to wipe out poverty yet greed has held us back.

Science is evil because God let millions of humans starve and it's poverty that has held us back not a great Creator?

I don't mean any of the above but it's amazing how quickly and easy it becomes to choose a side and immediately ignore anything from the other side.

As a slight aside, a guy on ATS tried to draw a halt to the whole 9/11 debacle forum posting. The second post? A guy saying nah, we need to keep arguing about this.

People, eh?

 

[Jason2]

Science is evil because God let millions of humans starve and it's poverty that has held us back not a great Creator?

I don't mean any of the above but it's amazing how quickly and easy it becomes to choose a side and immediately ignore anything from the other side.

As a slight aside, a guy on ATS tried to draw a halt to the whole 9/11 debacle forum posting. The second post? A guy saying nah, we need to keep arguing about this.

People, eh?

Do you think it's moral to spend billions firing people into space when we can't even put a loaf of bread on the table of every human being? It just doesn't sit well with me. I'm all for increasing our knowledge but we can't neglect fellow beings in the process.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Do you think it's moral to spend billions firing people into space when we can't even put a loaf of bread on the table of every human being? It just doesn't sit well with me. I'm all for increasing our knowledge but we can't neglect fellow beings in the process.

Are you even talking about a god or more about how dreadful people are or can be?

 

[Jason2]

You don't actively believe in a god. Thus you are atheist (atheist means 'not a theist' - such a simple point many fail tro grasp).

On the question as to whether a god could exist, you are agnostic.

No, he's an agnostic. An atheist is someone who denies or rejects the existence of a deity. You really should brush up your knowledge - it's clearly lacking.

 

[smelly_legend]

You don't actively believe in a god. Thus you are atheist (atheist means 'not a theist' - such a simple point many fail tro grasp).

On the question as to whether a god could exist, you are agnostic.

I would consider myself as courting the idea, so I would disagree.

Jason 2 above me makes a good point.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Ah, science -- the great evil. Spend billions sending man to the moon yet let millions of humans starve. We have the supplies to wipe out poverty yet greed has held us back.

Do you think it's moral to spend billions firing people into space when we can't even put a loaf of bread on the table of every human being? It just doesn't sit well with me. I'm all for increasing our knowledge but we can't neglect fellow beings in the process.

Is it moral to have children in a country with widespread famine and MASSIVE overpopultation for the resources in the area?

Is it moral to help support people who willfully disregard their situation and have children when they shouldn't? What has giving food to famine ridden countries done in the past has it fixed famine, or allowed those countries populations to continue increasing and maintaining the famine?

Country A has population 2million, there is enough food for 1.5million people, the country is in famine, people are starving, at least 500k people will die. Country B gives them food to feed 2million... does Country A maintain their population and stay out of famine, or does country A grow to 2.5million people, maintain the same level of famine, and still require help from the outside.

Now imagine that for basically 50 years.... imagine all the people who DO die of starvation, imagine how many people have lived in ill health due to malnutrition and those who have died. Now, if 50 years ago, instead of helping them ignore the problem and letting 500k people die, we have let 10 million die, while the country has been stuck in famine for 50 years, with everyone having a crap quality of life?

So again I ask, is it moral to "help" that country STAY in famine, or let them sort themselves out, which is, make the concious decision to not overpopulate beyond sustainability? Which decision means less people die, and massively less people suffer?

Lastly, why should anyone make decisions based on morality, most people aren't moral when it comes down to it. Some are, many/most aren't. While some teachers step inbetween a bullet and the child under their care, most people put themselves first.

More people have been hurt by "trying to be moral" than by putting themselves first. How many wars have been waged under some misguided attempt to instill their idea of morality on the rest of the world.

Lastly, money is a made up concept, the planet would happily keep ticking without it, the WILL to prevent famine is lacking, and its lacking from the people who live with famine, not those who don't. The key to fixing famine is the population of an area of land should never be higher than what can be supported from the food grown off that land. Famine will never, ever be fixed by keeping the population higher than the land can sustain, merely prolonge famine.

 

[Angilion]

No, he's an agnostic. An atheist is someone who denies or rejects the existence of a deity. You really should brush up your knowledge - it's clearly lacking.

Oh dear, you've made yourself look very silly now.

Here's the definition of agnosticism by the man who created the word:

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.


Thomas Huxley, 1889

Note that it doesn't mean "someone who doesn't believe in any gods but doesn't assert that none exist", as you just wrongly claimed it did.

Agnosticism is not a third position in between theism and atheism. It's a position on a completely different topic.

Gnostic: A person who claims certain knowledge of something without necessarily being able to objectively prove it to be true, or who thinks that such a position is sound. Note that this is not limited to religion.

Agnostic: A person who thinks that it is unsound to claim certain knowledge of something without being able to objectively prove it. Also not limited to religion.

Thiest: Someone who believes in the existence of one or more gods.

Atheist: Someone who does not believe in the existence of gods.

Essentially, the difference is that (a)theism is about belief and (a)gnosticism is about knowledge. Two positions on each of two different topics, not 3 different positions on the same topic.

So, for example, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not have faith in the existence of any gods - I am an atheist. I consider it a good principle to not claim certain knowledge of the objective truth of a statement without objective proof - I am an agnostic. I cannot objectively prove the existence or non-existence of any gods(*), so my agnosticism applies to my atheism.

* It's possible to objectively prove many religious claims false, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Angilion]

I would consider myself as courting the idea, so I would disagree.

Jason 2 above me makes a good point.

No he doesn't. He's using incorrect definitions of words to confuse different things and remove the ability to describe some positions.

If he redefined an elephant as an eagle, would that make the elephant able to fly? Or would it still be a very large flightless animal?

 

[Jason2]

Oh dear, you've made yourself look very silly now.

Here's the definition of agnosticism by the man who created the word:

Note that it doesn't mean "someone who doesn't believe in any gods but doesn't assert that none exist", as you just wrongly claimed it did.

Agnosticism is not a third position in between theism and atheism. It's a position on a completely different topic.

Gnostic: A person who claims certain knowledge of something without necessarily being able to objectively prove it to be true, or who thinks that such a position is sound. Note that this is not limited to religion.

Agnostic: A person who thinks that it is unsound to claim certain knowledge of something without being able to objectively prove it. Also not limited to religion.

Thiest: Someone who believes in the existence of one or more gods.

Atheist: Someone who does not believe in the existence of gods.

Essentially, the difference is that (a)theism is about belief and (a)gnosticism is about knowledge. Two positions on each of two different topics, not 3 different positions on the same topic.

So, for example, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not have faith in the existence of any gods - I am an atheist. I consider it a good principle to not claim certain knowledge of the objective truth of a statement without objective proof - I am an agnostic. I cannot objectively prove the existence or non-existence of any gods(*), so my agnosticism applies to my atheism.

* It's possible to objectively prove many religious claims false, but that's not the same thing.

You're so wrong. An atheist is someone who states there is no God and believes that to be true. An agnostic is someone who believes that a God cannot be proven or disproved. Or that is unknowable.

You cannot say you are an atheist and then switch it to say "but I'm also an agnostic". That's not how it works. Even Dawkins said he's not an atheist.

 

[Angilion]

You're so wrong. An atheist is someone who states there is no God and believes that to be true. An agnostic is someone who believes that a God cannot be proven or disproved. Or that is unknowable.

You do not get to redefine the meanings of words to suit yourself. Don't be so silly.

You cannot say you are an atheist and then switch it to say "but I'm also an agnostic". That's not how it works. Even Dawkins said he's not an atheist.

There is no switching. They are positions on different subjects.

 

[estebanrey]

No, he's an agnostic. An atheist is someone who denies or rejects the existence of a deity. You really should brush up your knowledge - it's clearly lacking.

You clearly haven't read the previous page.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. The former concerns belief the latter concerns knowledge.

I would consider myself as courting the idea, so I would disagree.

As above, you are talking about knowledge. You consider God may be possible. You are answering the question "Does God exist".

But how do you answer "do you BELIEVE in a god?". If the answer is anything but an immediate yes, then in my book you are atheist.

Or more specifically an agnostic atheist.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Here is my argument (as a linguist Castiel should like it)......

Speaking personally I'd like it more if it wasn't an example of pseudoetymology. I think it's fair to say there's a lot of support for the way you (and many others here) choose to define atheism but that doesn't mean that the original meaning (that of a disbelief in a god or gods) has changed. If pressed I'd suspect that over time the alternative definition will become even more widely accepted than it is presently but that doesn't change the word root.

It's probably best to say there are two (or more) alternative definitions which are acceptable and understood in common usage but if you intend to use it then it's wise to define which version you mean or make it clear by context. Too many debates get bogged down by these definition arguments which could be resolved by simply stating in what sense you mean it at the start.

Do you think it's moral to spend billions firing people into space when we can't even put a loaf of bread on the table of every human being? It just doesn't sit well with me. I'm all for increasing our knowledge but we can't neglect fellow beings in the process.

Is it an either/or scenario? Literally a zero sum game? If that is the case then is it moral for religious organisations to sit with millions or indeed billions in both liquid and illiquid assets while there are people starving?

You don't have to answer but science is basically amoral (in the sense that estebanrey would appreciate - it is a-moral meaning without morality as it's not a consideration broadly speaking, neither good nor bad) so if you wish to impute morality there then all you're doing is arguing that the people who are funding scientific projects are lacking morality but that is outwith the sphere of science given it makes no claims about being moral. n.b. a number of scientists throughout history have been religious so in your position I'd be wary about how far to pursue this lest you be hoist by your own petard.

 

[Jason2]

He is not an atheist!!! Atheists claim there is no God. Every atheist I've met claims that their statement is true.

Being an agnostic and atheist is like me saying 'I'm a Christian yet I'm not sure Jesus was the Son of God'. Don't you see the fallible?