Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by romansh , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 19:40 (3863 days ago) @ dhw

I have found our discussion on Dawkins' and your own use of "atheistic" extremely unsatisfactory, simply because you appear to be using it in a sense of general disbelieving, whereas I use it ... and so does everyone else I know ... in the sense of disbelieving in the existence of god(s). You do not seem to see the illogicality of claiming that a devout Christian can be called atheistic if he doesn't believe that dinosaurs walked with men. I might expect this from a religious bigot but not from an agnostic! Clearly there is no consensus between us on the meaning of the word "atheistic", and we appear to have reached a dead end. -It is not just my use ...again the opening lines from Wiki
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.-The fact that you use atheism in the strong (narrow) sense is fine. The problem arises when we talk about people who define themselves as atheists in the broader sense. What do you suggest we call them? I try to use the weak atheist or agnostic atheist labels ... as they are the labels that are commonly used.-Is a devout Christian who does not believe (or actively disbelieves) in a literalist god atheistic with with respect to that god? I think is a fair question. Is he or she an atheist? Definitely not, but that was not my question. -> Thank you. This is an interesting article, particularly the quote from Huxley, which goes some way to supporting your views when he talks of it as a method: "Follow your reason as far as it will take you." On the other hand, you will I'm sure have noticed that both definitions in the introduction explicitly mention deities,*** in line with my own definition. My objection, though, is to the equation of agnosticism with weak atheism, for reasons I've already given you. However, it's not a major issue, and of course I accept that you would not use it pejoratively of yourself. -I don't deny agnosticsm includes the concept of god. That you object to the "equating" is interesting and I understand and I have much sympathy with that objection, but as you point out it is common usage. 
 
> Your use of "agnostic" here has nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God, or with your position, but relates to the possibility of their being an intrinsically correct definition. 
Correct
is an intrinsically correct definition a metaphysical proposition?
> I took this to mean an objective "correctness", which no-one can possibly "know". The best we can get is consensus. This applies to all language and most if not all other spheres of human activity ... which is why I place your second use of "agnostic" under epistemology, not religion.
Again in my travels on the internet atheism is used as a lack of believe in god.-And I go with the concensus ... despite the fact it is illogical. eg a weak atheist does not disbelieve in god. Atheism looses something here for me. But I have no problem saying I am atheistic towards Roman, Greek and Norse gods. In either the strong or the weak sense of atheism. In the same way I might say turquoise is bluish. But I would not say it is blue.-> *** "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively"-My personal experience does not with fit William Rowe's.
Incidently Rowe converted from being an evangelical Christian to an atheist over his adulthood.