Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, April 28, 2014, 20:31 (3862 days ago) @ romansh

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!
 
ROMANSH: 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."-This is what in Yiddish is known as chutzpah. I have complained about your use of the word "atheistic", and you proceed to quote back my own definition (see above) as if it was yours. How does this definition come to mean disbelief in individual types of god, stories about god(s), or theories about men walking with dinosaurs?-ROMANSH: 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.-I see no difference between "position" and "belief", and since rejection leaves no room for compromise, I don't accept the distinction between broad and narrow. Both disbelieve and for me that makes them atheists. The "absence of belief" is not a rejection, but if you push me, I'll have to ask if the person is simply apathetic, or does he/she consider that the existence of deities is possible. I don't like these different categories, because then we all start arguing about them. I'd take the first two definitions for 'atheism'. Agnosticism for me is neither belief nor disbelief in god(s), and if someone leans one way or the other, let them say precisely that: an agnostic tending towards atheism / tending towards theism. (And if Dawkins still calls God a delusion, I don't buy his self-proclaimed agnosticism, even though David does!)
 
ROMANSH: 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.-What is this "literalist" God? Are you going to point to every single story about every god and say that someone who rejects a single story is atheistic? If someone disbelieves in the story of Noah but believes in the story of the parting of the Red Sea, does he then become atheistic AND theistic "with respect to" that same god? What kind of language is this?
 
ROMANSH: I don't deny agnosticism includes the concept of god. -But you deny that it is about belief in god(s): "Agnosticism is not about belief in gods". -dhw: 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. -ROMANSH: Correct
is an intrinsically correct definition a metaphysical proposition?-An interesting question. I'll discuss the implications in a separate post.-ROMANSH: 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. -I agree with you (for a change!)about the illogicality, but I'm far from convinced that there is a consensus. All my dictionaries use words like "disbelief in", "denial of", "rejection of", "the belief that God does not exist"...Not one offers "lack of" or "absence of", despite Wiki. Let's be friends and stick to the dictionary "consensus" instead.
 
ROMANSH: 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.-We shall just have to agree to disagree on this. Sadly, the discussion on the way you and Dawkins use "atheistic" has grown out of all proportion. I mentioned it as just one example of what I consider his superficial approach. I've explained how illogical I find it (you can now believe and disbelieve in the same God!), but if you really want to go round asking people if they have an atheistic (or atheist-like) disbelief in the theory that men walked with dinosaurs, carry on. Just don't ask me!