The Disingenuousness of "Weak" Atheism

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
Ah, ignorant. How could I have forgotten that one? Well, at least I got illogical, rigged, fallacious and stupid right.

Truth hurts.

Anyway, I appreciate your brevity, madness. But BW's question is fine as asked, well-posed and altogether standard both as to form and as to content.

It might be standard to traditional colloquial discourse, but it's not in any way conforming to any sort of rational thought.

And you may claim that it's fine as asked, yet you've done nothing to either refute my objections or demonstrate that it's an okay question.

If you prefer not to answer, then no worry. It is perfectly plain what your views on the question are.

It's not a question I answer because it is not a logically valid question.

It doesn't get more succinct than that,

Succinct answers tend to involve getting all the information in as little space as possible. You've done the last bit without worrying about information.

and BW gets credit for a correct prediction. Win-win.

BW gets no credit for an ignorant, ludicrous, logically fallacious thread.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Try looking at agnosticism from a philosophical perspective, as we're talking about philosophy.

Really? If it is purely a philosophical debate on semantics, you are into nebulous territory.

As you often do, you keep making a claim without backing it up. Where am I arguing semantics? My argument is multifold.

If anything the OP is semantic as it addresses solely the definition of atheist.

I am not going there.

Not up for actually discussing my points? How predictable.

Your goal seems to make a very simple issue as complected as you possibly can.

No, I'm avoiding logical fallacies. It's not a simple issue. It's a complicated issue in the first place. I'm trying to get the complicated issue to as simple a form as possible. But the simplest form is still going to be more complicated than the logically fallacious 'yes/no/dunno' reduction we have here.

Dictionaries don't provide specialized usage

True, the surrounding grammar with adjectives, adverbs and other nouns do this. The issue is on a single word in the OP, not the myriads of sub-categories that can be added too them, which you seem to insist on doing and saying it's a "philosophical perspective".

Well, I study philosophy. When this sort of issue comes up in my University classes it becomes quite the discussion. And my issue isn't on a single word, as I've addressed other things in this thread including the logical fallaciousness of the question, the logical fallaciousness of the premise, and the fact that the whole point of this thread is to ignore anything but a reductive set of answers which exclude possibilities for no discerned reason.

Fair enough, that is your opinion, this is very typical of the atheist community online. Here is an atheist girl explaining it.

Wow, you're cherrypicking a random atheist of your choosing? Why didn't you pick the QualiaSoup video that Benev posted? That's a much better video.

madness

And you may claim that it's fine as asked, yet you've done nothing to either refute my objections or demonstrate that it's an okay question.

As our mutual friend Christopher Hitchens likes to say, what can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But I was a mensch, showed that BW's question has responsive answers, in the form requested, and used your examples (to be precise, your would-have-been counterexamples) to do it. I have also long since inferred what your responsive answer would be from your extended pleading that you shouldn't have been asked. So, the question does in fact have a responsive answer in your case.

Your evidence crapped out. Happens to the best of us. Toodles for now.

BH

thought Huxley defined it so:

No, that's not a definition. It's from an 1889 essay Huxley wrote. The whole text is here:

aleph0.clarku.edu...

As the essay plainly documents, his word was in widespread use, and the subject of public discussion, when this essay was written.

Flint relied heavily on that material you quoted. Flint's problem is that those are not the writings, lectures, and personal conversations with other writers which launched the word into the language. What you quoted was a memoir written after the word was already in the language. Huxley is explaining how he thought of using the word, why he liked it, not how he used the word in order to convince other people to use the word, which is what makes a word part of the langauge.

Yes, when it was only a thought in Huxley own head, and not yet a word in the English langauge, it was a play on gnosis in the sense of a preternatural (suprarational) knowledge. It was a witty confession that he didn't have any.

However, as the essay demonstrates, Huxley also considered, and was unpersuaded, by a variety of claimed foundations for religious thought, not just gnosis. And, obviously, lacking classical gnosis would not explain his rejection of atheism.

In any case, the word was no longer Huxley's to define by the time he wrote the essay. That is, it was not personal to him, not even during his lifetime.

"If there were a General Council of the Chruch Agnostic, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic." (quoted in Adrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 528)

Meh. Probably not that bad. But he definitely attempted to position agnosticism as a method of inquiry rather than a set of beliefs, and that simply was not adopted by the larger English speaking community. So, he might have escaped heresy, but he flirted with solecism.

Hope that helps.

-

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
this leads me to my next logical and rational question...

what would be the intent of seeking clear definition God, if one already accepts God does not exist ?

Well, the point is, that the person responding to the question, cannot answer it accurately, until God had been defined. Depending on the “God” being enquired about, an individual’s position could be Theistic, Atheistic or Agnostic.

You see, a person may be an Atheist in regard to the Hindu God, but regarding a Christian God, they may hold a different position, or possibly the same position, depending on what they believe or don’t believe about that particular God type question.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
You see, a person may be an Atheist in regard to the Hindu God, but regarding a Christian God, they may hold a different position, or possibly the same position, depending on what they believe or don’t believe about that particular God type question.

I don't think that makes any sense.

If you don't accept a deity - - you don't accept a deity. At least that is how I see it.

reply to post by Annee



Hey Annee

Originally posted by Joecroft
You see, a person may be an Atheist in regard to the Hindu God, but regarding a Christian God, they may hold a different position, or possibly the same position, depending on what they believe or don’t believe about that particular God type question

Originally posted by Annee
I don't think that makes any sense.

If you don't accept a deity - - you don't accept a deity. At least that is how I see it.

My explanation in my reply to Cosmic Artifact, is in connection with a person being asked the question “Do you believe in God?”

What you are suggesting in your reply above is that someone who is Hindu will also, by default, accept other Gods, like the Christian God for example.

But I don’t really think that is the case, for the majority of society, who tend to hold just one type of belief in a deity. There may of course be some that do belief in both or many deities, but I would have to say that it would be extremely rare.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
My explanation in my reply to Cosmic Artifact, is in connection with a person being asked the question “Do you believe in God?”

What you are suggesting in your reply above is that someone who is Hindu will also, by default, accept other Gods, like the Christian God for example.

OK - - which is kinda sorta why I said "I don't think . . . "

It wasn't clear.

Originally posted by Joecroft
an individual’s position could be Theistic, Atheistic or Agnostic.

if we are going to accept 3 why not have 4 and add the Gnostic ?

all 4 are still beliefs and the dictionary defines a belief as...

belief: dictionary.reference.com...

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2 .confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

paying close attention to #4

now lets exclude Agnostic and Gnostic and continue the debate in black and white, on/off, true/false, yes/no, innocent/guilty, 1/0, assuming we have enough information to establish that they are all indeed belief systems.

Atheism tries to attach itself to anything to save it's skin, as I have observed especially here in ats.

Agnosticism would only appear to be the third cup on the charlatans table, the only fully blown Agnostics I have seen speaking up here on ats have been against Atheism attaching itself onto them, what does that say ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c5e69ee454cd.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
now lets exclude Agnostic and Gnostic and continue the debate in black and white, on/off, true/false, yes/no, innocent/guilty, 1/0, assuming we have enough information to establish that they are all indeed belief systems.

I have been wondering how this would play out in a court of Law, where a witness (agnostic – atheist) would be asked to give an honest and most accurate answer, with the unfortunate prospect of a stranger’s life hanging in the balance.

When asked to the best of their ability “do you believe X happened?” If there was any doubt in the witnesses mind, I am pretty sure that in this practical setting, their one and only answer would be “I don’t know” or “I am unsure”. In other words they would be pushed to give a most accurate answer, to the best of their ability.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Atheism tries to attach itself to anything to save it's skin, as I have observed especially here in ats.

Agnosticism would only appear to be the third cup on the charlatans table, the only fully blown Agnostics I have seen speaking up here on ats have been against Atheism attaching itself onto them, what does that say?

Well, I still contest that the Agnostic Atheist position, is primarily an Agnostic position. Also, true Agnosticism is the position, where you claim no knowledge and therefore your only response is “I don’t know”. Of course the word Agnostic has taken on extra meanings since it’s first usage but if we just go on it’s original meaning/definition, then we can clearly see, that it is one position held, regarding a question of belief!


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
I have been wondering how this would play out in a court of Law, where a witness (agnostic – atheist) would be asked to give an honest and most accurate answer, with the unfortunate prospect of a stranger’s life hanging in the balance.

myself I am currently only wondering how my particular quote below would turn out in debate on ats, without anything hanging in the balance, ect...(Gnostic/Agnostic)

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
now lets exclude Agnostic and Gnostic and continue the debate in black and white, on/off, true/false, yes/no, innocent/guilty, 1/0, assuming we have enough information to establish that they are all indeed belief systems.

I for one would be really interested to see a true form of atheism debating it's stance with theism and not seemingly avoiding the debate.

Originally posted by Joecroft
I have been wondering how this would play out in a court of Law:
When asked to the best of their ability “do you believe X happened?” If there was any doubt in the witnesses mind, I am pretty sure that in this practical setting,

this setting is not practical because we are in fact talking about a debate on ats, and we have the facts... Atheism states (there are no deities) Theism states: (there are deities)

their one and only answer would be “I don’t know” or “I am unsure”

so in otherwords, agnostic-atheist tied together states, I don't know, but I do not and will not believe it, by having that atheism tagged on correct ?

In other words they would be pushed to give a most accurate answer, to the best of their ability.

so again, in otherwords Atheists do not believe in God(s) but use agnosticism to mask or justify their true intention of warring against theists ?

Well, I still contest that the Agnostic Atheist position, is primarily an Agnostic position.

I agree, atheists should convert to straight-up Agnosticism.

Also, true Agnosticism is the position, where you claim no knowledge and therefore your only response is “I don’t know”.

the Agnostic intention is much more just and respectable to all peoples beliefs/feelings if indeed they are this way ? You do not see many of them partaking so it is hard to tell, that stated would seem to support this reasoning.

Of course the word Agnostic has taken on extra meanings since it’s first usage but if we just go on it’s original meaning/definition, then we can clearly see, that it is one position held, regarding a question of belief!

that's cool, but again I state since the title of this thread has only the word "atheism" in its heading I say it needs to be debated from only the black and white position of "yes" there is a God(s) or "no" there is no God(s).

is this a reasonable assumption considering the topics title ?

reply to post by Joecroft

Originally posted by Joecroft
Also, true Agnosticism is the position, where you claim no knowledge and therefore your only response is “I don’t know”

which also seems much more "rational" and scientific and philosophic all combined, but truely scientific and philosophical people never stop questioning until one has the evidence, truth, or knowledge one seeks given any subject.

agnostic-atheists should not try to gain knowledge by forceful, vengeful and resentful means... it is nearing dictation at that point when one "demands" knowledge.

there are other ways of finding knowledge...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
this setting is not practical because we are in fact talking about a debate on ats, and we have the facts... Atheism states (there are no deities) Theism states: (there are deities)

Well maybe it’s not identically practical, in terms of the question being not about God, but it is similar, in the sense that it’s asking a person what they believe.

My point is, that the persons “I don’t know” answer, is a response to the question, “what do believe! Which is an important point, because although Agnosticism is not classified as a belief, it (Agnosticism) is still, in it’s original form, an answer to a belief question.

In everyday day conversation, a person does not have to commit, one way or the other. This may be partly due to the fact that they don’t see it as important or maybe they just haven’t thought about it enough.

In my courtroom scenario however, with someone’s life potentially on the line, this would force a person, or at least obliged them to give some kind of testimony. To the extent where they (Agnostic Atheist) would probably, have to separate between knowledge and belief.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
so in otherwords, agnostic-atheist tied together states, I don't know, but I do not and will not believe it, by having that atheism tagged on correct ?

Yes, that’s correct.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
so again, in otherwords Atheists do not believe in God(s) but use agnosticism to mask or justify their true intention of warring against theists ?

It’s hard to really get into the mindset of someone who is an Agnostic Atheist, even though I kind of understand their position.

I can only really look at it, from my own perspective. Take Aliens for example, now I don’t know if Aliens exist but I can’t or wouldn’t then go on to say I don’t believe they exist. My reason for not going on to say those things, is because my response of “I don’t know”, answers the question of whether I believe they exist or not.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I agree, atheists should convert to straight-up Agnosticism.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the Agnostic intention is much more just and respectable to all peoples beliefs/feelings if indeed they are this way ? You do not see many of them partaking so it is hard to tell, that stated would seem to support this reasoning.

Yes, I agree, I think Agnosticism is a very sincere position for a person to hold because they are being absolutely honest with themselves.

I think the poster eightbits is the most accurate at describing his Agnostic position, which he articulates pretty well.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
that's cool, but again I state since the title of this thread has only the word "atheism" in its heading I say it needs to be debated from only the black and white position of "yes" there is a God(s) or "no" there is no God(s).

is this a reasonable assumption considering the topics title ?

Well, the poster BH is referring to, Weak Atheism in his OP.

Weak Atheism = Agnostic Atheism.

Hopefully you can see the dilemma.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Also, true Agnosticism is the position, where you claim no knowledge and therefore your only response is “I don’t know”

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
which also seems much more "rational" and scientific and philosophic all combined, but truely scientific and philosophical people never stop questioning until one has the evidence, truth, or knowledge one seeks given any subject.

The thing is, belief is not about having complete knowledge on a subject and then saying “Hey, now I believe it” It’s about taking some knowledge, which is never complete in most cases, and then trying to make a decision/conclusion on it.

When the scientific method of waiting and gathering evidence, is being applied to God, IMO it is defeating the object of what it means to believe. The reason I say this, is because from the Christian perspective, finding and coming to know God through Jesus, is a spiritual event in a person’s life.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Well, the poster BH is referring to, Weak Atheism in his OP.

Weak Atheism = Agnostic Atheism.

Hopefully you can see the dilemma.

- JC

yes thanks JC, and also for the informative post... I am not to privy to the debate I suppose, but I like to take BW's statement literally, it is indeed weak.

Originally posted by Joecroft
The reason I say this, is because from the Christian perspective, finding and coming to know God through Jesus, is a spiritual event in a person’s life.


- JC

indeed... I like the Christians perspective because from what I have read it is about learning to live.