[The Dark Wolf]

To be honest, Jeff usually is right.

But it's vulgar to always put it in people's faces like that.


And you have the same issue, Eric.


*Insert lols here*

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Naren

But, this time, he is right.

Of course, I completely agree that they are splitting hairs. They are arguing about semantics and nothing more.

Yes, but I'm splitting hairs *consistently* and he's not - these things must be done with care!



Jeff

[DomitianX]

Originally Posted by The Dark Wolf

Jeff -

You don't always have to be right, bro.

You guys are splitting hairs, now. I know... it's the internet. But still.

Actually Im not splitting hairs. Im saying there is basically 3 options. You do, you dont or you dont know. Thats pretty straight forward.

Jeff is trying to split hairs and getting into the semantics debate by coming up with all these different middle grounds and shades of grey.

I work with a guy that has his masters in theology and after a few conversations with him over the last 10+ years, it became pretty simple. I've also had conversations with some fairly high up Catholic clergy about this topic (wifes family is devout Catholic). They pretty much confirmed my thoughts on it.

They have done a bunch of studies about this stuff and most atheists actually fall into the agnostic column. Thats the middle ground. Its a vast wide ranging middle ground, but thats the middle ground. How you want to sort it out inside of that middle ground is your business, but it still falls into the same middle ground.

Its like the gay marriage debate. People try to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Its marriage. People can come up with all kinds of weird terms for gay marriage, but its still a marriage. Two people agree to devote their lives to each other.

Language is a slippery slope. Its not exact. People love to split hairs about it and twist a definition whatever way they can to support their conclusions. Look at lawyers, their main purpose in life it to twist definitions certain ways to support their claims. My point is very simple. You either know for sure there is, you know for sure there isnt, or you dont know for sure either way. When Huxley coined the phrase agnostic in 1876, that was his basic definition of the word. Its been bastardized since then, so has the term atheist.

Since people have warped the words so much over the years, there is another group called "Free Thinkers" that basically combines all the different non-knowing/non-believing groups under a single umbrella. So in their world you are either a theist or a free thinker. Talk about black and white.

[JBroll]

No, you're redefining my middle ground in a nonstandard (and nonsensical) way and trying to make the word atheist mean something that wouldn't follow directly from its translation.

Also, consulting Catholics on anything but Catholicism is a mistake, and consulting them on Catholicism doesn't always work.

Jeff

[daybean]

Originally Posted by JBroll

Yes, but I'm splitting hairs *consistently* and he's not - these things must be done with care!



Jeff

this should be your new avatar

[JBroll]

Also, freethinkers can be theists - they just reject dogma, not necessarily theism. That term would also disclude people who reject theism for political reasons and not intellectual or moral reasons...

Jeff

[DomitianX]

Originally Posted by JBroll

No, you're redefining my middle ground in a nonstandard (and nonsensical) way and trying to make the word atheist mean something that wouldn't follow directly from its translation.

Also, consulting Catholics on anything but Catholicism is a mistake, and consulting them on Catholicism doesn't always work.

Jeff

The middle ground I am going by is the middle ground defined by the person that coined the term. If your definition is different then fine, but you are the one splitting the hairs and twisting it to suit your needs.

Your point about Catholics is one of the problems with a lot of people these days. Myself, I try to talk to as many people as I can to get everyones point of view and make my own decision from there. There are plenty of Catholic scholars out there that have an open mind that are open to debate about this stuff in a respectable manner. I wont argue with them, I will ask questions, get responses, rebute and move on. Thats healthy debating and a healthy way to learn. To say people are nonsensical is not how people should debate and learn. "Oh your just looney, your opinion means nothing." If I run into someone I am asking questions with and they throw out the "looney" card so to speak, I will try to seek out someone else that wont be so narrow minded.

I would love to sit down with someone like the Dalai Lama and talk about his beliefs and Buddhism. That would be fantastic.

I grew up Lutheran and my Pastor had a helluva time with me during my confirmation classes because I questioned everything he said. He is now a very close friend that I talk to about this stuff all the time as well. I respected him very much because he was very open and honest about his view of religion, his faith, etc and didnt look down on me because my opinions differed.

I also read some of Dawkins work, I've read the old and new testaments a few dozens times, read through much or the Koran, Torah, etc. Religion is a very interesting study if you look at it from an agnostic point of view. Its a real good insight into how people think and their belief systems.

Now I realize that you will probably still say I am being nonsensical, and thats fine, I respect your point of view. To each his own. I am just going by the definitions as defined by the person that coined the term.

[JBroll]

My original point, again, is that you're allowing agnosticism to be inclusive but not allowing atheism to be similarly broad. Atheism doesn't mean "I believe that no gods exist" any more than agnosticism means "I don't think it is possible to answer the question of the existence of a god"; in fact, one can be both agnostic and atheist ('I do not know if a god exists, so while I do not have a belief either way I do definitely lack a belief in god' - which is not theistic, and therefore atheistic, but seems to be what you're trying to say isn't atheistic) by the standards set for agnosticism by Huxley and the direct translation of atheism.

We're both going by Huxley's definition of agnosticism, but you're putting an unusual restriction on what atheism means (a restriction not supported by the historical context of atheism or the word's actual definition) for no apparent reason.

Jeff

[Carrion]

[DomitianX]

Originally Posted by JBroll

Atheism doesn't mean "I believe that no gods exist" any more than agnosticism means "I don't think it is possible to answer the question of the existence of a god"; in fact, one can be both agnostic and atheist ('I do not know if a god exists, so while I do not have a belief either way I do definitely lack a belief in god' - which is not theistic, and therefore atheistic, but seems to be what you're trying to say isn't atheistic) by the standards set for agnosticism by Huxley and the direct translation of atheism.

We're both going by Huxley's definition of agnosticism, but you're putting an unusual restriction on what atheism means (a restriction not supported by the historical context of atheism or the word's actual definition) for no apparent reason.

Jeff

Actually the hard line definition of agnostic means that knowledge of god is unknowable. It is not possible to know if there is a god or not.

From Huxley:

"... 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."

"... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."

Now, I do agree that I am more conservative with the term atheist and a little more liberal with the term agnostic, but to me that is the more rational stance. If you have any doubt whatsoever in the existence of god, then you are agnostic.

The problem with both terms is that once you become liberal with the meaning, they can overlap. But If you are hardline with either term, there is a lot of unanswered middle ground. To me the more rational stance is to err on the side of caution.

Atheist = no god whatsoever
Agnostic = knowledge of god is unknowable
Theist = god exists

Now, to me unknowable is akin to doubt. So you can be more liberal with agnostic because unknowable and doubt are along the same lines. Its not possible to rationally believe in something, but yet still doubt it so the right and left side needs to stay right and left.

It seems to be thats more along the lines of what Huxley meant. At least in the stuff I have read in his writings on the topic. If you look at the second definition above from Huxleys writings you can see he is a bit more liberal with the term.