Atheism, Learned Helplessness, and Clinical Depression

[BL2KTN]

As I recall, that was already done.

So you're not going to - cute.

Some agnostics do, but not all.

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

The essence of agnosticism is the unknowing aspect. Whatever conclusions made about belief are on top of that, and can differ from agnostic to agnostic.

Remember how I've talked about that scale? I'm perfectly fine with agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. People often don't fall neatly into these categories. For example, I am theistic and believe theism is a rational position that will likely be shown scientifically truthful. However, I accept the possibility that it may be unknowable, and I also would not completely rule out an atheistic universe. People often don't fall neatly into the categories, and that's okay. That doesn't mean we bend over backward to make atheism fit everybody's views that want to be called atheists, and the same for all the other categories.

Yes, which logically includes a lacker-of-belief-in-the-divine.

No, because atheism takes the opposing position, not the lack of position.

In any case, I'm done fighting over word definitions. If you wish to use terms such as "atheism" in ways that atheists themselves don't, I'll just perform the needed mental corrections to your word choice.

There's great conversation within the atheist community and leaders about what exactly constitutes atheism. I think a lot of people who would traditionally want to be called agnostic, now desire to be referred as atheists instead. It's probably related to a disgust with the idea of believing in Yahweh or Allah, and wanting to emphasize that... while actually they'd be open to the idea of the God of Spinoza or a programmer of sorts.

You don´t get to tell me what I believe or disbelieve, based upon your play on semantics.

I'm not sure I care enough to tell you what you believe. That said, label yourself precisely and others will have an easier time getting the gist of your positions.

 

[quatona]

I'm not sure I care enough to tell you what you believe.

Exactly: if in a conflict between being interested in what others tell you they believe (even though they may use a word you feel isn´t correct) and being interested in semantics, you are going with the latter.
You are perfectly entitled to choose what to occupy yourself with (even though it certainly reflects on your motives) - but projecting your choice on us is a different thing.

 

[BL2KTN]

Exactly: if in a conflict between being interested in what others tell you they believe (even though they may use a word you feel isn´t correct) and being interested in semantics, you are going with the latter.
You are perfectly entitled to choose what to occupy yourself with (even though it certainly reflects on your motives) - but projecting your choice on us is a different thing.

I think you are being a curmudgeon. I said I'm not sure I care enough to tell you what you believe, not that I'm not sure I care enough to know what you believe. And yes, I am interested in semantics since it is a large part in the system we use to communicate. Your last sentence is especially silly; nobody is projecting anything onto you, though if they did, that would be their prerogative which neither you nor me could do anything about.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you're not going to - cute.

What am I to do? You insist that your definition prevail, even though it's not the definition most atheists would use to describe themselves. I'm an atheist: I lack belief in gods.

 

[quatona]

I think you are being a curmudgeon.

So besides evading to semantics, you are also evading to character guessing in order to avoid acknowledging what I actually believe and don´t believe.

I said I'm not sure I care enough to tell you what you believe, not that I'm not sure I care enough to know what you believe.

And I noticed what was more important to you.

And yes, I am interested in semantics since it is a large part in the system we use to communicate.

I´m interested in it, too, for the same reasons. However, I would not go so far to insist on a particular use of a word when there are others available, and even less when I am informed what the other person means when describing himself. IOW I am more interested in what the other person actually wants to express than in insisting on particular definitions.

Your last sentence is especially silly; nobody is projecting anything onto you, though if they did, that would be their prerogative which neither you nor me could do anything about.

Good point. Indeed it´s your prerogative, and indeed I can´t do much about it, except for pointing it out.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What am I to do? You insist that your definition prevail, even though it's not the definition most atheists would use to describe themselves. I'm an atheist: I lack belief in gods.

Me too. I'm an atheist in that I lack belief in gods. But I am even more precise than that -- I'm an agnostic-atheist (or "weak atheist").

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

What am I to do? You insist that your definition prevail, even though it's not the definition most atheists would use to describe themselves. I'm an atheist: I lack belief in gods.

Why are you attached to the term "atheist"? If you lack belief in gods, then are you agnostic. If you believe there are no gods, then you are atheist. What is it that draws you to being called an atheist, rather than an agnostic?

Dr. Richard Dawkins Disagrees with Your Definition of Atheism

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you attached to the term "atheist"? If you lack belief in gods, then are you agnostic. If you believe there are no gods, then you are atheist. What is it that draws you to being called an atheist, rather than an agnostic?

Dr. Richard Dawkins Disagrees with Your Definition of Atheism

See Eudaimonist's post above.

What draws me to the term 'agnostic atheist' is the fact it is the closest to describing my thinking about deities.

 

[BL2KTN]

So besides evading to semantics, you are also evading to character guessing in order to avoid acknowledging what I actually believe and don´t believe.

No. I responded to every word you wrote, in addition to editorializing that I feel you are being a curmudgeon.

I´m interested in it, too, for the same reasons. However, I would not go so far to insist on a particular use of a word when there are others available, and even less when I am informed what the other person means when describing himself. IOW I am more interested in what the other person actually wants to express than in insisting on particular definitions.

I have insisted nothing other than clarifying the definitions of the terms. You are free to call yourself any number of things. You may call yourself the Easter Bunny if you wish. Still, the point remains that theism is a belief in the divine, agnosticism is the lack of belief in the divine, and atheism is the disbelief in the divine. It is possible to have agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, and fit upon different points of a scale. If you have an attachment to the term "atheism" in regards to your own self, then so be it.

Me too. I'm an atheist in that I lack belief in gods. But I am even more precise than that -- I'm an agnostic-atheist (or "weak atheist").

I agree that you are an agnostic atheist. I disagree with the idea of adding gnosticism to the issue as it con volutes more than it is worth. A theist believes there is the divine based on something strong enough to persuade them, and an atheist the opposite. I know of no sane person who believes there to be a chair at the top of Mount Everest without any persuasive reason, just like I know of no person who believes or disbelieves in the divine without persuasive reason. Therefore, I see little way that a person can be either a hard theist or hard atheist without being gnostic - making the use of the word redundant (it's a given).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Dr. Richard Dawkins Disagrees with Your Definition of Atheism

What a silly article. Even the first paragraph is comical:

RICHARD DAWKINS, usually labelled an "outspoken atheist", has raised eyebrows after describing himself as an agnostic and admitting that he cannot disprove the existence of God.

You expected Richard Dawkins to disprove the existence of God? The fact that he cannot do so definitively, and the fact that he knows he cannot, means that he is no longer an "outspoken atheist"?

It gets even funnier:

It seems the 'militant secularists', if they exist, will have to search for another leader.

Apparently, acknowledging that one is not able to definitively disprove the existence of deities disqualifies one from speaking for secular humanists, most of whom would acknowledge the same.

Thankfully, the comments are edifying:

Why on earth would this "raise eyebrows". Anyone who has read anything by Dawkins, or heard him speak, would know that this has always been his stance (there is a whole chapter on it in The God Delusion).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Dr. Richard Dawkins Disagrees with Your Definition of Atheism

Why should atheists have to agree with Richard Dawkins? I never elected him Pope of Atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

See Eudaimonist's post above.

What draws me to the term 'agnostic atheist' is the fact it is the closest to describing my thinking about deities.

I fail to see what you are debating me on then. I have repeatedly said that there is a scale of beliefs, that people do not fit neatly into categories, and that the term "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist" are meaningful. You have previously only used the term "atheist" for yourself, while at the same time describing yourself in an agnostic manner. Now you are using the more accurate phrase "agnostic atheist."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I fail to see what you are debating me on then. I have repeatedly said that there is a scale of beliefs, that people do not fit neatly into categories, and that the term "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist" are meaningful. You have previously only used the term "atheist" for yourself, while at the same time describing yourself in an agnostic manner. Now you are using the more accurate phrase "agnostic atheist."

And what is wrong with using the term 'atheist' for myself while at the same time describing myself in an agnostic manner? The only way there could be something wrong with that is if you assume that the terms are mutually exclusive and that I should use either one or the other.

 

[BL2KTN]

What a silly article. Even the first paragraph is comical:

The point is what Dawkins said, not the writing prowess of the article's author.

You expected Richard Dawkins to disprove the existence of God? The fact that he cannot do so definitively, and the fact that he knows he cannot, means that he is no longer an "outspoken atheist"?

Dawkins is an outspoken agnostic atheist. I like him.

Apparently, acknowledging that one is not able to definitively disprove the existence of deities disqualifies one from speaking for secular humanists, most of whom would acknowledge the same.

Again, the point was what the world's most famous atheist said (and probably the greatest modern biologist), not the wit of the article's author.

Why should atheists have to agree with Richard Dawkins? I never elected him Pope of Atheism.

They don't. However, when I am told that my definition goes against the mainstream, and I then see that my definition lines up with what the standard-bearers and leading thinkers say, I find that compelling. If you are emotionally unattached to winning the argument, you may as well.

 

[BL2KTN]

And what is wrong with using the term 'atheist' for myself while at the same time describing myself in an agnostic manner? The only way there could be something wrong with that is if you assume that the terms are mutually exclusive and that I should use either one or the other.

Describing yourself as an atheist, when you are most certainly an agnostic (or agnostic atheist), is misleading. You say you lack a belief, which is agnosticism. Someone like Dawkins strongly believes there to be no divine, thus he is an atheist, though he accepts some degree of agnosticism (describing himself as a 6 on a scale to 7).

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, when I am told that my definition goes against the mainstream, and I then see that my definition lines up with what the standard-bearers and leading thinkers say, I find that compelling.

Richard Dawkins is not the "mainstream". He is one man with a platform to speak from.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Describing yourself as an atheist, when you are most certainly an agnostic (or agnostic atheist), is misleading.

No, it isn't. It is not misleading in the slightest.

As an agnostic-atheist, I am fully an atheist. I am also fully an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

Richard Dawkins is not the "mainstream". He is one man with a platform to speak from.

I disagree wholeheartedly. He is a leading thinker and revolutionary leader of modern atheism, along with others such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Charles Krauthammer (though he's more of a closet atheist).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point is what Dawkins said, not the writing prowess of the article's author.



Dawkins is an outspoken agnostic atheist. I like him.



Again, the point was what the world's most famous atheist said (and probably the greatest modern biologist), not the wit of the article's author.

The author didn't do his or her research. This has always been Dawkins' position. That he is an agnostic does not mean he is not also an atheist. What's even more comical is the suggestion that this revelation is somehow shocking and somehow disqualifies Dawkins' from representing the community of secular humanists, the majority of whom would likewise agree that it is tremendously difficult, perhaps impossible, to definitively disprove the existence of deities.

 

[BL2KTN]

As an agnostic-atheist, I am fully an atheist. I am also fully an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Do you believe there is no divine, or do you lack belief one way or another?