Atheism, Learned Helplessness, and Clinical Depression

[quatona]

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.

Apparently, you are working from the assumption that words have inherited meanings, or something.
I don´t. Words don´t have meanings, they are given meanings. The way words are used is what gives them meaning. Use/meanings of words change, and often there are multiple uses/definitions of words. These uses/meanings are documented in dictionaries.
The use of the word "atheist" - as pretty much every self-professing atheist talking to you here uses it - is very common and also can be found documented in dictionaries. Same goes for your use/definition.

You are informed how we use it when labeling ourselves. That should be sufficient for a working communication.

 

[BL2KTN]

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.

Again, I'm not impressed nor concerned with the author of the article. I am simply interested in what Dawkins had to say. I am aware that has been his position since he was in his late teens, early twenties.

 

[BL2KTN]

Apparently, you are working from the assumption that words have inherited meanings, or something.
I don´t. Words don´t have meanings, they are given meanings. The way words are used is what gives them meaning. Use/meanings of words change, and often there are multiple uses/definitions of words. These uses/meanings are documented in dictionaries.
The use of the word "atheist" - as pretty much every self-professing atheist talking to you here uses it - is very common and also can be found documented in dictionaries. Same goes for your use/definition.

You are informed how we use it when labeling ourselves. That should be sufficient for a working communication.

If words have no meanings, then why have you debated me on what atheism means?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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).

It's misleading if you assume that the two terms are mutually exclusive. I don't make that assumption. You are misled by me calling myself an 'atheist' because you assume that I cannot be agnostic as well. My atheism means that I lack a belief in deities. My agnosticism means that I acknowledge I cannot definitively declare that there are no deities.

 

[BL2KTN]

It's misleading if you assume that the two terms are mutually exclusive. I don't make that assumption. You are misled by me calling myself an 'atheist' because you assume that I cannot be agnostic as well. My atheism means that I lack a belief in deities. My agnosticism means that I acknowledge I cannot definitively declare that there are no deities.

If someone were to say "I'm an agnostic because I lack a belief in deities and I cannot definitively declare there are or are not deities," would you agree with them? I would, because that sounds exactly like an agnostic to me, and very little like an atheist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If someone were to say "I'm an agnostic because I lack a belief in deities and I cannot definitively declare there are or are not deities," would you agree with them? I would, because that sounds exactly like an agnostic to me, and very little like an atheist.

If someone were to say that they would be an agnostic atheist, like myself (see the text in bold).

 

[BL2KTN]

If someone were to say that they would be an agnostic atheist, like myself (see the text in bold).

Are you emotionally attached to the term "atheist"?

 

[quatona]

If words have no meanings,

Coming from a person who is so concerned with linguistics and semantics, this paraphrase is pretty sloppy.

then why have you debated me on what atheism means?

I haven´t. I told you how most self-professing atheists use it, and I have told you that most everyone has given you a detailed description of what they believe and don´t believe.
I don´t tell self-professing theist and Christians how they should use these labels.

And while we are at it:
The core problem is actually that the term "God" isn´t copyrighted and used in so many definitions as there are believers. So before you want to fix the follow-up problem (the terminology used in response to these claims) you may want to fix the causal problem.

In my opinion the term "atheist" is problematic because it cuts theists way too much slack, and because using it I will end up doing their homework. The appropriate response to "...God..." is "'God'? What do you mean??", in my book.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you emotionally attached to the term "atheist"?

I don't think so. For many people, particularly in the US, the term 'atheist' still carries negative connotations and, as recent survey research has shown, prejudice against atheists warrants serious concern. For this reason, far from being emotionally attached to the term, many atheists are likely to be reluctant to openly declare themselves 'atheists'.

It's as I said previously: (i) I use the term 'agnostic atheist' because it is the closest to describing my thinking about deities; (ii) I do not view 'atheist' and 'agnostic' as mutually exclusive terms.

 

[BL2KTN]

Coming from a person who is so concerned with linguistics and semantics, this paraphrase is pretty sloppy.

Why?

I haven´t. I told you how most self-professing atheists use it, and I have told you that most everyone has given you a detailed description of what they believe and don´t believe.
I don´t tell self-professing theist and Christians how they should use these labels.

So you have posted back and forth with me, putting forth one position while I put forth another, yet you have not debated me. I think that is sufficient for me ceasing to discuss the issue with you; you're becoming rather like a troll.

And while we are at it:
The core problem is actually that the term "God" isn´t copyrighted and used in so many definitions as there are believers. So before you want to fix the follow-up problem (the terminology used in response to these claims) you may want to fix the causal problem.

Where have I used the term "God"? I have referred to the "divine" only, and specifically for that reason.

In my opinion the term "atheist" is problematic because it cuts theists way too much slack, and because I will end up doing their homework. The appropriate response to "...God..." is "'God'? What do you mean??", in my book.

That never came up in our conversation as the term "God" is more specific than what theism refers to. I'm sure asking "God? What do you mean?" catches people off guard for you usually, and I'm sure you enjoy it. So do I from time to time; I think I used it in a post not so many days ago.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't think so. For many people, particularly in the US, the term 'atheist' still carries negative connotations and, as recent survey research has shown, prejudice against atheists warrants concern. For this reason, far from being emotionally attached to the term, many atheists are likely to be reluctant to openly declare themselves 'atheists'.

It's as I said previously: (i) I use the term 'agnostic atheist' because it is the closest to describing my thinking about deities; (ii) I do not view 'atheist' and 'agnostic' as mutually exclusive terms.

So be it. You view yourself as an atheist, I think you are more accurately called an agnostic. Either way, we are not so far apart.

 

[quatona]

Why?

Because it was an incorrect, incomplete parapharasing, omitting the keyword.

So you have posted back and forth with me, putting forth one position while I put forth another, yet you have not debated me. I think that is sufficient for me ceasing to discuss the issue with you; you're becoming rather like a troll.

I didn´t and don´t deny that I have posted back and forth with you - I contradicted your assertion as to what my point was.
It seems you were so concerned with your idea of correct/incorrect definitions that you felt that everyone else was trying to debate you on this particular point.

And you may want to cut it with the insults, will you?

Where have I used the term "God"? I have referred to the "divine" only, and specifically for that reason.

Then read my previous response by replacing "Go" by "the divine". Same difference.

That never came up in our conversation as the term "God" is more specific than what theism refers to. I'm sure asking "God? What do you mean?" catches people off guard for you usually, and I'm sure you enjoy it. So do I from time to time; I think I used it in a post not so many days ago.

No, I don´t use it often, and I don´t enjoy people being caught off-guard.
I am merely telling you that "a-theism" can´t have a precise meaning when "theos" (no matter whether you translate it as "God" or "the divine" or whatever) hasn´t.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Once again,

Theist/Atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge.

Belief is binary, knowledge is a spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive. 'Agnostic' is not a magical middle ground between belief and disbelief.

Thanks for playing. Moving on.

 

[BL2KTN]

Because it was an incorrect, incomplete parapharasing, missing the keyword.

I said: "If words have no meanings,"

How is that incorrect, incomplete paraphrasing, and missing the keyword? What is the keyword? I teach language, so consider me interested.

Then read my previous response by replacing "Go" by "the divine". Same difference.

That is ridiculous. The term "God" and the term "divine" are not the same and do not convey the same concepts.

No, I don´t use it often, and I don´t enjoy people being caught off-guard.
I am merely telling you that "a-theism" can´t have a precise meaning when "theos" (no matter whether you translate it as "God" or "the divine" or whatever) hasn´t.

Theism is the belief in the divine. It is precise. It is a category which contains such views as monotheism, polytheism, deism, pantheism, panantheism, and more.

Once again,

Theist/Atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge.

Belief is binary, knowledge is a spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive. 'Agnostic' is not a magical middle ground between belief and disbelief.

Thanks for playing. Moving on.

Atheism and theism are both gnostic positions. Every position one takes is gnostic. This is why individuals without a belief one way or another will say "I am an agnostic." How many people would say they are a "gnostic"? They wouldn't because it is a given, a redundancy, etc.

 

[Cearbhall]

Once again,

Theist/Atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge.

Belief is binary, knowledge is a spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive. 'Agnostic' is not a magical middle ground between belief and disbelief.

Thanks for playing. Moving on.

There are two completely different spectrums. People can identify as any combination. A person's statement about the likelihood of the existence of a god does not inform other people of their agnosticism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism and theism are both gnostic positions. Every position one takes is gnostic. This is why individuals without a belief one way or another will say "I am an agnostic." How many people would say they are a "gnostic"? They wouldn't because it is a given, a redundancy, etc.

They're not both gnostic positions by default. When someone tells me that they believe in God I do not know, on the basis of that information alone, how strong that person's conviction is or whether they claim to possess knowledge of deities. They may perhaps believe in a God, but feel unsure or otherwise make no claim to knowing. They could, alternatively, insist they know a God exists and, moreover, that they know the identity and nature of this God.

 

[BL2KTN]

They're not both gnostic positions by default. When someone tells me that they believe in God I do not know, on the basis of that information alone, how strong that person's conviction is or whether they claim to possess knowledge of deities. They may perhaps believe in a God, but feel unsure or otherwise make no claim to knowing. They could, alternatively, insist they know a God exists and, moreover, that they know the identity and nature of this God.

If I say there is a god, I do so based on some persuasive element that inclines me to feel as such. That persuasive element is gnostic, even if the knowledge is flawed or incomplete.

However, that said, I think continuing this conversation will have waning merits. We understand each others' positions, and I think they are based on varying concepts, philosophical stances on the nature of knowledge, psychology, etc. While these are fun to discuss at times, for me my interests are in more tangible areas. It's been fun having this conversation, and while I may contribute additionally, I'm going to drop back and get some things done for the day =)

Have a good one...

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

What makes me an atheist is that I lack belief in anything divine. Period.

If someone were to ask me: "do you believe in the existence of the divine?" and my answer is "no", meaning that I lack that belief, that is what makes me an atheist.

If I go further than that, that is my business. If I were to add to that statement: "and in addition to that I believe that there is no divine", that doesn't make me "more" of an atheist. I was fully an atheist with that "no".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

You are correct, and we are in agreement. An agnostic would reply "I do not know."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you emotionally attached to the term "atheist"?

Not at all. It's more of a desire for clarity and precision of thought that I use the definitions that I do, but I do notice that most atheists I run across use the same definitions.

Atheism really isn't any more than a footnote to my philosophical view of life. Perhaps for that reason the so-called "New Atheists", or rather anti-theists, such as Richard Dawkins bore me. (Though Sam Harris is at least somewhat interesting for his views on ethics.)


eudaimonia,

Mark